2

First of all I must apologize for having limited general knowledge of Harry Potter - only that which I've gathered from the movies and the first three books.

If memory serves me right, Brackium Emendo is used only once by Gilderoy Lockhart. I am unsure if it is the spell itself or its improper use which caused the removal of bones from Harry's arms.

In any case it seems to me that this is a very potent spell in that it is effective immediately and has a 'lasting' effect.

Compared for instance to Expelliarmus, it can lead to the same effect + extended duration [and slow and painful recovery through Skele-Gro].

I think it's something that would befit those practicing dark arts, without being a curse.

Is it used just once? If so, is there any reason why it's not a more commonly occurring spell despite its possibly potent effects.

  • 4
    It is used to amend broken bones and injuries. Just because Gilderoy was an idiot and mucked up the spell as he did with most spells doesn't mean everyone was as incompetent as him to mess the spell up to get those unintended effects. – Aegon Jan 6 '17 at 13:44
  • 1
    The reason why it's devastating state is not observed more often may be because most people aren't that incompetent? – Aegon Jan 6 '17 at 13:45
  • The same can be said about any spell gone wrong. E.g. Ron trying to curse Malfoy in Chamber of Secrets but the spell ended up hitting Ron himself. One could say "Why don't people just cast spells to break wands of other people so that the spells they do will act against themselves"? – Aegon Jan 6 '17 at 13:47
  • related: scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/160333/… – NKCampbell Oct 12 '17 at 21:55
6

The spell isn't meant for removing bones; it's supposed to fix them.

Lockhart is an idiot and messed up the spell. That doesn't mean that he did not use the correct spell, he just messed up.

Also, the books don't mention what spell he used, this is a movie addition

  • 3
    I understand that I'm getting out of scope of the original question - but I'm wondering - can spells be reliably used incorrectly to produce the same desired effect? – Zuiq Pazu Jan 6 '17 at 13:52
  • @ZuiqPazu - that seems to be a contradiction – Gallifreyan Jan 6 '17 at 13:53
  • 1
    You're right. What I mean to say is: can someone intentionally muck up the spell repeatedly to produce the same effect - in the context of my question: removing bones? – Zuiq Pazu Jan 6 '17 at 13:55
  • @ZuiqPazu no idea. – Mithrandir Jan 6 '17 at 13:55
  • 1
    @ZuiqPazu - can't think of a canon example. Luckily for Harry, Lockhart didn't try twice. – Gallifreyan Jan 6 '17 at 13:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.