I realized something from many harry potter fics i read. Even the simplest of magic like cleaning something or fixing something back together, from year 1 to year 6, wands are needed to cast a spell. It's understandable if Harry in many fics are not that experienced or powerful, but i find it a little ridiculous if if the more older experienced harry needs a wand for such simple things.

I saw in many many scenes in harry potter movies where Dumbledore was able to do wandless magic without a wand. Remus was able to scare away the Demantor wandlessly and Voldermort did that fiend fire by breathing out the flames.

It's just a simple beef i have where Harry does simple magic with a wand when he can do it wandlessly.

Any thoughts?

 

Firstly, these examples are from movies, and so we can't really trust what they show. Hell, we can't even trust what JKR writes. Haven't you noticed that the movies don't exactly follow the books? I guess if you're writing something based on the entire Harry Potter series, including the movies, you can use these as justifications for having Harry frighten Dementors wandlessly. And wasn't it a Boggart assuming the general specifications of a Dementor, and not an actual Dementor?

 

The movies aren't canon, thus neither is wandless magic, or any of the other nonsense effects in the movies.

The scene in PoA with Remus and the light can be explained by a half concealed wand, or maybe everyone else just didn't notice because they were under the effects of the Dementor.

Wandless magic is dumb and cliche. I dislike reading stories featuring it as a plot device, unless it's a pretty original fic or it's written extremely well.

 

While i agree, I'm talking about simple magic. I'm sure we don't need to see Dumbledore to conjure a chair out of thin air with his wand when he can do it wandlessly. Or do a stupefy spell wandlessly. I'm talking things simple like first year spells.

 

Simple things like first year spells still need wands.

 

Take away wands and you've taken away a big part of the feel of Harry Potter magic.

I'll never understand peoples' obsession with trying to get rid of them.

 

Additionally to Taure's point, since when are stunning spells (which are lethal in enough quantity) and conjuration taught in first year? I was under the impression that stunning was around 4th/5th year and conjuration was NEWT level...

 

I think a lot of what we perceived as wandless magic, were actually preset spells or pre-charmed objects set to respond to certain stimuli from wizards (words, snapping, gestures, "magical signature", etc).

 

I think the only bit of actual 'wand-less' magic that we have seen is the animagus transformation. Even apperattion needs a wand according to DH. I don't recall Dumbledore so much as lighting a candle with out a wand in the books, much less the stuff he does in the movies.

 

My feelings about wandless magic are complex. On the one hand, I hate how nigh all fanfiction has portrayed it, as basically the Force with glowing lights. On the other hand, I do support it on a canonical and personal taste basis.

I see incantations as the fundamental requirement behind casting HP magic. I recognize many types - spoken, nonverbal, movement (as in Apparation) - and the idea of wandless magic does not conflict with this need at all. In fact, I believe that in all canonical examples of wandless magic, we have seen an prepatory movement (similar to wand movements such as the 'swish and flick' but obviously without the wand).

Two examples right from Sorcerer's Stone. From the description of the spell, it appears to be the Incarcerous, although of course we don't know for sure. The second example would be some sort of neutralization spell similar to Finite Incantatum.

In both these examples we see what could be called a wandless wand movement, and the incantation is nonverbal. So wandless magic is performable.

Consider the situation Barty Crouch would have been in when he would be performing these acts to guard against Dumbledore's application of Veritaserum. Sealed his own throat - could be done with a wand before Dumbledore blasted down the door to his office. But transforming the Potion into something else would not be possible to do with a wand, as Dumbledore would be right by him to force it down his throat. That leaves only one possibility, wandless Transfiguration. This is not at all a definite example, but it does suggest strongly that "sufficiently skilled' wizards have methods of performing relatively impressive feats of magic without wands.

I also think Dumbledore waved his hand at his curtain in OotP to close or part it, but I cannot remember the specifics - if anyone does, could you chime in?

Legilimency is also a wandless spell. The incantation is Legilimens, and eye contact might be considered the wandless 'wand movement.' Occlumens would be the same.

Limitations: However, although wandless magic is definitely possible, it definitely has limits; otherwise, wands would be useless. Wands certainly greatly increase the performance of the spells cast. Very very likely, a very competent wizard wandless fighting a barely competent wizard with a wand would lose to that barely competent wizard (see Draco cornering Dumbledore, although of course Dumbledore's mental state was absolutely disturbed by the potion). Spells probably take much longer to master (and cannot be mastered to as great an extent as with wands) without wands. Some spells, such as the Killing Curse, might be so hard to cast wandlessly that it would be useless to take the time to practice when you can perfect it with wand and move on to another spell in a fraction of the time.

So yes, restricted, and almost useless in combat situations (unless you're facing a complete novice like first-year Harry), I support wandless magic. My main personal reason to approve of judicious use of wandless magic is that I have a deep desire to see wizards portrayed as subtle and working in unobtrusive ways, and a little wandless levitation charm here or there, or some simple charm work, would be a prime tool for the prudent wizard. Dumbledore, berefit a wand, and not having just drank Voldemort's potion, should be able to light a fire at least. Or summon his wand, which might explain his fast wand-draw.

But I'll click the red X when reading a fic with Harry shooting out red laser beams from his palms as fast as anyone.

 

For the sake of mentioning all possibilities, Quirrel's conjuring of ropes may be similar to what we see with apparation, and Harry's Lumos in OotP: all you need is you wand to be in your possession, rather than in your hand. But it's still the wand doing the work. The clicking of the fingers could be explained as either theatrics or as a mental aid to the spell without holding the wand.

Though DH tells us that you don't need a wand to do magic: Ollivander says that almost anything can be used as a focus, it's just that wands are the best. So in this case maybe Quirrel was using his fingers as a focus.

 

Then how can you explain Harry turning teachers hair blue? He was just a child who did accidental magic with no focus what so ever and had no idea magic existed. Or how he blew his aunt up like an inflated balloon, which was before his third year.

I believe magic can be used without a wand, whether one needs a focus or not.

 

Whether one has a focus or not determines whether the magic is focused...or not. That's not really the same as actively using and utilizing magic. Waving a hand and turning on a light is not the same thing as getting angry and having his Aunt Marge blow up. The HP verse subtly hinted at how dangerous unfocused magic could be. Case-in-point: Harry blowing up his aunt, Ron's broken wand, and Ariana Dumbledore.

 

I always saw wand vs wandless magic a bit like comparing a knife to a rolling pin.

Sure you can break that cheese up, but with the rolling pin you're going to waste one helluva lot of time and energy.

 

That shit is easy.

Now doing wandless magic with a wand... that's hard.

'Cause then it isn't wandless anymore.

See the problem(s)?

 

I have thought of another idea that can explain the lack of wandless magic. The reason all spells need a magical focus in order to be cast is because they were designed with a magical focus in mind. As such it would not be possible to cast spells without a focus since the focus would be a necessary component to the spell.

Whether or not a witch or wizard would be able to focus their magic enough to create reproducible and predictable effects without an external focusing agent is a whole other issue.

 

But there are Animagi, Metamorphomagi, and, if I recall correctly, Riddle flying all by himself without any aid in DH.

 

The reason for a lack of wandless magic in the books was given in HBP, I realize many people pass over the book as being "Half-Baked", but this passage stood out to me as I read the book in 3 hours the night it was released.

So it is quite obvious that Wandless magic (not accidental) is entirely possible, and frowned upon in the Wizarding world. What I can infer from this is that because magic is tied to emotions (see Tonks losing her powers in HBP as well), using wandless magic to such a large extent may create and be the cause of emotional problems, especially leading to cases such as Voldemort, where his magic "ran away" with him.

 

I disagree with your interpretation of Tonk's loss of powers. "Magis is tied to emotions" is too broad of a statement - a more accurate wording would be that the onset of certain emotional conditions can hinder one's use of magic. If we accept the reasonable premise that magic is analagous to rational control over reality, then it is easy to see how adverse emotional conditions could hinder magical abilities. If you are severely depressed, then the quality of work that you perform - work that requires reasoned, structured thought, such as essay writing, spell casting, and so on - will suffer.

Also, Riddle's example supports this when juxtaposed with Harry's accidental magic episodes. While Harry, reacting in a panicked way to harmful situations, performed random spurts of accidental magic, Riddle, who developed his ability through structured desires, performs directed wandless magic. I would not call his actions 'accidental' magic. "I can make them hurt if I want to;" note how Riddle is the one directing the action, it is not the glorified equivalent of luck.