Magic without Wands v.2

[SageThyme]

Version 1

Do you really need a wand? Harry seems to be doing some magic when in emotionally intense situations. Is it just the intensity of the situation that this happens to all witches/wizards or is this unique to Harry and a maybe a few others?
For example, in SS didn't Harry inexplicable jump onto the roof of a building at school when Dudley and his cronies were chasing Harry?
In PoA, doesn't Aunt Marge's glass shatter in her had while ranting about Harry and his parents? He's so filled with rage that he blows up his aunt, then runs to get his stuff out of the cupboard that magically bursts open.
In PoA there were situations where Harry felt rage and anger and stuff just seemed to fly, shatter or blow up everywhere on its own without a wand. Now he's a hormonal teen, and when a fan of Harry's dies in book 5, should everyone just run for cover?

Previous posts:    

---

Originally Posted by OwlPatronus Since wandless magic clearly exists and can be learned (see Lupin's hand of fire), Harry definitely needs to learn a wandless summoning charm and some basic control over it, other than merely keeping himself from "losing control". Losing control is the way wizards think of wandless magic, when in fact it's a perfectly useful skill. I keep getting annoyed when in duel characters always drop their wands and the first thing they do is dive for it instead of A) pulling it back or B) using the emotional situation to their advantage and giving the other person a good zap when they least expect it. Originally Posted by Oceania I think wands are used only as a means to focus magic. In the same way you purse your lips to whistle. The same way a magnifying glass is used to concentrate sunlight into heat and fire. Focusing. Streamlining. They might even be a bit of a 'placebo' for the wizards---meaning a wizard might not even truly need a wand, but the assurance of it's quality to focus magic gives wizards confidense to perform spells correctly. Not to say that wands are useless; they're not. But I do believe they are tool of focus. Without a wizard, what is a wand but a piece of wood?

We now return to our regularly scheduled program.

[Matt54]

You don't need a wand but it does help a wizard control their magic much better.

[papasmerf]

haha that made me smile, but i can just tell you that i wouldnt want to be around him after Sirius goes beyond the viel.... But yeah i really want him to do something really drastic and extrodinary on accident in DH at the end...

[MrSleepyHead]

I believe that JKR has answered this question (it has probably been stated on this thread previously, but since it is a new version):

Comic Relief, March 2001 Q: Do you need a Wand to do Magic?? A: You can do unfocused and uncontrolled magic without a wand (for instance when Harry blows up Aunt Marge) but to do really good spells, yes, you need a wand.

Therefore, I do not believe that wandless magic is a phenomenon unique to Harry. Dumbledore said, in HBP, that all young wizards and witches experience bursts of uncontrolled magic.

We also know that house-elves do wandless magic all the time, thus there is evidence from the books that magic can be done without wands (even though it is a different species performing the wandless magic). Apparition is another example of magic without wands, followed by countless others (Dumbledore disappearing with a whirling of his cloak in the MoM fight in OotP).

The reason for the wand is simply to control magic, like others have previously stated.

[Organized_Mind]

yeah, but do you think that witches and wizards who can do more wandless magic with success would be better, or just more emotional, or in crisis? i think it's an important discussion for sure.

[Yoana]

Both Quirrell and Dumbledore have been shown to use controlled magic using only their hands and no wand. So it's canon that there is wandless magic.

[neen]

If you didn't need a wand, why didn't DD protect himself after draco disarmed him? (ignoring the fact he doesn't want Draco to die)

[wrackspurt55]

Posted By Organized_Mind

yeah, but do you think that witches and wizards who can do more wandless magic with success would be better, or just more emotional, or in crisis? i think it's an important discussion for sure.

I think it gives the wizard or witch the split second advantage in a crisis, because the enemy wouldn't be able to hear what spell you were performing, and wouldn't know how to block it. Emotions however I think are a large part of wandless magic, and if your emotions are running really high, then the magic is harder to control.

[Milan]

I cant recall the prophecy completely, but wanst a part of it, "One will die at the hand of the other," I think this may be a key reason why they are fighting without wands.

[RemusLupinFan]

I imagine that some magic might appear as if no wand is being used if the witch/wizard is using a non-verbal spell. Though Rowling says that one needs a wand for really good spells, I kind of agree that sometimes uncontrolled magic that occurs with extreme emotion might actually be an advantage in a tough situation because it would likely be unexpected and might buy the person a bit of time by surprising their opponent.

[momeve]

Originally Posted by neen

If you didn't need a wand, why didn't DD protect himself after draco disarmed him? (ignoring the fact he doesn't want Draco to die)

this is a good point and one I had thought of before- although as JKR said, a wand is needed for good magic and not the sort of uncontrolled you'd see a young witch or wizard do, it seems as though DD could have tried something. Was he just very sure of being able to talk Draco into abandoning his attempt and then taken by surprise when Snape came in, thinking he was there to help and there just wasn't enough time? I know that practically, for the stories sake, Dumbledore had to be defenseless but was the lack of effort on his part intentional by our author? I wouldn't think she'd forget that magic could be performed without a wand. If Harry could fing himself on top of a building, couldn't DD have flown himself to the ground? Hey! Never mind...i know he's dead....

[Yoana]

Not only uncontrollable magic! Doesn't anyone remember that Quirrell produced a rope and tied Harry up by snapping his fingers and then untied him the same way? And how Dumbledore clapped his fingers at the end-of-year feast in PS and the decoration changed? It's canon that there is controlled magic without the use of a wand.

[Organized_Mind]

Originally Posted by momeve

this is a good point and one I had thought of before- although as JKR said, a wand is needed for good magic and not the sort of uncontrolled you'd see a young witch or wizard do, it seems as though DD could have tried something. Was he just very sure of being able to talk Draco into abandoning his attempt and then taken by surprise when Snape came in, thinking he was there to help and there just wasn't enough time? I know that practically, for the stories sake, Dumbledore had to be defenseless but was the lack of effort on his part intentional by our author? I wouldn't think she'd forget that magic could be performed without a wand. If Harry could fing himself on top of a building, couldn't DD have flown himself to the ground? Hey! Never mind...i know he's dead....

I think DD KNEW he was going to die as soon as he saw the Dark Mark. He allowed Draco to disarm him, and allowed Draco the chance to kill him. But he didn't, and DD hoped Draco wouldn't do it because DD didn't want Draco to become a killer. He wanted Snape to do it because he trusted Snape. DD could've protected himself if he wanted to, but he had to fulfull his part of the story by dying.

[BelleGreenfield]

I am rereading the series before the movie and book are released. I just started OotP and I've only read the first chapter and already 2 things have jumped out at me that I didn't give much thought to before.

1. When Harry is hiding under the Dursley's window to listen to the news and then jumps at the loud crack and Uncle Vernon grabs him around the throat it says that Vernon suddenly lets go because it's as if an electrical shock goes through Harry. Now I never really noticed this sentence before, however, this time it got me thinking. We know that Voldemort can now touch Harry because of his blood used in the potion. But what if Harry could learn to control his emotional outbursts as a different way to fight off Voldemort. Problem is, we never see any other examples of accidental magic so we don't know if it is that common of an occurrance. However, Hagrid does ask him if he has "made things happen" so obviously it happens or the ministry would be going after underage wizards left and right and they never went after Harry until he had come to Hogwarts and knew about his abilities. I think that Harry's ability to control things about himself, i.e. the electric shock, or regrowing his hair when Petunia cut it all off, could be a very unique form of accidental magic and possibly not so accidental but an uncontrolled form of wand-less magic...? We know Harry has great power as a wizard, and it has been stated in previous books, i.e. Mr. Ollivander saying we can expect "gret things" from Harry. What if all these "strange" things that happen to him, that we all assumed were common accidental magic, were actually clues to just how powerful Harry is, that he can perform simple wandless magic without even really trying. Should he learn how to harness it and do it on purpose he could really be a force to reckon with.

2. When the dementors are coming after Harry and Dudley in the alleyway Harry loses his wand in the dark. Desperate to find it he shouts "lumos" without thinking, and his wand lights! Granted it is said that it was very close to his hand, but could this be our first real glimpse of wandless magic? Again I think this shows Harry's real power as he performs the spell without real intention and without the wand.

I believe Jo's quote, but maybe the few wizards who have great power, ie Dumbledore, Voldemort, and Harry, yes Harry, are the exceptions.

[KnightOfMinerva]

Recalling the conversation between Dumbledore and Harry at the end of OotP wherein he told Harry that it mattered not that he couldn't close his mind, it was his heart that saved him (or words to that effect), I believe that the strongest magic begins in the heart, so wizards and witches like Harry who have more control over, or more powerful emotions, are better able to perform unfocused magic without the use of a wand.

[Quent]

I don't know if I mentioned this before in a previous thread but I was under the impression that many of the spells in Old Magic didn't require the use of a wand,and also couldn't a spell (with the help of Arithmancy),be invented for the caster of the spell to not require a wand?

[HarrysMagicWand]

True Sorcerers can do magic naturally. Wizards have some talent, but they study to make better better spells.

Sorcerers are more of.. "Cool! Fire just came out of my hand!" and thats they're extent without learning.

Wizards go learn Avada Kadaverhasdha.

[tuer3ssuci0]

Harry's wandless magic is just like accidental magic when a wizard or witch. It manifests itself only when intensely strong emotions, mostly anger and hate, rage in his mind. But, although it is a possiblity, i doubt it would ever be aimed at one of his friends, or even acquaintance, but rather the source of his anger.

[OMGzilla]

Originally Posted by neen

If you didn't need a wand, why didn't DD protect himself after draco disarmed him? (ignoring the fact he doesn't want Draco to die)

If Dumbledore had been aware of Snape's Unbreakable Vow, he would have known that it would be triggered if Draco "seemed to fail." So inability may not have been the reason there. Earlier in the cave Dumbledore perfromed a sort of magic-detection scan without using his wand. It was a very tactile sort of magic: he walked around the cave "...touching as much of the rough rock as he could, occasionally pausing, running his fingers backward and forward over a particular spot..." There seems to be something very primal about wandless magic.

[BelleGreenfield]

Originally Posted by Quent

I don't know if I mentioned this before in a previous thread but I was under the impression that many of the spells in Old Magic didn't require the use of a wand...

Yes, exactly. And I get the impression that you have to 1: have great knowledge, and 2: great power in order to use old magic. I think we'll see a lot more ancient type magic in DH. Which could explain why we don't see wands in their hands on the US cover, and possibly why they are in an ancient looking colliseum type location.

Originally Posted by OMGzilla

Earlier in the cave Dumbledore perfromed a sort of magic-detection scan without using his wand. It was a very tactile sort of magic: he walked around the cave "...touching as much of the rough rock as he could, occasionally pausing, running his fingers backward and forward over a particular spot..." There seems to be something very primal about wandless magic.

Again I think this shows how much knowledge and power Dumbledore has. Hopefully he has passed that on to Harry somehow, whether Harry knows it or not, or perhaps through his portrait (possibly on the very handy, portable chocolate frog cards) he'll still be able to go along with Harry and help him harness his power so he can do wandless magic.