Potions vs. Charms

[Cindy C.]

No: HPFGUIDX 27677

Hogwarts students spend a great deal of time in Potions class.  
Apparently, they are not allowed to drop the subject.  Time is spent 
carefully preparing ingredients, like methodically and manually 
slicing ginger roots.  It is apparently dangerous, as Neville has 
melted six cauldrons, and solutions have been splattered from time to 
time.  Snape thinks nothing of "testing" a potion on a toad or a 
student.

But why bother with Potions?  Charms (including spells, hexes, 
jinxes, and curses) are so much more handy.  All you need is a wand 
and an incantation, and you're in business.  A Potion requires a lot 
of tools and ingredients, time, a place to work, and a means by which 
to transport the potion.  Potions certainly seem advantageous for the 
work Madam Pomfrey does, but in a hospital it is possible and 
convenient to have a diverse inventory of Potions for every 
conceivable malady.  For the wizard's everyday needs, however, 
Potions seem to be a difficult, time-consuming means to an end.

Besides, many Potions seem to duplicate Charms that we know exist in 
the wizarding world.  There is the Swelling Draught, which seems just 
like the Engorgement Charm.  There is the Confusing Concoction, which 
seems just like the Confundus Charm.  There is Mrs. Scower's Magical 
Mess Remover and the Scouring Charm.  There are a number of other 
examples of duplication, although admittedly there are Potions that 
do not seem to have a corresponding Charm (like Wolfsbane Potion).  
That made me wonder what really makes a Potion different from a Charm 
and therefore worth all the extra bother.

I thought that maybe the difference between Potions and Charms might 
be that Potions are temporary, but Charms are permanent until a 
countercharm is used, but I'm not sure this works.  Some spells and 
Charms need a countercharm to reverse the effects, but some don't, 
and we aren't told whether some Potions wear off or require an 
antidote.  Veritaserum, perhaps, requires an antidote, because 
Dumbledore contemplates that Fudge will be able to question Crouch 
Jr. later.  Crucio stops when the wizard stops performing the spell, 
whereas Stupefy requires a countercharm ("Ennervate"), and  
Impedimenta seems to wear off on its own.

Could it be that a Potion will work either on the person who brewed 
it or a third party, but Charms don't often work on the person 
casting the Charm?  It seems that, once a Potion is brewed, it will 
work on anyone who drinks it.  There isn't any evidence (that I can 
think of) in which a wizard brews a Potion that will work for someone 
else but won't work for himself.  For instance, Lupin tells Harry 
that Snape brews the Wolfsbane Potion because Lupin isn't a good 
Potion brewer, but that dialogue indicates that Lupin could brew the 
Potion himself if he had the skill.

But will most Charms work on the wizard casting the Charm?  I'm not 
so sure.  If a wizard were depressed, could he cast a Cheering Charm 
on himself?  Could a wizard commit suicide with Avada Kedavra?  I can 
only think of a one Charm (apart from Transfiguration) that 
definitely changes the character of the wizard casting the Charm -- 
Bagman's Sonorus Charm (to magnify his voice).  A few other Charms 
come close, like the Bubblehead Charm (that Cedric uses in the Second 
Task), the Shield Charm (that Harry doesn't master), and 
Disapparating.  But these are different from Sonorus, because Sonorus 
actually changes something about Bagman (the volume of his voice), 
whereas the Bubblehead and Shield Charms just create a barrier for 
the wizard casting the charm.  Disapparating doesn't change the 
wizard; it just moves him.

Anyway, those are a few random thoughts about Potions vs. Charms.  
Does anyone have an opinion about what makes the study of Potions so 
important?

Cindy (who has observed that there does not appear to be a good 
weight loss potion or charm)