Magic in the Harry Potter universe

I was watching Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire on TV the other day, and I suddenly realized a fundamental problem of the Harry Potter universe. In so few words: Magic is not well defined.

How so? I'll try to explain. For me, if a fantasy world is be involving, it has to set up some kind of consistency or "rules" that the said fantasy world obeys. One of the reasons the Matrix movies devolved into such a mess was because the writers "broke" some of the assumed rules in the Matrix universe (for example, Neo being some kind of messiah and able to see the real world when his eyes were burned away).

In the Harry Potter books/movies, the reader/watcher never really knows the rules that govern magic in that universe. What constitutes the power of a wizard? How is magic limited - what is required to summon a spell? It looks like all a wizard has to do is utter some vaguely dumb lines, look strained (occasionally, depending on the strength of the spell) and wave the wand to do magic. Ever so often, Harry and his friends get out of trouble by some form of deus-ex-machina, and this undermines the story. The scene in Goblet of Fire where Harry eats Gilliweed and turns into a half-man-half-fish is one such example. The solution to Harry's problem required no ingenuity and basically falls into his lap, and the magic that made this happen is akin to something that is randomly plucked out of thin air to service some poor plot twist at the end of the movie (Mad Eye Moody was taken over by an imposter under the wing of Voldemort).

I suppose this is same the kind of problem that viewers who've never read the LOTR books face when they watch the end of Return of the King the scene where the eagles fly in and save Frodo and Sam. Some viewers ask "why couldn't Frodo and Sam just fly in and drop the ring into Mount Doom?" In the books Tolkien explains that the Eagles come and go as the please etc. But even without having read the books, it's not unreasonable to surmise that Mordor is heavily guarded and Sauron would've taken down the Eagles if they tried anything funny. And so the Eagles could fly into Mordor after the fall of the dark lord.

But I am digressing already. The point is, I find that magic in the Harry Potter world is too convenient and too vague. It serves to jar the discerning viewer out of his/her bubble of suspended disbelief.

Ok, I’m just lost on your thoughts. Is there an argument to the fantasy world these films deliver or have you just come to some sort of conclusive evaluation?

I think the bottom line to any film is there are always going to be argumentative flaws, even so in books and, for the most part, all entertainment does ask the viewer/reader to put the brain aside and just go with it, especially sci-fi and fantasy. To me those two genres always tend to follow the rules of a cartoon – anything can happen and it usually does. Try to pick it apart too much and you may lose the enjoyment of simple entertainment. And let’s face it, in the real world there are no wizards waving around magic wands that do all kinds of tricks unless you’re part of some Vegas act. If it all seems too convenient at times, well, it’s fantasy and it’s just the way that it goes.

Personally, I think you could drive yourself mad trying to figure the complexities and perspectives of these genres. It’s like thinking of outer-space and trying to comprehend it is a mass of infinity that has no end. Sometimes it’s just better to let the entertainment flow and enjoy the ride regardless of the minor or major flaws you can find.

Tim =)

Tim, the problem with the Harry Potter movies/storybooks is this: all sorts of fanciful things happen and yet there is a tangible artifical limitation of magic. In the Harry Potter universe, you can transform things, kills things, make things appear out of thin air, store your memories in a vat etc etc etc....and yet, when it came to fighting a dragon, a student of magic has to rely on flying on a broomstick to save his skin? I just don't get why he couldn't turn the dragon into a mice or something. Where's the fantastical now? Why is Harry bound by the physics of flight and all that crap? Oh I know, magic is more or less ignored to make way for a tepid chase.

Well, the dragon scene in HP was drug out by the filmmakers. In the book it's over with in ten-seconds. Nevertheless, I see what you're pointing at. I too at times question the convenient things in films and I find it just drives me crazy. It's like Vampire movies, why can't they live in the day? There's really never an explaination to it and we all just accept it as a Vampire rule. However, like I said, try not to think too much into it because you'll go nuts. Better to just enjoy the ride and not worry about it. I know it's a cheap cop-out to think that way, but movies are cheap entertainment, yes.

Tim =)

To the vampires thing
The point is not that there are rules without explanation. The point is that there are no rules for the story to abide by. This leads to inconsistent stories and people yelling at television screens and book pages something to the effect of, "You just got out of a very similar situation with no trouble at all! WHY OH WHY are you worrying about this. Just do what you did before and you'll be fine."

And oh gosh, the spells are convenient in Harry Potter. It doesn't matter that the door is locked, Dumbledoore you great steaming pile of stupid, because there is a spell to unlock doors. What's the point in locks?

Where did spells come from? Clearly, some Godlike person wrote them. And since you can basically write spells, why doesn't Voldemort gather some followers to create a spell that will kill all muggles or whomever he wishes? Clearly, Voldemort is holding back.

The problem is that, while you must suspend belief for most fiction, it is usually done with an understanding of the rules and what's going on. Harry Potter has no rules, so, it doesn't really make for good, interesting story-telling. THEREFORE, not only can you not analyze Harry Potter's story fairly (in comparison to better stories like Narnia or Rings), you can't even consider thinking about thinking while watching one of the Potter movies or reading one of the books. In this way, it's the dumbest fad in memory.

in fantasy worlds, doors aren't just locked by mechanical locks but also by magic spells. let's not be so quick to "pffft" things just for the sake of "pfffting" them.

Nah, I think it's all hooey and will never sell.

John

The thing is, too, don't just point the finger at the Potter world for all the fantasy flaws. Stories of witches, warlocks and wizards have been around long before Potter, so you need to realize Rawlings has only followed what rules that have already been set for the genre of fantasy she has writen about.

Then again, if you choose to pick apart every little thing you think of as a flaw then you're never going to just enjoy the films for their entertainment value. Potter films are created for *family* entertainment no matter how you look at it. Most family entertainment does not strive for technical perfection, and as an audience member, I realize this walking into the film. When I see a film that presents it self as something deeper, serious and thoght provoking, then I will adjust my viewing pleasure to look for technical imperfections. Fantasy films, though, there's simply no point of nitpicking and asking "how come" or "why didn't they just" when anything can happen for no specific reason just becasue it *is* fantasy.

I may be wrong, Tim, but I think the problem King has is not simply that "Harry Potter" uses make-believe devices - that's kind of unavoidable. Rather, the problem is that Rowling doesn't set up any rules for her own world and stick to them. I have always felt that to be a problem with Rowling's approach. She doesn't explain the rules for many of the tests Harry faces and/or changes them in mid-stream. Therefore there's nothing to anticipate, you simply watch a spectacle unfold without any way to actually get involved in the action. I thought this was a particular problem in the climactic maze contest at the end of "Prisoner of Azkaban." The rules are so amorphous there's nothing to really root for or against - the maze just does random things, and Harry reacts in more or less random ways and then suddenly it's over through no real doing of his own (as usual - Harry never actually DOES anything in any of the books - he just witnesses things being done on his behalf.)

In a vampire movie (most of them), you know the rules. You need garlic, a cross, a mirror, and you have to put a stake through his heart, etc. The viewer knows what to anticipate. Rowling sets up some rudimentary rules but then just fudges them whenever it's convenient for her. Kids don't notice those kind of things, of course, so there's no reason for her to care.

Actually, I think the maze was in "Goblet of Fire" (couldn't let Eddie have the pleasure of correcting me.)

Oh goodie there's been more responses since I last checked!

Perhaps I didn't do too good a job expressing my frustration with the Harry Potter universe (don't worry I don't sweat over Harry Potter much except when I'm writing about this lol) but Kingoflostfaces and Cslong (Chris) both got my point exactly. In trying to portray a world where anything is possible, Rowling has run into a huge storytelling problem that is, fortunately for her, overlooked by millions of fans worldwide.

Well, Chris, I can't really disagree with you on the part of Rawlings not giving us any deep or tangable rules however, I think we have to go on assumptions of whatever rules there have always been in the wizard world. To find a deeper explaination to each rule we'd have to go back to other books and films that have already founded the genre -- we have to assume Rawlings was obviously influenced by the genre and probably felt she didn't need to explain every little detail. For example, one might even ask what's the point of using a wand when they could just twinkle their nose like Samantha in "Bewitched". And then it comes down to *who* made that rule up and is it really worth debating or worrying about? I think Rawlings is probably just asking her audience to assume, and yes, that can be looked at as poor or lazy story telling, but as I said, it is simple family entertainment that doesn't require a lot of thought. Just enjoy it for what it is eventhough I know it's hard as a critic to not over-examine.

As far as the Vampires go, my point is we do know the rules but I'm looking at the rules and asking why? There's really no explaination as to why a Vampire can't handle garlic, crosses or a stake through the heart, we just accept it for what it is and never really question *why* it is. And there are also those films and books that change or break the rules just for the purpose of telling a story. So it really does come down to just enjoying the entertainment without much thought. Again, it's hard to do that as a critic but sometimes we just need to deal with it.

Tim,

It's really just a matter of good storytelling. Without any fixed rules, there's no way to anticipate anything or get involved in the story. In a werewolf movie, you know you need a silver bullet. Therefore, when your hero drops the silver bullet down the sewer, you know the stakes have just been ratcheted up. If, all of the sudden, he mentions he can also kill the werewolf by drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's, you feel a bit cheated.

ROFL @ Chris' analogy.

I would also like to mention that these new message boards are very unforgiving of typos/errors/drunken thoughts.

in "goblet of fire" the book, the contestants face several different challenges such as a giant spider. the maze as a whole is a test of a wizard/witch's skill in staying alive.

in "goblet of fire" the movie, the only obstacle is a maze that changes. the movie dumbledore warns the contestants that they may find themselves changing (as in, their desire to win might over-ride their better natures). the movie is making a point about maturity and moral choices, and to be hung up on the rules of magic is to miss the point.

in "interview with the vampire" (the book and the movie), louis tells the journalist that vampires aren't afraid of garlic, that they don't have to sleep in coffins (although many do), that they aren't afraid of crucifixes, etc. i didn't feel cheated.

**in "interview with the vampire" (the book and the movie), louis tells the journalist that vampires aren't afraid of garlic, that they don't have to sleep in coffins (although many do), that they aren't afraid of crucifixes, etc. i didn't feel cheated.**


Eddie,

You remain the master of talking about something only superficially related to an argument, and pretending it makes a point about it.

If those are the rules in Rice' s universe, those are the rules. Different set. Another logic to follow and anticipate. There is no reason anyone would feel cheated.

On the other hand,if you're watching, say, an FBI thriller with presumably "real world" rules and logic, and suddenly the characters started flying and shooting laser beams at each other at the end, you'd feel a bit ripped off. Or maybe it would work as a comedy (Miike actually did something like this in one of his movies - maybe "Dead or Alive"). But when the rules in any fictional movie world suddenly change out of the blue, you're left only to passively watch a spectacle unfold rather than be absorbed by the narrative since there is nothing to anticipate to measure relative success/failure/progress.

Rowling created a fun world and some great characters. That's why "Harry Potter" works. As an actual story-teller, she's pretty lazy. The screenwriters for all the "Potter" films deserve some credit for the hrd labor needed to transform her sloppy, amorphous stories into structured screen narratives.

chris,

by that line of reasoning, the appearance of the giant eagles at the end of "LOTR 3" (the movies and the book) is indeed a shitty way to have the good guys defeat the nazgul. "oh, they come and go as they please." so they chose to show up at the last minute? how convenient for tolkien and peter jackson.

like i wrote in an e-mail to john, tolkien tried to have it both ways when his characters were faced with danger. fight or flight? the elves did both--they fought AND left. talk about eating your cake and having it, too.

eddie

Once again, Eddie, you're just bringing up an irrelevant point and pretending it relates to the current argument. I see no connection of any kind between your example and the discussion in this thread. Perhaps you should go back and read again.

The problem with the Nazgul was that they sucked. Tolkein pulled a neat trick by managing to describe them in writing as scary and menacing, but in reality it appears that they can be beaten by just about anyone and anything, including by a guy holding a fiery stick.

we're discussing rules and happenstance in fantasy movies/books, right? besides, i addressed something that was raised in the very first post of this thread.

the other problem i have with nitpicking about magic in the "harry potter" universe is that the books and the movies address this in detail. remember the chess game at the end of "harry potter 1"? harry praises hermione for being a good witch. hermione says that she just has "books and cleverness" whereas harry is the real great wizard (even though he seems to have more trouble than hermione does in school). essentially, rowling is comparing/contrasting innate ability and hard work. you can be the most-dedicated magician in the world, but you are still bound by inherent talents. on the other hand, you may be born with gifts but are still bound by how much enthusiasm you have.

this can be seen in the sequence when the students learn how to fly on broomsticks in "harry potter 1". it's not sufficient to say "up!" just because you have your hand over a broomstick. harry was born with a predilection to fly, which gives him the edge over hermione even though she learns spell faster than everyone else.

I think what you're really seeing at play there is the difference between storytelling for kids and storytelling for adolescents/adults. For kids, the real dream is simply to have wonderful things happen to you - working hard and achieving aren't really part of the kid psyche yet. Thus kids like to read about other kids walking through a magic wardrobe and turning into royalty, or Harry Potter simply learning he was born to greatness. The adolescent/adult narrative runs more along the lines of a goal-oriented protagonist overcoming obstacles (through hard work, perserverance, etc.) and winning. thus Rocky and Karate Kid need to train to become great. Harry Potter or the kids from Narnia simply have it revealed/granted to them.

chris,

that's certainly true, but rowling has not elided the need to work hard and to persevere. those qualities are found in hermione, professor mcgonagall, neville longbottom, and even the weasleys (ron's mishaps and the twins dropping out of school can be taken as warnings that lackluster attitudes towards studies will result in lack of social success).

eddie

Whoa this thread has morphed somewhat.

Eddie, I raised the Nazgul/Eagle issue because to me it's kinda the same type of consistency/convenience problem like magic in Harry Potter. I am in no way saying that the LOTR movies are better in that respect, though it is less of a nuisance because, in my opinion, the LOTR movies depend less on fanciful magic to move the scenes forward.

Also, I started the thread not as a commentary on the character values etc. I'm just saying that without any sort of coherent or understandable rules, magic in the Harry Potter world is a variable and for thinking viewers, it's the weakest part of the movies/stories especially when it's used to create "exciting" action sequences. It's even worse when they're used as major plot devices.

chin,

i'm aware of your concerns, but the "harry potter" books and movies address them in scenes like the conversation between harry and hermione after the chess game in "harry potter 1" (as i've already written in this thread). "harry potter" magic is not as willy-nilly as you and some others describe it. plus, i'd much rather have out-and-out magic rather than gandalf magic. when i read "lotr" in seventh grade, i kept wondering why the characters thought so highly of gandalf's magic when he didn't seem to do much other than create fireworks and use his staff to light the way when it was dark.

eddie

p.s. for a lot of people, explaining all of the "rules" may be self-defeating. for example, a lot of "star wars" fans hated the fact that control of "the force" can be explained by what is basically a medical condition (the presence of midichlorians). sometimes...you get what you wish for, and you regret it. :-P

Eddie,

Oh for sure, I wouldn't want everything spelled out for me. The Star Wars example you gave is a very good one: midichlorians...wtf???

I don't remember the chess scene and stuff because I don't watch the Harry Potter movies that much. They're more or less watch and forget fare for me. I did read all 6 books in a stretch and they were a somewhat entertaining diversion (err, I was pretty bored though then :P)

Still, maybe magic in Harry Potter isn't all entirely willy-nilly, but it's not something that you can "get a feel for" as you watch the movie or read the books. I'm not asking for outright explanations, and hell, I can even suspend my disbelief a fair bit, but the mechanics of magic (oxymoron?) in Harry Potter is like almost a free-for-all affair. Let me put it this way: when I watch a fantasy movie, I want to be able to get into it and grasp the "rules" of the world...like an alien who lived in vacuum in space might start to understand air pressure and gravity on earth if it visited our planet.

Oh, I also thought of an excellent example of the filmakers presenting a simple set of rules to make storytelling more effective. In Terminator 2, John Conner asked the T-800 (Arnold) why the T-1000 couldn't just turn into a pack of cigarettes or a bomb and just kill him. The T-800 answers that the T-1000 can only mimic simple objects, like knives, and must maintain roughly its original size. Sure you can pick apart the problems in those "rules," but its preferable to having the T-1000 apparently able to do anything and yet unable to effectively kill John Conner.

Now apply this to the Harry Potter universe. We don't quite know what's possible and what's not with magic, but from what we've seen, it seems like ANYthing is possible. And yet, the magical world of Harry Potter suffers from incoherence because random limitations are imposed along the way. There tons of alternative solutions one could come up when you have an equivalent of a magical furball. And all because there is a lack of limitations and groundwork.

Argh, the message board messed up "T - 800" and "T - 1000" in the previous post. Well, I guess those of you who are familiar with Terminator 2 know what I'm talking about.

chin,

unfortunately, "terminator 2" is also guilty of breakng its own rules. the time vortex machine can only send living tissue into the past. the arnold model terminator has a skin covering--fine. the robert patrick model terminator is liquid metal. sure, it can mimic the appearance of many things, but inherently, it is still liquid metal. the time vortex should not have been able to send the robert patrick terminator into the past. (the same goes for "terminator 3", this time with kristanna loken.)

eddie

LOL, that rule must be stated in Terminator 1 or something (which I haven't seen in many years)

But come on, man, why are you bringing that point up? It's completely irrelevant to my argument, which is that providing basic framework/rules is often more effective storywise than no rules at all. I'm not even saying that Terminator 2 is flawless in anyway. My argument stands completely. I don't know what you're trying to achieve by telling me that Terminator 2 broke some of its own rules. Well okay, no big surprise there. That was not my argument at all. Sometimes I think you just like to start off topic arguments and derailing discussions in the process :/

If you're interested, here's wikipedia's take on the issue (- EXTERNAL LINK -

"In a plot twist, this particular T-850 reveals that he is in fact the murderer of John Connor in the distant future and that Connor's wife reprogrammed him for the mission. This plot point serves to illustrate the Machines' complete lack of both emotion and personal will. Another twist to the formula of the previous films is that the T-X is armed with a full arsenal of advanced weapons from the future: in the first two films, it is said that nothing but living tissue can be sent backwards through time, so time travel by humans requires that they be naked and without weapons. Although a Terminator is a metal robot, it is surrounded by living tissue (the T-1000 Terminator in T2 is all-metal, but it is able to replicate other molecular structure, including that of living tissue). The T-X expands on this principle by having internal weapons, thus enabling this model to be transported back in time."

Having posted that, I should say that this piece of detail seemed to make little sense on the filmakers' part. Why they even bothered to construe this I have no idea.

But please refer to my example of the T - 1000 having limited mimicking abilities as the platform for my argument on the need of some basic "rules" in fantasy/fiction. And please refrain from using some besides the point minutae to derail the thread further.

Hey Eddie,

Here's how I see your style in this thread:

Person A: I think it's great my dad's using a PDA to plan his day out nowadays. He's more punctual than before.

Eddie's rebuttal: But your dad has been late recently.

Person A: ...Did I ever say anything about my dad being perfectly on time all the time since he's used the PDA???

chin,

um...YOU brought up "T2" and stated that it established rules in order to tell a story effectively. i merely pointed out a flaw that should've prevented the story from ever happening in the first place.

eddie

Chin,

Um . . . I have to jump in on Eddie’s defense. I really don’t see where he has derailed anything and he has been clearly focused with the topic of discussion, so why all the resentment towards him?

Tim

"...why all the resentment towards him?" --Tim

Because he's Eddie! The Evil One! Watch it, or he'll hex you.

John

But to be fair, Tim, you also missed the point of this thread, so of course you'd say that... :)

Well, Chris, I fail to agree with you there. I did not miss the point and have only added my own opinion to the matter at hand. Sorry if you don't understand me.

And John, yes, Eddie may seem evil sometimes but I think it's in a good way. Let's try not to be so harsh to each other and just get along.

And to all, sorry if I might seem a little sensetive right now, but life has not been all that good to me over the past year. I appologize and please forgive me as I mean nothing personal towards anyone.

Tim =)

chris,

AVADA KEDAVRA!

eddie

**AVADA KEDAVRA!**


It was a much cooler spell in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons when it was called "Power Word, Kill."

Who the heck cares?!?!?! It is just a movie. Can't movies be made simply for the enjoyment of it. Why nit pick and constanlty try to break each element done of a film. If you do not like Potter don't read the books. Don't see the movies. I for one love the books and the moives. I don't care about the rules I care about story and Potter is a great story.

Ekenobi,

This has been my point all along. People, like Chris, don’t seem to get yours or my point. But let me point out that pointing out the obvious seems to be pointless around here.

I agree with you and best of luck on your “point” of view.

Tim =)

actually, it does matter. if you don't care that a movie doesn't make any sense, then you're probably an irrational/immature idiot.

the real problem here is that "potter" bashers attacked the series for lacking internal coherence even though there clearly is such.

Well, I don’t know about that, Eddie. Some films make no sense at all but still stimulate the brain. “2001”, “Mulholland Drive” and “Lost Highway”, for example, make little sense but do stimulate thought and debate. Therefore, I can’t really say that you must be an irrational/immature idiot to enjoy a film that makes no sense. Point is there are plenty of films that make little sense and can still be enjoyed by a keen intellect.

tim,

i direct your attention to the work of my grad school mentor, dr. warren buckland (whom i interviewed about his spielberg book). as he has written, david lynch's movies don't have linear logic but still have coherence. for example, "lost highway" has mobius-strip logic. that's why lynch's movies are still provocative and not just "huh, wtf?"

if you're interested in reading dr. buckland's essays about david lynch, then chris or i can put you in touch with him.

eddie

Eddie,

That would be cool. Hook me up on that!

Tim =)

tim,

shoot me an e-mail, and i'll get you in touch with dr. buckland.

eddie dot feng at gmail dot com

eddie