We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

	Subtopic	Started By	Posts
	"Questions that should have been asked" Last Post: Mar 02, 2005, 09:29 am	Bmat	7
	Archive through Aug 02, 2004 Last Post: Aug 13, 2004, 02:22 pm		20
	Archive through Aug 18, 2004 Last Post: Aug 23, 2004, 11:13 am		20
	Archive through Jul 13, 2004 Last Post: Jul 13, 2004, 04:14 pm		20
	Archive through Jul 26, 2004 Last Post: Jul 27, 2004, 06:23 am		20
	Archive through Jun 03, 2004 Last Post: Jun 03, 2004, 11:32 am		20
	Archive through Oct 06, 2004 Last Post: Dec 17, 2004, 12:42 pm		20
	Archive through Jun 13, 2004 Last Post: Jun 15, 2004, 11:39 am		20
	Archive through Jun 29, 2004 Last Post: Jun 30, 2004, 06:45 am		20
	Archive through Mar 04, 2004 Last Post: May 06, 2004, 05:49 am		20

Posted By: Iznardi Feb 15, 2005 - 12:06 pm

I'm guessing it is possible to do an "accio" incantation without a wand, and thus summon it. If not, then somebody retrieved Voldemort's wand for him. For an animagus, since clothing apparently transforms, I would think wands would too. But Lupin was not able to hold or use his wand while a werewolf.

Posted By: MerleZ Feb 15, 2005 - 12:46 pm

There's a topic on this over at Mugglenet. There's like 17 pages of it. I didn't read it all, but didn't see anything that made my eyes pop out, and say "wow."

Posted By: Magus Feb 15, 2005 - 02:58 pm

That same thinking goes along with Peter Petegrew and why he didn't have a wand after transforming.

Posted By: ProfCrash Feb 15, 2005 - 06:31 pm

"Do you think there's any significance to the fact that Harry's wand lit with the Lumos spell, even though he didn't actually have ahold of it? This was in the alley when the Dementors were attacking Harry and Dudley. If he could make Lumos work, without touching his wand, could he make another spell work as well? This would come in handy if Harry were disarmed, but could still make his wand cast a spell on the person holding it. Anything? Anybody?"

We have seen Harry perform magic without a wand on many occassions, especially in the first book. He has grown his hair back, flown to the top of the roof to avoid Dudley, evaporated the glass at the zoo, blown up Aunt Marge and a few other events. Neville mentioned that he accessed his magic when a child after his Uncle dropped him out a window.

I am guessing that wands help Wizards/Witches to use the magic in their system but are not needed per see. By learning specific spells and motions, the user teaches themselves how to make the magic work. The stronger the Wizard/Witch the less needed a wand is. That is my guess. For Harry, he has channeled his magic without a wand for most of his life, as such it would be easier for him to do so now then, say Ron who has always used a wand.

Also, remember what was said in the wand store, the wand chooses the Wizard. Certain types of wood and items seem to be associated with specifi types of magic. Perhaps it is the Wizard/Witch inherent interests and strenghts that cause certain types of wands to work better for them. Yet Ron, Ginny, and Neville have used other peoples wands with varying degrees of success. I do wonder if Ron's magical ability improved after he got his own wand in Prisoner. It will be interesting to see what happens to Neville now that his Dad's wand is broken and he gets his own.

Posted By: MerleZ Feb 16, 2005 - 10:44 am

Well, let's refocus here. Forget wandless magic. What we have is someone performing a spell with a wand, but not physically touching the wand. Harry says, "lumos," and the wand tip lights, just like if he had it in his hand. And unlike the wandless magic he did at Privet Drive previously, Harry very much wanted his wand to give him a little light.

So after this refocusing of the question, do you think it has any application down the road? Do you see Harry, or someone else, casting a spell with a wand that's not physically in his possession?

Posted By: ProfCrash Feb 17, 2005 - 05:08 pm

Merle, yes. I think it will be Harry. Harry clearly has learned that he can cast spells without a wand. He has learned (as have all the kids) how to cast spells with a wand. He is likely to find himself in a situation where he feels that he needs his wand to cast a spell but does not have it and accidently casts the spell out of desperation. Similar to when he cast spells without knowing he was casting spells.

Posted By: Bmat Feb 17, 2005 - 06:25 pm

I like your idea, PC. It would make a dramatic moment in a movie especially.

Posted By: Iznardi Feb 22, 2005 - 01:41 pm

I would guess that you can't cast spells with you wand if it is in someone else's possession. But if it is lying on the ground, then it is still "attached" to its owner in some way.

However, since "Expeliamus" is a "disarming" spell that sends a wand flying, there are also probably limits to what you can do with the wand--the wand and its motion must be essential for advanced spells.

Posted By: Ravendragon Feb 24, 2005 - 08:59 pm

What are you dudes talking about? I know, Harry Potter, but what exactly? I'm lost here. Could you please tell me where you guys are? Thanks!

Ravendragon

Posted By: Bmat Feb 25, 2005 - 05:01 am

Speculation about the future of the story in the books.

Posted By: Magus Feb 25, 2005 - 08:19 pm

Indeed.

(For the above post and one two above it.)

Posted By: Utora Apr 01, 2005 - 10:46 pm

The reason Harry was able to use 'lumos' in T.O.O.T.P without touching his wand is because his magic is in his blood, not his wand. Wands channel and enhance the magic, but are not essential in the use of it.