Does Magic Halt Progress?

I’d like to start this by suggesting that you watch a short YouTube video called Game of Thrones: Why Dragons Halt Progress. (Bear with me, this is relevant!) It’s not necessary to understand this blog post, but it is part of what sparked my thoughts on this subject. I’ll link it here (be warned, there are some mild spoilers for later events in GoT): https://youtu.be/PDdKmx0PW7s

If you did not watch the video, here’s a summary. Gunpowder/cannons –> need for larger armies –> need for money to pay for those armies –> more efficient taxation to get more money –> more centralized government to more efficiently collect taxes –> nation-state and end of the Middle Ages. However, in GoT, this process is stopped by the presence of dragons, who cannot be beaten by a larger army. Instead, the lords of Westeros pledged allegiance to the people controlling the dragons, meaning there was no incentive for larger armies, etc. etc., and no creation of the nation-state. Thus, GoT is stuck in the Middle Ages perpetually. At least, that’s what the guy in the video says.

So, how is this relevant to Harry Potter? Well, we discussed in class the question of why the magical world in these books is represented as a medieval-esque world. Many of the ideas we discussed are, I believe, completely valid, but most of them hinge on it being Rowling’s decision as the world’s creator in order to further her intended themes and enhance the reader’s experience.

I’d like to propose another theory. As the dragons do in Game of Thrones, I think that magic itself has halted the progress of the wizarding world. Who needs electricity, or modern transportation, or even bombs and guns, when you have magic to do it for you? Vacuums are rendered irrelevant in the face of cleaning spells like Scourgify, and even looms are probably unnecessary–Hermione learns to knit using magic, so I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that one could weave magically as well. Magic is quicker, cleaner, and easier than the muggle way. Plus, it’s clear that many wizards, though they may not all have nefarious intentions toward muggles, believe that muggles are somewhat ridiculous and inferior due to their lack of magic. This, combined with the Statute of Secrecy (the law that keeps wizards from revealing magic to muggles and led to a distinct separation between their societies) which a Harry Potter wiki tells me was signed in 1692, combined with the comparative ease of magic, leads to the practical conclusion that the wizarding community just never saw the point in modernizing along with the muggle world.

In this sense, the wizarding world being medieval could be seen as less of an artistic choice and more of an inevitability. Do I think that Rowling had this in mind when she created the world for her book series? Not really, no. But it’s interesting to think about.

Why Does the Magical World of Harry Potter Reject Modern Amenities?

The wizarding community in the Harry Potter universe lives, in many cases, alongside the muggle community. Despite the close proximity to these two worlds they seem to be completely unaware of the happenings of each other. While there is a small amount of crossover between these communities, through muggle borns and some squibs, the wizarding community actively tries to hide from the muggle community, out of fear that they would be taken advantage of or attacked for their abilities. Even with this separation one would expect that at some point wizards would have come around to modern inventions like electricity and radio. Why does the community reject most modern inventions and what does it do for the story to have the wizards live in a more medieval world?

Historically speaking it makes sense that wizards would have separate from the rest of human society sometime during the late medieval period. During the late medieval period there were cases of people being prosecuted for practicing witch craft. In fact, King James I of England even wrote a book on how to correctly identify and prosecute witches in 1597 called Daemonologie. While witches and wizards were already trying to separate from the muggle community, Hogwarts was founded in 990ad and had charms put on it to turn away muggles, the events of the late 16th century would have of course caused them even more fear of the muggle community.

The idea of a wizarding community purposefully separating themselves from the muggle one makes sense, but why does J.K. Rowling have them reject most muggle advancements of modern times. By placing it in the medieval period Rowling is allowing the reader, primarily children for the first few books, to escape their everyday lives. This relies on the idea that the middle ages were somehow and easier time and that the invention of modern utilities has complicated our lives. It also allows the reader to use their imagination and pretend to be in a world outside their own, escapism. Putting the medieval period into the modern world is perfect for the escapism because it allows the author to pick and choose which parts they want to bring, which in this case was almost exclusively the positives while leaving the negatives.

King Arthur’s “Realism”

Throughout the film King Arthur, we are led to believe that this may be a more “realistic” retelling of the story. Many of the mystical and magical aspects of the story are not present in the movie. Yet many historical inaccuracies exist as well. This begs the question: was the movie trying to be a more realistic version of the story of King Arthur or simply a different take on a well known story?

The answer I believe is a mix of the two. Magical events are often convenient ways of moving a story forward, but they are not very convincing. Pulling a sword from a “magical stone” was the focal point of many of the other versions of King Arthur. King Arthur the movie remedies those parts of the tale by ignoring them or not putting much emphasis on them. At the same time, realism is suspended in the movie for the sake of entertainment. Armor piercing crossbows and large longbow battle formations were not the way Romans or Saxons fought their battles. Roman “knights” were not present in their empire, at least not in the way the Knights of the round table were portrayed in the movie.

A more realistic representation of how a Roman soldier would look

What does this all mean for King Arthur as a movie? Its attempt at a different version of the classic tale shows an interesting version of Arthur as a man who is just like everyone else. He overcomes his trials through determination and faith instead of divine intervention (as he said in the movie, God was supposed to take his life, not the lives of his men) or magic. The viewer only needs to accept in this version that some of the historical information is not entirely accurate for the setting. Whatever take the creators of the movie were going for, they had considerable freedom because of the lack of real information on King Arthur as a person.