In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, said prince turned out to be the inventor of the many advanced dark spells written in its margins, including Sectumsempra. How exactly did he do this? Was the process for how a spell is created for the first time (discovered?) ever elaborated on by Rowling?
17024
In the Harry Potter series, are wizards capable of creating their own spells, or are they limited to the spells that they're taught/learn?  I seem to remember something about Snape creating sectumsempra, but I'm not sure if that really is the case.
87199
In the first book Hermione mentions that she has tried a few spells, before ever arriving at Hogwarts, Sorcerer's Stone, Ch 6:     I've tried a few spells just for practice and it's all worked for me.   Clearly she didn't get into trouble for that. In the second book after Dobby performs a Hover Charm Harry receives a letter from the Ministry of Magic, in Ch 2:     We have received intelligence that a Hover Charm was used at your place of       residence this evening at twelve minutes past nine.      As you know, underage wizards are not permitted to perform spells outside school,       and further spellwork on your part may lead to expulsion from said school (Decree for       the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Socery, 1875, Paragraph C).        We would also ask you to remember that any magical activity that risks notice by        members of the non-magical community (Muggles) is a serious offense under section 13       of the International Confederation of Warlocks' Statute of Secrecy.   In the fifth book (Order of the Phoenix) Ch 2 Harry receives a letter after saving Dudley from the Dementors:     We have received intelligence that you performed the Patronus Charm at twenty-       three minutes past nine this evening in a Muggle-inhabited area in the presence of a        Muggle.      The severity of this breach of the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of        Underage Sorcery has resulted in your expulsion from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft        and Wizardry. Ministry representatives will be calling at your place of residence        shortly to destroy your wand.      As you have already received an official warning for a previous offense under        section 13 of the International Confederation of Wizards' Statute of Secrecy, we        regret to inform you that your presence is required at a disciplinary hearing at        the Ministry of Magic at 9 A.M. on August 12th.   Students appear to use magic outside of Hogwarts, without getting in trouble, except for Harry Potter. In the movies the violations are even worse, with Hermione repairing Harry's glasses, Harry casting Lumos Maxima repeatedly in his bedroom.   What is the level of severity (or complexity) of spell which will generate the notice of the Ministry of Magic?
111389
I think the first time we see an animal or supposedly living being created by a spell in Harry Potter is when Harry and his friends are in the Transfigurations class and Professor McGonagall turns her desk into a pig and back into a desk.  There's also a reference, in the same scene, that Harry realizes it'll be a while before the students are changing furniture into animals.  I don't remember reading anything in the books (but a few of mine have been loaned out and haven't come back for months and months!), but wondered if there was anything elsewhere, from JKR or other somewhat authoritative sources about whether animals created by transfigurations or by other spells are actually alive.  Are they full biologically complete versions of the animals?  If so, do they have the same sense of awareness of an authentic version of the same animal?  I can't remember whether or not I read somewhere that spells can't create life.  If that is the case, then what drives the behavior in an animal created by a spell?
84825
Where was Alastor Moody during Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince?  He did survive the Battle of Department of Mysteries in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and he somehow disappeared in Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, and re-appeared again at the start of book Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.  Why was he missing/not mentioned?
100931
Inspired by  I was wondering why the Half Blood Prince left his book as a class copy. One would think that it was precious to him, since he invested so much in it. He made up potions and spells up by his own. I would expect him to keep it to himself. Both, because of the personal value of it, and to prevent others to (as happened at last) use his work (misguided and/or against him).  Is there any canon explanation why his book was left as class copy?
76448
In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Dumbledore orders Harry to retrieve the memory about the talk with Tom Riddle/Voldemort from Slughorn. The memory is said to be needed because it contains valuable information that is needed to defeat him. The result is that they know that Voldemort uses Horcruxes.  Why do they not know this before? If the knowledge about Horcruxes is present in school books (albeit forbidden section) and teachers, then surely some magical academics will already have guessed that Voldemort would try to use them?  Also, if I recall correctly, there is a hint in the first book, "some thought that he was no longer alive enough to be able to really die" which hints a lot at the split soul as a price you pay for being immortal.  Why does Slughorn's memory seem so crucial to Dumbledore?
19927
In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, after Harry eavesdropped on Malfoy on the Hogwarts Express, Malfoy cast Petrificus Totalus on Harry while Harry was wearing his Invisibility Cloak.   How did the spell work, when Deathly Hallows tells us that no spell used against the Invisibility Cloak will work? (Harry's cloak was not an ordinary cloak and was a gift by Death, himself, to his ancestors, passed down to him)  To prove my point, sometime later in Deathly Hallows, one of the Death Eaters tried to Accio the cloak to find Harry, which didn't work.  So this contradicts J.K. Rowling theory.     Ah, but the Third Hallows is true Cloak of Invisibility, Miss   Granger! I mean to say, it is not a traveling cloak imbued with   a Disillusionment Charm, or carrying a Bedazzling Hex or else   woven from Demiguise hair, which will hide one initially but fade   with the years until it turns opaque. We are talking about a cloak   that really and truly renders the wearer completely invisible, and   endures eternally, giving constant and impenetrable concealment,   no matter what spells are cast at it. How many cloaks have you   ever seen like that, Miss Granger?
16568
Although not completely analogous, there do seem to be some similarities between Sauron's "soul" embodied in the  and Voldemort's "soul" embodied in a Horcrux.   Has JKR ever talked about the inspiration of creating the Horcrux idea?  I'm wondering if she has ever discussed this aspect in her numerous interviews/tweets/etc.
87230
Based on discussion in comments on , was Severus Snape a Death Eater (real one, with Dark Mark) before he overheard Sybil give the Prophecy to Dumbledore and relayed it to Voldemort? Or was he made a DE after that?  Canon sources only please (books/interviews/Pottermore)
34879
From HP :     J. K. Rowling revealed in Pottermore that Prof. Quirinus Quirrell served as a temporary Horcrux when Voldemort's soul possessed his body during Harry Potter's first year at Hogwarts. (source: )   QUESTION:  Seeing how at that point Quirrell was inhabited by the "main" fragment of Voldemort's soul (and that fact was something 100% clear and obvious from "HP&amp;SS" book), does the statement above mean that somehow there actually were *two fragments of it in Quirrell, one "main" and one "Horcrux"?* If not, then what's the "reveal" part?
100377
As the answer to  question ponders, Dumbledore seems to have left a lot of information out when giving Harry, Ron and Hermione their Horcrux assignment. Let's consider the following points.    Harry didn't know how to destroy Horcruxes.     "I wonder how Dumbledore destroyed the ring?" said Harry. "Why didn't I ask him? I never really..."      His voice trailed away: he was thinking of all the things he should have asked Dumbledore, and of how, since the Headmaster had died, it seemed to Harry that he had wasted so many opportunities, when Dumbledore had been alive, to find out more...to find out everything...      (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 6, "The Ghoul in Pyjamas")  Dumbledore made no plans to inform Harry of how to destroy Horcruxes.  It was only sheer, dumb luck/quick thinking on Hermione's part that meant that the trio knew the theory of Horcrux-destruction. Dumbledore just left the Hogwarts library books lying around in his office and made no attempt to bequeath them to Harry. At the start of their quest they had no practical means of destroying them. Harry felt hurt and betrayed that Dumbledore knew but didn't tell him.     He could not hide it from himself: Ron had been right. Dumbledore had left him with virtually nothing. They had discovered one Horcrux, but they had no means of destroying it: the others were as unattainable as they had ever been.      (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 16, "Godric's Hollow")  Dumbledore had no reason not to tell Harry.  Knowing how to destroy Horcruxes is clearly an integral part of any mission to destroy Horcruxes! With the Hallows, Dumbledore later says that he had intended to be cryptic in an attempt to let Hermione's natural caution prevent Harry from going too power-hungry. This is not the case with the Horcruxes. Dumbledore knew his official will would be subject to Ministry of Magic intrusion.  Regardless of whether the Ministry's motives were kind or cruel Dumbledore clearly knew that the bylaw about the Ministry having the right to search will items could provide difficulties in terms of giving things to the trio. This is evident from the care he took to hide the true meaning of Beedle's book and the elaborate magic surrounding the Snitch he gave Harry. Dumbledore must've known that the Ministry may not allow Harry to receive the Sword of Gryffindor. Trying to give it to Harry gave him a hint but this is as close as Harry gets to finding out how to destroy Horcruxes. Dumbledore had other methods of giving things to Harry.  Even though he knew that he was dying, Dumbledore obviously took care to tailor his will to helping Harry. Yet he could've simply given things to someone he trusted at Hogwarts like McGonagall to pass onto Harry. Dumbledore knew basilisk fangs would be supremely useful to Harry.  Dumbledore knew that, if Harry didn't get hold of the sword, basilisk fangs remained the main key tool Harry needed for Horcrux-destruction. Ron and Hermione ended up going down to the Chamber anyway so Dumbledore could've saved them the hassle.   Why didn't Dumbledore give Harry more of a head-start by telling him about the Basilisk fangs? And why didn't he put the fangs, the sword, the Beedle book, the Deluminator and the snitch in a box for McGonagall to give away after he died?     "From all that I've read, what Harry did to Riddle's diary was one of the few really foolproof ways of destroying a Horcrux."      "What, stabbing it with a Basilisk fang?" asked Harry.      "Oh, well, lucky we've got a large supply of Basilisk fangs, then," said Ron. "I was wondering what we were going to do with them."      (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 6, "The Ghoul in Pyjamas")
40181
I just finished The Goblet of Fire for the fourth time, but this time I read it while watching out for "Professor Moody"s behavior during school. One piece that stands out is the Defense Against the Dark Arts lesson where Barty Crouch Jr. shows all of the students the Unforgiveable Curses.   This alone wouldn't be weird, as we know it was important that Barty played the eccentric/paranoid character of Mad-Eye well. However, he makes it a point during the lesson to continue using the Imperius Curse on Harry until Harry can resist it. Ignoring the fact that Harry learned to resist one of the most dangerous curses in the magical world in an hour-long class (Aurors should sign up for that, huh?) - what possible motivation would Barty have to teach/train Harry Potter how to resist a very useful Dark spell? Voldemort, later in the same book, even tries to use the Imperius Curse on Harry and can't (one would assume this is due to the earlier training).   The argument of "fitting in" doesn't seem to apply here, as merely demonstrating the curses at all was already straining the limits of Mad Eye's eccentric reputation; plus he only repeatedly targeted Harry. He could just as easily have not aroused suspicion by showing them the curses, or Imperius-ing all of the students equally. The only thing Barty accomplished was strengthening Harry's chances against Voldemort.  There's also the possibility that he simply hated the boy who defeated his master, and as such, wanted to torture him. But in that case, why not "teach them to resist/experience" the Cruciatus Curse? It has just as flimsy of an excuse (i.e. "showing them how it works") but with far more effective results. Furthermore, making a student jump on top of a desk would hardly qualify as torture, even someone as loony as Barty.
114878
A lot of the spells in Harry Potter, including just about every offensive one like Stupefy are what I would call "missile" spells (if there's a better term for it, please tell me). That is, they basically involve shooting a spell out of your wand like a missile, as opposed to an "area of effect" form (a protective spell like Muffliato) or no really perceivable form at all (like Accio).   Do such directed spells have a limit to their range? Or will they travel until they hit something?   I'm interested because if spells have virtually infinite range and high accuracy (which is another matter), then there should be "snipers" in battles that fire curses from long range, and it would be possible to "assassinate" somebody like Voldemort or Dumbledore given appropriate conditions. Of course, people may see the spell coming, but if they're distracted enough or if there's enough interference (a firework show, for example), then this could be a very effective means of killing people from afar.
61802
In the movie, Newt reveals that the beast attacking New York was actually an Obscurus, which he explains is      a burst of dark power that manifests in witch or wizard that represses their magical power.   Now, he goes on to explain that      The oldest known Obscurial was 10 years old, but they're usually younger.   If this is true, why then      did Harry Potter or Hermione Granger not develop an Obscurus? They were not even aware magic existed until they were 11. My only thought would be that they didn't actively repress their magic, just didn't know what it was.   I don't know if there was any more detail given in a companion novel, Pottermore or the book itself, but on the wiki it made no mention of details other than was given in the movie. Are there any additional rules that would explain why this doesn't happen more often?
22036
‘You are here to learn the subtle science and exact art of potionmaking,’ [Snape] began. He spoke in barely more than a whisper, but they caught every word – like Professor McGonagall, Snape had the gift of keeping a class silent without effort. ‘As there is little foolish wand-waving here, many of you will hardly believe this is magic. I don’t expect you will really understand the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses ... I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death – if you aren’t as big a bunch of dunderheads as I usually have to teach.’&#185;   Philosopher's Stone - page 102 - Bloomsbury - chapter 8, The Potions Master   Are there any canon potions that actually grant fame or glory, or stopper death? I'm looking for specific canon-based answers from sources such as the Harry Potter books, interviews with J.K. Rowling, or information from Pottermore. Maybe because it's early I'm overlooking the obvious, but offhand I can't think of any canon potions that fit this criteria exactly.   &#185;I edited in the entire paragraph that I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death comes from for clarity. Hopefully this will be helpful and provide a better context for the comment in question.
33508
Harry: "He made seven Horcruxes?"   Dumbledore: "...Not seven Horcruxes: six. The seventh part of his soul, however maimed, resides inside his regenerated body..." (HP6, US Hardback, page 503).    I would think that Dumbledore had already known that there were 6 horcruxes:    the diary  Gaunt's ring  Salazar's locket Helga Hufflepuff's cup Nagini (the whole essence divided thing)   Now those are the five that he was sure of. He knew that when Riddle came to Hogwarts to ask for the DADA position, he was really there so he could hide a horcrux. (But he never got a chance to tell Harry that, right?) Did Dumbledore know of the diadem? Or did he just think Riddle wanted to hide the cup?   Did Dumbledore say there were 6 and not 7 because he didn't know about the diadem but did know about Harry being a horcrux? Or did he say there were 6 to ensure Harry didn't guess he was a horcrux? Sorry if this makes no sense.  I know that in the end there were 7 horcruxes and an 8th part of Voldemort's soul right?
17182
I've read J.K. Rowling's website and FAQ. I've read every interview with her that I know of. I've read all the books many, many times. I've read the HP Wikia, the Lexicon, essays, fan fiction, and even been to panels that touch on the subject of charms at HP cons.  I would like a definitive explanation on the Fidelius charm.   Who can tell who what, what happens when the Secret Keeper dies, who can say what to who? I've read so much contradicting information -- I'm pretty good at figuring these things out, but I'm stumped on this one.   How exactly does the Fidelius charm work?