I always thought in both cases that the author simply didn't write the characters verbalizing the spell.

I mean, if the AK could be casted non-verbally, I don't see why Voldemort would choose to do otherwise in most other circumstances. I think that it, much like the Cruciatus, are a rare breed of spells that cannot be casted non-verbally.

 

I imagine that the AK requires a hate amount of hate to cast, which is dificult for all but the most psychotic to work up.

 

No canon basis though.

 

Hmmm...we have Amycus in HBP going, "Crucio! Crucio! Crucio!" against Ginny and Crabbe tossing the AK out like toffee against Ron and Harry in the Room of Requirement in DH. So, I don't think it's really the effort of casting the unforgivable in general or the AK in particular. I have to agree that it is the time taken to cast it that matters. After all, in the Death Chamber mess at the end of OotP, there are several descriptions of how fast and furious the duels were. There simply would not be enough time to gather oneself enough to cast the spell.

In a duel like the Riddle-Albus duel at the end of OotP though, it is certainly feasible, only because both wizards were well separated (the whole length of the Atrium between them) and capable of casting, in a sense, an "absolute defense" so to speak. So, speed of dueling no longer mattered. What mattered was out doing the opponent - Albus to capture Riddle and Riddle to kill Albus.

 

If Crabbe of all people was able to throw it around, then it can't be that hard to do, so unless their is a weakness to the spell there wouldn't be much of a reason to not cast it around corners and shit if you're already a known criminal.

Therefore, I'm going to say that the most logical answer is that the spell is slow-moving. From what the book has said, you have a good few seconds- even when the enemy is close- to stare in horrified fear at the green light and to listen in paralyzed shock to the sound of rushing wind: I think that's exactly why it is usually used as a finisher or a starter rather than a bread and butter sort of spell.

If you aren't scared shitless just by the words, light, and sound (or if you haven't been made stationary) you can probably get out of the way. So people who cast the spell rely on fear and immobilization (i.e. how Voldemort nearly killed Dumbledore in the DoM) to kill people with it.

The enemies' immobilizing fear would either come at the very beginning of a duel, when they've just been scared shitless by your presence, or at the end, when you've just trounced them into the dirt and they know they are about to die.

Only Crabbe would use the spell like he did in the RoR.

 

That could work, I suppose, but from the description in the book I never got the impression it was easier to dodge than say a stunner. Of course the descriptions of the spell tend to dramatize a bit, so it looks more eventful than a stunner. The fox for example would have been impossible to hit if the spell took several seconds to reach it.

Simply, when canon characters aim to kill, they do end up using the AK overwhelmingly. Its problem is that it becomes predictable, and even against Voldemort Dumbledore manages to evade the curse and protect Harry from it.

One could also wonder whether the skill of the wizard would affect the speed of the spell. Certainly it always seemed less escapable under Voldemort's wand.

 

In the case of normal magical population, I think the moral issue of using the unforgivable curses would prevent them from using the curses. In the fourth book when the fake Moody demonstrates the curses, we see that the students react with horror. Hence we can see that these curses are ingrained int the child's mind as essentially evil.

Regarding the issue of whether hate powers the curses, there is a slight plot hole, because in one of the books (fourth I think) it is said that Crouch authorised the Aurors to use these curses against the Death Eaters. Considering that there would be many Aurors who would have sympathised with Voldemort's aims, they would not have possessed the required hate.

In the case of Death Eaters, not all would have joined out of hate of muggles, Pettigrew for instance, yet all the Death Eaters we are shown in the books manage to power these curses.

I would be led to believe that the Avada Kedavra has gained such notoriety because it is a curse associated with Voldemort, its effects are what he essentially fears the most and he uses it to such devestating effect against others. The population fears him and anything associated with him. This the major reason why this curse is more feared in some ways more than the Imperio and the Cruciatus.

In that respect as well I believe anyone competent, in a fight with a Death Eater would expect the Unforgiveables and would react accordingly, hence variety would be to the Death Eater's advantage.

Hopefully I've managed to convey why more spells than the Avada Kedavra are used as well as why there is a sense of fear surrounding the curse.

 

Uhh... I can sort of see that, but I really think that you are looking at it from a weird angle.

First, on the issue of the hatred requirement, your idea that most Aurors wouldn't have the hatred is rather odd. For one, most aurors would absolutely despise the Death Eaters. This is war after all. And, for those that do sympathize, they just wouldn't shoot AKs.

Next, the curse is feared for on obvious reason: it undoubtedly causes death. The curse was most likely used far before Voldemort, so I don't think his association caused the fear.

 

The argument about needing hate isn't that bad (although the auror example is pointless), but we know that emotions can be manipulated. Snape (who is, arguably, a very skilled wizard) killed Dumbledore. That would be a much stronger argument, but at the same time it's easy to imagine that Snape would be able to conjure some hatred of Dumbledore if he wanted to (blaming him for not protecting Lily). So it's hard to make a worthy conjecture on the subject. Nevertheless, this does point towards the fact that the curse might not be evil in nature, just in it's usage commonly observed in the books:

Deathly Hallows, Chapter 33

does point towards the fact that the curse might not be evil in nature, just in it's usage commonly observed in the books.

 

Emotion/intent is definitely a greater factor than how easy a spell is to say. In HBP, Harry got of the Sectumsempra curse (4 syllables) quicker than Draco's Cruciatus (3 syllables).

As for the mindset, I think once you summon the initial feeling the first time you cast an Unforgivable, you don't have to psyche yourself up anymore. Kinda like how Harry knew he would be able to cast that patronus in PoA, because he'd already done it (technically). Another sort of related example: you don't have to think about who died (or how they died) every time you want to see thestrals. Once you've seen and understood death, the magic just works.

Don't know if I explained that properly...meh.

 

I cannot understand why it would travel '' slower ''

I'm probably using muggle logic here, but light should travel at the same speed right regardless of whether it was a red stunner or a green AK.

As Taure mentioned, the length of the syllable does play a part. While we could say that power is also a factor, canon provides no basis for how much can tire a wizard out.

This will venture into magical core-strength-skill territory, not something that I particularly would like to get into.

Again the AK isn't something that you are trained to use, or have regular practice with. It is an unforgivable, and going by that, the only way for somebody to practice it would be on Muggles and animals. If you have a choice between a spell that you are familar with, and a spell that you have probably used only once or twice, you will choose the former.

 

I don't agree. Frankly, if there was a spell that killed my enemies without fail just by touching them, I would use it (if I were a dark lord, of course). There has to be an actual reason why someone would not always use the spell if:

Crabbe can throw it around
it's as fast as other spells
It only takes as long to say as pretrificus totalus
Bella (I think) was able to cast it silently.

If all of those things are true, then the spell would be the be all, end all of spells (and even if it can't be said silently, it still would be close).

Therefore, one of those things has to be untrue. That, I think, is the speed of the spell.

 

Or it could be that JKR was not paying attention when she wrote the books and we are left debating the debacles.

Bella and Voldemort both cast it silently, even Crabbe was able to use it because thay did not find killing wrong or maybe enjoyed it.

As far as normal wizards and witches go, I think that it was meant to be a spell that people disliked using (just as, or maybe because, they disliked killing) more than anything else. I'm sure Dumbledore was perfectly capable of casting it but never used it, and Harry as well. But in the same vein I suppose Hermione would not be able to do it simply because she lacked the strength of will needed to summon up the coldheartedness, the true intent to kill. Rather like a civilian with a gun; unless they are messed up in the head or circumstances are piling on the pressure, they would not be able to pull the trigger (or atleast that's what I think).

Using AK would require the same kind of resolve a normal civilian would need when firing a gun not in distress, but by choice. In a situation where "it simply needs to be done", I think any wizard who knows the magic behind it could cast it if he/she possed that quality or strength of will...

As to the question of why the death eaters did not simply toss it about in their fights, AK likely requires strong focus and that could not be achieved when the opponent was quickly tossing hexes and curses their way and evading or shielding against them was a priority. Then again, just as a civilian with a gun could be startled into firing it, Death Eaters could be startled into firing it too. But in an open fight, such chances may not be many. So would any death eater fire off the AK when startled? Why not? But each probably had their choice/favorite spell and it would also depend on how jumpy the person was.

Hell, this is getting ridiculous...

 

True, but going by Moody's quote, if everybody in the classroom aimed their wands at him, he would supposedly get nothing more than a nose bleed.

Now whether powerful magic refers to intent, skill or both, it isn't quite clear.

It is one of those things on which we could debate for hours together without coming to a conclusion.

Snape presents a perfect blank face to the world, and is in control of his emotions. He AK'ed Dumbledore without probably really intending to. So how much of a role does intent play ?

 

Unless the wizard has other aims than just killing someone.

 

Also, something that needs to be thrown into the debate...the AK is only an Unforgiveable when used on a person...

So, how much does believing that the 'target' of the spell is not a person have to do with how easy it is to cast?

I'm pretty sure that most everyone could muster up enough 'loathing' to cast it on a mosquito/bedbug/any other 'vermin'. Probably not too much more difficult to cast it on larger critters/food animals or even things like goblins, house elves, etc. There would probably be less who could cast it on werewolves, but probably many more than who could bring themselves to use it on a Muggle or 'Mudblood'...

 

Did Voldemort have any such aims in the DoM? There was no need to use any other spell but the killing curse if it didn't have a weakness.

The same is true with the Death Eaters who were fighting the order members to the death in the DoM. There was no reason to not just kill them.

There would also be MANY more deaths at the final battle at Hogwarts if there was no weakness to the killing curse. The only purpose there was to kill others, so, by what you said, that's pretty much all they'd use.

 

Voldemort's first aim was to win the duel, not to kill Dumbledore. He used to killing curse twice and it failed him both times, so it is clear that he would need to use other tactics. Dumbledore was never going to be felled by a single spell, and Voldemort knew this, which is why he tried to attack in multiple ways such that Dumbledore would be overwhelmed dealing with the other attacks, at which point Voldemort could finish him off with the killing curse. It almost worked as well, if not for Fawkes.

Again, their primary purpose was to win their duels, not to kill. I think we have very different understanding of wizard duelling. The way I think of it, wizard duelling is breakneck. The only way to dodge a spell (unless you're a good distance away) is to be already dodging at the time it is being cast. Same with blocking. A split second advantage is all you need to gain the upper hand. The kind of split second advantage you would gain if you were to be facing someone who was using spells with long incantations.

 

How many other spells did he use to try and defeat Dumbledore? I don't have the book on hand, but I can only remember the snake, and a couple AKs, and apart from that defencive spells.

In any case, the snake was clearly useful: added to the AK, it allowed him to attack Dumbledore on two fronts almost at the same time.

In the DoM, the death eaters had to be careful not to kill Harry, and not to destroy the profecy, so they were not supposed to "just kill them".

 

You are correct, for most wizards, but blocking a spell has been shown to be very effective, if one is a practicing Legillimens. Legillimency changes the dynamic of the duel somewhat.