Is there any Downside to Potterverse Magic?

[Crossroads Inc.]

In many Magic and fantasy based realms, we see a recurring theme when magic is involved, which is typically.
"Magic has it's Price".

But... I am curious, is there anything even remotely like that in the Potterverse?
In other fantasy worlds, Magic has a downside... To heal one person, you may need to kill another... Or, cast a spell wrong, and you could risk your very soul to infernal creatures.
Also there are usually rather strict "rules" to what you can and can NOT dow with magic in a given universe.

One of the chief criticism I have heard of Potter is the lack of any sort of "rules" or downside.
The most I ever think we hear of a downside of a bad spell, is someone getting the cartoonish "explosion of smoke" and sooty face afterwards...

Now I will admit, I never read the books, so I could be missing things...
but by and large.. IS there any sort of downside of magic?
Or is it literarily a no limits "sunshine and sparkles" energy force that does whatever you want?

[tezunegari]

The only downside appears to be the need for a magical focus, a.k.a. a wand.
Without a wand, the magic appears to be exponentially more difficult or requiring an emotional component. Though this might be a trained flaw considering accidental magic in young children is technically speaking wandless.

Besides that, I don't remember any mentioning of exhaustion after the use of magic or even any advantage of continued use of magic similar to muscle training.

I think there is supposed to be a detrimental effect to dark magic use (Book 7: how easy Harry casts the Cruciatus on the Deatheater who spit on McGonnagal...) but doubt there was anything overt.

The only definitive rule I remember, is that you cannot create food out of nothingness.

[hunter5]

The only thing I have seen is spells if not performed properly (ie faulty wand, incorrect pronunciation, lack of focus) will result in various effects from reflecting the spell back at you to you loosing body parts. Other than that using magic doesn't seem to drain the user of any noticeable energy and other then potons only needs a wand to work

[Napoleon the Clown]

I coulda sworn I've heard somewhere that if you fuck up apparation (teleporting) you may arrive without your skin. And I recall Professor Fuckup accidentally vanishing some bones from Harry's arm when he broke it playing quidditch.


So basically, if you fuck up casting a spell nasty things can happen. Beyond that, I'm not aware of anything.

[Starglider]

That is not a meaningful criticism. Rowling wanted magic to be common and accessible in her stories, she didn't need a 'price' to make it work, so she didn't include one. It's a trope not a rule or a quality standard. You might as well criticise Dungeons & Dragons for allowing characters to cast dozens of spells a day without any particular downside, or pretty much any RPG video game ever made. It's fun, it works in the game because the antagonists have their own abilities that are at least as powerful.

[The Romulan Republic]

The only downside appears to be the need for a magical focus, a.k.a. a wand.

Not even that, not for all forms of magic, especially if you're skilled enough.

Voldemort was using controlled wandless magic for (implied) torture and mind control as a child (most wizarding children do wandless magic uncontrolled/accidentally), and its at least implied in book one that Quirrel and Snape both used powerful offensive wandless magic (mention is made of eye contact during the Quidditch magic, but neither is said to have their wand out as far as I recall- also Quirrel is mentioned raising his hand to cast a curse during the final confrontation). Though with Quirrel, its hard to know how much of that is his ability and how much is Voldemort's.

Snape also performs wandless legilimency, I think.

And their are certain innate/hereditary gifts (parseltounge and metamorphamaguses, as well as prophecy) that do not involve wands or any other equipment (potions, etc.).

Without a wand, the magic appears to be exponentially more difficult or requiring an emotional component. Though this might be a trained flaw considering accidental magic in young children is technically speaking wandless.

I would suspect its a matter of focus/control, based on the books. Much like non-verbal magic. Essentially, casting wandlessly and non-verbally is just willing something to happen, without any props to assist you.

It is likely a training flaw that its not more common, yes.

The high end magic often depends a certain/mental emotional state as well as will/focus. Ie calm for occulmency, happiness for Patronuses, and desire to cause pain for Unforgivable Curses.

Besides that, I don't remember any mentioning of exhaustion after the use of magic or even any advantage of continued use of magic similar to muscle training.

True, and this is a point that fanfic often/misses/ignores, to my profound irritation.

I think there is supposed to be a detrimental effect to dark magic use (Book 7: how easy Harry casts the Cruciatus on the Deatheater who spit on McGonnagal...) but doubt there was anything overt.

The only canon references to that I recall are regarding Horcruxes- Voldemort's disfigurement, and perhaps his decreasing mental stability as well, as he repeatedly splits his soul.

That and the power of love being able to burn him and those possessed by him.

Oh, and the Unbreakable Curse killing you if you break it.

For Unforgiveables, its more that you must already been in a pretty nasty mental/emotional place to be able to cast them to begin with.

The only definitive rule I remember, is that you cannot create food out of nothingness.

Their are a bunch of transfiguration rules, supposedly, but I can't recall what they all are.

Some other limits-

Killing (or at least murder) breaks your soul.

You can't bring the dead fully back to life (this is a big one).

You have to have certain emotional/mental states to perform certain magic effectively. Or, if you're not very good, rely on the correct pronunciation/wand movements.

Potions often have very complicated and precise instructions.

Snape mentions during the Occulmency stuff that "time and distance matter in magic", or some such. Hence Voldemort getting into Harry's mind being unusual.

I had thought time travel appeared to be a closed loop, you couldn't change the past. But Cursed Child through that out the window with all the abandon of a particularly confusing Doctor Who episode.

Edit: Oh, speaking of the power of love thing, that seemed to have some fairly specific rules around how it worked.

Wand lore has some rules around it too, although somewhat inconsistent and fuzzy ones.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, another case I just remembered of dark magic having negative effects- possession long term is clearly bad for your health, though I'm not sure if that counts as its more an effect on the victim than a price paid by the user (though Quirrel's dialog, and Dumbledore's description of his possession, suggest that he was possessed willingly).

[Elheru Aran]

Well obviously Dark Magic didn't do Voldemort any good, but most of the physical effects he suffered were arguably from creating Horcruxes, an *exceptionally* dark type of magic. It does seem that the more you use Dark magic, the more it corrupts you, as notable Death Eaters are evidence enough for; rehabilitation simply doesn't much seem to have been an option, it was death, Azkaban or trying to play the Imperio/compulsion card.

Apart from that, the primary downsides seem to be that it can have some appalling consequences if you don't do it right or with enough power/conviction. Apparation is an obvious example-- screw that up and you can be *badly* hurt. But that's not inherent to the magic, that's on the person casting the spell.

Wandless magic seems to be a matter of either power or discipline/training. It's possible that individual wizards manage to get good enough in a specific field that they can do wandless magic in that field, but not any other. Being able to do wandless magic with *any* spell requires both power and discipline, see Dumbledore and possibly Voldemort.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well obviously Dark Magic didn't do Voldemort any good, but most of the physical effects he suffered were arguably from creating Horcruxes, an *exceptionally* dark type of magic. It does seem that the more you use Dark magic, the more it corrupts you, as notable Death Eaters are evidence enough for; rehabilitation simply doesn't much seem to have been an option, it was death, Azkaban or trying to play the Imperio/compulsion card.

Or cutting a plea deal/switching sides, like Karkarov did (and Snape, for less purely self-serving reasons).

To be fair, I doubt the Ministry gave two shits about trying to rehabilitate any criminal, much less Death Eaters. And Azkaban is like anti-rehabilitation. Its unlikely anyone is going to come out saner than when they went in.

Apart from that, the primary downsides seem to be that it can have some appalling consequences if you don't do it right or with enough power/conviction. Apparation is an obvious example-- screw that up and you can be *badly* hurt. But that's not inherent to the magic, that's on the person casting the spell.

Or bungled memory charms. Fucked up potions. And so on.

Wandless magic seems to be a matter of either power or discipline/training. It's possible that individual wizards manage to get good enough in a specific field that they can do wandless magic in that field, but not any other. Being able to do wandless magic with *any* spell requires both power and discipline, see Dumbledore and possibly Voldemort.

I don't recall if its ever stated, but as I said, I'd definitely figure on their being a strength of will component to it, just like non-verbal magic.

Voldemort can definitely do some fairly high end stuff wandlessly. I can't recall if Dumbledore is ever depicted doing so, but since he (and Grindelwald) are on the same level, he probably could.

[Elheru Aran]

Right. If anything, magic is sort of like... for example, metal-working. You can do basic stuff without a very deep knowledge of it, but to get really good, you have to actually understand what you're doing, and if you fuck something up, odds are pretty good you or someone else will get hurt.

Or chemistry, or anything where you're handling a potentially dangerous substance. Follow the rules, don't be an idiot, know what you're doing, and the potential for harm is greatly minimized. Screw it up, and the consequences can be dramatic.

Otherwise, as far as personal costs go... it doesn't seem to work like that in HP. Dumbledore wasn't run down towards the end of Harry Potter because he had been using magic for years, it was because he was *old* and under a lot of stress in his highly placed position. Things like that.

[The Romulan Republic]

And being slowly killed by having handled a cursed object.

[Elheru Aran]

And being slowly killed by having handled a cursed object.

True, but again, that was on Dumbledore himself. If he'd had the sense to handle the ring with kid gloves and check it out thoroughly before he went and put it on, he'd have been okay. He was in too much of a rush to use the Hallow and ended up screwing himself over.

It's as though I picked up a spent nuclear fuel rod and got cancer from it... dumb move.

[Adam Reynolds]

From a writing standpoint, this is the idea that if something has no downside it will make problems for the heroes too easy. Potterverse wizards don't need kryptonite because both sides have access to the same abilities. It is the same reason why action movies aren't automatically less interesting when both sides have guns. If both sides have the same abilities, you don't need a downside for them.

It has been years since I read them, and I never actually finished the series, but from what I recall the most powerful and destructive spells were generally only used by evil wizards, which made the antagonists more effective. Much the same as Force powers actually.

[The Romulan Republic]

For whatever its worth, way back in the first book, Dumbledore and McGonnagle discuss that idea, with Dumbledore saying Voldemort had powers he never did, and McGonnagle replying that it was because Dumbledore was too nobel to use them.

[The Romulan Republic]

As to "most destructive"- the only real mass destruction spell we get is Fiendfyre, which is genuinely terrifying.

Avada Kedavra is notable for being almost unblockable with magic, and supposedly requiring a certain degree of power and also murderous intent to cast, but its not really effective for large scale destruction- anyone with a gun could be just as deadly.

The most dangerous in a sense though (other than time travel, which can rewrite reality) is the Imperius Curse. Voldemort basically pulled off a coup with Imperio plus fear. Obliviate is dangerous too, albeit not to the same extent, since it only erases/alters memories.

[K. A. Pital]

That is not a meaningful criticism. Rowling wanted magic to be common and accessible in her stories, she didn't need a 'price' to make it work, so she didn't include one. It's a trope not a rule or a quality standard. You might as well criticise Dungeons & Dragons for allowing characters to cast dozens of spells a day without any particular downside, or pretty much any RPG video game ever made. It's fun, it works in the game because the antagonists have their own abilities that are at least as powerful.

That is a meaningful criticism.

Lawless magic that can be thrown around at will is a staple of bad fantasy where characters just cast more and more powerful spells to get them out of dire straits; there are no downsides and the whole story develops in an RPG-like fashion as the character "levels up" and cuts through hordes of enemies with ease - except boss fights. Which are also resolved by clever use of spells or just one souped-up spell. Bad writing.

Indeed RPGs, as opposed to quality work of fiction, have shitty writing standards. Same as modern Hollywood movies and most video games - the stories are so cringeworthy that you want to cast a death spell on the scriptwriters for making you lose hours of your time on a story where characters hardly ever think twice before resorting to magic.

And, on the other hand, there are deep stories about the price of magic that serve as a warning. They are also meant for kids, but make them think about the use of magic like the use - and overuse - of any other resource available to man. Which is dangerous.

When magic comes at no price at all, that makes for a boring story which is enjoyed by kids who go "waaaah da wizard cast da fireball waaah" and people who can't appreciate something more complex than good guys versus bad guys using the magic equivalent of various weapons. Which has about as much depth as a Rambo movie.

[Simon_Jester]

Stas, the key to making a movie about magic that doesn't have major limitations is simple:

Make the story be about something other than the magic.

Magic that is highly limited or magic that comes with a high price is well suited for stories that focus entirely on the magic. Just as technologies with major limitations work well as 'gimmick' inventions in science fiction driven by exploring the consequences of a single invention.

If the story is about the characters, or is about some other overarching theme, and the magic (or fictional technology) is merely a mechanism through which the characters interact... Then it matters much less. Star Wars isn't about the technology or the price of the technology or even the ways technology changes society, for instance. It's about self-fulfilling prophecies, personal tragedy, redemption, and so forth.

While I'm having trouble listing iconic high-magic fantasy series at the moment due to my brain still being in the process of booting up, I suspect a lot of them fall into this category.

[madd0ct0r]

Stas, have yiu actually read the harry potter series? Because you seemto have gone off on a generic rant that is not relevsnt to the stories in the books.

[K. A. Pital]

Stas, have yiu actually read the harry potter series? Because you seemto have gone off on a generic rant that is not relevsnt to the stories in the books.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have read the Potter books. I could not bring myself to finish the series because it has degenerated to something that makes cheap high-fantasy Tolkien knockoffs look good.

Stas, the key to making a movie about magic that doesn't have major limitations is simple:

Make the story be about something other than the magic.

Magic that is highly limited or magic that comes with a high price is well suited for stories that focus entirely on the magic. Just as technologies with major limitations work well as 'gimmick' inventions in science fiction driven by exploring the consequences of a single invention.

If the story is about the characters, or is about some other overarching theme, and the magic (or fictional technology) is merely a mechanism through which the characters interact... Then it matters much less. Star Wars isn't about the technology or the price of the technology or even the ways technology changes society, for instance. It's about self-fulfilling prophecies, personal tragedy, redemption, and so forth.

While I'm having trouble listing iconic high-magic fantasy series at the moment due to my brain still being in the process of booting up, I suspect a lot of them fall into this category.

Star Wars is space fantasy that is quite relevant to my point. Its overarching story (whether you take just the movies, or movies and EU, or even the new Disney movies) is centered on the Force and the batte of good and evil.

The Force is a substitute for magic. It is very hard to master its use, and it comes with a significant downside - the temptation of the Dark Side, which can make you evil, violent and prone to killing and destroying others on sight, even those whom you love. And even technology is shown to be used in monstrous ways itself, with the Death Star wiping out billions of lives. Surely the analogy is not lost on anyone viewing the films. Although the overall story explores the Force as a greater thing than technology, and illustrates this potently, the story has enough warnings about misuse of both the Force and techology.

Nothing could better illustrate that a story about magic has to have some downsides to it, in order to be good.

Otherwise the story would be crap. Imagine if there was no temptation of the Dark Side for powerful Force users and they could just fight the Sith who were just evil because evil. Who were not former fallen Jedi or Force-sensitives in general, but some sort of generic bad guys destined to be bad, evil by design. And there'd be fights of good "wizards" and bad "wizards". And the good wizards would win.

That story would be like ten times crappier than Star Wars. And that is also exactly in which relation I hold the two stories - Star Wars is a fantasy space opera executed much better than either the book or the film versions of Harry Potter.

Hell, in Tolkien's high fantasy which has a pretty straightforward story, magic and shit carries very significant risks for users. And characters are never just "bad because bad". Sauron was not born evil, or so I've read. In fact in most of high fantasy, characters who are deeply corrupted by magic, artefacts or otherwordly beings occupy a prominent place, and downsides are rarely absent.

Contrast that with Potter and its primitive villain. Or its primitive hero, does not matter. The difference is obvious.

[madd0ct0r]

Stas, have yiu actually read the harry potter series? Because you seemto have gone off on a generic rant that is not relevsnt to the stories in the books.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have read the Potter books. I could not bring myself to finish the series because it has degenerated to something that makes cheap high-fantasy Tolkien knockoffs look good.

Stas, the key to making a movie about magic that doesn't have major limitations is simple:

Make the story be about something other than the magic.

Magic that is highly limited or magic that comes with a high price is well suited for stories that focus entirely on the magic. Just as technologies with major limitations work well as 'gimmick' inventions in science fiction driven by exploring the consequences of a single invention.

If the story is about the characters, or is about some other overarching theme, and the magic (or fictional technology) is merely a mechanism through which the characters interact... Then it matters much less. Star Wars isn't about the technology or the price of the technology or even the ways technology changes society, for instance. It's about self-fulfilling prophecies, personal tragedy, redemption, and so forth.

While I'm having trouble listing iconic high-magic fantasy series at the moment due to my brain still being in the process of booting up, I suspect a lot of them fall into this category.

Star Wars is space fantasy that is quite relevant to my point. Its overarching story (whether you take just the movies, or movies and EU, or even the new Disney movies) is centered on the Force and the batte of good and evil.

The Force is a substitute for magic. It is very hard to master its use, and it comes with a significant downside - the temptation of the Dark Side, which can make you evil, violent and prone to killing and destroying others on sight, even those whom you love. And even technology is shown to be used in monstrous ways itself, with the Death Star wiping out billions of lives. Surely the analogy is not lost on anyone viewing the films. Although the overall story explores the Force as a greater thing than technology, and illustrates this potently, the story has enough warnings about misuse of both the Force and techology.

Nothing could better illustrate that a story about magic has to have some downsides to it, in order to be good.

Otherwise the story would be crap. Imagine if there was no temptation of the Dark Side for powerful Force users and they could just fight the Sith who were just evil because evil. Who were not former fallen Jedi or Force-sensitives in general, but some sort of generic bad guys destined to be bad, evil by design. And there'd be fights of good "wizards" and bad "wizards". And the good wizards would win.

That story would be like ten times crappier than Star Wars. And that is also exactly in which relation I hold the two stories - Star Wars is a fantasy space opera executed much better than either the book or the film versions of Harry Potter.

Hell, in Tolkien's high fantasy which has a pretty straightforward story, magic and shit carries very significant risks for users. And characters are never just "bad because bad". Sauron was not born evil, or so I've read. In fact in most of high fantasy, characters who are deeply corrupted by magic, artefacts or otherwordly beings occupy a prominent place, and downsides are rarely absent.

Contrast that with Potter and its primitive villain. Or its primitive hero, does not matter. The difference is obvious.

Yeah. Given that you've not read the books, you dont know who is responsible for Dumbledore's death or the origion of Grindlewald. You complain about an stupid arms race without knowing about the elder wand and the elder magic or precisely how they resolve the story. You complain about cardboard heros and villans without knowing much about snape or malfoy, or even harry or dumbledore and questions of free will and prophercy. Harry Potter isnt bout magic

[Crazedwraith]

To be honest, the lack of rules to Magic is a weaker part of the Harry Potter series. Especially when the final confrontation between Harry & Voldemort is resolved thanks to magic objects only introduced in the last book, and wandlore; the intricacies of were only fully explained the last book on only hinted at previously.

I don't say there has to be a 'price' or that magic has to have it's own agenda or anything, though there are series that do. (Robin Hobb's books do it quite well) But there is an issue with consistency and set up for magic in the series.

[K. A. Pital]

I have read far enough (Order of the Phoenix), but I have no intention of wasting any more time on this story. Maybe I don't care deeply about the characters. I just found it lacking, and moreover, I found many of the ideas espoused in the book repulsive.

I couldn't care less who kills Dumbledore because to get to this point I would have to read another book. Why should I? Is it going to become a masterpiece suddenly at the very end when it hasn't been one all along?

Or perhaps there is, in the end, a downside to casting various spells, some of which can kill others?

P.S. Given that the resolution of the story relies on yet more "magical objects", my decision to not continue reading appears to be correct in hindsight. How many Deus Ex Magic things can appear in the books before it becomes utterly boring?

[madd0ct0r]

Lol. Man who knows nothing has strong opinions. Lol.

[K. A. Pital]

I've asked whether the story would improve in the last two books.

There is a huge number of interesting books in the world. Many of them are on the reading list. To make room for two more Harry Potter books, a series which I stopped reading a long time ago, I would have to forego something else. Pardon my skepticism. So far the story has not quite lived up to expectations.

I can read the last two books on your advice, though. Maybe my opinion will change.

[Simon_Jester]

Star Wars is space fantasy that is quite relevant to my point. Its overarching story (whether you take just the movies, or movies and EU, or even the new Disney movies) is centered on the Force and the batte of good and evil.

The Force is a substitute for magic. It is very hard to master its use, and it comes with a significant downside - the temptation of the Dark Side, which can make you evil, violent and prone to killing and destroying others on sight, even those whom you love. And even technology is shown to be used in monstrous ways itself... Although the overall story explores the Force as a greater thing than technology, and illustrates this potently, the story has enough warnings about misuse of both the Force and techology.

Nothing could better illustrate that a story about magic has to have some downsides to it, in order to be good.

I would argue that there is a very important difference between saying "magic/technology has limitations or downsides" and saying "magic/technology has the potential for misuse."

There is no obvious 'limitation' on, for example, firearms. They are simple to use. It is possible to hurt yourself accidentally with one, but moderately careful handling prevents this. They don't eat your soul, or at least no more so than any other weapon does. And yet, they have tremendous potential for misuse.

I mentioned the technology in Star Wars, as opposed to the Force, precisely because the technology of Star Wars is shown as being virtually unlimited- almost anything we can imagine technology doing, seems possible in Star Wars. Artificial intelligence, faster than light travel, vast energies harnessed to intelligent use, entire worlds full of marvels and architectural wonders, all these things can be done, seemingly with little difficulty. And yet this is not the point of the story- because all this marvelous technology is simply the background and the medium of interaction between the characters.

To be honest, the lack of rules to Magic is a weaker part of the Harry Potter series. Especially when the final confrontation between Harry & Voldemort is resolved thanks to magic objects only introduced in the last book, and wandlore; the intricacies of were only fully explained the last book on only hinted at previously.

I don't say there has to be a 'price' or that magic has to have it's own agenda or anything, though there are series that do. (Robin Hobb's books do it quite well) But there is an issue with consistency and set up for magic in the series.

This is a particular problem for novels that are intended to show the growing-up of a child. The protagonist is eleven years old at the start of the novels, and begins utterly ignorant of all things magical.

The advantage of this is that it allows us to experience this imaginative world through eyes similar to our own, whereas a more experienced wizard would not perceive the strangeness and wonder of it all.

But the disadvantage is that there are many important facts about the world that eleven-year-olds, realistically, do not know. And they are not taught these facts until later, often several years later. Only in the last three or so books out of seven does Harry reach a level of maturity that permits him to participate meaningfully in the battle-planning and strategizing of the "good wizards," and only in the later books does he start learning truly important amounts of information about the underlying "facts of life" that govern the wizarding world.