![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
"Where do Vanished objects go?"
"Into nonbeing, which is to say, everything."
In their 5th year Harry and his classmates learn to Vanish living beings - first snails, then mice. While Vanishing a mammal is difficult and requires more concentration than Vanishing an invertebrate it is still within grasp of the general trained wizard. And what happens to the mouse? It ceases to exist. From McGonagall's reply to the Ravenclaw common room question, it seems to be an irreversible transition. Does this mean that with just a bit more concentration anyone with E or higher on their Transfiguration OWL knows how to magically kill a human being? How is Vanishing different from AK (apart from not leaving a body behind)? Why aren't the students warned against doing it the way Crouch Jr warns them of a mandatory life sentence for performing Unforgivables on human beings?
"Into nonbeing, which is to say, everything."
In their 5th year Harry and his classmates learn to Vanish living beings - first snails, then mice. While Vanishing a mammal is difficult and requires more concentration than Vanishing an invertebrate it is still within grasp of the general trained wizard. And what happens to the mouse? It ceases to exist. From McGonagall's reply to the Ravenclaw common room question, it seems to be an irreversible transition. Does this mean that with just a bit more concentration anyone with E or higher on their Transfiguration OWL knows how to magically kill a human being? How is Vanishing different from AK (apart from not leaving a body behind)? Why aren't the students warned against doing it the way Crouch Jr warns them of a mandatory life sentence for performing Unforgivables on human beings?
However, taking your question seriously and treating the Potterverse as somehow coherent: several possible (partial) answers occur to me.
Possibly it has something to do with intention and the taking of life - after all, one cannot intend to take life from an inanimate object, but one can Vanish it, so an AK (designed to kill) is rooted in the intention to take life, while Vanishing (though it can be applied to living beings) is not ultimately rooted in the intention specifically to take life. That is, it could be a primacy of intention over effect. (I doubt this holds up across the board, however, when compared to what passes for justice in the WW and the treatment of DE's when LV is gone.)
It could also have something to do with that oh-so-ill-defined concept of the "Dark Arts," and whatever it is about them that troubles the general wizarding populace (perhaps this is related to intention as just discussed, perhaps to issues of chaos and dementia like Jodel's theory, whatever). We are given to understand that the Unforgivables are Dark Arts; Vanishing presumably is not, and so is not subject to the same legal oversight/penalties that use of Dark Arts is. That's not to say that someone using Vanishment to deliberately kill someone would necessarily not face Azkaban, could it be proven. (Though perhaps they wouldn't! We don't know.)
It could be that it is (also?) a matter of perception, bias, habit and forgetfulness with regard to what is taught...that the Unforgivables attract all the attention, perhaps particularly due to the perils of the Voldemort era, and people simply expect the students (realistically or not) to realize that it is Not Good to kill via any method, that Vanishing is ultimately the same as killing a living being, etc. This would then argue, however, in favor of a rather less than modern approach to the rights of animals, if killing them in this way merits no concern.
And/Or the WW is just totally f***ed up with regard to rational, humane and realistic approaches to these things. Look at their justice system, after all.
Does McGonagall think a warning is unnecessary because it should be obvious? Does she think it would be superfluous because anyone who might consider Vanishing a human wouldn't pay attention to such a warning? Or does she hope not to draw anyone's attention to the possibility? But if so, why teach the Vanishing of living beings at all? Why not limit the curriculum to Vanishing inanimate objects if one doesn't want people to think in that direction? Isn't it bad enough that one can kill with an AK and then Vanish the body if one so wishes?
-L
It creeps me out MORE than the AK, personally. After all, movies and all are full of people getting shot, but you don't hear about/see people and animals getting MOLECULARLY DISINTEGRATED nearly as often. And they routinely teach children to do this!? One more reason I suspect that the state of affairs in the Crapilogue is just the herald of even uglier trouble to come.
I forget the title and the author (naturally) but I once read a very good short fic about young Severus in which he kept failing his in-class Transfiguration assignments because he assumed (wrongly, in the end, according to the fic's understanding of magic) that the hamsters and such they were transfiguring were harmed/killed in the process. Just goes to show why he didn't fit into wizarding culture so well (and kudos to him).
Damn, didn't work. If only it did, and someone thought of it before she finished penning this series. Oh well, there's always fanfic.
I'm glad you referred to it and I was moved to search my hard drive for it! I like it too, and am happy to re-read it.
Everyone keeps going on and on about the AK and the unforgivables being unblockable...but you can't possible expect EVERYTHING to be blocked by a protego or something. And it actually is bloackalbe...just not by a shield charm. The victim can summon an object to block the AK or does the AK just pass through the object? I doubt it. Also...even if you can't block it, you can run away from it!! It doesn't have like a honing device to follow you around till it hits you! (lol that'll cause mass pandamonium lol) I mean, even taking like two steps to the left or right will allow the spell to fly pass you!!!!
Of course, you can't do any of those things if you're tied up or stupiefied or something, but then again...you wouldn't be able to block any other spells coming your way either!!
anyway...i never thought of the vanishing charm(?) being used to kill people...hm...i would think that vanishing someone is even worse than using the AK to kill someone...cuase the AK is painless and all you see is a green light...it doesn't hurt you at all!! there's TONS of other things that can kill someone (ex. diffindo someone's head off) that would hurt a damn lot more then the AK. anyway, i got off track, but vanishing someone is worse b/c the family of the victim don't even get tto bury the body...it's just gone! whereas the AK victim still leaves a body behind at least
If the stuff is irretrievable, then perhaps it leaves the planet Earth entirely. The thing is, if people kept Vanishing things, the planet would be slowly losing stuff, which would eventually be problematic for the ecosystem. Kitchen scraps may be inconvenient in the short run, but in the long run, we're better keeping them on the planet.
This isn't entirely my idea; there's a Star Trek next gen novel where a planet is facing exactly this problem. Even before reading that book, though, I was always troubled by Anne McCaffrey's Pern books, where dragons always go "between" -- into the space-time vortex -- when they die. Later, in The Dragonlover's Guide to Pern, McCaffrey said that dragons also always excrete while traveling through the vortex. None of that can be sustainable in the long run.
Nor are people likely to show restraint with Vanishing things, when it's such a convenient way of getting rid of trash.
Lynn
Alison
Can anyone imagine a group of teenagers doing experiments with cute little kittens in RL and not one of them tries to protest. Some of those kids keep cats a pets and as long as it's not their pet which gets hurt, they don't seem care. The same happens in McGonagall's class when they transfigure guinea pigs into guinea fowl. Guinea pigs are typical children's pets. Lavender makes a lot of fuzz about the death of her pet rabbit, but again nobody cares for the lives of random animals. Hagrid is the only one who treats all animals as if they have feelings and he's ridiculed for it.
The pin cushion which once has been a hedgehog tries to run away, when one tries to stick a needle into it. The student is a bit embarrassed, because his magic failed and we as readers are supposed to think this is funny?
Below are some excerpts:
"Dumbledore drew his wand so rapidly that Harry barely saw it; with a casual flick the sofa zoomed forwards and knocked the knees out from under all three of the Dursleys so that they collapsed upon it in a heap. Another flick of the wand and the sofa zoomed back to its original position.
"We may as well be comfortable," said Dumbledore pleasantly ... "
He then "offers them refreshments" using magic, and the "Dursleys, after quick, scared looks at each other, tried to ignore their glasses completely, a difficult feat, as they were nudging them gently on the sides of their heads. Harry could not suppress a suspicion that Dumbledore was rather enjoying himself..."
"Uncle Vernon shouted, "will you get these ruddy things off us?"
Harry looked round; all three of the Dursleys were cowering with their arms over their heads as their glasses bounced up and down on their skulls, the contents flying everywhere.
"Oh, I'm so sorry," said Dumbledore politely, "But it would have been better manners to drink it, you know."
Now, to me that is abuse in the truest sense of the word. JK Rowling would probably say "Oh, but the Dursleys were horrible people, they mistreated poor Harry," but is it any wonder, when they suspected or knew what sort of people wizards were, and what they did to Muggles who didn't feel like doing what the wizards wanted them to? I would have been terrified of taking in a child marked for death as well, if I thought that by doing so I'd be drawn into a turf war between two rival factions that had nothing to do with me, and which might very well end up with my whole family murdered. I would be scared, resentful and not inclined to have a convivial little drink with one of them, good manners or not!
There are other examples in every book, people being hit on the head, or showered with ink, or turned into suppurating messes (Draco, Crabbe and Goyle on the train at the end of GoF). Or, of course, teen Severus, being bullied and not a single person doing anything to help him, apart from Lily, who was herself rather half-hearted in his defence.
It's a very strange world view, to me, that physical abuse can be deemed in any way amusing, and is just one of the more uncomfortable aspects of reading the series.
Alison
Animals who enter the story are no more than plot devices, either. After Crookshanks serves his purpose in PoA, we don't hear of Hermione showing him affection or making arrangements for him. Harry has a moment of tearing up after Hedwig dies, and then never thinks about her again. He'd only had her since he was eleven. As you say, characters who care about their pets are silly, like Neville with his toad. (However, it's suddenly supposed to be cruel when Snape sets Neville to dissecting animals that might remind him of Trevor.)
-L
Well, supposedly transfigured objects don't last (or else why would the Weasleys be poor? Unless of course Molly and Arthur failed Transfiguration. We mostly see them performing charms and DADA related magic.) So Transfiguration in general looks more like an exercise in magic for its own sake most of the time. Though if one needs to improvise and doesn't have the right object at hand conjuring or transfiguring something else will do.
The practical uses of Transfiguration we see in canon that I can recall are:
- animating inanimate objects: Minerva's chess men in PS, also used in the Dumbledore vs Voldmeort duel and the Severus vs Minerva duel. (The army of desks is never seen in action.)
- Vanishing messes. (eg after Potions lessons, or spilled ink from Ron's essay)
- Duplicating objects (Hermione with the locket, the spell the goblins use against theft) - we don't know how long the fakes last
- Used as a form of disguise (eg Hermione disguising Ron before the Gringotts invasion)
- Complete and incomplete Animagus transformation
- Cedric (temporarily?) transfiguring a rock into a dog (1st task GOF)
- Crouch transforming Draco into a ferret.
- I suppose some of the twins' toys such as the fake wands, are objects with transfiguration spells on them?
- the various conjured chairs
(Was the meade Dumbledore offered the Dursleys conjured, summoned or what? And if conjured what about Gamp's law?)
Anything else?
A "horned toad" is a spiny-looking sort of lizard and only vaguely resembles a toad. It may be that JKR was using it incorrectly as the next line does say Neville got "toad guts" under his fingernails, or she was thinking of a magical creature that was literally a toad with horns (and therefore might look like Trevor). There's no mention of Trevor being involved in the cause for this detention, just that Neville had melted his sixth cauldron, so I don't think it was meant to be directly related. Perhaps Neville's state of "nervous collapse" is because he's squeamish about this sort of thing.
And since the cabinets don't truly 'vanish' anything - they're merely a link between two cabinets - are we to believe that students might think that's all that happens to other things they vanish? -- Hwyla
Hermione looked very shocked.
"But you'll get into terrible trouble!"
"Not until Montague reappears, and that could take weeks, I dunno where we sent him," said Fred coolly. "Anyway ... we've decided we don't care about getting in trouble anymore."
So it looks like both Hermione and Fred thought the cabinet would transport Montague somewhere else, not disintegrate him. Despite the fact the cabinet had been broken for 3+ years and didn't work as designed.
OTOH do you think they would care?
Until DH and the Ravenclaw door question, I had always assumed that Vanished objects could just be un-Vanished. In my own fic (because Vanishing is so useful), I've chosen to write as if McG's answer to the door isn't literal, but just intended as philosophical windiness b/c that's what the Door requires. But of course, it's just another example of JKR not having a coherent sense of her universe from book to book and letting the plot or joke demands of the moment determine a throw-away detail that would have real consequences in her world if she stopped to think about it.
This is one of the things about HP that really bugs me as a fan of fantasy fiction - the utter shoddiness and un-thought-throughness of the Potterverse, despite all the charming little details. It's like being invited into a richly-decorated parlour for a fancy tea and discovering that the cups are plastic and the whole room is a shallow and hasty cardboard-and-tape set. That starts to fall down halfway through.
IMHO the entire idea of having a nearly-separate, isolated world run almost entirely by and for people for whom natural laws (like physics,etc.) work completely differently is not thought through nearly enough by JKR.
For instance: take the Tongue-Tying curse. The HPL gives the essential description as: "Binds the target's tongue to keep him or her from talking about some specific subject." Now, if such a curse exists and is known and usable (and we see that it is)...WHAT ON EARTH is up with Severus' little double-agent role? Why wouldn't one or both of his masters 1) cast it on him to prevent him giving away true, useful information, and/or 2) assume that the other has cast it on him and so he is INCAPABLE of revealing true, useful information? It's pointless to have a human spy under such circumstances, and once you figure that out the only way you can continue to suspend disbelief and enjoy the story as given is to attribute a phenomenal level of stupidity to Dumbles, Voldemort, and all of their followers who know or suspect Sev's role (to not use or suggest the curse).
Unfortunately, assuming utter idiocy on the part of the characters seems to be about the only way to make sense of half the story as given. Sigh.
Oh, definitely. Your Tongue-Tying curse example is a perfect one, and there are any number of others. I read a lot of speculative fiction, too, and one of my usual demands is that the given universe display an internal coherence. Set up any world you want, authors -- but then make it function according to its own laws. I hate when people dismiss inconsistencies by saying, "well, but it's fantasy" (and then looking at me with concern, as if they suspect me of believing it's literal) -- as if writing fantasy / speculation absolves an author of the need for logic or plausilbiity within the framework of the universe that s/he set up. I had some similar problems with City of Ember, which took a fascinating premise for a speculative world and then too often violated its own tenets and psychology.
JKR violates not just her magical universe, but character consistency, too. One of the things that's always bothered me about McGonagall, for instance, is her cruel punishment of Neville after he loses the Gryffindor passwords in PoA. It doesn't fit with much of her character before or after (she may be "irascible and inflexible," as Harry thinks, but she's usually touted as "fair" and generally honorable). The cruelty is gratuitous -- surely JKR could have come up with another plausible reason for Neville to be in the corridor and a more consistent way of indicating McG's fear and anger re: Sirius. It seems like just another throw-away, done for momentary effect only.
With Snape, we often get a similar effect of inconsistency, but achieved in the opposite fashion: he's made to seem cruel when he isn't. His objections to Lupin being allowed to teach are well-founded in many ways, but they're presented as further evidence of his perfidy and general untrustworthiness.
Originally I thought that that was a reading that worked logically, but then I thought about it more and found that it wasn't quite working for me. That explanation only works if you have both masters SIMULTANEOUSLY accepting him as a double-agent from the get-go - because otherwise the one master would have no reason to believe that the other had NOT put the curse on him. And that (at least to me) is not clear in canon, due to JKR's vagueness.
If, for example, Voldie sent him in with the intention of having him spy, but without the idea that he would pretend to be Dumbles' agent (as seems likely from his ordering Severus into the DADA post - you can't tell me he didn't expect useful info from that as well as the fulfillment of another, 1-year mission) he would likely have put the curse on Sev to prevent him (purposefully or accidentally) sharing anything of importance. And also, why would he have serious reason to expect that Dumbles would not put the curse on any new hire coming in with a past as shady as Severus,' just as a precaution? (Dumbles might not DO it, but why would Voldie not EXPECT him to do it?)
That is, the lack of the Tongue-Tying curse on Sev works ONCE you as the reader are ALREADY in that situation with him; it's the getting there without it that I find problematic. (Hope that makes sense?)
Late 1979 until spring 1980: Prophecy. On that night Severus was merely hanging out at The Hog's Head. If there was a plan for him to apply for the DADA job it was derailed by the prophecy.
Late 1980 or early 1981: Hilltop meeting.
Summer 1981: Voldemort sending Severus to apply for DADA and serve as his spy.
Since by the time of the 1981 interview Voldemort might have thought Dumbledore might have already suspected Severus, he could have tried sending him under the cover of repentant DE, not knowing he already repented.
I was using a different timeline, in which he would have failed the DADA interview before the hilltop, sometime in 1980. We know he was hired to teach Potions in 1981, so presumably either directly after the hilltop meeting, or sometime between then and Fall 1981, Dumbles managed to 'encourage' Slughorn to retire and filled the post with Severus so as to 1) have an excuse to be in contact with him and 2) to make him look better in Voldemort's eyes (getting a post at Hogwarts, even if it's not DADA). I find the convenient timing of an opening other than DADA, in an area of specialization for Severus, a little TOO convenient otherwise.
But either works. JKR's not exactly clear on the subject.
As it turned out, both Dumbledore and Voldmeort had a reason to want Severus at Hogwarts in September 1981. Dumbledore to watch over him, meet with him etc and Voldemort to implement the later stages of the take-over plan that would have gone into effect had he been successful at killing Harry. So Dumbledore convinced Slughorn to retire and Voldemort sent Severus to interview. And Dumbledore probably anticipated Voldmeort sending Severus to teach/spy/kill in any case.
In SpinnersEnd, Snape (more or less) marks that as the beginning of his spying for Voldy, by telling Bella that he had 16 years of info to give Voldy when he returned.
Then we also have Sybill complaining about how 'pushy' he was and that he was apparently looking for a job when he overheard the prophecy.
The way I see it, June is really too late to get the job. Albus knew by then the job was cursed and probably began interviewing long before the end of a school year. And Snape probably used the excuse of reminding Albus that he was available for work to explain why he was waiting just outside the door of another interview (Sybill's). How else to explain that Sybill knew he was looking for employment?
So, he was too late for DADA in '79-'80. Sybill hears him remind Albus that he's still hoping for the DADA job AFTER '79-'80 has started (probably just to look less like he's eavesdropping). Snape 'apparently' runs to Albus in late winter/early spring '80 (I know not everyone agrees with me on this date, but I find it much more plausible that he turned while Lily was pregnant than when Harry was 7 or 8 months old and the book text does not state explicitly that Harry had already been born) and then he finally gets the potions job in '81-'82 after he has worked with Albus for over a year as a spy. -- Hwyla
He certainly wasn't going to be interviewed at The Hog's Head.
And once he overheard the prophecy all plans had to be revised.
As I said, Voldmort may have sent Severus to interview for the '79-'80 school year, but that interview never took place. The only time Severus actually did interview for a teaching job was for the '81-'82 year, and as Ministry records show he applied for DADA but was hired for Potions.
I agree that he wasn't actually at the Hog's Head for an interview.
It is after the school year has begun - and from my figuring, the very same school year that he had tried to get a position (but had apparently been too late). It makes very good sense that IF one has applied for a job and one still HOPES to be considered for that job then when one happens to see the person responsible for hiring, one would go speak with him and remind him that one is still interested - especially since it is only a few months later.
I do not believe that is actually what Snape WAS doing. He was obviously eavesdropping. After all, Voldy ordered him to spy on Albus and the man has just gone to an upstairs room with a young woman. But it is a reasonable excuse for him to try when he was caught. Especially since Sybil comes away with the impression that he was looking for a job, but was also very 'pushing' and 'thrusting'.
Since she was not aware that Snape was spying AND she seems to have found him very forceful in his methods of acquiring a job, then it sounds to me as if she thought his sudden appearance in the middle of her successful interview was the result of his listening in for tips on how to succeed himself. We know he was there. We're pretty sure he must have tried SOME kind of explanation, after all, there's no indication that Voldy ever told him that he could quit spying on Albus - at least not at that time.
There is no reason to suppose that his wanting 'tips' means that he has not yet interviewed. It just as easily means he had an unsuccessful interview but not so unsuccessful that it was implied he would never be hired. By that point in time, it should have been obvious to any Hogwarts student that there was always a new DADA teacher every year. Therefore, just being turned down because a teacher had already been hired, doesn't mean one cannot reapply next year.
After all, Snape apparently does exactly that every year (as Ministry records show). That does not mean that the Ministry necessarily keeps track of every applicant. Dolores has Ministry info on every TEACHER and as a teacher they keep track of his repeated application for DADA. That doesn't automatically mean they keep track of every applicant for the job. -- Hwyla
I place the prophecy as late as spring 1980 but could have been several months earlier. I don't see a need to place it particularly early. In fact, since I believe the war escalated sometime around early 1979 (causing the drop in wizarding birth rate and increasing dissatisfaction with the Ministry, leading to the appointment of Milicent Bagnold as Minister in 1980 and the arrival of Crouch to the top of DMLE - and the enactment of his extreme policies). With this in mind I think the earliest Voldmeort would be seeking to land a DADA teacher as a spy would be for the '80-'81 year, but he might have waited even longer to really bring the Ministry to its knees.
I find it plausible that Severus wasn't even looking for a teaching job for the '80-'81 year. I also find it plausible that he was but his interview was scheduled for a later time (say a few days later) and the prophecy made the whole thing moot. Of course he may have had an interview that failed a few weeks earlier but I don't see why that would be a necessary interpretation. Definitely not for the '79-'80 year. Not when he only left school in June '78. What credentials did he have?
The '16 years of information on Dumbledore' is obviously a mistake because whatever information Severus had on Dumbledore before Godric's Hollow was already reported to Voldemort, there was no need to report it again after Voldmeort's return. (Though if Dumbledore and Severus came up with some scheme involving disinformation from the early days Severus could have 'remembered' to report it to the returned Voldemort.)
Just to clarify more: After reviewing some more of my timelines, I have decided to place Kreacher's trip to the cave during Christmas break of '78. This allows Regulus to be at home to get Kreacher as well as to spend a few weeks researching Horcruxes at home and to die in January '79. Voldemort's increased confidence in his immortality after having placed Slytherin's locket in such a well protected location would then be the reason to increase the intensity of his attacks. This timing also fits with Regulus' idealism at the time of his recruitment - he really had reason to believe he wasn't joining a bunch of mass murderers.
What do you make of Sirius' claim in June 1994 that Voldemort has been hiding for 15 years? (You can reply on this point there as well.)