I've been reading Harry Potter and every time I see something done via the use of potions or external objects (such as curing someone of petrification, or making someone fall in love, or becoming invisible), other than by wand or the inherent magical power of a wizard/witch, I wonder what are the limitations of it. For example, how did Mr Weasley manage to make a Muggle car fly and also become invisible? I don't want a list of things that cannot be done, but more, what I want is a strategy that allows me to know, by myself if certain action can be achieved by the sole use of the wand, or if a magical item is needed.
2
-
3Welcome! Fun question. Really fun question actually, but this is a very open-ended question. Basically, on this site (despite some notable exceptions) we tend to be very wary of questions that, when boiled down to their essentials, solicit lists of things, especially ones that aren't clearly narrowed down in scope. You weren't to know and it's a shame, but you might want to think about ways you could possibly define a clear and limited scope?– Au101Commented Dec 14, 2016 at 1:07
-
1I can think of two ways to read your question. The first is something like "make a list of things that can be done with a wand and things that can be done without one". That kind of question is appropriate here. The second (which I think might be what you had in mind) would be more like "what is the difference between the kinds of things that can be done with a wand and the kind of things that can be done without one". That kind of question may be appropriate, although I'm not sure we know the answer.– BlackwoodCommented Dec 14, 2016 at 3:13
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
After reading the books several times, it is my observation that certain feats of magic are inherently difficult using merely a wand.
I will start with potions, potions are made of several different ingredients that each individually have magical properties. By combining them, the inherently magical substances can have astounding effects.
Next, comes the Weasley's flying car. The car is classified as an artifact. In Harry Potter (and most other sources), artifacts are mundane objects that are artificially imbued with magic, after their creation.
Putting all of this together, it is apparent that all magic has a price. When using a wand, the price is the effort, concentration, and energy of the wielder. This makes it impossible to perform some of the most difficult acts of magic with only a wand. It is like a sword, enough in almost every situation, but sometimes you need a little bit more power.
With potions, the cost is the magical ingredients you put in. The properties of these ingredients give you the payout. Potions however can only be used once, they are like a heavy war hammer, devastatingly effective, but they are slow, and once you swing there is no time to bring them around for another chance.
For artifacts, the cost is the time, effort, and energy that it takes to imbue them with the hundreds or thousands of charms it takes to perfect them. Artifacts are like trebuchets, they are rare and costly to make, but they also have the potential to be the most effective. They can be used over and over again, and can be used to perform the most powerful magic.
Overall, the distinction is made by the specific witch/wizard, as to how powerful a spell they can cast, but potions and artifacts make it possible for lesser wizards to perform very powerful spells.
-
So, it means I can perform an invisibility charm on myself (for example) if I'm an extremely skilled and powerful wizard?– caeusCommented Dec 14, 2016 at 3:07
-
@caeus: True invisibility seems to require an artifact (invisibility cloak, made from some magical material like Demiguise hair) but a reasonable approximation can be made with a wand using the Disillusionment Charm.– wyvernCommented Dec 14, 2016 at 4:43
-
"I will start with potions, potions are made of several different ingredients that each individually have magical properties. By combining them, the inherently magical substances can have astounding effects." - I take issue with this. We have a JKR quote that squibs and muggles can't do potions. This implies to me that the magic in a potion does not, completely or at all, come from ingredients but rather than wizard. Commented Dec 14, 2016 at 8:43
-
@Glimmervoid, a potion is like a loaded hand gun, but wizards are the only people with fingers. It most likely requires a certain amount of activation energy/magic, as does any type of chemical reaction, and what is a potion if not a magical chemical solution? Commented Dec 15, 2016 at 2:46
-
1@sumelic I seem to remember someone saying that Dumbledore could cast a Disillusionment Charm so powerful that he was, for all intents and purposes, completely invisible. He also says himself that he doesn't need a cloak to be invisible in PS when he finds Harry with the Mirror. So an incredibly skilled wizard might be able to do anything with a wand that others need artifacts or potions for...– CartolinCommented Dec 16, 2016 at 13:22