When the molecule is changed, the substance is changed... It's no longer crude oil, it's a polymer than has different physical and chemical properties than crude oil. I don't know *why* that is, but chemistry is freaky.

Another example would be water... H2O. If you change the molecule to H2O2 (add another oxygen atom) you get hydrogen peroxide which is definitely NOT water
 
When the molecule is changed, the substance is changed... It's no longer crude oil, it's a polymer than has different physical and chemical properties than crude oil. I don't know *why* that is, but chemistry is freaky.
I can't tell if you are trolling or not. He is talking about how the only difference between plastic and "natural" substances is that one is made in an organism
 
I can't tell if you are trolling or not. He is talking about how the only difference between plastic and "natural" substances is that one is made in an organism
There's more "natural" substances than just organic.... Metals are nonorganic, water is nonorganic, oil is also nonorganic even though it originates from dead animals millions of years ago. So that definition doesn't work.

The way i read it, he wanted to know why plastic wasn't considered a natural substance, when cotton and wood are, even after being refined into products.
 
There's more "natural" substances than just organic.... Metals are nonorganic, water is nonorganic, oil is also nonorganic even though it originates from dead animals millions of years ago. So that definition doesn't work.
If you want to start nitpicking sure I'll bite. Oil is organic, by definition any molecule containing both hydrogen and carbon are organic. As a hydrocarbon oil is most definitely organic. Water is produced in many chemical reactions in organisms through the process of dehydration synthesis.
 
Last edited:
The way i read it, he wanted to know why plastic wasn't considered a natural substance, when cotton and wood are, even after being refined into products.
I specifically asked how plastic was different than the process of MAKING any other organic molecule, such as cotton, which incidentally is a polymer, just like plastic.

Again,

how is [the process of making plastic] different from the process that creates any organic material?
 
I specifically asked how plastic was different than the process of MAKING any other organic molecule, such as cotton, which incidentally is a polymer, just like plastic.

Again,
Unless I too am misunderstanding your question, I would imagine it is simply a matter of whether the organic molecule(s) develop through their own agency (for lack of a better term 🤷‍♂️). Taking the example of wood from earlier on, although a tree requires external components to grow, water, sunlight, etc: the processes that those outside elements kickstart (that facilitate the chemical reactions and changes that feed it, determine its growth and subsequent life) do so in accordance with the blueprints hardwired (once again for lack of a better term) into the trees DNA. Whereas, in the case of plastics, the crude oil would never be able to undergo the individual chemical changes, from its naturally occurring form to whatever type of polymer, on its own and requires some level of artifice; the potential for the change is there but it will never happen without some degree of intelligent, purposeful, external manipulation. I definitely think it's an interesting question though: in spite of the definition specifically excluding man made things from the category of 'natural,' surely anything humans create must count as natural, simply by virtue of being the product of an aspect of the natural world and the multifarious chemical reactions (and natural biological processes) that take place inside the human body, allowing for a type of being capable of the requisite brand of abstract thought that could one day conceive of the processes needed to convert one substance to another? It has just occurred to me that if one takes the definition what is natural to exclude the works of mankind - then wouldn't it follow that all human magic is by its nature unnatural? Food for thought... or I could be spewing a load of rubbish! Anyway, as you can probably tell, I am no where near to being an authority on such matters (it's been way too long since I have studied chemistry 😂) so I definitely could be incorrect. I'm sure I will be told as such, stridently, if that indeed is the case.
 
I specifically asked how plastic was different than the process of MAKING any other organic molecule, such as cotton, which incidentally is a polymer, just like plastic.

Again,
Why can't you conjure or transfigurate food but can water (and consumable water at that), why can you make wine with magic, it is made from grapes, therefore food, it should be impossible, the answer is magic, there are weird laws that it follows, sometimes they don't make sense, but magic has it's own laws.
 
Why can't you conjure or transfigurate food but can water (and consumable water at that), why can you make wine with magic, it is made from grapes, therefore food, it should be impossible, the answer is magic, there are weird laws that it follows, sometimes they don't make sense, but magic has it's own laws.
This is a resonable answer, but does not fit the initial claim which I was responding to, that attempted to provide an actual explanation, except with no understanding of the processes involved.
 
Wizards can and have made out lives miserable
our lives
"That, I do not know. None of the combinations I can think of would explain her abilities, but there are too many options to say for sure."
If this one is thoughts, shouldn't he have just actually said that instead? This would be something you'd explain, or at least it would be for me.
Why do people fear my abilities but loved you for yours?
love you for yours
instead of putting another dent into the ground it threw up a small cloud of dirt.
That's actually fairly impressive.

I wonder if its ability to chip a rock implies that it could pierce armor?
It's still not very useful otherwise.

That said, it's an awesome surprise weapon. It's invisible. Too bad there's an obvious throwing motion.
Maybe she can figure out how to control its trajectory or launch it without physically moving too much...

I know that it's early days, but I really hope she gets more versatility. I'd hardly call one spell and no shield very safe.
Hazel does explicitly mention that Merlin was gifted with precognition; I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that Merlin conspired to have that statue there, or made it himself, just to provide someone with the inspiration to keep going and excel.
And then the cave was sealed off with a shield that only her fae-glass can see.
She's a witch. If there's any anti-muggle protections she'd have seen through those, so that implies it was better hidden and that statue could have specifically been for her.

Unless I remember wrong about how she got into magical Paris. It would be very strange if the usual wizard-excluded hiding spells worked on her too (that she'd need the fae-glass to even see stuff the muggle-hidden stuff wizards can all the time just by default)...

...If she did need the fae-glass to get into magical Paris, why might the hiding spells still work on her that she'd need the magic-piercing lens?
Is that from her belief that she's not the normal kind of magical, so the hiding spells act with some form of intelligence rather than magic detection and she still can't see them?

With the Fidelius, things are physically not there. That implies the spell can control access to a region and it's not just perception. On the other hand, there are a number of spells that control what people see, so those might work in the mind of the viewer for who's allowed to pass. The latter kind might be affected by her belief, but the former would be of the "she's not us" type.
This fic's magic system could work decently as a Nasuverse Magecraft equivalent, in which case Hazel here would be making her own "magic foundation" built around what she knows and finds from Muggle Mythology, rather than what Wizardkind teaches.

Of course, if that were the case it would probably be pretty volatile, since the metaphor would extend to it being built on shaky foundations.
I'd argue that it's kinda the point, really. Her system is rather arbitrary and seemingly shaped by her own beliefs. It's also less powerful.

What if that's why wandless is kinda shitty? They don't teach it because it's "hard," so everyone makes their own system, which lacks belief and is thus weaker and has limitations because the caster thinks it can't work?
Honestly, the last part is basically canon for why you might have trouble with a spell.
 
Last edited:
What if that's why wandless is kinda shitty? They don't teach it because it's "hard," so everyone makes their own system, which lacks belief and is thus weaker and has limitations because the caster thinks it can't work?
Honestly, the last part is basically canon for why you might have trouble with a spell.
Belief will come with success, people seeing their spells work will gain confidence.
 
Belief will come with success, people seeing their spells work will gain confidence.
Right, but if there's a wandless spell they've never tried, and don't think will actually work...
It's not like there's a wandless tradition where they know that "everyone" can eventually cast some spell. That only applies with wanded items.
 
What if that's why wandless is kinda shitty? They don't teach it because it's "hard," so everyone makes their own system, which lacks belief and is thus weaker and has limitations because the caster thinks it can't work?
Honestly, the last part is basically canon for why you might have trouble with a spell.

I think you are onto something here, wandless teaching may rely too much on student confidence and is too easily shaped by each instructor's own bias.
 
If this one is thoughts, shouldn't he have just actually said that instead? This would be something you'd explain, or at least it would be for me.
It sounded better to my ear for those parts to be Jean Luc's thoughts and unvoiced to Marcel.
No, 'loved' is correct. "Why do people fear my abilities (now) but loved you for yours (back when you were alive)?"
Unless I remember wrong about how she got into magical Paris
She didn't find Place Cachée on her own. She rode on top of the clockwork-horse-drawn carriage.
With the Fidelius, things are physically not there
My own take on the Fidelius is that the location being protected is very much still physically present. It is an entirely mental misdirection.
 
It is rather curious how Dumbledore was able to learn Parseltongue, and Ron was able to imitate it without any real prep.

Perhaps Wizarding abilities like Parseltongues and Metamorphmagi are much more learnable than is otherwise commonly thought.
 
It is rather curious how Dumbledore was able to learn Parseltongue, and Ron was able to imitate it without any real prep.

Perhaps Wizarding abilities like Parseltongues and Metamorphmagi are much more learnable than is otherwise commonly thought.
I'd actually disagree with part of this. It's rather hard to say that Ron was able to imitate and mimic Parseltongue when Harry, who multiple times in canon was unable to tell the difference between Parseltongue and English, described it only as a "strangled hissing noise" and didn't hear any real words in it. Was Dumbledore able to learn Parseltongue? Maybe, or maybe he vanished the doorway to the Chamber and put in a new wall with a password that was unintelligible hissing. The question that follows is "why unintelligible hissing and not a real but impossible to guess password?", to which I don't have a good answer. Could just be it was a nod to Salazar as the creator.
 
The question that follows is "why unintelligible hissing and not a real but impossible to guess password?", to which I don't have a good answer. Could just be it was a nod to Salazar as the creator.
If that is the case, it would be to defeat someone with Parseltongue who wants entrance. Anybody who spots the door in use and reports back will only get hissing, and Voldemort knows the original password is Parseltongue so the obvious assumption is that it is still Parseltongue. So he stands there hissing at a wall for god knows how long to no effect.
 
I'd actually disagree with part of this. It's rather hard to say that Ron was able to imitate and mimic Parseltongue when Harry, who multiple times in canon was unable to tell the difference between Parseltongue and English, described it only as a "strangled hissing noise" and didn't hear any real words in it. Was Dumbledore able to learn Parseltongue? Maybe, or maybe he vanished the doorway to the Chamber and put in a new wall with a password that was unintelligible hissing. The question that follows is "why unintelligible hissing and not a real but impossible to guess password?", to which I don't have a good answer. Could just be it was a nod to Salazar as the creator.

Could just be that canon is shoddily written when it comes to consistency :V
 
It could be that one could learn enough Parseltongue that they could imitate Harry saying something like 'open', but not enough to actually have a full conversation.
 
My guess had been "since Ron was just mimicking and didn't fluently speak Parseltongue, he got it a bit wrong when he was demonstrating to Harry; it might have taken him a couple of tries to get the wall to open."
 
described it only as a "strangled hissing noise"
Hmm.
I'd say probably there aren't enough valid distinct syllables of hissing noises for it to be a legit language, and so it's just meaningless hissing noises while the actual magical talent attaches meaning to the hissing noises.
And snakes clearly have some kind of magic related to parseltongue, as every snake speaking in parseltongue appears to be sapient, even the (apparently?) nonmagical boa constrictor pre-Hogwarts, and snakes aren't (irl). I'd probably say that someone did some giant ritual that made all snakes sapient and capable of parseltongue.
And then the wall wasn't a parselmouth itself, so the chamber of secrets has always had a password of "strangled hissing noise," which is the sound parselmouths tend to make when saying "open," but is a nonmagical sound which could be replicated by random attempts (but nobody would try because they don't know how parseltongue works, and they aren't as boneheaded as Ron).
 
Last edited:
It's also possible that it's an inherently magical language. See also Mermish: we know that several wizards know it, presumably through regular language-learning rather than inborn magical ability, but it's intelligible as English (including rhymes) underwater. Maybe it's English-Mermish (given that the merfolk in question are in a lake in Scotland), or maybe it's magically translated to the listener's native language in general underwater, comparable to Parselmouths automatically understanding Parseltongue.
 
One version I have seen, the magic of a Parseltongue makes snakes that you converse with sentient, and if the snake gets far away enough from the Parseltongue, the magic fades and they lose the sentience.
 
Hmm.
I'd say probably there aren't enough valid distinct syllables of hissing noises for it to be a legit language, and so it's just meaningless hissing noises while the actual magical talent attaches meaning to the hissing noises.
And snakes clearly have some kind of magic related to parseltongue, as every snake speaking in parseltongue appears to be sapient, even the (apparently?) nonmagical boa constrictor pre-Hogwarts, and snakes aren't (irl). I'd probably say that someone did some giant ritual that made all snakes sapient and capable of parseltongue.
I think it's easier and cheaper to make a ritual, that makes snakes more cognizant (Tangent: and maybe sapient - appearance of sapience might a be a spell construct A.I., think of it as exocortex virtual intelligence - the snake isn't fully sapient, the exocortex VI isn't fully sapient, but together they can make a coherent sense in a simple enough conversation - so a little snek wouldn't get any existential dread or anything, because it wasn't actually uplifted - both conversationalists stay the same. But otherwise who knows? Magic can be as bonkers as writers want it), once they are in direct communication range with a Parseltongue carrier (it's question, whether they keep it out of this range and for how long).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top