Or does the other person need to have magic of their own just to be side-along apparated?

 

Welcome to DLP.

Author's choice. This is one of those questions that we were never given the information to say one way or the other.

 

I see. Thanks.

 

I would say that a wizard could side-along apparate a muggle. It is the wizard doing the magic, sort of bringing the other person along for the ride. I would say this could be supported with the fact that muggles can use portkeys, since that is why wizards make them to look like trash they they wouldn't pick up. It's the objects magic that does it, not their own (or lack of).

 

That makes sense. I was just wondering because people debate whether apparition requires a wand, which led me to wondering whether apparition in any form needs magic from all participants.

 

I don't believe it needs a wand. No incantation is given in the book, not even during the practice (and I don't think the instructions of just concentrating really hard on the 3 D's and hoping for the best is an adequate explanation). I think it's more like an internal expression of one's own magic similar to the animagus transformation, rather than trying to manipulate the world around them.

 

From the examples of side-along apparition we've seen, the passenger seems to be completely passive in the process. It's something that is done to them, not with them. That would indicate that Muggles can be side-alonged.

Anarchy: the source of the necessity of wands for apparition comes from DH, where Ron says they can't apparate because they don't have wands (Malfoy Manor). If a wand is required, it obviously isn't being used actively... you just have to have one on your person.

I've always liked apparition being wandless, though, so I generally ignore it when writing fanfic.

 

Thanks, Taure. Yeah, I suppose I'll just ignore the possible wand requirement in my fic.

 

Yes they can.

 

My preference whenever wandless comes into play is to limit it compared to wanded magic. In the case of Apparition, I'd say that you'd need a wand to properly target a new location or really any destination not within line of sight.

As they aren't taught that, Ron and co. wouldn't know they could do it, though places like the dungeon of Malfoy Manor, most of the Ministry aside from the Atrium and all of Azkaban would be under Anti-apparition charms. Then again, maybe Dobby knows more than he had time to mention and the dungeon's Charms have faded. Then again, again, those charms wouldn't have affected him anyway.

 

Doesn't Harry accidentally apparate to escape Dudley in his gang back when he was younger? If that can be classified as apparition then it follows that apparition doesn't require a wand given that Harry obviously didn't have one.

I'd also say side-alonging a muggle is possible but that's just my opinion.

 

Never confirmed as apparition. It wasn't until I started reading fanfiction that I encountered people who thought it was apparition. IMO, the book clearly presents it as a jump that is boosted.

 

Taure has once again passed the Harry Potter trivia quiz that is his life.

 

Mm, right, it's more of a boosted jump. It's been a quite a while since I read that segment and I remembered it wrong.

 

While we're on a wandless/wanded magic tangent, how does everyone feel about someone casting spells ONLY wandlessly. Like, someone who has discarded the usage of a wand to focus on wandless magic exclusively.

 

Wandless magic in canon seems to be relegated to accidental magic, which is notably inferior to just using a wand. You could have a character use only wandless magic, which would make him harder to disarm, but I'd have it be severely hamstrung to the point where any half competant wizard with a wand could run rings around him.

 

In my never-to-be-published stories the Asians use a form of wandless magic as I imagine in my head canon wand lore is from the Romans and the Chinese/Japanese have been around for a long time. If they want to transfigure or charm something they have to touch it. In my personal opinion a wand would be easier like that since you don't feel the energy leaving your body beyond, well... magic.

I like to make it so that spells used defensively would hurt at least somewhat and only the best of the best-with years of practice beforehand-would be able to, say, cast incendio without at least burning their finger tips or their whole hand.

No, I don't believe that it is a good idea to remove wands from Harry Potter, so I keep it vague in my never-to-be-published stories.

When I write wandless magic I believe it is best to keep it simple, i.e. making something float above the character's hand or using that special connection between wand and witch/wizard to allow someone to summon their wand.

Also, magic is magic and in canon Dobby didn't need to steal his master's wand to be caught (by that logic he could have taken Draco Malfoy's wand and put him into some trouble) so the Ministry tracking system would pickup on the spells used whether you want them to or not.

tl;dr: There is no point in wandless magic as displayed in fanon unless you want to make someone OP. Please nerf it if you write it.

 

Didn't Fenrir and the Snatchers forcibly Side Along the Trio? That would suggest that a Wizards could in fact, bring a muggle along for the ride. In addition, a general fear is muggles picking up portkeys....

As for wandless magic...you can occasionally gets nails out barehanded, and smack pieces of wood in place with your hands, etc etc. But only a few exceptionally powerful people can drive nails with their hands.

In any case, a hammer makes it a hell of a lot easier. Get my gist yet?

 

Hmm. He says he'd been trying to jump, but the first part also makes it seem somewhat instantaneous. One would think he'd know if it were a boosted jump where he just flew/soared up to the roof.

 

I...
I sense a kindred spirit in this one.