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

[the-bitter-word.livejournal.com]

I see what you're saying. In order for magic to work, there must be an understanding of what is going to happen. A wand is a tool that channels the wizard's magical intent, a tool that becomes more effective with practice and mental focus. But even with accidental magic, one would have to form a concept of what one wants to happen (I want to free that snake) before one can magically act (glass disappears).

I wonder to what degree a complete concept of what one wants is necessary. Perhaps it is enough that a wand gets the gist of an intent or perceives a strong emotion, and takes its cue for action from the words the wizard speaks. This grants sentience to the wand, but that isn't totally far-fetched in these books.

Like wands, words also seem to be more than arbitrary symbols used to focus a wizard on an intended result. Snape's spells work presumably as he intended them to, even with the ignorance of their caster. If intent alone were needed, why even have different words for different spells?

I'm just thinking out loud here in a meandering way. I really don't want do world-building for Rowling.

[annoni-no.livejournal.com]

Or it could just be that Harry's uber-special gold-fire spittin' Wand of AWESOMENESS is downright smarter than Harry and was taking actual Latin lessons on the side out of boredom. It's not like we see any *other* wands making such achievements in ignorance, right?

Well, least now know who the *real* hero of these books was: the poor, love-mad stick of wood nobly striving to protect its dumb-but-pretty human walking service./snark

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Or it could just be that Harry's uber-special gold-fire spittin' Wand of AWESOMENESS is downright smarter than Harry and was taking actual Latin lessons on the side out of boredom. It's not like we see any *other* wands making such achievements in ignorance, right?

Well, least now know who the *real* hero of these books was: the poor, love-mad stick of wood nobly striving to protect its dumb-but-pretty human walking service./snark

Oh, I love this! I can definitely see where a stick would be smarter than Harry. That would make a wonderful fanfic, too: HP told from the point of view of Harry's wand.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

In the 7 Potters battle it *is* smarter than Harry, and acts on its own initiative. It's *canon* that the protagonist is dumber than a stick of wood. Unfortunately.

I suppose however than making your protagonist that uninspired is probably necessary when you've got him going up against a villain like Voldie, who by DH had degenerated to the point where a wet paper bag would have been a more thrilling antagonist. His sojourn in Albania clearly didn't do much for his psyche. /snark

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Great. Now I'm imagining Voldemort as a wet paper bag, maybe with a scary, red-eyed face drawn on it in crayon like a kid's homemade Halloween costume. People keep making these sarcastic remarks that are actually improvements on canon. :D

As for Harry's wand, I always saw that as one of Rowling's weird sexual references, whether she intended it to be one or not. That is, teenage boys take several years to learn to control their "wands," during which time their "wands" have a habit of "going off" at unexpected, embarrassing times. This battle could have been one of those times.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Wait, you're saying unrequited Harry/Voldemort is *canon*!? LOL XD (Or *is* it unrequited...Voldie's awfully insistent upon it being him and him alone who gets to do Harry in with his wand.... Sorry, I'll shut up now. X) )

And now I totally need to make a wet-paper-bag-Voldie icon. Voldiebag!

I think part of my continuing love for Death Eater fic and Voldemort-loyalist Snape and the like is that there's a higher than average chance of finding a *competent* Voldemort in such fics. For me, if the villain doesn't cut it the story is just going to be crap, and far far too many villains out there seem to have never read the Evil Overlord List. They make bloody *basic* mistakes! Repeatedly!

PS I can't take credit for the 'dumber than a stick of wood' line, it was Jodel's first. But it is so, so painfully true. I'm surprised Snape didn't have scars on his forehead from banging his head repeatedly against the wall after every attempt to teach the kid anything.

Snape's scars

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

"I'm surprised Snape didn't have scars on his forehead from banging his head repeatedly against the wall after every attempt to teach the kid anything."

Er--do you have any actual canon quotes to support that Snape DIDN'T sport such scars? I certainly can't come up with any....


Canon-compliant sarcastic comments, please!

(Goodness knows that there are enough that beg to be uttered.)

Re: Snape's scars

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

Hooked nose or bent inwards due to repeated impact?

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

----It's not like we see any *other* wands making such achievements in ignorance, right?

That's a good point. We do only see Harry casting spells without knowing what they're supposed to do. Also, Snape doesn't seem to believe that Harry didn't know what the spell would do, which might suggest that it's generally not possible to cast an unknown spell.

If, indeed, Harry was unique in his ability able to cast spells in ignorance, could it have been because of the Harrycrux? Even though Harry didn't consciously know what "Sectumsempra" meant, maybe the horcrux did.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of my absolute favorite fan theory. I think it was nemesister's. She hypothesized that, at the end of DH, Harry would be a squib - because he was born a squib, and all his magical power came from the horcrux. Isn't that brilliant?

Seriously, I was convinced that, if the series didn't end with the end of magic altogether, either Harry, or Sev, or both of them, would lose their magical powers.

But, yes, I think intent (whether conscious or not) is absolutely necessary for casting spells - except for Harry. I think we are actually supposed to believe that the horcrux acts without his involvement - as in the torture scene, for example. The problem with this theory is that it makes Harry even more of a nonentity. But it does seem somewhat logical.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

----She hypothesized that, at the end of DH, Harry would be a squib - because he was born a squib, and all his magical power came from the horcrux. Isn't that brilliant?

I agree that's a great theory!


----But, yes, I think intent (whether conscious or not) is absolutely necessary for casting spells - except for Harry.

This certainly feels like the simplest explanation. However, if Harry is unique in his ability to cast unknown spells, then why does nobody ever question how or why he is able to do it?

For instance, in chapter twelve, after Harry tries out Levicorpus on Ron, Hermione says, "So you just decided to try out an unknown, handwritten incantation and see what would happen?"

When Harry answers yes, she does not then say something like, "That's impossible. You shouldn't have been able to do that."

I feel like if this were a unique ability of Harry's then somebody would have pointed it out at some point.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

---- But even with accidental magic, one would have to form a concept of what one wants to happen (I want to free that snake) before one can magically act (glass disappears).

Yes exactly

----This grants sentience to the wand, but that isn't totally far-fetched in these books.

Certainly in DH wands seemed to have a certain amount of sentience, so it's a possibility worth considering.

[the-bitter-word.livejournal.com]

Well, the wand chooses the wizard, so I guess from the get-go we were supposed to think that wands were more than sticks of wood.

I would truly love to read fanfic from the POV of Harry's wand.