It's not so much capacity to concentrate as ability to focus. It's true that with training, people tend to be able to focus more. Star athletes (and long-time video gamers) tend to be able to concentrate better than the average joe.

 

I disagree. I'll use the metaphors you used: athletes that practice all day without a trainer will more probably hurt them self then help them self. A gamer that shoots a wall all day isn't a good player and won't be. The DA wasn't good because they practiced more, they we're good because they had good technique and habits.

 

Good technique and habits which were the result of practice.

Practice and general experience with magic does indeed seem to have a positive effect upon spellcasting. Harry was able to successfully cast the shield charm at the end of GoF, meaning that he had the wand movements etc. correct, but it was barely able to stop mild jinxes.

By HBP the force of it was knocking people backwards. Why is this? The only difference between the shield he used in GoF and the one he used in HBP is that he was much better at the spell in HBP, and yet he already had the wand movements and so forth down in GoF. So it was other factors that increased the strength of the spell - practice being one of the main ones. Harry was much more familiar with the shield charm by HBP than he was in GOF.

We can see the same thing occurring on a smaller scale in GoF when Harry spends all night trying to cast the summoning charm. Now, it can't have taken long to get the wand movements and incantation right, because wand movements and saying words are pretty simple. Thus, the key factor in his successful casting of the spell was the night's worth of practice.

Of course, this is just one factor of magical skill, but it is a factor.

 

Yes, I rather agree (on all points). Concentration is something you improve over time, I think, although it isn't straightforward of course.

Are the mind arts a type of magic I'm not aware of?

Banishing stuff isn't terribly hard, but you do need a bit of concentration (remember the charms class on the subject).

 

Again, I disagree. Ron didn't 'say words' correctly, but he is possibly retarded so never mind. Wand movements though are much trickier. Angle, speed, force... a lot of places to make a mistake. I think Harry had a natural grasp for dueling, so he knew what he sorta needed to do and practiced until he got results. Those who don't have a natural grasp for things will end up poking their eyes out and getting bad habits. Only after you know your goal you can achieve it.

 

Occlumency is magic that concerns the mind, as in Legilimency. While never officially labeled "The Mind Arts" in canon, it is an accurate descriptor.

1. He was a first year.
2. That lasted a single lesson. And most likely he was saying it wrong deliberately because he didn't like Hermione telling him what to do.

You're assuming that those things are a factor. While in my own conception of Harry Potter they are, it has to be said that in canon they're never mentioned. Hell, solely from what we observe in canon, most spells don't even have a wand movement.

Even still: it can't take long to get a wand movement right. They last for all of a second or so. There will be some problems initially, yes, and after that some extra nuance that can be gained to give the spell extra juice, but still getting it wrong after several years? Unlikely.

 

Dark Magic ritual, that is.... (actually, imagine yoda if the same rule applied to SW)

Don't you think you're paraphrasing?

I agree on your general points, and I think it's also just getting used to the magic (there's always seemed to be something instinctive about it, maybe that's just me). But as for the wand movements, theoretically they could be hard to get down (I don't they actually were for the summoning charm).
Think of juggling, even if you know what to do with your hands, it's not necessarily easy to do it fast enough or without getting confused before having some practice, and even if you do it right, that doesn't mean you couldn't do it better. (i sorta like that analogy)

 

Yep, that's the kind of thing I meant.

I will bet my left nut that there are harder spells to say, so first year isn't an excuse as it's a first year's spell.

I hate fics that say 'wands are only sticks that make you believe in yourself'. Even if that's what Rowling intended, I won't agree. You have to do things in a certain way. Maybe in each wizard it's slightly different, but it's similar.

Look at the Lexicon's spell list. Look how many. Multiply by 8. (say it's swish and flick: 2 movements, 2 speeds, 2 angles, 2 forces.) Come back to me when you're done...

Edit: about the last part, I just remembered 'swish and flick' is a first grade level. make that multiply by 12 or 16...

 

I suppose it is, though I don't really like it too much because people who do often start inserting new weird stuff like telekinesis. But if Snape were to rave about the Dark Lord being an expert in the Mind Arts, it would sound about right.
I think we were talking of normal magic though, Occlumency is really seperate I think (first, it's one of the only wandless magic we know about, which means it's fundamentally different).

In any case, it's clearly not what she intended, she make the importance of wands very clear, and the helplessness of a wizard without one just as much so. Maybe you're womplicating wand movements a bit with you four factors, but on the main, even if it lasts one second (which is actually pretty long) there is plenty you can do in that time.

 

Magic is magic. Anyway, IMO, only the Mind arts and Transfiguration needs intense concentration. I don't remember if it was influenced by fanon or not, though. Also, potions most probably need concentration, albeit a different kind. attentive I guess.

 

One of the problems is that Harry is really crap at anything that doesn't require a wand (except rinding a broom, if you include that, which you should). We really don't know much about it, and Snape didn't help, because he gave litterally no information (the classes were just a poor excuse to get into his mind and strain their relationship).

 

What's that gotta do with anything? Anyway, he was decent in Herbology and showed in the O.W.L exam that he isn't that bad in potions. Also, in Care to Magical Creatures he is decent enough. The reason he didn't pick Warding and Runes isn't because he feels he won't be good at it, it's because of Ron. So why Harry isn't good without a wand...?

 

I don't think O.W.L.s are actually hard. I can't remember his marks (Es I suppose, in the subjects yolu mentioned), but by that standart Ron isn't too bad at charms, except he is. Is there such a thing as warding in the book (I always thought that was a fanon thing - may be wrong)? In potions he doesn't have a clue of what he's doing - he's only any good when he reads the Prince's instructions like a cookbook. We don't see him perform any wandless magic in care of magical creatures, as far as I'm concerned. Just because the animals are magical doesn't mean he takes care of them using magic, and when he does it probably involves a wand (not when Hagrid is teaching, I suppose). Idem in Herbology, were the magic is in the object and not the subject, as far as I'm concerned.

Why this is relevant is that we only know as much as Harry does, and because he doesn't know anything about wandless magic. The best clues in magical theory we get in the areas he is proeficient in (patronus, shield, stunner).

Maybe crap is a strong word, and mediocre a better one, but Ron is mediocre in most things as well, and well...he's crap.

Edit - I don't know what mark Ron had at his Charm OWL, even if it's an A and not an E it gets my point across.

 

Warding? Perhaps you mean arithmancy...

And Harry was good at Occlumency in the end too. He created his own method, which just showed what I've always said: Occlumency, to a certain extent, cannot be taught. Certain pointers can be given (e.g. clear your mind) but in the end it's down to the individual to do the work (thus why Snape told Harry to practice every night).

Not seeing what you're getting at here.

To be Gio, you're making a strawman. I never said wands weren't important. I just said that there's no evidence in canon that most spells have a wand movement.

Disagree. To me, OWLs are exactly what they say they are: Ordinary Wizarding Levels i.e. the level of magic an ordinary, average wizard can hope to achieve. NEWTs are for those who are above average.

Still not seeing what this has to do with anything. There are some magics that don't require a wand, yes (very few), but they bear no relation to each other.

 

About Wandless magic.....while it is true that Rowling never explicitly stated that wandless magic is impossible, there aren't any real hints in the canon about it being possible either.

Personally, I think that while it is possible, it rather likely not easy to master. Nothing to do with power, cause if that were so Dumbledore and Voldemort would be able to do it, right? And you never see any wandless magic from them in canon, as far as I remember.

So, its rather likely difficult to master (but still possible, at least thats what I'd like to think.) and so most (or even all) wizards and witches never even attempt to learn it, rather like animagus transformation.
Besides, if wandless magic was easy, or even possible, Expelliarmus would be rather useless, no?

 

Actually, wandless magic is canon. In DH Ollivander said that a wizard can use almost any instrument to cast spells, and it's simply wands that work the best.

Magic without any focus whatsoever, however, isn't canon. Were it to exist, I would imagine that it would be along the same theory as non-verbal magic: the wand movements are still there, but performed mentally rather than physically.

 

That's 6 year. OWL's are in 5 year.


[/quote]

What I'm getting at, is that the answer is in it's hundreds if not thousands and you need to memorize it all. So yes, wand movements is important.

So they pull out their wand, and do nothing with it? Just point at something? I doubt that.

 

They say a little thing called in incantation.

Regarding wand movements, the way I like to see it is that there are a few core wand movements: say, 10 or so (swish, flick, jab, point, wist, guard, etc.) and that certain spells require certain wand movements. Not every spell will require a unique wand movement though - spells in the same field will require the same wand movement. I also think that as a person masters a spell more and more, the less they need the wand movement as they are more familiar with the magic.

However, it is important to note that this is just how I like to think about it. As far as canon goes, there are about 3 spells with wand movements.

 

I can't remember any evidence that Harry gets any good at Occlumency; I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but what I do remember: he isn't good during his classes with Snape, who probably was trying to help him (he literally doesn't achieve anything in those classes, it seems). At the end of OotP, Voldemort has no trouble penetrating his mental defences, but he is saved by love (or whatever you want to call it). At the end of HBP, he is so permeable that Snape blocks his spells before they are cast. I can't really remember what happens in realtion to occlumency in DH, except that he has loads of visions (though he doesn't try to block them).

I said OWLs aren't hard; if you think they are what every wizard can hope to achieve (and I add, should achieve), then you don't think they are hard either, and therefore you proably agree, but think disagreeing is more fun (which I do too).

My initial point was that we know very little about wandless magic, because Harry knows very little about wandless magic, because he is very mediocre (I initially said 'crap', which is excessive but gets my point across just as well) at most things that don't require a wand. Why this is important is that there is very little we can say about wandless magic, except that it exists.

 

What happens is that HP is able to completely master it, entering and leaving Voldemort's mind at will. He is able to hold off visions, or initiate them himself.