12

During Quidditch trials in the movie version of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, Hermione casts Confundus to sabotage Cormac McLaggen and allow Ron to become keeper. She appears to do so without her wand, as shown here. How did she manage to cast the spell without a wand?

6
  • 14
    Links have a habit of becoming obsolete, could you add the relevant quote and reference to the body of the question to ensure future visitors can understand what you're asking. Nov 28 '21 at 13:52
  • Same in the video game. Wandless - youtu.be/rKOG2zkkU7o?t=890
    – Valorum
    Nov 28 '21 at 16:11
  • How do you suppose Harry made the glass disappear at the reptile house when the Dursleys went to the zoo in the first book/movie? He didn't have a wand there.
    – TylerH
    Nov 29 '21 at 15:21
  • 1
    Of course, I always assumed Hermione was just holding her wand surreptitiously in her left hand, since it is out of frame.
    – TylerH
    Nov 29 '21 at 16:10
  • @TylerH - I thought that, but in the previous frame her hands are in her lap and her non-face-covering arm doesn't appear to have moved at all.
    – Valorum
    Nov 29 '21 at 16:32
21

She didn't cast it wordlessly, she evidently muttered the curse.

Hermione, face buried in her fingers, MUTTERS SOMETHING.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Screenplay

She did however cast it wandlessly, which is described by JKR as being a sophisticated form of magic that requires talent, something that Hermione has in abundance.

JKR: Yes, nearly all wizards use wands, which makes magic easier to channel. Wandless magic is sophisticated and takes more talent.

2
  • I believe that Professor Dumbledore lit the floating candles at Hogwarts without using a wand.
    – user57467
    Nov 28 '21 at 16:24
  • 16
    @user57467 - There are umpteen instances of wandless magic in the films and books. This is simply one of them
    – Valorum
    Nov 28 '21 at 16:35
2

The wand just focuses your magic power, doesn't create it. It is like some kind of magic booster.

Imagine a lens that you can use to concentrate sunlight to burn something. If there is no sunlight it will not work (like a wand in the hand of muggle). If you don't have a lens you can't concentrate the sunlight but sunlight does not disappear. Perhaps not the best analogy, but it roughly shows how the magic wand works.

The Harry Potter's wiki tells:

"Wands were used by witches and wizards to channel their magic, making their spells more accurate and potent."

5
  • 1
    Hi, welcome to SF&F. What's a "magic buster?" Can you provide a reference for this? An example of someone performing a standard spell without a wand?
    – DavidW
    Nov 29 '21 at 12:28
  • @DavidW Imagine the lense that you can use to concentrate the sunlight to burn something. If there is no sunlight it will not work (like a wand in the hand of muggle). If you don't have a lense you can't concentrate the sunlight but sunlight is not dissapear. If you have a huge mass, you can concentrate the sunlight by curving the spacetime. Perhaps not the best analogy, but it roughly shows how the magic wand works.
    – Robotex
    Nov 29 '21 at 12:32
  • 3
    A relevant quote from the books backing up your statement would improve this answer greatly
    – fez
    Nov 29 '21 at 12:48
  • @fez I don't know the Harry Potter universe so much, it is just a my assumption. But I remember a lot of scenes in books where characters used magic without wand. And even without spelling any words.
    – Robotex
    Nov 29 '21 at 12:53
  • 1
    I think "focuses" would be more accurate than "increases". Otherwise squibs and perhaps even muggles would be able to do magic just by holding a wand.
    – TylerH
    Nov 29 '21 at 15:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.