#urupotter of course is an exception

[fortheloveofsnorkacks]

so I meant to talk about magic in HP but mostly I talked about worldbuilding weaknesses.

I’ve made the case for the HP magic system as one that works well, and I do think it works well enough. I do wish we’d gotten a little more context, though. A lot of what I alluded to was unfortunately subtextual. We are told that some wizards are better or stronger than others, but not why. We are told about childhood magic but not told what happens to it. I don’t think there’s a grand, thought-out unifying theory secretly written into the series. I just think there are a lot of interesting hints.

I guess I wish I saw people talking about the really interesting stuff that is there, because I for one am personally fascinated by many off-hand remarks and small mentions that are not explained. I’m fascinated by the fact that kids do wild magic, and I’m fascinated by Dumbledore and Voldemort’s wordless transfiguration duel. I’m fascinated by the magics introduced later in the series, which more and more rely on intent and focus. Occlumency and Legilimency are really interesting, as is childhood magic, and given how they’re repeatedly mentioned, even in the latter books, I wish we heard more about them. Patronuses and the Cruciatus and Imperius curses all require a lot from the user. Sure, there are technically spells in the backdrop, but you get the sense that they’re only there by precedent, much like Quidditch.

It’s just that people talk about the magic I guess they wished was there in a magic boarding school story and not the magic that’s actually there? Harry killed Quirrell by touching him. Spell-ghosts came out of Voldemort’s wand, and sure maybe that’s Priori Incantum, but given the fact that the ghosts have personalities, give Harry advice, and make requests of him, even those who are long-dead, I think there’s a little more going on than that. Voldemort Pair Dadeni-s himself back to life by cooking some human remains. Harry comes back to life because he went willingly to the slaughter, and breaks all the magic rules in the same way that happened in the first book. Harry Potter literally begins by breaking a magic rule and ends by re-breaking it but now with a more full explanation as to why.

There’s a thematic consistency to these elements and I kinda wish they’d been explored more overtly instead of being hinted at once a book after Harry nearly died again. It’s only ever hinted at that adult wizards may be able to use instinctive magic like children can, and while I think the Department of Mysteries can bear a lot of weight, I would love to get just a little bit more explanation as to why wizards are so attached to wandwork. Or at least a more satisfying, less colonial-justification way of explanation. Unfortunately that would require actual history, which as I’ve mentioned, is incredibly weak.

and yes, there are definitely elements of the hard magic system that I wish had been just a little more explained, because Bellatrix and Sirius both seem to have been killed by spell placement (we are not told of a lethal spell with red light). See also Time Turners. But honestly, those are fairly isolated complaints when it comes down to it.

Anyways, I guess the tl;dr is that people criticize HP for not having things they think it should have had, but they often overlook what it does have and whether or not that works.