J.K. Rowling answered some burning “Harry Potter” questions and here’s what we learned

While launching her brand new website, Kween J.K. Rowling answered some BURNING Harry Potter questions and things make A LOT more sense now.

As Rowling notes in a blog post on her new site, 2016 has been a pretty busy year for her. Not only have we seen the release of the eighth instalment in the Potter series,the stage play Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, but this year saw the author make her screenplay debut with the first of five planned prequel movies, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. What’s more, Rowling revealed yesterday (December 21st) that she was working on TWO new books!

Now J.K. Rowling has answered some questions that fans had about both Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts and here’s what we learned.

While Rowling has used her Wizarding portal, Pottermore, to tease information about the Wizarding World, it seems that some queries need a personal touch, so the author responded some of the things that Potterheads have been DYING to know.

Firstly, Rowling addressed some queries that people had regarding Fantastic Beasts and Newt Scamander. She explained why Newt travelled to America by boat (apparition over long distances is risky and cross continent apparition could result in “injury and death) and that he travelled through no-maj (muggle) customs as to avoid being caught with his magical creatures. Furthermore, the author explained that Newt couldn’t use the summoning charm, accio, on his beasts because that particular spell only works on inanimate objects.

What’s more, Rowling explained why Harry Potter himself never became an obscurus. Those who have seen Fantastic Beasts will know that an obscurus is “an unstable uncontrollable dark force that busts out and attacks and then vanishes” that manifests itself in young witches or wizards who suppress their magical powers as a result of physical or mental abuse.

"The Dursleys were too frightened of magic ever to acknowledge its existence to Harry," Rowling explained. "While Vernon and Petunia had a confused hope that if they were nasty enough to Harry his strange abilities might somehow evaporate, they never taught him to be ashamed or afraid of magic. Even when he was scolded for ‘making things happen’, he didn’t make any attempt to suppress his true nature, nor did he ever imagine that he had the power to do so."

Tbh, that makes a lot of sense.

Finally, Rowling answered an old question that she says she’s repeatedly asked: “Why wasn’t the Horcrux inside Harry destroyed when he was bitten by the Basilisk in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets?”

Simply, she says, a Horcrux can only be destroyed when “its container is damaged beyond repair.” Given that Harry was healed in the Chamber of Secrets by Dumbledore’s phoenix, Fawkes, he wasn’t damaged enough for the power to be destroyed.

"Had he died, the Horcrux would indeed have been destroyed," she revealed.

We’re pretty glad that Harry didn’t die in The Chamber of Secrets. Firstly, that would have meant we wouldn’t have had 5 subsequent books, a play, and a spin off prequel series; and secondly, it would have meant that Rowling might not have become the creative juggernaut that she is today.

We’re not quite sure what we’d have done without the Harry Potter books in our lives.