21

Information from the official website of J.K.Rowling is generally considered canon. I remember at least one case when she 'changed her mind' after a particular rule has been published on her website (what happens with a secret if a Secret Keeper dies). Nevertheless, the information from the website can generally be considered reliable.

A rather obscure piece of information is J.K.Rowling's Wizards' Ordinary Magic and Basic Aptitude Test (W.O.M.B.A.T.) published on her website in 2007 and now accessible with a Time Turner.

In particular, we know that only one of the following options is correct (as the software allows you to choose only one option):

Which of the following is CORRECT?
a. Food can be conjured out of thin air.
b. Any object can be Transfigured into food.
c. Foodstuffs can be increased, Transfigured, summoned from a distance and magically cooked.
d. It is impossible to make the inedible, edible.
e. Food-related Charms are some of the simplest forms of magic.

W.O.M.B.A.T. Grade 3, 13 June 2007, question 8

The test appeared on J.K.Rowling's website before the release of Book 7, but we can almost safely assume that there was no time for J.K.Rowling to change her mind after compiling the test (though she must have submitted these questions weeks before they were eventually published).

As Hermione explained in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows:

Your mother can’t produce food out of thin air, no one can. Food is the first of the five Principal Exceptions to Gamp’s Law of Elemental Transfigura[tion]. 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...

It means that the correct option is c, and therefore all other statements are false. So, apparently, you can make food out of something else, though not any object can be transfigured into food. Can you come up with any example of such transformation mentioned in the books?

  • 2
    Good question! Even the HP Wiki doesn't come up with an example of transmigration of something into food. It suggests conjuring an animal, but even then the conjured animal would not last forever. – user56 Sep 18 '11 at 11:13
  • 2
    Could you eat the conjured animal? – Xantec Sep 18 '11 at 12:33
  • 1
    Does turning a teacup into a rat count (Or visa versa?) – PearsonArtPhoto Sep 18 '11 at 16:52
  • I would vote this up a 100 times if I could. Great question! – ykombinator Sep 19 '11 at 13:38
12

The science of transfiguration is not well-explained (it is magic after all), except for Gamp's Law concerning the creation of food out of thin air. However, it is generally implied that there are limits; there are four other exceptions to Gamp's Law, just as a start.

In-universe, it's specifically the conjuration of food that is impossible; the creation of food out of nonbeing. You can Vanish food (meaning to send it into nonbeing), you can Summon it from somewhere else, Banish it to a different place, you can clone it with a Geminio charm and thus have double the amount, and you can transfigure food into some other form, all of which are transfiguration. However, in all instances within the arc, you never see a plate of hot prepared food created out of nothing with a single spell. Instead, you start with raw materials, and can use magic to aid in the preparation of food. It's explained in Book 4 (though not in the GoF movie) that the food on the House tables magically appears after first being prepared below in the kitchens by the house-elves, placed on tables directly underneath the Great Hall, then transported upwards to similar plates on the House tables. That's the only instance of food seeming to come out of nowhere.

It is also hinted that transfiguration, while not particularly painful to a living thing, does not actually turn one thing into the other. Horace Slughorn, for instance, transfigures himself into a broken overstuffed chair to hide from the Dark wizards he thinks are coming for him. Dumbledore undoes the spell, but it would be a pretty fair guess that Slughorn would have also had the means to reverse it somehow, otherwise he'd be a chair forever; not a brilliant escape. That means he didn't actually become a chair, he just took on the appearance of one.

By the same token, if you were to turn a rock into a rock lobster, it may look like a lobster and walk like a lobster, but if you were to boil it, I would imagine it would taste like a rock, because it wasn't really a lobster; it was a transfigured, artificially animated rock.

That would be the simplest theory behind the rules, in-universe. Out-of-universe, I would imagine it was simply some hand-waving on Rowling's part to explain why, if magic could do all these wonderful things, wizards could still go hungry. There's a lot of other explanations involved in limiting the power of magic in certain touchy circumstances (bringing people back from the dead, for instance), much of which is very simply to service the plot of the novels.

5

The single closest example I can find, when using the Lexicon as a resource, is an example that came from the first book, chapter 8. Professor McGonagall changes her desk into a pig. One could presumably cook the pig, and eat it.

4

This might be a trick question. Note that there is no mention of magic in option (d). So if you take some plant or animal that is inedible raw, and then cook it, you are proving it wrong. Even wheat or rice fit: they are practically inedible raw.

So this question may show whether the wizard may solve problems with ordinary skills where magic fails.

  • +1 because I think cooking is the answer here, but magic doesn't even fail with this. You can use magic to cook something, accomplishing task d, since "foodstuffs can be... magically cooked". – sumelic Jun 23 '15 at 2:22
1

I know this is an old topic, but I found this very interesting. As you say, answer c is right, so that means d is incorrect and it is possible to turn the inedible into something edible.

This sounds to me, that if you turn an object into a pig, like McGonagall did, you could eat it. Someone here said that transfiguration doesn't last, that the transfigured object eventually changes back to its previous state, but I can't remember ever reading that. After all, in st. Mungo's there are healers to reverse transfigurations, which sounds like you could be stuck with it of nobody actively undoes it.

Now I would imagine that one of the other exeptions to elemental transfiguration would be life. This could mean that the transfigured pig wouldn't be truly alive, perhaps because it has no soul. But I don't see a reason why it would taste like a desk if you ate it. I don't remeber exactly what Rowling said about transfiguration, but it was something along the lines of 'transfiguration changes the thing's essential being'. That would mean that the pig truly isn't a desk anymore.

Answe c also states that you can transfigure food, although it doesn't say specifically if that goes both ways.

Essentially, I don't think wizards can create life, but I do think they can transfigure the physical qualities of something edible, like skin and muscles etc.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.