The Ultimate Harry Potter Discussion thread ***including Book 6 Spoilers***

Yes - I would think a muggle would have that similar protection. Dumbledore is well aware of the "magic beyond that taught at Hogwarts" or something like that - i.e even muggles/non-magical people are capable of some things that transcend the muggle/non muggle divide...JKR's appeal to a "common humanity"?

An interesting thought. I was re-reading Book 1 - and thinking; could Quirrell have formed a horcrux during his time at Hogwarts, so something in the DaDA office could be one? We know Hogwarts IS extremely safe... Another element - could Quirrell be considered a horcrux, since he apparently let Voldie's "soul" in? Worth thrashing out, esp. since the Riddle diary was a Horcrux and that is from a previous book. Depends on whether you'd think Dumbledore would overlook that though...

Reply 12943

~Alyssa~

Maybe she gave him that protection automatically because she died for him when she didn't have to, not because she performed an actual spell.

that was the magic of love... :rolleyes:

Reply 12944

PennyRoyalTea

10

brokenurservant

Ok.. probably missed something vital BUT.. when Dumbledore is dis-armed by Malfoy.. why doesn't he just say 'Accio wand'??? WHY?!!! I'm really confused why he'd leave himself defenceless...

its all part of his major plan :smile:

Reply 12945

goneaway56

6

treff

I was actually wondering about that too. If a wand is needed for a spell, then a very powerful wizard would be just as good as a squib when deprived of his wand. :confused:

But aren't there some forms of magic that don't need a wand? Like the protection Lily gave Harry---I don't think she had to perform a proper spell with a wand to give Harry the protection she did.

Well I got the impression that a wand was needed for controlled magic - i.e. to summon a object, such as a wand.

Of course there are tons of instances where magic doesn't require a wand e.g. harry making the glass box vanish (containing the snake) without a wand ... but they were difficult to influence and control - as it's mostly subconsicous.

summoning (accio) seems a relatively complicated charm with a wand - probably impossible to perform without it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

and I just thought of a flaw in harry potter, which i won't devote an entire post to.

In goblet of fire (and order of the phoenix to some extent), when the ministry are looking for sirius, why don't they just use owls?

Seems like the owls have no problem finding a person ... tons of owls found sirius from the school - it seems a perfect method to sniff someone out, I'd have thought.

Reply 12946

Sarah7

I'm sure I remember Harry or someone using 'accio wand' at some point, though. I think I remember it was commented that they were surprised it worked? Maybe I dreamt that? :s

If you look on JK Rowling's site she answers the question re the owls. I think she said something like wizards can make themselve unplottable like they can buildings (i.e. the stadium in Goblet). It's in the FAQs.

Reply 12947

Dude

brokenurservant

Ok.. probably missed something vital BUT.. when Dumbledore is dis-armed by Malfoy.. why doesn't he just say 'Accio wand'??? WHY?!!! I'm really confused why he'd leave himself defenceless...

Because he knew that Draco wouldn't commit murder. It isn't in his nature.

Reply 12948

Balloo

Dude

Because he knew that Draco wouldn't commit murder. It isn't in his nature.

Yes, also it seems that Dumbledore wanted to die at this point. So he didn't need his wand to defend himself.

Reply 12949

Dude

rach1986

Yes, also it seems that Dumbledore wanted to die at this point. So he didn't need his wand to defend himself.

The question still stands though, did he know that Snape was goingto kill him?

Reply 12950

treff

Dude

The question still stands though, did he know that Snape was goingto kill him?

I suppose it's a matter of interpreting what he's pleading for. Maybe when he was saying "Severus... please... " he wasn't asking Snape not to kill him; for all we know, he was actually goading Snape to kill him.

Just speculating :smile:

Reply 12951

probably did but died to...er...something

Reply 12952

brokenurservant

Ahh thanks for that, i knew there was something REALLY obvious :rolleyes:

But i also remember Harry saying "accio wand", i'm sure, although he may have been using Ron's wand... And Dumbledore was a very powerful wizard.. :confused:

But that's probably what made me think...

Reply 12953

*tasha*

There was also a time when Harry performed a spell which would usually require a wand but it worked anyway. The time when he and Dudley were attacked by the Dementors during the summer in OOTP, remember he said lumos even though he didnt have his wand but it still worked and he was pretty shocked about that too.

Reply 12954

Sarah7

*tasha*

There was also a time when Harry performed a spell which would usually require a wand but it worked anyway. The time when he and Dudley were attacked by the Dementors during the summer in OOTP, remember he said lumos even though he didnt have his wand but it still worked and he was pretty shocked about that too.

Ahh. I'm pretty sure that's what I'm thinking of. It said something like he said it without thinking, and it worked. I dunno...maybe it takes more magic to summon something?

Reply 12955

i few spells can be performed without wands i reckon

Reply 12956

Dude

yo-less

i few spells can be performed without wands i reckon

Well we know that. Young wizards can perform wandless magic by their emotions, but a wand is more controlled magic. Plus nothing really powerful can come of it, but things like growing your hair back and jumping to safety.

Reply 12957