Sidneysussex: I wonder how multiple simultaneous spells work
Giles: eh?
Sidneysussex: like… a wizard can maintain a shield around him or herself and yet still cast curses, presumably
Sidneysussex: that seems like a vital battle skill
Giles: yeah
Sidneysussex: and yet they don't seem to, so maybe they can't
Giles: in HP it seems like you can do one thing at a time
Sidneysussex: maybe the wand can only cast one spell at a time, but then, how does wandless magic work?
Giles: i generally go with "magical energy can only focus on one thing at a time"
Sidneysussex: Could you theoretically get two wands and cast two spells at once? I know wands choose their masters, but why couldn't two choose one master? And even wands not belonging to the particular wizard will obey, just not as well.
Sidneysussex: Could you cast a protection spell over yourself with your left hand and a killing curse with your right?
Giles: i think it's kinda how you can have multiple thoughts, but can only be saying one thing at a time. and you can say something and it will still be having an effect (ie: cast a shield) when you say the next thing
Sidneysussex: How many can you do that for at once, I wonder? I guess it depends on your magic midichlorians.
Sidneysussex: And if you can do that, then why couldn't you cast with two wands? Maybe you can only say one set of words at a time, but they could have lasting effects – and even if they didn't, two-fisting it would certainly let you be faster. Casting and recasting with one wand would take longer than alternating wands.
Giles: the wand is only a channel
Sidneysussex: I know, otherwise wandless magic wouldn't exist.
Giles: the re-casting happens with the magic
Giles: so you would still have to take a minute
Giles: or whatever
Giles: a few seconds
Sidneysussex: Why, though? If you have enough power for two spells, why would you need to wait?
Sidneysussex: Obviously, it would take a lot of power to cast, say, two Avada Kedavras
Sidneysussex: but, like
Sidneysussex: first-years can cast Protego
Sidneysussex: why not cast two Protegos at once? Why do you have to reload?
Giles: not reload
Giles: more like, refocus
Sidneysussex: seems like that's what the wand is for
Sidneysussex: you can cast spells without aiming them or really even know what's going on around you
Giles: yeah
Sidneysussex: so they're channeled through the wand, like rifling on a gun barrel
Sidneysussex: so… two wands makes sense again
Giles: but you still need to… like when you jump, you have to land from the prior jump first, and bend your knees again
Sidneysussex: Yes, of course. But you wouldn't have to if you had two sets of legs. It's like when you hop on one leg, you have to land and bend, but when you run, you're hopping alternatingly on each leg and it's much faster.
Sidneysussex: Dogs and horses don't have to reset after each pair of legs hits the ground.
Giles: no but they still have to hit the ground
Sidneysussex: Yeah. But that's why it seems to me like two wands would be a good idea. You could have one wand cycling through the recovery, the knee bending, while the other one did the ground hitting.
Giles: but it's not the wand that needs to recover
Giles: it's you
Sidneysussex: Yeah, but if it's nothing to do with the wand, then it seems like you ought to be able to train yourself to cast faster. Like you can train yourself to shoot faster in archery.
Sidneysussex: And if you can cast faster, then it seems like two wands would still be an advantage, though in that case it would only be a physical one – you don't have to go through the motions of the wand again, you can alternate.
Sidneysussex: Seems like nonverbal magic would be a help there too. Not having to actually say the words. Wingardium leviosa takes ages to say.
Giles: yeaaaah but you still need to recover
Sidneysussex: So you're saying there's an upper limit on the refractory period. That no wizard, regardless of aptitude or training, can ever cast fast enough for two wands to be an advantage.
Giles: basically
Giles: if you're powerful enough to not have to say it aloud you're probably fast enough to not need a second wand
Giles: and you might be good at wandless magic anyway
Sidneysussex: I dunno, sixth-years learn nonverbal magic, so it can't be that difficult. Everyone seems to do it a little, all the adults, anyway. But I guess powerful spells require much more effort to do nonverbally.
Giles: so you can cast powerful spells with a wand and maybe less powerful without
Giles: yeah but they probably learn easy shit
Giles: a nonverbal wandless Avada Kedavra is probably fucking hard
Sidneysussex: Well, yes and no. Wizards don't generally do wandless magic (not counting stuff like Potions, which is obviously not wand-specific).
Sidneysussex: Remember? That's the whole divide between wizards and magical creatures, that wizards have wands and no one else is 'allowed to.'
Giles: yeah
Sidneysussex: which, while I understand it (the wands making everything more powerful so that wizards hold the power), seems like a shit deal for the wizards, who are now largely helplessly tied to these fragile bits of stick
Giles: yes
Giles: but also… limited sympathy because they are pretty powerful with them and they can be replaced
Giles: but some of them don't stay tied
Giles: they learn wandless magic. but they have to be powerful to do that. the magical creatures are already powerful enough to do that. maybe wandless magic strength is somewhat evolutionary… as more humans used wands, the necessity of being powerful without one decreased. they weakened, kinda. and the magical creatures who weren't allowed wands, that power was encouraged evolutionarily
Sidneysussex: Who learns wandless magic?
Giles: dumbledore, voldie
Sidneysussex: Voldemort didn't. I mean, they all do magic that doesn't involve wands – potions, magical creatures, magical devices, apparation, permanent spells – but they don't generally do wandless magic of the sort that a wizard would use a wand for. Like, the house-elves do wandless magic to clean stuff and make food, but wizards point their wands at shit for that to happen. Voldemort couldn't do wandless magic, or he'd have abandoned his wand the second Harry's took it out, and he wouldn't have needed to hunt for the Hallow because he wouldn't have needed a wand that could defeat other wands. Anyway he would never have learnt wandless magic, because this is fucking Voldemort. He believes even half-blood wizards are inferior; you think he wants to put himself on the same magical level as house-elves and centaurs?
Giles: oh yeah he did wordless
Giles: dumbledore did wandless though
Sidneysussex: Wordless yes. Every wizard learns that, or at least, all the privileged wizards (i.e., the ones that go to the flash schools; the kids were learning it in sixth-year at Hogwarts). But wandless not so much.
Sidneysussex: Dumbledore might've done some. Can you recall a specific example? But then, Dumbledore's attitudes were sort of revolutionary in the wizarding world. He thought giants and werewolves were people worthy of respect.
Giles: they all do wandless magic, it's their first sign of magic, but they're sort of... trained out of it. it starts as a method of control for children, to stop them from killing people with a thought. and it probably helps that humans seem to be less inclined towards it in general, both culturally and physiologically. but some people, like dumbledore, start re-learning it later.
Sidneysussex: They do all do wandless wordless magic, but I guess children aren't powerful enough to kill with a thought. It's also involuntary; not entirely, because they can do things like make pencils dance if they want to, but largely and initially. But I think they outgrow it, rather than are trained out of it. I think it's sort of the unleashed potential of childhood, but age and reason end it – like in the Mary Poppins book, where John and Barbara could talk to birds, but then they turned into toddlers and couldn't anymore? Because you don't get a lot of ten-year-olds on their way to Hogwarts doing wandless magic in the train.
Giles: yeah, exactly, they grow out of it and are also trained out of it, because humans aren't really suited to it.
Giles: and children can't control it
Giles: it's basically an impulse at that stage
Giles: when you come back to it as an adult, it's much harder because you want control
Sidneysussex: Also, as I said, I think the simple process of growing older makes it difficult. John and Barbara didn't need to control talking to the birds, but they simply got too old; started being too conscious of the world of human beings. It's like there isn't room for both.
Sidneysussex: Can you think of any examples of Dumbledore's using wandless magic (in a situation where an ordinary wizard would have used a wand)?
Giles: not off the top of my head sorry
Sidneysussex: I'm not sure if he did. But even if he didn't canonically, it's a very Dumbledore thing to do, to try to liaise with the devalued members of the magical community.
Giles: yeah
Giles: and also to push the boundaries
Giles: i bet grindelwald knew it too
Giles: he learned it for a different reason, to be more powerful.
Sidneysussex: Yes, quite probably. Grindelwald seems like he was in it for power by any means, to right what he perceived as wrongs; not like Voldemort, who was in it for power by superiority and would therefore never have stooped to 'creature magic.'
Giles: i kinda wonder if Remus Lupin learned wandless magic.
Sidneysussex: I don't know. Remember, Remus was a magical creature, and had been since young childhood. I think he might not have, chiefly because his role as liaison was to show wizards that werewolves are 'just like them,' wand and all, and to show werewolves that he, as an educated wizard (because most of them aren't, if they're turned early enough), is not 'above them.' I don't think werewolves would be impressed with wandless magic, and I don't think wizards would view him as an equal for it. I know he was an apt pupil, and he would have liked to learn it, but I don't know that he would have done so.
Giles: i think he might have. not advertised it, but i think he might have.
Giles: and i think dumbledore would have been very interested in the results, because as a magical creature, he was more inclined towards it
Sidneysussex: I don't know if he was
Sidneysussex: Not all wandless creatures do magic, some just… are magic
Sidneysussex: Werewolves seem almost anti-magic
Giles: yeah, but they are intrinsically magic
Giles: humans are not
Sidneysussex: Yes, but that doesn't mean they have the ability to control or focus their magic. And wizards aren't Muggles; I assume wizards are intrinsically magic, hence childhood wandless magic.
Giles: but the human body isn't.
Giles: thus why voldie looks like ass after a shitload of magic
Giles: and fenrir greyback looks all right
Giles: wolfy, but not atrocious
Giles: remus lupin being trained as a wizard was an experiment
Sidneysussex: Well, no, hang on then.
Sidneysussex: I think the reason Voldemort 'looks like ass' is because he tore his soul into seven pieces. Dumbledore had done 'a shitload of magic, ' and yet didn't look like Voldemort. I think it's a question of souls at that point, and also the effect that Dark magic has.
Sidneysussex: I think Dark magic is sort of soul-poison.
Giles: no, but dumbledore didn't do a shitload of magic on himself, and he also knew his own limits
Sidneysussex: Yeah. But I don't think the reason for Voldemort's appearance is the amount of magic he's done; that shouldn't be affected whether it's on oneself or not. I'm pretty sure it's the amount of Dark magic, and the torn soul thing.
Giles: i reckon if wizards tried to do things that were too powerful for their level, they'd probably get crispied or something
Giles: or were exposed to too much of certain kinds
Sidneysussex: I think it depends on the magic they're trying to do. I reckon most of it, especially neutral/good magic (like, say, trying to produce a Patronus) would just fail, and exhaust you.
Sidneysussex: I think it would be either a pretty powerful spell or something Dark, probably both, to damage the wizard attempting to cast it instead of simply failing.
Giles: yeah. most of it would just exhaust you, and if you kept doing it, it might even kill you.
Giles: werewolves are also harder to kill
Sidneysussex: Kill you by exhaustion, though, not because of magic. And I think there's a built-in failsafe there, much like an ordinary human in the real world trying to do something like hold their breath for a long time. You pass out and recover before you kill yourself.
Sidneysussex: Werewolves are harder to kill, yes. I imagine, given two trained werewolf wizards and all else being equal, that the one doing Dark magic would probably get farther than the one doing regular magic, because the one doing good magic would just become exhausted and fail, whereas the one doing Dark magic wouldn't be able to be killed by what he was doing. I want to say that werewolves are intrinsically Dark in a way, but I think that's just the impression we were given from the books; I don't think a werewolf is really a Dark creature, just that they were thrust out of the 'good' magical community and had no choice but to ally with Fenrir Greyback, Voldemort or both.
Sidneysussex: I rather think that's like saying Slytherin is an intrinsically Dark house, which is completely false, but the books sort of want you to think that way.
Giles: also "dark" magic seems to cover "old" magics too. blood magic, for example, can be used as protection. but blood magic is considered dark.
Giles: "base" magic might be more apt for some of it
Sidneysussex: Blood magic is considered dark because you have to take a sacrifice from a living creature.
Sidneysussex: Old magic like Stonehenge isn't considered Dark, only old.
Giles: but you don't have to kill them...the sacrifice might be you giving your own blood, or a few donated drops.
Sidneysussex: It's still a sacrifice from a living creature. I didn't specify a death.
Sidneysussex: I think it's considered Dark if you have to take something precious from a living being.
Giles: that seems like a kinda broad definition
Sidneysussex: I know, but I think that's the definition the wizarding world uses. I didn't say it was correct. I think it's false, and I think that's another example of the ways in which the wizarding world is flawed and somewhat bigoted. Blood magic could easily be a mother giving up a few drops of her blood for a protective spell for her child, which I don't think could be described as Dark, but it's still a blood sacrifice and wizards would consider it as such. On the other hand, one might say that magic requiring such a sacrifice – given voluntarily or taken by force – is intrinsically Dark simply for having the requirement.
Giles: and there are some spells that are designed only to harm – the slug vomiting spell for example – even minorly and they are not thought of as dark
Sidneysussex: I think they're sort of considered beneath notice, which again is a flaw of the wizarding world. Much like house-elves are considered beneath notice, or other magical creatures. Both things are more powerful than they're perceived to be.
Giles: the wizarding world is so fucked up
Sidneysussex: Hear, hear. Much like our own.
