[HPforGrownups] Magic Laws

[browneyes1420 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 18788

In a message dated 4/23/01 8:38:48 PM Central Daylight Time, editor at texas.net 
writes:


> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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>
> 
> 

 Nice Amanda-
But I think a magic without a wand is dangerous, and the wand seves as a 
focus and control,
Joe



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