Occlumency question...

[skriftlig.livejournal.com]

Hi! I have a question about how MAGIC works in Harry Potter's our world.

Specifically, do you need a wand for Occlumency? I know this sort of thing has probably been discussed a lot, but I haven't seen this specific case mentioned before.

The whole idea of wandless magic suggests a wand isn't always necessary for talented witches or wizards (or goblins, house elves etc..), but it also suggests that this is very rare and hard to do. I'm discounting accidental under-age magic, like when Harry blew up Marge.

I can't remember whether Harry uses a wand in his lessons with Snape and I don't have the books to hand to check. I've made a quick poll below; please vote if you are so inclined so we can see if there is a majority one way or the other.

Thanks for reading. Any comments, opinions and votes would be great! ♥

[Poll #1759338]

Comments

[meglw0228.livejournal.com]

The excerpts from the book quoted above by vaysh11 are what I'm remembering. And Harry had a wand for both, and from what I understood from the book, Snape expected Harry to be doing Occlumency. At that age, I figured the wand helped power the spell. So, I chose both the first answers. I think if you're very learned in Occlumency and Ligilimency then you wouldn't need a wand. But honestly, if it's writing you're doing, you could probably make a case for any of it by also giving a reason in the story.

[skriftlig.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you. For learning, Harry used his wand, but it is probably possible to perform both Legilimency and Occlumency wandlessly. Thanks for the reply!

And yay for - you could probably make a case for any of it by also giving a reason in the story