Everyoen seems to think that wandless magic is difficult or impossible. Doesn't Quirrel use it at the end of PS? He does conjuration, hexing and is ready to use a deadly curse and not once is a wand mentioned.

Is that jsut voldies influence, or does it show that magic can be done without a wand if a person so chooses

 

Old thread on this for reference.
http://darklordpotter.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=517&highlight=wandless

The way she writes the books, it wouldn't suprise me if a 6 year old muggle can do wandless magic by the time she's done, b/c good lord the women doesn't understand reality checking herself, or at least continuity. There's many example of wandless magic in the books, and the movies... good lord wandless and wordless abound.

 

sorry, I hadn't seen the old thread, but I must agree with it, JKR just writes what she wants, bedamned with the precidents set in the past books.

 

Nah it's fine, I was just including it for reference, since it's been awhile since it was discussed.

 

Sorta the way they don't use time turners to prevent Voldemort's return, Sirius' death, the basilisk being released, dumbledore dying, etc etc

Or how Lupin is nonexistant and then shows up out of nowhere when he was the closest (as far as the world was concerned) living person to harry's parents.

 

Hey she's not Tolkien. He spent years creating the world that is Middle earth. So he defined the parameters of the world. JKR on the other hand doesn’t have a such restraints so she can chose to write what ever she wants.

Which she has…

 

Tolkien is a bit wank really.

But seriously, it isn't too much to ask for an author to keep within the boundaries created by her own writing. Everyone else who writes sci-fi/fantasy seems to manage it just fine.

 

Tinder, what do you mean by "Tolkien is a bit wank really."? Are you saying that he was mean when he was alive?

 

Calling Tolkien anything short of god is blashpemy.

 

i can't stand any of his works. I find them all boring as well, a h/g lovefest.

I simply cannot enjoy them, be they in book or film form.

 

Well, each to his own I guess. Anyways, lets get BOT.

 

Alot of LoTR bored the hell out of me, specifically Sam/Frodo/Gollum stuff. I could handle the invented language, and I enjoyed all the lore, but hell even in the movies any Sam/Frodo moment just came off gay as hell

 

Maybe Sam is gay? With how he was acting, you may never know. But, some of the scenes I thought were really well done, like the scene before the spider thingy. Anywho, I think that in order to do wandless stuff, you would probably need a good ammount of will as to be able to force your magic to act without the wand.

 

I enjoyed the Hobbit far more than LOTR.

About halfway through the Two Towers I just stopped reading out of boredom, and never went back.

I enjoyed the movies though.

 

I read Lord of the Rings when I was eight, and it was okay then. I saw the first two films but just couldn't be arsed with the third. Tolkien honestly isn't that amazing. Just because he was (to a certain degree) first, doesn't mean he was best. If you'd read the Silmarillion you would know what I mean.

Personally my favourite Tolkien work is Smith of Wootton Major. It's mercifully short.

The modern day equivalent of Tolkien is that idiot who writes Wheel of Time. Extraordinarily tedious.

 

That's why I like the Hobbit, not too short, not too long, and plenty of action instead of 30 pages dedicated to hobbits walking through a meadow.

 

But some people may like to read 30 pages of hobbits frolicking in meadows!

Back on Topic, Wandless magic has been thrown around too lightly for it to amount to anything major. Characters who aren't that powerful witches/wizards who can do wandless magic, even though minor spells, aren't really paving the way for the universal "Wandless magic kicks arse" logo.

 

The only time I've seen wandless magic done well (other than accidental magic) is an Azkaban story where he has sorcerers under his control, but they use a completely different form of magic than the normal wizards use, and no spells we've been shown. Can't remember the name of the fic though, only that the head sorcerer decapitates a death eater in front of Hermione (I believe it was Lucius) to put on display.

 

When I mentioned Tolkein I wasn't implying he was the best author. But he did put a lot of effort into creating the background and the world at large. And if you read his books you get a sense of seeing more than the characters. My point was that by putting so much effort into the background he created limits and mechanisms for the way the world works. JKR does not do that. Which is not a bad thing, just something I wanted to point out.

Wandless magic IMO is extremely difficult to do. The main aspects of wandless magic we see is when people loose control of their emotions and even then it’s more of a pulse of accidental magic being released. The properly trained probably could do it but it would be extremely weak and unfocused. That’s what a wand does. It focuses the magic making the spell more effective and easy. Where as with wandless it would take a lot of power to do simple things. Kindda like a flash light and a Laser.

That’s just my opinion.

 

david that fic is either Lord of Caer Azkaban or Earl of the North

neither is really worth reading, they have are so low they can't go down hill anymore.

i think perhaps maybe all thats needed for wandless magic is the will power to force your magic through your hand. A wand may be used at first to get people used to the feeling of magic, and also for more pwoerful spells.

You may remember in PS at Ollivanders, he says that Harry's parents went in for their "first" wands.