1. DLP Flash Christmas Competition + Writing Marathon 2024!

    Competition topic: Magical New Year!

    Marathon goal? Crank out words!

    Check the marathon thread or competition thread for details.

    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Introducing for your Perusing Pleasure

    New Thread Thursday
    +
    Shit Post Sunday

    READ ME
    Dismiss Notice

Raw Magical Power. What is it exactly?

Discussion in 'Fanfic Discussion' started by Harpy Prince, May 24, 2008.

  1. Skeletaure

    Skeletaure Magical Core Enthusiast ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,842
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    Ockham's Razor: the simplest explanation for the observed evidence is usually the correct one.

    I dispute this question itself. The question clearly has it's answer it it's premise: magic is magic. It defies definition using any other terms, because to do so is to make magic something else rather than what it is. Magic is not energy, or a force. Were it an energy or a force, it wouldn't be magic, it would be an energy or a force.

    If we do try to define magic using other terms, then we will never be 100% accurate, because nothing sums it up quite as well as the word "magic" itself. However, as I have stated previously, if I had to define it I would say that it is control over reality. I'll be the first to say that this is not a 100% accurate comprehensive definition, for the reasons I state above, but I feel that it far better reflects what we have observed of magic than "energy", "power" or "force".

    The way I often think of it, and I don't know if I'll be able to explain this properly, is that I consider magic more akin to language than gravity.

    It wouldn't mean that, no. But, regardless, this is what we observe in canon: spell "creation" is more akin to spell discovery. When Snape "created" the Levicorpus spell, all he was doing was trying out different incantations until he found the one that worked.

    This is probably why you disagree with my theories. As you read them, you're already making the assumption that magic is a substance - something that can be shaped. I'd say that magic is rather something that you do.

    Spells are controlled by a person's mind and thoughts (intent), expressed in words (incantation), and released as a spell. I'd say a spell is not a "gathering" of "raw magic" which is shaped and expelled through the wand, I'd say it is a concept (or thought) made manifest through an incantation.

    Thus, for every new thought that can be thought, there could be a new spell. The incantation for that spell would be whatever expressed this thought best, and presumably this means that incantations would be subjective - a different incantation for every person. However, taking the education system into account, they simply teach the incantations which they know to work. These probably aren't as effective as a personal incantation, but then not everyone is skilled enough to find their own incantations such as Snape does. Education for the masses, as it were.

    If magic is something you create, rather than experiment with and discover, then what do the Unspeakables investigate in the Department of Mysteries?

    And see above for Snape's so called "creation" of spells.

    P.S. Much credit goes to Mors for much of the Incantation theory regarding subjective incantations.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2008
  2. Sesc

    Sesc Slytherin at Heart Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,216
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Blocksberg, Germany
    Well, thanks for clearing that up. At the very least, I can say that it is an interesting concept.


    So, maybe, we'll start one level down. Disregarding the difference between curse, hex etc, and grouping the lot of them together as a "spell" -- what is a "spell"? You say it's the manifestation of a concept, the effect of something someone said or thought.

    But we see spells that have coloured beams, for example, Avada Kedavra -- a bright green, that, after saying the incantation, leaves the front end of the wand, and travels at a certain speed in a straight line into the direction where the wand is pointing, when not disturbed from the outside.

    What is the green light? And, also, it is not instantaneous, but rather moves, as I said. Nothing happens to the victim before the light hits their body. The very first thing most would say when seeing that (I think you'll agree with me there) is, that this is the "spell". We can see it travelling from wand to target.

    However, if it is not, then what is the light?

    Disregarding the fact that JKR could have put the light there because it seemed cool, I think this is the reason why I think of something like a gathering of Raw Magic, shaped into a spell and expelled through the wand, as you said.

    Because that is what we see, or at least, seem to see.

    And finally, if spells were just the effect itself, the visible consequence of something I said, why use a wand at all? What is the purpose of it, if not focussing and directing something?

    Even if there is no light -- if I have two matchsticks lying in front of me that I'm transfiguring into needles, only the one I'm pointing my wand at will get transfigured. So, even then, the wand is used to direct something.

    But if something leaves the wand, it is something -- the spell itself, or, for lack of a better word, magic, some kind of substance, visible as green light, in case of AK.

    However, if nothing leaves the wand, it isn't needed. I could say what I wanted to say, and it would happen, and it would happen instantaneous. There would be no need for a time delay.


    You create spells, not magic. And so, I'd say their work is not affected by the choice of how magic is perceived. They study and experiment with magic, here I agree.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2008
  3. Skeletaure

    Skeletaure Magical Core Enthusiast ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,842
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    I agree with everything but for the italicised bit. While I can understand the need to classify magic as something else that we are familiar with in real life, I do think that it's a false need. I think it would have been enough to leave the statement as:

    "But if something leaves the wand, it is something -- the spell itself, magic, visible as green light, in case of AK."

    Magic is its own "thing" I would say. I shall draw an analogy.

    We have colours. Now, imagine the concept of a new colour. One might try to explain this new colour with reference to other colours: "darker than blue" or "like yellow, only different", but ultimately one would fail to actually define the new colour. All you will have been able to do would be to describe certain aspects of it with reference to what is already known. The only way to have knowledge of what the new colour is is to see the new colour itself, unique from all other colours, and unable to be described with reference to them.

    So too, I would say, it is with magic. Magic is its own thing, unique and unable to be described in terms of other things. We may be able to describe aspects of it - for example, how sometimes it acts in a similar way to a substance, other times like language and so on - but we can never capture what it is by referring to other things, because in the end, like the new colour, the only thing that magic is, is magic itself.

    Now, this is a problem, since magic is a fictional idea, and thus we can never actually experience it, just as we can never experience that hypothetical new colour. But the concept of it being different can be grasped.

    So I would say that, in your example, what the spell is, in and of itself, which is what I think you were getting at, can only be described as "magic". Yes, it sometimes shares similar attributes with substance, at other times is shares similar attributes with my "anti-reality", but in the end it's just magic.

    The reason why I like the anti-reality explanation so much is that it melds with this slightly - anti-reality, but it's nature, would be something which we cannot grasp, since we only have experience of reality. A spell, in and of itself, could be thought of as an extension of a wizard's ability to bend/break reality - his will made manifest.

    But as I say, this is just a way of thinking about it.

    In a way, this is rather similar to physics. We have various models in physics that attempt to model how the universe works: for example, the wave model and the particle model when applied to light/photons. Neither of them are as the thing is in and of itself, neither of them are actually what is occurring, they're just ways of modeling it.

    I can easily see this being the case with magic also. Wizards themselves could puzzle over what magic is, and try to model it using theories like the ones we use (the "substance theory" or the "anti-reality" theory) but in the end they're all just models, and the only thing that magic is is magic.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2008
  4. Gabrinth

    Gabrinth Chief Warlock DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,582
    Location:
    Cary, NC
    I haven't read any of it past page two, because I don't want what anyone says to fuck with my own theory. I'm just laying it out there.

    Magic is simply a stupid word that is given to the power to effect the world. It doesn't get stronger or weaker from one person to the next, besides simply having it or not having. Wizards have that power, muggles and squibs do not. It is that simple.

    Where you would get the idea of a 'stronger' or 'weaker' mage does not come from having a stronger core or 'better magical channels.' It comes from having a stronger will, a quicker mind, more experience, etc. to shape and change the infinite. If you are better at using magic, you are a better wizard.

    tl;dr: Being 'stronger' at magic doesn't mean you 'have a stronger core' or anything like that. It simply means that you are better at shaping magic, which is a matter of will, experience, intelligence, etc.

    Going back to the first topic, 'raw magic' wouldn't really do anything because it hasn't been shaped. Releasing unshaped 'change' into the atmosphere wouldn't do anything. It would do just that: not change anything.
     
  5. Sesc

    Sesc Slytherin at Heart Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,216
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Blocksberg, Germany
    Nice analogy there. There isn't even the need for a new colour. You can't explain red with any other word than with "red". Red is red is red. Hence why it is impossible to explain it to any person who has been blind from birth. I see where you're coming from.

    Doesn't mean I agree with the Raw Magic, and I still like my Raw Magic Burst == Magical EMP, but it does make sense. I'll have to think about it.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2008
  6. Synchro

    Synchro High Inquisitor DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    554
    Location:
    Texas
    Why not put it this way? Magic to a wizard is like a blade to a swordsman. It is a tool, only we know the nature of the blade (sword) but the nature of magic is not known; and if it were it wouldn't be 'magic'. The very term represents the unexplainable (if it helps, think if a child's reaction to the sleight-of-hand of a 'magician').

    Magic is supposed to be this awe-inspiring, feared 'power' (I use the term in it's loosest sense) that sorcerers possess that common people don't. It defies reality and the normal laws of nature and observation and whatnot. We generally think that if we "see" something, there must be "something else" out of which it came (like how we believe that everything in this universe came out of Energy) - conservation principles are very deeply ingrained in our minds. But magic was not made to obey such rules. To attempt to reconcile a literary concept that was created with the aim of defying reality and explantion with a model for reality would not be a right thing to do.

    Which is why there is no "raw magic". Such a thing, if it existed, would mean that magic would have to obey some sort of conservation law - something like 'The total amount of Raw Magic in the Universe is constant' - which would defeat the purpose of the idea behind magic.

    Edit: And like I've said before, with something like that (raw magic), we may as well replace magic with chakra and fuse Harry Potter with Naruto.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2008
  7. mjc

    mjc Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    203
    I suppose the closest canon example we have of 'raw magic' is what happened when Voldemort 'died' the first time. Essentially, it was a 'magical EMP' with fairly random effects...the house got destroyed, Voldemort ceased to be and Harry ended up with a little bit of Voldemort's soul hanging around in his head. And the only thing that it took to make it happen was a reflected Killing Curse and a prophecy stating that Harry would be the one to 'vanquish' Voldemort.

    So, basically, what we end up with is, if 'raw magic' exists, at all, it is an all or nothing sort of thing, kind of like a self destruct mechanism. It would also be an entirely different thing than a burst of unfocused magic, if that is even possible in the HP universe. And both of them would be different from uncontrolled magic, which is what most 'accidental' magic seems to be...uncontrolled as in there is no defined spell only a desired outcome.
     
  8. Ph34r_n0_3V1L

    Ph34r_n0_3V1L First Year

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2007
    Messages:
    48
    Location:
    The Deepest Darkness
    About Raw Magic, I think what the majority of the authors using it are thinking of is Spellfire/Mystra's Silver Fire (I'm unsure about the difference between the two) from Forgotten Realms/D&D . If I remember correctly, Spellfire is pure/raw Magical Weave given form, which is incredibly destructive.
     
  9. Mindless

    Mindless Big Boss DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,355
    Location:
    United States
    I actually rather doubt all of them think that. Maybe that's what originally spawned it, but if that's so only one nerd is copying D&D and everyone else is copying him.

    Also, your name makes baby Jesus cry.
     
  10. Skeletaure

    Skeletaure Magical Core Enthusiast ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,842
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    Especially as it's from a Psalm (25?) from his own book :p

    And yeah, I think people just like blowing shit up. D&D could be considered one source, but I think the explanation is much simpler than that.
     
  11. Demons In The Night

    Demons In The Night Chief Warlock

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,438
    Location:
    Florida
    One thing that I would like to throw out there, without starting a new magical theory thread, is the use of language and incantations when casting spells.

    I had always assumed that incantations were merely used to focus the mind on the effect desired, especially with unskilled and young wizards who don't yet have good control over their minds and their ability to focus. I thought that the words themselves carry no power. This seems not be the case though in HP, as Flitwick explains in PS when a wizard altered a single syllable of a spell, and ends up with an entirely different effect than desired, disregarding the wizards intent, focus, and knowledge of said spell.

    We also see evidence that words themselves carry 'power', in HBP. We know from Snape's potions book that it took him numerous times to come up with a 'correct' incantation for one of his spells, when presumably he had the same spell effect and intention in his mind with all the failed tries. We also see this later in HBP when Harry slashes the fuck out of Draco with Sectumsempra. Despite how much I loved Draco getting fucked up, I'm against the scene because Harry has no idea what the spell does, nor the theory behind it. He had the intent to use it, but nothing else. Why would a spell not work if your incantation is slightly off, or why could you cast a spell correctly if you have no idea about the theory behind it or what effect it has?

    The only answer is that the words themselves have 'power'. I don't like this, even if it is canon. As I said above, I subscribe to the Dresden Files 'theory of incantations', in that they are only used to focus your mind on the effect desired, and it doesn't matter what word you say, what your accent/enunciation/inflection is, only that you know what spell you're casting, have the right intent, and know the theory behind the spell.

    For example, you could cast a levitation charm with "hocus pocus" as long as you intend on casting a levitation charm and know the proper wand motions.

    Also, why can't you use English incantations? Or rather, why aren't there more English incantations? The only one I can remember from canon is the "point me" spell. Take for example "lumos". Roughly translated into English it means "light up" (as a command). So why can't you use "light up!" as the incantation instead of "lumos"?

    Even if it is canon, I hate the theory that words themselves have 'power', and that exact incantations are necessary.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2008
  12. Blaise

    Blaise Golden Patronus

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Messages:
    6,193
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    You're not wrong, but in the world of HP that kind of argument is irrelevant.

    The main "magical system" explored in the HP universe is European magic - specifically, Wandlore (DH). The fact that it is referred to as such heavily implies that there are other systems of magic out there, systems that don't require incantations.

    Having said that, a talented wizard could probably point his wand and say " Big floppy donkey cock!", and have a Summoning spell shoot out of his wand, but the mental trigger would still be "Accio". That's how wandlore was set up.

    Not to sound like I'm coping out, but I always considered the Point Me spell as a plot hole. While the Summoning spell didn't require a Latin translation of the summoned object, it still had a Latin base/trigger. One couldn't just point their wand, shout "Book!", and have it fly towards them.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2008
  13. Skeletaure

    Skeletaure Magical Core Enthusiast ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,842
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    I too subscribe to the idea that incantations do not have power in and of themselves (they're just words after all). However, I do think that they're still important. I think that the power of an incantation comes from its significance to the wizard casting it.

    As I've set out in my previous incantation theory (you can find a link on page1), there is a way of looking at spells as concepts in the mind made manifest in the physical world through magic. So, for example, you could think of the Shield charm as the concept of protection made manifest in magic. The incantation for this charm would therefore be the incantation which expressed that concept best for the wizard casting it.

    So this means that incantations are variable depending on the wizards casting it and not set in stone, but it does not mean that they can be simply anything - for every spell, there is an incantation which will result in the best casting of that spell for each particular wizard.

    So why do they teach set incantations then? Simply because Hogwarts is education for the masses. Not all wizards, in fact, hardly any wizards, would have the necessary talent to "find their own incantation" for spells like Snape does in HBP. In addition, you have the problem of confidence: magic is linked strongly to confidence, and teaching people incantations that they know for sure will work - even if they aren't the incantations which would be optimal for that person - will be easier.

    So when Snape was trying out incantations for the Levicorpus, I'd say that his failed incantations would have had some success, but not the level of success he was after.

    Why aren't spells in English? I'd say that this is simply for the fact that older languages are more "magical sounding". If the incantation is decided by its significance to the wizard, then the word will be in the language that the wizard feels will be most magical - "Protego" sounds much more magical than "I protect", so a wizard's mind will prefer the Latin incantation by far to the English one, because it sounds much more magical.

    This theory goes a bit to explain why being creative is the sign of a powerful wizard: creative people will be creative with their magic, experimenting with it and finding what works best for them, rather than just using the magic-for-the-masses.

    It also fits well with my view of each and every spell as being customisable. See this thread: http://forums.darklordpotter.net/showthread.php?t=9652

    There is a problem with this theory, and that is historical. Most spells are in Latin, because it's more magical sounding, but what about in Roman times? Latin was what they spoke back then (though not the classical Latin that we know). There are two possible explanations for this. Firstly, that Romans had a different mindset towards magic than modern wizards, and so incantations in their own language was not considered by them any less magical-sounding. Secondly, formal Latin was the language of official documents rather than speech, and so having spells in the language of scholars and so forth may have been appealing.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2008
  14. FollowTheReaper

    FollowTheReaper Professor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    402
    Location:
    Finland
    I don't know if anyones said this before (second page = TL;DR), but I'd like to point out the fact that many authors have a (sometimes misguided) belief that the invention of spells is based on Runes and Arithmancy... Official wikipedia newsflash about Arithmancy:
    "The name Arithmancy is derived from two Greek words – arithmos(meaning number) and manteia (meaning divination). Arithmancy is thus the study of divination through numbers."
    And sadly, many authors do not use wikipedia...
    Do not know about Runes, but they (I think) were just a written form of language?
     
  15. Demons In The Night

    Demons In The Night Chief Warlock

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,438
    Location:
    Florida
    Yeah, this is a fanon pet peeve of mine.

    We know from HBP that creating spells doesn't require anything but imagination and an intelligent mind, and I don't believe there's any evidence of runes being used in magic (in fanon, runes are often used in wards and similar magics. I'm pretty sure there's no evidence for this).
     
  16. Skeletaure

    Skeletaure Magical Core Enthusiast ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,842
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    There is some application for Arithmancy in spell discovery though.

    We know that Arithmancy is the art of divination through numbers: effectively, predicting outcomes.

    We know that spell discovery works by trying out incantations and seeing which ones work best.

    Using Arithmancy, one could predict which incantations would work best for a spell. You could figure out what arithmetic total the incantation would be optimized by having, for example.

    We also know that you need to know Arithmancy for curse-breaking. I would put forward that, when confronted with a curse, a curse-breaker can use Arithmancy to divine some of the properties of the counter-curse (such as its incantation's arithmetic total). You could also use Arithmancy to predict the likely results of attempting a specific counter-curse on a curse.

    So yes, while Arithmancy is just divination by numbers, this has a wide array of uses.
     
  17. Demons In The Night

    Demons In The Night Chief Warlock

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,438
    Location:
    Florida
    ^^^

    That's a large stretch, and mostly conjecture. It might be possible, but your pushing a theory based on maybe a line or two in canon. If you are writing a fanfic you can make Arithmancy do whatever you want, but when making statements about HP canon, it's best to have evidence to back up claims, which for yours, there is almost none.
     
  18. enembee

    enembee The Nicromancer DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    301
    Location:
    Murias
    High Score:
    2,451
    Arithmancy probably deserves its own thread, but:

    Arithmancy = Study of Numerology

    (The Hogwarts textbook is called 'Numerology and Gramatica' and the only other arithmancy text book 'The New Theory of Numerology')

    Which is why it is required for a curse breaker.

    It also has ties to astronomy and alchemy.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2008
  19. Skeletaure

    Skeletaure Magical Core Enthusiast ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,842
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    Not really. Arithmancy is a real-life discipline. The only assumption that I've made is that Arithmancy in the Harry Potter world is the same as Arithmancy in the real world, which would appear to be the case, and it would appear that JKR has used a bit of it, since the arithmetic totals of "The Half-Blood Prince" and "Severus Snape" are the same (11), though this could be coincidence.
     
  20. oephyx

    oephyx Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    May 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,006
    Location:
    Not Europe
    On trying to define magic, Taure's colour analogy had me thinking. Although I don't like that image in itself, it does have merit. Of course, there is no such thing as a new colour, just as there is no such thing as a new real number, but that's what's useful about the analogy: there's no such thing as magic.

    So how do you define a new colour? To me, the easiest way is to be exclusive: insofar as all the other colours belong to a group, we just need to define this new colour as the one which doesn't.There is no reason why this wouldn't work with magic. The concept of magic was needed to escape all rational explanations, it was created as something elusive (which is why it eludes definition). So for me magic is the characteristic of a person, place or object that acts in a way that does not conform with reason, and the characteristic of those acts that do not conform with reason (ie, to which no scientific explanation exists).

    In that respect, trying to draw comparisons with force, energy, etc is really a failing, succumbing to the temptation of comparing an original concept to other concepts because you can't quite grasp it - it's just missing the point.

    Interestingly, you seem to have defined the non-scientific meaning of power: possession of control; ability to act or produce an effect...

    I also thought, the first thing I do when looking for a good definition is look up a dictionary, so (boringly) I did, and it offers (paraphrasing) 'supernatural influence or power over natural forces', where supernatural is defined as 'departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature'.

    Really, for me you haven't (except if I've missed part of the thread).

    Also, I understand if people don't find my previous definition satisfying, but for me it is just a concept - not something you can touch or see.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2008
Loading...