Harry's magic wandless or accidental?

[brokenquill92]

What do you think

[Dimcairien]

I do think he performed actual wandless magic. Remember when he said 'lumos' in OOTP and his wand lit up even though he wasn't holding it?

I don't remember if this is fanon or canon, but I think that generally accidental magic pretty much stops once a wizard gets a wand as they have a means through which to channel it properly. Of course, if the wizard is quite powerful, like Harry seems to be, there will still be magic left even when he's using a wand. Obviously vanishing the glass in PS/SS was accidental, but I think that any other times Harry did magic without his wand it was wandless.

[SkullAuror107]

I think it's a combination of the two. Anything pre-Hogwarts would most definitely be accidental since he had no idea magic was real before meeting Hagrid. I think wandless magic needs to have some measure of focus and/or intent in order to use it proficiently, or even at all. The only instances of Harry preforming magic without a wand (be it accidental or wandless) that I remember happened in books 3 and 5.

PoA:

• Blowing up Aunt Marge was accidental in my opinion. Yes, he wanted her to shut up (I think anyone would), but I don't think blowing her up was his intention. There must be plenty of ways to shut a person up magically, and I don't think blowing the person up is near the top of that list. Although it was very effective. He even admits it himself that he didn't mean to do it and that he lost control.
  
• Opening the cupboard magically before running away was not accidental. He knew he needed to leave and he knew he needed his stuff that was locked away. He went to the cupboard with the intent of opening it and thus it bursted open.
  

OotP:

• Using lumos to light up his wand when he was looking for it was wandless. He knew he needed his wand and was therefore able to light it up in order to locate it.
  
• Unlocking the door to his bedroom when the Order comes to pick him up was wandless, at least I think it is (is it still considered wandless if his wand is in his hand but he is not actively using it?). Actually it could be a combination of accidental and wandless. There were people in the house and it was possible that they were a threat to him. Being locked in his room left him cornered. He therefore unlocked and opened the door. His surprise at the door opening makes me think it was accidental (he obviously didn't know the door was going to open) but he did want the door unlocked. Although unlike the time in PoA the door didn't burst open (he knew it wouldn't be wise to make too much noise with unknown people in the house). If it was purely accidental I don't think his magic would have bothered to do it quietly (accidental magic seems rather noticable when it happens) so there does seem to be some measure of control to it.
  
• I don't think Vernon strangling is either wandless or accidental. I think that one was Lily's protection kicking in to keep her son safe. To quote the book "Some invisible force seemed to have surged through his nephew, making him impossible to hold." This sounds similar to what happened with Quirrell when he attacked Harry and that was explained as being a part of Lily's protection.
  

[blackroses77]

Anything before Hogwarts was accidental of course and for the rest I think:

Marge's glass braking: accidental
Marge blown up: accidental
Cupboard door opening after Marge blew up: wandless
Lumos spell in book 5: wandless
Vernon forced to stop strangling Harry: accidental
Unlocking the door of his bedroom in book 5: I have never understood, did he do it or did one of the order do it? If he did it then it doesn't fit with what I though accidental magic to be but it wasn't true wandless magic because he didn't even think of his door opening and wandless magic is the same as wand magic there has to be focus and intent neither of which he had.

[kumainpink]

A combination of both, definitely.

[teehee100]

I agree with pink. What does anyone think about the flying versus apparition of Harry in the roof incident? I think flying just because with apparatuon you have to know where you're going. Thoughts?

[kumainpink]

Flying would probably make more sense. And Lily did it herself, after all.

[lucyolsen]

Flying, definitely, especially considering the excuse he came up with.

[Dimcairien]

I've always thought it to be Apparation. Remember, he was trying to get away from the gang and might've wished to be able to get onto the roof.

[lucyolsen]

I thought it might have been apparition until we found out what Lily could do. Plus, Harry said that he thought the wind had carried him. That sounds like flying to me.

[Nahara46]

I think it was flying as there was no pop, or feeling of suffocation. I'm sure both would be prominent in his mind, especially in the later, when he recounted it in the first book.

[blackroses77]

As much as I would like it to be apparition it was probably flying, since his mother did it and he didn't have the feeling of...being squeezed through a tube was it? But anyway I don't think you could mistake the feeling of apparition and when he did it for the first time in the 6th book he didn't think 'Oh, so that was how I got on the roof of the school'.

[physicssquid]

I thought he apparated, because the move seemed to be instantaneous. There was no mention of a feeling of weightlessness, the book said, one moment he was running from Dudley and the next he was on the roof, no description of anything in between.

[aimers1107]

When he landed on the roof I don't really think he flew because he would have mentioned feeling weightless and it is implied it was immediate, but he didn't apparate because there was no "pop" I think he teleported or something similar to it. The other times it was a mix of wandless and accidental. Like he meant to shut Marge up, it was his intention to get her to shut up, and she did, but Harry's magic took it a little to far, like he lost control of it and the result was Marge blowing up.

[viralic1]

I always thought it was flying, because of his excuse about the wind catching him, his mother flying, and plus I figured if he had apparated, he would have known the sensation and mentioned it to Dumbledore when he is side-alonged in HBP.

[Kitty279]

Likely, though the latter isn't really an argument. JKR would never remember such an unimportant detail she used in PS by the time she was writing HBP.

[Nahara46]

I agree with Kitty on that JKR wouldn't have thought of that. However, I think that just as that there was not sensation of weightlessness which means no flight, there was no 'pop' or feeling of being squeezed through a tube which meant no apparition. I lean toward flight, because since it's magic, there is a possibility he wouldn't have felt the feeling of weightlessness. Given his excuse in combined with what his mother does later on, I'd say it was flight.

[Silenia]

Jul 12, 2012 14:01:16 GMT -5 Kitty279 said:

Likely, though the latter isn't really an argument. JKR would never remember such an unimportant detail she used in PS by the time she was writing HBP.

Not only that, how likely is it that Harry himself would have remembered? I mean, he more-or-less had forgotten speaking to a snake by second year - which was maybe two years previous by then.

How likely is it then, that he remembers the incident and the exact feeling and realizing it had felt the same as being side-alonged by Dumbledore? Especially with everything that happened during the years between said incident and being side-alonged?

[Kitty279]

Hm, you might have a point. That's possible. But at the end of the day, he's JKR's character, so in the end, it's still her fault

[Silenia]

Assuming it was not done on purpose, yes, it would be JKR's fault. XD

[Kitty279]

But if all these plotholes and continuity errors were done on purpose, then ... no, I won't even think about it!

[Silenia]

I highly doubt that they all were done on purpose, but there may be specific ones that were. Then again, I am not JKR. Could be that none of them were on purpose, could be that some were... highly doubt that they all were. XD

[Kitty279]

lol, yes. But seeing how she did some rather big ones for important points (Fidelius, IMO Blood Wards), I can't help but wonder how much was a mistake, sloppy work or even deliberate.

Grrr. It's only 9.35 here, but considering how many typos I am making, I should go to bed. Good night!

[Silenia]

I agree. Can't look into JKR's brain, though. Well, not without murdering her and breaking open her skull, at least - and for some reason, I doubt that doing that will give me the answers to the questions I have.

I do not doubt that it will make me a less than beloved person, though.

So yeah, best not do that. XD

Good night. =)

[physicssquid]

Here's another reason Harry might not really remember the roof incident. How old was he when it happened? The younger he was, the harder it would be for him to remember, and given all the other incidents in the years after it, I wouldn't be surprised if he forgot.

[kumainpink]

I agree with that, Squid. We don't remember a lot of things from our childhood, after all.

[Silenia]

I don't think an exact age was given for that incident, just like the teacher's-wig-turned-blue incident. Must've been some time before the vanishing glass, though, as Harry thinks of it as they're about to leave for the zoo. Probably a while before it, too, as he got into "terrible trouble" for it, yet nothing about that specific incident is said when Vernon warns Harry that any 'funny business' will land him into the cupboard for a rather long time. If said incident had been, say, a week earlier, I'm pretty sure Vernon would've said something about it, or at least spoke of being in the cupboard again.

All speculation, of course, though - with exception of the fact that it must've been before the zoo-incident.

[kumainpink]

I'm thinking that both incidents occurred when he was between the ages of seven and nine.

[Silenia]

If by 'both incidents', you mean the blue wig and the roof-incidents, then yes, I must agree with you that that seems likely.

[kumainpink]

Yep, that's exactly what I'm talking about.