Inactive for almost a year I doubt I'll be making friends with this question but this has been 'tickling my bum' so to speak.

I've encountered this reference numerous times and yet the description of the 'raw power' itself is usually very vague. As far as I know until it is focused and given a purpose magic seems incorporeal. How do you figure 'raw' magical power causes destruction? Magic can do anything from cleaning a mess, creating birds from thin air, or instantaneous death the same magic can do many things but for some reason in it's 'raw' form it kills Voldemort. Has anyone used this in their own work, and if so what was your reason?

 

'Raw' or 'pure' magic would do...nothing. Magic is nothing without intent and purpose.

I'd love to see a parody where Harry shoots a jet of 'raw' magic at Voldemort, which does not even tickle him while Voldemort proceeds to strike down the shell-shocked Harry with a simple Killing Curse.

 

What makes me even more confused is when 'magic' has a personality or is female, and likes Harry.

It makes me feel like the author has been watching too much Star Gate Atlantis and thinks Harry is Sheppard.

 

In b4 Taure and ITS NOT CANON.

 

Well, why not? In canon, although there are clear cases where magic conforms to a wizard's intent for some effect to happen, those are mostly 'accidental magic', and even those are implied to have some random, non-controlled components. Actual, wand-cast spells seem to work somewhat differently: certainly, they require some sort of focus on the part of the wizard, but at least some of them can be cast without the wizard being aware of what exactly the effect will be. (Or am I just confused? I think Harry got a spell from Snape's notes and cast it without knowing the effect, which would be the most blatant example.)

This seems to imply that a wizard channeling magic and a wizard casting a spell are two different, though very related things. Perhaps they can do the former without the latter. If that is the case, the real question would be whether it is useful for them to do so.

Sounds like a pretty dumb plot device, though I don't think it's outright inconsistent with the magic seen in canon.

Why? Is there anything in HP canon that actually requires this to be the case?

(There's absolutely nothing wrong with preferring such an interpretation, of course--nice stories can be and were written in which this was the case. But I just doesn't see this as an established fact on HP canon. It could be true, but there doesn't seem to be anything that requires it.)

 

Nope, I'm just disdainful of some fanfics where Harry shoots blasts of pure magic at Death Eaters, which should by right do nothing at all.

What do YOU expect a jet of 'raw' magic to do, without being shaped by intent into a spell?

 

Don't you know? Raw Magic = Wind

That seems to be the case in a lot of fics.

 

You've a certainly a right to be disdainful (I'm glad that I've seem to have missed fics like that); I'm just not sure that it "should" do nothing. Dumping any kind of energy, in whatever form, always does something, the question would be whether it would be more effective as something else. After all (getting a mundane example), irradiating someone with vast quantities of incoherent radiation may be dangerous to their health, but just shooting the sod would be more efficient.

The fact that wizards have spells with standardized formulae at all tells us that whatever 'raw' magic does, a spell would do it better. There'd be no reason for having spells in the first place otherwise.

 

Like when? When Petunia cut Harry's hair and didn't like it, his hair grew back he didn't grow a tail or start shooting laser's from his eyes. His magic responded to the cause of his emotional distress his bad haircut. The activation of his magical powers was accidental but it still affected only his hair so their must've been some subconscious focus.

My main gripe is why 'raw' magic causes destruction. You make the point that it should do something. Why doesn't it sparkle Voldemort's teeth? Why doesn't it just make him stronger?

 

QFT.

I'm surprised he isn't 'all up in this shit' already. I'm waiting for him to come in and roll a natural 20 on his attempt to Disbelieve the OP's post.

In preparation for this eventual post, I am readying the Yawn Cannon.

Edit:

Probably comes from many people's image of raw power; things like pure electricity, radiation, heat. These things can all be very destructive, even in an unfocused state. They may see magic in a similar way.

It seems like it's just a way of saying that Harry is using pure 'offensive' magic (offensive destruction of a target being Harry's intent). Magic that isn't being shaped into anything in particular or with any motivation beyond destruction. It isn't a lighting bolt, it isn't meant to cut/burn/smash/disembowel/blind/suffocate/et cetera, it is simply meant to kill. It's a beam of concentrated 'kill', a can of pure, unadulterated whoopass, a pocketful of miracles... or some shit like that. I can only guess at their thoughts.

 

My point isn't that magic doesn't happen that way, but simply that it doesn't have to happen that way. I suppose when Harry blew up his aunt without any conscious desire for that particular effect, you could interpret it as subconscious as well, but really, just the fact that Harry was able to cast a spell without knowing its effect beforehand is enough to demonstrate my point. He did have a specific intent--cast a spell to harm Draco--but he had no clue just what it did. And yet, the spell has a specific effect regardless of the user's knowledge.

Moreover, the fact that Harry expected the spell to succeed regardless that most spells work the same: they might require the wizard to actively channel magic, and they might have some prerequisites for successful casting (pronunciation, wand movements, emotional states, etc.) that may be different from spell to spell, but they typically don't require the wizard to intend that whatever effect of the spell comes to pass. The effect comes automatically.

This makes it at least plausible that one could channel magic without casting any particular spell. It may be dumb to generally do so in lieu of combat spells (one would think combat spells would be better at it, just as tools in general get developed because they make tasks more efficient), but it does make the ability plausible.

Because generally speaking, dumping large quantities of anything in an uncontrolled manner causes a mess. My main gripe is not that it causes some destructive effect, but that spells actually designed to be destructive should be much better at it. But you're right--there's no reason why the effect couldn't be completely random and likely useless instead.

 

Magic with the intent to kill would get you the Killing Curse. A Reductor or Blasting Curse would probably be the result of magic shaped by an intent for destruction. I get what you mean however. But a "beam of concentrated destruction" can no longer be called a "beam of raw magic" since both are inherently different- one has purpose and intent while the other hasn't.

Even with accidental magic, intent and emotions are still present- Harry managed to get onto the roof because he wanted to escape the bullies. He regrew his hair because he hated it being cut by his aunt. He despised his cousin and wanted to punish the obnoxious idiot, so he made Dudley trapped in the snake enclosure, while freeing the boa constrictor.

His anger and hatred towards Marge led to him blowing her up like a balloon (this is the only random accidental magic I know of).

 

Avada Kadabra seems to fit the description.

 

Never heard of it.

If you mean Avada Kedavra, that spell is purposely designed to separate a soul from a body. That's fairly specific.

Well, I can't really say I disagree, I'm just trying to explain what the authors seem to be trying to describe; an attack composed of harmful energy.

I suppose antimatter and chaos energy would fit the bill as well.

 

Scroll down if you are too lazy to read.

The way I see it, Raw magic is simply there, an infinite reserve generated by magical creatures, old bloodlines and so on. In its purest form it does nothing. Wizards, which are the culture we know most about, use wands, incantations and wand movements to change raw magic into a more useful spell, specifically designed to achieve a result. One can argue that the incantation and wand movements are merely props to help young wizards learn how to do magic, the wand and intent being the sole requirements. That may be so, but is not the point of discussion.

To me, the system of using magic with the appropriate intent seems to be the most efficient and simple system. Other authors seem to disagree, since we have thousands of stories where Harry has elemental powers, shoots lightning out of his eyes and glows with raw magic as he proceeds to dissipate the magic from Death Eaters with bolts of raw magic.

The problem, analysed from an outsiders perspective is that an author wishes Harry to be different from Death Eaters. Since they are the only ones who use any useful spell in battle (Unforgivables, various assortments of purple curses etc.) Sure, Dumbledore's animation and transfiguration are flashy, but are they as simple and cost effective as a Killing Curse? Me thinks not. Since most authors equate Death Eaters with evil, and Death Eater spells with evil, they need Harry to use something else. JKR, of course, also falls in this category. Both seem to pull Deus Ex Machinas, such as Elder Wands, Raw Magic. In fact, the whole Elder Wand concept seems more suited to fanfiction, but that is not the topic.

As usual, for TL;DRers:

Raw Magic is useless in its form. Stick with what you know works and have Harry casting Killing Curses. Bonus points if the Weasleys are on the receiving end.

 

LOL. You couldn't resist, could you?

I'm tempted to speculate that in real life you wear a turban to hide the fact that Lucius Malfoy's face is on the back of your head. :mrgreen:

Anyway, the general consensus here seems to be that 'raw magic' in terms of smacking one's bitch up, is a misnomer. True raw magic is just magical energy, bereft of intent, that has yet to be designated for a specific purpose.

'Raw magic', in the offensive capacity most authors who use the term intend, is an unfocused, nonspecific, magical attack using a very base form of destructive energy.

 

Lol, in before Taure.

There is no magical power. Only skill.

 

Raw Magic...

Is determined by the size of your dick.

And that, is cannon.

The more raw magic you have, the longer your stick is.

 

I don't know why I even bother. Well, I do, it's because I have an unyeidling pathological desire to prove that I'm right, but anyway...

I'm just going to give you a series of links on a few topics related to the topic of this thread, though when you use the term "raw magical power" you're using it a bit differently from the usual way (usually people use raw magical power to describe the idea that a person has a set magical potential, whereas you're using it to ask what magic is in it's raw form).

On the idea of what magic is in it's "Raw Form"

This is the one that is most relevant. I'd say that you're making a false assumption in thinking that magic is something that can have a "raw form", because I'd say that magic isn't an energy or a substance.

On the idea of why there's no such thing as Raw magical power

Also: http://forums.darklordpotter.net/showthread.php?t=8412

On the idea that spells without incantations are impossible

That is all.

Edit: Wait, no it isn't.

In DH when Flitwick was casting protective spells over all of Hogwarts, it said that it was like he had "released the power of the wind into the grounds". Just something to take into consideration.

That's what Dementors do, so the Killing Curse doesn't get rid of the soul. Even if the Killing Curse was a curse that got rid of your soul, then it'd be the Soul Seperating Curse, not the Killing Curse. The way I see it, the Killing Curse is just a curse that simply makes the victim dead. Not by any means, it just makes the victim dead.

 

Isn't magical power an oxymoron? Power is defined by energy expended where as magic is not energy...

Energy obeys the law of conservation...for energy to exist there has to be a source from which it can be derived. So we have all the laser beams and light sabers and tasers and whatnot discharging with use and needing to be charged again explaining the need for an energy focus.

Magic on the other hand, has no law of conservation governing it. It does not obey the laws of physics so one does not need raw magic or some sort of magical core to perform spells like one needs energy to do work.

As to where magic comes from, the question does not apply in the case of magic because the very premise of the question is that the law of conservation is obeyed...and magic does not obey conservation principles. So magic is a gift/ability/attribute that is outside of nature and not energy, so raw magic does not exist.

Hope I'm not preaching to the choir again Taure just can't stop myself...