One thing that I've been curious about recently, and that is when exactly does a spell leave the wand?

Does the spell leave the wand only after the ending syllable of the incantation, the middle, or does the spell leave the wand at the beginning syllable?

The reason I ask this is because many indy!Harry fanfics (well, just a lot of fanfics in general) propose that spells with short incantations, and incantations with a single syllable, are superior to spells with long incantations such as the killing curse because it is supposedly faster and improves your casting time, which can make a huge difference in duels and magical combat, where a split second can mean the difference between life and death.

Personally, I hold the opinion that the spell leaves the wand before the incantation is complete, perhaps even in the first syllable. It just seems that way to me when I think about various instances in canon.

For one, Voldemort, who is only matched by Dumbledore in terms of skill, uses the killing curse very frequently in combat, which has a whopping 6 syllables. Now, you might just attribute this to him being so far above the people he fights that he can get away with it. But while canon!Voldemort is a huge egomaniac and often overlooks things, he is a genius when it comes to magic, and I highly doubt that he not use deadly spells with short incantations, if they were indeed such a huge advantage in combat, as many fanfics would have us believe.

Secondly, in the infamous bathroom scene in HBP, Harry interrupts Draco's crucio with sectumsempra, which only has 1 more syllable, but Draco got out the first syllable ("Cruc") before Harry started his spell, which means that even if Harry tried to speed rush the incantation, Draco only had to finish "io" for his spell, while Harry had to incant the entire 4 syllable sectumsempra, which means that if you prescribe to the theory that spells leave the wand only after the ending syllable of the incantation, Harry should have been struck by Draco's crucio as he was halfway through his own incantation.

I'm sure I could come up with some other canon details to support my hypothesis given time, but I'm lazy, and don't feel like it.

This may seem like a minor detail, but as I said, depending on which theory you prescribe to it has huge ramifications on magical combat, which is especially important to DLP considering all of our active writers.

 

I personally think you're reading too deeply into details. You're sorta comparing gun-fights in the real world with duels in HP.

But, You're also making a good point that fanon writers do seem to concentrate upon this. I can think of two possibilities at the moment .

First is considering the comment from JKR that intent is what matters most in spells, it could be theorized that spells leave the wand when a wizard thinks of the effect or rather as soon as his intent to cast is clear in his/her own mind.

The second possibility is that the spell leaves the wand when the wand movements are finished regardless of the incantation. Example bieng that the levitation charm works as soon as you finish the 'swish and flick' rather than when you finsh saying 'wingardium levi-o-sa'.

I'll add other ideas as soon as I think of them.<_<

 

I would agree with this

I would also agree with this. The problem is (IIRC) we don't really know any spells besides the levitation charm that require wand movements. Most spells seem to be "point and shoot", so unless you come up with your own spells which have specific wand movements, it's not really too relevant.

 

If the spell's already en route after the first syllable, then why bother saying the rest of them? If the intent is all that matters, why bother verbalising? If it only needs wand movements, why make what you're doing incredibly obvious by providing a commentary?

Even if the spell's fired off at the Av, he's got to run through the ada Kedavra before he can fire off anything else. Your theory, even if it is true, would have zero effect on this battle.

Holy fucking run-on sentence, Batman!

Draco hesitated halfway through the spell. Or he extended the U in crucio like the drama queen he is, and Harry blurted out Sectumsempra at max speed - the time it takes to say a syllable can vary, y'know. Or he said it after Harry had started saying his spell, and JK just wrote it that way because that's as close as you can get to representing two things being said at the same time with the linear art of writing. Or, y'know, another JK plothole.

Look. HP's magic system has more plot holes and unexplored and unexplained corners than you could shake a whole faggot of sticks at. That's part of what makes it fun to write in and frustrating to debate. By trying to explain away all that you're falling into the same trap Taure permanently resides in.

And if you think that every writer on DLP is suddenly going to stop writing their fics the way they are just because your piddly little theory clashes with the way magic works in their take on the HP world, you're one hell of an arrogant twat.

PS: If this stupidity is an April Fool's thing I will reach right through the intertubes and punch you in the throat.

 

In before Taure.

Not april fools yet, Tehan.

Maybe the spell launches when you say the first syllable, but unless you finish the incantation and wand motions, assuming there are any, that the spell has no effect.

 

At this point in the argument, what's the point in incantations at all? If 'expe' and the thought of disarming someone is all that is required to perform the spell, then the incantation would logically be 'expe,' not 'expelliarmus.'

Likewise, if "spells leave the wand when a wizard thinks of the effect" then Harry's sectumsempra would never have left the wand, as he didn't know the effect.

It stands to reason that the incantations must have some effect as they are, else other incantations (or no incantations) would be used. I'm assuming that bullshit about 'incantations focus intent, so the words are in actuality meaningless' is entirely a fanon invention. Intent may be important according to Rowling, but the fact that she wrote in incantations means, one would think, that they have a role in casting as well.


Edit: Left window open for an hour or so. Ninja'd twice, ignore anything repetitive.

 

How can you stop someone's spells with Legilimency? I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that. He didn't stop Harry's incantations, he blocked the spells repeatedly, as in with a wand. He even says something to that effect, "Blocked again and again, until you learn to keep your mind closed and your mouth shut". And you can't simply point your wand and will someone dead. You can however, point your wand at them, will them dead, and cast Avada Kedavra (or some other deadly spell). Spells are important, as is will and intent. Everything needs to be in synergy for the spell to work though. A missing component would mean either a failed spell, or a very poorly cast spell, such as Ron's transfiguration abominations.

That lends further credence to my theory because if Snape kept blocking Harry's spells before he finished incanting, then the spells were leaving his wand before the incantation was complete.

@ Tehan. Chill the fuck out dude. I never suggested that writers should stop using their own ideas and use my "piddly little theory". I merely brought this up because I thought it was an interesting point about spells that I didn't think was discussed yet, which might be some interest to writers.

They are important because they are an extremely useful focus/trigger, as not everyone has the will power and skill to use non-verbal magic. And no, I don't think 'expe' would be a valid incantation because it's pretty much meaningless. The words describe what the spell does. 'Expell' is obvious, and 'armus' refers to a weapon. When Harry read Snape's potions book and came upon Levicorpus I believe it was, there were quite a few scratched out previous attempted incantations, suggesting that the words of an incantation cannot be meaningless.

That's a plot hole in itself. I don't believe you can cast a spell without knowing what the effect is. That means the words themselves have power, which is something that doesn't really sit right with me. It also minimalizes magical theory. If you can just cast a spell with an incantation, without knowing the effect and the theory behind the spells, then what would be the point of learning complex theories and mechanics of a spell?

They do have a role in casting. I never said otherwise.

I never said that incantations are useless or that they are meaningless, just not that they themselves have power. As an example, lets say you are an HP wizard and you start casting a spell. You are focused and intent on what you are doing when you start the incantation, so why would the spell not leave the wand until after it's finished, as you've already made up your mind what you are going to do and verbalized your intent?

Also, the theory that shorter incantations are better in combat, or that you need to completely finish an incantation before the spell leaves the wand are also fanon concepts. Canon doesn't say anything about this, so we can only come up with possible explanations.

 

Even within the system you're describing this doesn't work. If your explanation of the incantation is as "a focus/trigger," then you've intimately tied your intent to the incantation. You use the incantation to focus, yes, but in doing so you also implicitly expect the completion of the incantation to 'cause' the completion of the spell. If the incantation is only a tool for focus, you're mind-fucking yourself with this; you could be casting instantly with a thought (or the 'meaningless' first syllable or so of a word) but are instead psychologically binding your success to the completion of a separate, abstract trigger.

If the incantation has no intrinsic power beyond its ability as a focus aid, then, to a sufficiently mentally disciplined individual, any 'incantation' will do. Given that Snape - who, for all his faults and fuckups, is one of three canonically enshrined mentally powerful/organized individuals - uses a mental version of the standard incantation, and never divorces incantations from spells (say, by yelling "Stupefy" and sending a killing curse), it seems unlikely at best that the incantation is without some power in its own right.

What are the odds that anyone, save a few random Ravenclaws and Rowling's MarySue!Hermione understands magical theory as a first year? Second? Fifth? Seventh? I find it very hard to believe that the 'theory' behind "I intend for this feather to float" is any more or less complex than the theory behind "I intend to conjure demonic fire." If intent is the driving force behind magic, and there is no theory behind the formation of incantations - be it arithmantic, runic, or whatever other screwy explanations fanon has devised - then there should be no logical difference in difficulty between spells that an individual genuinely 'wants' to perform. If intent is the major driving force, then there is no "complex theory" to learn. Yet, throughout the books, we see contrary examples. And you can call every last one of them plot holes if you wish, but there is some point at which it is your hypothetical theory at fault, and not the (admittedly shoddy) content of the novels.

 

I've always thought spells are quite like, say, cars. You can use one fairly easily but that doesn't mean you can make your own, or even understand how your works.

Uh, and the incantation is 'Stupefy' not 'Stupify'. (and spell check catches this)

 

I think that the spell begins to form as the incantation is said/thought, but unless the incantation is finished then the spell's effect will not occur. So unless you finish it you're just getting a bit of a light show.

This is mostly based off the films, which are admittedly not canon, but I find that they do help in visualising certain things.

As for the point about Voldemort: in his fight against Dumbledore that we saw, mostly used the AK non-verbally, which rather negates the idea that it would take longer to cast.

 

I haven't watched the movies in awhile, in fact, I was going to bring it up in my next post, but I remember spells in the movie traveling through space while the incantation is being said. I most distinctly remember it from the scene in GoF where babymort kills the muggle in the very beginning. The incantation and the spell seemed simultaneous.

So would you say that using non-verbal magic takes less time on average than verbal magic? It does make sense in that you think faster than you can speak, as there is one less place an impulse has to travel. If you tried to verbally incant a spell, say avada kedavra as fast as you can do it in your mind, there's also the possibility of tongue twisting and mispronouncing it, which if we take PS into account, can have disastrous effects on the spell. Instead of a buffalo on your chest, the AK could shoot out the ass end of the wand and into you (which would actually be pretty damn funny).

 

I'd agree with the car analogy. If creating new spells was easy enough for even a brilliant Hermione to do after a few years of study, spell books would be obsolete before they were published, especially during a war. Also, a simple Stupefy or even Avada Kedavra would have died away to faster, subtler, stronger curses.

If Harry interrupted Draco's Crucio, regardless of how he did it, Draco's spell began. The Crucio would have been released, assuming all it takes is the intention.

It could be argued that the Unforgivable is canceled because Draco was distracted by pain and couldn't think about cursing Harry. Bella's conversation with Harry in the Ministry comes to mind, where she could tell he had never cast an Unforgivable before. Bella claims they are unlike spells Harry is used to, because you have to mean them.

So, the intention is also discounted. Somehow, it has to be a combination of all three: Intention, Wand Movements, and Incantation.
(I refuse to believe that the Unforgivable Curses are fundamentally different from every other spell, only that the Ministry sees them as granting too much power over an individual.)

As for the speed of the incantation, syllables matters much less than technique. I have yet to find a fic (with duels) that doesn't involve the words "bellowed," "yelled," or the equivalent. To use enough air to be considered "bellowing," a three-syllable Stupefy lasts longer, in seconds, than the six-syllable Avada Kedavra cast in the GoF movie. I generally picture roughly 1.3 seconds for the former, and 0.9 for the latter. The number of syllables themselves don't matter, and as "'STUPEFY!' Harry bellowed." is a fairly common line even in fics where Harry avoids using "long" spells, Voldemort muttering the killing curse could easily beat almost any spell.

All in all, I feel we're poking even more holes in Swiss cheese.

 

I think it depends on the will and intent of the caster when the spell leaves the wand. If the caster believes that the incantation must be finished for the spell to work, it won't work until the incantation has been said.

Also keep in mind that a lot of the time, people's minds easily outpace their mouths. If they will the spell to happen strongly enough, without the firm belief that the incantation needs to be finished, they may actually perform the spell non-verbally (sort of) in the middle of speaking the incantation.

That's my theory, anyway.