[HPforGrownups] Magic Laws

[Amanda Lewanski]

No: HPFGUIDX 17506

Great thread. Got me thinking. :::delicately ignores groans echoing
faintly from around the globe:::

Amber wrote:

> 3) Could anyone make a Potion, or can it only be made by people with
> magic talent in them? After all, Potions is simply adding ingrediants
> in the right order, the right way (or at least it seems that way to
> me).

Well, that's the way cooking seems to me. And I'm passable, and I do the
occasional really good thing. But I have no "feel" for cooking, I can't
go into a kitchen and "invent" the way my husband can, can't look in the
fridge or the spice cabinet and think, that'd go great with X here, and
make a wonderful dish. My dad could. One of my friends can. Great chefs
don't do anything else, they have to think about writing a recipe down.

So for Potions, yes, I think you must have a talent for it, and given
the nature of the beast, it must be a magical talent. Harry and Ron can
"cook." Hermione's a good cook. Snape's a chef.

> 4) What's the difference between an easy spell and a hard spell?
> Clearly, with the Patronus spell, a force of will and ability to hold
> a happy thought separated it from the easy spells. Is it always a
> force of will?

Well, this is going to sound loopy. [I'm certain you all thought I was a
paragon of sanity and stability up to this point.] I think part of what
makes a spell difficult is the degree to which it imposes your will on
the world. If imposing your will on the world includes imposing your
will on another person, it's harder still. Unless I'm mistaken, this
holds true for some new age magic philosophies, too--it's easier to
"create" a parking space than to make yourself invisible to a cop as you
speed by.

This is off the cuff, I could be totally out there. But with the
patronus spell, you're not just imposing your will on another being, but
actively opposing what that other being wants to do, *and* you have to
fight the effects of that being at the same time by focusing postive
thoughts. Jeez, no wonder it's hard.

As for what makes a Charm, my hazy idea has been blown by Wingardium
Leviosa (unless, although Flitwick the Charms teacher taught the class,
it was an "intro to magic" class). But here goes. Charms seem to fall
into the category of spells worked on others. When people get charmed or
enchanted in stories, it's a viewpoint thing, like a love charm.
Frequently it's permanent. I had thought that Charms had to do with such
things, and as they fall into the category of spells which impose your
will on others, the students didn't start Charms until they'd learned
some "standard" spells and thus the method of magic. You play scales on
your flute, until you learn how the flute works.

I think the more you are trying to impose your will on the world, the
more force of will is required, and learning that has to be by "feel,"
the way high-blood-pressure patients can learn, when hooked up to a
monitor, how to lower their blood pressure. It's nothing anyone can
explain; it's something they have to do to learn. And I think the people
who are "naturals" at the focusing, in addition to having a strong will,
are the great wizards.

> 5) Why is the wand necessary for magic? Obviously, one can do magic
> without it. Harry did before he found out he was chosen at Hogwarts
> and so did Neville (remember, he bounced when his Uncle let go of him
> out the window). So why do they need wands? Is it a way to help them
> focus their magic? If so, then why don't the adults do magic without
> their wands since they have supposedly learned to focus their magic?

I think this is exactly what wands do, focus and direct the magic (a la
Christopher Stasheff's Her Majesty's Wizard, etc.). I think many adults
can do it wandless. I've posted on wandless vs. "wanded" magic before. I
think wandless magic is dangerous, because it is so diffuse and must be
so powerful to work. All the "official" wandless magic we've seen is
regulated--animagus spells and apparating. There's probably others
(Dumbledore's "I don't need a cloak to be invisible" springs to mind).

However, most of the wandless magic we've seen has to do with the person
casting it. Animagus spells and apparation are cast on oneself. Most of
the things Harry did were to himself--growing his hair back, putting
himself on the roof, etc. And the things he did to others were in
self-defense.

Sooo, I hereby put out a theory that wandless magic can only be done
with some connection to oneself. It requires a wand to direct magic at
other things or people. Any thoughts? I just now thought of this and it
sounds ingenious. <g>

--Amanda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]