I have a couple of ideas I'd like to share, concerning the Mastery of Spells.

Much emphasis is given in the Harry Potter books, and in fan fiction, to the idea of advanced magic - magic more powerful than the ordinary, very complex and hard to understand. And yet what makes this magic more complex than any other spell? In fact, what makes a spell hard at all? There are a few spells that require a mental component (Patronus, Summoning charm, Cruciatus curse, a few others) but for the most part, spells are just the words and wand motions (and even here there may not be any wand motions). So what's so hard about saying a word and waving your wand in the correct way? What justification can we see for the so-called difficulty of magic?

For the answer we must look to canon. I would suggest that the key to mastering a spell - the thing that is needed more than anything else - is familiarity with the spell. You can get the wand motions and incantation right, and the spell can still fail, if you haven't practiced it - if you aren't familiar with it. Similarly, if you have the incantation and wand motions right, and keep practicing a spell, then at the beginning it will fail, but as you try it over and over again then the spell will begin to work until you master it, even though you haven't done anything different. And opposingly, we could say that once you are very familiar with a spell, you can get lax with the wand motions and maybe even the incantation, and the spell can still work.

We see many examples of this happening in canon, for example before the third task, Harry practicing the various spells Hermione found, and slowly getting better at them. He may have got the incantation and wand motions wrong at first, but after a time he must have been getting them right, but the spell still wasn't working, until he had practiced it more.

There are a few exceptions to this familiarity rule - the one I can think of right now is Harry's Sectumsempra in HBP. It was a completely unknown spell, yet he still managed to get it to work. My explanation for this is that it worked due to Harry's high emotions at the time - we've seen that emotions such as anger or desperation can make magic stronger (case in point, Molly Weasley vs. Bellatrix Lestrange).

Also, different people take different amounts of time to master a spell, relating to their skill with magic. Knowledge of the theory also seems to lessen the time it takes for the spell to work (Hermione), perhaps because knowing how a spell works makes it as if you are familiar with the spell, without you ever having to practice it - second-hand familiarity as opposed to first-hand familiarity.

This idea of mastery of spells leads on to a related idea. Concerning the mastery of spells, we've seen that there is a massive amount of specialisation that can go into mastering your spells. You don't master a spell in one night. Harry's Protego is a good example: even though at the end of GOF he was casting it successfully, he hadn't mastered it - we see book to book that it gets stronger and stronger. It may be the case that you can never truly master a spell, because you can always make it a little bit better. Other examples of this is how some people specialise in specific spells - Lockhart specialised in Memory charms as an example, another being Ginny specialising in the Bat-Bogey hex (urgh). This shows the extent to which people can specialise and focus on mastering one spell. This idea of spells having a whole variety of levels of mastery leads me to my next point.

What if there aren't that many spells? What if there are far fewer spells than we had previously thought? I'll use examples to illustrate my point.

Summoning is the best example. We've seen a variety of different types of summoning; I shall use two. There is Harry's summoning of his broom in GOF such that it soars through the air towards him, and then there is the type of summoning that Albus Dumbledore used in HBP when he summoned the mead - it didn't soar through the air, but simply popped out of existence of where it was before and into existence where Dumbledore was. We know it wasn't conjuration because a) Dumbledore gives it a brand and b) JKR has said conjuration of food and drink is impossible.

Anyway, previously we have thought of these as two different spells entirely, one more advanced than the other, but what if they are actually both the same spell, but simply at different levels of mastery? Not two different types of summoning charm, but both examples of The Summoning charm - accio - it's just that Dumbledore has a greater mastery of the spell than Harry. In support of this, notice how in canon it's called "The" summoning charm, not "a" summoning charm.

In the same way, there wouldn't be loads of different shield spells, but The Shield spell - Protego - and all the different strengths of shields we see are just different levels of mastery of the same spell. The varying nature of the Protegos we see in canon seems to support this.

This could even supply the answer to what the spell Dumbledore used in the Atrium against Voldemort was. Maybe it was simply the stunning spell, but Dumbledore has such a complete mastery of it that it manifested itself in an altogether more powerful way.

My final point is of non-verbal magic. For those who do not remember, non-verbal magic is where, instead of saying an incantation verbally, you say it in your mind. Some people think of non-verbal magic as magic with no incantation, but this is not true - the incantation is there, it's simply in the mind. My idea concerns the speed of spell casting and the mastery of spells.

My idea is thus: that as you master a spell, and specifically as you master the non-verbal casting of this spell, what will begin to happen is that you will no longer have to annunciate the word in your mind to cast the spell non-verbally - instead of thinking the word to cast the spell, all you have to do is think of the word. The difference is slight, but if you examine your own thinking you can see that you can think words, or you can think of words, the second being much quicker. So once you have mastered a spell to the kind of level that Dumbledore is, you can cast spells simply by thinking of them, rather than having to go through all the motions.

It is important to note, however, that you cannot skip to this stage - you only can master a spell through becoming familiar with it, so you have to go through all the earlier stages of casting the spell before you can cast it in its most powerful form, and from just by thinking of it.

So, those are my ideas. What do you think?

P.S. I'm using these ideas in Return, so please don't steal them.

 

tl;dr: Spells are hard.

 

But people just like the idea of having more spells.

Besides, I doubt the silver shield Voldemort used to defend himself with against Dumbledore's spell was a Protego charm. It may be a conjuration, but it is still a shield, and gives evidence (the only evidence actually) that Protego is not the only magical shield in existence.

I also doubt the spell Dumbledore used is a stunner. All we know is that it seems to carry a tremendous amount of force/energy, so much so it makes Harry's hair stand on end, but yet it causes no visible damage to Voldemort's shield, merely making a ringing sound. It seems there may be no visual indication of the spell, unlike the trademark red of the stunner. I prefer to believe its a wholly different spell.

 

I always read that passage as meaning that it was a physical shield, not a magical one. A conjuration of a shield of the medieval kind, made of silver. We already know that Voldemort is able to conjure silver from Wormtail's hand.

And for the sake of argument, even if one did say it was a magical shield, there's nothing beyond your doubt to say that it isn't a Protego - the incantation was non-verbal.

We also know that the spell would not have killed Voldemort, had it hit him ("You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?"), which leads to the conclusion that its a spell that would incapacitate. The stunning charm is a perfect example of this. Just a bit of speculation on my part, and hardly the most important part of the theory.

 

It seems plausable that there are fewer spells than we think. It would explain why there are whole books related to a few or even just one spell. What does it need to say? Say these words with this movement and it will happen. The rest of the material is to help you grasp it better and master it.

But I do think the summoning of the drink wasnt accio. It seems like a totally different spell. Its one thing to wave a wand a summon something or to do it none verbally but it is a big leap to somehow pull it through the ether across country.

 

Don't mind my ramblings....

I had thought about something like this a while back. I always looked at different fanfiction's and noticed how they always included things like upgraded versions of spells like Protego. But why would someone create another version of a magical shield when the first one does the job? There has been no proof that the Protego shield can't block certain spells (except the AK)

I believe that there is one version of every spell. There is no stronger versions of stunning spells, body binds, summonings etc. It makes no sense to have different versions when those spells do what needs to be done in the first place.

There is a little more to waving your wand and using the incantation. I do not believe that there is some inner well of magic that a wizard can train like a muscle to get stronger and use magic easier.

To me it is all mental. It boils down to two things that have to do with mentality.

First,Look at all the talented witches and wizards in the story (Dumbledore, Voldemort, Snape, etc) and what is it that they seem to have more than most? Confidence. They have confidence in their ability to perform magic, and the more confidence they have in themselves as a sorcerer the easier it is to cast any type of spell. Then look at other wizards who have not as much confidence (Neville, Ron, etc) they are not great wizards because they lack the necessary confidence to use their magic. Taure's example of a person constantly practicing a spell falls under this. As the person practices the spell they gain a stronger confidence in themselves and the spell which becomes easier and easier. Just look at Harry's Patronus, he struggled to learn it, but as the books went on he used it more and more until he could cast it easily for the OWL examiner.

What is another thing that is needed? Will power. Will power is pretty much the exertion of one's own will on their personal self - their behaviors, actions, thought processes (qtd. Wikipedia). A wizard/witches use of their will power is shown with both a young Tom Riddle and Lily Evans when they are using their will power to control their magic. To be able to control your magic like that isn't something that can be done so easy, it takes a certain amount of will power. For the record, control of ones emotions fall under will power in my book.

On the subject of emotions. I have always been unsure of this. On one hand, a wizard could do anything if his emotions are running high, but it could also hinder them (accidental magic, Harry using his wand when not having on him, etc). I person blinded by rage may have a difficult time using spells they can normally use, while a person who has control of their emotions can do anything they want to do. For the average wizard it comes down to the type of emotion, if they are desperate they may be able to use a spell they normally couldn't use, etc.

So, to me, a wizard/witches ability to perform magically depends on their will power and their own confidence in their ability to use their power. If you have an abundance of these two anything is possible.

K, ramblings complete. That is all.

Edit: Damn, I edited this at least 4 times to add something I thought of.

 

While the authencity of this is questionable, the illustration of the chapter "The Only One He Ever Feared" in OoTP showed Voldemort holding a physical shield in front of him. Or at least that is what I remembered. The ringing noise supports that it was solid.

Doubtless it was charmed to be impervious or something, which would account for it remaining intact after sustaining Dumbledore's spell, but it isn't magical in the sense that it is a Protego-esque pure magical shield.

I think fanon's preference of original shielding charms over Protego stems from their awareness that the spell is a staple of duels of the "Stupefy-Expelliarmus-Alohomorah" variety, and they want to make their own combat scenes more original.

 

I really don't believe that there are fewer spells than we think.

The only evidence I have is Snape. While I have to admit that he is an outstanding wizard magically, he is nowhere near the geniuses like Dumbledore, Voldemort, or Flamel probably. And yet look how many spells he invented. Levicorpus, Sectumsempra, Muffliato, just to name a few.

If even Snape can invent such a number of spells, it would be highly illogical that others through time have not invented different spells too.

 

Maybe he invented the spells because there was no other spells left for him to learn at that point in time. I get the feeling that spell creation isn't something that just anyone can learn with ease, it must be very rare for a person to be able to create their own spells. Sort of like an inventor who creates something of groundbreaking value, they come along once in a while. Even if other people invented their own spells, it doesn't mean they are going to share them, so it doesn't mean that there is millions upon millions of spells.

And now, I am off to bed.

 

Snape isn't exactly the kind of "inventor who creates something groundbreaking". I'm not saying everyone can do it, just that if Snape can do it, I imagine that other far more exemplary wizards like Dumbledore and others we know not of, would have invented their own spells too.

And your last point makes no sense at all. I'm pretty sure Snape didn't go around advertising his spells and telling everyone about them, yet they still leaked out. Remember Levicorpus, which became very popular in Marauders' fifth year?

As long as you use it, there is almost no way you can keep your spell under wraps. Others who see that there is such a spell and know how to spellcraft will definitely work towards finding out the incantation/wand movement and the theory behind it.

 

I'm certain that wizards such as Dumbledore etc. are capable of making new spells (though the process seems to be more like discovering than creating) but the question we need to ask is not "can they?", but "would they?".

Snape made his spells out of necessity: they are all Dark Arts, and he needed something new in his arsenal of offensive spells to defend himself from the Marauders.

Dumbledore's duelling style takes a more indirect route though. He uses very few actual offensive spells, and instead uses charms and transfiguration to duel with. Thus, though he is certainly capable of it, I doubt that Dumbledore made many, if any, spells, simply because most of the things he wanted to do with magic will have already been discovered.

Of course, this is not to say that Dumbledore was not creative or didn't do anything new. We know from Marshbanks that in his NEWTs he surprised her several times, but I would suggest that these took the form more like his modification of the Patronus charm to send messages - not a new spell, just an advance on an old one.

 

Why would you need 20 different spells with the same power that do roughly the same thing with - injuring your opponent - if one would suffice? Quantity of spells does not matter. It is all about skills. If you put one man who knows hundreds Dark Arts spells which could crush sculls, rip hands, melt bones, punch holes and etc. against a man who would attack only with a Reductor, but could cast non-verbally, is a Legilimens, and can cast said Reductor to it's maximum capability, who do you think would win?

Snape simply went off his anger and frustration into creating that spells and thought that he was personally preparing for a revenge against Potter and Black. Perhaps it was simply more satisfying for him to win with his own creations, with product of his own mind - to prove his superiority.

Spell creation is important for an unique cases - for example the Fidelius Charm, the Patronus, Unforgivables.. And I have a feeling that wizards may have invented all that they need for the moment.

Perhaps Sectumsempra curse was an impressive accomplishment for Snape, but such a worthless jinx like a Langlock is a child's play - remember Vindictus-something-Viridian and his book 'Thousand spells for "enemies"' in PS? One man could create thousand worthless jinxes..

 

That's not a good comparison. If you pit someone who has the knowledge of a hundred different combat spells against someone who uses only a Reducto or Stupefy, and both are Legilimens, can cast non-verbally, are equally skilled. Now who do YOU think will win.

Obviously the former since there is a chance that one of the spell he uses, the other is unable to counter. Meanwhile, the latter can never hope to hurt the former since he is always using the same spell.

 

Though the man with just one spell has speed on his side, as he doesn't have to think about which spell to cast next.

 

You're speculating. You're thinking of Dumbledore as a gary-stu. Just because he is Dumbledore doesn't mean he can create his own spells. Just because a person is smart doesn't mean they are experts/masters of every single subject.

 

Actually in magical terms, yes Dumbledore is almost a Gary-Stu.

And he is an expert/master in most magical disciplines (Transfiguration, Occlumency, Legilimency, I'd wager Charms or DADA too since he also knew how to use a powerful offensive spell or two).

I really fail to see why Dumbledore couldn't create his own spells.

 

I doubt Dumbledore has invented many spells because, as we know, he specialised in alchemy for his ground breaking research. IIRC he worked with Nicolas Flamel on the 12 uses of Dragon Blood, and that was hailed as a great discovery (even warranting a mention on a chocolate frog card).

As well as that, the 'things Dumbledore did with a wand' during his NEWTs could be anything from new spells, changes to current ones or just a rediscovery of a spell from the Hogwarts library.

Although I believe spells like the reductor curse and the summoning/banishing charms are the epitome of certain branches of magic. Things that require creativity, like the Dark Arts and transfiguration, would have more spells than other branches, such as battle spells. Just because people would not be happy with just a single curse. Bellatrix Lestrange seems to take especial pleasure from the Cruciatus Curse, but I would suspect a person like Walden Macnair would prefer cutting and slashing curses. Things like that make for diversity of spells, like ones for melting skin, or simulating a whip, or breaking bones.

Aekiel

 

It seems to me that all this talk of 'inventing spells' is indirectly undermining Taure's theory concerning the Mastery of Spells by presuming the 'invented' spell is totally different from other spells.

After all, what is Sectumsempra but an advanced Cutting charm? Snape probably fooled around with the magic, changed the spell configuration to do what he wanted it to to (however that happens, I don't know), gave it a name and incantation, and presto! New spell. Same effect, only target and intensity modified.

Argueing semantics, it might be said that anyone who uses a spell outside a rigidly defined realm of use is 'inventing' a spell.

Some of you might feel that is too easy a process to be called 'creating' a spell, and really canon offers no help, but it illustrates my point. Taure's theory is that there are not as many spells as we have previously thought. What might Sectumsempra be? A more 'advanced*' Cutting charm. What might Levicorpus be? A more 'advanced*' Levitation charm centered on a foot. What might Dumbledore's seemingly Conjured food be? A more 'advanced*' Accio spell.

* = Meant by way of Taure's interpretation.

I don't believe there is enough evidence to convince the diehard-scientist types who demand numbers and reams of evidence to support theories, but it offers a great avenue for fanfic authors (who want a structured Canon-magic system in their stories) to explore.