Odd to me

[Sandra Bejster]

That didn't startle me at all.  There have been many examples of it.  I swear she's mentioned in past books about wandless magic as well (just don't quote me on that one).  I believe that all wizards/witches can do it, it's just a matter of degree.  I think that the wand is more of a way to concentrate their magic into one area and that once they have it and get used to it, they just get "lazy".  Kind of like those of us who are muggles when it comes to cars and walking.  We "CAN" walk up to the grocery store for that gallon of milk ... but why should we when we can take the car and get there and back quicker ... and not have to carry that heavy gallon all the way home.

All the wizard children do wandless magic from the start.  Harry always made things happen when he was mad (which was probably most of the time).  I think the first example in the book was making the glass in the reptile cage disappear, but there were references to him doing things prior to that, which is one reason his Aunt and Uncle hated to take him out somewhere.

I can't remember if it was in the book, but in movie #3 (sorry to reference a movie instead), when Lupin was teaching Harry how to fight the dementors, he lit candles with just his fingers. His wand was probably on his person, but he didn't use it.

And after book four, we now know that Harry's and Voldemort's wands are going to be useless against each other anyway.


Sandra
Dearborn, MI


Asli wrote:
The non-existence of a wand also startled me. If wizards can do magic 
without a wand- which I've never seen before, correct me if anyone has 
seen an example of this- why is expelliarmus such a useful spell? Why 
couldn't Dumbledore do anything without his wand?


       
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]