Spells & Charms; the nature of magic

[Amy Z]

No: HPFGUIDX 20352

Spells & Charms; the nature of magic

Here it is at long last.  Thanks for your patience, everybody.  Not 
one person sent me a Howler.

This piece is not about the class Charms, since that's an upcoming 
topic, and I've left aside the vexing question of the difference 
between Charms and Transfiguration (e.g. why are winged keys a Charm 
and giant moving chesspieces are a Transfiguration?) because it seems 
to fit in better there.  Rather, I'm looking at Charms in the general 
sense, as a synonym for spells, that is, magic in general.  I also 
haven't posed any questions; all of the below is my opinion and meant 
to stimulate discussion, counter-examples, and alternative theories.

What I really wanted to write was a lyrical ode to magic such as Snape 
likes to deliver to his first-years.  I also wanted to compare JKR's 
vision of magic to other authors'.  However, I haven't the lyrical 
talent of a Severus Snape nor the Comparative Magical Theories 
background of many other list members.  I urge those who have observed 
interesting differences between the rules and nature of magic in the 
Potterverse and others to take this discussion in that direction, by 
all means.

One point I do notice is that unlike in some books, magic in HP is not 
a matter of wishes or anything so simple; perhaps the characters in 
books that feature this kind of magic have gotten a hold of a 
wizard-Charmed object so that for them, all they have to do is make a 
wish and magical things begin to occur.  In JKR's universe, and this 
is in fact the very basis for the books, which are structured around 
an educational system, magic is a talent but also a discipline--a 
technology that one can master only with a great deal of study and 
hard work.  There are other magical universes in which a school for 
witchcraft and wizardry would be an odd concept.

JKR doesn't spend much time giving us Magical Theory (maybe Adalbert 
Waffling's book will be the next Schoolbook to be released if we ask 
very nicely); we have to draw our own conclusions from the spells we 
see.  Magic has its own laws.  It doesn't have to fit physics or any 
other system we know, but it has to be internally consistent.  We can 
believe in an Invisibility Cloak, but if there are then cases where it 
doesn't work, we require a plausible a reason why (e.g. a magical eye, 
or powers unknown but believable, such as Dumbledore's 
as-yet-unexplained ability to see through it).  We can believe that 
one can conjure useable items out of thin air ("hundreds of squashy 
purple sleeping bags" [PA 9],  "heavy manacles" [PA 19]), but there 
must then be a consistent reason why the Weasleys can't simply conjure 
up all the things that usually require money (and good theories do 
abound, which I won't detail here).  Even though the laws of magic in 
the HP universe are seldom made explicit, they have a high level of 
internal consistency; if they did not, we would be finding holes in 
every chapter instead of the occasional "how does the Fidelius Charm 
work, exactly?" that surfaces.

Some of the laws seem to be:
   -The world is full of naturally-occurring magic aside from that 
created by humans.  There are magical plants (mandrakes, Devil's 
Snare, etc. etc.) and animals (dozens; see FB) as well as magical 
people.  Whether there are any naturally-occurring magical objects is 
unknown; the books are filled with magical objects, but most seem to 
be enchanted (e.g. flying Ford Anglia) or created (e.g. the 
Philosopher's Stone) by humans.  There are many whose magical 
properties may be human in origine or not (crystal balls, the Mirror 
of Erised).  If anyone can identify an object that we know for a fact 
doesn't get its magical properties from humans, please do.
   -It is not possible to bring the dead back to life  (GF 36)
   -Less definitively, it is not possible to re-ensoul victims of a 
Dementor's Kiss (PA 12) 

Spells, at least some of them, behave like physical energy, with 
forces, counterforces, and vectors much like those seen in physical 
objects.  A spell can be "deflected" and "rebound," as Voldemort's 
attempted Avada Kedavra against Harry in 1981 did (GF 33).  Two spells 
can collide like billiard balls: "Jets of light shot from both wands, 
hit each other in midair, and ricocheted off at angles--Harry's hit 
Goyle in the face, and Malfoy's hit Hermione" (GF 18).  The storm of 
Stunning spells that the Ministry wizards send over Harry, Ron, and 
Hermione's heads in the wood after the World Cup create a wind that 
ripples their hair.  Making magic uses energy as well.  "[H]is 
Patronus was too feeble to drive the Dementor away.  All it did was 
hover, like a semi-transparent cloud, draining Harry of energy as he 
fought to keep it there" (PA 12).  

Likewise, there are certain basic elements of magic that are a matter 
of mechanics: pronouncing words correctly (otherwise, you might end up 
with a buffalo on your chest, PS/SS 10), learning wrist movements 
(PS/SS 10), adding Potions ingredients in just the right proportions 
(PA 7) and at the right times (PS/SS 8).  A wand is necessary for most 
magic.

However, magic is far more than mechanics.  

                             * * * * *

"But that was the easy part, I'm afraid.  You see, the word alone is 
not enough."  --Professor Lupin, PA 7

The words are just one ingredient of a spell, and there is only so 
much magic one can learn from books.  An intangible and crucial 
element of most spells is intention, which can even make words 
unnecessary.  Some wand-spells seem not to require an incantation at 
all (e.g. Snape conjuring up ropes, PA 19; the rope-ends fly to him 
with a click of his fingers), though this may just be Rowling tiring 
of coming up with a pithy quasi-Latin term every time someone waves a 
wand.  "Accio" is enough to Summon whatever one is thinking of, 
without the noun; Molly Summons the Ton-Tongue Toffees (GF 6) and 
Harry the Triwizard Cup (GF 34) this way.  For that matter, intention 
is key even when one does speak the noun; otherwise, "Accio Firebolt" 
would bring every Firebolt in the world that isn't nailed down, but it 
doesn't; it only brings the one Harry is thinking of, his own.  Even 
charmed objects will respond more or less strongly depending on the 
intention of the wizard; Neville's broom does not at first respond to 
"Up!" while Harry, who is a natural flier, is unafraid of heights, and 
has been "looking forward to learning to fly more than anything else," 
gets an instantaneous response (PS/SS 9).  Although Harry's 
speculation that brooms, like horses, can sense fear may be tongue in 
cheek, it is true that Neville's feelings do not match his words, and 
his intention to keep his feet on the ground appears to hamper his 
ability to command the broom.  An ability to concentrate one's mind 
under stress is therefore very important to making magic.

                           * * * * *

  "Harry -- you're a great wizard, you know."
  "I'm not as good as you," said Harry, very embarrassed, as she let 
go of him.
  "Me!" said Hermione.  "Books!  And cleverness!  There are more 
important things -- friendship and bravery and . . ." --PS/SS 17

Another necessary element of many spells is, for lack of a more 
precise word, character.  In some cases the personal element needed is 
some kind of experience, as with Harry's struggles to find a memory 
that is happy enough to make the Patronus incantation effective, since 
it "will work only if you are concentrating, with all your might, on a 
single, very happy memory" (PA 12).  In others it is a personal 
quality such as the independence and will power that enable Harry to 
resist the Imperius Curse appears to stem from his independence and 
will power.  Less nobly, Harry is stubborn, which also stands him in 
good stead.  His inner voice balks at doing something as pointless as 
jumping onto the desk just on Moody's say-so:  "Stupid thing to do, 
really . . . . I don't think I will, thanks" (GF 15).  Perhaps some 
spells require downright evil characteristics; for example, perhaps 
only those who can call upon an inner reserve of sadism can 
successfully cast the Cruciatus.  The intricate interaction of magic 
and character is crucial to JKR's universe; she is writing about 
Harry's development, not only into a practitioner of magic, but into 
adulthood, and his adventures are as much explorations of human 
experience and emotion and his own deepening character as magical 
exploits.  Otherwise the books would not be nearly so enchanting (pun 
intended).

Finally, magic requires innate magical ability.  It may be that 
Muggles could wave wands and order broomsticks, "up!" without the 
slightest response.  Some magical objects respond to Muggles--hence 
the necessity of the Muggle Protection Act, to protect unwary Muggles 
from enchanted objects such as sugar tongs that will clamp on their 
noses (CS 3, 4).  But others, surely, respond only to a wizard/witch, 
or else there would be no difference between Muggles and magical folk. 
 However, "wands and magical ability" is an upcoming topic, so I'll 
leave it at that.

                            * * * * *

"Take it, or I'll hex you.  I know some good ones now." --Harry, GF 37

A brief note on hexes, jinxes, and curses.    One can hex/jinx/curse 
both people and objects.  Just like "spell" and "charm," these terms 
for "not very nice spell" seem to be used more or less 
interchangeably, though "curse" is generally reserved for very 
destructive spells such as the Unforgivable Curses.  "Jinx" may have a 
light tone to the Muggle ear (it does to mine), but McGonagall uses 
the term to describe the things she fears Sirius Black might have done 
to Harry's Firebolt (PA 11), such as a "Hurling Hex" (PA 12), which 
are far from playful.


So . . . your thoughts?

Amy Z