|
Post by Aspen on Jun 25, 2004 12:08:47 GMT -5
Well, we know Dumbledore and Harry can do things magically without a wand. Is this a sign of great power? Rowling says that really simple magic can be done without a wand, but it seems kind of obscure. Like, a wizard can make something happen when they're angry or scared, but they don't really have control as to what happens. Harry didn't really mean to blow up his aunt, or to make the glass on the python's cage disappear at the zoo. The times Harry has purposely done magic without a wand, he's always seemed really surprised that it worked. So it probably isn't something wizards are supposed to be able to do. Like this passage in OotP (p.17 American hardcover edition): Doesn't it seem like Rowling put quite a bit of emphasis on the fact that Harry wasn't holding the wand when he said the spell? I mean, it really wouldn't have changed the story at all if Harry had just felt around for his wand, grabbed it, then said "Lumos". Why would JKR want to show us that he wasn't holding his wand? [edit] - thought someone might want to know the page number
|
|
|
Post by The Pheonix Headmaster on Jun 25, 2004 16:12:44 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]Ive also noticed this,and I also think that it either shows profound power or just an abnormal ability to make it happen9most likely the first) I believe JKR put that in there on purpose to emphasize his potential. I also believe that she does the same thing with other powerful characters to show us the connection.[/glow]
|
|