A Magical Theory Question

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

In order to perform most spells, wizards and witches must speak or think a particular incantation and wave their wands, often using specific movements. Different combinations of incantations and wand movements will have different magical effects.

I've long believed that all of the incantations and wand waving involved in spell-casting are merely focusing techniques. In other words, while the words and movements help to center one's attention upon a specific spell, it is ultimately the caster's intent which produces the desired results. However, I now realize that there is at least one instance of spell-casting in canon that defies this reasoning. It is the case of Harry casting Sectumsempra upon Draco in HBP. This has undoubtedly been discussed elsewhere before, but it is a new conundrum for me.

Harry finds the incantation for Sectumsempra in the Prince's potions book at the beginning of chapter 21 of HBP.

He had just found an incantation “Sectumsempra!" scrawled in a margin above the intriguing words "For enemies," and was itching to try it out, but thought it best not to in front of Hermione. Instead, he surreptitiously folded down the corner of the page.

There are no accompanying directions for how to wave one's wand to cast the spell, nor is there any description of what the spell is supposed to do.

Harry casts Sectumsempra for the first time in response to Draco's attempted Cruciatus Curse in chapter 24.

"SECTUMSEMPRA!" bellowed Harry from the floor, waving his wand wildly.

Blood spurted from Malfoy's face and chest as though he had been slashed with an invisible sword. He staggered backward and collapsed onto the waterlogged floor with a great splash, his wand falling from his limp right hand.

If Harry had ever studied Latin, he would have known that "sectum sempra" means something like "always cuts" or, as Whitehound put it, "sever forever." But he never learned Latin, and so he didn't know beforehand what the effects of the spell would be.

"I didn't mean it to happen," said Harry at once. His voice echoed in the cold, watery space. "I didn't know what that spell did."

Setting aside Harry's deplorable behavior in casting an unknown spell designed "for enemies," what does it mean magically that shouting "Sectumsempra!" produced the result of slicing Draco open, even though Harry had no specific thought behind the spell? If Harry didn't know what Sectumsempra would do, then who or what did know? Who or what processed the incantation of "Sectumsempra" and interpreted its meaning to be "sever forever," if it wasn't Harry's brain?

Was it Harry's wand? Could wands be something like magical computers that are programmed to interpret Latin commands? Or was it magic itself? Is magic somehow sentient rather than simply a form of energy?

What are you thoughts?

Comments

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Good question. It definitely makes things more complex, because a simple switching from an intention-based theory to a magical-computer theory would leave out the need for clear, strong intention with spells like the Cruciatus or Imperius (and, in terri's reading, Avada Kedavra).

Also, Avada Kedavra would mean that wands would need to be multi-lingual, and the dog Latin JKR uses for some of her spells would mean that it can't be strictly grammatical Latin either. To say nothing of such a theory centering and suprematizing a very Western model of understanding magic. (Not saying you are doing this or that any model like the one you propose would do that! I don't mean to imply you're insisting on the Latin part. Just pointing out issues that would need to be addressed in any model. Also, probably have been reading way to much social justice theory today, so is in SRS BSNS mode, lol.) I think I like Jodel's theory that current wand-based wizardry is simply one very specific form of magic that grew up as an alternative to the more chaotic and dangerous practices of earlier times, due to the creation of wand technology, but the model definitely would need to take into account possible differences with ways of magic in other cultures and places to be comprehensive, not that we get any indications of this in JKR's Anglo-centric little world.... *le sigh*

Perhaps it is a bit of this, a bit of that? That is, maybe there is some underlying language of gesture and/or word that affects the world/the magical substrate/what have you in specific ways, building on a laws of physics of magic, but intention/will is simply one element among many that can affect the outcome, but don't necessarily have to be present in every spell - rather, their need is a function of the make up of a particular spell?

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

----It definitely makes things more complex, because a simple switching from an intention-based theory to a magical-computer theory would leave out the need for clear, strong intention with spells like the Cruciatus or Imperius (and, in terri's reading, Avada Kedavra).

Agreed, I still believe that some spells must be intention-based. I don't think you could successfully cast an AK if you didn't know what the spell was supposed to do.

What surprises me is that intent isn't required for all spells, that you can successfully cast a spell without knowing what it's supposed to do.


----To say nothing of such a theory centering and suprematizing a very Western model of understanding magic.

Oh I totally agree. I wasn't thinking that wands would be universally programmed to interpret Latin. In India, for instance, they might be programmed to recognize Sanskrit or Hindi. Or Indians might not even use wands. I agree that JKR really fails when it comes to exploring how other cultures use magic, even though she has students of non-European descent attending Hogwarts.


----I think I like Jodel's theory that current wand-based wizardry is simply one very specific form of magic that grew up as an alternative to the more chaotic and dangerous practices of earlier times, due to the creation of wand technology,

Yeah I like her theory too. :)

----That is, maybe there is some underlying language of gesture and/or word that affects the world/the magical substrate/what have you in specific ways, building on a laws of physics of magic....

This sounds reasonable. I just wish Rowling had worked out her metaphysics of magic more thoroughly so that we could know how magic "hears" the incantation of "Sectumsempra" and "knows" what to do with it.

[fishinginthemud.livejournal.com]

I don't think you could successfully cast an AK if you didn't know what the spell was supposed to do.

If you were in a book being written by an overpaid hack on a deadline and it was the only way to get you out of a scrape, I'm pretty sure you could.

[the-bitter-word.livejournal.com]

Could it be as simple as Harry having an intent to negatively affect someone who was in the "for enemies" group? He knew, at least, that the spell was "for enemies," even if he didn't know what it did or how to use it. So, there's his intent: use this spell against an enemy. How does a Gryffindor normally treat an enemy? Violent over-kill.

As for not knowing the right moves to make the spell work, I would assume that, given the thoroughness of the Prince in other directions, those directions were not needed. When Snape divulged something, he was usually pretty direct. This spell was pretty direct. It was the counter-curse that was elaborate and precise.

As for the massive damage done by Harry's use of the spell, Harry was actually doing it wrong. It was probably meant to be used strategically and surgically, as in cutting off an ear, and not erratically, as in waving a wand in a panic all over a room.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

----Could it be as simple as Harry having an intent to negatively affect someone who was in the "for enemies" group? He knew, at least, that the spell was "for enemies," even if he didn't know what it did or how to use it. So, there's his intent: use this spell against an enemy. How does a Gryffindor normally treat an enemy? Violent over-kill.

Yes, there was definitely emotional intent there, but there was no cognitive thought process going through Harry's head beyond "I want to hurt Draco." Harry did not specifically intend to cut Draco, just to generally hurt him.

But the magic still responded to "Sectumsempra" by cutting. That means that the words "Sectum sempra" had some power that was independent of anything going through Harry's brain. Something else besides Harry's brain interpreted "Sectumsempra" to mean "cut something."

[oryx_leucoryx]

Another instance is Harry Levicorpusing Ron without knowing what the spell did.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

Ah, I thought there might be other instances. The Sectumsempra incident is just especially memorable.

[melaniedavidson.livejournal.com]

Could wands be something like magical computers that are programmed to interpret Latin commands?

That possibility raises some interesting questions. Or one, anyway... see, Snape seems to have invented the curses he wrote down in his book (maybe, anyway. IIRC he's a bit vague, since he was just writing notes to himself, so for all we know he might have just discovered some obscure ones). And it's not really clear whether he told anyone else about them, but it seems like he didn't, so I don't see how Olivander would know about those specific spells to program them into new wands. The implication--though I could be reading it wrong--seems to be that if you invent a new spell, then you can teach it to someone and they can just do it with their old wand.

So, if that's the case, then it would seem that the wand understands the language itself, not a specific set of key phrases that are spell names. So each spell would be the entire program (with the wand the... interpreter? (As opposed to compiler.)), to keep to the analogy.

Would that mean that you could just come out with any Latin phrase for what you want to do, and that would work as a spell as long as it were... syntactically correct, I guess?

(As a side note, it seems unlikely that wands would have to have each spell programmed in specifically... if that were the case, why put in the Unforgiveables and so on?)

Is magic somehow sentient rather than simply a form of energy?

This is an interesting possibility. Maybe inventing a new spell is a matter of teaching it to magic itself, in a way. Maybe it has... trouble understanding less experienced users? Maybe some concepts are harder to communicate to it properly. With what we're given in the books, it's sort of hard to explain why some spells are more difficult--not just the Unforgiveables, but Transfiguration, too, with how they were having such a hard time turning matchsticks into needles or something in an early lesson.


My personal theory for a while was similar to yours--that the various incantations and gestures are just ways of focusing your intention, and that they teach students to do the incantations in another language to cut down on accidental magic (sort of... forming associations, so that you're only usually in the "casting a spell" mindset when you're using that language. You don't want them getting in a heated argument, shouting "drop dead!" and having it happen). And that the incantations also become sort of shortcuts--you know this exactly is meant to happen when you say this, so your exact intention is clear to yourself.

And then suddenly Harry's going around casting spells (not just Sectumsempra, but Levicorpus and some "prank" ones that are glossed over a bit) having no real idea what they'll do, and that's shot to pieces. :/

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

Would that mean that you could just come out with any Latin phrase for what you want to do, and that would work as a spell as long as it were... syntactically correct, I guess?

Wingardium Leviosa and Expelliarmus sure as hell aren't syntactically or even linguistically correct.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

----So, if that's the case, then it would seem that the wand understands the language itself, not a specific set of key phrases that are spell names.

Yeah, I think it would have to be this way. Except, as others have said, the language of spells doesn't seem to be consistent enough for this to be possible.

----Maybe inventing a new spell is a matter of teaching it to magic itself, in a way. Maybe it has... trouble understanding less experienced users? Maybe some concepts are harder to communicate to it properly. With what we're given in the books, it's sort of hard to explain why some spells are more difficult--not just the Unforgiveables, but Transfiguration, too, with how they were having such a hard time turning matchsticks into needles or something in an early lesson.


I'm thinking this makes more sense than the computer!wand theory.

----My personal theory for a while was similar to yours--that the various incantations and gestures are just ways of focusing your intention, and that they teach students to do the incantations in another language to cut down on accidental magic (sort of... forming associations, so that you're only usually in the "casting a spell" mindset when you're using that language. You don't want them getting in a heated argument, shouting "drop dead!" and having it happen). And that the incantations also become sort of shortcuts--you know this exactly is meant to happen when you say this, so your exact intention is clear to yourself.

Yeah, this is basically what I was thinking. You explained it much better. :)

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I have nothing to contribute :-) just popping in to say 'nice topic'! I was going to mention 'levi corpus' as another such don't-have-a-clue-try-it-and-see spell but Oryx beat me to it.

(I love the comments about how canon!Harry was dumber than his wand.)

Sentient magic - Doe Patronus

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

Great comment and question!

I suppose JKR might say in answer to your wondering, "Harry got lucky", because as you quoted he was waving his wand wildly.

We see in the first book the kids have trouble creating a spell if they do not wave their wand correctly. In fact I think we see in the first couple of movies spells kind of blow up in your face if you either don't wave your wand properly, or they're not spoken properly.

So, how is it Harry got so lucky with sectumsempra. He neither knew what the spell did, did not know HOW to wave his wand for it. How did he even know he was speaking the spell properly?

IS magic somehow sentient. I have considered it myself in terms of other situations in the book.

Looking at for instance the scene from Deathly Hallows where Harry sees Snape's doe patronus. This doe patronus is supposed to represent Snape's love for Lily. He feels so strongly about this woman that his patronus became either just like her patronus or the representation OF her. It's not really made clear that a doe was Lily's patronus or if she had an animagus. We simply don't know for sure except that Harry states at the end of DH that Snape's patronus was just like his mothers.

Either way, the patronus is still Snape's. It is not Lily's and really doesn't technically have anything to do with her other than how Snape feels about her. It's his patronus not hers. YET, It explicitly says in text that Harry: "Harry stared at the creature, filled with wonder, not at her strangeness, but at her inexplicable familiarity. He felt that he had been waiting for her to come, but that he had forgotten, until this moment, that they had arranged to meet"

Then the last thought Harry has, once the patronus doe disappeared is: "Now fear came: Her presence had meant safety."

You would expect that this being Snape's patronus Harry would feel none of these feelings. Yet he has fear when the patronus is gone.

The feeling of familiarity, and feeling of while the patronus was around it meant he was safe.

One might wonder how Snape's patronus would invoke such emotions in harry. It's not Lily, it's an imitation of her but it's not really her. Everything that is in that patronus IS Snape.

Unless we do consider the fact that Magic is and does play more of a roll than a tool that wizards can create.

Look at it this way, when Dumbledore is goading Severus about caring for Harry and basicly questioning Snape's loyalty, honestly and if he really has real honest feelings for Lily. Snape doesn't use words. HE uses his patronus.

Snape knows no matter what he says, most times nobody really believes him. If you notice all through the series, it really doesn't matter what Snape says. He can do all the right things but says the wrong things. Thus, people dislike him. He can never been truly good in most of the characters eyes.

Yet, what does he do to answer Dumbledore? He shoots off that doe patronus. His answer is to give proof of his love by showing just how real and powerful it is. Snape can't give anyone 'words' to prove himself, but he can give magic.

So, another way you could look at this is, is it possible that magic is also manipulating Severus? Severus might want to ignore the feelings he has for Lily. He may try to hide them, push them deep down so he doesn't have to experience them. But, he has this powerful patronus and he knows it represents lily.

This patronus is powerful enough to affect a boy Snape is not related to. A boy he in fact is supposed to hate. So how is it Snape can produce a patronus that creates a connection of trust with Harry?

Is it possible that the patronus, created by magic is also one of the reasons Snape believes so strongly he did love Lily. IS it possible that magic is creating a connection to Lily through Severus? Using him as the tool.

When Severus first made a doe patronus, what did he think?

Clearly a female doe patronus IS not very bad ass. It might even be something that would cause Severus to be humiliated.

Snape uses it as his proof. Does this ability to create such a strong representation make HIM believe he must love Lily.

Re: Sentient magic - Doe Patronus

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

In fact I think we see in the first couple of movies spells kind of blow up in your face if you either don't wave your wand properly, or they're not spoken properly.

I believe it is also book canon that Hermione taunts the boys regarding the proper pronunciation of wingardium leviosa...so it would seem that Rowling established early on that the words themselves have some sort of power, altho perhaps the words in combination with a wand help focus a wizard/witch's natural talent.

IOW, it not just one thing. A Muggle could pronounce a spell correctly, or wave a wand, or do both together, but have nothing happen because the Muggle doesn't have the inate magikal ability that the words and wand would focus.

And later on, doesn't Rowling establish the fact that some advanced wizards and witches are able to perform wordless magik and/or wandless magik? So it would seem that it boils down to something instrinsic within the witch or wizard themselves, and perhaps as youngsters they need wands and special words to perform magik on command. Most of them continue to use their wands and use magikal words thru adulthood, but a special few seem to have been able to get beyond the need for such tools (crutches?)...

Re: Sentient magic - Doe Patronus

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

----The feeling of familiarity, and feeling of while the patronus was around it meant he was safe.

One might wonder how Snape's patronus would invoke such emotions in harry. It's not Lily, it's an imitation of her but it's not really her. Everything that is in that patronus IS Snape.

Unless we do consider the fact that Magic is and does play more of a roll than a tool that wizards can create.

This makes a lot of sense. You're right that the doe patronus does seem to have something of Lily's actual presence, and I agree that it suggests that magic does have some degree of sentience apart from the spell-caster.

----Is it possible that the patronus, created by magic is also one of the reasons Snape believes so strongly he did love Lily. IS it possible that magic is creating a connection to Lily through Severus? Using him as the tool.

Yeah, it would be interesting if the doe patronus somehow chose Snape. Rowling isn't entirely consistent about what a patronus means or represents. But I tend to see a patronus as something like a guardian spirit, at least in some cases.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

This might be a little off topic, but does it seem to anybody else that they really ought to, y'know, TEACH the students Latin (or faux Latin) in classes that don't directly involve magic so that they have some idea what they are saying? That way they would be able to quickly analyze and figure out what a new spell they are presented with would actually do rather than just testing it out and hoping for the best. Really, there should have been a lot more mishaps with this kind of willful ignorance.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

I totally agree. Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if some pureblood families teach their children Latin before they go to Hogwarts.

I've thought about this waaay too much (Part 1)

[r-ganymede.livejournal.com]

This is close to what I think, but I put it down to the environment and not the wand. Personally, the only way I've ever been able to make sense of the magic system is to basically assume it works like computer programming, with there being some kind of worldwide (or universal) magic interpreter running continuously everywhere.

I don't know how much you know about programming, so I'm going to assume not very much just in case :). Anyway: a large part of programming involves creating "functions" -- blocks of code that you give a name and can then always call by that name anywhere in your program.

So, if I know I'm going to need to draw a circle in the middle of the screen in my program, I can write a function to do that and call it something like "draw_circle". After that, whenever I put "draw_circle()" somewhere, a circle will be drawn in the middle of the screen. However, I have to "declare" the function "draw_circle" and specifically define what it does before I can use it, otherwise it won't work.

If you assume magic works the same way, then it means that spells are given both their name and function by the person who declares them, and don't even work until the person has made the declaration. In other words, "Sectumsempra" did absolutely nothing until Snape somehow declared it, at some point, to be a spell that cuts things. After he made this declaration, however, it would always be a spell that cuts things, no matter who used it.

Also, If I misspelled the name of the function in the declaration (the place where I say what "draw_circle" does, which will hold for the whole program), and for whatever reason couldn't/wouldn't fix it, I would have to misspell the name the same way everywhere in the program to use it. If it's "draw_circel" in the declaration, it has to be "draw_circel" everywhere. If someone else wanted to use my code without changing it, they'd have to spell it "draw_circel" as well.

This makes the crappy Latin used in most spells less of a problem, since all it means is that most spell creators are crappy at Latin. It also solves some potential problems with non-European magic and spell use/creation.

Re: I've thought about this waaay too much (Part 1)

[r-ganymede.livejournal.com]

Ah, there was supposed to be a quote at the top of this. It should be:

Could wands be something like magical computers that are programmed to interpret Latin commands?

This is close to what I think, etc...

I've thought about this waaay too much (Part 2)

[r-ganymede.livejournal.com]

In order to perform most spells, wizards and witches must speak or think a particular incantation and wave their wands, often using specific movements. Different combinations of incantations and wand movements will have different magical effects.

And we know that in at least some cases (Avada Kedavra, Crucio, etc.) intent definitely matters. Which as you say, seems to contradict Harry's use of Sectumsempra, but it can be explained using the programming metaphor.

A little more necessary programming info: when you create a function, you can give that function parameters that affect what it does when it's run. In my "draw_circle" example, you could require that a radius for the circle be given when calling the function. In that case, if "draw_circle" is called without the required radius length, it won't work (and will break the program).

Magic spells could work the same way. Spells could have input parameters that are input automatically whenever they're said -- parameters like the target of the spell, the movements made when saying the spell, other words said along with the spell, intent of the caster, and so on. These would be totally optional when creating the spell in the first place, so that the creator determines what they feel is necessary. However, like the name of the spell, once a particular set of parameters has been declared to go with the spell, they're always necessary.

Of course, in programming it's often entirely possible for a function to be called with nonsensical information. With "draw_circle" that could mean something like a radius way too big for the screen (like 1,000,000) or even possibly something that's not even a number (like the word "red"). It would be very bad if the function attempted to draw a circle using these nonsensical values, which is why it's good to check that the input is valid at the beginning of a function, before running anything else, and have the function end without doing anything if the input is messed up somehow.

Spell creation could be similar. The person/people who created Avada Kedavra and Crucio simply made "intent to kill/torture" as one of the necessary parameters of the spell. If the intent isn't correct, the spell fails without really doing anything. It's a fairly sensible precaution, given what the spells do when cast successfully.

what does it mean magically that shouting "Sectumsempra!" produced the result of slicing Draco open, even though Harry had no specific thought behind the spell?

It means that Snape is a lazy programmer XD Okay, all that stuff I wrote about checking for valid input? It is good programming practice, and people do it, especially with code that they know other people will be using. But... people don't always go to all that trouble, especially when writing programs meant exclusively for personal use.

The creator(s) of Avada Kedavra and Crucio may have had widespread use in mind, and built in safety precautions accordingly. To use those spells, you must know what they do and intend it to happen. Snape, on the other hand, developed the spell for himself, and either didn't feel it necessary to add any safety precautions OR only added the precaution of "caster must consider the target an enemy", which would at least prevent the spell from accidentally being cast by someone else who just happens to say the phrase while holding a wand.

This puts a lot of power in the hands of spell creators, but in some ways I think it works more consistently with what we're given if you assume spells truly are invented and not just discovered.

(Note: While I think this way of looking at it holds together, I don't really think JKR actually thought it out this much while actually writing the books)

Re: I've thought about this waaay too much (Part 2)

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think this rather works. It is canon that for many spells the exact wand movement and incantation are necessary, and apparently are all that is necessary. PS, chapter 10, "Now don't forget that nice wrist movement we've been practicing!" squeaked Professor Flitwick... "And saying the magic words propersly is very important, too--never forget Wizard Baruffio, who said 's' instead of 'f' and found himself on the floor with a buffalo on his chest."

But this may tie back to to Jodel's history of magic, that people developed these domesticated spells as a safer alternative to the Dark Arts. Certainly the magic Lily (unconsciously, we are told) worked with her sacrificial death to protect her baby wasn't an orderly function call.

So the programmer's magic might be the domesticated magic taught at Hogwarts, while the oldest magic was more a matter of raising chaotic magical energy and shaping it with one's will. I'm thinking here of community-based magic, the kinds of things the WW no longer does much of--ritual sacrifice, ritual dancing, fertility rites (okay, so I've been re-reading The Golden Bough). Perhaps the oldest magic was shamans using communally-raised energy to help the community (or harm enemies...). With the Dark Arts being in between--semi-domesticated, more predictable results than jsut generalized good luck or rain or death to enemies, but still requiring more will/intent/emotion to use.

The real problem with the function-call model is that we know of several results when the people cast spells. Success, nothing, the wrong thing (Baruffio's problem can be explained as due to his accidentally invoking a different function), and ... partial success. Something moves but doesn't come to one, or transforms partly. In fact in transfigurations that's the usual type of failure. What problem with inputs could cause partial success?

Re: I've thought about this waaay too much (Part 2)

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

I absolutely love this explanation. Thank you for putting so much thought into it. I do have some experience with programming and so what you're describing makes a lot of sense to me. I agree, though, that JKR probably didn't think of it this way since she struggles so much with logic and numbers.

I'm going to keep going with your analogy. Calling out "Wingardium Leviosa!" would activate the function Wingardium_Leviosa() which needs the input variables of "wand_movement" and "target" in order to work. It might look something like this:

Wingardium_Leviosa(wand_movement, target){

If (wand_movement==swish_and_flick) {
Levitate_Object(target)
}

}

I feel like there must be some kind of underlying architecture for using these spell functions. In a computer, for instance, a function like this would need to be compiled into machine code, and it would also need to be stored somewhere, like on a hard-drive. Maybe spells are somehow compiled into a universal code that magic recognizes.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

I agree that Harry did mean to hurt Draco. There's no argument there. What I am questioning is how the magic knew that its response should be to slice Draco open rather than choke him, or blast him across the room, or cause unbearable nerve pain, or have his skin break out in painful boils, etc.

I'm not defending Harry's behavior. And, yes, his intent to hurt Draco surely powered the spell. I'm just asking how the magic knew that "Sectumsempra," meant "slice this person/thing like a sharp knife," because Harry did not know it meant that.

the French theorists called; their influence is showing

[parenthesised.livejournal.com]

It's almost Derridian, isn't it? There is no outside to the text, etc... the idea that text permeates all areas of life, and that as soon as we learn to understand it, we are contained by it...

...apart from the fact that Harry probably doesn't recognise the linguistic implications of a spell such as sectumsempra (and interesting, how the spell is intrinsically tied to Severus Snape...) ...you really would expect Latin to be taught at Hogwarts, even with the priviledging of purebloods.* But, say it's picked up on a subconscious level, because that's part of Derrida's linguistic principle... after a certain length of time, Hogwarts students are aware enough of their spells to make subconscious leaps from words to things, flinging language around without really processing it, because it's so imperative to their world...

So, say that minds hold more than they know. Say that spells do require the intentions that accompany words, but that, in a world completely constructed and contained by language, these intentions can be subconsciously sculpted by words? I think I read a theory somewhere that the Unforgiveables are unforgivable precisely because the caster has to mean and want the result completely, to the exclusion of all else. They have to mean the words fully, and be completely aware of it. But the rest of the time? The subconscious of the brain, which started off by learning the practical applications of words, their meaning, would ultimaqtely be able to extrapolate other meanings, even if the witch or wizard never fully realised them. And so much better if the language of magic relates to the caster's own language, a bit like Plato's forms. If you run with Derrida, the arbitary rules of Potterverse magic start to make a lot more sense...

...This, of course, must also mean that there are other languages of magic, such as, presumably, sanskrit, so that minds that are taught different linguistic rules can also adapt to a world where the word really is the thing...



*there's fic space here I think, for a world in which Hermione never got to Hogwarts but was sent to the local grammar school instead. And started to realise that Latinate words had an effect on her surroundings. No one would expect the muggle world to leave anyone better prepared for magic than the wizarding world, after all...

Re: the French theorists called; their influence is showing

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

Sigh, I sometimes really regret never taking a philosophy course....

So I had to go do some reading on Derrida. If I'm understanding is correctly, then his notion of There is no outside to the text is essentially the postmodern idea that it's pretty much impossible for us to ever be "objective" because every aspect of reality is filtered through the interpretive lenses of our brains.

It reminds me of the story (http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html) of Jill Bolte, a neuroscientist who suffered a stroke in the left hemisphere of her brain. As the left side of her brain shut down, she lost the ability to define the boundaries between her body and the world around her. All she could see was energy.

Metaphysically speaking, this raises the possibility that magic might work in our own universe despite breaking numerous scientific laws because even the "laws of physics" are interpretive constructs.

Maybe that means that wizards and witches are able to do magic because their brains are somehow wired in a way that gives them a very different perception of reality from the norm. It's not that magic is some special energy or force that only they can access; it's that their interpretation of reality allows them to manipulate it in ways that the rest of can't....

Anyway, I'm not quite sure if you're offering one or two possibilities for how spells work, or if I'm totally missing your point.

On the one hand, it sounds like you're suggesting that the interpretation of "Sectumsempra" did take place entirely in Harry's brain, but at a subconscious level. That certainly makes a lot of sense, if that's what you meant.

But your plot-bunny of Hermione discovering that Latinate words affected her surroundings seems like you might be suggesting something else. If the interpretation of an incantation happens entirely within someone's brain, either consciously or subconsciously, then that would mean that a spell only works because the words, at some level, have meaning to the caster. In this case, the words are only a set symbols used to interpret reality; they have no intrinsic power.

So why, then, would Latinate words, in particular, have an effect upon Hermione's surroundings? Are you maybe thinking of something like a collective subconsciousness? If we think in terms of the boundaries between us as only being mental constructs, then that makes some sense. Even if Hermione were ignorant of the WW at a conscious level, she could still be tapped into it at a subconscious level, and so her subconscious mind would know to make something float if, for some reason, she said "leviosa" (which, granted, she probably wouldn't since it isn't a real word).

If this is at all what you're thinking, then it's maybe not so different r_ganymede's "magical program" theory (which I really like), but the programs are stored within the collective subconsciousness rather than "out there" somewhere.