Harry and wandless magic

[earendil_fr]

No: HPFGUIDX 96818

Earendil:
Thanks to everyone how took the time to answer, mention other 
occurences of wandless magic, elaborate and give other theories. I'm 
going to answer several posts together.


> > > Owlery2003 comments:
> > > What about Lupin on the train when he conjures a handful of 
> > > whatever? Of course, he might have used his wand for this, but 
> > > there's no mention of it . . . 
> > 
> > Earendil:
> > I checked this scene. I suppose you're refering to the moment in 
the 
> > train when Lupin gives chocolate to the children.
> > There's no mention of conjuring. The children are discussing the 
> > Dementor and Harry's passing out, until they jump when they hear 
> > Lupin breaking a bar of chocolate into bits. For all we know he 
> > could have taken the chocolate from his pocket or bag.
> > (sorry, can't quote, I only own a French version of PoA, but 
it's 
> > midway through chapter 5)
> Kneasy: 
> > Erm, it's before that, I think.
> > When the lights go out Lupin conjures up a handful of flames.
> 
> Geoff:
> You're right.
> 
> '"Quiet!" said a hoarse voice suddenly.
> Professor Lupin appeared to have woken up at last. Harry could 
hear 
> movements in his corner. None of them spoke.
> There was a soft, crackling noise and a shivering light filed the 
> compartment. Professor Lupin appeared to be holding a handful of 
> flames. They illuminayed his tired, grey face but his eyes looked 
> alert and wary.
> "Stay where you are", he said in the same hoarse voice and he got 
> slowly to his feet with his handful of fire held out in front of 
him.'
> (POA "The Dementor" p.65 UK edition)

Earendil:
You're right, I probably skipped that paragraph when trying to find 
the scene mentioned. Still, the train was in the dark (the children 
kept bumping into each other), so maybe Lupin took his wand out 
without anyone noticing (I know, I'm clinging to what I can...)


> Corinth:
> I've always thought of a wand as a simple tool to control magic.  
The 
> wand itself doesn't produce magic; it only focuses it.
(huge snip of a really great post; if any of you guys haven't read 
it you should really go and do so immediately)
> Simple spells, on the other hand, may be able to be focused by 
> the wizard himself, via thought process.  With practice, a witch 
or 
> wizard could become more proficient at this focusing process.
(another huge snip)
> I also think that incantations are merely focusing tools.

Earendil:
I'm terribly sorry for butchering your post and reducing it to these 
few sentences only, it was really a great post. For the sake of 
concision I did my best to pick key sentences to sum up your general 
view on the subject, but anyone following this thread should really 
read the whole post.

I agree with you on the fact that wands and incantations don't 
produce any magic and are no more than focusing tools. However, I 
believe they are absolutely necessary tools for the largest part of 
the wizarding population. Were it so easy to cast even simple spells 
without a wand/incantation, even for grown wizards/witches who 
practised the focusing process, I think we'd see wandless magic all 
over the place.

IMHO, using wandless magic *consciously* and *with control* (in 
other words, not on the spur of the moment after being angered, put 
in danger, etc.) is the sign of a powerful wizard. Let's look at the 
mentions of *conscious* wandless magic we've all managed to gather 
so far. Who were the wizards involved?
Quirrell/Voldy (jinx on Harry's broom, ropes), Dumbledore (Great 
Hall decorations), possibly Snape (counter-jinx on Harry's broom) 
and Lupin (fire in his hand on the train), arguably Harry (Lumos 
spell).
I think all these wizards fit the above description (some more than 
others though...)


> Jim:
> More questions: What exactly can the ministry detect?   Is there 
any 
> logic or intuition used? And what constitutes a violation?
> When Dobby is the source of magic in the Dursley kitchen, the 
> ministry simply says, magic was detected at that address.  They 
could 
> not tell who performed it?
> I also wonder about those born to muggle parents, like Hermione.  
> What happens when they display magical tendencies?

Earendil:
I think most of these questions were discussed in the thread 
titled 'underage magic' that I mentioned in my original post. I 
wouldn't want to repeat anything that has already been said 
(especially since I wouldn't manage to phrase it as nicely as it 
was), so I'd suggest you to check the whole thread first. :-)


Now I would like to come back to what made me start this thread in 
the first place: the confrontation between Harry and Vernon in the 
first chapter of OotP, and Harry's apparent use of wandless magic, 
not detected nor sanctioned by the Ministry.

It seems some people here agree with my theory that this particular 
occurence was linked to his scar/protection (please go up thread for 
more details).

Anyway, whatever Harry managed to do, it was enough to make 
him 'impossible to hold'. And whatever he did, it sounds both 
powerful and potentially dangerous. I wonder if we'll see more of it 
in the next books and if Harry will develop his ability to use it 
and/or control it. But I'm still unsure whether it would bode any 
good.


Earendil.