Using the Speech vs a spell - where is the line drawn?

[alla]

[Wiccangixie]

That's a good question! Well, even complex spells can be said more so within your head before activation, and the cool part is that knowledge of the speech can intermingle with a spell when its cast. I don't think a line could be drawn, because truthfully the speech is connected to spells in a way where its nearly impossible to draw the line at all.

[EricG1793]

Great question indeed.... Hmm....

This argument could go both ways, really. Older wizards are more fine-tuned like you say, so maybe that would be good for the spells.... But then the issue of power comes in, which younger wizards are needed for....

Now, as for the line.... To me (older vs younger wizards set aside), it seems as though the Speech would be used to ask something to serve you in some way. Whereas, spells seem to be force things to happen.

Using the Speech could potentially take longer than a spell, negotiating with whatever you're speaking to if it weren't so keen on doing whatever it is you're asking. It might be quicker just to do a spell, using force.

[Wiccangixie]

Great question indeed.... Hmm....

This argument could go both ways, really. Older wizards are more fine-tuned like you say, so maybe that would be good for the spells.... But then the issue of power comes in, which younger wizards are needed for....

Now, as for the line.... To me (older vs younger wizards set aside), it seems as though the Speech would be used to ask something to serve you in some way. Whereas, spells seem to be force things to happen.

Using the Speech could potentially take longer than a spell, negotiating with whatever you're speaking to if it weren't so keen on doing whatever it is you're asking. It might be quicker just to do a spell, using force.

I had a thought. What about how specialties are mixed in with the Speech? I realized that the relationship that one has with the speech and be deep or shallow depending on the person, so maybe its better to use the Speech for some things than others. The situation constantly changes

A spell uses more force and power like Eric (the coolest guy here along with Septy) said, so sometimes brute force can help, but then when you think about how that failed like it did in A Wizard's Dilemma, brute force isn't always the answer.

Personally I think the Speech is best, because its always growing and developing. But a spell can be more fun to create if you're a wizard

[kk]

I think that there's not much that separates the two... Speaking in the Speech, and saying a spell... Both are convincing something to change, or do something; and both create an effect. But it mentioned in one of the books, that to begin a spell, the first words are asking the universe to listen. Whereas, if a wizard is just speaking in the Speech, they probably don't add that part. They just want the specific object, or animal or plant, to listen to it...

If that made any sense at all, please let me know... *rereads her own post* I sometimes write things and then afterwards think, "Well... that probably didn't make sense to anyone but me..." This might be one of them...

[alla]

It made sense to me: after reading people's responses, I think I'm starting to think along those lines, anyway, kk. That part about asking the universe to listen is something that I had forgotten; its in SYWTBAW, isn't it? I've just had a quick look, and I can't spot it anywhere though. It may be that there isn't a line to be drawn; that I'm trying to look for the difference when there isn't one.

The mention of preparation of spells (Wiccan's first response here), is an interesting one. Perhaps a spell is something that can be prepared (for example Nita's charm bracelet), or has to be thought through before activation, while simply talking, trying to convince using the Speech can be done on the spur of the moment?

[kk]

Alla: I can't remember what book it's in... I just got this mental image of the scene, and the words "She recited the first part of the spell; asking the universe to listen," or something like that. Nita was performing a spell, I can't remember what for...

Spells do have to be prepared, or at least thought of, first; that's a good point. I know that they can be changed, depending on who's using them, and they can also be memorized... But they have to have some order, something that makes them actual spells.

I think there's room for overlap, though. Why wizards in the books are warned not to swear in the Speech, or speak in it too much, just normally; because that might be interpreted as a spell, and therefore become one.

[Wiccangixie]

You're definitely right KK! Spells and the speech are intermingled, and DD made it that way because of the complex way that wizardry works.

[Nights Mistress]

I assume that for a wizard, the line between simply communicating in the Speech and using it to enact changes is a very blurry one. It might be in the choice of words and what "tense" they're used in. From what wizardries we've heard Nita and Kit do, they can range from very formal structures with defined terms to just asking a favour of something (such as closing a drawer or tightening a screw). They might be choosing to use certain words in a certain tense.

Another possibility may be the peridexis is omnipresent enough to work out whether they intend it to be a spell or whether they are just saying "hey, how's the weather down your way". If the peridexis is aware enough to communicate with Nita, it's possible that it's aware enough to tell. This could explain why Carmela can't do any wizardries despite using the Speech -- she's not a wizard, so the peridexis can't "hear" her.

[A Traveller with Magic]

I'll agree with the thought that there isn't a line at all between Speech and spelling, though I'd imagine power-intensive spells would require an explicit section that draws energy from somewhere, as opposed to using mental concentration to persuade. The grey area is perhaps where you'd use energy to open the subject more to persuasion, or lend it energy, or somesuch.

Or I could spend time on the other side of the fence and say the definitive line is when you switch into a spell-making mode, somewhat like when talking about a spell but leave out important words that fill the spell in.

Aha! Enacture, from the ErrantryWiki. It says "In wizardry -- and specifically, in wizards -- the 'embedded' quality which enables a wizard to cause a spell to happen." The thought about the sentience of the peridexis is a good one- perhaps the peridexis acts as 'proof of authorization' as mentioned in the entry?

[nelina]

That's a good question! Well, even complex spells can be said more so within your head before activation, and the cool part is that knowledge of the speech can intermingle with a spell when its cast. I don't think a line could be drawn, because truthfully the speech is connected to spells in a way where its nearly impossible to draw the line at all.

well, I consider it all to be a spell in some way, b/c it is all working with energy to cause a reaction in your favor. it is esp. a spell if u r using the speech to convince someone's self-conious to be in your control. I don't mess w/ that evil stuff, but yeah, I call it all spells, using energy to convert something. you just need to be able to see it and picture it and have the will power to cause it.

[Dragon Writer]

Perhaps it's just a difference of intent. When speaking, you're doing just that - you're talking. Maybe you're trying to convince them of something, but in the end, you're holding a conversation. When you do a spell, you're just trying to pursuade. You're nor talking with anything, you're convincing, or otherwise making, them to do what you want.

[nelina]

I've been having a chat with my boyfriend (yay, I've finally got someone to actually read the books!), ...

In 7th grade, I tried to get my then best friend into the books, but she just wasn't interested, and she didn't kow how to defend herself, thus getting into a heap of trouble. U're lucky. My bf couldn't get into the books either, but my curent best friend did, and it has helped her much. Her and myself tend to agree that unless you are speciffically adressing the object as you would another wizard in ms, then it is just pursuasion. However, when you are casting out energy, and willing it to perform as you require, then it is considered a spell. to be successful, this usually requires the visualization, words, and energy (without trying too hard, of course.)

[illiriam]

I was clicking random page on the Errantry Concordance, and came upon the page on Enacture.
http://www.youngwizards.com/Errantry...x.php/Enacture
And it got me thinking, that this is what helps draw the line. This separates wizardly Speech from non-wizardly speech. K. Well then, could the separation between a conversation and a spell be intent? (Roundabout thought process, I don't even know how I came by it...)
You can talk to something, and try to convince it to change itself or its behavior. And if it complies, then that was just a conversation, and if it takes any energy from the wizard, then it would only be to supplement the object's own energy if it didn't have enough to either change or perform the action the wizard was asking of it.
It would move into a spell if the object was not willing to change and comply with the wizard's request. The wizard would then have the intent to change the object and would have to use wizardry to accomplish it, even if that only happens while they are still merely talking to the object. Like, a passive wizardry maybe.
I don't know if this makes any sense. I feel like it would have to deal with the wizard's own intent, the object's will, and whether or not the wizard calls on wizardry (even if only in their mind, subconsciously) to bring about that change.

[Alex Quilmane]

(Woohoo, my first post! Hehe..)

The thing about the speech v. wizardry is a bit more than just intent. As everyone should know, the speech is how you can speak to all matter, whether it is 'living' by our definition or not. You could persuade something, sure, but none of your own personal energy is invested when you are simply speaking to something else.

Spells, on the other hand, define what you are working on and what you would like to change or modify. To boil water, for instance, you would describe the water to be modified, then how it should be modified (raising its temperature to near the boiling point, as having the water at 'boil temp' could result in all your water becoming gaseous). I don't believe you could talk water into boiling since this would be asking water to bestow itself with energy.

So, summarizing: Any spells that add or remove energy from a system or where energy is required that something cannot provide, requires a spell. When wizards can speak to and convince something to change its physical properties (though not its physical state, which requires energy), to change its attitude, to answer a question or perform some action, that would be speech usage.

((Haha, just noticed that this will also be reviving an old thread. Ah well..))