[Carlotta]
Post by CarlottaPost by Tim PetersPost by CarlottaBut if the only basis for this theory is the 'lumos'-scene it's
pretty wild and far-fetched, isn't it?
[Tim]
Post by CarlottaPost by Tim PetersYa, except this is a series in which a pet rat
... [yadda yadda] ...
"Wild and far-fetched" is common enough here to make it hard to rule
out anything.
[Carlotta]
Post by CarlottaMm - I don't know.
There's a difference between a theory and speculation.
A theory has got points that are - maybe not absolutely clear, but al
least not completely open for debate. There is *some* evidence.
A speculation can be anything.
Fine by me, but in that case there's some evidence too for the possibility
to do wandless magic (more later -- this is less drastic than you think).
Post by CarlottaActually there were points that hinted at Scabbers being more than met
the eye.
He was pretty old for a rat and didn't behave very rat-like.
Of course it wasn't that obvious that anyone could have guessed he is
really an animagus.
I think this one looks like "a theory" far more in hindsight. But, as you
Post by CarlottaAnd if there's anything I actually learned from reading HBP it's, that
you can't guess the real plot from what JKR has given us as hints and
"evidence".
I think that applied to Scabbers in spades -- although I'm sure _someone_
speculated that the little fellow was much more than he seemed, I'm also
sure I would have passed over it with glazed eyes.
H
B
P
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Post by CarlottaTake the horcruxes.
They are the link to COs and the information she could have told us
back then.
But there was absolutely no way to conclude to horcruxes from
re-reading COS.
Well, some people did speculate that Riddle had split his soul even then -
the diary was so extraordinarily powerful. I'll join you in betting that
nobody guessed the word Horcrux, though <wink>.
Post by CarlottaInstead everyone went beserk about who the HBP was and that probably
Tom Riddle was not the same person as Voldemort and could therefore
very well be the HBP although JKR had definatly stated Voldemort was
NOT the HBP.
Yup, there's a lot of that! I don't take it seriously.
Post by CarlottaSuch theories are too complicated to come true.
If you have to go think around five corners and pick up tiny tiny bits
that you can turn into evidence to prove your theory, it's likely to be
wrong.
I shave with Occam's Razor too ;-) Still, while a beetle is normally just a
beetle, sometimes it's Rita Skeeter eavesdropping. People grasp at tiny
bits because sometimes they were what mattered in the end. You know
about JKR's embarrassment at having named a throwaway character Evans?
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=49
Mark Evans is... nobody. He's nobody in the sense that Mr.
Prentice, Madam Marsh and Gordon-Dudley's-gang-member are nobodies,
just background people who need names, but who have no role other
than the walk-on parts assigned to them.
...
Then why - WHY - (I hear you cry) - did I give him the surname
"Evans"? Well, believe me, you can't regret it more than I do right
now. "Evans" is a common name; I didn't give it much thought; I
wasn't even trying to set up another red herring. I could just as
easily have called him 'Smith' or 'Jones' (or 'Black' or 'Thomas'
or 'Brown', all of which would have got me into trouble too).
Read the whole FAQ entry (if you like) -- it's a hoot! When people spend 2+
years (over)analyzing the text between books, darned near each word ends up
in some speculation. I'm afraid the best way to tell it's a theory is often
by noting that a later book said it was true ;-)
Post by CarlottaOr have you seen a wild and far-fetched theory come true?
It's fishing in the dark and if wild speculation is all this place is
about, I think I'm off to more reasonable places.
I'm a relative newcomer at a.f.h-p, and haven't been around long enough to
characterize what this place is about. Mostly it reminds me of Usenet:
lots of voices, lots of chaos, lots of niceness, and some viciousness. As
with other newsgroups over the years, I've started to identify posters I
especially do and don't find worth reading, and it's more fun over time. If
you don't like "silly speculation" threads, that's fine! I bet you'll
develop a very effective early-warning system, and there are posts to suit
every taste (including lack thereof <wink>).
Post by CarlottaPost by Tim PetersPost by CarlottaAs long as the (questionable) 'lumos' scene is all you've got to
support the "wandless-magic-theory" I remain absolutely unconvinced.
H
B
P
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
While I don't think the author intends wandless magic to play a major
role here (as opposed to non-verbal spells, which got a lot of
attention in HBP), the young Tom Marvolo Riddle in HBP appeared able
to do deliberate magic without a wand.
But that was, before he went to Hogwarts and got educated.
Sure.
Post by CarlottaHe does seem to have had more control about it than Harry or the
average magical child has - but it's still a long way from doing
complicated spells without a wand.
Ah, that's not what the "wandless magic" threads have really been about --
or at least not how they started.
When Dumbledore was without wand on the Astronomy Tower, how helpless was
he? Could he have stopped Draco? Could he have stopped Snape? We don't
know (from what was spelled out), and they're interesting questions. Young
Tom could move objects, and "make people hurt", without a wand, and just
that much could be enough: perhaps D could have wandlessly given Draco a
sharp pain in the gut, and then willed his wand back to his hand while Draco
was distracted. Complicated spells are a different area of speculation, and
I've seen no evidence in the books suggesting they're possible without a
wand.
Post by CarlottaIf he really could do without - wouldn't it be more logial he
discovered at Hogwarts he didn't need a wand and just left it to rot in
his trunk?
If Voldemort is someone who doesn't want to rely on anyone and anything
- wouldn't he have made sure he reached such a level of competence he
really didn't need a wand at all?
It would have spared him all this same-wand-backfire-business in GOF.
Harry would be dead for two years now.
Voldemort wouldn't rely on a wand if he could do well without.
As far as I can see, there is no real hint that trained wizards can do
advanced magic without a wand.
Me neither, but the interesting questions wrt D's death are in regard to
potentially simple magic.
Post by CarlottaChildren have magic happen to them - they're not in control of it.
Voldemort seems to have gained *some* control over his abilities (and
that was DD quote).
Also Tom's self-reporting, which D seemed to accept.
Post by CarlottaHarry coul ignite his wand in a desperate situation. He didn't do it on
purpose - he was surprized it worked at all, that's probably just
another case of "extreme-situation-accidental-magic"-case.
- if Harry could really do it, we would know by now for sure. He would
have had to exercise that ability I dount JKR will develop that
"plotline" wholely in the seventh book.
- Neither DD nor Voldemort routinely do magic without a wand. If the
two greatest wizards of the era can't do it who else would?
- *If* Voldemort can do it, Harry is dead for sure and JKR would be
giving up showing us a greart fight.
*tosses so called 'theory' into the rubbish bin* ;)
Good for you! It belongs there. The bit about simple magic remains a
mystery to me, though -- I try tossing that theory into the bin, and it
keeps popping out again. Screams "magic" to me <wink>.