So I've been writing a chapter from A Beginner's Guide to Transfiguration by Emeric Switch. You can find it here. It's not yet finished, but there's a reasonable amount there - including diagrams.

Background: The Inanimate Mutation Spell discussed in the chapter is a spell that changes the form (shape) of something but not the substance of it. It reshapes things, but can't turn wood into glass, for example. It's from Alexandra Potter.

The main aim in writing this was to show that magic is complex. All the characters talk about how difficult magic is, and how the characters with high ability with magic are all extremely intelligent people, academically gifted: Dumbledore, Voldemort, Snape, etc.

And yet all we ever see of magic was the external, physical parts: the incantations and the wand waving. There was a contradiction: magic was said to be complex, but appeared very simple.

So there had to be a missing element. And if not physical, it had to be mental. Yet normally when Harry casts a spell, there isn't any particular mental component (with the exception of the Patronus). He doesn't have to be thinking of anything in particular when he casts a spell. So if it's not an active mental component, it occurred to me that it had to be a passive, or subconscious, mental component.

This led me to the conclusion that one's general understanding of a spell, and indeed of magic in general, has an important effect on a person's ability to cast spells correctly/well. Even if you'´re not actively thinking about spell theory while casting, merely knowing the theory and properly understanding it underlies your casting of that spell. The better you understand it, the more successful/powerful the spell.

This explains very nicely the connection between understanding of theory and ability to cast spells. It also explains how lots of practice can improve your ability with a spell - practice is a kind of imperfect substitute for understanding the theory, as you gain an understanding of the spell through experience.

It also explains how Hogwarts' Library can be so huge. If there's a huge body of theory behind every spell that you need to know to cast that spell well, then you could have whole books devoted to just discussing a single spell, or even just one aspect of a single spell. If magic were just incantations and movements, that wouldn't really work. All you'd need would be one really big book with a list of incantations and movements.

All that was left to do, then, was to write the theory. It's unfinished, but I think the stuff I have already goes some way to presenting this feeling of complexity I think the theory needs to explain the difference between people like Hermione and people like Goyle.

People are free to use this, and quote it, in their fanfic (with attribution, of course).

 

You are a dork.

 

Interesting. I would have commented directly to the google doc but I don't know how to link to specific text. You mention the lower and upper limits of the right side angle of the triangle, the power complex, while the value in your figure is already lower than your proposed limit.

 

I can't find a single point that I can find fault with. This is the kind of subtle depth and world building that you don't find in most works.

 

It was interesting to see clearly how you imagined the world for Alexandra Potter (and your other work I assume).

 

You should write a complete set of Hogwarts textbooks. All subjects. All seven years.

Then Hogwarts: A History.

 

As soon as he finished JKR would come out in an interview with a single sentence about how Harry Potter magical theory works and it will violate 60 percent of Taure's works and he'll cry at all the wasted time...


...or ignore her.

 

I was reminded of why I dated you. That's hot.

I'd read the fuck out of Hogwarts: A History as written by you.

 

Any reason degrees seem to have some magical significance? Just convenience?

The second theory of their origins on the degree wikipedia page (the chord of a 60 degree angle is apparently the same length as the radius of the circle, and apparently ancient Babylonians usually divided things into 60 parts) seems like it could work, though that would probably require 60 being magically significant somehow. 3*4*5 being significant seems sorta logical, I guess. Especially since you mention the pentagram and triangle being powerful, though the square is not mentioned at all.

 

This is great.

I think it would look better if it had footnotes for references. Although writing notes seems uncomfortable for someone writing with a quill.