I interpret "wand" to be a symbol for "being a magical person", just as the Muggleborn Registration Commission did. Ollivander explicitly tells us that wands aren't necessary for magic, Snape himself says no wand waving in class.

 

Just food for thought but what did Rowling have with flying in DH? Fleeing from Privet Drive made for an interesting scene. Voldemort flying show that yes, he is a big deal at magic. Snape flying was required for him to scape Hogwarts, so why not? But then we see Lily doing something similar in Snape's memories. It is probably nothing more than showing something that can only be explained as magic but I do find it weird that the three only wizards that showed to be able to fly are connected like that. Just an oddity since they used different methods (at least in Lily's case)

 

I interpreted Snape's flying as being a massive bat animagus. It does read as if he's just learned to do what Voldemort's done, but since Harry looks out and sees a massive bat-like creature, it's really open to interpretation whether that's just another shot at Snape, or a more specific observation.

---------- Post automerged at 08:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 AM ----------

Skimming back through DH, I came across a line that made me smile. I love bad-ass Minerva.

But if any of you [Slytherins] attempt to sabotage our resistance or take up arms against us within this castle, then, Horace, we duel to kill.”

 

It's not bat animagus, Voldemort taught him to fly.

McGonagall says, in response to his flight, "he seems to have learned a few tricks from his master".

The "bat-like shape" thing is imagery. Snape has been described as bat-like several times. The previous times he wasn't actually a bat, nor was he this time. He just has robes that make him look like batman.

 

I don't even want to know what you were thinking when you wrote this sentence but this is just plain wrong. Snape will never be as cool as Batman ever.
:fire

 

Magic vs. money.

I know which one I'd choose.

 

Money, right?

So, if the statute of secrecy is fairly recent when compared to Hogwarts, how much do you reckon muggles knew about the school before it was implemented?

 

Greasy haired virgin vs. Playboy

I know which one I'd choose.

 

Quidditch Through the Ages states that over the years magical people had naturally started to withdraw from Muggles; by the time of the Statute the populations were pretty much already segregated.

So probably not much.

Much earlier, though, who knows? The fact that the castle is in Scotland is interesting given the approximate date of its founding, and weird given that the Founders seemed to be English (I'm not sure if Rowling contemplated the historical implications of this).

The very fact that it's a stone castle is strange. Stone castles were brought to the British isles by the Norman invasion in 1066, and weren't built in Scotland until a century or two later during periods of English overlordship. (Various Scottish kings accepted various English Kings as their overlords from time to time, until Robert Bruce kicked Edward II's arse).

Perhaps magical Scots and English intermingled freely, long before the Muggle kingdoms were unified.

 

I'm one of the few people who fully accepts the Merlin-in-Slytherin canon.

Here's why: The Potterverse isn't the Real World. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that it has some details in history that are different from our history. I can assume that King Arthur not only existed, but was a well documented historical figure and someone like Hermione wouldn't think of him as mythical. I can also assume that Merlin and Arthur existed after Hogwarts was founded. Because once again: alternate universe with a different history.

The Potterverse already has different things than our world, like that bridge in HBP.

I don't get why is it so hard for other people to accept that the world shown in books about magical wizards is not our world.

 

In an unrelated topic, I read something Taure said about dementors in his WBA thread.

Basically

Wouldn't Fiendfyre destroy them?

 

What happens when an unstoppable force comes up against an immovable object? Lol.

Well, we don't really know much about Fiendfyre, other than the fact that's it's one of the few spells powerful enough to destroy a horcrux. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's all-powerful... presumably basilisk venom wouldn't kill Dementors either.

My instinct is to take Remus at his word in PoA: Dementors have one and only one vulnerability.

 

I agree that Fiendfyre wouldn't destroy a Dementor, but I'd argue that the Dementor is physical enough to be affected by it, and that Fiendfyre would hurt them enough to be worth avoiding.

When instructing people on how to face a Dementor, neither an educator nor the Ministry would suggest using difficult-to-control fire creatures against them, especially when a perfectly safe and very controllable protective spirit is an option.

As luck would have it, I just posted a mad idea about this.

 

A golden Patronus? :awesome

 

Personally, I want to know what happens when you nuke a dementor. Or a horcrux, for that matter.

 

Though there's nothing to contradict it in canon, I want to say that the Horcrux would survive; Hermione says that destroying the Horcrux requires it being beyond magical repair. Other methods of destroying a (nonliving) Horcrux do so because of magic: it isn't the fact that Fiendfyre is hot that destroys the Horcrux, but the magical properties of the fire; Basilisk venom has only one known counteragent and is otherwise fatal and corrosive. I suspect that a nuke wouldn't be sufficient and that the Horcrux would "heal itself" from whatever damage done to it (under the premise that even when atomized the Horcrux would maintain its magical properties).

A better question might be what happens if you bombard the Horcrux with antimatter and annihilate it?

 

I personally think a nuclear bomb is one of those things that's so powerful and so destructive, it has its own rules when it comes to how it affects Magic.

But you do have a point: antimatter should have a fun effect on them.

 

Recall that the energy released by a nuclear bomb is not focused in one small area, or upon a single object, but spreads out across a massive area. In total the amount of energy released is huge, but the destructive force a single object is exposed to probably isn't that much higher than a powerful conventional explosive, unless you're sitting at ground zero (any scientists want to weigh in?).

That said, I'm not sure if we want to be getting into thinking about amounts of energy. That way lies insanity, as I believe I showed in my "magical as physical energy" thread. After all, conjuring a small amount of water involves more energy than the biggest nuclear bombs ever detonated by man.

So I'm in agreement with redlibertyx when he says:

We're told that purely physical means of destruction are insufficient; highly destructive magical force has to be used.

 

Interesting point. You have to damage a horcrux beyond a point of magical repair. Normal magical fire, and destructive curses don't work.

So damage done by magical fire (apart from fiendfyre) can be repaired. So would a suitably advanced repairo charm cast by Dumbledore at the ashes of a fire reclaim the burn wood?

Is all damage repairable no matter what so long as it isn't basilisk venom, fiendfyre or the killing curse?

Also it says beyond magical repair. If someone Invented a new curse which caused damage that was unrepairsble, would that destroy a horcrux? And if at a latter date someone discover a way to repair that damage, would that curse stop destroying horcruxes?

 

Once it was possible to destroy a Horcrux with it, it would presumably be impossible for anyone to ever be able to come up with any spell that could reverse the damage done by it.