9 confounding 'Fantastic Beasts' and 'Harry Potter' questions J.K. Rowling just cleared up

This question began tripping up fans before "Fantastic Beasts" was released, since Newt's boat trip was teased in the trailers. Many  people thought it would make more sense for him to either Apparate or use a Portkey.

Rowling's answer: "Apparition becomes increasingly risky over long distances. As with most magic, much depends on the skill of the spell-caster: Apparition requires knowledge of the terrain to which one is moving, or the ability to visualise it clearly. Cross-continental Apparition would almost certainly result in severe injury or death. Moreover, the beasts in Newt’s case had varying magical natures. Some could have Apparated with him, but others could not."

We assume the same answer applies for Portkeys, though she didn't specifically address this on her website.

Again, people were wondering why Newt would choose not only to take a boat to America but also to then go through customs. The answer lies in the US wizard government (MACUSA) laws.

Rowling's answer: "He was transporting magical creatures at a time when this was illegal. No-Majs were far easier to fool than the wizarding checkpoint would have been."

As Newt and his companions ran all around New York City trying to round up his beasts, fans of the "Harry Potter" series were expecting him to use a famous spell for summoning objects: "Accio."

Rowling's answer: "'Accio' only works on inanimate objects. While people or creatures may be indirectly moved by 'Accio-ing'objects that they are wearing or holding, this carries all kinds of risks because of the likelihood of injury to the person or beast attached to an object travelling at close to the speed of light."

Veritaserum is the most powerful truth potion known in magic. It was used in two of the "Harry Potter" books, and automatically made readers assume that wizards and witches would always turn to the truth potion when it came to legal issues.

Rowling's answer: "It is, but skilled wizards can avoid its effects by using antidotes and charms. A gifted Occlumens could also resist Veritaserum."

At the end of "Fantastic Beasts," Newt uses a spell called "revelio" to reveal (get it?) that Percival Graves was really Grindelwald in disguise. People assumed that Grindelwald had been using polyjuice potion to fool people into thinking he was someone else, but that left us wondering how the spell managed to overcome the potion's power.

Rowling's answer: "It didn’t. Grindelwald's Transfiguration surpasses that of most wizards, so he used a spell, not a potion, to take on the appearance of Percival Graves."

A new type of Dark magic was introduced in "Fantastic Beasts" — the Obscurus. We learned that this magic forms inside children who are forced to repress their own magical ability due to fear of persecution. So why didn't Harry develop one?

Rowling's answer: "An Obscurus is developed under very specific conditions: trauma associated with the use of magic, internalized hatred of one’s own magic and a conscious attempt to suppress it.

"The Dursleys were too frightened of magic ever to acknowledge its existence to Harry. 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."

Grindelwald (disguised as Graves) told Credence that he had "seen" hints about the Obscurus in New York City. But how did he know about them? Rowling answered this question on Twitter. Turns out, Grindelwald is a Seer — a wizard with the ability to look into the future. 

This was another question fans were asking Rowling on Twitter. Queenie was born a skilled Legilimens, but previously in the "Harry Potter" series we only ever understood this talent to be a learned ability. However, Rowling revealed the Snape also had a natural ability, it just wasn't as strong as Queenie's.

Okay this one isn't about "Fantastic Beasts" but we're glad Rowling decided to answer it anyways. 

Rowling's answer: "A Horcrux can only be destroyed if its container is damaged beyond repair. Harry was healed by Fawkes. Had he died, the Horcrux would indeed have been destroyed."

She also added a helpful note that has us pumped for the future "Fantastic Beasts" movie:

"P.S. I'm being asked all kinds of excellent questions about 'Fantastic Beasts' that I can't answer right now, because the answers would give away too much about future plots. If your burning question isn’t here, you are probably safe to assume that it will be answered in the sequels!"