ten points for ravenclaw!

Vacation message just received after sending an e-mail to a certain newly-former colleague of mine at Madison:

The rumors that have undoubtedly reached you by now are, by and large, correct. I have not enrolled in school this term; instead, with my two best friends I am off to fulfill the final wishes of my mentor--to search for and destroy a set of objects of incomparable evil.

So I thought we should start in the New Jersey-New York area. Because of the various shield charms we will need to place over our camp to obscure ourselves from the prying eyes of our enemies, I will have only intermittent email contact for the next three weeks or so. Please forgive me and tune in to secret radio stations for news of our progress.

If you are writing about a problem in regard to my previous capacity as head boy (e.g., office space, teaching assistantships, creatures or ghosts living in the second floor men’s room), please contact the headmistress or the following:

[e-mail addresses of the Chair, Associate Chair, and Assistant to the Chair]

Courage my friends! I hope to see you safe and sound on the other end of things.

harry potter and the doubly helix

I'd always presumed muggle-born wizards in the Harry Potter books were the result of a genetic mutation. J.K. Rowling is answering all kinds of questions now about the series, and she says I'm wrong:

Katie Mosher: How exactly do muggleborns receive magical ability?

J.K. Rowling: Muggle-borns will have a witch or wizard somewhere on their family tree, in some cases many, many generations back. The gene re-surfaces in some unexpected places.

This is very perplexing, because magic ability otherwise gives all indications of being an autosomal dominant gene (get the gene from one parent, and you have the trait), but now she's talking about it like it is recessive and so can just lurk around unexpressed in your family tree for generations. Harry had a muggle-born mother, so if the gene was recessive, he'd have had only a 50% chance of being a wizard. Same thing with each Hermione and Ron's two children (assuming Ron is really the real father; if, as is at least as likely, Harry is the real father, then the kids would have only a 25% chance of being a wizard.) There are no indications in the book that when people marry muggle-born wizards they consider there to be a 50% chance they'll have a squib kid.

I feel cheated. I feel like the Harry Potter books are no longer scientifically realistic.

Update: Ugh, I've only had this post up a few minutes and already a friend has e-mailed to correct me. I feel like a disgrace to Ravenclaw. Obviously, if the gene is recessive, Harry needs two copies, and so he has the same probability of having wizard spawn as any other wizard, and squibhood is the mutation. (Squibs who breed with a slumming wizard would have a 50% chance of having a wizard child.) Rowling's still not right, though. The muggle-born wizard has to have a wizard somewhere on each side of the family tree.