= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
linkhyrule5 comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 20, chapter 90 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (609)
On a side note -
"But what I must actually tell you is that you will find the standard introductory text in the north-northwest stacks of the main Hogwarts library, filed under M."
First, I rather appreciate the comic relief, Eliezer.
... But second, what the heck are Memory Charms doing outside the--
Right. Hogwarts. Crazies. Nevermind.
Keep in mind that while on the one hand, memory charms are a crazy broken superweapon for anyone with a bit of unrestrained creativity, they also seem to be a standard response for ordinary wizards on the spot dealing with muggles who've caught a slip in the Statute of Secrecy (for instance, a rampaging dragon.)
Counting against this observation is the statement that they're "illegal to use without Ministry authorization". Counting for it is the fact that Quirrell and the other villain candidates seem happy to use them whenever convenient with no negative consequences. Given that the Ministry apparently has a magical net capable of instantly detecting underage spell use, it's odd that they seem completely unable to monitor the use of conditionally legal, illegal, and Unforgiveable magic.
While they can detect underage spell use, if I remember correctly they canonically cannot detect the type of magic being used. Perhaps it would have been possible to set up spells to detect types of spells in use by adults, perhaps not, but I think wizarding norms on privacy and individual rights probably would make it politically unviable in any case. Remember when Harry offered Minerva his wand when he was going to be staying at home, and she responded that "that isn't done." Wizarding minors aren't allowed to use magic unsupervised, but even muggleborns at home with no adult wizards are still left the use of their wands. That strikes me as a society which has some very strong norms about autonomy.
Yes, perhaps. This makes sense. But, IIRC, in Chamber of Secrets the letter that Harry gets from the ministry specifically states that they detected a hover charm being used at Harrys residence. If that is the case, it means that canonically they do detect the type of magic used.
Thats because (mild spoiler for the books) every young person has "the trace" put on them, which can be tracked. Any magic done in the vicinity of someone with the trace on will be picked up on. That said, they are apparently aware that it was a hover charm in book 2, so they can clearly detect the type of magic too...
That's something in the original universe which seems unrealistic to me, so I guess it doesn't work exactly that way in MoR. Someone in the ministry being warned, with the details of the spell used, for every spell used around an underage would mean, de facto, being warned of almost every spell usage done by any parent. It would mean that every spell cast by Lucius when Draco is nearby is detected by the ministry. I doubt both the Death Eaters and the "normal" wizards would accept something like that.
Also, in canon Order of the Phoenix, near the end, Umbridge attempts to cast Crucio on Harry to make him talk, and when she does that, she hides the portrait of Fudge so Fudge doesn't know. If any spell cast near an underage wizard is detected by the ministry, they would know anyway about her casting of Crucio on Harry.
There are many other examples : like, at the end of the Goblet of Fire, Voldemort and his acolytes use many Unforgiveable curses around Harry (killing Diggory, torturing Harry, ...) and there isn't the slightest hint that the ministry detected all that.
So my guess is that the "trace" isn't a perfect detector of every magic used around an underage, but maybe just magic used around an underage by someone who isn't a grown up wizard ? It would detect underage magic, Dobby's magic usage around Harry, but not when parents cast spells around their children, nor when adults (mad Hogwarts teachers or Death Eaters) attack children ?
There is a simpler possibility.
The trace only detects the magic of the caster. The reason that Harry got the note for Dobby's use of magic is because Dobby used inscrutable house elf magic to fake Harry's magical signature.
Or, alternatively, they knew that tracking every spell everywhere there was a child would result in them being inundated with reports, be a violation of privacy, etc., so they have it set to disregard spells cast in known magical areas--basically allowing carte blanche for wizard-raised students, while completely shafting the muggle-raised. That also seems consistent with their policies.
As yet another possibility (and that I was going to use in my HP fic that died with my old comp) the Trace is twofold, both the spell on their wand and the spell on a location, generally their home. This secondary spell is the one that actually detects the magic, while the first merely serves to identify the caster as underaged. Because Dobby would still have to fake something, it would appear to suffer from a complexity penalty, but it would allow for...ah.
I had thought that Riddle had killed his family to create the ring horcrux while he was in school and so should still have the Trace, which research backed up, but which also revealed that he used the wand of the person he was framing for the deeds. Which is rather unhelpful, even if it is obvious. Though he also False Memory-Charmed the man to think that he had committed the deed, which he couldn't use that man's wand for since it was going to be checked, and he was never caught for -that-. That does seem to imply that location is significant.
That's right. In order to track illegal or conditionally legal magic, they'd have to put the trace on everyone for their whole lives. This would be a hard law to pass.
Would it be hard to implement without such a law?
Technically? Debatable. Practically, yes, because Lucius Malfoy rules magical Britain and would come down hard on anything that interferes with his and his minions' use of illegal magic. Additionally, it would be political suicide to do something like this illegally and get caught (at least in the Potterverse), and of those in power very few would even consider taking that risk in order to prevent illegal magic use.
Why would Lucius interfere with his own minions?
My point precisely. A universal trace would result in people in the Ministry, not all of whom are reliably corrupt, being aware whenever Lucius's minions used illegal magic.
A trace that was universal except for Lucius and his minions would be a strategic masterstroke, but would probably lead to outright rebellion if it were discovered, and it seems that Lucius doesn't quite have that much influence, or the wizarding world would already have blood purism codified in law.
It's already true that Draco practiced magic underage and wasn't arrested. Whether that is because the trace doesn't apply to him or because the people who see the results of the trace ignore them is open to doubt...
What Velorien said, but also, if such a spell was implemented it would be hard to use it for law enforcement without giving away that it existed. They wouldn't be able to use it as court evidence, and if they used it to direct law enforcement personnel to the scene they'd get found out eventually.
Sorry, I was implying that it wouldn't be officially sanctioned in any way. Much like Deep Throat's "follow the money", it could be used to point police toward lines of investigation that would prove fruitful.
That sounds like it would give a lot of false-positives for non-muggleborns... (Not arguing with your statement, just noting that it seems like the wizards made a bad choice of what to detect, if there were other options.)
Indeed it is. In book.. 6(?) it is made clear that children in magical families are essentially exempt because of this rule. It is assumed that parents will enforce the rules on their children. It is another example of prejudice in the magical world (which I believe is deliberate. Rowling explicitly and implicitly suggests repeatedly that the current set up of the magical world is corrupt and prejudical)
This particular rule strikes me as pretty reasonable. It is assumed that magical parents can manage their children's magic.
If you don't consider that parents might surreptitiously teach their children spells, then sure, that makes sense.
Huh? What's there to be surreptitious about? The whole point is that magical parents are trusted to participate in their children's magical development.
The students were not supposed to do magic over the summer, full stop. There's no official exception there. The leniency could be rationalized as "magical parents can stop their children from casting spells if need be, so we don't need to monitor them," but it's not "go ahead and do magic, magical parents are trusted to teach and guide their children's magic."
If the children are casting spells, then they are breaking the law. If the parent is teaching them without the child actually casting the spell, then there's no need for an exemption.
The trace is only placed on muggleborns. The Ministry expects magical parents to supervise the magic use of their own children.
Probably, because the Ministry is in charge of cleaning up after abovementioned slips in the Statute of Secrecy.
Who said they were incapable, dohoho?
NOT "how to cast a Memory Charm", NOT "the spells you are looking for", but rather, 'the information readily available to students'.
Or Quirrell, who has declared his intention to visit the restricted section, is planning to plant the book for Harry's 'benefit.'
Doubtful. That's not a lie Quirrell can sustain: Harry can ask anyone else what the status of memory charms is in the Hogwarts curriculum.
Wizards in general need memory charms to deal with muggles, so that's a plausible reason they aren't seen as Dark by the wizarding community. There are probably strong cultural taboos against using them on other wizards (as opposed to muggles), in the same way there are strong cultural taboos against using cars to run over pedestrians even though that's a power that many teenagers acquire here in the real world.
I would guess that either
A) He doesn't need to ask a professor, he can just ask a seventh-year.
Good point. I'm sticking to B, Quirrell was telling Harry he'd pass it to him on the downlow. Note that he didn't say that the book would be labeled "Memory Charms," just that it would be filed under M.
Magick Moste Evile? (This is an in-universe book from canon, in case anyone forgot.)
B was my thought - or at least I'd definitely check if I were Harry. But checking every book in the section seems time-consuming and suspicious. I think we should assume there is in fact a standard book on Memory Charms there. Doesn't mean it contains a single truthful word.
Even if truthful, it may not actually say how to cast.
In canon, Hermione casts Obliviate in her 7th year (presumably without consulting a restricted text from the Department of Mysteries), so the widely available book may actually have enough information for an intelligent reader to learn how to cast it.
Well, Draco's taboo against memory charms against half-bloods was roughly as strong as his taboo against violent rape of half-bloods. I'm not sure we should accept his initial taboos as either consistent or typical, though.