Pansy magic

Lately I’ve mentioned a few times my mild dissatisfaction with the magic in Harry Potter. I don’t mean that I believe Harry to be the devil, or J.K. Rowling to be the devil for that matter, and I have no problem with magic being used in stories. To the contrary, I delight in it — magic makes cool stuff happen.

No, the bone I have to pick is this: the magic in Harry Potter feels flimsy. Weak. You see, all you have to do (in effect) is wave a wand and mutter some words and off your spell goes. It’s too easy, and there’s no real difference between one spell and another. The one exception that comes to mind is the patronus spell, which seems to require some real willpower. But other than that? There’s nothing to stop anyone from using a Crucio or Avada Kedavra on someone else. And let’s face it, there are plenty of dumb kids at Hogwarts who would do it just for kicks, flippantly if you will. And then there’d be lots of dead kids at Hogwarts.

Let’s not forget that the spells shoot out of one’s wand like a bullet. Wand fights in Harry Potter read like science fiction laser blast duels, not like magic. But I’ll concede that this could stem more out of my own internal conception of what magic in tales ought to be like, so this point doesn’t matter quite as much to me.

The (virtually nonexistent) barrier of entry is what hammers the nails in the coffin for me, and this is twin to my first point: if all you have to do is say words and wave a wand, then how in the heck does Hogwarts have enough curriculum to keep going? All you’d have to do is provide a spell list and maybe some diagrams as to wand waving, but then again there are only so many ways you can wave a wand. There doesn’t seem to be any real difference between a spell cast by a first-year and that cast by a Death Eater.

For me, magic has to be solid, meaning believable. And to be believable, there has to be a clearly visible difference between baby spells and granddaddy spells. It has to be hard to do something big. Really hard. Maybe you have to lose part of your own body to do it. Maybe you have to go into a trance for a while, constructing pathways in your mind. Maybe you have to be touching the thing or person you’re going to work magic on. But mumbling words and waving wands? I can say, “Avada Kedavra,” too easily for it to count as real magic. (Real in the context of the story, of course. :)) No, a spell that’s supposed to be the grandmaster of spells needs to take some kind of real effort, whether in the form of a potion requiring a very hard-to-find ingredient (attaining) or some superhuman force of concentration (thinking) or something along those lines. As an example of this last one, I’m reading Orson Scott Card’s Seventh Son, and the magic that Alvin Junior works is based on envisioning things the way he wants them to go, seeing them in his mind (which needs a lot of concentration), actually doing work. But Hermione has only to say a couple words and tap Harry’s glasses with her wand to fix them. It’s selling out. It’s not convincing. Seriously, if that’s the way magic works there, then all sorts of chaos would have broken loose long ago, and more of the story should have revolved around finding the right words to the right spell.

I now step down off my soapbox into the fiery glares of the Harry Potter lovers among us, just waiting to be gored with their red-hot rebuttals. :) No, really, I’m honestly hoping that somewhere along the way I missed something, that there really is more to the magic of Harry Potter than I’m seeing. I want to be able to respect Harry’s world, but as it is, I can’t really take it seriously.

This is wrong on *so* many levels. We should talk Ben. I’m not sure we read the same books…Jo makes it pretty clear that there’s more to it than waving a wand and getting what you want. It’s more complex than that. Take the end of book five, for instance and what Bellatrix says-you have to mean it-Harry tries to cast an Unforgiveable and can’t because it isn’t in him. And what about all the time he spent learning the Patronus? Neville learning how to be better in the DA? It takes more skill than you’re giving it credit for. But if you want me to give you the list of reasons you’re wrong then we’ll just have to wait for an Ink meeting I suppose…

One of your best posts yet.

I hope that the next time I see you, you won’t have been dismembered and strewn about Provo. (I’ve had a few encounters with Potter fans that left me nearly fearing for my safety! I’m tempted to draw parallels between certain religious books and their adherents…but I won’t.)

I don’t want to appear too critical of the books - the Potter universe is a decent creation. However, despite their current popularity, I’m skeptical that the books will be considered “classics” in 30 or 50 years, and this is in part due to the lackluster, incomplex magic system that is their basis. No offense meant to Rowling or anyone else. (For a SUPERB discussion on arguments for and against the Potter books, see http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2007/07/if-you-thought-.html. The comments that follow are also certainly worth your time.)

And if you’d like to explore some works of grand magic and tremendous literary power, I’d suggest Ursula LeGuin’s Earthsea series. Her taoist take on the workings of magic is (pardon the cliché) a breath of fresh air, and to accompany the characters - and the author - as they each grow in their understanding of that magic from book to book is a delightful, fascinating experience. If you like fantasy literature, you cannot afford to not read these at least once.

Like the scriptures, Harry Potter has many layers. The scriptures can be both an arithmetic book and a calculus book depending on the reader. Faith may seem a simple concept; you might think that you have a lot of faith Ben, but can you move mountains? Magic is one thing to a child another to an adult. I like the fact that J.K. made her magic simple enough that a child can enjoy it without having nightmares and yet adults love to read her.

There is so much in life to praise; I prefer to do so. What is it that causes some to look at everything with a critical eye? I wonder what C.S. Lewis would say about J.K.’s writing? I think that the court of public opinion has voted substantially in her favor.

Oh, wait, wait, I just read this part in the 4th book about the unforgivable curses, Mad-Eye Moody says the “Avada Kedavra’s a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it–you could all get out your wands now and point them at me and say the words, and I doubt I’d get so much as a nosebleed.” (p. 217) So there’s something.

Now that you mention it though, I kindof wish there was more explanation about the “powerful bit of magic” part…hmm, but I still like them.

I attempted to read the books years ago, but I was a little nervous about the magic and witches and all, so when I started them again, I realized that I had been playing the part of a perfect muggle! I’m glad I’m not a muggle anymore :)

I am a Harry Potter fan, so don’t take it wrong when I say that Ben has a point.

I hadn’t thought of it in the same context as you, but I was bugged at how pointless some of the spells are. In Harry’s world, wizards are completely dependent on magic. Seriously, they can’t do anything more than muggles, but they do it by waving a wand instead of developing technology or just doing it by hand. Lumos is the same as a flashlight. Avada Kedavra has the same effect as a gun (actually, muggles have much more effective instruments of death. I always wondered why Hermione didn’t think to just get a couple of tanks and take care of business). They use magic to prepare meals, rather than all the cooking utensils you see on infomercials. They use broomsticks and muggles have airplanes. Fred and George created extendable ears and muggles have plenty of technology for eavesdropping. They send messages by patronus and muggles use cell phones.

There are some fantasy books where the magic is deeper. For example, the spell-caster is reaching out to a source of power they have learned to feel. They have to channel and control the power. That’s the type of magic that I that touches a chord with me (kind of reminds me of the Holy Ghost or the Priesthood). It’s not that there isn’t deep stuff in Harry Potter (there’s a lot about agency and the power of love), but most of the spells are just glitz.

There are fantasy books where it’s the magic that is central to the story. Harry Potter isn’t that way. The meat of the story isn’t about magic. It could just as well be set in the real world. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The story still has a lot to it and the magical world is fanciful and entertaining.

There’s nothing wrong with some good textual analysis. Enjoy the books for what they are. :-)

hey ben!
ive been searching the net for some info about the joseph smith movie, and i came across this blog that was criticizing it and saying awful things about the church that i couldn’t stop myself from leaving a comment. he referred to himself as RFM (recovering from mormonism…watevr) and had a lot to say about why he thought the church wasn’t true. i felt awful the whole time i was reading his posts. some were just plain disrespectful. aaargh, i just want to vent out here. can’t believe he’s wasting his time pointing out what he doesn’t like about the church.

anyway, i don’t think i’ll ever visit his blog again (haha).

your post about the “magic” of harry potter is great and i do share some of your concerns. as an adult reading a children’s novel, i do feel that the part about how they do magic is not sufficiently elaborated. sometimes i just wished jk would tell me exactly how a spell worked (like how molly’s spells cause her whole kitchen to come to life and take care of the cooking).

but then again, i had to remind myself that i was reading a CHILDREN’S BOOK, and the simple explanations and details that she gave would’ve been enough to satisfy 10 or 12 year-olds.
joni and holly pointed out parts of the book where jk tried to explain how some spells are more difficult than others, and how not every witch or wizard could do watever spell they wanted to do. And let’s not forget that the whole point of the book is not to give a detailed description of harry’s magical world, but on how love can influence our decisions and change the course of our lives.

that said, i think the harry potter series becoming a classic (someday) would depend on who’s reading it. some like it more than others, and would definitely see it as another great piece of english literature. well, i think i would :P

oh, and have you read the last book already? i have to say it didn’t go as i hoped (i expected it to be darker and have a lot more action….and a really sad ending :D ) but it was still a fun read and worth the wait! maybe jk thought she didn’t want any of that sadness waiting at the end. sometimes i think some of us have too negative a view of life, don’t you think?

i enjoyed reading your posts and goodluck in school!

Perhaps part of the reason for this, Ben, is that J. K. Rowling isn’t really writing books about fantasy or magic. As Ken Jennings astutely observes, she’s really writing mysteries. You know, Scooby Doo style. Meddling kids who solve the mystery, much to the chagrin of the scheming adults, complete with seemingly obvious suspects (Snape, Draco, etc.) who never turn out to be the real bad guys. The magic is just sort of incidental, as Laura also pointed out. A mystery story hiding beneath an invisibility cloak of witchcraft and wizardry.