harry potter - Is the Resurrection Stone (or Any Magical Object) Ever Really Lost?

Just a warning, if you haven't read all of the Harry Potter series, this includes some spoilers. Instead of getting sloppy with large parts in spoiler notation, I'm just warning you here. If you don't want spoilers, stop reading here.

This question about Harry losing the resurrection stone started me thinking about that particular point in the story and it raised a few questions:

Did Harry intend to lose the stone for good - so nobody could find it, or did he just want to lose it for himself?

Was the stone really lost to all?

Was this actually a good way to lose the stone?

Can any object in the magical world ever be completely lost or hidden?

My answer to the first question is that Harry does seem to think ahead and think in terms of "fixing" things for everyone (Hermione points this out when she comments that he has a habit of rescuing people). I think he was trying to lose the stone forever, but the only thing I have to back it up is what I just wrote.

Was just dropping the stone a good way to lose it forever?

It seems like all it would take would be some kind of basic location spell to find the stone, or try repeating a summoning charm while focusing on different areas of the forest.

If it's protected from those spells in some way, one could us other spells, such as something to levitate stones, then lower all non-magical stones in an area and look for the one stone still levitating.

With this in mind, was just dropping the stone really a good way to lose it, considering anyone determined to find it would find a way to protect themselves (from the dangers in the forest) and search the area, using spells to find the stone?

That leaves me asking:

Was Harry trying to lose the stone forever, for everyone?

Would it be able to be located with spells or is it really lost to everyone (barring incredible luck)?

Is it really possible to completely lose or hide any object in the magical world?

Answer

Did Harry intend to lose the stone for good - so nobody could find it, or did he just want to lose it for himself?

I think when he dropped it, it may not have been intentional, but he did make the conscious decision to let it stay lost:

The Resurrection Stone slipped from between his numb fingers

(Ch.34)

"The thing that was hidden in the Snitch," he began, "I dropped it in the forest. I don't know exactly where, but I'm not going to go looking for it

(Ch.36)

Was the stone really lost to all?

Was this actually a good way to lose the stone?

Well, no one else knew where he dropped it, only he and Dumbledore knew he ever had it, so I'd say it's fairly well lost. First, consider how many people actually walk around the Forbidden Forest. Then, what are the chances of anyone picking up a seemingly random stone in the Forbidden Forest? And then what are the chances they know what the Resurrection stone is? And then what are the chances they figure out that this particular stone is the Resurrection stone?

Can any object in the magical world ever be completely lost or hidden?

I'd say if anything can, it's this.

It seems like all it would take would be some kind of basic location spell to find the stone, or try repeating a summoning charm while focusing on different areas of the forest.

If it's protected from those spells in some way, one could us other spells, such as something to levitate stones, then lower all non-magical stones in an area and look for the one stone still levitating.

...

Would it be able to be located with spells or is it really lost to everyone (barring incredible luck)?

I'd say it's likely to be immune to summoning and probably other locating charms, with the possible exception of Harry's, as he was the last owner/user. Other than that, it ought to be subject to other spells, including those that could uniquely identify it as the Resurrection stone once one had it in one's possession.

So, in absolute terms, no, nothing can be lost forever (destroyed, yes; lost, no), someone could (eventually) stumble on it by chance. But in practical terms, the chances of someone finding the stone again are, I would say, at least billions to one.

harry potter - Do the Kwikspell courses work?

In Harry Potter we are introduced to Kwikspell course in The Chamber of Secrets (and never hear about it again). We see Filch taking courses, presumably by mail. The descriptions of Kwikspell make me think it is for people who are weak in magic (kind of like how Neville was supposed to be when he was younger), but had magic in them nonetheless. However, Ron's comments later in the chapter make it sound like it is mainly for Squibs to learn magic. However, it is strongly implied through out all the books that Squibs are essentially Muggles, and will never be able to do magic. How then is a Kwikspell course supposed to work? Do we have any information to know if it works at all? Is it a scam? An answer from any level of canon is welcome. Answer Kwikspell courses are (probably) useful to some wizards, but not to squibs. The Kwikspell course literature comes with two testimonials. Madam Z. Nettles of Topsham writes: ‘I had no memory for incantations and my potions were a family joke...

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.

languages - Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

In Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs): I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the Star Wars films we see written English instead? (This sort of spun off from a discussion in How do people understand astromech droids? .) Answer At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films. Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed. I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons but I haven't got around to reading those yet.

Was the "pure soul" of Harry's what had really hurt Voldemort?

In the Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort possesses Harry, and it hurts. Greatly. I think that Dumbledore explained that it was because Voldemort's rotten soul was incapable of assimilating Harry's pure soul, that Voldemort didn't understand the love and friendship etc that Harry has in his heart. But, I think it was a lie. Remember that in Deathly Hallows, while looking for information regarding Horcruxes, it is discovered that it is in fact possible to merge a soul fragment back, but that the process was extremely painful. Now then, if Voldemort tried to possess Harry, and Harry had a fragment of Voldemort's soul, I think that it could have been the true cause of Voldemort's pain: the fact of having his soul so close of another fragment. I think that Dumbledore knew that fact, but had to lie to Harry because it was inappropriate to let him know that he had one of Voldemort's soul fragments at the moment. Is that right? Or was it truly the pure soul of Harry's...

Blog

Search This Blog