[HPforGrownups] Re: OotP: Wandless magic?

[rayheuer3 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 65002

 marycter at earthlink.net writes:

> It means that whether or not he is physically touching his wand, it 
> is a so to speak "living" extension of him. It was within reach of 
> his aura, so it responded. However, you do recall he summoned his 
> broom the same way.

No, he didn't.  He needed the wand in his hand for the "Accio Firebolt!" in 
GoF, as well as in the graveyard scene where the question of how he managed to 
hold on to his wand, Cedric, and the Cup/portkey has become a minor Flint.

What he did here was to use "Lumnos" to light up his wand so that he could 
see it.  The question being, "How did he do this without his wand in his hand?"  
But we have seen a number of instances of wandless magic, most of them by 
Harry at Privet Drive.

It's nice to think that wands are a living extension of the owner, and the 
wand merchant in Diagon Alley (sorry, blanking on his name) makes a big deal of 
matching wands to owners, but we have seen several cases of wizards and 
witches using someone else's wand (Ron's famous broken wand in CoS was a 
hand-me-down, as is Neville's).  The heart of the matter is that the magic is in the 
witch/wizard, not the wand.

  --  Ray

923 unread messages


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