Neither am I, and I applaud the open-mindedness. Variety is the spice of fan fiction, er, or something like that.

:awesome However...

Bleach reference for the lulz.

Of course, many concepts in Bleach are laughable, so take what you will from that. It's a reference to the notion that there are two areas within the body that are the seat of your spiritual power, and that destroying them somehow will cut off a person's access to that power.

Then it becomes a thing where the readers/viewers wonder why any given set of combatants don't make it a point to exclusively strike for those areas and finish off the opponent once they're rendered powerless.

I could just see HP fics where the wizards keep using spells made specifically to target those areas, rendering fights down to displays of equal parts posturing and marksmanship. Ugh.

I envision the infamous "...Power level is over 9000" screencap with the text changed to, "I'm targeting his magical core!"

Bankai.

Sigh. I think we just need to agree that JKR isn't an authority on Harry Potter and get in contact with whoever it was that actually wrote the first 4-5 books.

I'm thinking Jo was flat broke, trying to raise a kid, then ran into some scrawny, asthmatic geek with a stack of manuscripts while riding the bus one day...

Imagine, however you wish, the subsequent cornering of said geek in an alley and the brutal kicking to death, during which the manuscripts were stolen... Damn you JKR!

 

DIB: the natural affinity of wizards towards certain wands and certain areas of magic is explained perfectly well by the "sum of all parts" theory. It's pretty much the same way that in the Muggle world a person's character and experiences make them predisposed towards being good at mathematics, or art, or certain sports, or whatever.

The reason why I reject the "hose" theory isn't because it's a bad theory - it explains things well. Rather, it is an application of Occam's razor. Why invent a non-canon magical system when everything it explains can be explained equally well, or better, by simple observations about people and the process of performing a skill - magical or mundane alike.

 

Albus Dumbledore and Lord Voldemort don't seem to be bound by a particular school of magic. Nor, do I believe they are bound by a particular wand as both seem fairly capable of handling themselves without the use of a wand most notably Dumbledore who apparently thinks the world's strongest prison would be a fairly simple affair to break out of even if he didn't have a wand on him.

I would think that if one truly wants to find the root of magical theory it is probably best to stick to the first 4 books (perhaps even book 5) because the last two books make almost no sense when compared to what we already know of magic unless you wish to state that because the wizards have passed their OWL's they have such a feel for magic that they don't need to fully understand all of the details of a spell in order to cast it yet as we find out in OOTP even Hermione who probably has the theory of every spell memorized cannot cast many spells on the first try.

She needs to practice which seems to indicate that there is some other part of the equation that we are perhaps missing especially when you consider that people like Harry are often much better at practical aspects of magic than they are at theory, but then there are people like Dumbledore who absolutely pwn and he apparently spent vast amounts of time with his head in a book. There has to be some sort of link that explains it, and I don't buy Taure's theory that studying and practice are essential to preforming magic. I feel that yes it should be a bigger part of learning a spell than what it was in the last two books, but I also think that there is another part to it beyond natural talent in an area or the wand a wizard has.

 

Oneiros, you're still writing a lot of shit that doesn't make much sense. What is so hard to understand? Some spells are easier to certain wizards than to others, but generally "better" wizards will master a spell faster. These wizards are either predisposed with some talent in an area, or have thoroughly studied it (or most probably both).

Learning a new spell seems to involve some theory, as well as a feel for the magic and some practice - in different proportion depending on the spell. A good example of learning a complicated spell step by step is apparition.

Haven't you ever stumbled over some bit of maths, while other times you're quicker than most people? Haven't you ever found that although you have some instinctive understanding in an area (say analysis, for example), thorough theoretical knowledge allows you to adapt some proof to another situation, or lets you find a shortcut to solve a more complicated problem? Don't you think someone with a good grasp of the theory will understand a new concept faster than someone who doesn't?

 

I understand what you are saying, but the HP verse doesn't even do that much with it. Harry gets wand movement + incantation and a note that says for enemies and he can cast a spell that can literally rip someone's chest open. He sees the wand movement and hears you actually have to mean it to use the torture curse and on his second try he is using it like he has been doing it for years. Taking over someone's mind to control their body...first try again with only observing wand movement and incantation.

Learning magic being taught a Hogwarts classroom? He writes reports, listens to lectures, and barely manages to learn the spell. I don't see that as making any sense what so ever. To make connections in science like you used in your example you actually need to know something about what the hell you are doing and be given enough information to solve the problem at hand. In magic it is apparently much more difficult to learn a summoning charm than it is to rip someone wide open. Also, in which class is he getting all of this theory on which to understand the dark arts so that he doesn't need a lot of theory on which to figure out the rest of the casting procedure?

Furthermore, why would there be giant tomes of magic when apparently all you need is a wand movement and an incantation (maybe a bit of emotion or the correct memory) to cast the spell correctly? Hell you could probably fit all 7 years of charms work in one small book if that were the case.

 

Could just be that he has a talent for learning violent spells whereas his Charms skills are lacking. Most of the spells Harry is shown to be great with are related to fighting in some way, so he struggles with the harder spells of Charms and Transfiguration but excels with the Dark Arts and their defences.

And before you cite the banishing charm, that appeared to be a one off fluke that he couldn't repeat immediately afterwards.

 

I'm fairly sure Harry needed to cast the Imperius twice in DH, in order to get the effect he wanted.

I think we're missing some crucial information on how spells are cast in the books. Many characters impress upon the reader that casting spells is much more difficult than yelling gibberish and waving a wand around like a maniac. Yet, that seems exactly what's going on a lot of times in the latter books, at first glance at least.

 

Or maybe the fact that they did learn a shitload of theory in their earlier years allow them to pick up spells faster later on.

JK never explained why they needed to know all the theory, so for all we know all spells of a certain kind follow the same steps of casting, with minor modifications to get the effect we need. Thus, they learn the theory and it becomes second nature, allowing them to cast spells easier, even if they are not 100% right.

 

This joke from yesterday actually reminded me of a question vaguely relevant to the conversation: how much of a wizard's skill comes from his post-Hogwarts years?

Across the fanon, it's commonly believed that the more powerful wizards of the older generations are a lot more capable than Harry and his friends. With Snape we seem to have direct proof of this; the same is often implied to be true for the likes of James, Lily, etc. Even Molly fits the bill, by killing a witch who fought three student-age witches to a standstill.

IMO, the story-external reason for this is that Rowling simply failed at lining up the skill curves properly. In the beginning she made sure to show that there were huge differences between a young wizard and a skilled adult wizard. But in the late series, I think she either lost track of how much Harry & co. should have been learning, or possibly decided it wasn't important.

But I'm much more interested in trying to come up with a story-internal reason. I think the best answer is that all but the laziest of wizards continue to refine their ability through their late teens, and possibly through their twenties and thirties. I'd like to see Rowling tell us how skilled she thinks thirty-something "Auror Captain Harry" is compared to Kingsley, Sirius, and the like.

 

This.

On the other hand, and I may be wrong about this, but doesn't Harry learn Alohomora and Expeliarmus without much theory in the first books? If so, stop blaming the latter ones.

Oneiros: You apparently didn't understand my post. Examples of particular spells being easier or harder than normal just prove my point: wizards have strengths and weaknesses.

You're narrow-mindedly trying to generalise everything. All spells don't necessarily work the same way: they can be more or less instinctive or technical. You also seem to think that destructive magic should necessarily be much harder than the rest.

The example of the summoning charm is a perfect example of how the theory is useful, and learning a spell can be similar to learning maths. It was a particular spell which Harry had trouble learning. After having studied the theory and practiced, he was capable of a better charm than if he had just managed it on the first try and never bothered to do the work.

Magic becomes less predictable in stressful situations, which is why it's hard to make generalisations from canon: a lot of interesting bits of magic occur when Harry is under pressure.

The HBP spells are indeed a bit puzzling. In the case of Sectusempra, for all we know, the spell could be less technical than emotional (Cruciatus, Patronus Charm). If that is the case, Harry was in the perfect state of mind: wanting to cause harm to his ennemy.

I think you'll agree the logical conclusion is that most (or at least some) wizards, in most cases, need more than just a wand movement and an incantation.

Also, I still don't understand half the stuff you spew.

 

Probably because I have a hard time explaining myself properly...I don't quite understand the reasoning behind the being extremely talented in one area bit of logic not that I don't get that some people are naturally gifted in certain areas of study I do. It just seems as if even if Harry is a genius at the dark arts and defense wand waving plus an incantation would not be enough to preform a spell properly, and that is what annoys me. That plus the fact that given a standard potions book detailing how to brew a potion Harry couldn't even get the perfect result yet a few simple tweaks to the potions and he is creating a better than perfect (well perfect according to the book) potion.

The only theory I had to explain this was that Harry was actually insanely gifted in magic, but for some reason or another only was able to do such quick learning when he actually bothered to try...otherwise it just seems like the magical theory isn't all that important. I'd buy the idea that magical theory allows you to draw conclusions about ways to cast the spells or make a potion if Harry was any good at magical theory, but theory seems to be his weakness and even if he knew a lot of defense theory Hogwarts doesn't teach theory of the dark arts so where would he have his basis to build on come from?

blazzano, I don't see Molly the house wife refining her dueling skills after Hogwarts. I have a hard time imagining her even making it into NEWT defense. JKR has stated that there is no such thing as a university for wizards so my best guess is that all but people who are generally interested in learning (like Hermione) or someone who has a job that requires that they learn more magic is going to bother with even maintaining their ability to cast spells that they were once able to use during their Hogwarts years.

We know it takes additional training to do some jobs, but it seems this is only for jobs with a high specialization in one area such as catching dark wizards even then I doubt the training for such people is as intense as a lot of fanfiction portrays it as being. I mean there are several examples of above average Hogwarts students writing papers on magic while in Hogwarts or even shortly after graduating Hogwarts. It seems more likely that JKR just screwed up on how powerful Hogwarts students should be give the fact that previous generations were doing things even Hermione would find to be a rather difficult feat to accomplish from what we have seen of her in canon.

Edit: just realized I missed something. The statement about Harry being able to pull off the spell because it is emotionally based has some merit to it, but I think Harry was of the mindset that it was a simple school boy jinx which makes me wonder if that would allow for such a successful result of the casting even if emotions were high he didn't want to kill the boy.

 

Aha! But the book never said anything about wishing to hurt/kill to cast it. In fact, the only instruction on Sectusempre was to use it on enemies, and Harry more than considered Malfoy an enemy.

As I remember, the sectusempra had it's name written on a footnote too, without any wand movement beeing described. That might give some credit that pig latin wont work for spells, and that the words are just as important to the casting as everything else.

 

You know Oz...your way of describing Harry is the best characterization ever!

Also Sesc, you make a very good point about the dark arts being perhaps way too easy to cast. If this is anything to go by, you definitely wouldn't want a bunch of kids running around with the ability to use these spells. It just seems counter intuitive that magic that causes that much damage is so easy to learn.

 

Why? We've been killing ourselves for a million years without much trouble and if one thing has ever come easily to us as a species it's violence. In fact, I'd say quite the opposite and go with creation (conjuration/transfiguration/potions) is the hardest branch of magic to perfect since so much more goes into making an item than destroying it. After all, there are a thousand different ways to break a watch, but only a few ways to make one.

 

Precisely.

Funny coming from someone who lives in a country where guns are so easy to acquire (I'll assume you're American). And don't start a gun thread.

 

I am American. I own guns...I don't like guns or use guns. The only reason I own some is because they have been passed down for 3 or 4 generations.

 

In a world where the Dark Arts are simple to learn... (ahem - Don LaFontaine voice off). Anyway, in that sort of world, you would expect there to be an issue with large numbers of Dark Arts-happy people.

In the real world, people might sometimes fantasize about hurting people they don't like, but usually they don't do it. There's too much hassle involved. The worst of people will do it, but generally on a very small scale. If it were much easier to hurt someone - if you could, say, flick a magic stick in their direction and cause them agonizing pain - I would expect that more people would do it.

I think this actually does mesh with what we see of Rowling's Wizarding world. Supposedly wizard-England has a few thousand members, and a very sizable chunk of them joined an insurgent terrorist group. This is despite the fact that many of the Death Eaters come from relatively comfortable lifestyles, and can't legitimately claim to be "oppressed."

So there you have it. In a world where destroying is easy, becoming a Dark Lord (or minion to one) is commonplace.

 

Hate to derail this thread a bit, but I've got a quick question about Taure's magical theory that seems to have a huge fucking hole in it.

From GoF, when faux-Moody was teaching the Unforgivable Curses, he made the comment that the Killing Curse requires a fair bit of 'power' behind it - so much so that the entire class could point their wands at Moody and cast the spell and he wouldn't get so much as a nosebleed.

This perplexes me - and somewhat pertains to the whole issue - because it comes back to the issue whether or not what this 'power' refers to. I'm assuming nobody goes by the old 'magical core' theory anymore, so I ask the question: what 'power' is Crouch referring to? Is it simply skill, is it exceptionally strong emotion, or is it simply a huge amount of magical 'energy' gathered over an extremely short time (P=E/t)?

Any thoughts on this would be great, given I'd like to have an idea for my current WIP.