There's an even better argument (or two) from GoF. The first is the bevy of Ministry numbnuts who Apparate in and fire off Stunning Spells when the Dark Mark is set off after the Quidditch World Cup. They were probably all close by but one never knows.

In any case, the far better example is all those remaining Death Eaters Apparating to Voldemort's side after the re-birthing ritual. Odds are a million to one that not a one of them had ever been there before, and yet they pop right in. It's even stated (later, can't remember exactly when) that upon feeling the Dark Mark burn the Death Eaters had been instructed "to Apparate to Voldemort's location," or something similar.

Unless old Tom only ever summoned his followers to spots they'd all been to before, there must be a way for him to give them the location through the Mark.

It's one thing to point out that it's not mentioned, but it's a very different thing to say that the omission of a specific mention is the same as saying it isn't needed. I mean, we aren't told every time Harry puts on his socks and shoes and yet we don't imagine him going 'round barefoot.

While I also like the idea of Apparation not requiring a wand, it pretty much breaks the world if that's the case. If any fairly skilled witch/wizard can Apparate without a wand, then arresting people just became exponentially harder. The Auror who has just disarmed his opponent has to immediately cast an Anti-Disapparation Jinx on that person and/or the area (whichever way the spell works in-story, since canon is woefully silent on it), otherwise they stand to have the "perp" just Apparate away.

And what about the newly disarmed person just Apparating over to the person who just did the disarming, and wresting the wand from that guy's hand? As cool as this version of teleporting is, it really makes logistics a clusterfuck in every sense of the word.

The fly-fog thing is not the same as Apparating, and until DH was noting but a movie gimmick, not canon. And if you'll remember your DH, Voldemort did not go very far as a fog-thing; he merely slipped between the bars of G'wald's cell. He never cast a spell while in fog mode, and by the way what the fuck is this shit:

Have you been reading shit-fics again? Because none of that has any basis in canon. Or readable fanon, for that matter.

This is actually the best evidence for a wand not being necessary, though let's be honest: the books are told from a third-person limited perspective, and Harry is a notoriously unreliable filter through which to see the goings-on.

Agreed. As if someone like Mundungus or Hagrid could ever grasp the concept of coordinates. The magical world relies far less on geometric concepts like XYZ planar stuff than annoyingly vague associations.

For example, the students are instructed to turn a hedgehog into a pin cushion (similarity), a beetle into a button (alliterative), white rabbits into slippers (funny b/c of bunny slippers), a teapot into a tortoise (alliterative), guinea fowl into guinea pigs (name association), etc. There's nothing logical about that - it's all just sort of random and eccentric. Which is the beauty of magic in the first place.

Another example of the non-linear nature of magic is the Knight Bus which, instead of going from place to place by geographic closeness, seems to travel alphabetically.

What I'm trying to say (in a Magellanic sort of way) is that trying to force any kind of logical conformity onto the HP magic system is a fool's errand.

 

I was conjecturing based upon the Apparate-as-far-as-you-can-see notion and remembering fog-flying Voldemort catching a buzz from power lines in DH1. Don't mind it too much- I made cupcakes and am riding a sugar-high.

I'm with you on Potter rules of magic having little to do with physics or logic. Distance is a factor for Apparition, but probably not in the obvious way. The further you're going, the less likely it'll be familiar enough for safe travel. The beacon idea came from Voldemort's summoning in GoF, but I'm probably laying too much techie framework on the notion.

 

A million times this. Trying to reason about the Potterverse is doomed to failure. It was not conceived using reason. Both the good and the bad thing about the Potter canon is that it makes no sense. It's as if it's intentionally a giant "fuck you" to all of Jo's former schoolmates who could multiply.

 

One name rings out plainly in my mind: Susan. Her name literally means Lily. <.<

I mean really Jo if you wanted to give Harry a 'soulmate' screw Ginger and just give him the one with the same name as his mum! :facepalm

 

I think a reasonable limitation on Apparation is that the further you go, or if you go somewhere you've never been before, the less likely you are to know somewhere safe to Apparate.

We know it can be very precise - the Trio Apparating onto the front door step of Grimmauld Place, for instance - but we also know that there's no way of knowing whether something's going to be in your way when you reappear. Didn't Bill land on top of a Muggle woman when he did his test?

So, you're perfectly capable of Apparating to, say, Berlin if you've never been there, but it's far riskier that you're going to end up in the middle of a group of Muggles or a wall.

/random thoughts.

 

While we're on apparation, does elevation play into it?

I read a fic once(granted not a good one) where Harry is in the mountains for the 'required super secret chosen one training' and when he apparates to a town for some esoteric reason (I think he needed ritual stuff) he forgets to take into account the difference of elevation and free-falls x-number of feet before he apparates again, while falling, and reappears like 2 feet of the ground and falls on his ass.

 

No, that would just be shit writing (I've never read the story, but it sounds bad). Unless you pictured your Destination (three d's and all that) as being a thousand miles up in the air, you would apparate right on ground level of your destination.

That sounds like something along the lines of the whole apparition coordinates bull - like Harry forgot his vertical axis or some shit like that.

 

Yeah that's what I thought, thanks for sating my curiosity.

 

On magical teleportation - is it Apparation or Apparition?

 

Conjugation fail.

To apparate, apparition... *facedesk*

 

Yeah, it's apparition in the books. Which annoys me somewhat. But I've started using apparition, just to be correct.

 

Yeah, Taure, you just used the same word twice... I'm confused.

I've always thought it was apparation. You apparate. You have apparated. The ghost over there is an apparition.

 

Yes. It's apparition in the books, so I've started using apparition, even though it annoys me.

 

Oh, I thought you'd meant it was one spelling in the books, but you started using the other (seemingly more correct), which annoyed you, as the other spelling was not canon.

 

Is Umbridge's being horri-bad at magic a fanon invention?

I've been thinking about this lately (whether she could've been a competent teacher if she put her mind into the DADA job).

Problem is, we've only ever seen a few pieces of magic from her.

Thoughts?

 

She seems to be moderately capable, if uncreative.

She's in my Percy Weasley bracket on the scale of magical skill, lol.

 

It's not explicitly stated, only hinted at. She has zero success in dispelling the portable corridor swamp left by Fred and George. While that in itself isn't a knock, since those two worked some pretty complex magic in their day, the fact that Flitwick later dispelled it in about three seconds tells me that Umbridge wasn't all that good.

Take that along with the fact she was said to have a "short, stubby wand" and I feel she's pretty lackluster. I'm not saying that a short/stubby wand means a lot by itself, since wand length seems to correspond somewhat to height, but the way it's presented - in a derogatory way - just implies to me that her skills are less than stellar.

OTOH, she *does* cast a corporeal Patronus in DH, though the fact she was wearing the locket Horcrux at the time goes a long way toward explaining that, IMO. Sure, wearing the Horcrux made a Patronus almost impossible for Harry, but it (the Horcrux) was at odds with Harry's very nature. Not so with Umbridge, to say the least.

Add to that how Ginny was able to perform some serious magic while under the influence of the Diary. You could argue that it was actually 16-year-old Tom doing the magic, but in any case, the abilities were certainly elevated.

Vague and murky enough for you?

 

I've always thought of Umbridge as someone who very rarely uses magic. Whether this is because she is incompetent or just doesn't need to do anything herself. Anytime she needs something she just orders a lackey, like Percy or the Inquisitorial Squad, to do it.

That said, when we do see her use magic in canon she isn't awful. Yes, she wasn't able to undo the twins swamps or fireworks, but they were designed specifically with that in mind. Flitwick and McGonnagall have had years of experience dealing with the twins and other pranksters. She seemed pretty confident in her ability to cast the cruciactus curse on Harry, which is meant to be rather difficult. In the forest she is also able to subdue one centuar, they only take her through sheer numbers.

I agree with Taure, that she is just average, if a bit out of practice.

@Portus, I don't think the patronus had as much to do with the horcrux as it does with what she was doing at the time. The Patronus is connected to a happy emotion, when she cast it she was being a bitch which seems to be her favourite pastime. The patronus never depended on skill, Harry was able to do it at 13, and teach it at 15, so it can't be too difficult.

 

Excuse me? Percy Weasley is badass.

Umbridge strikes me as probably good at magic that she learnt at Hogwarts, but aside from maybe the Unforgivables hasn't improved at all since she left.