this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
174 points (92.2% liked)
Showerthoughts
31465 readers
1233 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: 1
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- 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
- If you feel strongly that you want politics back, please volunteer as a mod.
- Posts must be original/unique
- 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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.
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
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.
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?
It'd be right up her alley since the books nor movies allude anything whatsoever to a divine tree that spoke latin.
If the books had a divine tree that spoke latin then there'd be some framework and substance lending credibility to the explanation, which would be different.
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.
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
It also corrupts Isildur, makes Bilbo grumpy, gives us insight into Galadriel, creates tension between Frodo, Sam, and Gollum, gives Gollum multiple personalities, starts an argument at Rivendell, makes Gandalf fuck off for a decade, gives us insight into the strengths of hobbits, weakens Frodo, drives the epilogue, creates the ringwraiths, and contextualises the stagnancy of the elves.
absolutely! the One Ring is much better developed than horcruxes, i was being reductive on purpose there. The Ring is presented as integral to the story from the very beginning and acts like it, serving as a driving force for both the plot and character development for everyone involved. Horcruxes mimic similar characteristics as a literary device but fail to reach the same level of development
anyway this seems like a natural end to the topic, so let me just say thank you for the conversation :) i always appreciate a nice nerd out and analysis of media. hope you have a nice day!