4

First of all I must apologize for having limited general knowledge of Harry Potter - only that which I've gathered from the movies and the first three books.

If memory serves me right, Brackium Emendo is used only once by Gilderoy Lockhart. I am unsure if it is the spell itself or its improper use which caused the removal of bones from Harry's arms.

In any case it seems to me that this is a very potent spell in that it is effective immediately and has a 'lasting' effect.

Compared for instance to Expelliarmus, it can lead to the same effect + extended duration [and slow and painful recovery through Skele-Gro].

I think it's something that would befit those practicing dark arts, without being a curse.

Is it used just once? If so, is there any reason why it's not a more commonly occurring spell despite its possibly potent effects.

Gallifreyan
  • 20,473
  • 6
  • 103
  • 164
Zuiq Pazu
  • 159
  • 4
  • 4
    It is used to amend broken bones and injuries. Just because Gilderoy was an idiot and mucked up the spell as he did with most spells doesn't mean everyone was as incompetent as him to mess the spell up to get those unintended effects. – Aegon Jan 06 '17 at 13:44
  • 1
    The reason why it's devastating state is not observed more often may be because most people aren't that incompetent? – Aegon Jan 06 '17 at 13:45
  • The same can be said about any spell gone wrong. E.g. Ron trying to curse Malfoy in Chamber of Secrets but the spell ended up hitting Ron himself. One could say "Why don't people just cast spells to break wands of other people so that the spells they do will act against themselves"? – Aegon Jan 06 '17 at 13:47
  • related: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/160333/why-did-lockharts-spell-stop-at-the-arm – NKCampbell Oct 12 '17 at 21:55

1 Answers1

8

The spell isn't meant for removing bones; it's supposed to fix them.

Lockhart is an idiot and messed up the spell. That doesn't mean that he did not use the correct spell, he just messed up.

Also, the books don't mention what spell he used, this is a movie addition

Community
  • 1
Mithical
  • 38,898
  • 17
  • 178
  • 229
  • 4
    I understand that I'm getting out of scope of the original question - but I'm wondering - can spells be reliably used incorrectly to produce the same desired effect? – Zuiq Pazu Jan 06 '17 at 13:52
  • @ZuiqPazu - that seems to be a contradiction – Gallifreyan Jan 06 '17 at 13:53
  • 1
    You're right. What I mean to say is: can someone intentionally muck up the spell repeatedly to produce the same effect - in the context of my question: removing bones? – Zuiq Pazu Jan 06 '17 at 13:55
  • 2
    @ZuiqPazu - can't think of a canon example. Luckily for Harry, Lockhart didn't try twice. – Gallifreyan Jan 06 '17 at 13:56
  • 1
    Using Lockhart-magic (ie dodgy, incorrectly performed magic) as a weapon is likely to end disastrously for all involved. Lockhart himself ended up being mentally disfigured. – The Dark Lord Jan 06 '17 at 14:03
  • 1
    @ZuiqPazu - If someone tried to use such a spell to injure someone (which couldn’t be done reliably), it would just be like any other curse (Sectumsempra, Petrificus Totalus). It could be blocked and probably dodged. It’s no more effective than most curses, and considerably less so than Avada Kedavra. – Adamant Jan 06 '17 at 16:55
  • @TheDarkLord To be fair, Lockart ended "mentally disfigured" because Ron's wand was broken, not because he messed up the casting. In fact, he's probably the best wizard ever when it comes to casting Obliviate. – IloneSP Apr 17 '20 at 10:52