I have a new headcanon document that some people might be interested in, replacing my previous "Canon+". It's more comprehensive and systematic than ever, and unlike the previous version, this one is concerned with justification on the basis of evidence and logical inference.

The document is broken down into thematic sections, each of which begins with a series of canon observations, and then my conclusions follow.

This is intended to be my final effort in the area of explaining canon, bringing together all of my thoughts from over the years. The document is currently unfinished but is already substantial. There's even a diagram.

This thread is created for any discussion of what I've put, critical or otherwise. I don't like the new way Google Docs does comments (making them essentially provisional edits) so the document itself is view-only.

What I've got so far is:
- The nature of magic (i.e. a description of magic in itself)
- Wizardry and witchcraft (i.e. a description of the magical nature of wizards and witches)
- The nature of spells (i.e. a discussion of what spells are and how they relate)

What is still to come:

Magical Framework (continued)

- Charms
- Transfiguration
- Dark magic

Society

- Population
- Politics
- Economy
- Social values
- The Ministry’s powers
- Magical conflict
- Education
- Medicine
- Wizards and Muggles (both conflict and cultural comparison, plus the extent to which they are separated)

Writing Advice
- Showing, telling, and the info-dump
- The problems with bashing
- The difference between intelligence and maturity
- Pacing and defeating your own purpose
- Character voice
- Human villains
- The principle of moderation
- Dynamic dialogue
- Realistic and consistent character choices
- How children view themselves (realities of teens and sex)
- Angst and attractiveness
- Beginnings, middles, ends and plot bunnies

Common misconceptions
- Unblockable unforgivables
- Emotional unforgivables
- Exams and the international system
- Arithmancy

Debates
- Post-Hogwarts education (diminishing returns on education)
- Veela Allure

As you can see, I've still got a lot to do, which is why I'm not waiting for it to be completely done before sharing. This is going to be an ongoing project which I add to whenever I have the time.

 

These Google docs are often intriguing

 

I cannot imagine the amount of time, effort and enthusiasm you must have put into this. You even started writing a goddamn book on spell theory. I realized that you drew conclusions that even explain some stuff in a fic I'm writing, even though I never really cared to adhere to canon, I just did what I wanted.

Is it weird that it kind of freaks me out?

(After you're finished someone (maybe Perspicacity) should write a short explanation of what math is and how it works and you could mail everything to Rowling.)

I love that with the whole spell geometry thing you just made it up and it still seemed to make sense.

 

I disagree with your phrasing on ages effect on magical power. You seem to imply that an older wizard will simply be more powerful. This is obviously not the case. Younger wizards are better at using accidental magic, and older wizards are better at using wanded magic. It seems that magical power is probably affected by age, but not in an increase/decrease sort of way, as much as a focus/unfocused sort of way. It is also worth noting that the apparent effect could easily be due to increased knowledge, and understanding of magic academically, moving away from the more instinctual understanding of magic children have. In addition, I suspect age ceases to be as much of a factor as a wizard grows older. 17 seems to be some sort of break point, Lily's sacrificial protection couldn't help Harry after that point, and the trace cannot be applied to adult wizards. This somewhat arbitrary age seem to be more evidence that it is a matter of knowledge and maturity rather than age, as this is the age of graduation from Hogwarts, and the age where a wizard is considered to know just about everything he needs for most jobs, but it could also be further evidence that the ministry has some sort of magical power do to authority, and declaring 17 the age of adulthood makes it so.

 

Ah, yes, completely agree. I only meant for age to matter up to the point of adulthood. I think that's implied by my comparison of Moody's class to adult Death Eaters, but I should make it more explicit.

Scott_Press: originally I had planned to do the full Chapter Two of that transfiguration book. Unfortunately I lost my notes (on paper) in the move from Chile to the UK and I no longer remember what the remaining spell complexes were supposed to be XD

Edit: Aha, not so lost after all! I went rummaging and found it:



I'm reading it and I myself don't know where I got it all from... just had a random day of inspiration.

 

Good shit. I'm looking forward to more of it.

 

I'm slightly disappointed that you are not featuring magical creatures.

Other than that, you know I'm going to read all of it.

 

Just updated the document with a substantial (2500 words!) section on transfiguration. It's a pretty comprehensive survey of basically everything we know and can infer from canon, I think. Tell me if you think I've missed anything out.

 

hmm once concept that you have forgotten that comes to mind is relative duration of magic.

1 Polijuice Potion lasts for exactly one hour, per dose (CoA)
2 Dumbledore's petrification of Harry ends with his death (HBP)
3 The Sorting Hat, the Sword of Gryffindor, Hogwarts Castle, and Harry's Firebolt all seem to keep their respective magical properties beyond the creator/caster's life.

 

Duration is being addressed case by case rather than in any general sense, as it varies. Transfiguration is permanent unless untransfigured, for example, while many charms definitely wear off over time/use. On the other hand, some charms have lasted a long time. Curses are also able to last thousands of years, as we see from Egyptian tombs.

Edit: One thing I didn't say anything about was animagus and the fact that people don't keep their mental capacity when transfigured into animals unless they're animagi.

Incidentally, it occurs to me now that Krum is probably a shark animagus who has yet to master the transformation. He was able to keep his mind as a shark, which is only possible as an animagus.

If so, this is the only clue we've got into the process that goes into learning how to become an animagus.

 

I don't think Moody's class is the best example of magical power increasing with age. When reading the book, I assumed that fake-Moody was commenting on the mental state of his students and assuming they were not emotionally capable of killing him, as opposed to them lacking the power to do so. Is there a particular reason you disagree?

 

Because he explicitly says they need more power than they have to cast the curse and says nothing about emotional ability.

 

It is indeed canon, from Tales of the Beedle the Bard, Dumbledore's comments.

You're not considering a third possibility with Slughorn: there's a time-delayed untransfiguration.

 

You are oversimplifying Moody's statement. He says that the curse requires powerful magic, a fact that could just as easily be applied to the Patronus Charm. It does not necessarily mean that the caster must have a innately high magical ability to cast it.

Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that Moody included the nosebleed part of his comment purely for the effect, and the Killing Curse works on a discrete scale, either killing the target or doing nothing at all. If the Death Eaters who use the killing curse are more each powerful than every member of Moody's class could possibly be, then the power must transfer into other areas. Yet the Death Eaters as a whole appear be incompetent, as highlighted by Harry's friends ability to hold their own against a numerically superior force in the Department of Mysteries.

If the Killing Curse instead works on a continuous scale, as most magic appears to, this disparity in the Death Eater's ability to cast the Killing Curse versus everything else is even more egregious. The power difference between the average Death Eater and the more talented members of Harry's class is not so great that they wouldn't have even minor effects.

Therefore, there must be some other factor in play. Practice might have an effect, though it doesn't seem to fit within the spirit of Moody's statement. The additional understanding of magic the Death Eater's gain after going through Hogwarts and then fighting on their own time may have an effect as well, which seems reasonable. Or there is a willpower component, as there appears to be with most powerful spells. I prefer the later explanation, as it is the only one to explain the disparity in the Death Eater's ability to cast the Killing Curse and casting other magic.

In addition, as you have already stated that understanding of magic correlates with power, and every major character in the Harry Potter universe attends school during their adolescent years, can the power increase as wizards grow really be attributed to their age instead of their additional years of learning and practice? Where do you draw the line between the two?

 

I'd go the simpler route and suggest that Slughorn transfigured his outer garments to cover him like a chair. After all, if he was actually a chair, poking him wouldn't have hurt.

 

I would not suspect someone like Slughorn to have the transfiguration skill required to turn himself into a chair. It could perhaps be a disguise or illusion spell. This is all speculation, but I suspect transfiguring oneself into a chair tends to be a bad idea, and a time delayed untransfiguration feels too contrived for even Slughorn to use. Some sort of trigger delayed untransfiguration might make sense, but it wouldn't trigger on being poked. For that reason, I suspect it to be some sort of charm or other spell, possibly even a potion, that imposes the form of a chair on Slughorn without following the rules of transfiguration, and that Slughorn was indeed aware of his surroundings as a chair. This may be at a level of unbacked speculation that is too far form canon evidence for your document, however.

 

I'm not oversimplifying it, I'm taking it on its face value. What you're doing is overcomplicating it. And I don't see how it's "a fact that could just as easily be applied the Patronus Charm". We're told that the Patronus charm requires a happy memory. The happier the memory, the stronger the spell. We're told that the Killing Curse requires power, and nothing about mental state.

Now you're trying to say the the Patronus needs power and the Killing Curse needs a certain mental state. Forgive me if I think you're getting things a bit mixed up.

All this stuff I can ignore because that's an assumption that requires you to basically interpret "yes" as meaning "no".

I don't see what you're basing this on at all... or even really what you're trying to say. Are you saying that, if the Killing Curse required a certain level of power that kids don't have but adults do, then adult Death Eaters would be much more powerful than kids? To me that's obvious, so I'm not really sure how this is a problem. Obviously even a below average adult Death Eater could toy with a fourth year.

The problem for this is the lack of academic ability of some of the Death Eaters, which means that their understanding of magic is negligible. People like Marcus Flint don't really gain anything from Hogwarts. At yet during 4th year these characters can't cast the Killing Curse, but once adult they can.

So:

You assume Slughorn can't perform NEWT level transfiguration, despite being one of the most talented wizards we see in canon.

You assume that time delayed transfiguration is "contrived" without giving any reason for this.

You assume Dumbledore's poke triggered Slughorn to undo his own spell, rather than Dumbledore's poke being a spell itself which directly reverted Slughorn to human form.

This is a lot of assumption.

 

A couple thoughts upon reading the revised material:

On the basis that Aguamenti is a charm and that it produces nutritive water, I would hypothesize that the charm merely collects water from the area. It may be very difficult to cast such a spell in a desert, but we have no evidence either way.

Animation really seems to be entirely charms work. What we know of its association with Transfiguration is just that McGonagall enjoys making and animating larger-than-human warriors. It could be a personal quirk.

Even based on theory, animation fits best as a charm-phenomenon; its applying a (temporary in most cases) ability to something that wouldn't naturally have that property. It also fits in hand with the summoning and banishing charms in 'telekinetic' effects.