this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
423 points (100.0% liked)

Showerthoughts

32827 readers
891 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A lot of people point out that it doesn't make any sense that Harry and Ron didn't like their schoolwork. Well I figured out why:

It's because the magic system is just as boring in-universe as out of universe. It doesn't make any sense in universe either. Harry and Ron realised Rowling's magic system kinda stinks way before we did, because they spent all day learning it.

If Sanderson had been writing Harry Potter, then Harry and Ron would have liked learning magic as much as Hermione did (Also, Sanderson actually DID write a book about a super-school, it's called Skyward, it's good)

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 117 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Eh, it's a good shower thought.

But I have to disagree overall. Both of them showed interest in various subjects; Harry more than Ron.

But, I think you're right that the magic system is boring. It's memorizing fiddly combinations of words and movements.

Rowling didn't really set out to write a magic series. She was writing a boarding school series with a magical background, so she never did any proper world building. What little there is came well after the movies exploded, and is largely cobbled together.

While not as well written, it has much closer ties to things like the Chronicle of Narnia than something like Sanderson's stuff. The magic is fluff, technobabble, not what the series is actually about.

If there had been sections set in muggle schools, Harry and Ron would have been roughly the same. Harry likely would have been interested in some subjects, but distracted by the real story, while Ron would have been kind of drifting along, getting by grade wise without being interested. Ron might have been semi into soccer, but have been whining about it not being as good as quiddich.

I would also argue that if Sanderson, or a similarly world building capable author, had taken on the story, there still would have been a gradation in the trio's academic focus. You take three kid characters and have them being exactly the same about something like that, it won't work; you'd end up having to completely hand wave it with references to them being great students because it's more boring to have them all be the same level of interest in any given thing.

Even among real world scholarly sorts, the levels of interest in a given subject aren't going to be exactly the same, and a lot of those kids tend to start their friendships because of the "nerd" factor. The HP trio became friends partially by accident, but stayed friends as they grew together and shared experiences, so the dynamics just aren't the same.

Even the last three books, where it seems like there's discovery of an underlying system to the magic, the deathly hallows are a mcguffin, not a genuine world building tool.

So, I get where you're coming from, and agree that she did a pretty crappy job of making a coherent magic system. But it didn't really need one, it just needed silly phrases for kids to geek out over, and that she did very well

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 weeks ago

Damn, you must take some pretty long showers!

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

In Sanderson's super school book, there are 10 kids and only one of them is uninterested in piloting spacefighters. But he is interested in engineering, so he's still able to be a big nerd about the book's subject matter. Everyone else is either a great pilot who likes piloting, or fucking dies in a tragic scheme emphasising the brutality and pointlessness of war.

Sanderson doesn't write characters who just drift along without an interest in anything, because Sanderson writes books about topics that he makes interesting.

Rowling is only able to create characters who think Divination or History of Magic are boring, because she makes them boring. Sometimes on purpose!

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago

Rowling is a fucking idiot.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago

Rowling was writing about grade school kids going to school. Grade school kids get bored at school. If they live in a world where everyone uses magic and it's not that special they're going to get bored of learning about magic sometimes. It's like if in grade school our teachers spent a bunch of time teaching us how to use computers, phones, and other technological devices. Sometimes it would be cool and interesting and a lot of the time it would be pretty damn boring.

Plus Rowling wanted the grade school kids reading her books to relate to her characters, so she gave her characters a schooling experience they could relate to. And as much as I hate Rowling, there's something inherently kind of comedic about a bunch of kids being bored silly learning about magic because it's something that seems like it should be exciting to us, the reader.

The boredom of the characters isn't a failure of the writing or magic system, it works perfectly well for its intended effect.

[–] [email protected] 73 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

is this not just affirming the premise of the sixth book? that's the whole reason why Potter found the Prince's spells so fascinating. school subjects are not meant to entertain. they are meant to teach.

also, as book five attests--as well as does the subject of history of magic--some syllabi and some subjects were way more boring than others.

my main gripe would be that nobody taught english or any other form of formal communication at hogwarts. i dunno how they all just didn't end up speaking like Hagrid.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 weeks ago

I like the universes where being taught can also be fun. It has the funny side effect of making the pupil want to learn even more!

Fuck the universes that keep entertainment and learning separate.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

This is the one thing I really appreciated about the Discworld books on a recent re-read. The wizards are hilariously incapable of doing anything useful. Terry Pratchett doesn't give a super clear series of rules for the magic system but it's abundantly clear that the wizards are incapable of actually useful magic, and mostly just get too tired up in internal power struggles to ever do anything. And in the book Sourcery, the first sourcerer (one who can create new spells) to grace the disc takes over the world, realizes running the entire world is too stressful and tedious then creates his own pocket dimension to play with magic in instead (I'm oversimplifiing here, skipping over a bunch of interpersonal stuff related to a sentient wizard's staff run by a dead guy who tricked Death among other details but that's the general gist)

By making the wizards so useless it bypasses any of the logical problems posed by creating a world with magic in it. There's no "why no use this spell" "why not magic out of this problem" etc. all because the wizards are too useless to actually do anything

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago

The wizards series of the discworld books are by far my favourite, but for exactly the reason you've set out. (Similarly with the witches)

The dialogue between the faculty is so believable and so stupifyingly inane and political that it's hard to say that anything is more probable.

Anyone actually interested in how magic works gets ignored and all that really matters is where the next good meal is coming from.

Just one of the countless reasons that Terry pratchett is a gem of an author.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

One of the big ideas about magic in his universe isn’t just that the wizards are useless but that using magic is more trouble then it’s worth. It creates all sorts of left over magic residue that can build up to a myriad of effects.

We see the wizards preform powerful spells, showing that they can do have power and do have a certain degree of knowledge, but rather choose not to.

The duty of the wizards is more to make sure no one preforming magic willy nilly and to prevent people from making sorcerers.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Rincewind isn't useless at most things, he's only useless at magic.

Esk is actually able to use magic to solve problems, because she's a precocious child and also female.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

Stories don’t have to have “hard” magic systems to be good. I’m a big fan of the magical realism popular in Latin American fiction - where the magic is ambiguous and never quite explained at all.

The problem is the way that Rowling uses magic.

Rowling was clearly writing mystery novels, while lifting a lot of ideas for her setting from like The Worst Witch series. She uses magic spells like a Checkhov’s gun kind of thing, usually establishing whatever magical principle will save the day earlier in the novel. With a relatively self contained story, it works really well. Prisoner of Azkaban is one of her stronger books - the way that she sets up the mystery with the time turner as well as the stuff with Sirius Black, etc - because it’s very “clean” in this way. She introduces a bunch of new elements to her world, but they are all tied around supporting her story. This is good writing.

The problem is that Harry Potter books don’t work as an overarching story. It is abundantly clear that the Horcruxes and Deathly Hallows were not planned from the beginning. Rowling got to the last two books, realized that she needed to write some kind of ending, and then completely drove her plot off the rails.

You could say because she didn’t have an established magic system, it made it easier to drive off the rails, but really, it’s more that she’s competent at writing stand alone mystery novels (which really, that’s what books 1-4 are and they’re the best in the series for it) and not larger narratives. She doesn’t know how to convey the scope of a war, she doesn’t know how to tie together an Epic fantasy.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

There's nothing wrong with the magic system because there's always a reasonable setup and payoff for what can be done with magic and solutions never come out of nowhere as some deus ex machina. The magic system the stories had worked perfectly fine for the stories that were being told. Not every magic system has to be some stupid overly explained BS that takes all of the actual wonder and "magic" out of it.

Rowling is a piece of shit terf but you Sanderson cultists are still so fucking annoying. There's more to magic in storytelling than just the exact, specific mechanics of how it works. Read Earthsea.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

I'm sorry, no Deus ex machina? Am I misremembering the bit where suddenly two wizards casting a spell at each other at the same time for a prolonged duration reverses cause and effect and makes dead people come back as ghosts to give the protagonist advice?

I can agree that stories don't need a "good" magic system, but I also feel like HP has glaring holes in places that negatively affect the experience. It's still a fun story, but I definitely think it could be better if the magic made more sense.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Expecto patronum, et voila, deus ex machina.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

It says a lot about Rowling that Hermionesl's one flaw was being an abolitionist

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

I love Brandon Sanderson, but his world building and complex magic systems aren't for most people. I've tried to get my wife to read his stuff for years and she just has never gotten into it.

The reason Harry Potter was so commercially successful is because the vast majority of the public doesn't want to learn about allomantic properties of 16 different metals and how they have internal/external, physical/mental, enhancement/temporal and pushing/pulling effects.

They don't want to learn about adhesion, gravitation, division, abrasion, progression, illumination, transformation, cohesion, and tension surges - and how bonding a spren through oathes increases your ability to surgebind. Their eyes glaze over when talking about the cognitive and physical realms.

Most people just want to hear "yeah some people are magic and can wave wands, say some magic words and poof magic happens." That's why it's one of the highest-grossing media franchises of all time.

But yeah, I've just learned to accept that while I love some Sanderson magic systems, it's not ever gonna be for everyone. And that's ok.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Maybe you would like that fan fiction Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. A large part of it is poking fun at how magic works and how wizards behave and how dumb Quidditch is.

For example there are all kinds of rules about Transfiguration that don’t make sense and that is explored quite a bit.

https://hpmor.com/

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

What's boring about the magic system in Harry Potter? Can you give specific examples?

[–] [email protected] 55 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)
  • No limits on how often you can cast spells
  • No explanation of how magic actually works
  • No explanation of how magic objects are created
  • No explanation of how spells are invented
  • No explanation of how different species' magic differs
  • All the spell names are silly words in English and poorly understood Latin
  • Never explained why incantations or gestures are needed
  • Never explained what makes spells other than Patronus hard or easy
  • Never explained what makes a wizard powerful other than "they learned a lot of spells"
  • Few/no limitations on spells, or limitations aren't explained
  • No contextually dependent spells
  • It's impossible to predict what will happen in the books based on understanding the magic system
  • There are just. no. rules.

Brandon Sanderson is the best magic system writer in the world, and these are his "laws of magic" for creating an interesting magic system:

The First Law

Sanderson’s First Law of Magics: An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic.

The Second Law

Sanderson’s Second Law can be written very simply. It goes like this: Limitations > Powers
(Or, if you want to write it in clever electrical notation, you could say it this way: Ω > | though that would probably drive a scientist crazy.)

The Third Law

The third law is as follows: Expand what you already have before you add something new.

Rowling never follows these principles. The reader doesn't understand the magic, magic is rarely given sensical limitations we understand, and Rowling always adds new stuff instead of explaining what we already have.

I posit that the answers to all these questions I listed just don't exist. There is no explanation. Hermione does well in school because she rote memorises. Harry and Ron can't engage with the material in their homework because they don't understand it because nobody does.

What Harry Potter's magic system, insofar as it exists, does do well, is vibes. It feels like a wondrous magic system. That's what sold books. Harry likes all the vibes stuff in the books, like the spooky castle, fighting evil, being a strong wizard. He doesn't understand any of the magical theory, because it doesn't exist.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Harry Potter has a soft magic system - a system where pretty much everything can be explained by "a wizard did it", worlds like that are mystical and lawless (see also Lord of the Rings)

it seems you enjoy more hard magic systems like you described above, where the rules are explained, and you can more or less understand why things work the way they do (see also Earthsea by U.K. Le Guin or ATLA)

the hard/soft scale is not perfect, but it gives you a rough gist of what to expect

writers aren't limited to just one either! Percy Jackson has a soft magic system, a lot of "a ~~wizard~~ god did it!", where Kane Chronicles has a strict magic system bound by understandable rules (with only gods and divine interventions going above the rules)

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

No, I like soft magic systems when they're good. Take Star Wars. It's so soft. It's so soft that when GL introduced midichlorians to try and make it hard, everyone hated it.

The Force is good because it represents a certain philosophy. It's basically the Tao. Everything the Force can do is thematically appropriate and serves to teach us the philosophies of the Jedi, the Sith, and the other force users. The light side is harmony and believing in yourself. The dark side is domination and corruption. All the force powers support these themes and illustrate the force users embodying their philosophical beliefs in the world. Obi-Wan uses mind tricks because he believes in nonviolent misdirection. Palpatine uses lightning because he believes in ultimate power.

Rowling's magic system means... Magic. It's there to convince us that this fantasy world is magic. The Force can break Sanderson's laws because it means something more than just magic. It's philosophically consistent, and that's more important than being internally consistent. Rowling's magic only relates to Rowling's magic, so it needs to be internally consistent to work. And it isn't, so it doesn't.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

yeah that's fair. don't get me wrong i wasn't trying to convince you to like Harry Potter's magic system, but you quoted "lack of rules" as a something you disliked about it so i gave a short explanation as to why that specific thing isn't what makes HP's magic feel shallow

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think Star Wars' magic system has rules. They're philosophical rules.

If you're paying attention to The Force Awakens, you notice that Rey is losing to Kylo, up until she gets angry at him. And then her stance changes, and she starts attacking way faster. Rey used the dark side. You only notice that happening if you understand the rules of the Force. And if you do, in the next movie, you're rewarded. Luke is teaching Rey, and she goes straight to the dark. Rey is a natural dark side user, way moreso than Anakin and Luke. If you knew the magic system, you saw that coming. Now, what this subplot culminates in is Rey Palpatine, which is bad writing. But that's not the magic system's fault. The magic system did its job perfectly. It's possible to understand how magic works in Star Wars, and that gives you insight into what will happen next. That's basically a tweak on Sanderson's first law. Episodes 8 and 9 also expand on the whole dyad thingy instead of adding something new, just like Sanderson says. And The Last Jedi introduces a limitation (You can't force project this far, the effort would kill you), and then uses it later in the same movie with Luke. The underlying principles of Sanderson's laws are there. The magic has rules and the rules inform the story.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

i wasn't really thinking of star wars, moreso LOTR if anything, the magic there is the textbook definition of "a wizard did it" and yet despite that it's a beloved series and very few call for Gandalf's powers to have an understandable magical system behind them. but that's a gourmet meal of a book & the trilogy movie series, harry potter is junk food, enjoyable as long as you don't think too hard about what the ingredients are

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

We do, at the very least, know why Gandalf's magic works. The universe was sung into being, and Gandalf is a divine being who can participate in that song. We know where his magic comes from. We know it's divine in origin.

We don't know where Harry's magic comes from. Were wizard blessed by a god? Is it a magic gene? Is it fueled by intelligence, or imagination? There are no answers.

Take horcruxes vs the one ring. One is clearly a second rate copy of the other. But the one ring has a clear limitation for Sauron: It holds most of his power, and if it's destroyed, he can be defeated. What limitation do horcruxes have for Voldemort? He has to split his soul into parts. What does that mean practically? Nothing. It's not a limitation, it's just a reason the good guys don't use it. From the council of Elrond, we know the rules of the one ring, and we know how to use them to solve a problem. Sanderson's first law. Its limitation for Sauron is more interesting than its power for Sauron. Its limitation for the Fellowship is more interesting than its power for the Fellowship. Sanderson's second law.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

not to compre whole books to whatever JK Rowling is doing on her tweeter this week (probably transphobia but who knows) but would it be any better if she twote one day "all magic in Harry Potter comes from the divine tree, at the beginning the tree blessed few people with its world bending power of imagination, this is how wizardry began, the tree spoke latin btw."

Besides, the story is more or less a POV of Harry's, a pre-teen to young adult boy who is way more excited to play sports than attend his lessons. Which to me is a good enough reason why we end up knowing fuck all about the magic of his world. If the POV was Hermione's, i'd expect there to be an indepth 3-chapter long research project about her work on a "Origins of Magic" essay for her History of Magic class. But because of the characterisation of Harry and also the tension in the story by the end, it makes sense to me why Harry doesn't really care about how things work, but how effective they can be. The question wasn't "wow a horcrux? incredibly rare black magic, i must study it to understand how and why it works to one day maybe be able to undo it", the question was "horcrux huh? and it makes voldie immortal-ish? alright lads, let's find a way to smash it"

and to answer your question - horcruxes of all things are pretty well elaborated on. Voldemort splits his soul and attaches it to objects/people. The price? A part of his soul and another person's life. The purpose? Ability to be recreated from each of those pieces, achieving immortality-ish, as long as he has someone living to do the ritual, and his father's skeleton still has some bones left ig. The limitation seems to be that he looks evil after being reborn? and i think there was some implication that the process is incredibly painful on the spiritual level

i think a better example would be the sorting hat because wtf is that. is that a person turned into a hat? is it an enchanted object? it can talk in your mind, can read your soul to then sort you into a house, a sword can come out of it when it feels you're in need and worthy of it? No explanation, no described limitations, a power to read one's mind in later books is attributed mostly to voldemort & looking at how Harry handles it it's incredibly emotionally exhausting. how can that hat be more powerful than the most powerful evil wizard?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Looking evil isn't a limitation, it's flavour text. It doesn't affect the story, it just gives us vibes. If there's one thing Rowling is good at, it's writing flavour text to convey vibes. But there's no plot in that limitation. Horcruxes break Sanderson's second law, and that's why they're not as interesting as the One Ring. The One Ring puts challenges in front of every character who interacts with it: Sauron, Isildur, Elrond, Bilbo, Gandalf, Frodo, Gollum, Galadriel, even Samwise. It promises all of them something they want, and takes a price from every one, changing the course of the story many times. Samwise is the least affected, but it still takes away something he loves; his best friend.

Horcruxes do four things: they kill Dumbledore, give Harry a quest, make Ron grumpy, and ex machina the deus. Bringing Voldy back and manifesting Riddle don't count because those are retcons, and we're talking about writing processes.

Two of those things they do are just because they're a macguffin. Literally anything the characters want could have been substituted. Ron grumpy is, again, flavour text. The Deus ex Machina is the one interesting thing they do to change the story.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

hm i feel like the distinction comes down to vibes here. if i were to be reductive i could describe the One Ring in a similar way "it corrupts gollum, gives Frodo a quest, makes Boromir crave power and turn on his companions in a moment of weakness, and (from Sauron's POV) hobbits destroying it is a deus ex machina". imo horcruxes as an idea were not that bad but,

to me, the main difference here is how they're used in the story. The One Ring is the driving force from the beginning, it's already well established in the lore of the world, and the only surprise to the universe's scholars is how it suddenly found itself in a hobbit's hands. Where horcruxes appear suddenly in the second to last book (obviously not counting the diary because it's clearly been deemed a horcrux when JKR came up with them and thought the diary fit the vibe well enough). First 4 Harry Potter books are bascially episodic, an overaching plot only emerges by the end of book 4. And LOTR is one cohesive story with a clear goal from the beginning, which allows it to unravel in a satisfying and effective way

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Never explained what makes a wizard powerful other than "they learned a lot of spells"

This obviously relates to the amount of midi-chlorians the wizard have

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago

You know what? Rowling did actually follow Sanderson's laws with one specific bit of magic. The time turner. The time turner has a very simple limitation: you cannot change the past. But, you can do things in the past that don't change what you experienced the first time. We understand how the time turner works, and Rowling comes up with a clever way to make it work, which makes sense to us. That's the second and first law! The time turner is well written!

And then she broke the third rule. She didn't expand on it, she added something new in book 4 instead. So people asked "what about the time turner", and in the next book she got mad and destroyed them all so she'd never be asked "what about the time turner" again.

Rowling wrote something really interesting that actually makes sense. And then decided she didn't want it in her story anymore. Because Rowling doesn't actually like writing interesting magic. And that's why Harry and Ron aren't very interested in magic. Rowling was never able to write a scene where a character actually geeks out about how magic works, because she doesn't care how it works. She's not interested.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago

Sanderson is such a beast, everything he has written that I've read is solid gold!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago

Nothing memorable enough to mention.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

NECROMANCY!?

I'm a member of the College of Winterhold, In good stead.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

My issue is honestly just the inconsistency of when spells would work or wouldn't. That and the fact that many dangerous situations could have been ended immediately if they used a spell they knew. I watched the movies and was yelling at the screen to use a certain spell to solve the situation but they just run away scared and helpless.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 weeks ago

I'm currently going though the books and from what I can tell, Harry especially takes issues with some teachers. He hates history and doesn't understand divination but he's fine with charms, defense against the dark arts and even potions once Snape no longer teaches it.

It's just that during the lessons she describes, they usually have stuff like Quidditch or Voldemort stuff going on so they don't really pay attention. They also don't like doing homework so they let Hermione do it for them. And they still did pretty well on the OWLs so all in all, I think they were fine with class but by and large, she just doesn't really write about classes that went their regular course.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

She made Hermione after herself. She needed the boys to be bad at magic or Hermione couldn't save them. If they were bad because magic was that hard, that would make her a genius, which wasn't what she was going for. The magical system was lame and the boys were bad at it because they were just unobservant undriven "boys". It's likely a combination of her worldview she's painting and trying to set the stage that magic is everywhere and all around us and everybody can do it but they don't just know exactly how.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Magic is that hard, but being a genius doesn't make you good at it. Rote memorisation makes you good at it. Hermione isn't a genius, she enjoys rote learning. Harry and Ron crave stimulation, and there's none to be found in Rowling's magic system. Rowling might have intended magic to be easy, but she made a mistake. Rowling enjoys rote memorisation, so it's easy for her and her self insert, but not for normal people who want to be intellectually stimulated. Rowling accidentally made magic hard, and the story makes more sense with her mistake in it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago

Just like all the worst real-world school subjects, her magic system isn’t something with a logic you can learn to understand, it’s something arbitrary you have to memorize. These poor kids are out here taking the equivalent of anatomy classes all day (why is that bone called the tibia? Don’t worry about it, just memorize it).

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago

I think magic went through a dark age in the HP universe, where all the words that were imbued with power were done so aeons ago, and then that knowledge of how they came to be was lost, with only a few handful having been rediscovered in the modern era.

Exceptions like "Point me" might just be english analogs of existing spells, rather than new inventions.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Or they're just lazy? 🤔

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Not any more than your average school kid I'd say. There are many subjects that are or can be interesting that are thought in schools, but can be taught in the most boring way. They enjoyed DADA with Lupin quite much for example.

There are also other subjects not related to practicing magic directly.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, book 3 is the one where Rowling made an effort to delve into the workings of the magic system. The Patronus is the only spell we actually learn how to cast. (No, levio-sah doesn't count). The time turner has limitations which allow Rowling to tell an interesting story with it.

Rowling made magic interesting for one book, and Harry became interested in magic.

Then she changed her mind.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

It's also not surprising the conservative rat hates history even though it should be one of the most important subject when dealing with the setting's hitler.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Brandon. Look up Mistborn. Steelheart and The Stormlight Archives are good too.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›