Skip to main content

harry potter - Fred's or George's transfiguration skill



After reading this question and its answer I realized. How come one of the twins, Fred or George, does not matter that much was able to transform Ron's teddy bear into a great spider? Let's quote Professor McGonagall:



‘Transfiguration is some of the most complex and dangerous magic you will learn at Hogwarts,’ she said. ‘Anyone messing around in my class will leave and not come back. You have been warned.’ Then she changed her desk into a pig and back again.



After this, everybody is excited to transfigure something. But:



After making a lot of complicated notes, they were each given a match and started trying to turn it into a needle. By the end of the lesson, only Hermione Granger had made any difference to her match; Professor McGonagall showed the class how it had gone all silver and pointy and gave Hermione a rare smile.


Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone, ch. 8, The Potion Master



And this is only one of the mentions about Transfiguration being one of the hardest magic. Not to mention, that wizards normally get a wand at the age of eleven. Although, against this argument might stand the fact, that Weasley family was rather poor, unable to buy new wand for Ron - he used old Charlie's wand, so Fred or George might have nicked the wand.



I mean, Fred or George would not care, if it was dangerous - on the contrary. But how come, was one of them able to do such magic at the age of five? Think about what he would need:



  • a wand (I assume from what J.K.Rowling said about wandless magic)

  • to know the proper incantation

  • the proper pronunciation/articulation of the incantation

  • the correct wand moves



Answer



There's next to no details in what Ron says, and it's ambiguous at best, but I think the most reasonable canon explanation is unintentional magic. Especially since Ron would have been at an age where he'd possibly carry a teddy bear around with him everywhere he went, and therefore the two incidents may have happened at much the same time.


In the Potterverse, unintentional magic is generally done by witches and wizards under school age (eleven years old) during times of extreme stress, fear or anger. They also tend to manage feats that they couldn't dream of performing intentionally when first learning to control their magic. Harry was able to either levitate or even apparate onto the roof of his school and make his hair grow back, neither of which he would have been capable of doing intentionally in his first year.



However, we've also seen that it doesn't require a particularly stressful situation to trigger unintentional magic; Harry made a pane of glass disappear just because Dudley pushed him over. It's not entirely unreasonable to think that, at the age of five, Fred may have been upset enough at Ron breaking his toy broomstick that he could have unintentionally transfigured a teddy bear into a giant spider.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

harry potter - Did Dolores Umbridge Have Any Association with Voldemort (or Death Eaters) before His Return?

I noticed that Dolores Umbridge was born during the first Wizarding War, so it's very likely she wasn't a Death Eater then (but she is pretty evil -- who knows?). After that Voldemort was not around in a way that could affect many people, and most wouldn't know he was planning to rise again. During that time, and up through Voldemort's return (in Goblet of Fire ), did Umbridge have any connection with the Death Eaters or with Voldemort? Was she doing what she did on her own, or was it because of an association with Voldemort or his allies? Answer Dolores Umbridge was definitely not a good person. However, as Sirius points out, "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters". Remember that he also says that he doesn't believe Umbridge to be a Death Eater, but that she's evil enough (or something like that). I think there are two strong reasons to believe that: Umbridge was proud to do everything according to the law, except when she trie...

What is the etymology of Doctor Who?

I recently decided to watch Doctor Who, and started viewing the 2005 version. I have the first two episodes from the first season, and I can't help but wonder what is the etymology of the name "Doctor Who"? And why does the protagonist call himself "the Doctor" (or is it "the doctor")? Answer In the very first episode of Doctor Who (way back in 1963), the Doctor has a granddaughter going by the name "Susan Foreman", and the junkyard where the TARDIS is has the sign "I.M. Foreman". Barbara, who becomes one of the Doctor's companions, calls him "Doctor Foreman" (probably assuming that is his name given his relationship to Susan), and Ian (another early companion) does the same in the second episode, to which the Doctor says: Eh? Doctor who? What's he talking about? "Foreman" is most likely selected as a convenient surname for Susan to use because it happened to be on display near where the TARDIS landed....

story identification - Animation: floating island, flying pests

At least 20 years ago I watched a short animated film which stuck in my mind. The whole thing was wordless, possibly European, and I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine it... It featured a flying island which was inhabited by some creatures who (in my memory) reminded me of the Moomins. The island was frequently bothered by large winged animals who swooped around, although I don't think they did any actual damage. At the end one of the moomin creatures suddenly gets a weird feeling, feels forced to climb to the top of the island and then plunges down a shaft right through the centre - only to emerge at the bottom as one of the flyers. Answer Skywhales from 1983. The story begins with a man warning the tribe of approaching skywhales. The drummers then warn everybody of the hunt as everyone get prepared to set "sail". Except one man is found in his home sleeping as the noise wake him up. He then gets ready and is about to take his weapon as he hesitates then decides ...