The Nature of Spells.
Peter Lobley
Harry's specs (on the train) disappear?
(does a spell change the physical nature of things permanently, or is it an
illusion until the magic 'wears off'?)
Stupid question really - as the whole thing is fictional and not even the
author 'knows' the answer to this. but I did wonder. And it is an
interesting thing to ask.
Peter Lobley
"Peter Lobley" <lob...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:as6eba$nvv0u$1...@ID-75938.news.dfncis.de...
Another question - If a student were to ask "But _how_ does a spell actually
work" and the answer was something other than "It just does" what would that
answer be?
(same stupidness applies to this question)
Michael Wilcox
Well, considering Hogwarts is enchanted with hundreds of spells cast by
witches and wizards hundreds of years ago, I'd say that they stick around.
--
Michael Wilcox
Essential Tools for the Web Developer - http://mikewilcox.t35.com
Richard Eney
Michael Wilcox <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>"Peter Lobley" <lob...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll be blunt - When Hermione dies - will the repairing spell she
>> cast on Harry's specs (on the train) disappear?
>>
>> (does a spell change the physical nature of things permanently,
>> or is it an illusion until the magic 'wears off'?)
>Well, considering Hogwarts is enchanted with hundreds of spells cast by
>witches and wizards hundreds of years ago, I'd say that they stick around.
Mrs Weasley pours a sauce out of the end of her wand. If the food comes
out of the wand, but still feeds people, I'd assume it's real.
Though I'm not sure about a certain prosthetic hand in GoF. I'll bet
that one has some limitations.
=Tamar
James J. Dominguez
On 29 Nov 2002, Richard Eney shared this:
> Though I'm not sure about a certain prosthetic hand in GoF. I'll bet
> that one has some limitations.
I think that the locking of the wands in GoF actually caused
Voldemort's wands' spells to be _undone_. As such, Pettigrew's magical
hand was taken away, but, as Rowling has so often said, nothing can bring
back the dead. Instead of undoing Voldemort's many Avada Kedavra curses,
it did the closest thing - summon shades of those killed.
I've just realised that this could mean those so summoned have a more
permanent Myrtle- or Nick-like ghost presence in the world. I wonder if
Harry parents will be hanging around as ghosts in subsequent books. I
doubt it - I don't think Rowling could keep up Harry's character
development if he had his parents around, however incorporeal. Still...
interesting idea...
--
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| James J. Dominguez (aka DexX) | mcd...@optushome.com.au |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| "If you set aside Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the safety |
| record of nuclear power is really is good." |
| - US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Richard Eney
James J. Dominguez <mcd...@optushome.NOcom.SPAMau> wrote:
>
>On 29 Nov 2002, Richard Eney shared this:
>> Though I'm not sure about a certain prosthetic hand in GoF. I'll bet
>> that one has some limitations.
>
> I think that the locking of the wands in GoF actually caused
>Voldemort's wands' spells to be _undone_. As such, Pettigrew's magical
>hand was taken away, but, as Rowling has so often said, nothing can bring
>back the dead. Instead of undoing Voldemort's many Avada Kedavra curses,
>it did the closest thing - summon shades of those killed.
I didn't read it that way. It summoned faint echoes of spells that had
been cast, the way the Priori Incantatum brought a faint echo of the Dark
Mark spell at the World Cup. That didn't remove the Dark Mark - they
could look from one to the other and see the resemblance. So there was a
faint shadow of the hand, but Pettigrew still has the hand.
> I've just realised that this could mean those so summoned have a more
>permanent Myrtle- or Nick-like ghost presence in the world. I wonder if
>Harry parents will be hanging around as ghosts in subsequent books. I
>doubt it - I don't think Rowling could keep up Harry's character
>development if he had his parents around, however incorporeal. Still...
>interesting idea...
It would be interesting but JKR has said (somewhere) that they are not
ghosts. She doesn't have a really clear explanation for why, if they are
not sentient ghosts, they can speak and think, and observe and respond to
current events.[1] But she's been very firm that James and Lily
especially
are not ghosts, and I doubt that the others will hang around either.
=Tamar
[1] I really don't think she's using the exact mechanism used in cartoons,
where a vibrating character can have one of the vibrations step apart and
interact independently for a short time.
Toon
wrote:
I think it's permanent. Unless there's an Undo All spell out there.
Toon
wrote:
>
Well, apparition probably results in little worm holes opening up and
sucking in each molecule at the same exact time.
Levitation creates an electromagnet charge opposite of the Earths, so
up it goes.
Etc.
Richard Eney
>>I'll be blunt - When Hermione dies - will the repairing spell she cast
>>on Harry's specs (on the train) disappear?
>>(does a spell change the physical nature of things permanently, or is it
>>an illusion until the magic 'wears off'?)
>
>I think it's permanent. Unless there's an Undo All spell out there.
Like "Finite incantatem"? (end of Dueling Club scene)
=Tamar
Sky Rider
<mcd...@optushome.NOcom.SPAMau> row, row, rowed the boat - then wro,
wro, wrote this note :
>On 29 Nov 2002, Richard Eney shared this:
>> Though I'm not sure about a certain prosthetic hand in GoF. I'll bet
>> that one has some limitations.
> I think that the locking of the wands in GoF actually caused
>Voldemort's wands' spells to be _undone_. As such, Pettigrew's magical
>hand was taken away,...
don't be silly......
>....but, as Rowling has so often said, nothing can bring
>back the dead. Instead of undoing Voldemort's many Avada Kedavra curses,
>it did the closest thing - summon shades of those killed.
> I've just realised that this could mean those so summoned have a more
>permanent Myrtle- or Nick-like ghost presence in the world. I wonder if
>Harry parents will be hanging around as ghosts in subsequent books. I
>doubt it - I don't think Rowling could keep up Harry's character
>development if he had his parents around, however incorporeal. Still...
>interesting idea...
--
SkyRider
**********
Visit the Online Dictionary of Playground Slang
and leave your favourites-: http://www.odps.cyberscriber.com
**********
Miranda
> On 29 Nov 2002, Richard Eney shared this:
> > Though I'm not sure about a certain prosthetic hand in GoF. I'll bet
> > that one has some limitations.
>
> I think that the locking of the wands in GoF actually caused
> Voldemort's wands' spells to be _undone_. As such, Pettigrew's magical
> hand was taken away, but, as Rowling has so often said, nothing can bring
> back the dead. Instead of undoing Voldemort's many Avada Kedavra curses,
> it did the closest thing - summon shades of those killed.
>
Sorry, where in GOF does it say that the hand is taken away from
Peter? I know a shadow of it is produced by Priori Incantatem, but
that doesn't mean the spell is undone, does it?
Miranda
Tennant Stuart
news:as6eba$nvv0u$1...@ID-75938.news.dfncis.de...
> I'll be blunt - When Hermione dies - will the repairing spell she cast
> on Harry's specs (on the train) disappear? (does a spell change the
> physical nature of things permanently, or is it an illusion until the
> magic 'wears off'?)
Well - when Hermione dies - will the unlocking spell she cast (on the
locked door at the end of the Charms Corridor) disappear?
Or since she used Harry's wand to do it (a sign of her great power)
does the unlocking spell remain in place until Harry dies as well?
And when at last Hermione is dead and Harry is dead does that door
simply lock itself shut again? If so, does it just become locked,
or does it become never unlocked? Because if that is so, does the
three-headed dog return, does the Philosopher's Stone appear in
the Mirror of Erised, and Voldemort - well, you get the picture.
> Stupid question really - as the whole thing is fictional and not even
> the author 'knows' the answer to this. but I did wonder. And it is an
> interesting thing to ask.
Yes, it is interesting Peter, and we don't really know the answer,
although a good guess would be "no". But what I would say is that
the author *does* know the answer to this, for sure. She says...
} The five years I spent on "HP and the Philosopher's Stone" were spent
} constructing The Rules. I had to lay down all my parameters. The most
} important thing to decide when you're creating a fantasy world is what
} the characters CAN'T do... the limits of magic. Then I had to invent
} the different ways wizards could accomplish certain things. Some of
} the magic in the books is based on what people used to believe really
} worked, but most of it is my invention.
Collated from http://history.250x.com/vaults/c113.htm and
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/userid=69WCMD0H17
Tennant Stuart
--
____ ____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ____
(_ _)( ___)( \( )( \( ) /__\ ( \( )(_ _) Greetings to family
)( )__) ) ( ) ( /(__)\ ) ( )( friends & neighbours
(__) (____)(_)\_)(_)\_)(__)(__)(_)\_) (__) @argonet.co.uk & MCR
Michelle Smith
>Harry's specs (on the train) disappear?
No - did James and Lily come back to life after Voldy lost his powers?
Michelle Smith
"Look at your TAIL!" ~Ron Weasley, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Peter Lobley
"Tennant Stuart" <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
> But what I would say is that
> the author *does* know the answer to this, for sure. She says...
The magic in the book is made up, fictional, so when I said "doesn't know"
(or whatever words I used) I meant she doesn't know weither magic (assuming
it existed) in the real world was lasting, she only knows (or pretends is
true) that the magic in her creation is permanent or not.
I guess what I was trying to ask was - does the magic it'self maintain the
physical change, or does the magic cause the physical change and then
disappear - leaving the physical change. (will magic keep harry's glasses in
their intact state, or did the magic disappear once the change was finished)
The concept of 'maintaining physical changes' was brought to mind by the
story of cinderella - her clothes/carriage would only maintain their
splendour while the magic lasted, once the magic wore off the change would
wear off. I wondered if this was the same for magic in harry's word.
Sky Rider
row, row, rowed the boat - then wro, wro, wrote this note :
>>I'll be blunt - When Hermione dies - will the repairing spell she cast on
>>Harry's specs (on the train) disappear?
>No - did James and Lily come back to life after Voldy lost his powers?
<pedantic mode>
Voldie isn't dead!
</pedantic mode>
Tennant Stuart
dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney) wrote:
> It would be interesting but JKR has said (somewhere) that they are not
> ghosts. She doesn't have a really clear explanation for why, if they are
> not sentient ghosts, they can speak and think, and observe and respond
> to current events.
We have something far better than a JKR interview, it's canon...
} "No spell can reawaken the dead," said Dumbledore heavily. "All that
} would have happened is a kind of reverse echo. A shadow of the living
} Cedric would have emerged from the wand ... am I correct, Harry?"
} "He spoke to me," Harry said. He was suddenly shaking again. "The ...
} the ghost Cedric, or whatever he was, spoke."
} "An echo," said Dumbledore, "which retained Cedric's appearance and
} character." (GoF-36)
Tennant
Markku Uttula
> I guess what I was trying to ask was - does the magic it'self
> maintain the physical change, or does the magic cause the physical
> change and then disappear - leaving the physical change. (will magic
> keep harry's glasses in their intact state, or did the magic
> disappear once the change was finished)
It appears as if there are types of both magic.
The one that stays as long as it's casted (Polyjuice (I don't have my
english version at hand, so I must go with my what I remember)), and the
one that causes permanent change (Avada Kedavra - you can't bring back
the dead). Also I must say, I don't think the person who originally
created the mirror Erised is still alive, so that'd be another example
of a "lasting spell".
Anyway... what comes to Avada Kedavra, I personally think Douglas Adams
bought it up the best way: "You're as dead as you think you are".
--
Markku Uttula
URL: http://www.disconova.com/utu/ "Are you hot? Or at least cute?"
MAIL: markku...@disconova.com "If not, are you at least easy?"
Michelle Smith
only one hour
Michelle Smith
"Look at your TAIL!" ~Ron Weasley, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
"Dammit, Jim! I'm an astronomer, not a doctor!" ~Dr. Doppler, Treasure Planet
Toon
>=Tamar
>[1] I really don't think she's using the exact mechanism used in cartoons,
>where a vibrating character can have one of the vibrations step apart and
>interact independently for a short time.
I always wanted to do that. Go so fats I have multiple me/s. Even
though sometimes they're not solid looking.
Toon
That might be one spell only. I meat undo all spells at once. Though
that'll do in a pinch. Give a spell a finite existence.
Markku Uttula
>> The one that stays as long as it's casted (Polyjuice
>
> only one hour
Okay... That was a bad example. Let's take some others...
Vingardium Leviosa doesn't leave the object levtitating after the spell
is no longer being cast. At least I don't think so.
Lumos doesn't leave the wand illuminated. Or does it? Is it not
necessary to "turn it off" with another spell?
Doug
There is a spell to turn off wandlight....
"Nox"
--
Gandalf: BILBO BAGGINS! Do not take me for some conjuror of
cheap
tricks! I am not trying to rob you, I'm trying to help you!
"One Ring To Rule Them All, One Ring To Find Them, One Ring
To Bring
Them All, And In The Darkness Bind Them."
Harry: Voldemort killed my parents, he was nothing more
than a murderer.
Lucius Malfoy: Hmm, you must be very brave to mention his
name....or
very foolish.
Lucius Malfoy: [sarcastically] Let's just hope that Mr.
Potter will
always be around to save the day. Harry: Don't worry, I
will be.
James J. Dominguez
On 29 Nov 2002, Sky Rider shared this:
> don't be silly......
No need to be rude.
Toon
<markku...@disconova.com> wrote:
>Michelle Smith wrote:
>>> The one that stays as long as it's casted (Polyjuice
>>
>> only one hour
>
>Okay... That was a bad example. Let's take some others...
>
>Vingardium Leviosa doesn't leave the object levtitating after the spell
>is no longer being cast. At least I don't think so.
Well, we never see things fall, short of the Troll club, which is what
Ron wanted. So i guess when the user decides it's done, the spell
ends. But can the user slowly lower the object?
>Lumos doesn't leave the wand illuminated. Or does it? Is it not
>necessary to "turn it off" with another spell?
Might need an off spell. I mean, it wouldn't do to lose the light
just when you need it most.
Fish Eye no Miko
news:asa8vh$4nu$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi...
> Lumos doesn't leave the wand illuminated. Or does it? Is it
> not necessary to "turn it off" with another spell?
Yep. "Nox".
Catherine Johnson.
--
dis "able" to reply
"Our lives are different from other peoples'."
-Oz, _Buffy, the Vampire Slayer_
Troels Forchhammer
>> permanently, or is it an illusion until the magic 'wears
>> off'?)
Well - I guess there's more than one answer to that question -
and the most likely one is 'it depends'.
In CoS it is clear that the magic with which Salazar Slytherin
created the Chamber of Secrets have not faded in the past
thousand years - the entrances still react just fine to the
command when spoken in Parseltongue (and it is the considered
opinion of Voldemort/Tom Riddle that he and Harry are probably
the only two parselmouths to attend Hogwarts since Slytherin's
day).
We also know that nothing can bring back the dead - even when
they are slain by magic.
On the other hand there's also the knowledge that can be
gained from FB&WtFT (the Introduction)
" Disillusionment Charms
The wizard on the street also plays a part in the
concealment of magical beasts. Those who own a Hippogrif,
for example, are bound by law to enchant the beast with a
Disillusionment Charm to distort the vision of any Muggle
who may see it. Disillusionment Charms should be performed
daily, as their effects are apt to wear off."
The last sentence seem to be the key here - some spell effects
"are apt to wear off", but as the above examples show, this
doesn't apply to all spells or effects.
Trying to make qualified guesses as to the exact mechanism of
this is difficult from the available evidence.
I would, however, guess that changes to the physical world are
all permanent - e.g. killing, but also the repairing of Harry's
glasses; the physical nature of the glasses is changed so that
they become normal, non-magical unbroken glasses (they can break
later, but that is another matter).
Whether the magical effects (such as the distortion of the vision
of Muggles by the Disillusionment Charms or the ability to create
an opening by saying "open" in Parseltongue) are all transient,
but just wear off in different periods (like the differing half-
times of various nuclides), or whether some are permanent and
others not, is beyond me ;-)
>> Stupid question really - as the whole thing is fictional and
>> not even the author 'knows' the answer to this. but I did
>> wonder. And it is an interesting thing to ask.
Stupid? Not at all.
Trying to discern patterns in the Harry Potter universe and
analysing these (in an attempt to establish some rules) is - for
me - what participating here is all about (all other contributions
can be considered as incidental ;-)
> Another question - If a student were to ask "But _how_ does a
> spell actually work" and the answer was something other than
> "It just does" what would that answer be?
Another good question.
I suspect that some sort of explanation would be available.
The acclaim Dumbledore apparently won from 'the discovery of
the twelve uses of dragon's blood' and especially his fame
for 'his work on alchemy with his partner Nicholas Flamel'
both suggest to me a kind of research approach - which is
substantiated by the multiple references to spells and potions
that have been developed 'recently' (or at other times - it
is the 'development' work that interests me here).
I think that this kind of research require a theoretical
background - an idea of how things will work out (imagine the
potential for catastrophe if you start working magic blindly!).
I actually suspect that a lot of the education in transfiguration
is theoretical in nature - there is no way they teach the
students a specific spell for all possible transfigurations -
so I guess that they teach principles and then use some
practical exercises to learn the application of the principles
to a specific situation. Other subjects could easily contain
an element of theory as well - e.g. potions need not be solely
the teaching of specific recipes (actually Snape's questions
to Harry in the first ever lesson could well be read to show
an element of theory [e.g. the uses of the bezoar]).
On the other hand I don't believe that the wizards are able to
explain the working of their spells in physical terms - e.g.
whether apparating works by quantum tunnelling, wormholes or
something else. Such concepts are, I believe, wholly alien to
the magical community - just as their theoretical explanations
would be to us.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
A Thaum is the basic unit of magical strength. It has been
universally established as the amount of magic needed to
create one small white pigeon or three normal sized billiard
balls.
-- (Terry Pratchett, The Light Fantastic)
Sirius Kase
<mir...@mschumacher.com> wrote:
If Peter lost his hand, I'm sure he would have reacted in a manner that
Harry would have noticed. Harry was very busy at the time, but I think
he would have noticed.
sirius kase
--
Emma Watson: We get along very, very well.
Tom Felton: We're not really enemies. We love each other really.
Sirius Kase
<markku...@disconova.com> wrote:
> Michelle Smith wrote:
> >> The one that stays as long as it's casted (Polyjuice
> >
> > only one hour
>
> Okay... That was a bad example. Let's take some others...
>
> Vingardium Leviosa doesn't leave the object levtitating after the spell
> is no longer being cast. At least I don't think so.
Ron's didn't last very long at all. Up went the club, then down it
crashed onto the troll.
>
> Lumos doesn't leave the wand illuminated. Or does it? Is it not
> necessary to "turn it off" with another spell?
Nox, I do believe, see CoS, the book.
>
> --
> Markku Uttula
>
Sirius kase
Doug
> In article <asa8vh$4nu$1...@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Markku Uttula
> <markku...@disconova.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Michelle Smith wrote:
>>
>>>>The one that stays as long as it's casted (Polyjuice
>>>
>>>only one hour
>>
>>Okay... That was a bad example. Let's take some others...
>>
>>Vingardium Leviosa doesn't leave the object levtitating after the spell
>>is no longer being cast. At least I don't think so.
>
>
> Ron's didn't last very long at all. Up went the club, then down it
> crashed onto the troll.
>
>>Lumos doesn't leave the wand illuminated. Or does it? Is it not
>>necessary to "turn it off" with another spell?
>
>
> Nox, I do believe, see CoS, the book.
>
>
>>--
>>Markku Uttula
>>
>
> Sirius kase
>
PoA, Sirius.. where Harry and Hermione are in the Shrieking
Shack.
--
“I want my mommy, Mr. Squidward.” – By Mr. Krabbs of the
Krusty Krabb.
James J. Dominguez
On 02 Dec 2002, Sirius Kase shared this:
> If Peter lost his hand, I'm sure he would have reacted in a manner
> that Harry would have noticed. Harry was very busy at the time, but I
> think he would have noticed.
Yeah, I had a look at the text and realised I had misread it. The
silvery ghost of the hand appears, and it says something about screams of
pain. I always figured Pettigrew was screaming. It was only when I went
back and had another look that I realised the wand itself was making weird
screaming noises.
Troels Forchhammer
>
> On 02 Dec 2002, Sirius Kase shared this:
>>
>> If Peter lost his hand, I'm sure he would have reacted in a
>> manner that Harry would have noticed. Harry was very busy at
>> the time, but I think he would have noticed.
>
> Yeah, I had a look at the text and realised I had misread
> it. The silvery ghost of the hand appears, and it says something
> about screams of pain. I always figured Pettigrew was screaming.
> It was only when I went back and had another look that I realised
> the wand itself was making weird screaming noises.
Which are the echoes of the Cruciatus spells cast on Harry and one
of the Death Eaters.
I also first thought that the spells would be reversed as in undone,
but then I realized that the use of 'reverse' in 'reverse spell effect'
only referred to the _order_ of the spells being reversed. The spells
are somehow 'regurgitated' - but that does apparently not mean that
they are undone - they are more likely redone in a smaller, symbolic,
manner - the spell used to recall the Dark Mark spell from Harry's
wand is 'Prior Incantato', which I think may be the singular of
Priori Incantatem (I don't know any latin grammar) - but anyway it
sounds like the same effect.
I have tried to list the spells we know to have been cast using
Voldemort's wand (partly from narrative and partly from the
Priori Incantatem effect). They are listed in correct
chronological order and should appear in the reverse order.
Avada Kedavra curse on James Potter
Avada Kedavra curse on Lily Potter
Attempt to kill Harry Potter (Avada Kedavra)
Spells to break through the memory charm on Bertha Jorkins?
Kill Bertha Jorkins (Avada Kedavra?)
Avada Kedavra curse on Frank Bryce
Spells to control Barty Crouch Sr ??
(Jr tells us that "My father was placed under the Imperius Curse
by my master) + any spells to release Jr from the same curse.
Cruciatus curse on Wormtail
Avada Kedavra curse on Cedric Diggory
Cruciatus curse on Death Eater
New hand for Wormtail
Cruciatus curse on Harry
Spell to make Harry bow (start of duel) - not Imperius curse
Cruciatus curse on Harry
Imperius curse on Harry
Cruciatus curse on Harry (misses as Harry ducks it)
Avada Kedavra against Harry, making the Wands connect
Did I forget any?
During the Priori Incantatem effect I can't see anything to indicate
the Imperius curse cast on Harry nor the spell Voldemort used to make
Harry bow to him, and there's nothing to indicate any spells used to
break the memory charm on Bertha Jorkins and the attempt to kill
Harry that rebounded (that would have been a good one to include).
Oh - and the Imperius curse on Barty Crouch Sr is also absent.
Of course we can't know if there were any other spells cast with the
wand, but we're not told of them during the reverse spell effect.
Sirius Kase
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
> Avada Kedavra curse on James Potter
> Avada Kedavra curse on Lily Potter
> Attempt to kill Harry Potter (Avada Kedavra)
> Spells to break through the memory charm on Bertha Jorkins?
> Kill Bertha Jorkins (Avada Kedavra?)
> Avada Kedavra curse on Frank Bryce
> Spells to control Barty Crouch Sr ??
> (Jr tells us that "My father was placed under the Imperius Curse
> by my master) + any spells to release Jr from the same curse.
> Cruciatus curse on Wormtail
> Avada Kedavra curse on Cedric Diggory
> Cruciatus curse on Death Eater
> New hand for Wormtail
> Cruciatus curse on Harry
> Spell to make Harry bow (start of duel) - not Imperius curse
> Cruciatus curse on Harry
> Imperius curse on Harry
> Cruciatus curse on Harry (misses as Harry ducks it)
> Avada Kedavra against Harry, making the Wands connect
>
> Did I forget any?
You've done good. I tend to think that Harry was scarred by the same
curse that killed his mother since he only recalls seeing one green
flash in PoA. But I don't really know.
>
> During the Priori Incantatem effect I can't see anything to indicate
> the Imperius curse cast on Harry nor the spell Voldemort used to make
> Harry bow to him, and there's nothing to indicate any spells used to
> break the memory charm on Bertha Jorkins and the attempt to kill
> Harry that rebounded (that would have been a good one to include).
> Oh - and the Imperius curse on Barty Crouch Sr is also absent.
I don't know how an Imperious curse or a bowing curse would have been
represented. Their representation may have been too vague for Harry to
make out, and a cruciatus curse is just screaming, but apparently Harry
didn't recognize his own voice when it came by.
>
> Of course we can't know if there were any other spells cast with the
> wand, but we're not told of them during the reverse spell effect.
They may not have been important or understandable to Harry.
Troels Forchhammer
>
> In article <3DEB37DD...@ThisIsFake.dk>, Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
> >
> > Did I forget any?
>
> You've done good.
Thanks :)
> I tend to think that Harry was scarred by the same curse
> that killed his mother since he only recalls seeing one
> green flash in PoA. But I don't really know.
That's possible, I suppose, but it wouldn't feel very consistent
would it?
I mean cause and effect - Lily's sacrifice create the protection
which then again cause the spell to rebound giving Harry the scar
- that is the sequence of events as I have understood it. I would
find it difficult to see all of them happening at once ...
I think there ought to have been an Avada Kedavra curse for Harry
as well - to be reflected on Voldemort (if that curse killed Lily,
how then did it reflect on Voldemort also?).
That is the only significant spell that I think is missing - the
other missing spells are more or less incidental.
>> During the Priori Incantatem effect I can't see anything to indicate
>> the Imperius curse cast on Harry nor the spell Voldemort used to make
>> Harry bow to him, and there's nothing to indicate any spells used to
>> break the memory charm on Bertha Jorkins and the attempt to kill
>> Harry that rebounded (that would have been a good one to include).
>> Oh - and the Imperius curse on Barty Crouch Sr is also absent.
>
> I don't know how an Imperious curse or a bowing curse would have been
> represented. Their representation may have been too vague for Harry to
> make out, and a cruciatus curse is just screaming, but apparently Harry
> didn't recognize his own voice when it came by.
Yes - the generalized screaming just covered a number of Cruciatus
curses (I'm not even sure the wand should scream in the victim's
voice). Given Harry's perception of being under the Imperius curse,
I think that a brief moment of silence would have been a fine
representation for that spell, but I really don't think it matters
much whether or not Harry recognize the regurgitation of these spells
for what they are.
>> Of course we can't know if there were any other spells cast with the
>> wand, but we're not told of them during the reverse spell effect.
>
> They may not have been important or understandable to Harry.
Exactly - as with the Imperius curses etc. discussed above.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk
For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided
into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from,
and (d) rocks.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites)
Richard Eney
<snip>
>>>I think it's permanent. Unless there's an Undo All spell out there.
>>
>>Like "Finite incantatem"? (end of Dueling Club scene)
>>
>>=Tamar
>
>That might be one spell only. I meat undo all spells at once.
>Though that'll do in a pinch. Give a spell a finite existence.
Snape uses Finite incantatem to undo all the various spells the kids
used in the dueling club fights, at once. It's the Undo All spell.
=Tamar