The power of words (Was: The Train Scene GoF/ role of words in Potterverse)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 162419

Alla wrote:
<snip>

> You know - I just had an aside thought or sort of aside thought ( 
> probably not a novel one). I do think that JKR advances the idea 
> that the words can hurt and kill pretty strongly in the books. I 
> suppose that for me goes to Draco and Co remarks here, which under 
> circumstances I consider pretty deadly, but not just that.
> 
> I think that it also goes to Snape running his mouth and metaphor of 
> him hurting Neville as being Neville's boggart, but even that is not 
> the strongest proof.
> 
> I think the strongest proof of this metaphore is Riddle's diary. The 
> words that are literally deadly to Ginny and Harry and so many kids. 
> And of course Harry kills it.
> 
> So, I would not dismiss the words in the books as just words, 
> sometimes IMO they are the deadliest weapons. <snip>

carol responds:
Having already said all I have to say on the Draco death threat topic,
I want to focus on this segment of your post. (I know. People are
always reacting to my asides and sign-offs rather than the post as a
whole, too. Hope you don't mind. :-) )

I agree that words can be deadly in the Potterverse, but only when
they're magical incantations combined with magical ability and,
usually, a magic wand. Words spoken by a Muggle, or by a Wizard who
isn't reciting an incantation, normally have no such power that I'm
aware of. Nor do thoughts. Harry can hate Snape and imagine him being
smashed by the pestle he's using to grind his dead beetles, but the
thoughts have no effect. And Dumbledore says that people should use
the proper name for a thng because fear of the name increases fear of
the thing itself. He's speaking of Voldemort, but his words could
apply to anything people are afraid of and to the use of euphemisms
such as "pass away" for "die."

My point is that I don't think words have power in themselves in the
Potterverse. "Speak of the devil" won't bring the devil to you, nor
will speaking Voldemort's name give him power over you that he didn't
already have. It's very different from Middle Earth, where Aragorn
tells Frodo not to joke about becoming a wraith ("Do not speak of such
things!"). In both places, oaths are magically binding, but Dumbledore
disregards Prophecies (the Prophecy is only true because Voldemort
chose to believe it and act on it), whereas in LOTR, no one disregards
a Prophecy and most of the "High" characters have some degree of
foresight.

That being the case, I don't think that Snape's words are particularly
damaging. (Yes, Snape was Neville's Boggart in his third year, but
he's experienced real pain and horror now in the form of Bellatrix,
the woman who Crucio'd his parents into insanity, Crucioing him in the
DoM. What is being called an "idiot boy" compared to that?

Riddle's diary was more than words. It was an interactive memory
rather like the one in the Sorting Hat combined with a soul bit that
could possess the reader. The words Ginny writes and the responses by
Diary!Tom are a means to an end but are not dangerous in themselves.
The danger is in the Basilisk and in the power of possession. And if
the diary weren't enchanted, if it were just a diary, the words would
have no more power than an essay on Transfiguring hedgehogs into
pincushions.

So it's an interesting idea, but I think that Dumbledore's words to
Harry about always calling Voldemort by his proper name disprove the
idea that words in the Potterverse have anything beyond the usual
power to conjure up mental images and to stir up emotions. You don't
need magic to see that power. We see it all the time in the HP
books--and, occasionally, on this list.

Carol, who thinks that Snape's sarcasm does more harm to him by
alienating some of his students, particularly Harry, than it does to
the students themselves