Wandless Magic

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 97385

> Earendil wrote:
> 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

Carol: 
I think there's another step between your steps 2 and 3. (Call it step
3 and your step 3, step 4): doing spells with your wand without
speaking the spell aloud. Snape does this rather frequently to, say,
write a potion recipe on the board or to clean up a spill. I seem to
recall DD also using silent wand magic, but I don't remember a
particular instance offhand.
> 

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.

Carol:
I'm not sure whether I agree with this idea or not. I think a wand
does serve as a conduit, but it's also magical in itself or it
wouldn't require a core of "a powerful magical substance." You could
just pick up a snare drum stick or any similarly sized piece of wood,
point it at the object, and speak the spell. But we all know that
would never work, any more than you can do magic with a Fred/George
manufactured "funny wand." (A Weasley creation, as Mr. Ollivander
would say.) Also, I'm a firm believer in the wand choosing the wizard:
that is, especially in the case of wizards who have a strong but
latent talent for some particular skill (charms or animagism or
whatever), certain combinations of core and wood are better than
others. Yew plus phoenix feather is the perfect combination for
Voldemort, for example, since both the core and the wood are
associated with immortality.

I also think that wands, like the Sorting Hat and a few other
enchanted objects we've seen, are sentient. They don't just "hear" and
act on a spell, they can sense the thought behind the magic. Otherwise
silent spells wouldn't work. Notice, though, that whatever that curse
was that Dolohov used was weaker after he'd been Silencio'd than it
would have been if he'd been able to speak it properly, and Neville's
father's wand didn't respond at all when he said "Stubefy!" although
if it had been his own wand and he'd been concentrating more on the
spell (hard to do amid the chaos), the spell might have been
effective. It also senses the power and the intent behind the spell,
in essence reading the spell caster's mind, which is one reason why
Harry's Crucio was so feeble and Bella's so horribly effective.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that a wand does more than simply focus a
spell as a speaking trumpet focuses sound. It's magical in itself
(though of course it can't do magic without a wizard controlling it).
I don't think, though, that a Muggle could use a wand. If they could,
then a Squib could certainly do magic, and Filch wouldn't be taking
mail order courses and Mrs. Figg would be able to "transfigure a
teabag." Evidently the wand senses the absence of magical power and
even if the Squib or Muggle says the magic words, no magic comes out.

Carol