Ok, so I recently got into a bit of a strange debate with an acquaintance of mine about the Reductor Curse. He says that it doesn't produce any heat when it is cast - just a bolt of force directed at a target. I say that it produces some heat (at least upon impact) and that the target of the spell is subject to some degree of blast. What's the difference, I wonder then, between Confringo, Reducto, and Expulso, all of which were used in canon? As I'm planning on writing a battle scene in one my WIPs, I'd like to clarify it before I start writing.

Any opinions on this?

 

I think of it like this: A reducto blasts solid objects away, so it isn't exactly an offensive spell to be used against living tissue and what not... Expulso is like concussive force radiating from within something - when Rowle cast it, the table blew up into pieces. Confringo causes an actual explosion, combustion and all that jazz. Also, anything composed of matter or energy produces heat.

 

Rule one of Magic: Don't apply Physics.

Reducto: Bolt of Force, which impacts target.
Expulso: Force radiating out from target.
Confringo: Causes something to combust.

 

I'm pretty sure the name "Reductor Curse" is a fanon construct. It was never given a title, only described by its incantation reducto.

 

Actually, in Goblet of Fire, in chapter 30 or 31, it is actually called the Reductor Curse, if I remember correctly.

 

So... there you go. >_>

 

^^That's how you use Flipendo...

 

Yes, I do remember this, but remember when he tried to use it in the hedge maze, he 'burnt a small hole in the hedge'. What was that all about? Is that bolt of force somehow incendiary that it can burn through hedges?

 

In OotP, when he's teaching it to the DA, I believe it is Susan Bones who turns a table into sawdust. I've always maintained that the Reductor Curse is not an offensive spell to be used in a battle - reasoning is because it has never been seen in that capacity. As it is one of about three spells that Harry has been known to use ever, I think we might have seen him shoot it at a Death Eater if it worked that way.

Then again, since it might vaporize a finger or something if it hit, perhaps that would be canonically considered "Dark Magic".

 

The Reductor Curse does not vaporise things: its the magical equivalent to a strong kick, and how Harry uses it fits that definition.

From Goblet of Fire:

Page 643, American edition.

Page 626, American edition

Admittedly, a kick doesn't leave a small burnt hole behind it, but the basic idea is the same. The reason Harry's spell didn't do much to the hedge is easy if you think about it: there needs to be something solid for it to kick/blast/whatever away. Nevertheless, note that the 'small hole' isn't small in the sense of a golfball, or even a tennis ball. Harry is able to climb through it, even if he tears his robes. The first example only reinforces this impression of the spell. As Harry got poor effect in the second by utilizing the spell on a poor target, so did he get no effect when he was a complete idiot and used it on the enchantment.

When I can get to the OoTP book, I'll try and find the relevant Susan Bones passage.

So, the reason you wouldn't use the Reductor during a duel is the same reason you wouldn't bring a hammer to a gun fight. Sure, it'll be painful if you hit the other guy, and could be fatal if you hit him in the head, but there are much more effective weapons (spells) to be used. If you want to kill someone by physical impact/effect, use a spell designed to the task, like Confringo. Think of it as the difference between Difindo and Sectumsempra. (Actually, maybe not. Looking on the Lexicon, the weaker nature of Diffindo might be more of a fanon concept than canon.)

 

So very tempting, but I've already trolled too many threads that dissolved into arguments over the effect(s) of Reducto.