Asymmetrical Information

I have never read any of the books, though I have seen some of the movies. You have capture nicely my suspicion about the world JK created and why I've never really been interested in investing any time in reading them.

I also applaud your "emperor has no clothes" criticism of someone who has almost become to big to criticize. As a commenter in an earlier post (or was it you) said, JK could have been greatly helped by an editor, especially one who asked the sort of question you ask.

I tried to write a similar thing when Crooked Timber did a write-up on Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. It never really came out right, and I ended up abandoning it, but I thought that book, while it was charming, original and thrilling, had the same problem- the magic was damn-near omnipotent and appeared to be just about effortless.

The best I ever saw the economics of magic handled, as I remember, was in an old Dungeons and Dragons Choose Your Own Adventure book. You play a wizard, and it explains that you can only cast spells if you've packed the proper item. In order to do a wall-walking spell, for example, you have to have brought along a specially enchanted spider, which you have to eat. It always made more sense to me than saying "Wallium Walkium!"

Have you ever read any of Larry Niven's magic stories? 'The Magic goes away' is one I remember. He treats magic spells as using a natural resource called Mana so that over time big flashy spells get replaced by more economic spells & in some areas no magic can occur. They would probably satisfy your desire for a logical explanation of how the magic works.

so, megan, I was wondering... how fast is warp 10?
Hetch 2? [bonus points and I may have to marry you if you know that one]
.5 past lightspeed?

We can make stuff up, but really all we care about is that it is very fast

we wave our hands and it is so. It's called a hand wave in the SF world. What makes a lightsaber work? What makes the life of an innocent victim more valuable than a traitor?

Why is it necessary to know 'The Deep Magic?'

The Weasely's are broke because they have a lot of kids, and MAYBE because they won't do the things you need to do in order to be a rich wizard. Or maybe they are at a disadvantage being both magical people, instead of having one be a muggle, who can easily work in a fully money based economy.

Why am I not rich? Because I'm a solid B type, who cares far more about people than things? Because I am not driven at every turn to make more?

There is a certain combination of things to make magic in Jo's books, but how much more than hinted at is it? You talked about blood in Card's book but that is the same thing as saying that it takes years via slowboat to get anywhere in the universe because no-one can go faster than the speed of light. Then you can conveniently talk about the problems a 100 year trip causes going to Proxima Centari, and how hard it is to cryo freeze someone and have them live.

Cryo-freeze is just as big a machina as hyperspace because we can't do either [right now]

Jordan goes into great detail about how Aes Sedai can use their 'magic' but it adds color, it isn't necessary to the books... except where the male half makes men insane, and it has to be dealt with... and that ends up being the basis for what is it? 22 books now?

Perhaps it is easier to teach the Patronus for Harry since he looks at it from the position he does. Maybe he knows how to do it better, maybe he doesn't start out by saying a young wizerd shouldn't be able to do this.

Sure Jo could have added the paragraph where you have to sprinkle pixy dust on everyone first, but how much does the book already weigh?

So. I think you are right... but I think you also missed the point. Coming along to see what someone has in their head, and feast on the way they put it together is a cool thing, just like feasting on the dinner you slaved away all day to prepare. [I know you can do it in 2 hours...] but who am I to tell you I hate curry, you should have done lentil soup instead?

Things sometimes fall short, sometimes a writer fails to please or "Luke, I am your Father..." Turns into a simpering idiot that doesn't scare anyone and nobody recovers from.

Watch their vision unfold because it's theirs, marvel at where they grabbed your heart and ripped it out [Sirius, has anyone lost more than you...] and forgive them their mis-steps [Jordan, are we there yet? Lucas, let Steven direct damnit! and Fyodor? WTF, you need to go someplace sunny and get wasted, with someone cute...]

oh, and try the curry, 'cuz I'm going to get Madre Vigil's chile con carne recipe... it'll knock your socks off...

D

Congratulations on getting published in the Guardian, a left-wing, but well-read British newspaper.

But, as you can see from the comments, the Guardian's left-wing readers don't like it when you upset them.

Next I look forward to articles on how Hemingway's short words and short sentences don't really work as literature, how no one is really interested in a story about an obsessive whaling captain in the 19th century, and how a committee's translation of archaic Greek and Aramaic texts can't possibly have any value to a modern reader.

Your analysis is absolutely right in that magic must be employed within a system of rules. Otherwise the story or characters will lack cohesion and power.

One thinks of the Biblical story, with Christ bloodied on the cross, and being taunted to come down from there. He could've, but didn't. Why?

Or when Satan urges Christ toward certain actions, as they walk about. Satan urged, and Christ ignored.

Indeed Christ could do anything, as part of God, but there were rules. For one, to the extent Christ gave in to Satan's suggestions, he was no longer master of himself, or a part of that Godhead.

Biblical "Magic" serves some greater purpose. Jesus did not heal every person he encountered, or turn every wedding's water into wine. It was selective, and for a reason, and the purpose of a coherent theme.

Every story that employs magic should include a cost for its use.

(Which is also why I was never a fan of Superman as a hero, who seemed, aside from kryptonite, to be able to do anything and without cost to himself).

"Principal Exceptions to Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfiguration..."

Rowling implies that there are rules, it's just that there aren't any mentioned.

The Weasely's are broke because they have a lot of kids, and MAYBE because they won't do the things you need to do in order to be a rich wizard.

What? Wave a wand? If the Weasleys had moral objections to using magic they wouldn't be sending their kids to Hogwarts where the kids are taught to use magic.

There does seem to be some problem with creating things purely out of magic, but transforming doesn't seem to be a problem - why not run a recycling business taking away muggles' non-biodegradable plastic bottles and transforming it into food and wizard's robes and the like? Make yourself rich and save the environment all at once.

Or maybe they are at a disadvantage being both magical people, instead of having one be a muggle, who can easily work in a fully money based economy.

That doesn't seem to be it - James and Lily were both magical and they left their son plenty of money. Darco's parents are both magical and they're rich too.

The Weasely's are broke because they have a lot of kids, and MAYBE because they won't do the things you need to do in order to be a rich wizard.

What? Wave a wand? If the Weasleys had moral objections to using magic they wouldn't be sending their kids to Hogwarts where the kids are taught to use magic.

There does seem to be some problem with creating things purely out of magic, but transforming doesn't seem to be a problem - why not run a recycling business taking away muggles' non-biodegradable plastic bottles and transforming it into food and wizard's robes and the like? Make yourself rich and save the environment all at once.

Or maybe they are at a disadvantage being both magical people, instead of having one be a muggle, who can easily work in a fully money based economy.

That doesn't seem to be it - James and Lily were both magical and they left their son plenty of money. Darco's parents are both magical and they're rich too.

Ditto what david said earlier: in the last book (minor spoiler ahead!) Hermione mentions that creating food out of magic just isn't possible -- that it's one of the five exceptions Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfiguration. It's also mentioned that this is why the Room of Requirement can't produce food. It's not unreasonable to conclude that things like Galleons are similar exceptions.

In one of the books, it's mentioned that things like flicking the wand in exactly the right way are important (though we're also given to understand that a wand -- or even the actual words of the spell -- aren't necessary, just helpful). And it's worth noting that many of the subjects mentioned, like Arithmancy and Runes, seem like the sort of boring subject one learns at desks, out of books.

"[...] if that were the determinant, Hermione Granger would be a better wizard than Harry" -- but it's mentioned several times that she _is_, in fact, better than Harry at most kinds of magic. There are plenty of examples of her fixing their potions, or successfully transfiguring objects while Ron and Harry (and especially Neville) make fools of themselves.

In short, limitations on magic are hinted at throughout the books (otherwise why not make all witnesses take Veritaserum?), but the focus of the books is elsewhere.

Why am I not rich? Because I'm a solid B type, who cares far more about people than things?

That's probably it. Things can't admire you properly.

Similarly-titled article, but about who is making money in the Harry Potter business, not about how Harry Potter might make himself some money...

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/103253/The-Economics-Of-Harry-Potter

Megan: "In the Narnia books and the Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, magical power has no obvious cost." True of Narnia (IIRC), not true of LOTR (at least not in the books). Gandalf clearly could be exhausted by too much spell-casting, but normally he limited himself for a far more important reason: the magic-user who reached for too much power would lose his soul, and so the wizards followed rules limiting them to recruiting and assisting allies against Sauron rather than facing Sauron with power. The Nazgul were great men who were seduced by rings of power, eventually becoming slaves of Sauron as well as wraiths who existed only half in the world. Saruman was a wizard like Gandalf until he over-reached and became a little Sauron. Even Frodo fell to temptation in the end, but was ironically saved by Gollum.

In our house we have some interesting discussions about Harry Potter. I studied Econ in college many years ago and became a computer guy much later. Therefore, I tend to see the magical world as being overseen by a magical operating system--MicroSpell, if you will. Every now and then they upgrade the system. Maybe owls go out telling wizards that the magical system will be down from Midnight to 6am Sunday. After that, certain spells and charms will no longer be supported. If you have a problem, you can contact magical tech support. They'll of course ask you if your wand is plugged in.

In economic terms, my wife reminds me that Hermione's parents exchanged Muggle money for magic money at Gringotts. So there must be an exchange rate of some kind. Otherwise, Muggle-born wizards would never be able to attend Hogwarts (unless they have tuition assistance and work-study). Do they ever even talk about tuition?

"Children are great systemisers, which is why they watch the same shows and read the same books over and over again: they are trying to put all the details together into a coherent picture."

While I was waiting in line for a cup of coffee this morning, I saw a great example of this. I noticed a teenage boy with the Harry Potter book unopened on his table while he was fervently completing a Rubik's Cube. Originally the Rubik's cube was called the "Magic Cube".... I report you decide.

"What? Wave a wand?" Tracy W.

actually T, that WAS my point. You think that magic has no limitations... why can't you be rich by waving a wand? Flip the telescope around. The Weasely's aren't rich... why is that? Perhaps because magic doesn't help with that. They don't have a moral dilemma with using magic, but we don't know it's cost. We also don't know what kind of rules for good and bad magic there are. A cost that is hinted at but never explained with pages of exposition about it. In fact the only time we get full exposition is when one of those in the STORY don't understand. These people are in some way magical. They live in THAT world. It is different to the point that they have to study muggles, because they have no understanding of them. We are looking into their world from their point of view, and in their world magic just WORKS. Every child born that is magical is automatically sent an invitation to hogwarts [presumably other countries would have the same thing.] Because the magical child WILL make things happen without understanding [Think Harry in the Zoo] There are obviously few children that don't have at least one magical parent, so they all have a head start in understanding. But for those that have both muggle parents, it would be important to find them, hence the detection and automatic invitation. Perhaps there is a charity for those who can't afford it, because an untutored child could be dangerous. [Hermione] That seems reasonable, but does it need to be written? No.

Perhaps the Weasely's are stretched because they have up to 5 children simultaneously in a boarding school. [Percy, Fred, George, Ron, Ginny, books 2, 3] On a ministry paycheck. Perhaps the Malfoy's are rich because the elder is high up in the ministry, and they have only one child. Plus we know they have slave labor. Perhaps they use other forms of darker magic to get their money. We already know they periodically sell things if they need money. Harry's parents left him money, but perhaps they had some kind of life insurance policy. Plus the money in the bank has been compounding interest for at least 11 years, assuming of course that gringott's works that way...

I think that constructing a universe from reading it, works better if you take as few assumptions from this one as you can carry... and letting it unfold. YMMV, natch

Plus the money in the bank has been compounding interest for at least 11 years, assuming of course that gringott's works that way...

It looks more like a safe-deposit box than a savings account to me. If it were the latter, Hagrid would have provided Harry's account number, or otherwise identified him, and the goblins would have said, "Yes Mr. Potter, you have [C].[K].[S]. in your account. How much would you like to withdraw?" Instead of taking him down to open a cell with a specific pile of coins.

The Weasleys aren't rich because the magic community has to reflect (well, more to the point, be a distorted reflection of) the British class system. Mr. Weasley is a ministry functionery and a bit of a bodger/tinkerer because of his daffy obsession with basic muggle tech, and Mrs. Weasley is a housewife and mother to the core-- if she was ever anything else before all the kids, we may never know.

Likewise, Draco whatshisname comes from old money and older blood.

Rowling did toss by the wayside the Magic money system, but apparently there is one, and banking besides, so it must be difficult or costly to counterfeit-- I'm reminded of Star Trek's "gold-pressed Latinum," a material that must be too costly to copy with the replicator technology.

On the other hand, all of the storeowners except for the eateries and bars in Diagon Alley, the magical market, seem to have a local monopoly-- just one wandseller in London? And didn't they and other merchants pack up and move in fear a couple books ago?

Not that it would in any way eliminate "extraneous chitcat, lavishly highlighted minor characters, and painfully cliche description" as you mention in the later entry, but Rowling could learn a bit from Dickens. But some of her elements are, I say as a compliment, a shadow of his.

If Dickens wrote Harry Potter-- damn, that would be a great read. But the first book would be the thickest of them all.

As far as omnipotent magic goes, I saw a perscreening of Stardust last Thur. It had some very good moments, but it is a little boring when the magic can trump anything, and is used in a ham-handed way.

Of course, the political undertones are always a little tiresome, but overall, the acting was pretty decent, mainly, and the plot line failed a bit near the end. Otherwise it's a 2.5 out 4 or maybe a 3.25 out of 5 stars.

Next I look forward to articles on how Hemingway's short words and short sentences don't really work as literature, how no one is really interested in a story about an obsessive whaling captain in the 19th century

Sarcasm was obviously intended here, but really, who would read Moby Dick or The Old Man and the Sea if they weren't required by English teachers?

Interesting; the magical economy was one the books' big pluses for me.

Notice that there are plenty of things magic can't seem to do there. Food and housing, for example. What they can be done is hooked up by the globalized economy to make magical goods and services broadly available, just like Muggle items in the Muggle economy.

They can't just use spells to do what they want, having to use ingenuity to get their way using what spells CAN do. Just like us with our tools.

More here.

Why is spell-casting required to be either intellectual or athletic? Why can't it be, say, a form of mental fine motor control, requiring practice to achieve mental mastery over an amorphous power?

I think wandwork is a bit like precision machining: some book learning (proper tools for the work piece, proper tool speed, tricks of measurement), some physical dexterity, some spatial visualization, and finally just practice and experience. Students of machine work don't spend all their time at desks, but they aren't exhausted and sweaty afterward, either. Ditto for the Charms class.

From another blog comment I made on Jane's article:
There is much about the economy of the wizard world that is only implied:
- not everyone has the same abilities in magic. Some are good at charms, some at transfiguration, some at potions, etc.
- magic items must be made, not simply charmed into existing. I can't remember anyone creating magic items out of thin air. Making a magic item takes knowledge, time, effort, and supplies. Potions seem to be difficult to make, with more complex and powerful potions taking lots of time, costly ingredients, and attention to detail. So labor costs are a significant portion of the cost.
- it also appears that magic item ingredients must be found and not charmed into being. Some ingredients are difficult to grow (Mandrake root), rare (phoenix tail feathers, unicorn hair), or require precise harvests (the leaves that Slughorn needed picked at full moon in Book 6). Perhaps only "natural" ingredients have the right amount of magical aether in them.
- books must have some form of copy protection (MBCA - Magic Book Copyright Act?) that prevent them from being created out of thin air. Perhaps, as in some stories and RPGs, they must be printed on special/magical paper in order to be effective.

So, if these rules are true, the wizard world is a skilled service and raw materials economy with much of the drudge work done magically or by house elves. They are trapped into an economy of scarcity due to the limits of how many spells can be cast per day by a wizard or witch, and how many of the magical population can produce each kind item. If ther are only two or three people that can produce anti-disease potions, they are going to get more for them than potions even Crabbe and Goyle can brew.

Now if there are only 40 kids/year at Hogwarts (a figure I also came up with), and they represent the majority of the wizard families, and wizards live to a median age of 100, then there would be 4-5000 wizards in the UK. Seem hardly enough to sustain as complex an economy as described in the book.

It may be that JKR has taken to heart the advice offered by Nick Lowe in his classic article, The Well-Tempered Plot Device. (http://news.ansible.co.uk/plotdev.html)

Comments are Closed.