Skip to main content

harry potter - Are magic items resistant to being broken by mundane means?


This comment and the one following it raised the question of whether the Elder Wand could be broken simply by bending it until it snaps. Clearly this was possible in the movie, but I don't believe this occured in the books.



As Mikhailcazi argues:



Breaking the Elder Wand was only a part of the movie, and something I found utterly ridiculous and laughable. It's a wand - the Elder wand at that - not a random piece of wood. It can't be so easily snapped in two. Also counting the fact that he was the current master of the wand, even if it wasn't so powerful, I don't know if he could break it.



So... is there non-movie canon that indicates whether magic items can or cannot be broken by simple means (setting aside horcruxes, which obviously have specific requirements for destruction)?


Is there a difference in what is required to break or damage a magical item depending upon how powerful the magic item is (e.g. regular magic invisibility cloaks vs. the Deathly Hollows version)? Specific examples from either the books or interviews with J.K. Rowling are preferred.



Answer



I’ll address the Elder Wand first.



This was possible in the movie, but I don't believe this occured in the books.




You’re right: in the books, Harry returns the Elder Wand to Dumbledore’s tomb. (He reasons that if he dies a natural death, then the wand’s power will die with him. He never discusses whether breaking the wand is possible or practical.)


There are two other instances of wands being broken:




  • In Chamber of Secrets, Ron’s wand is broken by the Whomping Willow.




  • In Order of the Phoenix, Neville’s wand is broken by Dolohov in the battle at the Ministry, when the Death Eater breaks his nose and his wand.





And here are some other instances of magical items being damaged by excessive force:




  • In Prisoner of Azkaban, when Harry’s broomstick encounters the Whomping Willow.




  • In Order of the Phoenix, when hundreds of prophecies are smashed on the floor of the Ministry.





  • In Deathly Hallows, somebody remarks that Harry’s invisibility cloak is remarkably damage resistant – most would fade or tear, but his hasn’t. This implies that a normal invisibility cloak suffers wear-and-tear, and might be damaged by excessive force.




  • At a stretch, you could argue that people are magical items (at the very least, powerful ones like Dumbledore or Voldemort), but both of them would break if enough force was applied.




So the answer to the original question is probably not.


However, I think some of these examples give a hint at a refinement. (Here ends fact and begins speculation.)


We're told that the Elder wand is stolen from its first owner in his sleep. Its power isn't being used when it's stolen, so the fact that it was a highly magical object (and an invincible wand) didn't matter, because its magic wasn’t in play. If you tried to fight the owner in a duel, you’d probably lose, but not if you try to pickpocket what is essentially a wooden stick.


The prophecies explain this better. I think it would be quite difficult to “destroy” the prophecy (whatever that means – perhaps erasing all knowledge of it?), and the glass sphere is just a repository for it. You can destroy the container, but not the enclosing object.



People have similar properties: if we count the soul as being somewhat immaterial (if not actually magical), then we notice that destroying the body (the container) doesn’t destroy the soul itself. Of course, this falls apart if you mention horcruxes.


So I'd suggest something like the following: a magical item has excessive strength when its magic is used, but its container is as fragile as a non-magical object. But that's just a guess.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Did the gatekeeper and the keymaster get intimate in Ghostbusters?

According to TVTropes ( usual warning, don't follow the link or you'll waste half your life in a twisty maze of content ): In Ghostbusters, it's strongly implied that Dana Barret, while possessed by Zuul the Gatekeeper, had sex with Louis Tully, who was possessed by Vinz Clortho the Keymaster (key, gate, get it?), in order to free Big Bad Gozer. In fact, a deleted scene from the movie has Venkman explicitly asking Dana if she and Louis "did it". I turned the quote into a spoiler since it contains really poor-taste joke, but the gist of it is that it's implied that as part of freeing Gozer , the two characters possessed by the Keymaster and the Gatekeeper had sex. Is there any canon confirmation or denial of this theory (canon meaning something from creators' interviews, DVD commentary, script, delete scenes etc...)? Answer The Richard Mueller novelisation and both versions of the script strongly suggest that they didn't have sex (or at the very l...

Why didn't The Doctor or Clara recognize Missy right away?

So after it was established that Missy is actually both the Master, and the "woman in the shop" who gave Clara the TARDIS number... ...why didn't The Doctor or Clara recognize her right away? I remember the Tenth Doctor in The Sound of Drums stating that Timelords had a way of recognizing other Timelords no matter if they had regenerated. And Clara should have recognized her as well... I'm hoping for a better explanation than "Moffat screwed up", and that I actually missed something after two watchthroughs of the episode. Answer There seems to be a lot of in-canon uncertainty as to the extent to which Time Lords can recognise one another which far pre-dates Moffat's tenure. From the Time Lords page on Wikipedia : Whether or not Time Lords can recognise each other across regenerations is not made entirely clear: In The War Games, the War Chief recognises the Second Doctor despite his regeneration and it is implied that the Doctor knows him when they fir...

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 ...

warhammer40k - What evidence supposedly supports Tau as related to the Necrontyr?

I've heard of rumours saying that the Tau from Warhammer 40K are in fact the Necrontyr. Is there anything that supports this statement, in WH40K canon? I just found this, on 1d4 chan 1 : Helping Necrons? Or are they Necrontyr descendants? An often overlooked issue is that Tau have no warp signatures, just like Necrons, hate Warpspawns and Warp in general, just like Necrons, have the exact same skull shape,stature and short lives, and the overwhelming need for Technology and beam weapons, JUST LIKE NECRONS. GW may have planned a race that simply prepares a pacified, multiracial galaxy for Necrons to feast upon, supported by Ethereals that have a C'tan phase blade. Then there is a reference of "dark seed in east" by the Deceiver, so the tricky C'tan might give Tzeentch the finger in the JUST AS PLANNED competition. Or maybe GW just has so little creativity that they simply made a new civ conforming to an Old One's standards without knowing it. Is this the connec...