Harry Potter Questions of canon events...
- Thread starter lord geryon
- Start date
It doesn't mention what is done about the boys beating Harry, but it seams that the Dursley's ignore it at best or encourage it at worst, while there is no mention of the other parent's reactions other than the fact that dudders is avoiding his diet by staying at piers(sp?) house, then going out beating little kinds and smoking (Book 5)
One, the lexicon isn't canon law, it's just a very good guideline.
Two, the only spell seen as of book six was a single Lumos, under durress, and that lit the wand anyway, which could go either way, depending on whether Lumos is a light spell or a spell to light the tip of your wand.
Three, a large number of authors give Harry wandless pwnzing abilities five minute after the story starts, why are you so angry?
Two, the only spell seen as of book six was a single Lumos, under durress, and that lit the wand anyway, which could go either way, depending on whether Lumos is a light spell or a spell to light the tip of your wand.
Three, a large number of authors give Harry wandless pwnzing abilities five minute after the story starts, why are you so angry?
big difference between an emergency, panic-driven lumos in a single case and a consistent, steady ability to cast spells.
Also: Lumos seems like its easier to cast wandlessly, because the effect is the same: light emerges from the wand-tip. 'Normal' spells such as Stupefy or Incarcerous should be harder, because the spell, or ropes would have to originate from somewhere on your body (usually hands, palms, etc)
Also: Lumos seems like its easier to cast wandlessly, because the effect is the same: light emerges from the wand-tip. 'Normal' spells such as Stupefy or Incarcerous should be harder, because the spell, or ropes would have to originate from somewhere on your body (usually hands, palms, etc)
Hey, here's a question. In the battle for Hogwarts, do the Acromantulas get involved? I know Aragog dies in book six, so the new leader probably wouldn't have any loyalty to Hagrid, and therefore Hogwarts, so did they get involved?
Oh, and a while ago, somebody asked about the Dursleys' treatment of Harry-- specifically, physical abuse. I don't remember exactly when, that Vernon considered Harry's magic "nothing a good beating wouldn't cure" or something to that affect-- basically, he believed that the magic could be beaten out of Harry.
Oh, and a while ago, somebody asked about the Dursleys' treatment of Harry-- specifically, physical abuse. I don't remember exactly when, that Vernon considered Harry's magic "nothing a good beating wouldn't cure" or something to that affect-- basically, he believed that the magic could be beaten out of Harry.
The exact partial line is "probably nothing a good beating wouldn't have cured". That clearly implies there never was such a beating. Dudley hit Harry when he could catch him, which wasn't often. Beyond that, Harry does not show the signs of a physically abused child. Neglected, yeah.
Vernon beating Harry nearly to death on a regular basis with fists, belts, or tire irons, or Petunia swinging iron skillets at his head, are all fanon. Badly written fanon to boot.
Vernon beating Harry nearly to death on a regular basis with fists, belts, or tire irons, or Petunia swinging iron skillets at his head, are all fanon. Badly written fanon to boot.
Source?
Also, about the Black's house, you're forgetting that wizards can create space where there isn't any. It's entirely likely that the house they had was only small on the outside, as opposed to the inside.
IIRC, Molly warned Harry not to wander off, because he might get lost until he knew his way around. That implies the place is a lot bigger than the outside might suggest.
And as to why the Blacks didn't just buy a massive mansion out on the moors somewhere, it's mentioned that Black Sir was extremely paranoid. That's why they used the Black estate for the headquarters for the Order. It had every possible warding and anti-detection device you could imagine on it.
It was in the middle of grungy downtown London likely because that's the last place you'd look for a wealthy pureblood wizarding family.
Also, about the Black's house, you're forgetting that wizards can create space where there isn't any. It's entirely likely that the house they had was only small on the outside, as opposed to the inside.
IIRC, Molly warned Harry not to wander off, because he might get lost until he knew his way around. That implies the place is a lot bigger than the outside might suggest.
And as to why the Blacks didn't just buy a massive mansion out on the moors somewhere, it's mentioned that Black Sir was extremely paranoid. That's why they used the Black estate for the headquarters for the Order. It had every possible warding and anti-detection device you could imagine on it.
It was in the middle of grungy downtown London likely because that's the last place you'd look for a wealthy pureblood wizarding family.
Pg 62, first book
'swore we'd stamp it out of him'
Pg 13 second book
but he still had to duck as she aimed a heavy blow with the frying pan
Third Book
Vernon threatened to beat Harry if he mentions magic near Aunt Marge
and there is the beatings from Duddley's gang of morons, ignored by parents and teachers alike.
Yes it's never mentioned that Vernon beat Harry but it is implied, and the level of abuse can be taken in many ways.
'swore we'd stamp it out of him'
Pg 13 second book
but he still had to duck as she aimed a heavy blow with the frying pan
Third Book
Vernon threatened to beat Harry if he mentions magic near Aunt Marge
and there is the beatings from Duddley's gang of morons, ignored by parents and teachers alike.
Yes it's never mentioned that Vernon beat Harry but it is implied, and the level of abuse can be taken in many ways.
That doesn't necessarily imply abuse. The Dursleys tried to get Harry to believe magic was rubbish and his parents were worthless.
I only know a tiny bit of psychology so any majors here please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that had beatings by the Dursleys been common and Harry didn't allow the frying pan to hit as intended, he'd assume that he would get worse later on.
As for Dudley not getting reprimanded for "Harry Hunting", the Dursleys have shown they think of Dudley as their "perfect little angel". Combine that with how they dislike having to allow Harry in their home and having made up stories about how horrible Harry supposedly acts and no one is going to say a thing.
I also believe the cupboard in the Dursley's house is more of a walk-in closet to American standards than an American cupboard.
Neglected, I'd say yes. Not really physical abuse though, not any more than a normal kid for doing something bad- even if he didn't really mean it.
I only know a tiny bit of psychology so any majors here please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that had beatings by the Dursleys been common and Harry didn't allow the frying pan to hit as intended, he'd assume that he would get worse later on.
As for Dudley not getting reprimanded for "Harry Hunting", the Dursleys have shown they think of Dudley as their "perfect little angel". Combine that with how they dislike having to allow Harry in their home and having made up stories about how horrible Harry supposedly acts and no one is going to say a thing.
I also believe the cupboard in the Dursley's house is more of a walk-in closet to American standards than an American cupboard.
Neglected, I'd say yes. Not really physical abuse though, not any more than a normal kid for doing something bad- even if he didn't really mean it.
But you have to remember, there's a difference between taking a tire-iron to someone's head and smacking them around a little more than necessary. While Vernon never actually did Harry any permanent damage (from what I remember), there's nothing to say that he didn't hit Harry a little more than he should have.
But yes, I agree that the fanon level of abuse is insane-- Vernon wants his family to be perfectly normal more than anything else. He wouldn't come at Harry with a pipe (as I saw in one fic), or beat him within an inch of his life. He couldn't hide something like that.
But yes, I agree that the fanon level of abuse is insane-- Vernon wants his family to be perfectly normal more than anything else. He wouldn't come at Harry with a pipe (as I saw in one fic), or beat him within an inch of his life. He couldn't hide something like that.
The level of abuse is fanon. However that doesn't mean that it's some how less damaging to a kid. Most abusers never actually strike anyone, they verbally and mentally attack their victim. Often causing longer lasting harm.
Usually the only time an abuse victim "takes it" is when they are told specifically that if they don't it will be worse. Even then you still get flinching or attempts to run. Which is why that threat is a favorite of abusers, they can pull the "it's your own fault I'm doing this" card.
Based on the description I'd say this is a more negligent type of abuse, can't remember the exact term used for that. It is not however negligence. There is a big difference. This type is characterized by people taking a swing at the kid and if they hit, oh well, but if they miss then again oh well. They're not actively trying to cause as much harm, physically, as they can, but they're not holding back much either.
Negligence is where you don't provide any care for the child, but you're also not doing any thing to hurt the child either. You just don't do anything, good or bad. That's why negligence cases are hard to try as abuse.
Sorry if this is excessively long. Abuse is one of those thing I know a lot about, and can kinda get on my soap box about.
Oh, Delcera all abuse leaves damage of some kind that is more or less "permanent", trust me on this.
Usually the only time an abuse victim "takes it" is when they are told specifically that if they don't it will be worse. Even then you still get flinching or attempts to run. Which is why that threat is a favorite of abusers, they can pull the "it's your own fault I'm doing this" card.
Based on the description I'd say this is a more negligent type of abuse, can't remember the exact term used for that. It is not however negligence. There is a big difference. This type is characterized by people taking a swing at the kid and if they hit, oh well, but if they miss then again oh well. They're not actively trying to cause as much harm, physically, as they can, but they're not holding back much either.
Negligence is where you don't provide any care for the child, but you're also not doing any thing to hurt the child either. You just don't do anything, good or bad. That's why negligence cases are hard to try as abuse.
Sorry if this is excessively long. Abuse is one of those thing I know a lot about, and can kinda get on my soap box about.
Oh, Delcera all abuse leaves damage of some kind that is more or less "permanent", trust me on this.
Usually the only time an abuse victim "takes it" is when they are told specifically that if they don't it will be worse. Even then you still get flinching or attempts to run. Which is why that threat is a favorite of abusers, they can pull the "it's your own fault I'm doing this" card.
Based on the description I'd say this is a more negligent type of abuse, can't remember the exact term used for that. It is not however negligence. There is a big difference. This type is characterized by people taking a swing at the kid and if they hit, oh well, but if they miss then again oh well. They're not actively trying to cause as much harm, physically, as they can, but they're not holding back much either.
Negligence is where you don't provide any care for the child, but you're also not doing any thing to hurt the child either. You just don't do anything, good or bad. That's why negligence cases are hard to try as abuse.
Sorry if this is excessively long. Abuse is one of those thing I know a lot about, and can kinda get on my soap box about.
Oh, Delcera all abuse leaves damage of some kind that is more or less "permanent", trust me on this.[/quote]
I meant permanent *physical* damage. I probably should have specified. Note that I tried to keep away from Harry's psyche, 'cause I never took a psychology class, and I don't even want to think about the state Harry's mind must've been in by the time he got his letter.
Based on the description I'd say this is a more negligent type of abuse, can't remember the exact term used for that. It is not however negligence. There is a big difference. This type is characterized by people taking a swing at the kid and if they hit, oh well, but if they miss then again oh well. They're not actively trying to cause as much harm, physically, as they can, but they're not holding back much either.
Negligence is where you don't provide any care for the child, but you're also not doing any thing to hurt the child either. You just don't do anything, good or bad. That's why negligence cases are hard to try as abuse.
Sorry if this is excessively long. Abuse is one of those thing I know a lot about, and can kinda get on my soap box about.
Oh, Delcera all abuse leaves damage of some kind that is more or less "permanent", trust me on this.[/quote]
I meant permanent *physical* damage. I probably should have specified. Note that I tried to keep away from Harry's psyche, 'cause I never took a psychology class, and I don't even want to think about the state Harry's mind must've been in by the time he got his letter.
Connected with the idea of abuse and its evidence, how damage resistant are wizards to damage? Leaving aside the benefits of potions for recovering from damage and the prosthetics if damage exceeds a certain level, is there any canon evidence, implied or direct, that what would be severe physical abuse to a normal human just does not show up on a wizard to the same degree?
I am thinking of things like how moving staircases, quidditch, and things do not result in instant death or near instant death to wizards or witches.
Or should that be evidence that Albus and the rest cheerfully cover up the deaths that would otherwise occur if wizard/witch bodies are not sufficiently fortified against damage that would be comparable to multi-story construction sites without any safety equipment or training?
I am thinking of things like how moving staircases, quidditch, and things do not result in instant death or near instant death to wizards or witches.
Or should that be evidence that Albus and the rest cheerfully cover up the deaths that would otherwise occur if wizard/witch bodies are not sufficiently fortified against damage that would be comparable to multi-story construction sites without any safety equipment or training?
I've always wondered what Hagrid meant when he said "as if a car crash could kill Lily and James Potter". That never made sense to be, because it implies that Lily and James were somehow tougher or more durable than normal humans (thus explaining why they would not die in a car crash, when a normal human would).
I'd say there's enough evidence to build a convincing argument for it if you were so inclined. It's never elaborated on in canon, but it does explain some things (like why they let children ride brooms, which could easily end in someone dying if they make even a single mistake).
I'd say there's enough evidence to build a convincing argument for it if you were so inclined. It's never elaborated on in canon, but it does explain some things (like why they let children ride brooms, which could easily end in someone dying if they make even a single mistake).
It is canon that broken bones can be fixed within an afternoon at most, possibly just a matter of minutes. Replacing missing bones could be done overnight. The common cold is cured by drinking one potion. A lot of time-consuming treatments for muggles are apparently trivial for wizards.
Things which are purely magical in nature, such as Hermione's catgirl transformation, take longer.
Things which are purely magical in nature, such as Hermione's catgirl transformation, take longer.