Skip to main content

harry potter - Why couldn't Luna do "Accio shoes"?


Luna said that she often had people take and hide her things because she was odd.




'Well, I've lost most of my possessions,' said Luna serenely. 'People take them and hide them, you know. But as it's the last night, I really do need them back, so I've been putting up signs.' (OotP).



Did JKR ever indicate in interviews/Pottermore why Luna couldn't simply get them back by "Accio"-ing them? (out of universe, it's likely because it gave Harry a reason to pity her; and to do character development by discussing her mother's death).



Answer



As we see in "Deathly Hallows" there are such things as anti-summoning charms;



‘There’s an easier way,’ said Hermione, as Harry wiped his inky fingers on his jeans. She raised her wand and said, ‘Accio locket!’ Nothing happened. Ron, who had been searching the folds of the faded curtains, looked disappointed. ‘Is that it, then? It’s not here?’ ‘Oh, it could still be here, but under counter-enchantments,’ said Hermione. ‘Charms to prevent it being summoned magically, you know.’ ‘Like Voldemort put on the stone basin in the cave,’ said Harry, remembering how he had been unable to Summon the fake locket.



Harry's cloak also seems to have an enchantment that prevents anyone other than the owner from summoning it;




Harry seized Ron’s wrist as he raised his wand. There were too many of them to Stun: even attempting it would give away their position. One of the Death Eaters waved his wand and the scream stopped, still echoing around the distant mountains. ‘Accio Cloak!’ roared one of the Death Eaters. Harry seized its folds, but it made no attempt to escape: the Summoning Charm had not worked on it.



It's likely that anyone who was deliberately hiding something would put such a charm on the hidden object.


Additionally, accio'd items still need to travel physically. If you hid something inside something relatively immovable (such as by putting it under a flagstone) it wouldn't come when summoned.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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 ...

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...

tolkiens legendarium - Did Gandalf wear his Ring of Power throughout the trilogy?

After Gandalf discovered that Sauron was back and sent Frodo on his quest to Rivendell, did he continue to wear Narya (one of the Three Rings)? It seems like a huge risk to continue to wear it after the Nazgûl (Ringwraiths) started to try and reclaim the One Ring; if they managed to get the ring to Sauron, couldn't he be corrupted by his power? Whatever powers Narya bestows upon him couldn't possibly be worth the huge risk, could it? Answer When Sauron forged the one ring and put it on his finger, the other ring bearers were immediately aware of him and his intentions and removed their own rings. There is no reason why they couldn't merely do so again. As soon as Sauron set the One Ring upon his finger they were aware of him; and they knew him, and preceived that he would be master of them, and of all they wrought. Then in anger and fear they took off their rings. "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age," Silmarillion