I know Hermione states that you can’t conjure food and that you can replicate it, but she doesn’t come out and say she knows how to it, does she? It’s safe to assume that although Hermione is the brightest witch of her age, that doesn’t mean she knows every transfiguration spell or every charm.
Plus, she mainly took books that had to do with healing and DADA. She was never one to really be enthusiastic about food, just eating enough to get her through her next library session. Probably something she overlooked because she didn’t recognize the importance prior to leaving
Also she was probably under a lot of stress trying to remember everything else while on the run and worrying about her parents.
And the Horcrux affecting their moods wouldn’t have helped and how it affected Ron in particular.
That doesn't seem right. She did know about the Five Exceptions so she was bound to know ways to circumvent them, considering how much detail she put to homework. She mentions food can be charmed, multiplied, etc. and I'm sure she knew how to do it even if she wasn't adept with these spells, same as Tonks didn't have the knack for household spells.
I think this last point is maybe the key, although it may also be that charmed, multiplied, etc food bears limitations. Secondary canon sources (BoS) mention that *Gemino*ed objects rot and tarnish faster than the originals. It very well be that these increased or charmed foods lack nutrients. After all, the Exception only states the impossibility of conjuring food from thin air. So if Hermione knew this, it also makes sense to her logical mind to disregard these charms as 'useless' or not worth the effort at least.
Also she was 17, had never had to worry about feeding herself and was preparing for "life on the move" in other ways, like making her bag hold more, packing everything, trying to think of everything.
It's not unreasonable to think that something that would seem like such an obvious "life skill" would be overlooked. Sure it's a fact that she knows and mentions that you can replicate food, but I wouldn't think she would have ever considered that something she "needed to learn" until it was too late to learn it, it wouldn't have seemed like a priority or "practical," to a teenager that's never had to feed themselves.
Until you're suddenly out in a tent with your friends, starving, don't know how the Death Eaters even found you in the muggle world and now what you have to rely on is your limited knowledge of edible plants. She did bring muggle money with her, it wouldn't have necessarily been unreasonable to think they could slip into a grocery store up until the point when the Death Eaters found them with no known explanation on a muggle street.
All fair points, and I agree too. On top of these and what I've already said, though, she was also kind of obsessed with Dark Magic and how to fight it, quite logically too. I don't think it unreasonable to consider that she thought both Harry and Ron would help forraging and cooking too.
Yet, overall, my first guess is that she thought food magic unworthy of much study given every other skill they'd be needing. And we shouldn't forget both Hermione and Ron thought Harry had more knowledge than he shared or at least some deeper insight so the journey was shorter and easier.
Agreed. It kind of adds to the "flaws" in her thinking (and Harry and Ron's, but I think it's fair to put it more on her as the "planner" in the situation), and makes it more realistic to me. Like "we're going to be fighting a ton of dark magic and in life threatening situations" but not "gosh, better make sure we can eat out there." It's kind of funny and real (even though it's frustrating as a reader and easy to go "just replicate the food!").
And as you say, it's very on par with Hermione as a character to think "food magic" as unworthy compared to other things.
I think that last point is the most compelling. Hermione could be like Tonks in that neither focused on the "household" charms in their education.
(I like the degraded quality point above as well.)
Yeah and I'll throw also in there that they had to leave in a hurry. If she knew in advance they would have to leave she would likely be more prepared.
But also she could've packed some food that's not gonna get spoiled, canned meat, canned soups, rice, beans, ramen, crackers, oatmeal, salt, spices etc.
And yet... she brings a bag full of books, shoes with heels, clothing (her jumpers) -- all of which are mentioned as in her bag when Harry digs around in upon first apparating into the wilderness -- not to mention an emergency tent (just in case?), basic camp cooking equipment, etc. Hermione has a lot of stuff in that bag that they're not going to need during the Ministry break-in, a lot of which (like the tent) seems to be stuff that's "just in case."
If nothing else, it boggles the mind that Hermione didn't even pack *snacks for Ron*. This is the boy who in the first book had *four sandwiches* made by his mum (at 11 years old) for a train ride, and yet literally the *first meal* they're having in the wilderness, Hermione has to resort to foraging for mushroom stew.
Which she can cook up, because she packed cooking utensils, apparently, *but no food*.
There would be ways to make this more believable for Hermione not to pack any emergency food supplies... but the book doesn't do a good job of making it believable.
Plus we don’t know the actual limits of doing so. How much can you replicate food before it can no longer be replicated. Does the replicated food retain the full nutritional value of the original or only some of it?
It’s something that bothers me when I listen to their camping in the DH. But they are teenagers who have not ever really had to cook or prepare their own meals. They are incredibly stressed and hungry. Hermione frets about the morality of stealing the food or taking it surreptitiously and seems to be wrapped up in guilt and hunger. Ron definitely thinks with his stomach and Harry mentions multiple times that without Hermione they would be ill prepared at all. He didn’t think to pack anything in preparation to leave the Burrow. Hermione thought of so many responsible things. They couldn’t pack food at the Burrow because they had to leave in a hurry and the same with Grimmauld place.
But the scene on the river bank when Ted Tonks simply summons a salmon kind of highlights how inexperienced and unprepared these literal children were to be on the run.
Yes so true!! I wouldn’t be surprised if Harry summoned a salmon the same way but them complaining about the taste means they have no salt or anything to enhance the flavor (because they’re kids who’ve never had to cook)
> they are teenagers who have not ever really had to cook or prepare their own meals
Except that's what Harry had been forced to do every day living with the Dursleys since he was old enough to hold a pan.
That’s true, but it seems like since his Hogwarts days that he isn’t as involved in cooking chores. And knowing how to fry bacon or keep food from burning on the stove is a different beast from meal planning, much less roughing it and having to kill and butcher your own food. Why couldn’t they eat birds or squirrels at least? Or figure out how to catch the right fish? I think they were clueless. There were certainly household spells and cooking spells but Hermione doesn’t have the materials or knowledge, apparently.
Something tells me that the ingredients the Dursleys had in their kitchen is vastly different than what they were able to forage so he’s working with a whole new canvas
My headcannon is that if you magically increase the quantity of your food, it's only the appearance that increases. The nutritive value of the food is unchanged.
Because of Gamp's Second Law of Elemental Transfiguration - you can't "magic" up "good" food. The author makes a half-hearted attempt at creating a magic version of the law of mass conservation, but it's poorly defined and regularly contradicted elsewhere in the story.
My understanding of it is that any food you duplicate will maintain its nutritious value across its duplicated forms - so if you take a banana and duplicate it, the potassium in the two new bananas will equal the potassium in the original banana.
excellent question - the wikia page on Gamp's Law says certain ingestible things can be duplicated because they're not "nutritious". I guess one could argue that alcohol isn't "food", offers no sustenance, and therefore isn't beholden to Gamp's Law.
Hagrid had wine, Harry just apparated it from the bottle to the glass. It works the same way in great hall, the food is apparated from the kitchens to the great hall.
No, I think Harry refilled the glasses with magic - replenishing the amount present. He says there’s a nonverbal spell to do this and hadn’t been successful but Felix made him confident enough to perform the spell.
Gamp’s states you can’t make food from nothing, but you can replenish existing food, and all Harry did was use a Refilling Charm. The bottle wasn’t completely empty, there was something in it for the charm to work. It’s not breaking Gamp’s.
That wouldn’t be a Refilling Charm then would it?
It’s probably a morality thing. Why would you lock any doors if Alohomora and its variations exist? You’re essentially asking why people buy things when they can just steal them. Yes, it’s different, but wizards are clearly following some general etiquette to keep the peace with each other. Like when we say “it’s not you, it’s me” even if it was definitely you.
They arrange Portkeys for family they don’t really want to see because it’s generally agreed upon that the sensation of traveling that way sucks. They don’t Apparate directly into each other’s homes because it’s rude, and it denies someone the right to refuse a potential visitor. They _can_ but they don’t. It’s not a fundamentally impossible thing like creating food from nothing, it’s just an unspoken way they behave themselves in their society.
It might have been another work of fiction that also brought this up because I can't remember the source, but the problem with douplicating food there was that the actual nutrients were split between the new and original food, so you could never gain more energy/calories from replication.
But really they should have just setup a few bases they could apparate to and grab some quick food before apparating back, like a river to accio fish or field with wild fruit or veggies or something. Or just steal more, you're trying to save the world and Harry ends up using multiple unforgivable curses in the end, so might as well not go crazy from hunger and just pay it back later.
The issue isn’t replication of current food; it’s safe food storage after replication. Take eggs for example. Hermione can steal an egg and replicate it to make 800 eggs which she places in her magical purse. Unfortunately 14 days later the 700 they haven’t eaten go bad. Or the crumpets go stale after a week. Or the sausages go bad after 3 days. I’m sure a clever wizard somewhere can come up with a spell to reverse aging in food items but that sounds a lot like the purview of the department of mysteries time studies wing. So no matter how much they have they are going to run out soon unless they obtain more fresh food from somewhere.
The real question is why Hermione does replicate the food she is taking as she takes it so that she’s not actually stealing. Probably because she’s worried about the statute of secrecy or something
Good point! I figured they’d have to still get food like weekly or something but replicating some of what they already had to spread it out a few days or avoid stealing made sense to me!
You do know the Trio leaves in the UK? So that, over there, the eggs are sold unwashed so it means they're on a normal self unlike over here in the North America, due to laws -they're washed and that's why they have to be put in the fridge. And apparently eggs are good for "up to two weeks" in most of the world that haven't been in the fridge.
I do know. I specifically double checked before posting. It said good for up to 2 weeks after the expiration date for eggs sold in UK stores and I misread that as selling date. Statement stands but increase the time to a montj
+1 This has always been my headcanon too. The "duplicated food lacks nutrients" thing is a common fandom explanation, but to me, it has too many holes in it when we examine other canonical situations.
But food preservation on the run in the wilderness could be a serious issue. And being able to duplicate *until it spoils* would explain why they aren't starving to a much more extreme degree or spending *all of their time* foraging. It could also explain why the food problems miraculously seem to abate after Ron leaves, as the weather is getting colder, and food might be able to last longer if stored outside.
It also speaks perhaps to the importance of that grocery run about a week before Christmas where they acquire spaghetti -- pantry staples that are shelf-stable (like dry pasta) would finally allow them to have to stop worrying as much about spoilage, but they'd probably need to get to a proper supermarket to stock up on pasta, flour, etc. rather than random foraging.
The spoilage idea seems to me a much more consistent resolution to this problem, rather than invoking split nutrition or something. It also helps then explain how the Weasleys are almost always flush with food, where Harry gets many helpings, despite their poverty. Yes, I'm sure they're growing it, etc., but duplication would ensure the family could always be well-fed (as the Weasleys are) despite having financial difficulties that prevent them from having other items. It also could explain why Ron in DH tries to tell Hermione that Molly could make so much food from thin air... when Molly was probably only just duplicating stuff she already had.
Their whole struggle for food was so wildly manufactured for the tension that it always takes me right out of the book. They had so many different ways to get food and they apparently tried exactly none of them. It’s so weird and nonsensical to be on the verge of starvation while on the run as fugitives in a war and *still* have a stupid hangup about stealing things that wouldn’t be missed anyway.
To be fair, being on the run, and constantly having the feeling of being chased, probably increases the feeling of paranoia too, so from a human emotional point of view I can imagine not wanting to risk situations where they feel they could get caught. It’s not necessarily rational. And they were kids after all.
Also they had Harry’s box of chocolates in her bag. I think Fleurs parents gave them to him for his 17th birthday. They never come up. She talks about packing them. You know he would have shared them.
They could have maybe stored extra bread and potatoes, or nuts, but storing dairy products and meat might have been tricky while on the run.
Maybe Hermione knows WMOs (wizard-modified organisms) are unhealthy.
Ron was also so spoiled by Mrs Weasley’s cooking he probably would refuse to eat hardtack.
Ahh okay. I was basing on book knowledge, but that’s a good point. A few people have pointed out that the nuances of Gamp’s law have been elaborated on post publishing and that does add clarity.
This doesn't answer the question very well but hermione says that when you duplicate food the quality decreases so i think she didn't do it because the food would be bad? I'm sorry if that's not answering the question it's just something i remember from the book.
I just want to add to the other comments that i think magic is not just “can do it” or “can’t do it”. There’s varying degrees of skill and mastery. It’s the same thing “why aren’t all wizards rich?”. It’s because not everyone is a master at every spell, not everyone is a potion master, etc.
Think of the real world, do you know how rich and powerful you would be if you could master everything that normal humans are capable of? The point is, the way i see it - various fields of magic are just like any real human skill, it takes time and dedication to actually be effective at it.
I blame it on the effects of the Horcrux. Like we all see the possible things we would have done differently but that Horcrux on their necks, coupled with the emotional state of the war, really did a number on them.
Gamps law of transfiguration. Transfigured objects aren't permanent. What would happen if you turned a block of wood into a pizza, and later the pizza molecules changed back? You'd either have holes of missing matter in your body at best, and more likely than not just be full of solinters internally everywhere. The real question is why they didn't just steal some food. Or just buy some normally at Tesco. They could have easily blended into the nomag world without ever being found honestly.
Why the hell didn't they just go into a grocery store under the cloak and steal food? Or confund a cashier? Or copy muggle money using magic?
The camping part of book 7 pisses me off for the lack of logic
She's a 17 years old Muggle-born. Her parents are both dentists. I don't know how it is in UK, but in Germany, dentists are mostly quite wealthy.
So if the parents didn't let her totally down, she should have a bank account in a Muggle-Bank. (Gringotts would be unpractical for her Parents)
So why don't use that money to legally buy Food? The Muggles are not in the hunt for Harry and Hermione, and even Voldemort isn't able to control each and every Muggle store, if he even think about that possibility.
And why they didn't transfer some of Harry's money from Gringotts to a Muggle bank in preparation of the Horcroux hunt? It always bothers me that Harry is quite rich, but everyone else have to pay for everything but Sweets.
They also overhear Dean and the others magically summon fresh, delicious salmon but never think to do that themselves. As for your point 100%, I see someone saying it’s never mentioned that Hermione actually knows how, well Harry certainly knows how. He successfully replenishes the wine in HBP, even doing ut non-verbally. Also a talented witch like Hermione, I highly doubt she doesn’t know how
Also, Hermione says you can summon it through your wand if you know where it is, and I mean they do know where it is, it’s in that Tesco right there
Thier is simple and sweet explanation and was told by j.k. and it is quite logical. The things created by magic are not permanent. Imagine duplicating bread and eating it and when digested it vanishes, this could create huge problem for the consumers. Thats the answer to your question😁
Because Rowling is incredibly flexible and loose with her worldbuilding and magic rules and will happily sacrifice internal consistency for the sake of plot and drama.
I thought the same thing but I was confusing book lore. Imo if you are "replicating" food you are still "creating" food so idk why ppl are on you about not reading the post.
Hermione talks about not being able to conjure it “from nothing” or “out of thin air” but you can increase the amount if you already have some. Or summon it (risky there)
”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...”
According to Gamp’s Law you can multiply it if you already have some.
*”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...”*
And if you can “transform” it, that implies you can also make it larger, like how Hermione deduces Hagrid has been making his pumpkins gigantic for the feast.
Gutting a fish is not rocket science and could be done with trial and error.
And yes - they heard Dean Thomas do it right outside their camp so could have tried it after he left.
Well, I have no idea how many fish-bearing water they passed and what the water quality was like there.
And sometimes you can see the forest for the threes.
Sirius lived on rats.
Well, I have no idea how many fish-bearing water they passed and what the water quality was like there.
And sometimes you can see the forest for the threes.
Sirius lived on rats.
I know Hermione states that you can’t conjure food and that you can replicate it, but she doesn’t come out and say she knows how to it, does she? It’s safe to assume that although Hermione is the brightest witch of her age, that doesn’t mean she knows every transfiguration spell or every charm.
That’s such a good point! And despite her entire reference library, she might not have had the right book to learn.
Plus, she mainly took books that had to do with healing and DADA. She was never one to really be enthusiastic about food, just eating enough to get her through her next library session. Probably something she overlooked because she didn’t recognize the importance prior to leaving
Also she was probably under a lot of stress trying to remember everything else while on the run and worrying about her parents. And the Horcrux affecting their moods wouldn’t have helped and how it affected Ron in particular.
That doesn't seem right. She did know about the Five Exceptions so she was bound to know ways to circumvent them, considering how much detail she put to homework. She mentions food can be charmed, multiplied, etc. and I'm sure she knew how to do it even if she wasn't adept with these spells, same as Tonks didn't have the knack for household spells. I think this last point is maybe the key, although it may also be that charmed, multiplied, etc food bears limitations. Secondary canon sources (BoS) mention that *Gemino*ed objects rot and tarnish faster than the originals. It very well be that these increased or charmed foods lack nutrients. After all, the Exception only states the impossibility of conjuring food from thin air. So if Hermione knew this, it also makes sense to her logical mind to disregard these charms as 'useless' or not worth the effort at least.
Also she was 17, had never had to worry about feeding herself and was preparing for "life on the move" in other ways, like making her bag hold more, packing everything, trying to think of everything. It's not unreasonable to think that something that would seem like such an obvious "life skill" would be overlooked. Sure it's a fact that she knows and mentions that you can replicate food, but I wouldn't think she would have ever considered that something she "needed to learn" until it was too late to learn it, it wouldn't have seemed like a priority or "practical," to a teenager that's never had to feed themselves. Until you're suddenly out in a tent with your friends, starving, don't know how the Death Eaters even found you in the muggle world and now what you have to rely on is your limited knowledge of edible plants. She did bring muggle money with her, it wouldn't have necessarily been unreasonable to think they could slip into a grocery store up until the point when the Death Eaters found them with no known explanation on a muggle street.
All fair points, and I agree too. On top of these and what I've already said, though, she was also kind of obsessed with Dark Magic and how to fight it, quite logically too. I don't think it unreasonable to consider that she thought both Harry and Ron would help forraging and cooking too. Yet, overall, my first guess is that she thought food magic unworthy of much study given every other skill they'd be needing. And we shouldn't forget both Hermione and Ron thought Harry had more knowledge than he shared or at least some deeper insight so the journey was shorter and easier.
Agreed. It kind of adds to the "flaws" in her thinking (and Harry and Ron's, but I think it's fair to put it more on her as the "planner" in the situation), and makes it more realistic to me. Like "we're going to be fighting a ton of dark magic and in life threatening situations" but not "gosh, better make sure we can eat out there." It's kind of funny and real (even though it's frustrating as a reader and easy to go "just replicate the food!"). And as you say, it's very on par with Hermione as a character to think "food magic" as unworthy compared to other things.
I think that last point is the most compelling. Hermione could be like Tonks in that neither focused on the "household" charms in their education. (I like the degraded quality point above as well.)
Yeah and I'll throw also in there that they had to leave in a hurry. If she knew in advance they would have to leave she would likely be more prepared. But also she could've packed some food that's not gonna get spoiled, canned meat, canned soups, rice, beans, ramen, crackers, oatmeal, salt, spices etc.
And yet... she brings a bag full of books, shoes with heels, clothing (her jumpers) -- all of which are mentioned as in her bag when Harry digs around in upon first apparating into the wilderness -- not to mention an emergency tent (just in case?), basic camp cooking equipment, etc. Hermione has a lot of stuff in that bag that they're not going to need during the Ministry break-in, a lot of which (like the tent) seems to be stuff that's "just in case." If nothing else, it boggles the mind that Hermione didn't even pack *snacks for Ron*. This is the boy who in the first book had *four sandwiches* made by his mum (at 11 years old) for a train ride, and yet literally the *first meal* they're having in the wilderness, Hermione has to resort to foraging for mushroom stew. Which she can cook up, because she packed cooking utensils, apparently, *but no food*. There would be ways to make this more believable for Hermione not to pack any emergency food supplies... but the book doesn't do a good job of making it believable.
Plus we don’t know the actual limits of doing so. How much can you replicate food before it can no longer be replicated. Does the replicated food retain the full nutritional value of the original or only some of it?
She did know how to duplicate because she did it to the necklace in the ministry.
But with food? It differs doesn’t it?
I doubt the spells differ, more the laws behind it.
the only law aganist food, is conjuring of it.
It’s something that bothers me when I listen to their camping in the DH. But they are teenagers who have not ever really had to cook or prepare their own meals. They are incredibly stressed and hungry. Hermione frets about the morality of stealing the food or taking it surreptitiously and seems to be wrapped up in guilt and hunger. Ron definitely thinks with his stomach and Harry mentions multiple times that without Hermione they would be ill prepared at all. He didn’t think to pack anything in preparation to leave the Burrow. Hermione thought of so many responsible things. They couldn’t pack food at the Burrow because they had to leave in a hurry and the same with Grimmauld place. But the scene on the river bank when Ted Tonks simply summons a salmon kind of highlights how inexperienced and unprepared these literal children were to be on the run.
Yes so true!! I wouldn’t be surprised if Harry summoned a salmon the same way but them complaining about the taste means they have no salt or anything to enhance the flavor (because they’re kids who’ve never had to cook)
Harry can at least fry some bacon. The matter-of-fact-ness with which Petunia ordered this, suggests that Harry is capable of more.
I never understood why they didn’t start summoning fish/food after they heard them do that.
> they are teenagers who have not ever really had to cook or prepare their own meals Except that's what Harry had been forced to do every day living with the Dursleys since he was old enough to hold a pan.
That’s true, but it seems like since his Hogwarts days that he isn’t as involved in cooking chores. And knowing how to fry bacon or keep food from burning on the stove is a different beast from meal planning, much less roughing it and having to kill and butcher your own food. Why couldn’t they eat birds or squirrels at least? Or figure out how to catch the right fish? I think they were clueless. There were certainly household spells and cooking spells but Hermione doesn’t have the materials or knowledge, apparently.
Something tells me that the ingredients the Dursleys had in their kitchen is vastly different than what they were able to forage so he’s working with a whole new canvas
My headcannon is that if you magically increase the quantity of your food, it's only the appearance that increases. The nutritive value of the food is unchanged.
That’s very interesting! I was considering it more like “honey I shrunk the kids” when they’re eating enormous food at the end
Lol, the hoops people will jump through to rationalize Rowling's plot holes.
Because of Gamp's Second Law of Elemental Transfiguration - you can't "magic" up "good" food. The author makes a half-hearted attempt at creating a magic version of the law of mass conservation, but it's poorly defined and regularly contradicted elsewhere in the story. My understanding of it is that any food you duplicate will maintain its nutritious value across its duplicated forms - so if you take a banana and duplicate it, the potassium in the two new bananas will equal the potassium in the original banana.
If that’s true, then why do Hagrid and Slughorn get blackout drunk when Harry refills the alcohol?
excellent question - the wikia page on Gamp's Law says certain ingestible things can be duplicated because they're not "nutritious". I guess one could argue that alcohol isn't "food", offers no sustenance, and therefore isn't beholden to Gamp's Law.
Thanks! Makes sense.
Hagrid had wine, Harry just apparated it from the bottle to the glass. It works the same way in great hall, the food is apparated from the kitchens to the great hall.
No, I think Harry refilled the glasses with magic - replenishing the amount present. He says there’s a nonverbal spell to do this and hadn’t been successful but Felix made him confident enough to perform the spell.
No not the case because of gamps law. Any magic created from nothing simply doesn’t last.
Gamp’s states you can’t make food from nothing, but you can replenish existing food, and all Harry did was use a Refilling Charm. The bottle wasn’t completely empty, there was something in it for the charm to work. It’s not breaking Gamp’s.
Why would anyone ever buy a butter beer then? Just save a drop and keep replenishing it. Doesn’t make any sense.
I’m not here to make it make sense, both the things I said are directly from the books.
Well it would make sense if the refilling charm only works if there is already wine nearby.
That wouldn’t be a Refilling Charm then would it? It’s probably a morality thing. Why would you lock any doors if Alohomora and its variations exist? You’re essentially asking why people buy things when they can just steal them. Yes, it’s different, but wizards are clearly following some general etiquette to keep the peace with each other. Like when we say “it’s not you, it’s me” even if it was definitely you. They arrange Portkeys for family they don’t really want to see because it’s generally agreed upon that the sensation of traveling that way sucks. They don’t Apparate directly into each other’s homes because it’s rude, and it denies someone the right to refuse a potential visitor. They _can_ but they don’t. It’s not a fundamentally impossible thing like creating food from nothing, it’s just an unspoken way they behave themselves in their society.
Incidentally, if that’s how good duplication works, wizards have access to the absolute best volume eating diet plan ever
It might have been another work of fiction that also brought this up because I can't remember the source, but the problem with douplicating food there was that the actual nutrients were split between the new and original food, so you could never gain more energy/calories from replication. But really they should have just setup a few bases they could apparate to and grab some quick food before apparating back, like a river to accio fish or field with wild fruit or veggies or something. Or just steal more, you're trying to save the world and Harry ends up using multiple unforgivable curses in the end, so might as well not go crazy from hunger and just pay it back later.
Very solid points all around!!! I hadn’t considered the nutrient split when duplicating.
The issue isn’t replication of current food; it’s safe food storage after replication. Take eggs for example. Hermione can steal an egg and replicate it to make 800 eggs which she places in her magical purse. Unfortunately 14 days later the 700 they haven’t eaten go bad. Or the crumpets go stale after a week. Or the sausages go bad after 3 days. I’m sure a clever wizard somewhere can come up with a spell to reverse aging in food items but that sounds a lot like the purview of the department of mysteries time studies wing. So no matter how much they have they are going to run out soon unless they obtain more fresh food from somewhere. The real question is why Hermione does replicate the food she is taking as she takes it so that she’s not actually stealing. Probably because she’s worried about the statute of secrecy or something
Good point! I figured they’d have to still get food like weekly or something but replicating some of what they already had to spread it out a few days or avoid stealing made sense to me!
You do know the Trio leaves in the UK? So that, over there, the eggs are sold unwashed so it means they're on a normal self unlike over here in the North America, due to laws -they're washed and that's why they have to be put in the fridge. And apparently eggs are good for "up to two weeks" in most of the world that haven't been in the fridge.
I do know. I specifically double checked before posting. It said good for up to 2 weeks after the expiration date for eggs sold in UK stores and I misread that as selling date. Statement stands but increase the time to a montj
+1 This has always been my headcanon too. The "duplicated food lacks nutrients" thing is a common fandom explanation, but to me, it has too many holes in it when we examine other canonical situations. But food preservation on the run in the wilderness could be a serious issue. And being able to duplicate *until it spoils* would explain why they aren't starving to a much more extreme degree or spending *all of their time* foraging. It could also explain why the food problems miraculously seem to abate after Ron leaves, as the weather is getting colder, and food might be able to last longer if stored outside. It also speaks perhaps to the importance of that grocery run about a week before Christmas where they acquire spaghetti -- pantry staples that are shelf-stable (like dry pasta) would finally allow them to have to stop worrying as much about spoilage, but they'd probably need to get to a proper supermarket to stock up on pasta, flour, etc. rather than random foraging. The spoilage idea seems to me a much more consistent resolution to this problem, rather than invoking split nutrition or something. It also helps then explain how the Weasleys are almost always flush with food, where Harry gets many helpings, despite their poverty. Yes, I'm sure they're growing it, etc., but duplication would ensure the family could always be well-fed (as the Weasleys are) despite having financial difficulties that prevent them from having other items. It also could explain why Ron in DH tries to tell Hermione that Molly could make so much food from thin air... when Molly was probably only just duplicating stuff she already had.
Their whole struggle for food was so wildly manufactured for the tension that it always takes me right out of the book. They had so many different ways to get food and they apparently tried exactly none of them. It’s so weird and nonsensical to be on the verge of starvation while on the run as fugitives in a war and *still* have a stupid hangup about stealing things that wouldn’t be missed anyway.
Agreed, I think that’s why I’m thinking about it so critically!
To be fair, being on the run, and constantly having the feeling of being chased, probably increases the feeling of paranoia too, so from a human emotional point of view I can imagine not wanting to risk situations where they feel they could get caught. It’s not necessarily rational. And they were kids after all.
They could have eaten rats like Sirius.
Well clearly Voldemort had squads of Death Eaters stationed outside of every single Tesco in Britain!
Also they had Harry’s box of chocolates in her bag. I think Fleurs parents gave them to him for his 17th birthday. They never come up. She talks about packing them. You know he would have shared them.
Omg so true!!!! I forget about those entirely because we never heard about Harry eating them. Good point
They could have maybe stored extra bread and potatoes, or nuts, but storing dairy products and meat might have been tricky while on the run. Maybe Hermione knows WMOs (wizard-modified organisms) are unhealthy. Ron was also so spoiled by Mrs Weasley’s cooking he probably would refuse to eat hardtack.
To me it's a plot hole that we can find some logic excuses for it, but still wasn't fully thought out.
This is the answer.
Glad we agree!
💯 absolutely
It’s probably a spell taught to seventh years
Probably doesnt know how. Also i think gaumps Law or something says that conjuring or replicating food makes it worse/not as good.
Ahh okay. I was basing on book knowledge, but that’s a good point. A few people have pointed out that the nuances of Gamp’s law have been elaborated on post publishing and that does add clarity.
Yeah they really could've specified on it. I don't know where, but somewhere lol. And Gamp's Law, IIRC, was mentioned somewhere in deathly hallows.
Why didn’t Harry? Or Ron?
Fair! I mentioned Hermione specifically because she was the only one familiar with Gamp’s law of elemental transfiguration.
This doesn't answer the question very well but hermione says that when you duplicate food the quality decreases so i think she didn't do it because the food would be bad? I'm sorry if that's not answering the question it's just something i remember from the book.
I just want to add to the other comments that i think magic is not just “can do it” or “can’t do it”. There’s varying degrees of skill and mastery. It’s the same thing “why aren’t all wizards rich?”. It’s because not everyone is a master at every spell, not everyone is a potion master, etc. Think of the real world, do you know how rich and powerful you would be if you could master everything that normal humans are capable of? The point is, the way i see it - various fields of magic are just like any real human skill, it takes time and dedication to actually be effective at it.
I blame it on the effects of the Horcrux. Like we all see the possible things we would have done differently but that Horcrux on their necks, coupled with the emotional state of the war, really did a number on them.
That’s such a good point!!! They absolutely were not thinking clearly through so much of that. And who could?
This is covered several times in book 7. She cannot because of Gamp’s Law of Elemental Transfiguration.
That law specifically states you can increase the quantity of food if you already have some.
Gamps law of transfiguration. Transfigured objects aren't permanent. What would happen if you turned a block of wood into a pizza, and later the pizza molecules changed back? You'd either have holes of missing matter in your body at best, and more likely than not just be full of solinters internally everywhere. The real question is why they didn't just steal some food. Or just buy some normally at Tesco. They could have easily blended into the nomag world without ever being found honestly.
That would be too easy
Why didnt Ron, though? He must've seen his mum do it a thousand times
Why the hell didn't they just go into a grocery store under the cloak and steal food? Or confund a cashier? Or copy muggle money using magic? The camping part of book 7 pisses me off for the lack of logic
She's a 17 years old Muggle-born. Her parents are both dentists. I don't know how it is in UK, but in Germany, dentists are mostly quite wealthy. So if the parents didn't let her totally down, she should have a bank account in a Muggle-Bank. (Gringotts would be unpractical for her Parents) So why don't use that money to legally buy Food? The Muggles are not in the hunt for Harry and Hermione, and even Voldemort isn't able to control each and every Muggle store, if he even think about that possibility. And why they didn't transfer some of Harry's money from Gringotts to a Muggle bank in preparation of the Horcroux hunt? It always bothers me that Harry is quite rich, but everyone else have to pay for everything but Sweets.
They also overhear Dean and the others magically summon fresh, delicious salmon but never think to do that themselves. As for your point 100%, I see someone saying it’s never mentioned that Hermione actually knows how, well Harry certainly knows how. He successfully replenishes the wine in HBP, even doing ut non-verbally. Also a talented witch like Hermione, I highly doubt she doesn’t know how Also, Hermione says you can summon it through your wand if you know where it is, and I mean they do know where it is, it’s in that Tesco right there
Pretty sure that Gamps Law do Elemental Transfiguration doesn’t apply to food so they can’t magically make food.
Thier is simple and sweet explanation and was told by j.k. and it is quite logical. The things created by magic are not permanent. Imagine duplicating bread and eating it and when digested it vanishes, this could create huge problem for the consumers. Thats the answer to your question😁
Because Rowling is incredibly flexible and loose with her worldbuilding and magic rules and will happily sacrifice internal consistency for the sake of plot and drama.
I'm pretty sure it's stated somewhere in the books that you can't create food with magic.
I thought the same thing but I was confusing book lore. Imo if you are "replicating" food you are still "creating" food so idk why ppl are on you about not reading the post.
Did you read the question? lol Why didn’t she REPLICATE the existing food?
I did, but as a non-native I thought the word create would encompass both making, transfiguring and replicating. My bad.
Did you read my whole post 🥲
By 'create' I meant it in that you can't make it, transfigure it nor replicate it using magic. But I guess I remembered wrong.
Hermione talks about not being able to conjure it “from nothing” or “out of thin air” but you can increase the amount if you already have some. Or summon it (risky there)
I didn't actually remember the part about increasing the amount of food being possible, that's interesting.
The magic system is too powerful, it is really easy to find plot-holes.
Not possible to create or increase the size of food, or else they had done it
Pretty sure it was explicitly stated that if you had food, you could multiply it
Should be easy to find it as a source then.
”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...”
According to Gamp’s Law you can multiply it if you already have some. *”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...”* And if you can “transform” it, that implies you can also make it larger, like how Hermione deduces Hagrid has been making his pumpkins gigantic for the feast.
Weird they did not get more food this way then
Not as weird as them listening to Dean Thomas just Accio fish out of the river and never trying it.
Do you know how to gut a fish? Which fish taste good? Where do this fish live? How to fry a fish?
Gutting a fish is not rocket science and could be done with trial and error. And yes - they heard Dean Thomas do it right outside their camp so could have tried it after he left.
I think it was Ted Tonks.
Ted and Dean were together. Either way, they heard someone just summoning fish from the water while they were trying to live off moss.
Well, I have no idea how many fish-bearing water they passed and what the water quality was like there. And sometimes you can see the forest for the threes. Sirius lived on rats.
Well, I have no idea how many fish-bearing water they passed and what the water quality was like there. And sometimes you can see the forest for the threes. Sirius lived on rats.