Snapedom

Vanishing vs the Unforgivables or more questions about Dark Magic

oryx_leucoryx

9/14/09 09:27 am

"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?

• Send your Patronus

• (Anonymous)

  9/14/09 06:34 pm (UTC)

  All killing (of humans, that is) is more or less bad, but the AK is especially bad because it's unblockable. Hence its Unforgivable status, although it's a clean quick death compared to many. That's my understanding anyway. On a personal note, the fact that dissolving small animals to be one with the cosmos is a staple of the Hogwarts curriculum creeps me out as much as the AK.
  
  -L

  • Reply
  • Thread

  • 00sevvie

    9/14/09 07:16 pm (UTC)

    

    "the fact that dissolving small animals to be one with the cosmos is a staple of the Hogwarts curriculum creeps me out as much as the AK"
    
    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).

    • Reply
    • Parent
    • Thread

    • oryx_leucoryx

      9/14/09 07:39 pm (UTC)

      The reason Vanishing creeps me out more than AK is that without leaving a body as evidence for the act it has the deceptive appearance of 'neatness' that might make it tempting. Hagrid's latest monster is causing trouble? Why don't we vanish it? The neighbor's dog barks into the night, digs up the garden what not? Vanish and it's gone! The neighbor's baby screams at night - er?

      • Reply
      • Parent
      • Thread

      • (Anonymous)

        9/16/09 01:35 am (UTC)

        *vanishes JKR*
        
        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.

        • Reply
        • Parent

      • (Anonymous)

        9/16/09 06:16 am (UTC)

        Star Trek has phasers and disruptors that, under certain circumstances, can also disintegrate people completely. I haven't seen people get all up in arms over that in the fandom, TBH.
        

        • Reply
        • Parent
        • Thread

        • oryx_leucoryx

          9/16/09 06:25 am (UTC)

          At least those weren't wielded by 15 year-olds, but by trained adults AFAIK. And my impression is that the training of members of the Star Fleet had a stronger ethical element than the Hogwarts curriculum. Had I seen evidence that wizards take the ethics of using magic with any degree of seriousness I wouldn't have been as alarmed at the thought of Vanishing living beings.

          • Reply
          • Parent

    • leni_jess

      9/14/09 10:21 pm (UTC)

      

      That story is Bernice's Out of the Bag, and you'll find it here: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~brussell/out.htm
      
      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.

      • Reply
      • Parent
      • Thread

      • 00sevvie

        9/14/09 10:30 pm (UTC)

        

        Thanks for the link! Now I don't have to trawl the depths of the Internet to find it. ;)

        • Reply
        • Parent

  • (Anonymous)

    10/3/09 05:23 pm (UTC)

    um...this is really late and i dunno if anyone's gonna read it, but i just had to write this! >.>'
    
    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
    
    

    • Reply
    • Parent