[HPforGrownups] Re: Magical Theory

[Horst or Rebecca J. Bohner]

No: HPFGUIDX 12926

> I would equate a 'Spell' with a prayer or some kind of mystical saying
> that causes magic or enchantment.

[snip]

> Moreover a 'Spell' can be used to enchant an object, making the
> enchanted object a 'Charm'. However, not all enchanted objects are
> charms. Likewise a 'Spell' can be used to enchant a liquid, making it
> into a magical potion (though Rowling doesn't do this in her books).

I guess I should have made myself more clear.  I want to know specifically
the differences between these things in the HP universe.  For instance, it's
clear that Rowling does not consider charms to be "magical objects" if you
look at the students' activities in Flitwick's class, so your comments above
don't really apply to her books.

I just thought of something.  Does a spell require careful preparation and
setting up beforehand, so that when you point your wand and say the words to
start the spell going, you're actually drawing on all that preparation you
did before?  Certainly some of the spells in the HP books work like this.
On the other hand, other spells don't seem to require that much effort (i.e.
"Expelliarmus").

Charms on the other hand generally seem to be one-off spells that don't
require advance preparation, just practice to get one's aim or control right
(as when they're making pillows fly around Flitwick's classroom).  They
affect the movements and properties of objects (i.e. the Summoning/Banishing
charms) as well as causing temporary, relatively inconsequential changes
when cast on people (i.e. Cheering Charm, Bubble-Head Charm).  On the other
hand, the Memory Charm is a charm, and that isn't either temporary or
inconsequential.

I wonder if JKR really has a systematic magical theory worked out or whether
she's just tossing around words like "spell", "hex", "jinx", "charm" and
"curse" more or less at random according to how good they sound/look on
paper?
--
Rebecca