Harry Potter musings

[Vort]

My youngest, who is eight, has been in his Harry Potter phase for at least six months. In the Vort household, the Harry Potter phase includes listening to Harry Potter CDs every evening at bedtime and at various points throughout the day. His missionary brother also carved and sent him a "wand" for Christmas. His best friend is as much a HP fanatic as he is. Needless to say, I have been getting a lot of Harry Potter lately.

 

Not sure why Rowling's fantasy is so engaging. The ideas are mostly derivative, by intent. The overarching plot line is hardly revolutionary. The actual stories are highly dependent on deus ex machina, such as pulling out a newly introduced magical spell as the brilliant solution to a heretofore intractable problem. Yet somehow, Rowling's gift for storytelling creates an interesting enough place that many millions of people happily overlook the obvious flaws. I have heard some suggest that you could use the HP books to teach a class in how not to write, but this strikes me as sour grapes. On the contrary, I think you could use the HP books to teach how to create a really great story even if your material has serious flaws.

 

So anyway, I find that I have subconsciously been giving Harry Potter a lot of thought for the past few months. I'll mention a couple of things that I think are reasonable and that illuminate some aspects of the Harry Potter universe that have seemed unlikely. Feel free to join in as you see fit.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Vort

[PolarVortex]

I have not read any of the Harry Potter books, but you get bonus points for using deus ex machina correctly, and if I may insert an OT comment here on the value of knowing Latin...

 

A former employer of mine was a fierce competitor of another small private company with the name of Deuxma or something like that.  That name was based on the concept of deus ex machina, because the company's products could supposedly be purchased (at enormous cost) and unleashed to solve all kinds of terrible problems with the effortlessness of the magic spells you describe.  In truth, the products did very little except hog CPU cycles, but that's another story.

 

Anyway, that company fell into great financial stress and was about to be rescued by a set of rich Silicon Valley investors.  At the last minute, one of the investors asked about the origin of the company's name and was told that it came from deus ex machina, which the company CEO incorrectly translated as "machine of the gods."  One of the investors was a devout Christian and was so horrified that he pulled his share of the funding.  The investment never happened, and the company collapsed like a house of cards.  

[Vort]

How do wands and spells work?

 

In the Harry Potter universe (HPU), a magical person can achieve a magical end by waving a wand and reciting an incantation. What sense does this make? Is there any way to see this as a reasonable idea, rather than just "it works that way because it's magic and I say it does"? I think there is.

 

First, the wand.

 

We don't know what "magic" is in the HPU, because it's never really explicitly defined. But it seems that people are divided into two sorts: the magical minority and the "Muggle" majority. Similarly, animals, plants, and even non-living things are often divided into these two camps, though there appears to be a continuum. So dragons and unicorns are purely magical creatures, while pigs are completely unmagical. Cats and owls appear to be somewhere in between. Some plants are magical, and trees used to make wands can have some magical properties, or at least can amplify certain magical properties. So "magic" appears to be a quality that exists in some beings and things but not in others. Furthermore, it's heritable in humans. That suggests a possible DNA link, or perhaps something more like mitochondrial inheritance. (Hey, it worked for George Lucas and his "midichlorions".) So this is sort of the basic premise from which I view the whole idea of HPU magic.

 

In this view, a wand is a concentrator or focuser of sorts. The magic originates from the magical person himself or herself; the wand simply provides a convenient vessel for focusing it. But then, why not use an egg? Why not curl up a unicorn hair and stick it in a small block of wood? That would seem to be a lot more convenient that a stick. But the one-dimensional nature of a wand makes it perfect for pointing, thus giving the magic direction. As people get better at magic, they stop using a wand altogether in many situations, but even powerful magic users continue to use wands, so they obviously offer some real help and are not mere crutches.

 

Second, the spells.

 

What the heck sense do "spells" even make? And why should they be in Latin or Old English or some weird pseudoderivative of them? What, exactly, is "magical" about uttering the sounds "wingardium leviosa"? And if you don't pronounce it quite right, it doesn't work. What's up with that?

 

The magic, as always, comes from the magic user, not from the outside world. My brain has decided that the magic is accessed by a mental process within the magic user. But it is difficult to find such magical abilities, and almost impossible to teach them. What is needed is a "shortcut" method that can reference the mental process necessary without the magic user having to come up with it himself or herself. (NB: This is precisely what language is, a shortcut method for accessing inner ideas and mental tokens for things by giving such things convenient labels.)

 

So in this view, there exists what we in the 21st century might consider a "database". When a wizard or witch, through experimentation or luck, discovers a new mental process that results in useful magic, s/he labels it with an incantation. That label is then "stored" along with the mental process it refers to, and by teaching that label -- the "magic words" -- to another magic user, can then be accessed by that other magic user, who never has to discover the mental process to make it work. So Snape figures out a great spell that will eviscerate someone, so he gives it a name -- "sectumsempra" -- and attaches a reference (or pointer, in geekspeak) to the mental process that causes the result. Later on, Harry Potter finds the incantation, then uses it to almost kill his opponent, without ever having realized what the spell does until he tries it out.

 

But why "sectumsempra"? Why not "eviscerate"? Perhaps the incantation is chosen, or perhaps MUST be chosen, to be something not easily said. Otherwise, magical people would accidentally be casting all sorts of awful spells without meaning to, just by speaking plain old English. Since there appears to be no record of who invents or registers a spell, the very fact that wizards and witches aren't constantly destroying their children or setting things on fire or turning things into piles of slugs suggests that you can't pick any old word to be a spell. (Otherwise, the Fred and Georges of the magical world would long ago have turned normal language into a useless or even dangerous pile of spellcasting.) This suggests that there might be a registry committee of some sort that must approve the spell names as being sufficiently uncommon so as not to present a hazard. Or maybe the nature of the magical community itself is such that this is a natural consequence.

 

It also suggests that (1) there might be any number of ancient spells in lost languages that could do things (though perhaps when no one uses a spell any more, that "reference" is lost and recycled, so that it no longer points to the given mental process), and (2) that you might by accident be able to cast a totally unexpected spell just because you happened to vocalize something wrong or in a particular manner that just happens to sound exactly like Chinese or ancient Persian or something.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Vort

[Vort]

At the last minute, one of the investors asked about the origin of the company's name and was told that it came from deus ex machina, which the company CEO incorrectly translated as "machine of the gods."

Deus ex machina is a Latin phrase that means "god from the machine". Wikipedia says it's a word-for-word translation from the original ancient Greek phrase "ἀπὸ μηχανῆς θεός", which has the same meaning. Today, it refers to a contrived plot device used to solve a problem, which most modern readers view as "cheating". In ancient times, I understand it referred to a common device in Greek theater.

 

Much Greek theater revolved around the foolishness and arrogance (hubris) of people. It was popular in plays to show people's decisions, even well-meaning efforts, resulting in a morass of problems that became increasingly intractable, until doom and destruction were assured. Only then would a god appear and, through divine power, set everything aright that could no longer be solved by human reason or effort. The actor playing the god would be introduced to the play by a sort of pulley-crane mechanism, or machine, that would lower him from the "celestial realms" to Earth. This was the origin of the deus ex machina, or at least so it has been explained to me.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Vort

[Connie]

 I love this thread already and look forward to more musings.

[The Folk Prophet]

I've lost so much respect for J.K. Rowling since the last book came out -- starting with the fact that the last book pretty well showed that she had no idea what she was doing. Before that, I still had high hopes there was some beautiful grand plan that would bring it all together and give it a some amazing meaning. But no...Harry beats Voldemort the same way he did in the first book. Sheer, dumb, luck. And then of course she decided it would be a good idea to out Dumbledore. Of course she already performed character assassination on him in book 7.

 

Of course the HP Book 7 let down was nothing compared to the finale of Lost.

[Vort]

How many magical people live in Great Britain?

 

Hogwarts is constantly talked up as A Great School, but it looks to me like every last magical Brit goes to Hogwarts. Hogwarts appears to be THE ONLY school in Great Britain for young wizards and witches. Am I wrong? Are there other schools in competition to Hogwarts, or who take the "lesser" students? No such mention is ever made. Hogwarts appears to have absolutely no procedure to admit non-British students, not even a student exchange. (The exception is for the Triwizard Tournament, but even in that case, the foreign students do not study with the Hogwarts students, but maintain entirely separate classes.)

 

Anyone have reason to believe this is wrong?

 

Assuming it's true, how many students attend Hogwarts? I was told that Rowling said it was around a thousand. I have no reference for this claim, but it accords with my own estimates. Harry's class year appeared to have somewhere around 100 students in total, perhaps more, that were more or less evenly divided between the four houses. We are never told who all of Harry's Gryffindor housemates are, but it does appear there were around 30 or 40 in his class year, roughly half boys and half girls. So that would suggest around 35 x 4 = 140 students in Harry's year. If that year was representative in size of all years, then there would be approximately 140 x 7 = 980 students, or around 1000 students at Hogwarts.

 

So, seven years' worth of (we assume) all the magical people in Great Britain is a thousand people. If the average wizard or witch who isn't killed by accident or disease lives, let's guess, 140 years (and it appears that they commonly live significantly more than 100 years), that would mean that Hogwarts students represent, at most, 7 ÷ 140 = 1/20 of the magical population of Great Britain, assuming no significant mortality due to disease or murder or accident or such (which is naive, of course). So the upper level of the population of magical Britain appears to be about 20,000 people, and probably half to two-thirds of that.

 

In modern terms, we would consider a city of 10-13,000 to be little more than a large town. Such a small city would have at most two high schools, probably one (and not a huge one by any means). The mayor would be locally important and prominent, but would hardly be considered an important figure outside the small city itself. So Cornelius Fudge or whoever the "Minister of Magic" is would be the head of what is actually a very small community, though spread out over a very large area. In a city this size, especially one where people live very long lives, it would be almost true that everyone knows everyone else. It would be hard to maintain anonymity in such a community if you had any outstanding traits at all.

 

Looking at it in this sense, it becomes less surprising and more believable when important and powerful HP characters act in ignorant, provincial ways. They are a pretty insular community, and for the most part they avoid interacting with the muggle world. They are intrinsically powerful enough to pretty much be able to ignore what the muggles do, so in normal terms, they really do not get out much. Their world would be less varied and much more personal and intense than our modern world. They would have many of the ethos of our ancestors twenty or thirty generations back, living in small villages as part of a fiefdom.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Vort

[classylady]

For me, the success of the books is the human element.  The characters are "fleshed out."  You could take the magic out of the story, and I would still love the books.  It's about good vs. evil, a little romance, and imperfect young adults who achieve great things.

[Crypto]

In addition to the wand being a focus maybe certain vocalizations or language patterns have more magical affinity, thus it would be harder to make a spell pointer via English than Latin, or ancient greek (since some of the spells in the hp universe are not based on Latin).

 

Sounds, or differences in how you think via language could also act as a method of focusing the mutable energy source called magic.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Crypto

[slamjet]

Harry Potter is an evil franchise that peddles black magic and evil spells, all with the goal of promoting satanic lifestyle and worship          actually, I like the original Dumbledore (RIP) much better than his replacement.  And no, I didn't read the books (too many words).

[Dr T]

I read the first Harry Potter to find out what all the kids were reading at the time.  I got hooked the first book and then read all the other for myself.  I was not a fan of the last book as much.  

[Backroads]

I'm like the only person who loved the Lost finale. I also liked the end of Series of Unfortunate Events. Yep, I'm that person.

Anywho, I'm a big Potter fan. I rather like the derivative stories because I firmly believe the best story lines have already been done. Stick with what works and do it well. What I love most about the books are the themes.

That bbeing said, I do have my criticisms and do find it fun to pick things apart.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm like the only person who loved the Lost finale. I also liked the end of Series of Unfortunate Events. Yep, I'm that person.

 

I forgave Lost...sort of, upon my most recent watch through. There's some value there. But that doesn't diminish my disappointment in the way that the writers gave their fans the finger by ignoring the core appeal of the show as to it's so-called resolution.

[NeuroTypical]

I enjoyed ruffling feathers by drawing analogies between the Harry Potter universe, and the Golden Compass universe.  Made people uncomfortable, what with HP being so cool and wonderful, and TGC being so written by an atheist and all.

[sxfritz]

For me, the success of the books is the human element.  The characters are "fleshed out."  You could take the magic out of the story, and I would still love the books.  It's about good vs. evil, a little romance, and imperfect young adults who achieve great things.

Perfect summation. I've read all the books, which means I enjoyed the story, but I don't give two seconds thought to the magic aspect. They helped inspire me to write. 

 

On a different post, I wrote how knitting allows me to ponder the mysteries of the world. Harry Potter isn't one of them. 

[Just_A_Guy]

One of the investors was a devout Christian and was so horrified . . . 

 

At the apparent blasphemy, or at the bad Latin?

 

[FunkyTown]

 

At the apparent blasphemy, or at the bad Latin?

 

 

Both, sine qua non.

[Vort]

   

Both, sine qua non.

It's the non-breaking spaces that make the post.

[MrShorty]

You've already mentioned it in post 7, but I have often been struck by what you call the "insular" nature of the wizarding community. Even with the substantial subcommunity of "muggle borns" and "halfbloods", there seems to be a significant lack of understanding or desire to understand the muggle community.

 

I have sometimes wondered what might happen if someone in the Harry Potter universe tried to combine magic with muggle technologies? What could a wizard who was both proficient at magic and at engineering or computer programming or whatever accomplish?

[The Folk Prophet]

You've already mentioned it in post 7, but I have often been struck by what you call the "insular" nature of the wizarding community. Even with the substantial subcommunity of "muggle borns" and "halfbloods", there seems to be a significant lack of understanding or desire to understand the muggle community.

 

I have sometimes wondered what might happen if someone in the Harry Potter universe tried to combine magic with muggle technologies? What could a wizard who was both proficient at magic and at engineering or computer programming or whatever accomplish?

 

This is one of the things that bugs me a bit about the Harry Potter books (though not enough to dislike them). There is a bit of elitism being taught. In spite of her attempt to have the good guys treat muggles well, there's still a distinct us/them feeling there. There is, perhaps, a dangerous implication there for impressionable kids reading. Part of what's exciting is the idea of being special, being better, etc. Kids (and many adults, including myself) click with that idea. We like to be special. HP preaches that special is key. Harry is the most special. Hence, he is the protagonist.  If there is something dangerous about the HP books, it's not the witch/wizard/devil thing. It's this (maybe).

[Just_A_Guy]

I have sometimes wondered what might happen if someone in the Harry Potter universe tried to combine magic with muggle technologies? What could a wizard who was both proficient at magic and at engineering or computer programming or whatever accomplish?

 

You mean, like Arthur Weasley's (illegal) flying Ford Anglia?

[MrShorty]

You mean, like Arthur Weasley's (illegal) flying Ford Anglia?

Yes. Imagine what a witch/wizard could accomplish (in both universes) if she/he can learn to consistently and reliably create a flying car that (to some extent anyway) is "conscious" and can act without direct human input? Here in the muggle world, we talk about cars that can park themselves and planes that can fly themselves, how quickly could our technology advance with a little magic to overcome some of the limitations we face? What could a wizard (like Harry Potter or Dumbledore or even Tom Riddle/Voldemort) accomplish (for good or evil) by combining elements from both universes in a serious endeavor?

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes. Imagine what a witch/wizard could accomplish (in both universes) if she/he can learn to consistently and reliably create a flying car that (to some extent anyway) is "conscious" and can act without direct human input? Here in the muggle world, we talk about cars that can park themselves and planes that can fly themselves, how quickly could our technology advance with a little magic to overcome some of the limitations we face? What could a wizard (like Harry Potter or Dumbledore or even Tom Riddle/Voldemort) accomplish (for good or evil) by combining elements from both universes in a serious endeavor?

 

Yeah, it would be cool . . . to muggles.  But I think wizards would be bemused by such inventions, finding them generally obsolete.  I think, in one of the books, a character (Arthur Weasly, maybe?) describes Muggle technology as something they develop in order to get along without magic.  In the third book, I think a gun is described as "a sort of wand Muggles use to kill each other", for example; and why--barring Statute of Secrecy concerns--do you need cars or airplanes when you can use portkeys, brooms, flue powder, and/or (perhaps most importantly) Disapparate?  Necessity is the mother of invention; but what happens when there's no more necessity?

 

You could argue, sociologically, that reliance on magic has led to a sort of lack of curiosity and an intellectual stagnation in the Wizarding world; which could be why some of the most notable wizards are either Muggle-born (Snape, Voldemort, Lily Evans, Hermione) or pure-bloods with extraordinary admiration for Muggles (Arthur Weasley, Dumbledore).

 

(Incidentally, that's also my major problem with Star Trek: The Next Generation's notion that everything got really awesome technologically once poverty and hunger were eradicated.)

Edited January 6, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

Yeah, it would be cool . . . to muggles.  But I think wizards would be bemused by such inventions, finding them generally obsolete.  I think, in one of the books, a character (Arthur Weasly, maybe?) describes Muggle technology as something they develop in order to get along without magic.  In the third book, I think a gun is described as "a sort of wand Muggles use to kill each other", for example; and why--barring Statute of Secrecy concerns--do you need cars or airplanes when you can use portkeys, brooms, flue powder, and/or (perhaps most importantly) Disapparate?  Necessity is the mother of invention; but what happens when there's no more necessity?

 

You could argue, sociologically, that reliance on magic has led to a sort of lack of curiosity and an intellectual stagnation in the Wizarding world; which could be why some of the most notable wizards are either Muggle-born (Snape, Voldemort, Lily Evans, Hermione) or pure-bloods with extraordinary admiration for Muggles (Arthur Weasley, Dumbledore).

 

(Incidentally, that's also my major problem with Star Trek: The Next Generation's notion that everything got really awesome technologically once poverty and hunger were eradicated.)

 

I dunno. They still use candles and paper books and scrolls. Magical electricity and magic smart phones...??? Eh??

 

edit: I mean, seriously, just think how easy the Nicholas Flamel thing would have been with Google.

Edited January 6, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

I dunno. They still use candles and paper books and scrolls. Magical electricity and magic smart phones...??? Eh??

 

edit: I mean, seriously, just think how easy the Nicholas Flamel thing would have been with Google.

 

Sure, but if you've got a big space, you just magically amplify the number of candles; and if you really need light there's always lumos.  Intellectual/scientific stagnation, because magic serves as a crutch.  Ditto with the scroll:  the students' having to take notes by hand is clearly an instructional technique, not a pragmatic necessity, as Rita Skeeter's magical quill illustrates.

 

Also, doesn't Hermione state at one point that electrical devices don't work around Hogwarts because magic causes electrical devices to go haywire?

Edited January 7, 2015 by Just_A_Guy