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

[amt149.livejournal.com]

Technically, you shouldn't, because Occlumency doesn't use a spell; it is merely a mental resistance. Legilimency, however sometimes needs a wand. Voldemort, for example is so good at legilimency that he does not need to point a wand at his victim in order to use legilimency on them. However, "Legilimens" is an acutal spell, which (unlike what Voldemort does, pulls the memories/thoughts of the other person so that the vicitm knows their mind is bein penetrated. When Snape uses Legilimency at the end of HBP, Harry is not aware of it. This is the same as when Voldemort senses the True/False of his victim's words. The victim does not realize it.