I've seen good explanations for why wizards need incantations. I'm particularly fond of Shezza88's, but I've never seen an explanation for why spells need wand movements, at least none that I remember which suggests that I've never read a good one. Does anyone have an explanation? Preferably a well thought out one.

 

Try Santi's BWL, it isn't detailed or highly developed, but the bits he includes about wand movements makes sense I believe.

 

First of all, maybe these threads can help you:
A Theory on Wand Movements: https://forums.darklordpotter.net/showthread.php?t=13033
Vegeimester's Unified Theory of Magic: https://forums.darklordpotter.net/showthread.php?t=13033
Two Opposing Models of Magic: https://forums.darklordpotter.net/showthread.php?t=1515
Silent/Verbal Spells: https://forums.darklordpotter.net/showthread.php?t=10395

Wand movements, incantations, swish and flick things, all of them had been discussed so many times not only on this forum, but also on the whole internet. You'll find that, given JKR never really give canon explanation about how exactly magic in her world works, there are so many fanon theories about it. Most of them sucks, but some of them good. And personally, so far I'm still with Taure's opinion about this:

But, once again,

 

I haven't read those articles Little Knee posted yet, although I usually find myself agreeing with Taure when it comes down to magical theory.

Right now, however, I'd like to propose an alternative to the idea, that the wand movement is part of and inferior to the incantation. We've learned a little more about wands and their surprisingly sentient nature. They actually seem to play a larger role in the performance of spells than previously thought. So I'm going to propose that the wand movement is not part of the incantation, but its equal, only fulfilling its role for a different magical medium. Basically, the wand movement is to the wand, what the incantation is to the wizard. And it's the intent of the caster that combines to those two into a spell.

So, just like an experienced wizard will, over time, be able to cast spells silently, an experienced wand will be able to cast spells with minimal movement. This would mean, that if Dumbledore would get a new wand from Ollivander's, he'd probably be able to perform the Levitation Charm silently, but would have to do the wand movement perfectly, because the wand would still be completely inexperienced. His wand would basically be a 11 year old Hogwarts student, that's just learning all those spells for the first time.

I'm not yet sure how the connection between a caster and his wand plays into this. I can imagine, that the more wand and wizard have adjusted to each other, the less exact the wand movement needs to be, because there's a case of shared experience. The greater the loyalty and shared experience between wand and wizard, the easier it is to cast a spell. And the easier it is to cast a spell, the less one has to move the wand and speak the words. This would, in that case, also count for how well one is able to perform a spell silently with a non-chosen wand. Neville's initial failure at casting would be explained even further if this was true, although that seems to have been based mostly on his confidence.

On the other hand, I can also imagine the experience of wizard and wand being the only thing that matters when it comes down to casting spells silently and with minimal wand movement. In that case, Dumbledore would still be able to easily cast spells silently and with negligible movement if he used an experienced wand, that wasn't actually his. The connection between wand and wizard would then be completely separate from the the way in which a spell is performed and only effect how well it works. So Dumbledore would still be able to use the Levitation Charm with a simple flick of the wrist, but he'd only be able to levitate six tables instead of thirty. If shared experience does play a role, he might need to speak the words out loud and definitely make an actual swish and flick, while still 'only' levitating six tables.

Considering the nature of spells and wands, I'd say shared experience and a greater connection between caster and wizards would indeed play a role. I'm not sure about this though and can't really think of any occasion in canon that truly supports either theory, seeing as wand movements are rarely mentioned and most wands are either chosen or won, thus creating a fairly strong connection.

 

^That actually pretty close to what I think abut wands. I always tought elder wand had equelant of photographic memory so wand remembers every spell it casted and when it gets less experienced user it helps ıts user. It is why it was udefeatable simply because you always get maximum effect.

 

I always thought that incantations and wand movements were foci for the spell just as a wand is. Of course I don't subscribe to magical cores or any of that nonsense.

I figure that magic is a force of some sort that simply exists. Wizards and witches are able to draw that force into themselves and then focus it to perform whatever spell they require.

As a side note on "magical power" I think it has to do with experience in casting rather than some people having more magic than others.

When a witch or wizard draws magic into themselves they use different foci to channel the spell.

Magical Ability+Intent+Wand+Wand Movement+Incantation = Spell

Magical Ability simply means that their body is able to channel magic. A wandless and wordless incantation is channeled only by the body and intent, which explains why it is difficult to cast and I would also say that it tires a wizard more quickly because the witch or wizards body has to pick up the slack, along with the intent, for the wand, movement, and incantation.

All the components simply act to focus the magic and make it easier to cast spells, although all that is actually needed is the intent and ability. Also, wands are a necessary part of spellcasting now because they allow witches and wizards to cast spells they would otherwise be incapable of and allow them to cast longer and with more efficiency.

Does any of that make sense or am I just crazy?

 

Other Price could then be anything - memories for a patronus; ingredients for a potion (I'm currently working on bashing out a theory that includes potions as VERY focused spells); time taken to draw runes/arrays whatever.

 

I just want to say thanks for the replies, particularly to Little Knee and ViolentRed

 

I disagree with this part. I don't think that the way in which experienced wizards get lazy with their wand movements is analogous to silent casting at all.

Remember, silent casting isn't the casting of spells without an incantation. The incantation is still there. It is still complete. It is unchanged. It is merely said in the mind, not with the mouth.

The analogue of lazy wand movements would rather be the abbreviation of incantations.

 

But silent casting is, in a way, an abbreviation of incantations. It isn't a replacement of thinking for saying, because you already had to form the words in your mind, before you could speak them. So it's really a way to shorten the incantation process from thinking and speaking to just thinking.

It might be the case, that you have to formulate the words in your mind a lot clearer when casting silently, then when you would speak them. But this could just as well be true for abbreviated wand movements. It's quite possible you need a rather crisp flick when performing an abbreviated Levitation Charm, while a full swish and flick can be done a little sloppy once the wand's experienced enough.

 

Pfft, I never think before I speak.

 

Actually, the analogue might be the highly-experienced witch or wizard imagining the wand movements instead of actually making them, envisioning the wand movements in the same was as envisioning the incantation.

That sort of "mental" muscle memory would be exceedingly difficult, and would somewhat explain the speed with which D'dore and LV were going at it in the Atrium.