The Endless Possibilities of Squibs

[harpsi_fizz]

Diddle's posts always bring out waves of comments, and for good reason. The points brought up are thought provoking, if not a little depressing. To me, people who would call this community a "bunch of bitter, angry shippers" are incapable of having intellectual discussions. This place is a beautiful thing: we love the series so much that we can

Comments

[condwiramurs]

Interesting ideas. It is a shame that wizards are so...exclusionary.

Nitpick: potions does require the active use of magic, it just doesn't require *wands.* A Muggle trying to make a potion would just get a toxic mess.

[harpsi_fizz]

Really? But it was only in the HBP year that I saw Hermione needing to use magic for her potions. The other times, it looked like chopping and measuring.

I'm just saying, I don't remember magic for the potions in book 3 and book 2.

[condwiramurs]

The books don't go into explicit detail about the composition of every potion, so we don't see every step. But transference of magic could easily take place during stirring for example - just because there aren't words and gestures with a wand doesn't mean no *magic* is occurring.

[harpsi_fizz]

That makes sense.

I'll modify the idea a little and say that the Squibs would instead take a different sort of potions class. One that was more about the application of potions (as lynn_waterfall suggested "a squib could *use* a lot of magic that was essentially *done* by others") and creating potions that were made without magic. There have to be at least a few that don't require magic, but that a non-magical person wouldn't come up with because the ingredients required magic to obtain.

I always thought that potions were like cook books- following the directions exactly would yield the same results and only the oh-so-clever wizards were smart enough to know which ingredients to mix.

[condwiramurs]

Following standard instructions, if you are a witch/wizard, will get you a lowest-common-denominator potion, is the impression I get: something that works well enough but isn't a particularly powerful version of the potion, or slightly less stable, etc. Whereas someone who knows potions well and has an intuitive grasp of it could create more subtle and powerful effects, not only because of their knowledge of how to mix things but of the character of the magic they infuse into the potion - the will, intent, etc. They also could create new potions and modify existing ones with less trial-and-error

[cured4life]

I suppose that is what JKR meant but wouldn't it have been wise to have the Potions teachers show the class how to channel their magic without a wand into the potion making process then?

[ioanna_ioannina]

I think the Squibs could be excellent as handlers of (already created) potions, because they could feel the power, but not to add any more magic to it. So I can see them e.g. in apothecaries. A potioneer in the lab, a Squib seller in the front of the shop.

[harpsi_fizz]

Yes! That job is perfect. It says "we aren't capable of doing this, but with your gifts, you are" which Filch doesn't get in his current job.

[condwiramurs]

For example, the ingredients we know of for the draught of living death are all ordinary non-magical plants. The magic can't come merely from ingredients alone.

[harpsi_fizz]

I do get what you're saying, and agree that some potions must use magic, but when I saw draught of living death, I always thought that was nothing more than what Juliet drank in the play.

[sharaz_jek]

Shakespeare's grasp of botany is unlikely to have been much better than his grasp of geography, historical accuracy, continuity, etc. The apothecary's potion is a plot device rather than something likely to work with real plants.

[sharaz_jek]

And to clarify, since I think I misunderstood your comment, the draught of living death is almost certainly magical seeing as how I don't think asphodel and wormwood can in real life produce a sedative powerful enough to simulate death. (Or Snape was just simplifying and they aren't the only ingredients).

[oryx_leucoryx]

From Famous Wizards Cards

Leticia Somnolens
Medieval, dates unknown.
This spiteful hag was jealous of the king's daughter and caused her to prick her finger on a spindle tainted with a Draught of the Living Death. A young wizard who had smeared his lips with Wiggenweld potion kissed the princess and brought her out of her trance.

----------------

It appears the Draught of Living Death causes suspended animation.

[lynn_waterfall]

True. There is Care of Magical Creatures, though, which also probably doesn't require magic at all, any more than Herbology.

Working in the library wouldn't require magic, either. Hey, maybe Irma Pince is a squib, too, but just conceals it better.

Also... considering how many charmed objects there are in the WW, not to mention the existence of potions, it seems to me that a squib could *use* a lot of magic that was essentially *done* by others. Not to mention the possibility of squibs (from some families, at least) potentially having house elves to help them out.

[oryx_leucoryx]

In HBP when Irma sees that Harry's Potions book is defaced (by the Prince's corrections and spells) she causes the inkpot to chase harry out of the library. I think she is a witch.

[lynn_waterfall]

I just checked that scene in my electronic version, and I didn't see anything like that. Maybe the file's damaged, but I don't have the printed book with me on vacation. Maybe it's in another scene?

Oddly, in that scene you mentioned, Hermione has the line "-- so it would be down to Filch to realise it wasn't a cough potion, and he's not a very good wizard, I doubt he can tell one potion from --"

I'd ask if JKR forgot Filch was a squib, except this is the book where Hagrid calls him a "sneakin' squib." (shakes head)