Wandless Magic, Muggle Magic and Character Crushes

[chthonia9 <chthonicdancer@hotmail.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 48629

Another delayed post, I'm afraid...


Dicussing spellcasting sans wand Melpomene wrote (48026):

[snip]
> first you have to learn the spells, the right
> spells, where and when to use them, and all that. 
> Then you have to learn to concentrate your energy
> on performing the spell itself. It also seems that
> there is a certain amount of technique required
> in the actual "wand waving". So, you'd have to 
> learn how to hold the wand (think chopsticks?)
> and whether you swish and flick with the fingers,
> wrist or entire arm. Eventually I'd imagine you'd
> learn to channel the energy into the spell without
> having to vocalize the incantation. 

Aikido training (and probably other martial arts, though I don't
know 
to comment) springs to mind – at first there is a lot of emphasis
on 
big, obvious movements as you learn what the correct move and energy 
and focus feels like, then later when you get the feel of it the 
movements can be much more subtle and yet much more powerful.  Spell 
casting skill could develop in a similar way.



Alina wrote (post 48036), in response to Jazmyn's posts about the
WW 
perception of muggle `magic':

> The books were created to picture "wave a magic
> wand" type of magic, and that does only exist in
> fairy tales. As such it will always "win" in
> comparison to religious magic of the real world. [snip]
> perhaps what we have here is a mix-up due to
> terminology. Religious magic and magic in HP books
> are obviously not the same magic, but because we
> use the same word, such conflicts may arise.

Thanks for raising this one – I find the relationship of
`Muggle 
magic' to `WW magic' really interesting. It does strike
me that a 
fundamental difference between religious magic and HP magic is that 
the `techniques' of religious magic are much more to do with
honing 
*perception*, learning to be more aware of the world around and 
perhaps having a sort of power by being in the `right
place'/flow (my 
view only, expressed [too briefly] with no intent to offend or to 
speak for anyone's religious beliefs).  Ursula LeGuin explores
the 
difference in her book Tehanu, portraying a wizard who has lost his 
power to cast spells but retains `perceptive power'.

I have a feeling that magic in the WW carries the same potential for 
losing awareness as technology does in the muggle world – there
is a 
focus on *DOING* rather than *SEEING* or *BEING*.  But maybe
that's 
because JKR has focused on Gryffindors and Slytherins; I'd have 
expected a Ravenclaw to be more interested in perception, though 
perhaps they would be too head-based.



...and on the subject of religion, Shane wrote (post 48141)

> Of course, if religion is brought up (and I doubt it
> will be) in canon, isn't it possible that some
> of our major religous figures could be in fact 
> wizards? Miraculous powers, anyone...

I'm with you on that one.  Strikes me that the discipline and non-
mundane focus of the religious life might well enhance any latent (HP-
)magical ability.  I never really thought about it, but the religious 
figures never struck me as being out of place.  But then I was 
introduced to fantasy literature through Katherine Kurtz...

I'm interested that you think that religion won't be brought
up, 
though.  Given that the central Bad Guy is on a quest for 
immortality, I hope we'll get an idea at least of the Wizarding 
World's attitude to death and what comes afterwards.



Acire wrote (post 48033)

> But does anyone find it interesting that Lupin and
> Snape are usually referred to as 'Lupin' and 'Snape',
> while Sirius is referred to as 'Sirius'? 

I think that is largely because we are shown these characters through 
the eyes of Harry and his friends – Lupin and Snape were teachers
so 
their first names aren't going to be familiar, so we're
accustomed to 
thinking of their surnames.  Sirius, on the other hand, was
`Sirius 
Black' the evil escaped convict – using both names is
consistent with 
the way criminals tend to be referred to (on the BBC, anyhow) –
no 
title, first name, last name.  Plus JKR was holding up that 
humungous `black dog' clue (which I completely missed ;)


Cassie (I think) wrote (post 48047)

> Of course I have to mention my love for Lucius Malfoy
> and Professor Quirrell...Why do I love them, you ask?
> Five words: Jason Isaacs and Ian Hart *ducks flying
> blender* I know...bringing the movies into this=bad thing,
> I know. But it's true. Had it not been for those actors I
> would've never given the characters a second thought

Likewise – for me, watching the CoS film was to experience a
slowly 
dawning awareness that Lucius had several attributes which I would 
normally expect to find, erm, intriguing.  Going back to the books, 
it was all (well, mostly ;) there, but it took seeing the 
interactions through my eyes rather than Harry's to realise that.
 
I'd read the books fairly `straight' – Draco I
thought of as an 
unpleasant bully and his Dad an older, nastier version of the same.  
It's kind of disturbing to find oneself attracted to a character
with 
no redeeming characteristics – at least you Snapefans out there
can 
have some solace in his underlying heroism!

It's an odd sort of attraction though; it's not as if I'm
fantasising 
about meeting him, more that he's stuck in the back of my head 
somewhere.  I was really struck by the Jungian theory expressed 
recently.  Lucius in the books is so one-dimensional, and appears so 
little that he seems to me to be archetypal, unsullied by human 
complications. Personally, I don't need Snape to carry my inner 
greasy unkemptness or impatience with kids (I can do that fine on my 
own :), but the idea of being able to live without (emotional) 
approval, of not compromising myself to be `nice' and getting
away 
with it – THAT appeals.  (Of course, with Voldemort back that 
particular source of appeal may wear off rather quickly;) The irony 
is that in real life that sneering dismissal of people is *exactly* 
the thing that most makes me see red – perhaps it's a
question of 
hating what one most fears in oneself...


Oh, and speaking of Lucius, Catlady wrote (48363):
> Surely Lucius regards his son (who can be replaced,
> maybe even with the same mother) as MORE dispensable
> than the Dark Lord's favor.

Debatable – depends how in thrall/in terror he is.  I wasn't
meaning 
to say that he *definitely wouldn't* offer up the sacrificial
ferret, 
more that at that point he wouldn't *enjoy* doing it, and would
have 
no reason to be proactive about doing it.


And on that note...
I won't have net access for a few weeks so this will be my last
post 
for a wee while.  Thanks to everyone for the rich exchange of ideas, 
and have a great midwinter festival!

Chthonia