Wandless Magic

[skyw1ngs]

No: HPFGUIDX 71878

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "shaw_steven" 
<shaw_steven at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Laura Herndon" 
> <LauraHerndon at m...> wrote:
> > I've seen a fair amount of speculation on whether or not most 
magic 
> can be performed without a wand.  I can think of at least one 
instance 
> of a spectacular bit of "wandless" magic- the time that Harry 
removed 
> the glass from the snake exhibit in book 1! I guess you could call 
> that an instinctive act of magic.   Has anyone else pointed this 
out? <<<
> 
> Greetings all,
> Just recently discovered your list and I thought I would add my 2 
> knuts regarding this.  The various animagi we've seen in the canon 
do 
> not seem to use a wand to transform into their animal forms and 
> definitely do not have a wand handy to transform back into their 
human 
> form.  Although one could argue that the wand is in their virtual 
hand 
> existing in that alternate dimension with their clothing.  If so, 
can 
> an animagus then perform other bits of magic when in animal form?  
Did 
> Sirius apparate whilst in Snuggles form? or did he travel across 
> Britain remaining in canine form?
> 
> "shaw_steven"


My 2 knuts...

I think a wand is merely a tool with which to focus one's magical 
energies to a single point. When a wizard becomes somewhat advanced, 
I believe he may not really need to use a wand; ie. animagus, 
Quirrel, accio, when Harry was able to light the alleyway by 
muttering "Lumos" when he was feeling around for his wand on the 
ground.

The vanishing glass is likely to be an example of Harry's unfocussed 
potential. He probably wasn't intending to make the glass disappear -
 he was just angry - but his immense potential for magic was loosely 
aimed around there.

Perhaps Dumbledore and the other professors don't really need wands 
to do most spells, but just find it much easier?

sky.