9

In Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, we can see Percival Graves use magical abilities (mainly telekinetic) that we would typically associate with wands, at least as far as wizards and witches are concerned.

I understand that Mr. Graves isn't a typical wizard,

he is revealed to be Gellert Grindelwald,

and that he may be really powerful, justifying his use of advanced magic, including this Star Wars-esque, force-style telekinesis, but I'm wondering whether there is more to it or if anyone knows any specific info about this ability. I know that there were a few occasions of non-wand magic in the Harry Potter movies (excluding apparition, house-elves and other obvious things), for instance the "premature" kind of magic children under 11 perform, and Dumbledore setting Tom Riddle's wardrobe on fire in the flashback scene of Half-Blood Prince.

In Fantastic Beasts, Mr. Graves uses his "telekinesis" to grab a hold of Newt's suitcase. He also uses it to move Newt's Obscurial bubble around in the interrogation room. If you didn't know better, you would think that he's using the Force.

  • Ms Weasley used wandless magic to control the cleaning implements in her house in one of the early HP films. It's not too far a stretch to believe that a wizard as powerful as Mr Graves could move much larger objects using wandless magic. – SGR Nov 21 '16 at 10:17
  • 1
    @SGR There is no evidence to suggest Molly Weasley performs wandless magic for her household chores. We don't know that those household items aren't enchanted to begin with, or whether Molly enchants them herself with wand magic earlier in the day with a spell, or whether she is consciously and actively enchanting them with wandless magic. Seems like more speculation. – Ghoti and Chips Nov 21 '16 at 12:11
  • Personally, I believe that the supposed difficulty in using magic without a wand is a question of perception. Wandless magic is not common practice in the UK, so when Dumbledore and Lupin relight candles and stuff, it seems real impressive, but in the African wizarding school, some students became an animagi at 14. As such, when magic seems oh so advanced and complex, what really matters, I think, is what kind of emphasize one puts on the studies of young wizards and how early they are introduced to certain kinds of magic. – Ninclow Apr 12 '17 at 14:05
12

Well experienced wizards, such as Albus Dumbledore, Grindelwald or Voldemort would be able to probably cast minor spells without a wand. We can assume that Graves aka Grindelwald can do much more without a wand.

Also, one final but important info. Wandless magic is not rare. JKR shared some info on Magic in America in Pottermore.

“The Native American wizarding community was particularly gifted in animal and plant magic, its potions in particular being of a sophistication beyond much that was known in Europe. The most glaring difference between magic practised by Native Americans and the wizards of Europe was the absence of a wand.

The magic wand originated in Europe. Wands channel magic so as to make its effects both more precise and more powerful, although it is generally held to be a mark of the very greatest witches and wizards that they have also been able to produce wandless magic of a very high quality."

So Graves doing some Accio (summoning) and Wingardium Leviosa (levitating) without a wand is quite possible.

  • I had just picked up on that from the wikia, "However, the wand was a European invention, and some cultures traditionally did not rely upon wands for performing magic" – Ghoti and Chips Nov 21 '16 at 12:08
  • But the first half of your answer is seemingly dependent on a lot of pure speculation, like "Wandless magic is difficult and tiring" - how do you know this? Where are you getting that info, exactly, and how canon is it? – Ghoti and Chips Nov 21 '16 at 12:09
  • There is no evidence to suggest Molly Weasley performs wandless magic for her household chores. We don't know that those household items aren't enchanted to begin with, or whether Molly enchants them herself with wand magic earlier in the day with a spell, or whether she is consciously and actively enchanting them with wandless magic. Seems like more speculation. – Ghoti and Chips Nov 21 '16 at 12:11
  • The second half of your answer, where you introduce and quote JKR/Pottermore is a perfectly valid and canonical answer. I'd be willing to accept it if you would remove the more questionable, fan-speculated first half. Wands don't necessarily make magic less tiring, we don't know that, we only know that they channel them to make them more precise and powerful. – Ghoti and Chips Nov 21 '16 at 12:15
  • 2
    Agreed !.. I'm only counting on his rather dark expertise .. like how in Deathly Hallows Snape took a flight from hogwarts and Mc Gonagall says "seems to have learned a few tricks from his master.." referring to his flying ability. Dark arts opens up rather nasty and impossible things for people to do. – Anu7 Nov 21 '16 at 16:09
2

All a wand does is focus a wizards magic in order to create more powerful and precise spells. Essentially all a wand does is make magic easier to perform, which is why wandless magic is so rarely seen as a wizard needs to be particularly powerful and skilled to pull it off effectively.

  • Where are you getting this information? From all the evidence and primary or secondary sources, wands are mainly cultural, it's nowhere writ (that I've seen) explicitly what you're claiming. – Ghoti and Chips May 15 '17 at 21:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .