Magic without wands (was Harry's Growing Powers)

[Pat]

No: HPFGUIDX 113297

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susana da Cunha" 
<susanadacunha at g...> wrote:
> 
> Angie wrote:
> 
[snipped]

... and I don't
> remember any other wizard except DD performing magic without a 
wand.
> Does anywone?
> I take this to be a hint of Harry's growing power as a wizard, and
> perhaps a sign of things to come.  Wouldn't it be amazing, after 
all
> the discussion about the wands, if Harry could kill LV without a 
wand?"
> ---------------
> 
> 
> 
[more snipping]
 
> Any wizard can do magic without his/her wand. But the outcome is 
not always
> predictable - Harry feels sorry for the snake and angry at his 
cousin -zap-
> a glass vanishes; Harry is furious at his aunt -zap- he 
insufflates her (his
> wand has in the trunk, inside the cupboard); Harry needs his 
things from the
> cupboard -zap- the door sprang open (his hand inside his trunk, 
inside the
> cupboard); Harry needs light to save his life -zap- his wand 
ignited; and my
> very favorite:
> 
> A very young Fred Wesley (about 5 or 6) is furious at his little 
brother Ron
> and -zap- he TRANSFIGURES A TEDDY INTO A SPIDER! Now, that's 
pretty advance
> magic for a six-year-old and I'm sure he didn't have a wand.
> 
> I will always imagine an eight year old Hermione writing on a 
black board in
> front of a muggle class and an envious classmate throwing a piece 
of paper
> to her hair, making her turn. But, of course, nothing would be more
> important to her than finishing the answer. I imagine the chalk 
finishing
> the sentence on its own while she glares at the astonished class, 
eyes with
> tears of sadness and fury. (A full day for the MoM obleviators)
> 
> Anyway, no-wand-magic (I like to call it hysterical magic) it's 
probably
> more common in children because they have their emotions at the 
surface and
> they can't control them. I don't think it means a wizard is 
powerful.
> 
> Other possible examples of hysterical magic:
> 
> Flying Ford Anglia - the car was dismantled and put back together 
by Mr.
> Weasley who bewitched it to fly, be invisible and probably to run 
without
> gas (considering it was still running after months in the forest). 
It was
> never (willingly) bewitch to have a mind of his own. Wet, it 
*decides* to
> drive into the forest when *upset* with the beating and *decides* 
to rescue
> Ron and Harry from the spiders. Could Mr. Weasley have put in 
something else
> out of excitement? Or maybe Ron could have done it before breaking 
his wand.
> He *was* in a life threatening situation.
> 
> Lily's sacrifice - I'd rather think she was smart enough to trick 
Voldy into
> signing a contract (her life for Harry's - I read this theory 
somewhere in
> this site. Sorry for not quoting). But my second favourite theory 
is that
> she did hysterical magic: in *intending* to stop Voldemort from 
EVER killing
> Harry, she cast a blood protection spell that she didn't even know 
existed
> (an ancient form of magic that is powerful enough to stop an AK).
> 
> Marauders Map - given the size of the castle and surroundings, I 
always
> imagined the map as a *small* piece of parchment that shows the 
paths that
> the wizard *intends* to see. (Explaining the 'why wasn't Pettigrew 
spotted
> before' and the 'how can it show several floors' things.) So, after
> activating the map with a wand, there would be some magical 
interaction
> between the wizard and the map that doesn't require a wand (though 
I admit
> the map could guess the wizards intent, since it guesses 
passwords).
> 
> Flying in brooms - though a broom is bewitch to fly, it requires a 
wizard to
> do it (magic carpets don't - that's why they're illegal). But no 
wand is
> required.
> 
> The list could go on, but it's late.
> 
> 
> 
> Susana
> 
> 1h30 - I have to stop doing this to myself...

Pat here:

I have some topic #s for you to check out that go along nicely with 
what you've said here.  Start with #109379 (Wands and Spells).  I 
won't repeat what I said about Wandless Magic (#109601), as it's 
long.  The main thing is that if you talk about Wandless Magic as 
opposed to Hysterical Magic (and maybe they should be separate), 
then you also include all the magic done sans wands by the likes of 
Dumbledore, the house elves, Snape--well, he tells Harry about it in 
a passing comment...just to give you some ideas.

I do think that it is very important that Harry is able to do 
Wandless Magic.  But how that will play out by the end of the 7th 
book, I have no idea.

Pat