Love her or hate her (and my opinions are mixed), I must confess, JK Rowling was a huge influence on why I didn’t become a regular author. No shade on people who get what they paid for, but the young reader crowd is just so gimmicky, and not in a good way, and you see that with a lot of works like Percy Jackson and Twilight (but also predominantly with Rowling’s work). How do you compete in such a no-rules game?
So then let’s talk about one of the cores of the issue. People often have an epiphany when divulging into Harry Potter, and they think “huh, what’s the deal with this if that thing is how it is”. While noting that conflicts in literary analysis don’t always reflect something that doesn’t add up and that it could be a hiccup in details/semantics, the questions themselves don’t go away. And there’s nothing that matches the amount of those having to do with Harry Potter. What example of which strikes you as the most overlooked?
If Rowling herself ever notices that I’m bringing this up, let it be known I do think of her work as a reskinned Brothers Grimm in the universe of The Worst Witch and that I’m collaborating with another author (Samantha Rinne) whose work I would argue deserves Rowling’s prestige if Rowling’s work deserves it. Thanks (and here is where I run for the hills).
I think there’s a bit in the first book where Harry says his parents were shot, and Hagrid laughs and says no muggle gun could have killed them.
But like, why not? It’s never explained. I’m sure if they survived being shot, magic medicine would sort them out pretty quickly. But there’s no reassign to think a gun couldn’t kill them. Wizards struggle to react fast enough to block spell s most of the time, and bullets seem to move faster than that.
I think the hardest part would be successfully ambushing Voldy, but no reason to think a gun wouldn’t fuck him up if you can hit him.
No, there’s not. Harry thinks they died in a car crash. He remembers a green light, but he never imagined them getting gunned down on the street. The story doesn’t happen in America, remember?
Yes, you’re right, I think I’ve mixed that up with the mention that Sirius had a gun when he ”killed” Pettigrew. There doesn’t seem to be any mention that guns wouldn’t work on wizards, other than maybe Hagrid’s lack of fear of Vernon Dursley’s gun when he got to Harry.
I think you would have to be really quick with a gun or up against a dumb wizard. There are all sorts of things they can do to distort reality and they don’t even have to aim with their wand for most spells.
You also would want to go for headshots or mag dump into them. They can apparate in like a second and they have next level healing tech if they escape.
I can’t remember if it’s mentioned in the books, but I think the idea is that Muggle technology stops working in the presence of magic. Guns would jam, electronics would brick, etc.
Granted, this raises the question of where do you draw the line? For example, the magical world has countless exploding substances. What if they took some, stuffed it down a long metal tube, insterted a small metal object in front of it, then set fire to the explosive stuff from the back end? That’s basically a gun or cannon, and it’s hard to argue that it’s technologically complex.