Hogsmeade

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Closed.

Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down

Author Topic: To wand or not to wand  (Read 952 times)

Morgan Granger

  • Gryffindor
  • Fifth-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 488
  • Gryffindor and Proud!
    • View Profile
    • Morgan's Livejournal
Re:To wand or not to wand
« Reply #30 on: June 21, 2004, 12:53:27 PM »

However, I think it is possible to wingardium leviosa or accio or alohomora without a wand. Things like that. It just depends on how "magical" you are, as vague as that is.

Good point, but why didn't Harry just summon his wand to him in the Chamber of Secrets?

*bangs head* Oh, never mind! I forgot, Harry didn't learn that spell till book 4! *bangs head some more*
Logged


I hold onto secrets, in White Houses
White Houses, Vanessa Carlton

Madeleine

  • Resident Mum
  • Prefect
  • Seventh-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2406
  • Flavor of the week: Chili Pepper
    • View Profile
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #31 on: June 22, 2004, 04:14:26 PM »

How far away do you think you can be to have your wand light up or to "accio" it?  Do you think there's a distance limit?  Perhaps based on how powerful you are?

We know Voldmort (up until the end of book four) was so weak that he couldn't even eat regular food.  He had to have snake milk, and he couldn't milk Nagini himself.  He had to be carried everywhere, etc, etc.  When does he get his wand?  He doesn't seem to have it in book one.  He, himself, is still in hiding in book two.  Do we know if he has it at all in book three?  By the end of book four, of course, he does.  Perhaps Peter (or maybe Barty, though his window of opportunity was MUCH smaller) went and got it for him.  If so, where had it been held?  Did the Ministry have it?  If so, didn't they NOTICE when it went MISSING?  If not the ministry, then who had it?

I think some things lend themselves more to non-wand use than others, kind of like you can write with finger paints if you want, but a lot of times a pen is just better.  Does that make sense?  Sometimes it so fine and detailed, what you want to do, that you need the precision of a wand.  Maybe.
Logged
Don't get stuck on stupid.

Morgan Granger

  • Gryffindor
  • Fifth-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 488
  • Gryffindor and Proud!
    • View Profile
    • Morgan's Livejournal
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #32 on: June 22, 2004, 04:45:04 PM »

I think for some odd reason that it was laying in the Potter House until Lord Voldemort summoned it, or used one of his supporters to summon it with their wands...I'm not sure, but it's highly likely.
Logged


I hold onto secrets, in White Houses
White Houses, Vanessa Carlton

Cho Chung

  • Defense Against the Dark Arts Professor and Gryffindor Prefect
  • Administrator
  • Seventh-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +10/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3011
  • Have you charmed your prefect today? :D
    • View Profile
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #33 on: June 22, 2004, 10:22:05 PM »

I suspect that it's a plot hole that we'll never find out the answer to.
Logged
Birthdays are great.  Everyone should have them.

Morgan Granger

  • Gryffindor
  • Fifth-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 488
  • Gryffindor and Proud!
    • View Profile
    • Morgan's Livejournal
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #34 on: June 22, 2004, 10:53:27 PM »

Unless we ask J.K. Rowling in person.  ::)

Or at least catch her on an interview thing...  ;)
Logged


I hold onto secrets, in White Houses
White Houses, Vanessa Carlton

SeaShelly3

  • Keeper of the Keys and Grounds and Rogue Wizard
  • Prefect
  • Seventh-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +10/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2081
  • Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
    • View Profile
    • Just a LiveJournal...
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #35 on: July 18, 2004, 12:22:19 AM »

I think it all goes back to the "radio waves" analogy. When Harry lumosed his wand in Book 5, he was panicky enough that his magic was stronger and the wand picked up on his need even though he wasn't touching it. Likewise, a powerful wizard would be able to touch into that skill on demand, but it seems like it would be more difficult. Like trying to listen to the radio without an antenna; you would need an especially strong signal to pick it up.
Logged
The quantity of consonants in the English language is constant. If omitted in one place, they turn up in another. When a Bostonian "pahks" his "cah," the lost r's migrate southwest, causing a Texan to "warsh" his car and invest in "erl wells."

Deedra Malfoy

  • Slytherin
  • Fifth-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 418
  • I am a very pleasant mother pheasant plucker
    • View Profile
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #36 on: July 19, 2004, 01:13:05 PM »

Jumping back a bit...

hagrid got his wand broken before he was old enough to Apparate or Dissapparate.

Lily's magic over Harry is probably not wand related.

You don't really need a wand for occlumency or Legilimens, unless you're Snape and are trying to get into a student's mind.
Logged
Tempus Fugit, so use it wisely

Cho Chung

  • Defense Against the Dark Arts Professor and Gryffindor Prefect
  • Administrator
  • Seventh-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +10/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3011
  • Have you charmed your prefect today? :D
    • View Profile
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #37 on: July 19, 2004, 01:51:39 PM »

Quote
You don't really need a wand for occlumency or Legilimens, unless you're Snape and are trying to get into a student's mind.

How do you know that, Deedra?
Logged
Birthdays are great.  Everyone should have them.

Deedra Malfoy

  • Slytherin
  • Fifth-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 418
  • I am a very pleasant mother pheasant plucker
    • View Profile
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #38 on: July 20, 2004, 01:23:45 PM »

Okay, i was guessing.

but Snape was using spells to try to break Harry's defenses, wasn't he? but, of course, harry used his wand when he wasn't supposed to to block Snape. So, he wasn't supposed to use magic to block Snape out. He was supposed to use his mind. Chiefly. i think? ???
Logged
Tempus Fugit, so use it wisely

SeaShelly3

  • Keeper of the Keys and Grounds and Rogue Wizard
  • Prefect
  • Seventh-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +10/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2081
  • Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
    • View Profile
    • Just a LiveJournal...
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #39 on: July 20, 2004, 01:43:29 PM »

And he said YKW almost always knew when someone was lying to him, and in the Department of Mysteries, he was all "No, Bella, he's not lying. I see the truth from inside his mind."

So to me that makes it sound like it doesn't require a wand...
Logged
The quantity of consonants in the English language is constant. If omitted in one place, they turn up in another. When a Bostonian "pahks" his "cah," the lost r's migrate southwest, causing a Texan to "warsh" his car and invest in "erl wells."

Deedra Malfoy

  • Slytherin
  • Fifth-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 418
  • I am a very pleasant mother pheasant plucker
    • View Profile
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #40 on: July 20, 2004, 01:51:48 PM »

*could almost kiss SeaShelly3, but won't, cause that's gross*

That's basically what i was trying to say, in a round about sort of way!
Logged
Tempus Fugit, so use it wisely

SeaShelly3

  • Keeper of the Keys and Grounds and Rogue Wizard
  • Prefect
  • Seventh-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +10/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2081
  • Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
    • View Profile
    • Just a LiveJournal...
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #41 on: July 20, 2004, 02:37:45 PM »

*backs away slowly*

*turns and runs full-speed out of the thread* 

:roll:
« Last Edit: July 20, 2004, 02:45:50 PM by SeaShelly3 »
Logged
The quantity of consonants in the English language is constant. If omitted in one place, they turn up in another. When a Bostonian "pahks" his "cah," the lost r's migrate southwest, causing a Texan to "warsh" his car and invest in "erl wells."

Deedra Malfoy

  • Slytherin
  • Fifth-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 418
  • I am a very pleasant mother pheasant plucker
    • View Profile
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #42 on: July 21, 2004, 12:13:43 PM »

Sorry. You just made my point for me, that's all. I'll hit you, if you want? >:D
Logged
Tempus Fugit, so use it wisely

SeaShelly3

  • Keeper of the Keys and Grounds and Rogue Wizard
  • Prefect
  • Seventh-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +10/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2081
  • Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
    • View Profile
    • Just a LiveJournal...
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #43 on: July 22, 2004, 11:09:26 AM »

Whew, OK. That would be better.  ;D

*mutters* Dodged a bullet there, didn't I?

No, it was just that I always assumed the same as you, so I went scrounging around for some supporting evidence.  ;D
Logged
The quantity of consonants in the English language is constant. If omitted in one place, they turn up in another. When a Bostonian "pahks" his "cah," the lost r's migrate southwest, causing a Texan to "warsh" his car and invest in "erl wells."

Deedra Malfoy

  • Slytherin
  • Fifth-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 418
  • I am a very pleasant mother pheasant plucker
    • View Profile
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #44 on: July 22, 2004, 02:45:52 PM »

Ha ha.

i like the idea of wandless magic better than magic with wands. I feel like it's almost... more personal. you probably wouldn't have to practice as much! ;D
Logged
Tempus Fugit, so use it wisely

Fang

  • Guest
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #45 on: October 21, 2004, 09:07:20 PM »

When harry was up on his broom and quirrel was trying to get him down he was using a curse! curses require only words.  I think that some simple magic is used without a wand but more complex spells need them.  and also occulumcey....(the thing harry has to take in his 5th year) that doesnt require a wand does it?  i also think like with the glass in the zoo and with aunt marge emotions trigger these things to happen the wizards cant control them....thats how harry didnt get in trouble for turning aunt marge into a balloon!
Logged

Xan

  • Slytherin
  • Fifth-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 462
  • We are better than you
    • View Profile
    • Enter my lair ...
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #46 on: October 25, 2004, 10:17:12 AM »

The thing with the glass and Aunt Marge, that was accidental magic. It's explained in Book 1, if you recall; magic manifests itself when the wielder's angry or scared.

Anyway ... I think it's down to the wrench analogy, again. You can theoretically perform a curse wandless, just like Snape cast the counter-curse wandless, but I think it would take a great deal of magic (maybe it's something NEWT-level which we haven't seen yet. Or maybe it works even if you're not pointint the wand at the target). And if you have a wand but can't/won't speak, you can still cast spells - remember Ron cast that slug-belching curse without saying the words (it backfired, but that's more because his wand was broken), and that Death Eater in OOTP hit Hermione with an unspoken curse. It doesn't pack as big a punch if it isn't spoken - that's canon, incidentally - so I suspect it also isn't as strong if you were to speak the words but not have a wand.

It's like components of a spell. Aside from magic and the knowledge on how to cast it, you need a wand and the ability to speak clearly. If you don't one of those, it won't be as powerful.

I don't think Occlumency/Legimency would take a wand once mastered (same with Apparition and Animagism). It would be kind of stupid if you had to point your wand and say Legimens every time you wanted to peek into someone's mind; that would take the mystique out of everything. So maybe Snape simply hadn't mastered Legimency to that level yet.

//stops rambling and scurries off to study...
Logged
The statement below is true.
The statement above is false.

"Do you ever get embarassed at being so thoroughly and consistently mistaken?" ~ Vergere

Spell check is your friend.

Dawn

  • Ravenclaw
  • First-year Student
  • *
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #47 on: November 05, 2004, 07:49:46 PM »

I'm certain the origional question has been answered on J K Rowling's site.  Basically, a wand is just a focus, something to put your magic to that helps give the end result form.  It holds no magic of it's own.  I'd assume that the magical core would be for some sort of resonance.  That would explain the need for different want types, since your personal magic would resonate better with certain things...
Logged
@~`~

Ping

  • Minister of Magic
  • Administrator
  • Seventh-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +16/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2840
    • View Profile
    • Ping's Notes
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #48 on: November 06, 2004, 04:55:49 PM »

Can you find where it says that? It makes total sense, but I didn't know she'd actually come out and said it.
Logged
Friends don't let friends fly drunk.

One Ping Only

Dawn

  • Ravenclaw
  • First-year Student
  • *
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #49 on: November 07, 2004, 12:25:44 AM »

I really don't remember, but I think it was somewhere on her site.  Sorry, but I don't really want to go through the whole thing again to find it.
Logged
@~`~

Eliza MacLaren

  • Slytherin
  • First-year Student
  • *
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
  • We're better than you.
    • View Profile
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #50 on: November 07, 2004, 04:41:41 AM »

I think I remember that too, Dawn.  As for Harry being able to do wandless magic... please remember, this is HARRY POTTER we are talking about.  He is the protagonist, and it has been proven over and again that he can do things that most wizards cannot (see his conversation with Lupin about the Patronus charm in book 3).  Also, one would assume that a person would have to have some great skills to become a teacher at Hogwarts (Dumbledore wouldn't choose just anyone, or he would have found it much easier to fill the DADA position, and then we wouldn't have had Umbridge).  Ergo, it shouldn't be too surprising that Professor Snape is capable of a certain amount of wandless magic.  He is a teacher, and an operative in the Order of the Pheonix.  Most witches and wizards probably cannot perform much in the way of wandless magic, and using such characters as these to say otherwise is over-rating the average capability.  These are not average wizards, or else they would not hold such extraordinary roles.
Logged
"O be wise; what can I say more?"  - Jacob 6: 12

Ping

  • Minister of Magic
  • Administrator
  • Seventh-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +16/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2840
    • View Profile
    • Ping's Notes
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #51 on: November 07, 2004, 10:33:24 AM »

Good point, Eliza. Harry is a special case, and Snape and Dumbledore are, too. :)  So, can we think of a time when a non-special case (some of the Weasleys, perhaps) use magic without a wand?
Logged
Friends don't let friends fly drunk.

One Ping Only

Dawn

  • Ravenclaw
  • First-year Student
  • *
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #52 on: November 07, 2004, 01:46:27 PM »

I think some of you are forgetting what a focus means.  It's easier to do magic with one, but it's most certainly not impossible.  I'm pretty sure everyone can do accidental magic.  According to what Nevil said about his acception into hogwards, I think you're not considered a wizard until you do.  Besides, Nevil can, and he's the most pathetic wizard there.
Logged
@~`~

Eliza MacLaren

  • Slytherin
  • First-year Student
  • *
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
  • We're better than you.
    • View Profile
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #53 on: November 08, 2004, 06:02:53 AM »

Good point, Dawn.  However, there is a difference between accidental magic and wandless magic.  Accidental magic is just that, an accident.  You don't mean for that, specifically, to happen.  Generally, emotions are at a high, adreneline is pumping, and subconcious brain functions take over.  Purposeful wandless magic, I assume, would be much harder.  You know what you're trying to accomplish, and yet you have to do itwithout the focus used by most witches and wizards.  Hard stuff. 
And no, I can't find any instances of anyone "normal" doing wandless magic.  I'll keep looking, though. 
Logged
"O be wise; what can I say more?"  - Jacob 6: 12

Dawn

  • Ravenclaw
  • First-year Student
  • *
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #54 on: November 08, 2004, 05:05:43 PM »

Ah, your right, I guess it is different.  I suppose you have a point, it would make sense if more powerful wizards had an easier time doing wandless magic.  Still, I wouldn't be surprised if some person who's practically a squib does something purposfully without their wand in a later book.
Logged
@~`~

Cho Chung

  • Defense Against the Dark Arts Professor and Gryffindor Prefect
  • Administrator
  • Seventh-year
  • *****
  • Karma: +10/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3011
  • Have you charmed your prefect today? :D
    • View Profile
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #55 on: November 08, 2004, 07:46:22 PM »

Eliza, I actually think your post makes Dawn's point precisely.  Well, maybe not precisely, but it doesn't contradict what Dawn has said.  If you think of a wand as a focusing agent, it makes it easier and more efficient to do magic with a wand rather than without.  In the cases of accidental magic, the wand isn't needed 1) because it's not purposeful, and 2) because you have adrenaline. 

You see, I think the fact that adrenaline can sometimes help you do what you would/could not do otherwise, then it must mean that everyone has at least the capacity to do magic without a wand, even if only in the most urgent of circumstances.  Most people, however, have to function in situations that aren't urgent, that require forethought and care; maybe even precision.  For those situations, a wand is clearly needed to be the focusing agent where there is no adrenaline.  It seems to me that this would mean that a person would need a real strong force of will/mind in order to be able to do magic without a wand -- thus we've only seen those who are "exceptional" wizards/witches be able to do so. 

Does that make any sense?   
Logged
Birthdays are great.  Everyone should have them.

YamNeo

  • Slytherin
  • Fourth-year Student
  • ****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 203
  • Darkness is the Shadow cast by the Light
    • View Profile
Re: To wand or not to wand
« Reply #56 on: November 08, 2004, 09:05:13 PM »

Here's a thought.

Wands are just a focus for inherent talent.  When someone's focus, or wand, is damaged, their power cannot be controlled and refined properly.  For example, when Ron's wand gets severely damaged in HP2, he cannot perform the simplest of spells, even though his heart is in it.  The reason: the inherent power within him could not be focused properly and safely, thus the unpleasant side-effects.

Others cannot use the focus the right way.  I believe it's Seamus Finnigan (although i could be wrong, and would welcome correction in that case), who blows up his feather in HP1.  This is because he cannot make use of his focus.  That and he can't say a spell to save his life.

When Harry made the glass disappear, he was making use of the power that transferred to him from You-Know-Who.  Since he didn't know about a focus, he didn't need one.  That, and it was a simple task.

On the issue of Apparating, i would think that a focus is absolutely necessary for the safety of the Apparator.  So yes, you would need your wand.

On the other issue of being an Animagus...did anyone notice that You-Know-Who didn't need a want to speak Parseltongue?  Nor did Harry.  Black, Pettigrew, Potter, and Lupin didn't need wands to transform, because it's a "linked" inherent ability.  Initiated by magic, but it runs its own course.  So a wand wouldn't be necessary.  Pettigrew simply needed a focus to cast spells, in case he was followed.

Just my opinion.
Logged
I have found that the pursuit of knowledge and the pursuit of friends often find their paths splitting and running in completely opposite directions.
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up