deathtocapslock | A Magical Theory Question

danajsparks.livejournal.com posting in

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?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

danajsparks.livejournal.com

I have been thinking practically nonstop about this comment since you posted it. I'm sorry this is so tl;dr. I can get sort of obsessive about studying words.

Anima (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Danima), in Latin, means "breath," "life," "living being," "soul" or "mind." In the Vulgate, it is basically equivalent to the Greek psyche (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G5590) and the Hebrew nephesh (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H5315). Some Latin poets and philosophers, such as Cicero, sometimes made a distinction between anima and animus (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Danimus). As best I can tell, anima, in these cases, generally referred to the essence of life, the "breath of life," that animates all living things, while animus usually referred specifically to the human soul, the essence that makes us thinking, feeling, willing beings. The two words significantly overlap in usage and meaning. But, in general, the anima could be said to be the part of the soul that makes us living beings, or animals, while the animus is the part of the soul that makes us human.

From what I can tell, anima and animus were originally gender neutral concepts (though that's mainly because women were pretty much ignored back then.). It appears that it was Carl Jung who codified the anima as female and the animus as male. He defined the anima as the unconscious, feminine, inner personality of a man and the animus as the unconscious, masculine, inner personality of a woman. Frankly, I'm rather unimpressed by what his choices in terminology seem to suggest about his opinions regarding gender differences. So, if we're going to distinguish between "female" and "male" aspects of the self, I think we should use different terms, like maybe "yin" and "yang."

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of "opposite sexes," because I don't feel that we can be neatly divided into two distinct genders. Rather, I believe that gender identity lies along a spectrum, similar to how sexual orientation is on a spectrum.

I have lots of other thoughts more specifically about the patronus charm. But I need to save them for another time.

From:

mary-j-59.livejournal.com

Just wanted to say I did not mean to offend you. I am inclined to agree that Jung was sexist, but I also truly think that his anima/animus distinction implies that all people have both feminine and masculine aspects, and that it is unhealthy to deny or suppress them. Which, I think, is simply true. As I said before, Snape has a strongly expressed feminine side (as does Voldemort; as do most of the Slytherin males we see). In the text, this seems to be used to condemn him. He is seen as "weak" - I think Rowling even used that word to describe the isolated teenage Snape. But I think that having access to his feminine side makes Snape stronger and more whole than other characters in these sagas. The mystery is why one's Patronus is not always of the opposite sex - as one's Daemon usually is in the Pullman books.

But my main point is that the Doe patronus has nothing to do with Lily. It doesn't mimic the form of her patronus - at least, I hope not. As far as I know, we never find out what her patronus is. The doe belongs entirely to Severus, and shows both his beauty of soul and what he thinks of Lily as his moral and spiritual guide.

From:

danajsparks.livejournal.com

----Just wanted to say I did not mean to offend you.

Oh no worries. I just really like digging into these ideas. I really do apologize for the info-dump.

----I also truly think that his anima/animus distinction implies that all people have both feminine and masculine aspects, and that it is unhealthy to deny or suppress them.

I quite agree. And I also find it very disturbing how anti-feminine these books are.

----The mystery is why one's Patronus is not always of the opposite sex - as one's Daemon usually is in the Pullman books.

I think my interpretation of what patronuses exactly are is somewhat different from yours, but I'm still in the midst of trying to pull those thoughts together into something of a coherent essay.

I haven't read Pullman's books, so what I know of daemons comes from Wikipedia. But I don't think Rowling's patronuses are quite the equivalent of Pullman's daemons. For one thing, Rowling's wizards and witches also have animagus forms, and I don't believe that one's animagus and patronus forms always match each other. So, in Pullman's universe, a person has one animal form while, in the Potterverse, a person may have two animal forms.

Regardless, if a daemon is always of the opposite sex, then it seems to me that Pullman is still thinking in terms of there being a pretty strict gender dichotomy. And part of the point I'm trying to make is that if a person's masculine and feminine sides are fairly in balance, then I don't believe s/he necessarily has an "opposite" gender.

Personally, I have two X chromosomes, but I often feel fairly androgynous in terms of my gender identity, so would my daemon be male or female?

From:

condwiramurs.livejournal.com

A question (no intent to offend, sorry if I do): does anyone, truly, have their masculine and feminine aspects so perfectly in static balance on every level of consciousness that there is no tendency, however small, ever, in one direction over another? I sort of doubt that. Perhaps having a patronus of a certain gender is actually a *part* of the balancing itself, on the other hand? Also: why would balance have to be static (it seems to me that your notion of 'no opposite gender' implies an unchanging gender)? Perhaps a genderfluid person has a patronus whose gender shifts with theirs. Also the possibility of androgynous or intersex patroni.... (ahh, I'm getting really meta here, wow.) But yeah, JKR really lets a lot of disturbing stuff creep into the books. I read a rather good essay on the HP books and liberalism and fascism, and the books really are 'liberal' in the sense of 'fascism-lite' rather than truly progressive. Arg.

(tangent) It's interesting that you point out Pullman's reliance on the gender dichotomy. I've read two and a half of the three HDM books, and the issue of gender not being binary doesn't come up that I can see. It's all pretty straightforwardly male/female. For all his denouncing of the evils of institutionalized religion, he's not interrogating some pretty fundamental concepts tied into the patriarchal system he seems to be against. Which, may only illustrate how deeply rooted these concepts are, but it always makes me laugh and wince a little at the same time to see crusaders repeatedly miss the point. (/tangent)

From:

danajsparks.livejournal.com

----does anyone, truly, have their masculine and feminine aspects so perfectly in static balance on every level of consciousness that there is no tendency, however small, ever, in one direction over another?

----Also: why would balance have to be static (it seems to me that your notion of 'no opposite gender' implies an unchanging gender)?

What I'm more trying to say is that some people don't fit into a gender binary system. They may self-identify as androgyne, bigendered, intergendered, genderqueer, etc. Some cultures have long had the concept of there being a third gender. You might see yourself as being in between male and female, or being neither male nor female, or being both male and female. If you see yourself as somehow being outside of the gender binary, then it's hard to say what your "opposite" gender would be. Maybe, as you suggest, your animal form would be androgynous or intersexed or gender-shifting.

I also agree that your gender identity can be fluid. I didn't mean to imply that it's always static.

From:

sharaz-jek.livejournal.com

Regardless, if a daemon is always of the opposite sex, then it seems to me that Pullman is still thinking in terms of there being a pretty strict gender dichotomy. And part of the point I'm trying to make is that if a person's masculine and feminine sides are fairly in balance, then I don't believe s/he necessarily has an "opposite" gender.

Somewhat late to the discussion, but there's a minor character with a same-sex daemon (which is described as rare in Lyra's world), though it's not explained what this means.

From:

condwiramurs.livejournal.com

Good points about the binary aspect. Jung is problematic, but I don't think we necessarily need to throw out the concept wholesale, rather than tweaking and expanding it. Yin/Yang terminology, for me personally, while good in some ways, fails to capture the sense of animation, consciousness, being-ness that I think is part of how I understand what mary is talking about; to me they refer more to pure forces than to aspects of a consciousness. So neither set of terms is perfect.