So, I’ve been trying to figure out why wand movements are necessary for certain spells—why do you need a ‘swish and flick’ to get the levitation spell to work? Why can’t you just point your wand at the object?

My apologies if the subject has already come up, but I couldn’t locate any threads on it. Here’s a theory:

Wand-based magic developed out of ancient runic magic. Thousands of years ago, all magic was rune and ritual-based. This would mean that there is magic ‘out there’ in the natural world, but only certain people (wizards) have the innate ability to harness it. Over time, wizards developed the ability to harness magic using a different focus: a wand.

The wand movements are necessary for most spells because they mimic the ancient runes that they are based on. A circular rune requires a circular wand motion, etc. So ‘wingardium leviosa’ simply won’t work without the proper wand motion, no matter how powerful you are.

This is obviously not a thoroughly-developed theory at this point, but, not knowing a damn thing about ancient runes, it struck me as superficially plausible.

Any thoughts?

 

A superficially plausible theory is good enough -- it's magic, not rocket science. I cannot recall a thread specifically dedicated to wand movements, but I'm pretty sure there's a few threads concerning magical theory and wish magic (or something of that sort) that you can check out.

http://forums2.darklordpotter.net/showthread.php?t=6168
http://forums2.darklordpotter.net/showthread.php?t=1515
https://forums.darklordpotter.net/showthread.php?t=10395

Hmm ... food for thought.

This is not the first time someone's brought up the issue with wand movements. You can stay true to canon and incorporate a little bullshit theory to backup the necessity of wand movements, or you can choose to ignore them entirely. It all comes down to how well you bullshit, really.

As for your 'mimicking runes' theory -- yeah, it's been done before and yes, it does sound plausible. If you are planning on using it for your fic, I say go for it.

 

"And that's why I don't like magic, Captain. 'cos it's magic. You can't ask questions, it's magic. It doesn't explain anything, it's magic. You don't know where it comes from, it's magic! That's what I don't like about magic, it does everything by magic!"

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the vibe, but I think you're approaching this the wrong way. You haven't possibly cracked the mechanics behind the HP universe - it has none, other than author fiat. What you've written is an interesting tidbit to work into a fanfic or two, or even into fanon if enough people pick it up.

As for talking on the actual theory, it sounds plausible, but wand movements are 3D while runes are 2D. Hash out an explanation for the third dimension and you might be onto something.

 

Isn't this Taure's job?

 

Nah, just having a little fun with characters that aren't mine. But if I'm going to spend hours and hours writing a story, I want it to be as good as I can make it.

 

Don't defend yourself with logic. You are talking to the Injun! Cuss that bitch out!

Anyway, interesting enough idea, and plauible in its lack of any proof to negate it. As Tehan said, it's magic.

 

Fixed that for you.

Anyway, if you start getting into how wand magic works because it echoes rune magic, then you'd have to explain how the runes worked. And from there you're either getting into theology or physics.

You don't have to answer the unexplained mysteries to make your story good. In fact, unless your story is centered around the mysteries in question, chances are it'll only hinder you on your way to that goal.

 

Back-story of the stuff I write/want to write is that the wand movements involve 'cutting' magical flux lines, related to Earth's magnetic field. Magical people have magic-EM shite in their veins they can push into their wand. Talent involves precise wand movements and being able to 'push' the magic in the right way so the flux cutting is precise. Verbal stuff doesn't do anything except give you a mental anchor into the feeling of what the spell is supposed to feel like. And wands are paired to the wizards because different cores have differnet magical resonant frequencies, the closer it is to the Wizard's brain the better the match. Pseudo-science ftw,certainly easier than the real deal.

 

I've always been quite wary of the usage of runes in magic. As far as we can see, the study of Ancient Runes in the books is merely the study of ancient languages, and of no immediate practical use to magic (though certainly it does have practical applications: if you're a cursebreaker in a tomb then being able to read the various inscriptions will be helpful).

If I would make one observation about wand movements, it is that they seem to be nowhere near as essential as incantations. It seems that the more you have mastered a spell, the more you can let the wand movement slip: Dumbledore always seems to be using lazy flicks, rather than the precise wand movements described in Flitwick's first class.

If this is the case, we might be able to say that wand movements are a non-essential focusing aid to make spells easier (a bit like how a ritual works in Dresden), whereas I would say the incantation is indispensable.

An alternative view could be that wand movements are a kind of physical extension of the incantation: a spell isn't split into wand movement and incantation, it's just an incantation and the wand movement is part of this. This would go somewhat to explaining apparation, one of the few pieces of magic in the HP series which apparently lacks in incantation, as the turning on the spot, equivalent to a wand movement, would become the incantation for apparation.

This is mostly speculation though.

 

I know that newbies like me have no business trying to argue about a theory, but Taure, you say that " the incantation is indispensable". Isn't silent magic preformed throughout the books? Dolohov's use of that purple wave of fire, silently, at the Department of Mysteries, shows that even powerful spells can be cast silently, and no one uses incantations for transfiguration, which is a pretty difficult branch of magic.

 

Newbies can argue whatever they like. The content of a post matters far more than the join date of the poster, IMO.

Anyway...

Non-verbal casting of spells still uses an incantation: merely said mentally, rather than verbally.

As for transfiguration, all the examples we've seen have been non-verbal, yes, but at the same time all those examples were performed by wizards who usually do their magic silently.

We do know of some transfiguration incantations. In OotP McGonagall mentions one: "Inanimatis Conjuris". In addition, all the conjurations we've seen (and conjuration appears to be a branch of transfiguration) have had incantations. Avis, orchideous, etc.

 

I was talking about the transfiguration part, such as transforming beetles into buttons etc. Even the animagus transformation doesn't seem to require an incantation.

 

There's no evidence either way as to if "regular" transfiguration (if we can even make such a separation) uses incantations or not, because, as I've said, even if it did use incantations, we still wouldn't have heard said incantation, because we've never seen Transfiguration done by a wizard who doesn't mostly use non-verbal magic anyway.

However, given that conjuration spells use incantations, and that the movies have transfiguration incantations, I'd say it's much more likely that transfiguration uses incantations than not.

 

You still have to think the incantation. That shows that it is, at least usually, more important than wand movements, which can be completely forgotten without any trouble.

Some cognitive focus, I believe, is the most important factor, and incantation and wand movements simply add on to that whether you are using one or the other or both.

The Patronus Charm takes an incantation and a strong emotion, apparation is only intent and a wand movement (is the circling of the body simply making a circle around yourself with your wand?), and Wingardium Leviosa, which can theoretically lift pretty much anything, requires both.

EDIT: Lol, I just got onto this page (I thought... I could be crazy I guess), but somehow hours and three posts have gone by...

 

Taure's theory makes me wonder if magic isn't necessarily in the wizard, but something that pervades the environment. In this case, it takes on an almost Vancian character. The incantation is how one tells the magic around you to produce the effect you desire. It doesn't matter that the incantation is spoken silently, or even just thought, just that it is done. Of course, being a wizard simply means that you have the ability to access this magic.

I also have to wonder if one couldn't just come up with one's own incantations for the magic - so long as the incantation is associated in the mind of the wizard with the effect desired. As a corralary: If I am thinking of a river, and I want to communicate that to you, I need only say, "river" and enough of the same thoughts about rivers are conjured in your mind and you understand what I'm saying. If I say, "river" to a Japanese, they'll have no such understanding. However, if I say, "kawa" to a Japanese, they get it.

Basically, what I'm saying is that if I associate in my mind, as a wizard, the incantation, "wingardium leviosa" with levitating objects, then the magic would respond to it when I say that. However, if instead, I associated the same effect with the made up utterance, "kibado" then it would still do the same.

I think there's some basis for this because technically, wingardium leviosa should only make a feather levitate. Ron, however, associated ANY levitation with the incantation, and the troll's club levitated upon his casting of the spell.

 

I think that runes definitely would play into some aspects of wand movements in a few branches of magic, but perhaps Arithmancy would be more critical. Integrating numbers into wand movements, angles, number of definite stop points, etc. I read this idea in a fic before but forgot the name. A cookie to anyone who knows which one I'm talking about, heh.

 

*Shrugs* Could be dealing with runes. Wizard swish and flicks whatnot...actually drawing the rune used in the old language/ land for that particular spell.

Wingardium has a gentle up with a sudden down. And levitation rises gently.

 

I think it's a bit early to say that you absolutely need to think the incantation for nonverbal spells.

In canon, mostly everything is from Harry's point of view (Harry filter). And as we know, Harry doesn't exactly concern himself with the theories and complex mechanics of magic. Occasionally we get something from Hermione or from a teacher, but we are all but blind to magical theory as readers.

Harry has to think the incantation for nonverbal spells, but does that mean all wizards must? That seems to me a leap that is unsupported by evidence. IIRC, there is not a classroom explanation scene in HBP or DH regarding nonverbal spells. The way I remember it the teachers just expected the students to start casting nonverbally, without any instruction.

My own theory is that incantations, including nonverbal ones, are just used as a focus, or trigger, for spell casting. Once you are skilled enough, or have mastered (x)spell, you can cast it simply by willpower alone. There is no canon evidence for my theory either, but I dislike the notion that the incantation can never be dispensed of, or that it is fundamentally necessary to spellcasting.

I know this is reaching, but aren't most transfiguration done without incantations? We are given a few incantations for specific spells that fall under the banner of Transfiguration, such as the Vanishing spell, but for generalized transfiguration spells it seems like you just point your wand at whatever object you intend to transfigure, and with enough skill and willpower you succeed. There might be a reason we are never given any incantations for the various x to y transfigurations, but this is just my take on it.


edit: I dislike the theory that runes are used in practical magic, probably because too many authors have used it in their stories. There is no evidence that runes are anything but ancient languages, and I think I like it that way. Too many stories involve Harry receiving a power up in the form of being able to cast runes or use runes in new and creative ways to pwn his enemies. No runes plz.

 

Ahhh...but you can't deny that runes were a written language often connected with magic. I'm not saying he can utilise these runes, just that the wand movements imitate the written language.