#magical theory

[ladyiristheenchantress]

Warding your eyes

This post is for my folks who currently use glasses, contacts, or other visual aid's!

What is Warding with your eyes?

This is a concept similar to taking on a witches name, however it has to do with your visual aids! They say that eye's are the windows to the soul, but what about people or entities or energies that are looking to disrupt our peace? Well this is a great ward to follow as a personal ward

I recently had this revelation when my glasses shattered in the sea after I slipped under the riptide and as I was grabbing my glasses under the water, a shell came and smashed them (I am ok, I am trained to handle that and am a strong swimmer). I ended up going to one of those minute labs to get new frames and lenses, but I realized something.

If eyes are a part of you that exposes a lot about your being, whether you believe in iridology, window theory, etc then why wouldn't you ward a possible weakness? Witches names are a name a witch takes on to act like a deflector, if someone hexes them using the wrong name then it doesn't touch down, so the idea of this spell is If someone attempts to harm you spiritually, you are now wearing 'different eye's' and can reflect the spell. All it takes is a bit of enchantment. We will be banking on the fact that glasses somewhat obstruct the eye (when you look at someone's eyes through glasses they can appear different, bigger, or smaller) but you can see them clearly.

The Spell

This spell is best done on a new moon, high tide, or on a Wednesday! all of these have correspondences of protection, deflection, etc. ingredients: - Glasses/eye aid - Cleaning solution - Cleaning cloth (If being done with contacts or other eye aids, adapt this to be the aids, whatever you use to clean them with, and IF NEEDED a drying apparatus) The Steps: 1. Set up your space how you choose to do so, set your aid down in front of you. Meditate over or reflect on what the glasses mean to you 2. Envision or create a chant that reflects the eye-dea (haha) of people/spirits/energies with bad intentions not being able to effect you, because they cant see the right person to harm because of the visual aid 3. Take your finger and stamp a sigil of warding either on the lens, contact case, or safe spot on the aid 4. Clean it off to 'rub it into' the device 5. Finish the spell how you choose to finish, and transition out of the ritual space I hope you all enjoyed! More content coming soon!

Tip Jar

[racke7]

Ectoplasm and Jason Todd

Danny is wandering around Gotham (visiting, chasing a ghost, running from GIW, attending college, etc) and stumbles across Jason.

Jason who is flaring his ecto-signature like a madman (is he trying to get into trouble?).

Danny drags the guy into a nearby alley to give the guy some kind of crash-course on how not to do that.

Jason isn't sure why this guy grabbed him and dragged him into an alley, but if it's a fight he wants, Jason would be able to fight more freely in an alley, so he doesn't struggle. (Does he know that Jason is Red Hood? Does he think that Jason is a random civilian? Is it just him, or does this guy have really cold hands?)

Jason isn't sure why this guy is now trying to... ask him to meditate? The fuck is going on? But if it's not a fight, then... maybe it's fine to just listen to the weirdo? Taking a few deep breaths isn't going to hurt him.

Danny is very proud of himself for guiding the ecto-flaring guy through how to not flare his ecto-signature. He's such a good teacher.

And then Jason collapses.

Turns out, Jason has been using his anger to create a feedback-loop that artificially raises his ectoplasm-levels.

Ghosts need ectoplasm to live, but they'll also produce ectoplasm when feeling strong emotions. For most ghosts, this a bit like saying "everyone needs a good cry every now and then". For Jason, he's been basically aiming a gun at his own face for the adrenaline-rush. Constantly.

So, Danny is now holding onto a barely-conscious person who desperately needs more ectoplasm. As in, this is a medical emergency, and every second probably counts.

Danny, being that he wasn't planning on needing to carry around some kind of ectoplasm-container at all times (who the fuck does that? His parents, that's who), is now desperately trying to problem-solve this.

Danny realizes that, actually, even in his human form? Danny has a lot of ectoplasm in his body. Enough that he could probably save this guy by... feeding him his blood.

Cue intimately sexy reverse-vampire scene.

And oh boy, if Danny's blood doesn't taste fantastic to Jason's ecto-starved self.

[drarry-reccage]

Everything Is Relative to You by @thehoneybeet (43k, E)

Tags: Time Travel, Reincarnation, Non-Linear Narrative, Soul Magic

The Manor is crumbling around him, shadows lancing around corners in the dim torchlight along the halls. Draco scrambles across the marble floors of the Manor, littering the tiles with erratic footsteps, the sharp tack of them echoing, rising, towards the cavernous, gilded ceilings. He barges into the office and yanks open the drawer. The Time-Turner sits innocently on the drawer’s velvet lining. Draco takes the chain between his shaking fingers, and finds the small crown on the side. How long will it take to convince Potter? To catch him before it’s too late? On the twelfth turn, one for each hour, his fingers slip away. For a brief, heart-shattering moment, it doesn’t work. And then, nearly imperceptible at first, the light begins to seep back into the day.

(rec by @cailynwrites)

[hp-fanfic-archive]

Unlikely by ObsidianPen (@obsidianpen) Pairing: Harry/Tom Riddle Rating: T Word Count: 2k “Like all magical people, you will get a soul mark when you get your wand,” the genial wizard explained after calmly lighting Tom’s wardrobe and sense of self-preservation on fire. “Unless, of course, your soulmate is younger than you. Then your soul mark shall appear whenever theirs does. They are always on one’s chest, right over your heart. Usually, they are somewhat vague and take time to interpret correctly. Phrases such as ‘Rival to Lover’, or ‘Instantaneous Love’… But they always make sense in the end, and it becomes apparent whom the great, wild magic intended you to be with.” Tom Marvolo Riddle lived his entire, long life thinking that he - Lord Voldemort - was the exception to love. Harry learned at eleven that he would never escape the damnation of Tom Marvolo Riddle. (translation available in Русский)

[remysa]

THANK YOU SO MUCH !!!! vol.2

PLS DELETE OLD FILES (catel, DTS …, bookhp). Thank you so much for your support! report me any issues please :) Пожалуйста, удалите старые файлы (их имена catel, DTS …, bookhp). Большое спасибо за поддержку! Пожалуйста, пишите мне о любых проюлемах :)

GRAB IT FREE SFS BOOSTY

Thank you for sharing <3

@sssvitlanz @no-habla-simlish @witchysimmers @witcheshistory @ojoquevecorazonsen @ivysccfinds

Magic realm req. for functional cauldrons!

Старые файлы выглядят так (что смотреть стыдно хаха): Shame old preview under the cut:

[wizardsaur]

The reason we put protective spells over doors and windows is because they're designated points of entry for energy in all forms. That's the spot that allows flow.

Ever wonder why you typically don't enchant a wall the same way?

A wall is built with eons upon eons of intention to keep undesirable things out. Inclement weather, those who would do harm, etc. A symbol almost as old as humanity itself, reinforced with tradition & belief, creating a near impenetrable spiritual barrier between the inside & outside.

Prime example of how weaving the practical into spellwork will make a bigger impact in your magic/k.

Go forth & get weird

[branmuffins22]

Hmm...

Notice any similarities?

The eye Kikimora reveals when she lifts that one hair-finger has a red sclera, yellow iris, and black pupil. Black on Yellow on Red.

The sky during the Day of Unity's eclipse is mostly red, but the eclipse itself is a black dot in a yellow corona. Black on Yellow on Red.

In both cases, the spell attacks a person (in this case Raine) via their coven sigil, and they even have similar effects, with sprawling veins and incapacitating qualities.

Could it mean nothing at all? Certainly.

It could've been entirely unintentional, just a happy little accident.

It could have been very intentional, just some subtle foreshadowing.

Is that gonna stop me from theorizing about the reasons these similarities might have come to be? Of course not!

As far as I know (which, I could very well have just missed something), Kikimora is the only character in the show with red sclera, but she's DEFINITELY the only one to be shown performing this spell on her own.

Was Kikimora specifically chosen as Belos's aide because of her potential capacity to perform such a spell? Like, Belos saw her weird eye, remembered something the Collector told him about the requirements for the draining spell, and went "YOU," before eventually teaching her the spell?

Was her eye modified/replaced to allow her to perform the spell, and thus to better serve her emperor? He's already known to favor unstable, power-hungry people in positions of power beneath him, so she could very well have gotten that job the normal way; then, it would just have been a matter of Belos (and probably whoever was head of the Healing Coven at the time) granting her the eye and teaching her the spell.

Is it just a coincidence that I'm reading WAY too hard into, even within the world of the show?

Who knows! well. besides the showrunners. im sure one of them knows.

[honourablejester]

One of the things that fascinates me, thematically, about wizards in D&D is the consciousness of their interactions with magic. They learn their craft by study, by conscious thought. And they choose their school, too, by conscious thought. When you make a wizard, you choose what elements of magic they choose to prioritise. What draws them, what repels them, what do they rely on, what do they seek out. The choice of school is as much a characterisation detail as anything else. It’s not just a case of learning spells by rote out of a book (well, no, it can be, but that’s probably a discussion in and of itself). Wizards are the class where you can dig in and get nerdy. There’s magical theory up in this joint.

The eight schools in themselves are also an interest mesh of themes and rationalisations, and that makes sense from a Doylist perspectives, because the game designers are choosing schools and effects outside the game, but it also works from a Watsonian perspective, because these are in-universe classifications based on what wizards assume is how magic works. All the spells are tied to a school, and thus the eight-school classification system, even if there are wizards who aren’t. And with any system of classification, there are arguments. Which is, of course, the fun of it.

So. With that in mind. Eight schools. Abjuration. Conjuration. Divination. Enchantment. Evocation. Illusion. Necromancy. Transmutation. Some essay questions slash thought experiments slash personality quizzes for student wizards in a D&D world, focusing on the classification of magic:

If you were choosing (or have chosen) a school of magic to specialise in, what would it be?

What do you think is the overriding purpose of your school of magic?

What element of your school of magic excites you the most?

What is one common derogatory misconception about your school that makes you angry?

What’s one spell of your school that you think should belong to another school? Explain your reasoning.

What’s one spell of a different school that you think should belong to yours? Explain your reasoning.

What would you consider the school of magic most diametrically opposed to your own? Explain your reasoning.

What would you consider the school of magic most similar to your own? Explain your reasoning.

Name one area of overlap or potential overlap between your school of magic and each of the other seven.

Name one area of conflict or potential conflict between your school and each of the other seven.

Which other school of magic would you consider it necessary of have a good understanding of in order to better study your own?

If you were grouping the eight schools into subgroups, what would the groups be, which schools would they include, and why?

Do you consider the purpose of magic to be useful or to be extraordinary? Which schools do you think best match each outlook?

What do you consider the primary ethical concerns with your school of magic? What would you consider the primary ethical concerns with each of the other schools?

Which school of magic do you find most difficult or unpleasant to work with? Why?

Which school of magic do you find easiest and most reassuring to work with? Why?

What is one question about the workings of each school of magic that keeps you up at night?

Do you think that magic should be divided into schools at all? If you think that it should, do you think that the eight schools currently agreed upon are the most accurate choices, or do you believe that they should be rearranged or replaced?

Do you believe that rigid classification aids or hinders the understanding of magic as a whole? Explain your reasoning.

Do you think that a spell should be considered part of a school of magic based on its effect, or based on the methods or rationale that created it, or based on some other criteria?

Is there a school of magic that you considered to be particularly badly defined? Is there a school that you consider particularly well defined? Do you consider this a clarifying factor or a limiting one?

Which school of magic do you most want to disassemble to base parts and understand the workings of? Is this the same school you are happiest using, or a different one?

What is your favourite spell that you have learned of? Is that spell of your own school or a different one?

What is one spell of your least liked school of magic that you consider worthwhile, and why?

What is one spell that you think should never have been invented, and why?

And, finally, just for fun and so everyone knows where we all stand: which school of magic do you find the adherents of most annoying? Not necessarily the school you think shouldn’t exist, but the one where when you meet a wizard of that school, you kneejerk want to punch them in the face, just because?

[the-magiarcheologist]

Magical Theory: Categories of spells

Look, for all of his qualities, Prof. Fig did not teach us much about Magical Theory. So I guess I’ll just make my own lessons! Interested students, come in, come in! You can make some room on this desk over there! Yes, put all those books on the ground, it’s alright. Sit down and let’s discuss! (And I hope you have some time to spare because this will be long!)

Lesson 1: Categories of spells

There has already been a lot of discussions within the fandom about the basics of what Magic is, especially about how it requires intent and/or emotions in addition to an incantation and wand movement to work. I myself have already participated in this discussion (although my point of view on this has evolved a little bit since then) and I can direct you to many other sources on the question (yes, each of these words is a different link you can go look up for further reading!). So I won’t be talking about this today and instead we will focus on the different type of spells that exist and see if we can neatly group them into different categories. In other words, let's see if we can define a taxonomy for spells.

So let’s start at the beginning by defining what a spell is. The Harry Potter Wiki, citing as source the game «Wonderbook, book of spells», tells me that a spell is:

"a controlled manifestation of magic that affected the world in a supernatural fashion."

And further:

"Generally cast by a witch or a wizard, spells were often produced with certain wand movements and a verbal incantation, or for more experienced witches and wizards, silently and wandlessly."

So I would say that a spell is any magic cast from a wand with a particular intention and a specific intended effect.

Within the HP books we hear of different kinds of spells: Charms, Hexes, Jinxes and Curses. So what differentiates them? JKR herself admits that the boundaries are flexible and that every wizard or witch classifies different spells differently.

For some insight on how JKR decided to name the different types of spells within the books, here is what she says:

Spell: The generic term for a piece of magic. Charm: Does not fundamentally alter the properties of the subject of the spell, but adds, or changes, properties. Turning a teacup into a rat would be a spell, whereas making a teacup dance would be a charm. The grey area comes with things like 'Stunning Spells', which on balance I think are Charms, but which I call spells for alliterative effect. Hexes: Has a connotation of dark magic, as do jinxes, but of a minor sort. I see 'hex' as slightly worse. I usually use 'jinx' for spells whose effects are irritating but amusing. Curses: Reserved for the worst kinds of dark magic.

The lack of consistency in naming different kinds of spells throughout the books is frustrating for those of us trying to make sense of it and figure out how magic works, but we have to admit that this type of vague and variable naming is actually very realistic. Throughout the books, we never meet any wizard scientist or wizard philosopher (apart form Dumbledore I suppose) that talks about Magic in a scientific/philosophical way, with strict definitions. What we encounter is wizarding vernacular language which tends to be inaccurate.

In fact, we muggles are equally as inaccurate when naming things. Take for example what we call ‘vegetables’. Vegetables, scientifically speaking, don’t exist. There is no category of things, biologically, that are vegetables. What we call vegetables are actually an ensemble of fruits, roots, stems and leaves from different plants. There is no reason why we should name an apple a fruit and an eggplant a vegetable, when they are, in fact, both fruits. What we do call fruits tend to actually be fruits, so there is that. But then there is the whole mess of berries! A strawberry isn’t actually a berry (and it might not even be a fruit!) although an eggplant is. All that to say, if aliens landed on earth and tried to establish a taxonomy of edible plant parts based on our vernacular language, they would probably be confused as hell and might even exclaim: «This makes no sense! There is no structure! No rules! Horrible world-building!» when, in fact, there is a structure and biologists know this structure (more or less) it’s just that the average person does not care about this structure and categorises things by different standards such as how they are used (vegetables are usually cooked and eaten in savoury meals while fruits are eaten raw for dessert).

Anyway, the lesson we should take from that is that, when trying to understand and classify different types of magic, we should not rely overmuch on the names given to such magic by characters from the books. This also goes for what is called Dark Magic (as opposed to all other types of magic). Again, there might be an actual scientific or philosophical definition of Dark Magic but I don’t think the average wizard cares about that. I think that, in the Wizaring World (as in our muggle world), societal/political views dictate what is considered Dark Magic more so than an actual definition with clear rules and criteria. Any magic deemed unacceptable socially is called Dark Magic. It could explain why the Imperius Curse is called Dark Magic, since it has been outlawed so is clearly not socially acceptable, while the Memory Charm (Obliviate) is never called Dark Magic (even though it is equally as invasive and harmful to the person it is cast on) since memory modification is legal and is frequently used by wizards to protect themselves against muggles by upholding the Statute of Secrecy.

And, by the way, we can notice that this arbitrary societal classification into Dark/Not Dark Magic also affects the naming of the different types of spells since the Imperius spell is called a curse (bad connotation, considered the most harmful) and memory modification is called a Charm (good connotation, the most harmless of all the spell types, is considered to not fundamentally alter the properties of the subject it is cast on) even though the Memory Spell more fundamentally alters the mental properties of the subject it is cast on (the memory is erased pretty much permanently, or at least it is very difficult to retrieve it) than the Imperius Spell which is only temporary, with no fundamental change done to the subject of the spell who returns to normal as soon as the spell ends. So, by all means, according to the general definitions given, it should be called the Imperius Charm and the Memory Curse!

So if we cannot trust the vernacular classification into different types of spells as encountered in the books, maybe we can identify other common characteristics or dimensions of spells to distinguish different types of magic.

My personal working theory is that the duration of a spell’s effect is a major dimension to consider to distinguish different types of magic (and might even be used to distinguish Dark from Non-Dark Magic, but that’s a topic for another lesson). The ‘duration’ of the spell is basically: how long does a spell continue to have an effect after the caster has stopped focusing on it. Thus, the ‘duration’ property also interacts with a property of spells being self-sustaining or not. This might become clearer as I explain.

We have several examples of spells of very short duration, which I will call perfectly ephemeral spells, i.e. spells that stop having an effect as soon as the spell is done being cast. It’s many of the basic spells that we know: Accio, Wingardium Leviosa, Aguamenti, Incendio or others. As soon as the caster stops concentrating and exerting their will, an object hit with Accio or Wingardium Leviosa will drop to the ground. Same with Incendio or Aguamenti, as soon as the caster stops willing fire/water from erupting from their wands, it stops.

When casting perfectly ephemeral spells, the caster is perfectly in control, there is no chance of the spell escaping out of their control (unless it’s cast improperly) because as soon as they stop feeding their intention and will into the spell, it stops. For this reason, we can also call these spells non self-sustaining. They cannot operate without a wizard’s active will and intent.

To complicate things a little bit, within the category of perfectly ephemeral spells, we can add some spells that are short-lasting because their intended effect itself is short-lasting or transient. Expelliarmus, for example, seems to be a one and done thing: the wand is knocked out of your opponents hands and that’s it, the spell is done. You cannot keep the spell going, even if you wanted to, because you cannot keep knocking a wand out of someone’s hand, once it’s out of the hand it’s not possible to knock it out anymore. (Of course, you could have a spell that permanently repels the wand of your opponent from their hand, so that each time they reached for it, it would be knocked back again, but I think that would be a different spell.) Alohomora would also be a spell that has to be transient and short-lasting. Because of this particular property of the spells’ effect, it’s impossible to call such spells self-sustaining or not, since there is nothing to possibly sustain. The intended effect cannot continue to be applied.

On the opposite side of the duration spectrum, we can consider perfectly permanent spells. I suppose it’s actually impossible to say for certain what spells are perfectly permanent because it would require observing them over an infinite amount of time to be able to say with certainty that they never stop or weaken. So, one degree removed from perfectly permanent spells, we can consider very long-lasting spells, spells that have endured for several centuries without getting weaker. Those would include all the Hogwarts wards and protection spells and other enchantments like the ever changing floor plan. Those have endured for over a millennium and still remain very strong. We should note though that it is possible that those spells did weaken over time, we just don’t know since nobody was there in the 10th century when they were cast to know exactly how powerful they were then. Even if they have weakened over time, the fact that they are still powerful spells such a long time after they were cast still qualifies them as ‘very long-lasting spells’ in my opinion, and we can indeed make the approximation that they are permanent.

If we venture a bit beyond the category of ‘spells’ to consider magical objects (likely affected by a spell that gives them magical properties) we have the Deathly Hallows which continue to be powerful magical objects with the same intended effect centuries after their creation. We can add the Relic of the Dead that Sebastian finds in the Feldcroft catacombs that still works after centuries of sitting there unused.

Such very long-lasting spells seem to be self-sustaining because the spells’ effects continues to work long after the original caster stopped focusing on casting the spell (feeding it their intention), and even long after the original caster’s death.

Working back down the ‘spell duration’ spectrum from permanent to ephemeral spells, this is actually an interesting distinction we can make: spells that continue to work after the caster’s death versus those that don’t.

We know that some otherwise long-lasting spells are abruptly stopped when the caster dies. One example is Dumbledore wordlessly casting an immobilisation charm on Harry just before he gets disarmed by Malfoy (and then, Spoiler Alert!, killed by Snape) up on the Astronomy tower at the end of book 6. Since the spell was cast without incantation, we don’t know exactly what spell it was. It looks like it was Petrificus Totalus since Harry suddenly feels himself becoming rigid and immobile and he falls backwards against the wall. This looks very similar to the effects of the Petrificus Totalus curse cast by Hermione on Neville in the first year. We know Petrificus Totalus is one of the long-lasting spells that seem to sustain themselves even after the caster has stopped focusing on it. We have several examples of people staying petrified even after the caster leaves the room to do something else. I suppose a gifted wizard would be able to sustain the spell ‘distantly’ even while doing other things but, most of the time, we see Petrificus Totalus cast by young students (including first year Hermione) and I don’t think students have the mental capacities to distantly sustain a spell like that. So we can assume that the spell is long-lasting because it sustains itself somehow. Anyway, back to Dumbledore! He casts this spell on Harry and the spell continues to work up until Dumbledore dies and Harry is suddenly ‘unpetrified’.

This instance of a spell being terminated by the caster’s death might be why many seem convinced that any curse will stop with the death of it’s caster. But, in reality, we also have many more examples of spells or curses that endure after the original caster dies. In the last book, Crabbe casts the Fiendfyre spell and is killed by said spell, yet the flames continue even after his death. I’ve already mentioned several powerful magical artefacts whose magical effects endure long after whoever created them died. We also have examples of curses placed by old Egyptian wizards on their tombs that are still active centuries later (mentioned by Ron in Prizoner of Azkaban) and, in HL, the curse placed by Marmaduke Dale on the Dale family crest at the end of the 14th century that still affected Samantha’s brother 500 years later.

Of course, it is not always so easy to distinguish was is truly long-lasting or simply a transient effect which introduces long-lasting change. Two interesting examples to mention here are Avada Kedavra and Blood maledictions. Are these spells long-lasting or not? They certainly seem to be long-lasting! Regarding Avada Kedavra: once you’re dead, you stay dead forever, nothing can lift the spell; and regarding Blood maledictions: they endure after the original caster is dead and continue to have effects over several generations.

But, regarding Avada Kedavra, anyone would understand that the spell itself is not actually long-lasting, one can take a life in an instant and that momentary effect remains permanent because that is just how Death works. You don’t forever continue to kill someone, you do it once and they stay dead.

Blood maledictions is a more murky case. It could go either way. You could have a spell that continues to have an effect on someone and their descendants forever. But, on the Harry Potter wiki, it says that this curse actually produces a genetic defect that is then passed down to the descendants, hence why the curse endures. Then, the spell does not need to have a continuous or long-lasting effect. A moment is all it takes to create the genetic mutation and then the magic is done but the change made is permanent and has consequences over several generations. (As an aside: they cite The Cursed Child as a source for blood maledictions being genetic mutations. I have gone through the mentioned scene in the The Cursed Child and nothing about genetics is mentioned so I don’t really know where they get this from but whether blood maledictions in canon are genetic defects or not does not matter, we can still use this as an example to illustrate how this curse would be classified if it was a genetic mutation)

Going back to our ability to distinguish truly long-lasting spells from ephemeral spells with long-lasting change, in the case of Avada Kedavra and Blood maledictions we can say these spells are not actually long-lasting (their effects don’t continue in time) but have brief effects that produce long-lasting change because we know how these spells work. However, for spells with unknown mechanisms of action it is possible one would confuse truly long-lasting continuous effect with a singular, instantaneous effect leading to a permanent change.

To explain more clearly what I am talking about, think about the spell Alohomora. I think everyone would agree it is momentary: it unlocks the lock and then the spell is done. The spell does not continue to unlock the door, once unlocked, the door stays unlocked. This is what I mean by ‘brief effect leading to a permanent change’, the ‘permanent change’ is the fact that once unlocked, the door stays unlocked. (If we want to get into the physics of it all, and if I’m able to remember my physics and chemistry classes from long ago, I think it has to do with thermodynamics, energy transfer and entropy. But I will let more intelligent people get into that if they want and instead rely on everyone’s intuitive understanding of how the physical world works!).

Soooo… we have now deviated a little bit from our original point so let’s do a mid-lesson recap: we are interested in differentiating spells by their duration. We have established that we have ephemeral spells with very short-lasting effects (which may or may not produce long-lasting changes in the objects they are cast on). These spells are not self-sustaining. As soon as the caster stops intentionally casting them, their effect stops. Then, we have permanent (or, at the very least, very long-lasting) spells. Their effects endure for centuries or more, even after the original caster’s death. And in between these two extremes we have a whole range of more or less long-lasting spells, some of which are stopped by the caster’s death, some of which wear off on their own after some time. The more long-lasting spells can be said to be self-sustaining, because something must allow the spell to continue to work even after the caster stops exerting their will to make the spell work. I have not yet offered examples of such ‘middle of the spectrum’ spells but, by now, an attentive pupil should be able to produce examples of their own ;)

Let’s see… we have Levioso and Arresto Momentum that last a short time after the caster stops focusing on them (hence why we can immobilise enemies in battle using these spells, the enemies stay immobilised for a short time while we start casting other spells). Immobilisation spells are actually a good example of a range of spells that have similar effects but vary in their duration. We have already talked about Arresto Momentum, in the books there is also Impedimenta that lasts about a minute but, on the other hand, Petrificus Totalus lasts much longer. I’m not even sure if Petrificus Totalus wears off on it’s own after a while or if it needs a counter-curse to be lifted.

And speaking of counter-curses! Let’s now get into another dimension of spells: whether they can be counter-acted or not. This part of the lesson is heavily inspired by the writings of White Hound on her website. She has done some wonderful and extremely well-researched analyses on the HP books and I encourage anyone to go look it up if interested! Most illustrative examples I will use are also from her.

I’m very sorry for everyone who loves poor Anne Sallow and wants to see her cured but I’m afraid that, within the wizarding world, there are actually a lot of incurable conditions! A few examples include:

Mad-Eye Moody’s body parts that were amputated and could never be grown back. Similarly, George Weasley’s ear that got cut off with the Sectumsempra spell and could not be grown back either.

The curse that Dumbledore got from the Gaunt family ring. He could slow it’s spread but not stop it entirely and he could not cure it.

Ominis Gaunt’s blindness

Blood maledictions

The Longbottoms permanently loosing their minds as a result of the Cruciatus Curse

Gilderoy Lockhart having permanent amnesia as a result of a backfired Memory Charm

…and I’m sure we could find many more.

On the other hand, we also of course have examples of spells who can be counteracted. Some longer-acting and self-sustaining spells can be stopped by the caster or another wizard casting a counter-spell (often called counter-curse or counter-jinx). For instance, in year four, Hermione casts a Jelly-Leg jinx on Harry. The Jelly-leg jinx is clearly one of the self-sustaining spells because Harry is said to continue to wobble on his legs for ten minutes while Hermione looks up the counter-jinx to stop it. Once cast, the spell is acting outside of Hermione’s will and intent because she clearly wants to stop the spell but can’t, she has to find and cast the counter-jinx. Petrificus Totalus works similarly because it appears permanent when left alone but can be stopped with a counter-curse.

Most serious and harmful spells called Curse (and usually associated with Dark Magic) are implied to be irreversible and incurable. For instance, both Remus Lupin and Molly Weasley, in response to George’s ear being cut off by the Sectumsempra curse, say, respectively:

"I can’t make it grow back, not when it’s been removed by Dark Magic."

"there’s no chance of replacing his ear, not when it’s been cursed off -"

However we do have examples of spells clearly called ‘curse’ that can be cured. Indeed, the same Sectumsempra Curse that permanently amputated George’s ear was used by Harry to cut Malefoy’s face and chest in book 6 but, in that instance, Snape was able to heal Malefoy’s wounds. (Although it is worth mentioning that the wounds were not easy to heal, Snape had to recite long incantations three times before they closed and, even then, Malefoy had to be taken straight to the hospital wing.) Another example is the character of Eloise Midgen in Book 4 that tried to curse her pimples off. It’s implied that she botched the spell and cut her nose entirely off but Madam Pomfrey was able to heal her. (Albeit, again, with difficulty.)

There are other examples of seriously harmful spells which, on the contrary, are counteracted quite easily. I’m thinking of the spell cast by Gilderoy Lockhart that removed all of Harry’s bones in his harm. A very harmful spell indeed! But Madam Pomfrey was able to re-grow Harry’s bones (thus undoing the initial spell) quite easily with a single potion. (Although the process was long –a whole night– and painful for Harry).

So what’s the difference, then? How come it’s impossible to undo the effects of some spells, while others can be undone with great difficulty and other can be undone quite easily? I think this actually brings us back to our classification for short-lasting/non self-sustaining and longer-lasting/self-sustaining spells. I propose the hypothesis that the spells that cannot be reversed or counter-acted are of the long-lasting, self-sustaining kind. This spell that just cut off your ear? It continues to permanently cut off you ear so you cannot grow it back. Anything that starts to grow back will be cut off again by virtue of the spell that is still active. Whereas spells that can be reversed or fixed or counter-acted easily are short-lasting, their effect has worn off and you can now use a new spell that has a new effect that reverses what the previous spell did (such a re-growing Harry’s bones after Lockhart’s spell was done).

But, you, attentive reader, have surely identified a glaring gap in my theory: I said the Petrificus Totalus curse was long-lasting and self-sustaining but it can be counteracted very easily! My answer to this is that not all long-lasting spells are created equal. Again, we are operating along a continuum here, it’s not black and white and we have already made a distinction between self-sustaining spells that stop with the caster’s death and those that don’t. We know Petrificus Totalus stops if it’s caster dies, however it seems that the effects of the Sectumsempra spell continue even after the caster’s death since George’s ear was still amputated (it never grew back) even after Snape died. This difference between the two spells could explain why one can be counteracted easily while the other can’t.

But, that still does not explain everything. What about the self-sustaining Sectumsempra spell that sometimes has permanent consequences (amputation of George’s ear) and sometimes not (Malefoy’s cut that could be healed)? Well, it seems that the length of exposure to the spell before attempts to counteract it are made are key in this case! I bring forth two new examples: the cursed necklace that Katie Bell touched in book 6 and Neville’s parents that lost their mind as a result of the Cruciatus Curse.

Let’s start with Katie Bell: she touched an opal necklace that bore a deadly curse that had already claimed the lives of 19 muggles. But Katie did not die. According to Dumbledore, Katie survived because she had very minimal physical contact with the necklace (touched it through a tine hole in her gloves) and then was carried quickly to the hospital wing where Snape was able to "prevent a rapid spread of the curse" (still according to Dumbledore’s words). She was then sent to St Mungo’s where she spent many months recovering. So it seems, based on what Dumbledore says, that self-sustaining curses (such as the one on the necklace that had already been cursed for many generations) do take some time to take hold onto a new subject and, presumably, before the curse has fully taken hold, it is possible to counteract it.

I hypothesise that this is also what made it possible for Snape to cure Malefoy’s wounds from the Sectumsempra curse since he arrived on the scene shortly after Harry cast the spell, presumably before the curse had fully taken hold. George was not so fortunate since he was cursed in the middle of an aerial chase scene and could not be seen to straight away.

In the case of Neville’s parents that got hit with a Cruciatus curse, we see what happens with a spell with otherwise no long-term consequences when you are subjected to it for a very long time. After a very long period of exposure, the curse ended up permanently damaging their minds.

And, in Hogwarts Legacy, I personally think that there is indeed no cure for Anne’s curse. Most likely, she got hit by a Dark Magic curse, the self-sustaining kind that endures long after Rookwood was done casting it and long after Rookwood’s death, and whoever found her in that fire was not quick enough to get her to a healer. By that time, the curse had taken hold and it cannot be counteracted anymore.

But there is yet another aspect of some spells left to discuss: spells that cannot be blocked. Some say all Unforgivable spells cannot be blocked (and, correct me if I’m wrong, I think that’s the case in HL where all three Unforgivables break through any shields). I’ve gone back to the scene where Moody explains the curses in Goblet of Fire and, in that scene, he says that only the Killing Curse cannot be blocked (except by physical objects in the spell’s path). Whatever the case, nothing we have discussed so far (a spell being self-sustaining and the length of exposure) can explain instances of ‘un-blockable’ spells. In fact, we have established that the Killing curse is short-lasting and therefore not self-sustaining and the length of exposure is irrelevant when talking about blocking the spell. So there must be something else specific to some spells that make them impossible to block. It could be that these spells are particularly powerful and not just in a way that is proportional to the power of the caster themselves and the force of their concentration and intention, but with an added power inherent to the spell itself. This would make them similar in a way to the self-sustaining spells. The self-sustaining spells depend on a mysterious force to make them endure beyond the caster’s focused intent and Unforgivable Curses (or just the Killing Curse) would depend on a mysterious force to make them more powerful than ‘normal’ spells, beyond the power given to the spell by the force of the caster’s concentration and intention. That’s just a random hypothesis I’m trowing out there. I would need to think about that more. (Also note that the Imperius Curse can be countered since it can be resisted mentally, even of it cannot be blocked by usual protection spells.)

OK, I think we’ve done it! I think we’ve arrived at the end of this long analysis and discussion! Some take-home messages:

I propose a classification of spells according to the duration of their effects: short-lasting spells (e.g., Accio, Wingardium Leviosa, Incendio, Aguamenti) whose effects stop as soon as the caster stops actively casting the spell and long-lasting spells that endure long after the caster has stopped focusing on casting the spell (e.g. Levioso, Arresto Momentum, Petrificus Totalus) and sometimes long after the caster is dead (e.g. Rookwood’s curse, Hogwarts Protection spells).

I further hypothesise that long-lasting spells must be self-sustaining, meaning they draw onto something (we don’t know what yet) that allows the spell to continue working even after the caster stops feeding their will and intention to it

Self-sustaining spells tend to be difficult to counteract and in fact can become impossible to counteract if the object has been exposed to the self-sustaining spell for too long. Although we note some exceptions of self-sustaining spells that can be easily counteracted (e.g. Petrificus Totalus).

I would like to close this lesson with some last considerations: you may have noticed that Dark Magic and Ancient Magic seem to lie at the ‘self-sustaining’ extreme of the continuum. These two classes of Magic seem to produce magical effects that do not fade away but instead endure after being cast, even without the input or participation of the original caster. This is what we will discuss next! So come back next week for the next lesson where we will get into self-sustaining spells and possibly a definition for Dark Magic!

Now, does anyone have any questions? 👩‍🏫

(And in case it isn't clear: I'm just having fun by pretending this is a lesson that I am teaching :) I don't pretend to be an authority on this subject, this is just my personal theory that is not any more valid than the headcanon of any other fan. Everyone is welcome to disagree with me, I'm just being facetious!)

[scarlet--wiccan]

Do you think there’s a meaningful distinction between “witches” and other magic users in the marvel universe (beyond, potentially, gender)?

Witch and warlock are obviously treated more or less as gender-swapped synonyms and both have somewhat negative connotations that don’t get associated with people like Dr Strange (afaik), but I feel like there might be more to it, I’m just not sure. Calling Nico or Billy a witch feels more accurate than calling Cleo or Victor a witch, but I can’t figure out if this is grounded in anything besides my own opinion

Yes, actually! We can identify social, cultural, mythical and practical factors distinguishing "witches" from other types of magicians. However, those distinctions are not always clear. As you noted, the word "witch" is often used very broadly to describe any female spellcaster. As a reader, you'll have to rely on context to determine whether the writer is denoting a specific type of magician, or just using gendered language.

Functionally speaking, all forms of magic are basically interchangeable. Most spellcasters have the same powers and abilities, and writers don't always put in the effort to make them feel unique. That doesn't necessarily bother me, so long as they are tailoring the language and imagery to suit each character's background, but that doesn't happen as often as I'd like. Again, you'll just need to use critical thinking to figure out when a lack of distinction is really just a lack of creativity and effort.

With that out of the way, let's break down what we do know about witchcraft, and the history of witches, in the Marvel world!

Social: Witches have historically gathered in covens, settlements and societies, and have even endured literal witch-hunts. In real life, this is not quite the truth, but it Marvel comics, we can say that witches comprise distinct societies which suffer distinct forms of persecution. We also know that many witches belong to a magical lineage, and that these witch families often use a special naming convention to identify themselves with unique colors and symbols, indicating that witches have unique customs and traditions setting them apart.

Cultural: In Marvel comics, all forms of magical or spiritual folk practice are literally real, in the same way that all mythologies and polytheistic religions are literally real-- Asgard is a real place, Thor is a real person, and spells have real power. Witchcraft is typically represented as a form of European folk magic. Other traditions, such as vodou, voodoo, and multiple forms of Indigenous spirituality have also been demonstrated, and are often grouped together, along with witchcraft, under a broad category of "cultural magic." As shown in Midnight Suns, many of these traditions from around the world have a certain shared history, as the Coven at Mount Wundagore included representatives from numerous cultures.

Mythological: "Witchcraft" itself exists as an abstract entity, like Death, Nightmare, or Eternity. She is the source of witchcraft's power, but also a symbolic representation of all witches and the natural balance of magic, and she is sometimes worshipped as a goddess. Witchcraft resides at the heart of the Witches' Road, an Inner Plane uniquely accessible to witches that transcends time and is connected to many of the mythical realms. Witchcraft may also be intrinsically connected to chaos magic-- ancient witches were responsible for binding and harnessing Earth's natural chaos magic; Witchcraft, the entity, is shown consorting with an abstract Chaos entity; and we know that Wundagore and the Darkhold are connected to many cults and covens throughout history.

Practical: Unfortunately, this is the weakest area. For a brief time, Wanda's magical practice borrowed a lot of Wiccan motifs, which was problematic in its own right, but in modern comics, we just don't get to see enough of how witches, specifically, do magic. Most characters who practice some form of traditional magic have a closer connection to natural elements and the spirit world, and they may have particular powers related to their background. Doctor Voodoo is a great example, although the actual depiction of his culture is deeply flawed. Scarlet Witch (2015) introduced certain unique abilities, such as witches' sight; specific mechanics around the cost of magic; and a style of spellcasting that relied on Wanda's knowledge of real-world languages and magical symbols. Billy and Nico also use varying degrees of wordplay, so I like this approach and I would focus on building that into a cohesive magical system if I was a writer.

[ladyiristheenchantress]

Autumnal Equinox Altar

Just wanted to show off my altar for the season! Fall is one of my favorite seasons if you couldn't tell haha!

What's on your Autumnal Altar? What holidays do you like to celebrate? What deities do you like to devote this time too? I wanna know :3

[path-of-grass-and-leaves]

Your original spells won't work for everyone and that's okay.

So I have this rusty cast iron cat statue that I received for free. I considered having it cleaned to use as a garden decoration but later decided that it would be great for a specialized ward.

With the warm weather approaching, I've been shifting my magical focus towards the outdoors. I care for the stray cats and am slowly involving myself in rescue work, which inspired me to design a ward for protecting strays who happen to pass through my yard.

I was very excited to share this with the general public and got to work drafting an instructional post. That's when it dawned on me: Not everyone has a cast iron cat statue just lying around. Most people would need to make a substitution.

In addition to this, I realized that the spell was too specific to my practice. It required a homemade herbal infusion, an offering schedule, and a working relationship with certain spirits. It was too inconvenient for the general practitioner to replicate.

While considering potential substitutes I concluded that my most crucial spell components were iron, rust, and a physical symbol of cats. Why would someone who follows an entirely different paradigm bother with all of my extra steps when they could just as easily ward with some catnip plants and railroad spikes?

Does this mean that I crafted a useless and needlessly complicated ward? That depends on who you ask. The spell was created to suit my personal practice and specific needs, so for me it will have greater potency than if it were designed for the use of a wider demographic. Even so, another practitioner might read over my notes and think "Why in the world would you do it this way?".

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of original spells that are well-suited for widespread use. Others are tailor-made for specific people and prefer to be treated that way. I believe that this distinction is important because when you question whether your methods will work for others you're also forced to examine why they do seem to work for you and what changes you should make in order to produce more effective results.

[hp-abandonshipfest]

17 June 2024 | 2/2 | Abandon Ship Fest Fic

Collected Correspondence

Author: @jtimu, Artemisaki Prompt: Inspired by @starquestingfordrarry's With Love in Her Luminous Eyes Word Count: 1652 words Rating: General Audiences Warnings: none (unless academia counts) Summary:

Correspondence between Hermione Granger and Draco Malfoy regarding publication of novel findings in magizoology and wizarding space.

Read now on AO3

[hp-fanfic-archive]

Am I my brother's keeper? by asterismal Pairing: Harry/Tom Riddle Rating: T Word Count: 1k There’s another wand on the floor, just out of arm’s reach. It must have been kept in this room, safely locked away until his duel with Voldemort tore it from its hiding place. Voldemort hasn’t noticed it, distracted as he is by the sight of Harry’s pain. With a barely stifled gasp, Harry drags himself forward across the floor. He reaches for the wand. (au where people who have brother wands are soulmates)

[wumiings]

I understand why a lot of people believe Merlin would be bad at teaching others magic, but tbh I disagree. I think that, given the time and resources to devote to his studies, he would quickly become a very good teacher.

My reasoning here is based primarily on the interpretation of sorcery as a rhetorical act. If magic is “the fabric of this world” and “the essence which binds all things together,” sorcery is the use of a language / sign system to persuade the world to alter itself in a particular way.

While at first glance, Merlin’s reliance on intuitive magic would seem to leave him ill-equipped to train ordinary sorcerers, his ability to feel magic, the raw life-energy of the world (which he perceives to be enhanced in sacred spaces), and even the emotional imprint that a spirit leaves behind (referring to the druid shrine in 4.10) indicates to me that he has always been at least subconsciously aware of the interweave of magic through the world.

What does this have to do with teaching, you ask? Well, here’s the thing. Most sorcerers have to train for years to master, for example, telekinetic spells. They have to learn, not just the Old Language itself, but the skill of magical oratory: word choice, inflection, demeanor, etc.

We see Merlin doing this in 1.02. I know it looks ridiculous when he tries to fake out the dog statue (because it is), but the way he moves around the room and experiments with saying the spell in different tones and at different speeds as well as adjusting his pronunciation— as if he’s appealing to the statue itself, trying to convince it to come alive— is, I think, founded in good practice.

Now, my suspicion is that studying magic out of books might leave one with the impression that there is A Right Way to intone a spell, and if you just learn it, then you can cast effectively. Whereas, if one is aware of the world as a living interlocutor rather than a passive object, they might be able to make a less formal and more personal appeal, which would both be more effective and require less rigid memorization of forms.

Merlin does have one advantage, of course, that doesn’t translate into better pedagogy: magic loves him. It’s going to be more inclined to do what he asks, and even preempt his requests by simply sensing what he needs and providing it, because he belongs to it and it to him on a more intimate level than other sorcerers.

[regheart]

does the animagus form of a wizard always correspond to their corporeal patronus? could you possibly know in advance what animal you will become? i often see it as a very hit or miss situation, but when you think of some specific cases, like rita skeeter, any animal other than a beetle wouldn't serve the purspose of serving as a disguise so well (like what would she do if she was a horse animagus? how much gossip can you overhear at the stables?)

or in the case of the marauders, if there's always a correlation, could they have taught themselves the patronus charm in advance to know what animals they would become? there's a similar issue of the practical use of different species, i don't think more than one small animal would be helpful to contain a werewolf, and anything that lives in the water would be problematic enough on itself

and there's even another angle to this, if we consider tonks' patronus change as an werewolf, and we assume that patronus can take the form of any animal, magical or not, it feels wrong for someone to be a dragon animagus or a phoenix animagus, which could be an argument for the lack of correlation, but brings up the issue of it being a huge gamble of putting a lot of effort into something that may fit into your purposes or not at all