Potterverse - Vanishing Spell

[AKM sama]

We treat it as Existence Erasure based on a single statement- that objects vanish "into non-being, which is to say, everything". (non-being means a state of non-existence, but how it means "everything" is beyond me)

However, there are several reasons which indicate that it's not EE:

• Bill uses the spell to vanish important plans of the Order of the Phoenix so that Harry can't see them. Since the plan was important enough that Mrs. Weasley actually repaired the burned parchment before it was vanished, it means that anything vanished by the spell is retrievable.

• When Colin wanted signed pictures of Harry, Harry wished he knew a good vanishing spell to escape the embarrassment, not be erased from existence.

• A spell that can erase anything, sounds almost as dangerous as the Avada-Kedavra. One would think it should be an unforgivable curse. But even Imperio and Crucio are deemed more dangerous than Evanesco.

• The ministry forbids adult wizards to perform curses like Imperio and Crucio, yet teachers make 15 year-olds erase living animals from existence?

If we consider these points, it becomes clear that Evanesco does NOT result in Existence Erasure.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that this seems to make sense.

 

[Sabriae]

Do we know how things are retrieved? Does it require a reversal spell, or can it wear off over time? If it is the first case, then it becomes Existence Erasure as long as it is never reversed, but if it simply wears off in time then it's more a temporary BFR.

If there is a reversal spell then it must work for anyone, not just the person who originally cast the spell, or they definitely would not be letting 15 year-olds use it on live animals. Or is there a generic spell nullifier that would work? Way too long since I read the books to remember.

Also, I doubt Harry wishing he knew a good vanishing spell should be considered as a statement about Evanesco itself, since he doesn't know one at the time and therefore is unlikely to have a deep understanding of the mechanics of it either.

 

[DMB_1]

Usually, "vanishing" or "dissappearing" spells in fiction translate to some sort of BFR.

 

[AKM sama]

@DMB I agree.

@Sabriae They never told us how things are retrieved or gave a detailed explanation of what happens to the vanished things. We only know that the conjuring spell is the opposite of vanishing spell and is even more difficult.

 

[Sabriae]

So we can't say the object has truly been targeted by existence erasure because "we don't really know" doesn't mean "it no longer exists". The object is just not locatable within time and space until it is retrieved. So since anyone with the knowhow and magic can return something after it's been vanished, and there's no realistic way for anyone to make sure things stay vanished, it sounds like a BFR to me.

 

[AKM sama]

Yeah, I agree.

 

[Standuser081]

I agree too. Unless we can prove that the victim is actually erased from exisctence, it's probably just BFR.

 

[Antvasima]

So should the suggested changes be applied?

 

[AKM sama]

There is only little to change in a few profiles so I will make the changes when I'm free later. Until then, anybody willing to give more input should be free to do so.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[AKM sama]

There is one more thing.

The vanishing spell becomes more difficult to execute with the increase in the complexity of the animal to be vanished. That's why we don't see people using Evanesco on other people. They can at best vanish small objects like weapons or other small animals.

I think this should also be noted down in the weaknesses.

 

[Antvasima]

That is probably fine.

 

[AKM sama]

I am done with the changes. I think we can close this thread now.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.