Saturday, May 1, 2010

A question for Harry Potter fans...

I admit I am not a big fan of the Potterverse so I am not well versed in the intricacies of the seven books. I have seen the six movies so I have some idea what is going on. One question plagues me about the whole thing:

Why doesn't anyone just shoot Voldemort?

I mean really, with all the bad latin and spell casting going around I would think you could unload a couple rounds into the bad guy's head before he got his first wand-wave off. Is there some sort of mystic code preventing wizards from being practical? Is it just a British thing and only American children would consider the advantages of packing heat? Are sorcerers incapable of figuring out how a trigger mechanism works?

I am no great fan of Jim Butcher's Dresden Files but at least the principle character often tries to have a smoke wagon on hand in the event his power reserves are low or he is without wand and staff. Harry Dresden is practical like that.

I just think the Death Eaters would be a lot less scary in the face of Armalites and AKs, thassall...


  1. Here is a possible answer based on the Buffyverse. If you have ever seen Buffy the Vampire Slayer where she faces an enemy called Adam. He basically uses a machine gun against "super-Buffy". "Super-Buffy is a combination of the scooby gang using magic and Buffy. Anyway, she repels the bullets Matrix style (the bullets stop in mid air and she casually picks one and inspects it as the rest fall to the ground. Adam fires again and this time the bullets are turned into doves. In the end Adam is defeated.
    Perhaps the reason projectiles are not used is because they could be easily defeated with a kind of shield spell.

    One could also say that Magic as fantasy is less violent than guns.

    Which is worse, a kid is at school. He pulls a wand out of his pocket and yells something and a bolt shoots forth and hits another kid
    An alternate scene: A kid is at school and he pulls a gun out of his pocket and yells something and kills another student.

    Remember, this takes place in England where the police are banned from carrying guns.

  2. A valid point. I should take the culture from which Harry Potter's creator has been raised into account. I just think that Harry Potter, who begins the series as an outsider, should raise these questions as the series progresses. Why aren't conventional weapons used? An excellent response could be use of the weapons could be an instant death sentence, the only one on the books (of course, it being a British series the death penalty might not be an option in JK's eyes).

    And yeah, it being a kid's book, I can see why guns are not mentioned. I just think that as the series progresses and it gets darker it becomes less of a kid's series.

    I just think that if such weapons do not appear there should be some sort of explanation, thassall.