Wandless Magic

[Jim Ferer]

No: HPFGUIDX 96834

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Scott Santangelo
<owlery2003 at y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Jim Ferer <jferer at y...> wrote:
> This has been an interesting thread. In two examples of wandless
magic we've seen, the item enchanted (the fire in Lupin's hand,
Vernon's hands) were in direct contact with the caster. Other examples
- Quirrell's binding of Harry, for example - the close contact idea
doesn't work.  It seems though, that wandless magic occurred mostly
early in the series.  Did JKR's notions evolve? <snip> The examples of
kids doing magic when they're little seem to be of an unfocused,
uncontrolled kind.
> 
> 
> owlery2003 comments:
> 
> In that context do you include the vanishing glass at the zoo in
bk1, and the inexplicable things that happen to Harry when he's upset?
This reminded me of the *magic* in the movie "Matilda" when her
emotions precipitated her powers being manifested. Why can't wizards
learn to channel such effects?

Good question.  We don't know the answer, but what if this child-magic
came from the id, triggered by emotion only?

I suspect that magical ability must be trained or it will overcome the
user.  If that's true, then if Harry wasn't trained episodes like the
zoo glass could become more frequent and more unwelcome, and
eventually more dangerous. That would make magical ability like other
primal emotions we had as little children: we have to learn to control
them, give some of them up, even, or they will ruin us.

 How do we know that some of the maniacs running around in the world
doing scary stuff aren't wizards whose magic overcame them?

Canon support: 0.