I can't remamber precisely, but I do think there is evidence of the importance, and the relative difficlty of mastering wand movement. If there were ten or so and they were easy to combine, then it would be easy to just teach those in first year and be done with it. In the DA Harry goes around and corrects wand movements; I can't remember in transfiguration, but I wouln't be surprised if it were important then as well. Maybe when canon refers to 'swish' or 'jab' (et cetera) it's a general description, or a classification of the wand movement. I really don't care about how Flitwick started with a 35 cm flick from up left to down righ with a 150° angle to the floor or whatever. It's a caricature, but the point is that canon is very readable.

I would need to read back, but:
1) the connection between Voldemort and himself is very special, it is true that he gains some control over it, but he shows no mastery of it with any other wizard (as far as i remember)
2) I think the connection naturaly pulls him in Voldemort's mind, and he learns to somewhat hold it off or not - he doesn't truely initiate them himself (if this is the case and my memory isn't totally off)
3) Even if that were the case, I think it's a lot easier to enter somebody's mind if they inadvertently gave you a piece of their soul (is Voldemort even aware that Harry has access?)
4) Voldemort isn't actively trying to enter Harry's mind (because of the OotP love thing?), and Harry probably couldn't stop

Wrong - it is canon.

As far as wandless magic being 'very rare', that's not true either. The use of any magical artefact for we is wandless and constitutes an act of magic (unless you consider the act of magic is in creating the artefact). Can muggles ride a broom? Even if you consider that not to be magic, potions is magic and it is wandless (and I think we have some evidence it requires magic from the brewer).

I think we do.

 

Then provide proof.

The two examples people use are Quirrel in PS and Lupin on POA, but we have no idea if these are wandless or not - we already know that you can perform magic using a wand without actually holding the wand (apparation, Harry in OotP).

No it doesn't. The point of magical artifacts is that the user doesn't have to do anything - the work has been done for them. We know that magic isn't required to use pre-enchanted magical devises, because Mrs. Figg can use the Floo.

True, but it is still Occlumency and Legilimency being used. Otherwise Dumbledore wouldn't have had Harry learn Occlumency in OotP,

 

True, it's almost impossible to prove that magic 'without focus whatsoever' is canon, but there are many occurences of magic where it seems to be without focus and the person isn't holding a wand (sometimes isn't in possession of a wand). Yes, I consider Quirrel in PS to be using wandless magic; I don't see any evidence suggesting it wouldn't be so. I don't know what Lupin does in POA; and I just looked for a source stating the need for a wand during apparition (was it an interview?), but was unsuccessful (though I do think she states it somewhere). Other things are: accidental magic (which arguably isn't controlled so it's a bit irrelevant in practice) and house elves (who aren't human and have their own brand of magic). End of GoF Voldemort implies he can do magic without a wand.

A squib isn't a muggle, and I'd like to know whether they can ride a broom, or use portkeys. Just because the user doesn't have to concentrate on the magic doesn't mean it isn't comming from him (though I agree it is borderline at best). It could also depend on the object: clicking the deluminator is mechanical, but the way in which wizards ride a broom seems to corroborate my theory, as there is no obvious action, and it seems to work through intent. In any case, the reason I included the 'for me' and 'unless you consider the act of magic is in the creation of the artefact' is because I think it's a matter of opinion so unless you provide proof (which is welcomed) I don't see the point of stating it like fact.
That still leaves potions as wandless magic; if it weren't magic wizards could train anyone to brew potions, and i don't think it requires a wand (though of course, I can't prove that the brewer doesn't have a wand in his pocket while putting in the ingredients). Also kwikspell seems to indicate (though I don't think it proves) that squibs would have trouble with potions.

Dumbledore didn't predict that Harry would be so hard to possess... the way I see it is Harry being very instinctive and finding some sense in the way the connection works, but independent of any normal Occlumency, and without understanding much about it (the idea for me in showing that Harry is bad at Occlumency is that he doesn't understand it, and therefore neither do we).

 

A squib is merely a muggle born to wizards. The only thing I think is different between them is that they are not included in anti-muggle things. They can see Howgwarts and possibly Dementors.

A deluminator just shut off the lights and turn them back on, nothing more. Dumbledore made a special one for Ron, so there is not 'intent'. If the lights are on, it shut them off and the opposite.

Sorry, but kwikspell is not really a source of information. Who says they can't train anyone to do it? I think no pureblood would ever let a muggle touch his cauldron though, and that perhaps some of the ingredients would be invisible to them.

He was willing to die because he knew Harry would win at the end.

 

They can't see Dementors, and since a Squib is just a Muggle, it's likely that they can't see Hogwarts either.

JKR said Kwikspell never worked.

It's in DH. They're at Malfoy Manor, they consider apparating out, but then say they can't because they haven't got their wands.

1. We know it's possible to do magic with a wand without holding said wand.
2. We know Voldemort likes theatricality, so would like Quirrel doing this sort of thing to make him look more powerful.
3. We know that Quirrel wasn't the most skilled or talented of wizards. Judging by the complete lack of wandless magic in canon, if it exists then it is a rare skill - unlikely that a wizard such as Quirrel would have mastered it.

 

Filch.

Unless you mean they can't see it until they're brought inside, which would still be rather annoying for the man, considering he's the caretaker, but he does live there . . . so I dunno.

 

JKR has said that Squibs have absolutely no magic. Not just weak magic - no magic. She has also said that Squibs cannot see Dementors. This pretty much shows that Squibs are indistinguishable from Muggles.

As for Filch...yeah, I reckon he must have to be led there, or enter/exit through the Floo. But as you say, he doesn't seem to leave often, so it may not be something that ever comes up.

 

Mrs. Figg claims she saw a Dementor. I don't care what JKR says in interviews
since she said Dumbledore is gay...

 

Mrs. Figg also gave an inaccurate description of a squib showing she can't see them.

 

It was clear from the trial that she couldn't see the Dementors, only feel them. So it's in the books as well.

In this case it's JKR clarifying canon, not contradicting it, with what she has said.

And it's on her website, not in an interview, which I consider more canon in my "hierarchy of canon".

http://forums.darklordpotter.net/showthread.php?t=9622

 

hp-lexicon states that "A Suib is not a Muggle. Born to a wizarding family, a Squib has such a low level of magical power that he or she is essentially unable to do any magic at all. However, while a Squib cannot cast spells, he or she can apparently see magical beings such as poltergeists, though not dementors". While I don't consider the lexicon to be a source of absolute truth, I believe that unless a better source comes along.

Yes, I can see your point. Lockhart also didn't work, so pixies probably don't exist either.

 

Here's your better source:

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19

If I had a pound for every time I've had to quote that on this site, I'd be a rich man.

"he or she is a non-magical person"

Non-magical person = Muggle. Thus, Squibs are Muggles, the sole difference being that they have magical parents.

"Filch’s Kwikspell course never worked"

No, pixies definitely exist, we've seen them in canon. Lockhart's "spell" for getting rid of them is debatable.

 

Right, so it's a matter of opinion (like most of this). But the other two cases of wand magic without holding it (that I know of) are specific. Apparition in the sense that it's a general transportation movement where the whole body is involved, so having the wand againts the body for me is like having a wand in your hand when wand movements are involved. In OotP, Harry is inches from his wand, reaching for it, and the magic clearly exerts itself through his wand. Quirrel seems not to have any interaction towards a wand whatsoever.

"Quirrell raised his hand to perform a deadly curse" when we know there is no wand in his hand. Previously, he snapped his finger to conjur ropes. The fact that he was trained and possessed by Voldemort, and broke into Gringots without direct presence from voldemort indicates that he is actually pretty skilled. I don't see anaything that suggests he wouldn't be.
Moreover, Voldemort can do wandless magic: "for I had no body, and every spell that might have helped me required the use of a wand..."

Right; that's not bad, except I would have liked the 'almost the opposite of a mugglborn wizard' not to be there. They also have access to 'certain magical objects and creatures' which implies the possibility that they can't operate all of them. It also isn't specific on anti-muggle spells, and seeing certain magical creatures. I thought there were many anti-muggle spells in Hogwarts, and if there are and Filch is affected by them, then he'd be barmy (which he is, but still.... ^^)

I know pixies exist, my point was that, when I say that kwikspell claims to cure potions deficiency, therefore it is probable that squibs cannot do potions, stating that the cure doesn't work doesn't prove the symptom isn't there. That still leaves potions as wandless (and coreless?) magic, as well as accidental magic (and possibly house elves).

I'm sorry Grubdubdub, but most of that post is irrelevant.

Squibs can't see dementors.

I know what a deluminator is, Dumbledore didn't make one for Ron, it is his own invention, and he intended the unique model (his own) to Ron in his will. I said that brooms seem to wor through intent, while the deluminator doesn't.

Kwikspell is a perfectly good source of information, as long as you don't assume everything it claims is true. It is the equivalent of bogus TV marketing. They claim to get rid of a problem: while the solution probably doesn't work, they have every advantage in claiming to cure something that really does exist.

Some soldiers who fight in a war are willing to die for a country or a cause. Just because Dumbledore knew it was the right thing to do, and that it would give Harry the best chance of success doesn't mean he somehow saw into the future - I think it is right to propose he had faith. My claim that 'Dumbledore didn't predict Harry would be so hard to possess' has nothing to do with Dumbledore knowing or not knowing who would win in the end.

 

I took that to mean that the trio did not want to Apparate out with no wands rather than they needed their wands to Apparate. :/

Suppose your way makes more sense though.

 

We know that once you're passed anti-Muggle spells they longer affect you (e.g. Mr and Mrs Granger in Diagon Alley.)

You got me on the wandless magic though - Voldemort's quote in GoF is pretty conclusive, even though I think Quirrel is still debatable. However, it's also clear from Voldemort's quote that for most spells, a wand is needed.

 

I've always held the opinion that Squibs just didn't have enough magic to affect their surroundings, whereas Muggles didn't have a drop unless the progeny was a sport.

 

Maybe you're right on anti-muggle spells. But for platform 9 3/4 and Diagon Alley, a major part of the protection (if not the protection) is the hidden nature of the access point - if there is no other protection in those cases, then of course you wouldn't be affected once you're in.

Yes, at least the most advanced spells can't be performed without a wand.

 

Non-magical person = Muggle. Thus, Squibs are Muggles, the sole difference being that they have magical parents.

Makes you wonder what about the spell makes them intrinsically only be able to be cast with a wand, other than being more advanced...

 

Once again a story thread is being clogged up by speculation on magic. Can we move the discussion to PMs or to a new thread?

 

The limitation could possibly be on the wizard and not the spell - Voldemort is of the nature to declare that any piece of magic he can't perform can't be done, and in any case he does push the bounds of magic, some things people don't think can be done before he does them. That or the fact that spells that would restore a person's body probably aren't the type of spells we know much about.