Miscellaneous desk
< August 30	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	September 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 31

Forgotten magic in Harry Potter

Perhaps I've missed a reference to it, but was it ever explained why Ron Weasley has to suffer with second hand clothes, books, etc. when the parents are well-trained wizards who have no trouble conjuring up and flicking things here and there and everywhere...why can't robes be extended instead of remaining too short and why does Ron need to wear some ridiculous, old gown to the Yule Ball -- why can't they just transfigure it into a nice new one? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

because it was important to JK Rowling to maintain conventional British class distinctions?

well, never mind that. to the extent that one can make sense out of Rowling's universe, magic doesn't seem to be able to create stuff out of whole cloth. all the magic I can think of in the books (and I haven't read all of them) seems to focus energy to manipulate or destroy already extant materials. that, of course, doesn't really answer the question. for instance, why couldn't Mama Weasley put a spell on a loom so that it was always pouring out fabric, so long as you fed it thread? she'd have plenty of material then to make new clothing. or even more curious, how come the family is so poor when Papa Weasley apparently has a stable, decent, white-collar job at the Ministry of Magic? Either the MoM pays like crap, or Papa is supporting a mistress or three on the side. Probably best not to delve too deeply into the dark underbelly of the Weasley household. --Ludwigs2 03:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the Yule Ball, it says that bushes were 'conjured' for the front (where they meet Igor + Severus talking and Fleur kissing her boyfriend). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the "don't look too closely" aspect for a second to note that, on at least one occasion, Dumbledore 'draws up' a chair in midair to sit on. I suppose, in principle, it could have been magicked from elsewhere, but that didn't seem to be the implication. 128.232.131.58 (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Draw up a chair" is a common phrase meaning simply to pull a chair for where it is now, to where you would like it to be. ("Draw up a chair and join us at the table.") Dumbledore, being a mighty wizard, doesn't do anything so mundane as to put it on the floor, of course. APL (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or did you mean he did that in a film? I don't remember the scene from either the books or the film, so I was just guessing there. APL (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it happens in the film, but there's at least one occasion in the fifth book where he literally conjures an armchair out of nowhere. It's obviously never explained whether he created it from nothing or transported it in from elsewhere. ~ mazca ^talk 09:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think stuff like that is ever explained. (These sorts of logic problems are often common in stories with magic. On a grander scale, why isn't Dumbledore preventing earthquakes and such?)

In fact, the whole economics of the "wizard world" are left something of a mystery. APL (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the books tend to contain enough detail and backstory so that the events of the storyline make internal sense, but certainly if you ever think too hard about the scale and general operation of the wizard world as a whole there are substantial inconsistencies and plot holes all over the place. Somehow I doubt books targeted at younger audiences would do so well if they contained substantial discussion of economics.... :) ~ mazca ^talk 09:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or indeed any fiction. See Suspension of disbelief. Jørgen (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! This reads exactly like a typical discussion about replicators on Star Trek! Adam Bishop (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't expect too much from Harry Potter, isn't it actually meant for kids ? I wonder why intelligent people even read it when Stephen King does exist... Jon Ascton (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heresy. Please read a book before you decide to write an offtopic slam like this about it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we supposed to believe Stephen King is for intelligent people? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There is legislation about what you can conjure and what you can't. Something that you conjure out of thin air will not last. This is a rule I set down for myself early on." J. K. Rowling. There are some fairly explicit rules governing magic in the books, discussed a little here. I'm sure we got a few throw-away remarks and discussion in some of the later books, like when they realise the food at school is prepared by house-elves, laid out on tables in the kitchen, then magicked upstairs: you can improve and, to some extent, increase, but you can't create in a lasting way.

As to the Weasleys, Mr Weasley is a low-ranking civil servant, a position traditionally with relatively low pay in exchange for security and a decent pension. They have 7 children, all of whom were homeschooled before going to Hogwarts. That's going to strain any paycheck (hence Malfoy's snide remarks), as well as leaving Mrs Weasley with little time to make things and improve things herself. The only time I could see her having time is during the first 4 books, when she only has Ginny at home, and the Order of the Phoenix hasn't restarted. But she'd probably have to learn how, as we see when she keeps referring to her books while doing various jobs around the house.

Which takes us to transfiguration and charms. It is probably the case that wizards can improve things such as clothes, either by applying a glamour or actually changing them. We see Ron try to improve his dress robes, but he doesn't even manage to trim the lace off neatly. Neat spell work takes skill and practice; see Tonks trying to use spells to tidy and clean. We are shown, both subtlely and less-so, that most wizards are not terribly good at the sort of useful spells they need. For example, see the wands preloaded with defensive spells the twins sell to the Ministry! But really, that's like muggle society. Pancakes are cheap and easy to make, but every Shrove Tuesday I see pancake mix for sale. Worse, this year I saw pre-made pancakes for sale, with instructions to heat them up in a frying pan. How can that make economic sense, when anyone can make pancakes from egg, milk and flour? But people buy them. So, clothes probably can be mended, stretched and improved by magic, but most wizards are rubbish at it. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles on the MacGuffin and Deus ex machina literary devices of which to my mind Joanne Rowling shows her unashamed mastery when she crafts the Harry Potter fantasies. For an opposing view, [1] is a critic who writes about "Harry Potter and the Excrucius MacGuffins". The Deus ex machina device has also been noted in "Harry Potter and the Deus Ex Machina: An Extraordinarily Long Blog Post" [2] and in a review at amazon.com that complains: ...Rowling falls back on a few too-worn literary devices... I found this book to be far too full of easy short cuts and simplistic cliches to give it five stars. Far too many times, Harry and his friends were "mysteriously" saved at the last minute...For some reason, the villain, no matter how vicious he has been throughout the story, always conveniently waits to attack until the hero's had plenty of time to get all the answers he needs to defeat the bad guy. The only change Rowling makes to this shopworn device is that she does it via magical means. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, how does this relate to the question or my answer (which you indented as a reply to)? You are talking about plot, and the question and this answer are about the fictional universe and the rules it operates under. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my clumsy indent. I intended to continue the previous thread in which mazca mentioned plot consistencies. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. That is a good interview. I wonder what she means by "Legislation". I have to say, I'd be more than a little irritated if I was capable of creating wealth from thin air and the government prevented me from doing so. The wizards could be ushering in a new era of prosperity for all mankind if not for that 'legislation'.

Perhaps that's not what she meant. APL (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If wizards could create wealth from thin air, then the inevitable result I would foresee would be hyperinflation, not prosperity. Googlemeister (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rowling clearly believes "As much money and life as you could want! The two things most human beings would choose above all - the trouble is, humans do have a knack of choosing precisely those things which are worst for them." (Dumbledore, Philosopher's Stone, chapter 17).

Incidentally, I've found the reference I was looking for from the books:

"Your mother can’t produce food out of thin air," said Hermione. "No one can. Food is the first of the five Principal Exceptions to Gamp’s Law of Elemental Transfigur-"

"Oh, speak English, can’t you?" Ron said, prising a fish bone out from between his teeth.

"It’s impossible to make good food out of nothing! You can summon it if you know where it is, you can transform it, you can increase the quantity if you’ve already got some-"

(Deathly Hallows, chapter 14). 86.161.108.172 (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Googlemeister, I think you've confused "wealth" for "money". They're not interchangeable concepts. "Hyperinflation" is what happens when you increase the money supply without increasing the total wealth. APL (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but it would be quite a challenge to determine a medium of wealth that would not be subject to inflation if it could appear out of thin air (except maybe air if conjuring items out of thin air uses up said air). Googlemeister (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the wizards in those books pay taxes yet the ministry of magic has a lot of money.--178.167.247.73 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have elves making millions of toys for Santa, who gets a wholesale discount. Christmas sales supply the ministry their funds. Googlemeister (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Where in the books does it say there are no taxes? We never see anyone pay taxes, but that's pretty normal in any non-tax-based story. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. By the same false reasoning, one could conclude that War and Peace and Gone With the Wind were apparently set on some extraterrestrial planet inhabited by aliens, because none of the characters ever needed to urinate. Spooky. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago - Illegal download to support a hacker?

I'd really like a copy of "Chicago" by Chrissie Hynde, David Gilmour, et al which they performed in support of alleged hacker Gary McKinnon. The problem is that I live in the US. iTunes and Amazon both carry it in their UK stores but not their US stores. So, do I have to go through a proxy server or some other method of sneakiness to buy a song to support an alleged hacker? Seems rather ironic... Dismas|^(talk) 12:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that you can legally listen to the song[3] on YouTube? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've heard it. I want a copy though for when I'm not on the net with YouTube access. Dismas|^(talk) 15:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VideoDownloader is your friend. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous dogs

If someone were to cross breed 2 dogs which are considered "dangerous" in the UK (e.g. a dogo argentino and a pit bull) in some other country could you then import one of the offspring into the UK? --212.120.246.77 (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 isn't strictly restricted by breed and has a fair bit of wiggle room in the phrase "being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose." If, in the eyes of whoever was making the decision, the dog had substantially the characteristics of one of those banned dogs then it would probably be treated in the same way. ~ mazca ^talk 13:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dogo what and pit bull ? I thought Rottweiler is the deadliest thing ? Jon Ascton (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dogo Argentino, another large and potentially aggressive dog that sometimes gets bred for fighting. Rottweilers have something of a bad reputation but it's exaggerated in peoples' minds by some appearances in films - for quite some time the American Pit Bull has been the most notorious as far as dogs go, they're the ones most often involved in human attacks. ~ mazca ^talk 14:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a table copied and pasted from List of people killed by dogs in the United States:

**Dog Bite-related Fatalities in the United States**
Year	Total	# Most fatal attacks by	# Second-most fatal attacks by
2005	28	Pit bull-type (17)	Rottweiler (5)
2006	29	Pit bull-type (15)	Rottweiler (8)
2007	34	Pit bull-type (18)	Rottweiler (4)
2008	23	Pit bull-type (15)	Husky (3)
2009	30	Pit bull-type (14)	Rottweiler (4)

To be "fair" to the pit bulls, I don't have any data at hand on the respective populations of these dogs, so that some sort of fatalities-per-American-dog ratio could be observed. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential to the question, but a cross between dangerous breeds might not be as dangerous as either breed separately. Rottweilers, for example, are dangerous because they are very aggressive. Pit bulls are less aggressive, but they are very dominant (i.e., can easily be provoked to attack if annoyed) and once they attack, very difficult to make stop. A cross between them would probably be less aggressive than a Rottweiler and less "dogged" than a pit bull. Hard to say. Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just heard Warwick Estevam Kerr clear his throat. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only stats I could find for the UK are that there were 4 fatalaties in 2008[4]. The UK population is very roughly one fifth of the USA, so we're not too far behind. More US dog bite stats are here[5] Alansplodge (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Copyright Warning !

On all books we have the usual copyright warning like "...not to be copied by any means mechanical, electronic, photostating..." etc etc we almost always see, but one book I read had the term psychic in addition ! Some new copyright law or publicity stunt ? Jon Ascton (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which book? probably the publisher/author indulging in a little good-natured humor. writers are people too, you know. --Ludwigs2 15:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) It would be interesting (and possibly helfpul towards answering) to know the book in question, Jon. Without any further details, my guesses (as a long-ex-publishing professional) would be that (a) the author seriously believes in this possibility and insisted on its inclusion, and the publishers have indulged him/her; (b) it's, as you say, a potential hook for publicity (and if so is to a limited extent demonstrably working); (c) it's an in-house joke connected to the particular book or author; or (d) someone has actually tried (hopefully unsuccessfully) to deny plagiarism or copyright violation of this or another publisher's material on grounds involving psychic transmission and the lawyers think it's worth including the additional injunction to head off irksome future attempts. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher is Indian. Blaft, a Madras based newly emerged private company. The book is an english translation of a hindi crime writer's hindi hold-up story. This is the only book I have that Blaft has published, the same warning will be there on other books published by Blaft also, probably.

Blaft is a self-admitted hindi pulp fiction outlet, with an alien as their logo [6], featuring such nobel-worthy works as "Kumari Loves a Monster" and "when this key sketch gets real tongue is fork hen is cock when this key sketch gets real my baby eagle's dream comes true". I think a tounge-in-cheek warning about psychic copyrights would be very appealing to their clientele.

I took a quick glance at one of their books (moonward) to see if there was a publisher's plate. there wasn't, but it did leave me wondering why ~~an English-language graphic novel was being handled by a minor Hindi publisher~~ translation, gotcha, and also why anyone would make a graphic novel about a winged mechanical turtle-snail in the first place. --Ludwigs2 17:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a purely legal perspective, I'm not sure psychic reproduction would fall under at least US copyright law, which requires that the information be fixed in a tangible medium. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've seen the word "psychic" used (in some rare circumstances) not to refer to supernatural powers, but to any activity of the mind. So it might be a botched translation, where the intent was that you're not allowed to memorize the book (though I doubt the author has a right to prohibit that). Maybe they think that otherwise it would be legal to "launder" intellectual property by memorizing it, bit-by-bit, and then copying it down. Paul (Stansifer) 05:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I can't recall a specific example, as an occasional cataloguer in my library I have seen in a number of books plays on the copyright page that add little jokes like this. I imagine this is the case here. Aaronite (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Memorisation was apparently actually used, or at least was actually considered, for pirating Gilbert and Sullivan operettas. [7] Marnanel (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright warnings have no legal meaning in any case. Everything forbidden by copyright law (duplication, public performance, etc.) is forbidden even in the absence of any copyright notice at all, and copyright owners don't have the right to impose additional restrictions. -- BenRG (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tersa sphinx caterpillar

I found a Tersa sphinx caterpillar on my lawn today, after sourcing it's identity through wikimedia my neighbour also found one. They are habitual to America and I would like to know how and why they have appeared in Cheshire. Neither myself or my neighbour have ever seen anything like it before. Are they in any way hazardous? and have they been found anywhere else in the uk?

I would be gratefull for any assistance in answering my questions.

Regards

Gaynor Bowerbank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.127.165 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might try directing this to the Natural History Museum. They would be very interested in this. [8]. Take lots of photos so that you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons. What do they taste like? Do not forget to mention Wikipedia to them. --Aspro (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get right in close, those caterpillars have tiny ears! Adam Bishop (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also consider contacting a local group who might have someone to come and look at the little rascal. For example Lancashire and Cheshire Fauna group, who have a website with contacts for moths and butterflies. Richard Avery (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]