[HPforGrownups] Re: Duel Harry: defining terms

[rvotaw at i-55.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 42989


> > > > Phyllis again:
> > > > 
> > > > Here I *really* disagree with you, based on an interview in which 
> > JKR 
> > > > said that you can do unfocused magic without a wand, but to do 
> > > > focused magic you need a wand.  I just can't see how *unfocused* 
> > > > magic can be more powerful than *focused* magic.

I think it depends on the circumstances.  Harry's blowing up his aunt seems to 
me more powerful than, say, the jelly legs curse.


Grey Wolf writes:

> Unfocused magic: this is the magic that Harry uses when he feels 
> threatened, unconfortable or otherwise in a sticky situation. We know 
> that Harry isn't the only one that does this kind of magic, since 
> Neville protects himself from a two-storey fall by bouncing. I call it 
> unfocused because there is no conscious direction of the magic. The 
> wizard feels threatened in some way (in his pride, for example, in the 
> case of the hair and the jumper/sweater), and unconciously calls the 
> magic to protect him.

The way I view unfocused magic is pretty much the same.  I think Harry's self 
defense mechanisms are possibly more powerful than his "trained" magic.  Of 
course, he isn't fully trained, so this may change.  Most of the instances of 
Harry doing unfocused magic are before he knew he was a wizard.  I think only 
the blowing up of Aunt Marge was after, right?  If Harry were now put in a 
situation without a wand and nothing to protect himself, it's possible that he 
could dig down and through sheer emotion elicit a powerful magical response.

Grey Wolf: 

> Focused magic: This obviously includes all the magic that a wizard or 
> witch generates by consciously directing the magic to a specific effect 
> (i.e. uses a spell). Within it this list defines traditionally two 
> sub-clases: wandless magic and wand-directed magic, but there are 

Here's how I see the focused/ wand directed magic.  Let's take a highly 
advanced wizard like Dumbledore.  We rarely see him use a wand.  He's trained 
enough to hone his magic pretty well without use of a wand.  However, even 
Dumbledore in a life or death situation still relies on his wand.  The only 
time I can remember Dumbledore using a wand (don't have my books handy to 
check) is at the Quidditch match where the Dementors showed up.  Harry was in 
danger of a fatal fall from 50 feet up, Dumbledore couldn't take a chance on 
missing.  So he pulled out his wand to slow Harry's fall.  If he hadn't used a 
wand and by some chance missed with his magic, Harry could've been killed by 
the fall.  On the other hand, when changing decorations in the Great Hall, it 
doesn't really matter if they rumple a little wrong or the sleeping bags turn 
up lumpy or whatever.  It's not a life or death matter.

Grey Wolf again:

> really has enormous power at his disposition because of whatever reason 
> (heir of Gryfindor, combined power of Lily and Voldemort, or just him 
> being a magical genius just like Mozart was a musical genius are some 
> of the prefered theories of the list), his unfocused magic is going to 
> be more powerful than his focused one for the next books.
>

Now that this has been brought up, I think it would be Harry's greatest form of 
defense.  Sheer hatred directed at Voldemort could do who knows what.  More 
than Harry would intend, perhaps, if that's possible.

Richelle
  ----------

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "eloise_herisson" <eloiseherisson at a...> 
wrote:
> > > Phyllis again:
> > > 
> > > Here I *really* disagree with you, based on an interview in which 
> JKR 
> > > said that you can do unfocused magic without a wand, but to do 
> > > focused magic you need a wand.  I just can't see how *unfocused* 
> > > magic can be more powerful than *focused* magic.
> 
> Well, I know JKR invented the magic herself and ought to be the final 
> authority, but surely we see focussed magic performed without a wand?
> 
> Quirrell merely snaps his fingers in order to get ropes to bind 
> Harry. IIRC Snape performs the same wandless spell in POA (my son's 
> gone off to the his grandparents' with the canon!).Isn't that 
> focussed? There are other examples, I'm sure.
> 
> Sirius and Pettigrew don't need wands to perform the animagus 
> transformation. I can't think that there's a much more focussed spell 
> than *that*.
> 
> Eloise

OK, people in the list seem to be starting to get confused about the 
teminology I've been using (these happens very frecuently with my 
posts. Maybe I should stop inventing terms when I don't know what 
English people call it. Nah, who am I kiding, I *have* to invent words 
or else, how would I explain my points?).

Without going into the debate about ancient magic, we can define two 
major forms of magic:

Unfocused magic: this is the magic that Harry uses when he feels 
threatened, unconfortable or otherwise in a sticky situation. We know 
that Harry isn't the only one that does this kind of magic, since 
Neville protects himself from a two-storey fall by bouncing. I call it 
unfocused because there is no conscious direction of the magic. The 
wizard feels threatened in some way (in his pride, for example, in the 
case of the hair and the jumper/sweater), and unconciously calls the 
magic to protect him.

Focused magic: This obviously includes all the magic that a wizard or 
witch generates by consciously directing the magic to a specific effect 
(i.e. uses a spell). Within it this list defines traditionally two 
sub-clases: wandless magic and wand-directed magic, but there are 
really one and the same. The wand is an instrument that channels the 
conscious magic and helps define it, but there are any number of 
examples in the books of spells formed or directed without a wand. 
Those wizards that don't use a wand for a spell could have a bigger 
effect with a wand, but normally they don't need a bigger effect: they 
are powerful enough to cast the spell without a wand. But in both cases 
it's conscious, or focused, magic.

I think there is no doubt that, in general, focused magic is more 
powerful, but in Harry's case, who hasn't yet finished his training in 
the job, his unfocused magic is still much more powerful. And if he 
really has enormous power at his disposition because of whatever reason 
(heir of Gryfindor, combined power of Lily and Voldemort, or just him 
being a magical genius just like Mozart was a musical genius are some 
of the prefered theories of the list), his unfocused magic is going to 
be more powerful than his focused one for the next books.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who knows that ancient and elemental magic are also other 
possible kinds of magic, but that he nonetheless is not going down that 
alley in this post.




________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin

Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!

Is your message...
An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements.
Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie.
Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups.
None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter.
Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com

Unsubscribing? Email hpforgrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
____________________________________________________________ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 




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