spells - Lily - gender - S.P.E.W. - Appearance

[ftah3]

No: HPFGUIDX 33488

> Ben wrote:
> 
> >I was wondering where spells come
> >from.  Is there something intrinsic about the word "Accio" 
embedded into 
> >the
> >magical fabric of the universe that causes things to be brought to 
the
> >speaker (imagine the poor prehistoric wizard who discovers this as 
he
> >sneezes, his wand inadvertently pointing at a woolly mammoth).  Or 
perhaps,
> >are the spells created somehow (wizard R&D) and magically assigned 
a magic
> >word upon their creation.  Or something else entirely?  Any ideas?

Amy Z:
> Ooh, I wonder!  Care to spin out these theories some more for us?  
I love 
> nature of magic stuff...
> 
> Jewish mysticism puts a heavy emphasis on the power of words in 
themselves 
> (letters, also).  The word is more than just a summary of what 
you're trying 
> to do; it has a unique power.

I still rather like the idea that Arithmancy is the science of spell-
crafting.  As in, a combination of numerology, straight grammar, and 
the magic inherent in words.  I.e., Fred and George blew off 
Arithmancy and thus the spell they made up and gave to Ron to turn 
Scabbers yellow didn't work, because it's not just words, but the 
*right* words, determined through a scientificish process, that 
matter.

Amy Z:
> Pippin made me ROTFL with this:
> 
> >hello, Mary Sue, goodbye art.

LOL.  And darn straight.

Amy Z: 
> Re: gender balance, female characters, etc., <snip> I would suggest 
a 
> simple test, however.  Close your eyes and imagine that all of the 
male 
> characters are female and all of the female characters are male.  
> Dumbledore, Snape, Neville, etc. etc.--female.  Hermione, Winky, 
the 
> stunning Irish Chasers, etc. etc.--male.   How does it look?  Do 
the male 
> characters have equal prominence with the female?  Do they seem as 
> well-developed (as characters) and worthy of respect (as people)?  

Along these lines, I would bet that if Dumbledore and McGonnagal were 
to switch genders, the complaint would not be that Mr. McGonnagal 
wasn't a strong enough character, rather it would be that Ms. 
Dumbledore was being pidgeonholed in the 'typical' mystical-wise-
woman-who-actually-does-squat-of-any-importance.  [/gritch]

Amy Z re Harry being rude to Hermy about S.P.E.W.:
> He was on one occasion:
> 
>   "You know, maybe I should try and get some of the villagers 
involved in 
> S.P.E.W.," Hermione said thoughtfully, looking around the pub.
>   "Yeah, right," said Harry.  He took a swig of Butterbeer under 
his Cloak.  
> "Hermione, when are you going to give up on this S.P.E.W. stuff?"
> 
> This is the moment I like Harry least.  I forgive him because he's 
in a 
> really bad state at the time, and he does at least call it 
S.P.E.W., but 
> he's so dismissive and rude I want to slap him.

I loved the moment, because he *is* so rude and dismissive.  
Actually, that's one of the aspects I enjoy about the books ~ the 
kids, including the Hero, frequently act as I would expect boys and 
girls of those ages to act, glaring flaws and all.  Actually, I like 
the whole S.P.E.W. thing for that reason.  Hermione is being abjectly 
annoying & premature despite her good intentions (ah the memories she 
calls up), and the reactions of her peers, including Ron and Harry, 
are fairly as I would expect (erg, yeah, and those memories too...
[blush]).

Amy Z:
> Many writers seem to think that readers need a detailed physical 
description 
> of a character in order to be able to picture him/her.  This is 
clearly not 
> the case, as JKR demonstrates with her much subtler way of evoking 
character 
> and appearance.

Agreed on the subtle.  I like the way that JKR uses 
character/appearance almost interchangeably ~ i.e., both generally 
suggest the other, though without seeming to.  Er.  

The funny thing about that ~ I couldn't have told you before, and I 
couldn't tell you now, which characters' appearances are described in 
great detail and which are not.  And I only really have a visual idea 
of what the characters look like because of the film; I never really 
filled that aspect in before.  On the other hand, I still felt as 
though I would know them if I saw them, you know?  As in, they must 
look (appearance) exactly as they seem (character).  I wonder if this 
is because each character is at it's basis a familiar archetype?  Or 
if it's because each character is a familiar real-life-type of 
person?  At any rate, I've always been impressed with the fact that I 
didn't have to conjure in my mind exactly how her characters looked 
because even without a mental picture the world was fully formed in 
my mind.

Mahoney