65

In the beginning of the series, it's mentioned that Muggle-born wizards/witches are identified due to inadvertent spell-casting. However, it seems like later in the book, disarmed wizards/witches are completely helpless.

What is the explanation for why some spells can be cast without a wand and is there an in-universe explanation for why this isn't done? Also, are there spells that can be cast non-verbally (with/without a wand)?

  • 8
    After further research, I found this Wandless spell link on the Harry Potter Wiki. Also, the Nonverbal spell. – jennyfofenny Mar 23 '11 at 21:39
  • 2
    Alternate question: Can Voldemort/Dumbledore use an unforgivable curse wandless? – Mateen Ulhaq Mar 24 '11 at 7:51
  • 3
    @muntoo In the Unforgivable Curses section of the wiki, it says "The spell [Avada Kedavra] is performed verbally as a rule; Bellatrix Lestrange killed a fox with a non-verbal spell after Apparating with Narcissa Malfoy at Spinner's End, thinking that it was a lurking Auror, but it is unknown whether it was Avada Kedavra or some other lethal curse.", but that's the only time the article mentions non-verbal usage. – jennyfofenny Mar 24 '11 at 13:27
  • 1
    @jennyfofenny: those links should be an answer on their own :) – Konerak Aug 2 '11 at 19:55
  • House elves and goblins can use magic without wands, and there are quite some examples of humans doing magic without wands. My guess is that the Ministry is forcing wizards to use wands so they can track the spells back to the owner of the wand... Overregulation is a big issue in the Harry Potter universum i'd say :) – Hans Wassink Jan 12 '12 at 8:40

10 Answers 10

52

Yes, there are absolutely spell that can be cast without a wand. Examples include:

  1. Removing glass spell in the first book by Harry Potter
  2. Tom Riddle's use of magic pre-Hogwarts
  3. Transfiguration, in particular from Animal back to Human
  4. Sirius's escape from Azkaban.
  5. There are some examples of some spells being done without wands even for experience wizards. I'll try and come up with some more later.

As has been mentioned before, the spells are usually simpler, and less focused, without the wand, but they do occur.

As for non-verbal magic, well, that's what Snape was teaching in book 6, so yes, absolutely it's possible.

  • 1
    That's a good point on transfiguration; that's how Wormtail escaped in Prisoner of Azkaban. – jennyfofenny Mar 23 '11 at 19:24
  • 5
    I believe that Transfiguration (becoming an Animagus) is a spell you cast while using a wand, which gives you the ability to freely turn back and forth, not a spell you have to routinely cast each time you change. – Jeff Mar 23 '11 at 20:36
  • 7
    From the information in the Harry Potter Wiki, it looks like it is a skill that is mastered, rather than a spell that is cast with a wand. – jennyfofenny Mar 23 '11 at 20:44
  • 4
    How are 3 and 4 not the same? – 11684 Jan 23 '14 at 18:10
  • 3
    Bit late to the party, but Wormtail specifically gets his hands on a wand before he was able to use his ability as an Animagus – Jesan Fafon May 16 '14 at 0:08
27

I believe the wand is required to focus and amplify the spell that is cast; without it, the magic is undirected and weaker. Therefore without a wand, the wizard/witch cannot control their magic as well as they could with the wand, and is greatly weakened.

  • 20
    J.K. Rowling confirms this explanation in a Comic Relief live chat, March 2001, when asked, "Do you need a Wand to do Magic??" Her answer: "You can do unfocused and uncontrolled magic without a wand (for instance when Harry blows up Aunt Marge) but to do really good spells, yes, you need a wand." (Thank you, Accio Quote: accio-quote.org/articles/2001/0301-comicrelief-staff.htm) – Kristina Mar 24 '11 at 1:24
  • 6
    I wonder if casting a spell without a wand is comparable to throwing bullets at an enemy by hand. – Blazemonger Jan 18 '12 at 19:44
17

Magic unleashed as children is uncontrolled and uncontrollable, triggered by emotion and stress.

Magic is then learned, focused, and put into a pattern that can be utilized consciously.

It is similar, in some ways, to language. As babies, we babble. We make random sounds with no meaning, using every phoneme. As we grow and learn language, we focus on phonemes we hear. Eventually, we lose the ability to verbalize those that we don't use, and to use those we do in a trained, focused way.

This is best-known to Western audiences in the Japanese 'accent' and infamous difficulty pronouncing certain letters (such as the letter 'l'). Japan's native language has no phoneme that makes the 'l' sound, so they (in general) have difficulty pronouncing it. This has disappeared somewhat as English gains in use there, and there have always been people who could train themselves to pronounce it, but the comparison stands.

Magic in Harry Potter seems to work similarly - as children, they use it unconsciously, randomly. As they are trained in it, and apply patterns to it, they focus it into a more powerful form...but lose the ability to use it any other way, just as an adult typically can't randomly babble nonsense sounds using every phoneme.

There's no evidence of wizards in HP being trained to use magic without wands, though there is extensive mention of magic without verbalization, so it stands to reason that it is POSSIBLE to do magic without a wand. I would expect it is harder, less potent, and requires much more energy to do, though.

13

J.K.Rowling's answer:

You can do unfocused and uncontrolled magic without a wand (for instance when Harry blows up Aunt Marge) but to do really good spells, yes, you need a wand.

- Comic Relief Live Chat transcript, March 2001

The wand is needed to focus and control one's magical abilities:

Q: Can Muggles brew potions if they follow the exact instructions and they have all the ingredients?

Rowling: Well, I’d have to say no, because there is always ... there is a magical component to the potion, not just the ingredients. So, at some point you’re going to have to use a wand. I been asked what would happen if a Muggle picked up a magic wand in my world. And the answer would probably be something accidental ... possibly quite violent. Because a wand, in my world, is merely a vehicle -- a vessel for what lies inside the person.

- An Evening with Harry, Carrie and Garp, 1 August 2006

9

In addition to pearsonartphoto's answer all of the non-human magical creatures can cast magic without wands. This has led to significant resentment towards humans from non-humans, particularly goblins.

In the third movie Dumbledore raises his hands (wandless) to save Harry as he falls to the ground during the Quidditch match.

It certainly seems strange to me that although they start off using magic without wands, they eventually give it up. I think it would be something to practice and hone (like silent spell casting).

  • I considered the non-human aspect of this question, but wanted to focus on the human's abilities. I was thinking of house elves and goblins, but that might be a good question by itself. – jennyfofenny Mar 23 '11 at 20:55
  • I agree that it does seem strange. It seems like they would be able to do basic things when they were threatened or if they practiced at it. – jennyfofenny Mar 23 '11 at 20:56
  • 2
    Non-human wandless magic from the Harry Potter Wiki. – jennyfofenny Mar 23 '11 at 22:04
8

Genes, Wands and Spells - The magical secret sauce of the "Potterverse"

In the Harry Potter Universe, magical ability appears to have a genetic component. It is possible for Muggles, or non-magical humans to create a magical offspring. The nature of that magical ability is not discussed in any great detail but it appears that Muggle-born wizards are not only possible, but often quite powerful as well.

It is also mentioned that wands choose their user, indicating there is an inherent magical ability shaped into the wands upon their creation. Likely a property of the wood, their point of origin and the natural skill of the wand's shaper. It is unlikely they fall from trees as magical implements so their "nature" is probably released by the wizards who create, shape and refine the magical properties of wands.

Since wands would appear to be amplification tools for magical ability, it stands to reason that common wands would resonate magically and as a result would likely respond to different users in different ways and that ultimately a wand would "choose" a user who could best harness its natural propensities.

Now, any user tends to be able to use any wand, but we have seen that a wand will function best if it is:

  1. chosen with harmony in mind (being chosen by the wand)
  2. given as a parent might bestow a beloved wand to an offspring
  3. taken in a martial certamen or magical duel, as in the case of the Elder Wand
  4. it is possible to even take a wand from another wizard you have not dueled but that wand appears to be less reliable and undesired for protracted periods.

A wand is a tool which amplifies magical ability. If magical ability is nascent in all humans, it would be likely a Muggle touching a wand, who possessed recessive magical genes might be able to get an unreliable, and likely dangerous result from a wand. But most likely (and ideally) would get nothing from an un-attuned or unaffiliated wand.

Wizards would use wands, the same way a tool using human would use a hammer, to augment their natural strength and ability to affect the world. Wizards absorb, control, and manipulate magical energy due to a genetic ability, the same way magical animals would. The difference is likely the use of language or other order-amplifying capabilities that spell casting offers.

So it is likely than using a wand, and the use of order-structuring spell casting gives a decided advantage to someone who is using only one of the two methods of magic use.

Dobbie uses magic without spell-casting but evidently it is not powerful enough to affect strong wizards or there would be no house-elves in the first place. We have to assume that spell-casting is the amplification technology that carried humans to the top of the magical food chain, the same way complex language and later writing allowed humans to transmit knowledge to paper, allowing future generations access to previously-discovered knowledge.

This previous knowledge would allow humans to not have to relearn everything their ancestors knew through trial and error. In a magical world, the ability to transfer spell-casting, an amplification technology, directed through magical items which resonate with the caster and further amplified their abilities would give a distinct (and perhaps, unfair) advantage to magic-using humans.


In summary:

So, the question is can genetically-capable humans (commonly called wizards and witches) use magic without wands? Certainly. It appears to be an ability used by all magical creatures in the "Potterverse."

The advantage of concentrating magical energy using a wand as a focus, the same way a blacksmith might use a hammer to direct force to metal being shaped, would be a decided advantage in the fast-casting and focused-directing of magical energies.

And if two wizards were dueling with wands and one was suddenly without a wand, such as in the case of disarming spells, he is at a disadvantage both in speed and power even if he has access to spells. If both were disarmed, it might be easier to simply fight physically than to try to control magical energies without a focus, since they would have had less practice doing so, and might be less able to effectively control magical energies in their raw, unfocused form. A wizard who practiced, however, might surprise a wizard who in disarming him, suddenly found the disarmed wizard, still able to create magical effects through discipline and practice.

Wands and other foci probably destabilized the "Potterverse" the same way gunpower destabilized civilization on Earth for the same reason. It allowed concentrated power in the hands of a well-trained force. Magical animals using their power to amplify their physical strengths or other physical abilities could not direct magic in a distilled essence, or if they could, without wands, spell-casting was likely slower or less effective, or had other requirements that made it not as good as fast-cast magic using wands.

Unfortunately, if the "Potterverse" has firearms, it is the same reason, Wizards have not conquered the world. Firearms would place even faster weaponry in the hands of a force that did not have to be as well-trained to be effective. The difference is the same as between the longbow and the crossbow. Relatively equally effective in combat, but the difference in training time was significant. Hence the reason, longbows became an anachronism on the battlefield, replaced by crossbows with their short training time and powerful effects on the enemy.

6

Magical children produce accidental magic as they don't yet have wand to help control it.

Q. Are there any spells that don't require a wand? Because Harry made the glass disappear in the second book...How does it work?
JK Rowling: As children, wizards often produce accidental magic when they feel strong emotion. Wands help control and channel this power.
(Twitter)

The Wand is just a tool to make magic easier. It's use is varied depending on the wizard.

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. As the Native American Animagi and potion-makers demonstrated, wandless magic can attain great complexity, but Charms and Transfiguration are very difficult without one.
(Pottermore - History of Magic in North America)

Wizards generally avoid things like wandless magic.

Q. Are there many wizards/witches at Hogwarts who can do magic and fly without wands or brooms?
JK Rowling. No, there's a cultural tradition of using wands and broomless flight is (as you might imagine) very risky!
(Twitter)

In some parts of the World, however, wands still haven't been widely adopted.

The wand is a European invention, and while African witches and wizards have adopted it as a useful tool in the last century, many spells are cast simply by pointing the finger or through hand gestures.
(Pottermore - Uagadou)

Non-verbal spells are something taught at Hogwarts.

Nonverbal spells were now expected, not only in Defense Against the Dark Arts, but in Charms and Transfiguration too.
(Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Chapter 11)

4

J.K. Rowling just posted an exerpt today for a series of stories about the history of magic in North America on Pottermore

Here's the part that applies to this question:

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. As the Native American Animagi and potion-makers demonstrated, wandless magic can attain great complexity, but Charms and Transfiguration are very difficult without one.

2

There is the wandless magic as displayed by this particularly interesting fellow:

Coffee Wizard

And some quick theory:

Maybe

Text from the image:

Look, I made a gif of this most awesome wizard at the Leaky Cauldron!

DUDE IS READING 'A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME' BY STEPHEN HAWKING. I NEVER REALIZED.

are you serious(?) I always assumed wizards just ignored science, because the fact that "magic" exists can explain anything. But there are Muggle Born wizards, ones who, until they were eleven, lived in the real world and learned science and things. Did they all just abandon that normal, muggle knowledge, like Harry did? It's always been there, itching in the back of my mind.

can we point out that he's doing wandless magic too(?) like Voldemort couldn't even do that, Molly Weasley couldn't do that, who are you(?)

pretty sure this whole series has been about the wrong wizard guys

Plot Twist: He is able to do wandless magic because his comprehensive understanding of quantum physics means that he is the only wizard/witch to actually understand how magic works (as opposed to understanding how to wield it effectively, two very, very different things)

Slightly off topic, but I think I can connect it: Anyone familiar with Clarke's Three Laws?

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

I've always considered all witches and wizards scientists (at least any of them that want to expand their magical capabilities beyond "intense emotional reaction = some crazy stuff happens nearby"), it's just that their field of study is vastly different than most other scientists. Their wielding of magic can be quantified in the same ways our wielding of nuclear/electrical/magnetic/etc. forces can be quantified. So their "wands" are just a focusing technology, but they still have ways to manipulate magic. The more they, with their "built in" magic control (most non-magic folk don't have this special quality), understand about magic the more they can do without a wand.

  • Could you please (1) add a link to the Tumblr post you're quoting, and (2) copy/paste the relevant text? It's not very easy to search an image. – alexwlchan Dec 3 '15 at 16:27
  • Sure I'll make the changes now. – ZealousHypocrites Dec 3 '15 at 16:43
  • 1
    You might enjoy Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality -- An alternate universe Harry Potter where he was raised by a professor, is a child prodigy, and works with the scientific method. :) – K-H-W Aug 28 '18 at 0:06
2

There is, apparently, conflicting evidence in the books

In Deathly Hallows Chapter 1 Voldemort's borrowed wand gets destroyed. He immediately requests a replacement, and by the time he gets one Harry is safe:

Face level with the handlebars, Harry could see nothing but distant lights growing nearer and nearer: He was going to crash and there was nothing he could do about it. Behind him came another scream, “Your wand, Selwyn, give me your wand.”

This seems to indicate that Voldemort was unable to attack Harry wandlessly.

Similarly, later in Deathly Hallows Harry, Ron, and Hermione discuss whether Moody actually died:

“Even if the Killing Curse missed, Mad-Eye still fell about a thousand feet,” said Hermione, now weighing Quidditch Teams of Britain and Ireland in her hand.

“He could have used a Shield Charm — ”

“Fleur said his wand was blasted out of his hand,” said Harry.

Harry's response seems to indicate that Moody could not have cast a Shield Charm without a wand.

If wandless spellcasting was difficult but possible, who would be able to do it if not the most powerful wizards like Voldemort and Moody? Thus, it seems that wandless spellcasting is either impossible, or too difficult to have been used in those situations.

Additionally, throughout the series, losing one's wand seems to be equated with powerlessness – even for powerful wizards. (I don't think there is a single example in the series of a wizard using magic to defend himself or attack an opponent after losing his wand.) The most prominent example of this is Dumbledore when he gets killed in Half-Blood Prince:

“Dumbledore cornered!” he said, and he turned to a stocky little woman who looked as though she could be his sister and who was grinning eagerly. “Dumbledore wandless, Dumbledore alone! Well done, Draco, well done!”

Indeed, Dumbledore fails to perform any magic once he had lost his wand. If wandless spellcasting were at all possible, you would expect Dumbledore to do some in this grave situation. Also, the mere fact that the Death Eaters taunt him about this indicates that they did not think that there was a possibility that Dumbledore could still defend himself.

In fact, Dumbledore explicitly tells Malfoy that he cannot defend himself as he does not have his wand:

And after all, you don’t really need help. ... I have no wand at the moment. ... I cannot defend myself.”

(Even if Dumbledore was lying to goad Malfoy, we still see that Malfoy did not object and say that Dumbledore could defend himself without a wand.)

If even Dumbledore was unable to do wandless spellcasting, who else would be able to do it?

It is further implied that wandless spellcasting is impossible from McGonagall's comment in Deathly Hallows on how Snape could survive jumping out a window:

“No, he’s not dead,” said McGonagall bitterly. “Unlike Dumbledore, he was still carrying a wand ... and he seems to have learned a few tricks from his master.”

Another implication of wizards being unable to perform wandless spellcasting comes from a comment of Ron's in Deathly Hallows:

“The right to carry a wand,” said the goblin quietly, “has long been contested between wizards and goblins.”

“Well, goblins can do magic without wands,” said Ron.

The goblins apparently complain that they cannot carry wands, and Ron's response is that goblins can do magic without wands. The implication, then, is that wizards cannot do magic without wands. (Of course, as this is Ron talking, it's probably the exact opposite or something, unless we take into account that Harry and Hermione didn't correct him.)

An additional possible indication against wandless spellcasting comes from Voldemort in Deathly Hallows:

“No volunteers?” said Voldemort. “Let’s see ... Lucius, I see no reason for you to have a wand anymore.”

Lucius Malfoy looked up. His skin appeared yellowish and waxy in the firelight, and his eyes were sunken and shadowed. When he spoke, his voice was hoarse.

“My Lord?”

“Your wand, Lucius. I require your wand.”

In context it seems as though the taking away of the wand is akin to taking away the magic.

Furthermore, the existence of wandless spellcasting would create major complications, such as keeping prisoners in Azkaban. In fact Sirius specifically mentions in Prisoner of Azkaban that he would not have been able to get past the Dementors without a wand:

But I was weak, very weak, and I had no hope of driving them away from me without a wand. ...

Similarly, Bart Crouch Jr. tells us that he was not allowed to have a wand while imprisoned in his father's house, seemingly as a measure to prevent him from doing magic:

I had not been allowed a wand since before Azkaban.

Moreover, when Voldemort relives his attack on the Potters in Deathly Hallows we see him completely dismiss the possibility that James would be able to defend himself without a wand:

Hold him off, without a wand in his hand! ... He laughed before casting the curse. ...

Elsewhere (at his rebirthing party in Goblet of Fire) Voldemort tells us explicitly that spells require the use of a wand:

Nevertheless, I was as powerless as the weakest creature alive, and without the means to help myself . . . for I had no body, and every spell that might have helped me required the use of a wand. ...

Another possible piece of evidence is the description of Ron trying to escape Malfoy Manor in *Deathly Hallows:

Ron was now trying to Disapparate without a wand.

The possible implication here is that in general spells cannot be cast without a wand.

When Bellatrix is about to perform the Unbreakable Vow in the beginning of Half-Blood Prince, Snape reminds her that she needs her wand, indicating that it could not have been done wandlessly:

"You will need your wand, Bellatrix," said Snape coldly.

When the Dark Mark is conjured in Goblet of Fire, both Mr. Weasley and Mr. Bagman state that conjuring it requires a wand:

“Come off it, Amos,” said Mr. Weasley quietly, “you don’t seriously think it was the elf? The Dark Mark’s a wizard’s sign. It requires a wand.”

No!” he said. “Winky? Conjure the Dark Mark? She wouldn’t know how! She’d need a wand, for a start!”

While in context they say this to prove that it couldn't have been a house-elf, the fact that they specifically say that it requires a wand rather than saying that only a wizard can conjure it seems to indicate that a wizard would actually require a wand to conjure it.

In addition, in Order of the Phoenix there is actually an explicit case of a wizard saying incantations without a wand and nothing happens because he did not have a wand:

Snape let out a stream of mixed swearwords and hexes, but his wand being ten feet away nothing happened.


However, when Harry was attacked by Dementors in the beginning of Order of the Phoenix he was able to cast a spell even though he was not holding his wand:

Wand!” Harry muttered frantically, his hands flying over the ground like spiders. “Where’s — wand — come on — Lumos”

He said the spell automatically, desperate for light to help him in his search — and to his disbelieving relief, light flared inches from his right hand — the wand tip had ignited. Harry snatched it up, scrambled to his feet, and turned around.

This was not wandless spellcasting per se, because the light still came out of the wand. It seems that Harry was simply able to channel his magic through the nearby wand. Thus, this would only show that it is not necessary to be holding a wand in order to channel magic through it (and the wand presumably has to be very close by because in the above example Snape's wand was only 10 feet away from him and his hexes still didn't work.)

In a somewhat similar vein, Harry tried to summon his nearby wand when Malfoy used the Full Body Bind on him in the beginning of Half-Blood Prince:

He tried to make a sound, even a grunt, but it was impossible. Then he remembered that some wizards, like Dumbledore, could perform spells without speaking, so he tried to summon his wand, which had fallen out of his hand, by saying the words “Accio Wand!” over and over again in his head, but nothing happened.

While this didn't actually work, it might have been because Harry was unable to perform non-verbal spells. Indeed he seems to have thought that it would be possible to perform the spell even though he was not holding his wand.

On the other hand, in Deathly Hallows there is an almost identical situation where once again the spell does not work:

"Yes," whispered the voice. "Yesss... hold you... hold you..."

"Accio... Accio Wand..."

But nothing happened

We do find several instances of apparently pure wandless magic. For example, when learning how to fly in Philosopher's Stone:

“Stick out your right hand over your broom,” called Madam Hooch at the front, “and say ‘Up!’ ”

“UP!” everyone shouted.

Harry’s broom jumped into his hand at once, but it was one of the few that did. Hermione Granger’s had simply rolled over on the ground, and Neville’s hadn’t moved at all.

Quirrel and Snape both cast spells on Harry's broom at the quidditch match in Philosopher's Stone:

Ron grabbed the binoculars. Snape was in the middle of the stands opposite them. He had his eyes fixed on Harry and was muttering nonstop under his breath.

Your friend Miss Granger accidentally knocked me over as she rushed to set fire to Snape at that Quidditch match. She broke my eye contact with you. Another few seconds and I’d have got you off that broom. I’d have managed it before then if Snape hadn’t been muttering a countercurse, trying to save you.”

There is no mention of either of them using their wands, and indeed it is unlikely that they used their wands because then it would have been obvious what they were doing.

Quirrel again uses wandless magic against Harry when they fight for the Philosopher's Stone:

Quirrell snapped his fingers. Ropes sprang out of thin air and wrapped themselves tightly around Harry.

He later undoes this wandlessly as well:

He clapped his hands once, and the ropes binding Harry fell off.

Dumbledore also does magic by clapping his hands in Philosopher's Stone:

He clapped his hands. In an instant, the green hangings became scarlet and the silver became gold; the huge Slytherin serpent vanished and a towering Gryffindor lion took its place.


It is perhaps telling that all of the above examples of wandless magic are from the first book in the series. The explanation might simply be that the author had not yet fully crystallized all the rules for magic at this point.

It is also perhaps possible to distinguish between doing general magic and casting specific spells. Apparition, animaging, and legilimency all seem to be done fairly often without wands, but they also don't seem to require an actual spell. (Snape does use a spell for legilimency, so perhaps it is some hybrid of magic that can be a spell or not a spell.) Similarly, one could argue that the "up" that brings the broom to the wizard's hand is not a spell per se but some kind of magical activation. Even so, it is harder to argue this for some of the other examples of wandless magic, so it still seems to be somewhat of a contradiction..

While it is perhaps possible to create a very nuanced theory that would allow for very specific instances of wandless magic, it seems more likely that this is just one of those discrepancies that result from the extremely difficult task of having seven books' worth of information (written over the course of a decade) all present in the author's mind at all times.


The above is all in reference to wizards who have already begun magical training with wands. It is well established that young children can do magic without wands, often unintentionally. (Then again, this might also fall under the category of "magic-but-not-a-spell" if there is any truth to the aforementioned theory.)

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.