Wandless Magic

[earendil_fr]

No: HPFGUIDX 96849

> Jim Ferer wrote:
> 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.

Earendil:
I'm not sure these two can be compared.
The fire in Lupin's hand is something Lupin created from scratch 
with his spell, while, well, Vernon existed from the start :-) Lupin 
didn't enchant the fire, he created it. And I'm not sure Harry 
enchanted Vernon or his hands, he rather enchanted himself, until 
*he* was 'impossible to hold'.

> Jim Ferer wrote:
> It seems though, that wandless magic
> occurred mostly early in the series.  Did JKR's notions evolve?

Earendil:
I can picture some kind of 3 steps progression of the use of 
wandless magic through a wizard's life:

Step 1: random uncontrolled use during childhood, especially when 
strong emotions are involved.
Step 2: the wizard/witch has learned to control his magic through 
the wand and incantations; the use of wandless magic becomes scarce.
Step 3: the wizard/witch masters his/her magic enough to be able to 
use it without wand/incantation

We see the series through Harry's eyes, who's clearly in the middle 
of step 2, so that would explain why we saw progressively less 
wandless magic.
As for step 3, it could very well never happen in some/most wizards 
lives who would remain at step 2, while the most powerful/talented 
would manage to go on to step 3. For those, the passage to step 3 
could happen early or late in one's life, depending on one's 
abilities.

That would explain why we see less wandless magic, as well as why 
some/few wizards use wandless magic and why some don't.

To make a RL analogy, I will compare this to learning to drive a 
car. In my old driving booklet there was a graph that showed the 
usual progression of a learner.
First, the learner progresses very quickly while he learns the 
basics. Then there's a long step during which the learner barely 
makes any progress. And then, after some kind of trigger, the 
progression starts again.
I know it's schematic, but it's what happened with me, and I can 
really see a similar progression in the WW.

> Jim Ferer wrote:
> What does a wand do?  I always thought about a wand as being like a
> projector lens or a speaking trumpet, something that directs and
> focuses magical energy.  Without one, the magic sort of dribbles 
out
> all over.  The same amount of magical watts may have been expended,
> but it wouldn't seem like it.

Earendil:
I like your point of view, though if I made an analogy I'd rather 
compare an amount of raw magic to Amps (watch out, here comes Geeky!
Earendil)

Try to picture this:
Each wizard has, in him, a certain amount of magic (an amount he can 
likely increase as he gets older and more experienced) flowing 
through his veins with a certain intensity (Amps).

It's the combination of an intensity *and* a tension that makes 
power. The wand and the incantation help generate the 
necessary 'tension' to turn the magic intensity into magic power. 
And with time, wizards could learn to generate this tension 
themselves.

I find this analogy funny when you consider that it's usually strong 
emotions ('tension' of sorts) that trigger wandless magic... And 
with 'normal' magic, you need to focus/concentrate (again, 'tension' 
of sorts...)

> Jim Ferer wrote:
>   If this is true, it could explain why magic worked in direct 
contact
> with the magician but doesn't seem to work (at least work well) at 
any
> kind of distance.  The problem with this hyposthesis is it doesn't
> explain Quirrel's ability to bind Harry with a finger-snap.

Earendil:
Nor Quirrell jinxing Harry's broom and Snape counter-jinxing...


Earendil, uncovered geek.