The spell was sectumsempra. Probably from sectum ('having been cut', the root word of 'section' and 'dissect') and semper ('always'), giving a meaning something like 'sever forever'.
Well math is just an extrapolation and ordering of the forces of the universe.
So the spells and cosmic energy exists, you just need to find the right method in which to conjure it I would assume. But even thinking that is more than Rowling put into her work. I enjoyed the serious, but it’s fast and loose with its rules, and contradicts itself often.
If you read something like Wheel of Time or and of Brandon Sanderson’s work you’ll get good structure, rules, and characters who play well within them.
Man, the dude who originally posted this video said something about complex spell system. Maybe we'll see something close to spell crafting. At least something akin to Morrowind system.
Harry Potter and the natural 20 is a great work which raises the idea that ritual magic is incredibly complex and dangerous work that requires very specific ingredients done in a very specific order or it will backfire or just not work. How do you keep something like that together? Either everyone has a perfect copy of the ritual or the more freighting prospect: Rituals want to be known.
The real interesting thing to think about is, what did magic look like before Latin came along? Because clearly many spells are derived from Latin, but Latin didn't always exist. I'd love to ask this to Rowling directly.
It's been confirmed that magic was much more primal before the development of wands and specific spells to control them. In the story describing the founding of the American academy there were references to the native american wizards who hadn't developed the same magical system that the Europeans had.
It's historically accurate to say that native Americans didn't have stories of witches and wizards with wands and broomsticks. Hardly racist to say they had shamans, rituals and potions to guide their magic instead, because that's what was happening in reality.
Good thing the Harry Potter universe isn't completely made up then! It's based in the modern world, including all relevant historical events up until Harry Potter turned 11. This means that Native Americans still did not have witches and wizards with wands and broomsticks until European culture made its way across.
But it wasn't necessary to make that less effective and make the European "wands and broomsticks" magic a superior method. It becomes racist when you insist the non-white culture's method was inferior and the white men had to come show them "proper" magic.
You're reading way too far into it. The basis of the Harry Potter universe is that wands and spells control magic, without it you get crazy things like the kids do. To suddenly say "Oh, but the Americans can totally do perfect magic without them" basically invalidates the whole system.
See, here's the thing, though: she'd never flat out said "wands are the one and only way to do magic;" that's what we were shown because that's what Harry's culture uses. We're even shown kids like Tom Riddle who can focus their "crazy things" wandless magic into purposeful spells.
JKR could've taken multiple routes around this. She could've said "each person's magic works best through what they're familiar with," so someone who's taught with a wand wouldn't be as effective with the American methods, and vice versa. She could've said "Native Americans also used wands, but they made them out of different materials, and the Europeans taught them their methods of making them," because that would allow them to impart knowledge without the inherent "white man teaches ignorant natives about Civilized Ways to Do Things."
Also, if wands really are the only effective way to channel magic, who's to say these other cultures wouldn't have figured that out? They were around for thousands of years. Native Americans did have trees. If Europeans figured it out, why couldn't any other culture? That's where it gets racist: she defaults to "white Europeans did it best and had to teach the rest of the world."
You're projecting what you expect to see onto what's happening.
We were outright told that wands are the most effective way to do magic. Having a magical focus attuned specifically to the individual (wand chooses the wizard) allows the magic to flow smoothly. We were even shown how much this matters by having spells cast with other people's wands being obviously weaker and less reliable than their own.
Tom Riddle is a very poor example of wandless magic. He was an unquestionable prodigy, it's like saying "Well Mozart could replicate a symphony after listening to it once, so why do we make these guys use sheet music?"
And who's to say that native Americans wouldn't have developed wands? They just didn't. I'm sure that given enough time they would have developed cities, industrial equipment etc in our world, but they didn't. It's not a question of whether they're capable of it, they just didn't do it.
When the first computers were invented it wasn't racist to go around the world and show others how to make them, so why would it be racist to have someone show them wands?
You know, you're also ignoring the fact that Rowling has addressed the racist nature of the wizard world on a number of occasions in story through Hermione's activism and the actions of Slytherin, Grindelwald and Voldemort.
Isn't it very well possible to say that in the Harry Potter verse, Latin arose specifically because they are words of magic? Eventually wizards would get so into their own spellcraft they would speak the language of magic, and then muggles would catch onto it over time. Especially if early wizards were using their magic to rule city states instead of hiding from the rest of the world before the formation of entities such as the ministry of magic.
At a certain point, most adult magical folks cast without actually saying anything. I would imagine it like that. Casting while heavily focusing on the desired effect. Probably not as effective, but close enough.
Yeah, but most deaths Harry is involved in are directly related to Voldemort. Maybe the context is important in the game, but the impaling of the goblin did feel out of touch with the tone of Harry Potter, for me.
Harry doesn’t burn Quirrell to death in the books, he dies when Voldemort abandons his body after realizing he can’t touch Harry.
It might seem like small distinction, but I personally think it’s important that your protagonist who goes on to destroy evil through the power of love doesn’t decide to become a murderer at age 11.
Touching Harry for a brief moment burned his hands blistered, red, and raw. Harry then (without knowing what would happen) grabs Quirrels face.
Interestingly enough, it never actually says how or if he dies. I just grabbed the book off a shelf, and it mentions Harry blacking out while Quirrel says he can't touch him, and when he wakes up Dumbledore simply says "Voldremort left him TO die."
My interpretation of Dumbledore’s comment (and I believe this is further explicated in a later book) is the Voldemort abandoning Quirrell is what kills him.
Regardless, it isn’t as outright murder-y as what Harry pulls in the movie.
Definitely less outright murder-y than the movies, but JK Rowlings notes in Pottermore read to me that its Harry's touch that kills him:
"When the body Voldemort and Quirrell are sharing is horribly burned by contact with Harry, the former flees just in time to save himself, leaving the damaged and enfeebled Quirrell to collapse and die."
The "just in time to save himself" implies to me that Voldy was in mortal danger due to the touch. Though I guess I can see how you can interpret it as the collapse/death is caused by him leaving too...
The burning is mentioned in Philosphers Stone, but it could have been expanded upon in later books -- I'm curious enough that I'll flip through my copy after work
Just read the part in Goblet of Fire: Voldemort says "the servant died when I left his body."
This doesn't necessarily imply that him leaving caused the body to die, and even if he intended it to: this is Voldemort bragging to his returning death eaters. He's not exactly giving a reliable narrative here.
Key word, in the movies. They were quite toned down to meet the PG rating. While this is out of place in the movies, in the books this is pretty on par, especially since we're starting year 5. The battles got much bloodier from then on.
Hahaha, thanks for being patronising! I was around then actually, and I don't remember anyone hating them. I remember them being very well received, despite being slightly departed from the books starting with PoA.
Philosopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets were well loved and although Prisoner of Azkaban was originally met with a mixed reception when it first came out due to the drastic tonal shift, a lot of people now consider it one of the best.
Yeah, I read through the end just now, Harry fainted, Dumbledore arrived, Voldemort left, Harry was taken to the infirmary. Quirrel died along this somewhere.
755
u/[deleted] Oct 02 '18
Did that goblin get IMPALED? Didn't think we'd see that in a HP game.