|
Danny Dravot posted:And yet they live in a world that is inhabited by myriad deadly creatures(I mean, Kelpies?) and all the kinds of crazy or evil people that you might find in, say, the real world. Besides the fact that they're tracked for adulthood at an earlier age than has become common for, say, Americans, they're in the middle of a sectarian conflict that's a strange combination of, say, WW2 and Syria. And it's the third one that century, so safe to say it's something of a fixture in their world. It's pretty existential stuff, and they're on the pointy end. Even stunning and disarming spells can pack a lot of punch, certainly enough to stop even a dragon. Briefly. Most of these supernatural creatures don't exactly want a fight to the death either, hurt them bad enough and they'd flee.
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 10:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
veekie posted:Even stunning and disarming spells can pack a lot of punch, certainly enough to stop even a dragon. Briefly. Most of these supernatural creatures don't exactly want a fight to the death either, hurt them bad enough and they'd flee. On that note, I always wanted to know where people(and not just the Death Eaters) learned the random non-verbal spells that make things explode or act like actual bullets(reference the fight in the diner at the start of the 7th book). They add a certain atmosphere to the
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 12:44
|
|
|
Danny Dravot posted:they're never explained at any point. Well, we see one particularly exciting combat spell: Sectumsempra. And when Harry uses it he is immediately admonished for using the Dark Arts. It doesn't take much imagination to conclude that the spells you are describing are also Dark Arts, and therefore not something Harry and company would be exposed to other than via Death Eater.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
I think most spells that hit the wrong kind of target just generically cause stuff to burst or fly away, as if struck violently. I recall stunning spells being described to shatter ornaments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 13:00
|
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:It doesn't take much imagination to conclude that the spells you are describing are also Dark Arts, and therefore not something Harry and company would be exposed to other than via Death Eater. You would think so, except for the scene described when, for example, the order ride into the ministry to save the day. The spells they're tossing around are blowing stuff apart in a similar fashion to what the Death Eaters throw out. veekie posted:I think most spells that hit the wrong kind of target just generically cause stuff to burst or fly away, as if struck violently. I recall stunning spells being described to shatter ornaments. That makes sense. It's been a while since I read them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 13:11
|
|
|
You ever play the old Philosopher's Stone game? I always liked the idea that the generic "bang" spells were just Flipendo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
cptn_dr posted:You ever play the old Philosopher's Stone game? I always liked the idea that the generic "bang" spells were just Flipendo. Ahaha, I'd totally forgotten about that. The soundtrack for it was pretty exceptional, as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
Danny Dravot posted:On that note, I always wanted to know where people(and not just the Death Eaters) learned the random non-verbal spells that make things explode or act like actual bullets(reference the fight in the diner at the start of the 7th book). They add a certain atmosphere to the I always have had a weird thought about this as well as other kinds of spells that we see but aren't informed about. Mostly from the movies. (Example, in OotP (movie) Umbridge tucks a student's shirt in and buttons his collar and tightens his tie. We see Molly Weasley (in my opinion the greatest witch of all time) doing cooking and cleaning spells.) My thought is that at a certain point you are able to manipulate magic in a general way without a specific spell. If you are skilled enough at charms or transfiguration you can do things like cook and clean by focusing your thoughts on a specific tasks. Spells like Wingardium etc, are the building blocks for getting your mind more in tune with your magic. So maybe once your mind is tuned and you are sufficiently in tune with hurting others, you can manipulate things without a specific spell. I know this isn't canon, and it is probably idiotic, but without a more well thought out magic system from JKR, we are left trying to fill in the gaps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
The problem with putting any parts of the HP under more than casual scrutiny is that it just doesn't hold up. Rowling isn't a great world builder, she's a great set designer. Everything works for the narrative scene you're in but a lot of things fall apart if you look at it out of its narrative context.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
njbeachbum posted:I always have had a weird thought about this as well as other kinds of spells that we see but aren't informed about. Mostly from the movies. (Example, in OotP (movie) Umbridge tucks a student's shirt in and buttons his collar and tightens his tie. We see Molly Weasley (in my opinion the greatest witch of all time) doing cooking and cleaning spells.) My thought is that at a certain point you are able to manipulate magic in a general way without a specific spell. If you are skilled enough at charms or transfiguration you can do things like cook and clean by focusing your thoughts on a specific tasks. Spells like Wingardium etc, are the building blocks for getting your mind more in tune with your magic. So maybe once your mind is tuned and you are sufficiently in tune with hurting others, you can manipulate things without a specific spell. I know this isn't canon, and it is probably idiotic, but without a more well thought out magic system from JKR, we are left trying to fill in the gaps. That's basically how I look at it. It's like multiplication -- when you're young, yeah you'll need to work out on pen and paper how to multiply, say, 21 by 12. Anyone even slightly decent in math, though, can easily do it in their head (basically my mind translates it to 21 * 10 and then add 42 (21 twice), although those steps are automatic and look clunkier written out then it is in my head). Avada Kedavera and such are complex enough that they still require saying the spell / doing whatever wand movement -- the equivalent of 738 * 677 or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:The problem with putting any parts of the HP under more than casual scrutiny is that it just doesn't hold up. Rowling isn't a great world builder, she's a great set designer. Everything works for the narrative scene you're in but a lot of things fall apart if you look at it out of its narrative context. Which is too bad, because if you took what she did and put it in the hands someone like Tolkien it would become the foundation for a genre unto itself rather than another Star Trek, Star Wars or Game of Thrones. It doesn't take away from what they are, but there it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Danny Dravot posted:Which is too bad, because if you took what she did and put it in the hands someone like Tolkien it would become the foundation for a genre unto itself rather than another Star Trek, Star Wars or Game of Thrones. It doesn't take away from what they are, but there it is. If you consider Young Adult to be a genre I think Harry Potter has had a huge impact to YA and its commercial viability. I'm not sure if it could have really created its own genre in the sense that LotR did. HP is a great mashup of several elements that was in the right place at the right time. It would definitely be nice if some aspects of Harry Potter were tighter but like you say, it doesn't really matter at the end of the day. I will say I'm not a huge fan of how much Rowling has added outside of the books in interviews and such. Include it in the books or write more!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
njbeachbum posted:If you are skilled enough at charms or transfiguration you can do things like cook and clean by focusing your thoughts on a specific tasks. Spells like Wingardium etc, are the building blocks for getting your mind more in tune with your magic. So maybe once your mind is tuned and you are sufficiently in tune with hurting others, you can manipulate things without a specific spell. I know this isn't canon, and it is probably idiotic, but without a more well thought out magic system from JKR, we are left trying to fill in the gaps. I think I mentioned this before but: It seems like being skilled at Charms and Transfiguration as well as being imaginative is probably the most important part of actually being a really good wizard and duelist in the books. Compare Snape vs Mcgonagall and Dumbledore vs Voldemort where they're just transfiguring stuff into other stuff and bringing statues to life and summoning knives out of thin air or Fred and George inventing a candy that pretty much transfigures you into an animal or the fact the trials in the first book are probably the most impressive bit of magic shown off in any of the books. Hermione was really good at learning and using spells but the closest thing she came to being imaginative (from what I remember) was trying to be cute by muting a Death Eater and instantly getting non-verballed. On the flipside Mrs Weasley was blatantly Hufflepuff Head and taught Wizard Home Economics before it got cut due to reasons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 10:22
|
|
|
Hermionie did create a bag of holding, create a list that would curse anyone that revealed its secret (which is hugely powerful, the only thing as indirect as that we've seen was Voldemort cursing the DADA position and that's not even as explicit), charming coins to act as ways to send messages etc. That being said Fred and George certainly seem the most impressive magicians outside of adults. Especially as we never really see enchanting covered in lessons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 11:35
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Hermionie did create a bag of holding, create a list that would curse anyone that revealed its secret (which is hugely powerful, the only thing as indirect as that we've seen was Voldemort cursing the DADA position and that's not even as explicit), charming coins to act as ways to send messages etc. Wasn't the last one a NEWT spell, I can't remember off the top of my head but I think it was played more as a "Wow Hermione did a Protean Charm that's NEWT magic how the hell she hasn't even done OWLs yet?" Actually I just checked and she cribbed the coins from Voldemort's DE tattoos. The parchment one is pretty sick magic though I'm thinking if it's some odd variation of what the Goblet of Fire does since everyone was like "Oh if your name is on the thing you have to do the tournament!" or if it's some bizarre version of the Fidelius Charm
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
I was always really impressed by the Wesley twins' puking pastilles and the like, and thought they would end up as healers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
Chucat posted:Wasn't the last one a NEWT spell, I can't remember off the top of my head but I think it was played more as a "Wow Hermione did a Protean Charm that's NEWT magic how the hell she hasn't even done OWLs yet?" Haha, stop underrating Hermionie! She is able to use magic creatively, she comes up with a lot of stuff on the fly like the water repelling glasses for Quidditch etc. I'd say the parchment/curse is more like the Unbreakable Vow than the Goblet of Fire. The GoF is more like the Sorting Hat in terms of an ancient artefact with a degree of semi-sentience. Again this is where Rowling sort of breaks down as you have all these sort of contradictory elements of magic. It varies greatly from book to book and even chapter to chapter. First Patronuses are presented as some crazy upper tier magic, and then by the later books they're basically wizarding text messages that someone can learn in a day's worth of instruction. Reading between the lines it seems like the Weasley Twins were tremendously powerful, which is I think something that Rowling didn't intend. There's a weird gap between big narrative story magic and day to day wizarding magic which doesn't really have a link. Not to mention how spells are created.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:First Patronuses are presented as some crazy upper tier magic, and then by the later books they're basically wizarding text messages that someone can learn in a day's worth of instruction. But when you consider that it was Dumbledore who came up with the idea of using the Patronus as a secure means of communication and taught it to the rest of the Order it's not unlike Harry figuring out the Patronus Charm and teaching it to the DA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:
I think this is a good point. When you look at the "jokes" the twins come up with there is some pretty powerful magic at work. This is ok from a narrative point of view but probably less so from a metaphysics perspective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
geeves posted:But when you consider that it was Dumbledore who came up with the idea of using the Patronus as a secure means of communication and taught it to the rest of the Order it's not unlike Harry figuring out the Patronus Charm and teaching it to the DA. It's one thing for Dumbledore to modify or repurpose a charm and teach it to by all accounts top level wizards, it's another thing for Harry to teach it to a bunch of kids of all magical skills in an afternoon. I think it damages the impact of Harry learning the Patronus which is often times treated as exceptional. Instead of him mastering complicated magic it becomes more along the lines of a high schooler reading a chapter in a college level text book and having just a bit more knowledge than his peers. Yeah basically anyone can learn a Patronus charm if they just sat down for a bit and practiced. Perhaps that is just another indicator of Hogwarts' appalling curriculum. We have so much wildly conflicting information about spells. For some it is all about correct pronunciation, others you have to really *mean* it, others are about will power - it makes it a nightmare to try and ascribe a logic to it. Arguably the existence of non-verbal spells indicates that the names of spells isn't important but rather the intent/desire behind them. Perhaps magical teaching has just given common names to make it easier to catalogue and teach spells - so instead of everyone having an individual word for a summoning spell they use Accio as shorthand. But then you get to Sectumsempra which Harry had no idea about other than it was for enemies and we're back to square one. Or Wingardium Leviosa in which pronunciation seems to make all the difference. this is a whole lot of words about fictional magic that the author herself doesn't really care about 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Or Wingardium Leviosa in which pronunciation seems to make all the difference. I don't think Wingardium Leviosa is neccessarily all about the pronunciation, just that Hermione was harping about it because at that point she is very by-the-book. I always thought that it was a very magic-for-beginners spell so at Hogwarts it's important to lay the groundwork of having to pronounce spells and wand flicks just right to get used to how magic works before you're able to do non-verbal spells or extrapolate your own spells. Sort of like what regulargonzalez was saying when he compared it to multiplication. But ultimately I think we are putting more thought into this system of magic than JK herself did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Chucat posted:
Mollywobbles was a Gryffindor, the whole over breeding lot of red-haired blood traitors were Gryffindors. Additionally I would argue that Molly and Arthur were the leaders of perhaps the most powerfully magical family in England. Every one of her kids (I can't explain Percy) are powerfully magical, strong willed, and brave (to a fault), and she defeated Bellatrix who was almost as powerful as "He who shall not be named". Also I bet she made a wicked onion soup.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
njbeachbum posted:Mollywobbles was a Gryffindor, the whole over breeding lot of red-haired blood traitors were Gryffindors. Additionally I would argue that Molly and Arthur were the leaders of perhaps the most powerfully magical family in England. Every one of her kids (I can't explain Percy) are powerfully magical, strong willed, and brave (to a fault), and she defeated Bellatrix who was almost as powerful as "He who shall not be named". I'd bet the spells used for butchering a chicken works just as nicely in combat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
King of Foolians posted:
Yeah, exactly. Haha. njbeachbum posted:Mollywobbles was a Gryffindor, the whole over breeding lot of red-haired blood traitors were Gryffindors. Additionally I would argue that Molly and Arthur were the leaders of perhaps the most powerfully magical family in England. Every one of her kids (I can't explain Percy) are powerfully magical, strong willed, and brave (to a fault), and she defeated Bellatrix who was almost as powerful as "He who shall not be named". Arguably Percy is pretty talented - he was head boy and had a pretty quick rise in the ministry despite having an "undesirable" father. Pretty much every Weasley is hugely talented. No wonder Ron always felt pressure to perform. At least he married talent!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I think it damages the impact of Harry learning the Patronus which is often times treated as exceptional. Instead of him mastering complicated magic it becomes more along the lines of a high schooler reading a chapter in a college level text book and having just a bit more knowledge than his peers. Yeah basically anyone can learn a Patronus charm if they just sat down for a bit and practiced. Perhaps that is just another indicator of Hogwarts' appalling curriculum. But didn't it take most of the kids in the DA pretty much the whole year to learn how to conjure a proper patronus, while Harry managed it in one, maybe two lessons? Still seems pretty exceptional then. On anothet topic, back to the unforgivable curses for a bit. "Moody" pretty much stated that the kids could Kedavra him till their throats got sore and he wouldn't even get a nosebleed. And with Bellatrix later explaining to, and when I say "explaining to", I mean "shrieking at" Harry that they don't work unless you really, really mean it, can we say that pretty much none of the kids would be able to actually do the Kedavra curse? This also means that Draco's task was doomed to fail from the start in THBP. I mean, the only "kid" we ever saw use the killing curse was Crabbe (Or Goyle, I always get them mixed up) and he was an adult by that point. (And probably too stupid to realize why it was a bad thing to do anyway.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
Bad Wolf posted:But didn't it take most of the kids in the DA pretty much the whole year to learn how to conjure a proper patronus, while Harry managed it in one, maybe two lessons? Still seems pretty exceptional then. You know what would have made life easier for everyone? If they taught Harry how to use his patronus to send messages. It would have made life much much easier for Sirus Black.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:You know what would have made life easier for everyone? If they taught Harry how to use his patronus to send messages. It would have made life much much easier for Sirus Black. Did you forget that Sirius gave harry a two-way mirror so he could always talk to him whenever and Harry refused to unwrap the present and see what it was because he assumed Sirius would use it as an excuse to break out and get in trouble? That whole book was just a cavalcade of everybody making terrible decisions from Dumbledore on down. They probably didn't teach harry patronus texting because mumblemumble dark lord mumble posession mumble prophecy, same as every other reason they kept him out of the loop that year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
Bad Wolf posted:But didn't it take most of the kids in the DA pretty much the whole year to learn how to conjure a proper patronus, while Harry managed it in one, maybe two lessons? Still seems pretty exceptional then. I guess you can "fake" it, really, so long as you're determined and disciplined enough. See: Snape killing Dumbledore. Kids don't really have the discipline to focus murderous intent like that outside of very brief moments, and I assume that the killing curse would involve some serious control over that urge - so Harry's utter rage was enough to sort of half-arse the Crucio curse, but not enough to actually make it work properly. Though, you know. Draco could've offed Dumbledore in another way than just using the killing curse. Say by one of the billion stupid schemes he came up with to poison him or arrange an "accident" or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:I guess you can "fake" it, really, so long as you're determined and disciplined enough. See: Snape killing Dumbledore. Kids don't really have the discipline to focus murderous intent like that outside of very brief moments, and I assume that the killing curse would involve some serious control over that urge - so Harry's utter rage was enough to sort of half-arse the Crucio curse, but not enough to actually make it work properly. I'd imagine murderous rage is close enough, you certainly mean it, and killing is simple, relative to say, Imperius. As for offing Dumbledore, badass wizard or not, he's an extremely old man, and since he certainly wasn't going to hurt a student, Draco could have just relentlessly attacked until Dumbledore takes a few hits he can't afford to at his age.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Bad Wolf posted:But didn't it take most of the kids in the DA pretty much the whole year to learn how to conjure a proper patronus, while Harry managed it in one, maybe two lessons? Still seems pretty exceptional then. Which makes Sectumsempra interesting because is the curse that was cast the full effect? If he randomly said it to Ron would it have caused papercuts, or if Voldemort used it would it have cut people into pieces?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Which makes Sectumsempra interesting because is the curse that was cast the full effect? If he randomly said it to Ron would it have caused papercuts, or if Voldemort used it would it have cut people into pieces? I have a suspicion that the Horcrux might have something to do with Harry's easy use of spells like Sectumsempra. On the note of the patronus, I think Harry learning a piece of (post?)-NEWT magic as a third year is what is exceptional, though obviously it's not the norm for OWL students either. Don't most of the fourth years fail to produce one in the DA?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:I have a suspicion that the Horcrux might have something to do with Harry's easy use of spells like Sectumsempra. They mention that most adult wizards do not know how to do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:They mention that most adult wizards do not know how to do it. Likely because the Patronus requires sustaining a very particular mental state, while the creatures it combats generates the antithesis of that. As mentioned above by someone, it looks like you have a few types of magic, those which largely involve technical skill(usually enchanting or creating things), those which work based on some inherent quality(like the magic of self sacrifice, species specific magic, Animagus, Divinations, Parseltongue, etc), and those which work based on a mental or emotional quality(Avada Kedavra, Crucio, Patronus). The first category can be easily separated into education levels. Hermione and the twins are above the rest since they can create magic items, but anyone with sufficient education can cast these. It's all in the technique. The second can in some cases be developed or invoked, but if you can't do it, you can't do it. The third is high difficulty, simply because of the mentality requirements. You need to be able to produce the specified mental state on demand in a high stress environment. A child could do it if they knew the spell and were in the right state. Dark Magic is easier here, since getting angry is fairly common, but Patronus is hard, because it requires happiness. In combat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:They mention that most adult wizards do not know how to do it. How many wizards, not actively involved in the war or a situation where they'd have a reasonable chance of encountering Dementors, really have any need to learn the Patronus charm? It's probably like calculus. It's not that hard, and you could probably teach the basics to a young teenager with the sufficient motivation to learn, but most people don't bother to put in the effort because there's no point. Apart from sending secure messages and warding off Dementors, it's a pretty useless charm. I don't know what British education is like, but nothing I learned in Canadian high school is something I would consider even remotely hard any more, even if it was extremely difficult at the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Magical education at Hogwarts sucks anyway. The best magicians are heavily motivated self starters like Hermionie and the Weasley twins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Magical education at Hogwarts sucks anyway. The best magicians are heavily motivated self starters like Hermionie and the Weasley twins. I mean, that's pretty much the whole point. It's wizarding elementary, middle, and high school, but unlike the real world where studying a bit of history concepts or reading up on game theory in your spare time doesn't really get you ahead in life without a bit of being clever, someone who's actually trying to bone down on magic can learn all kinds of things that are just direct changes to the physical world. Not knowing the Patronus is like me not knowing how to care for an Elephant. I really don't have to do that at all so why would I give a poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
veekie posted:I'd bet the spells used for butchering a chicken works just as nicely in combat. "Accio internal organs!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 11:40
|
|
|
I wonder how many magic school books are going to come out in the next couple decades as more and more of the kids from the 2000s start writing their own books.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Death Bot posted:I mean, that's pretty much the whole point. It's wizarding elementary, middle, and high school, but unlike the real world where studying a bit of history concepts or reading up on game theory in your spare time doesn't really get you ahead in life without a bit of being clever, someone who's actually trying to bone down on magic can learn all kinds of things that are just direct changes to the physical world. It is hard to discuss this because Rowling's magic system has no order or logic and just functions on narrative convenience. We can sort of infer that maybe the magic taught in Hogwarts is sort of more theory based than rather than mechanically learning spells to repeat. Perhaps when Flitwick is teaching tickling charms it's to teach about the structure and casting on a whole genre of spells that function similarly. That way it becomes impressive to know the Patronus because that structure or whatever is applicable to a whole subset of complex spells. Magic being knowledge based vs. some kind of internal focused power is hugely at conflict in HP. bengraven posted:I wonder how many magic school books are going to come out in the next couple decades as more and more of the kids from the 2000s start writing their own books. The trend is pretty much been and gone. Dystopia managed to stick more because there's a lot more variety.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:02 |
|
bengraven posted:I wonder how many magic school books are going to come out in the next couple decades as more and more of the kids from the 2000s start writing their own books. Magic school books are kind of old hat; Harry Potter wasn't the first with this concept, anyhow. And there've been a lot of series since HP that tried to do the same thing by and large.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 02:24
|
|