Yeah, I like to imagine there's villages that have a cluster of 3 or 4 families and have done for centuries - because they've been there for so long it becomes a known, named location of some sort. And you're damn right it would have made book 7's long countryside stroll far more interesting if they've stopped in at a few magical locations that could have been name dropped in previous books.

 

This is especially jarring in stories where Harry “leaves Wizarding World” - like what? In canon, that’s mostly “not visiting Diagon or Hogsmeade”

 

On the other hand, we do have 13 canonical quidditch teams, each based in different locations. Presumably there's some kind of wizarding community there to support their team. Also you'd imagine there to be more than a few families living in those locations, if only to have enough players to have a professional team...

 

The books actually mention that there are many magical communities inside local muggle communities in Britain.

TheWizardingWorld article about the floo network also implies a larger amount of public business, since there are a thousand conn3cted fireplaces outside of homes.

 

I mean, we know the Weasleys have two gardens and in Chamber of Secrets we see them keep several chickens, so I just assume they grow a lot of their food. Magic makes this probably quite easy, especially since you can increase the amount of any food you produce and transform it into other forms of food. Harry also notices several books in the Weasleys kitchen about using magic to make stuff like cheese or for baking and cooking.

 

I tend to err on the 15-30k size, and if I need a specific number for something go with 20k.

And yeah, throwing in mentions of other magical areas would be really easy.

"What did you do over the summer?"

"Nothing much, my mum took me down Hag Row a couple of times. Its dead creepy."

And other throw away lines like that.

 

Agree with a lot of things already mentioned. Additionally, I always felt that the Cruciatus curse lacked gravitas - if that makes sense?

It's supposed to be this ultimate torture curse. But it's thrown around like it's no big deal, even taught under the Carrows. And afterward, people just get shrug it off.

I would have preferred some aftershock and some consequences to the people that felt the curse. Treat it with some more respect and make it the posterchild for dark magic.

 

Only thing I disliked intrinsically on my reread was the luck potion. It's so powerful, and so bizzare in such an uninteresting way. Pure plot device.

Perhaps also the Marauder's Map. I had always rationalised it as James and Sirius tapping into some kind of Hogwarts GPS. But it became clear on my reread that there really is no such thing (or that Dumbledore is an asshole who doesnt care about basilisk attacks) and that a group of four 15 year olds made soemthing that powerful. It also ruined all future mystery plots, making OotP and HBP a bit blander. JKR acknowledged this on Pottermore. You can only do the "guy has the same name as someone else" plot once.

 

Re. marauders map... I like the idea that they were just fucking around and pulled gold out of their asses to begin with, but were able to optimize it as their school years went on.

 

Since DH, I've felt the invisibility cloak is underwhelming compared to the other Hallows. A map created by some school kids can see through it, Mad-Eye can see through it with his eye, Dumbledore warns the school (but really Harry) that invisibility cloaks don't work on dementors, and there are times when Dumbledore is implied to be able to see through it.

 

I thought the point of the Hallows were that they were all underwhelming. The wand was unbeatable yet every holder inevitably loses. The stone just brings back shades. You can still be detected under the cloak.

 

I didn't think so. I mean in my mind the wand is overpowered to a fairly extreme level to the point where it could outright disregard what should be possible. The stone kind of depends on how you look at it I guess. Obviously, it's not as good as actually being able to bring someone back, but the impression I got from the books was that anything that touches upon souls/death in that way is already insanely impressive. Meanwhile the cloak seems to only really be unique because the enchantments don't wear out, but then again neither did the enchantments on the resurrection stone....or several other items of historical significance such as the sorting hat, the sword of Gryffindor, the philosopher's stone, the Mirror of Erised, etc.

 

I remember reading a fanfic (I don't remember which one) where Harry believed that the point of the Hallows was to get their owners killed. They were a trick to make you reckless, and thus invite death. The wand makes you overconfident and puts a target on your back. The stone brings back shades of your loved ones who convince you that death is easy and that you should join them. The cloak likewise makes you reckless and invites you to spy, etc., and put yourself in danger.

It's not canon, but it's fun to speculate that Death actually created the Hallows to hasten the deaths of ambitious fools.

 

I suppose I dislike how there were no limits on the killing curse. It requires hate I'm pretty sure, but I'm thinking most adults can muster that. I do like how magic isn't fetched from some reservoir in HP so I wouldn't want some kind of rpg-esque mp requirement for the curse.

But I suppose a lot of the problems with the magic in HP is that there isn't some kind of power requirement. It's all about imagination, emotion, and knowledge. So once you know how to do a spell, there shouldn't be anything really preventing you from doing it except practice. That's why I imagine duel winners to be whoever the most knowledgeable and creative one is, sprinkle in some fast reaction time.

And speaking of reaction time, I wish there was at least some information about how wizards counter fast moving projectiles. I feel like if you wanted to, as a wizard, you could probably launch something really fast with some spell to copy a gunshot's effect. My head canon is that magic itself doesn't move that fast (sonic speed) towards an opponent, and using magic to launch something would still be a physical attack. Wizards/witches can counter physical things (car crash which Hagrid scoffed at, falling off buildings, getting smacked with a bludger, etc.) fairly easily so maybe a bullet or spelled rock would just bounce off?

But then would a transfigured attack also be considered a physical one? Eh, that's where my head canon stops.

 

Its canon, via JK rather than the books, that wizards are physically tougher (which I always Head Cannoned to be due to accidental/instinctive magic at the moment of impact). But I think thats going to have limits. For example, when Harry falls from him broom people worry and they use magic to slow his fall - if wizards were effectively immune to physical damage, they'd have shrugged and just walked over to pull him out of the ground, dust him off.

Maybe a bullet wouldn't cause quite so much damage, and you'd have to shoot them a bunch of extra times to kill them. Maybe a single spelled rock isn't enough, but its easy enough to believe that you could enchant a couple of dozen rocks to repeatedly pound on the person until you stop them.

 

I always read it as a commentary on the types of people seeking that power not on the artifacts themselves. The wand wasn't even what brought Dumbledore down. It was the stone. If he never sees the resurrection stone there is a good chance he dies undefeated as the master of the wand. My headcanon for that is that by the time Dumbledore gets the wand he is doing so reluctantly.

I had a different take on this. My headcanon to explain why falls hurt is because he is falling from something magical and that interferes with a wizard's natural ability to fully protect themselves. Similarly, a wizard banishing an object would cause more problems than a muggle shooting a gun.

I'm aware that this idea doesn't hold up all that well because Dudley beats Harry up and he has zero magic. I think the real issue is that some of these instances are done for dramatic effect or to move the plot along so reading too much into Dudley beating up Harry or wizards being concerned when he falls from a broom is probably not all that relevant to how magic actually works.