Wands and Wizards

[lunar_music]

One of the most important trappings of wizardry is a wand. A witch or wizard’s wand seems to be a physical representation of their innate magical ability. And, going over the facts JK has given us and my own twisted view of the Potterverse, I’ve come up with some conclusions about Harry’s wand.

Comments

[bibliophile20]

interesting; I wonder if there was such a thing as batons in the Potterverse- batons were, depending on how you looked at them, either really short staffs or oversized wands. They're typically associated with ancient wizards. So the length of a baton was anywhere from a foot and a half to three feet, so if your theory on wand length= magical power is right... that would be interesting.

[lunar_music]

Maybe. If there were, it might mean one of two things:

1. The power of individuals is weaker than it used to be.

2. Wand (or staff or baton) making has become more refined, allowing for smaller wands that pack the same amount of punch. You'd still have a range of sizes, bigger being more powerful, but today's "big" is still much smaller than yesterday's "small."

[bibliophile20]

1) The "Good Old Days" effect, eh?

2) True- after a couple of millenia of wand making, you would think that they would learn to shrink the things.

there's also the possiblity that it was a stylistic thing, like having a fancy car, or a functional thing, like say, you would carry a wand for everyday spells, but a baton is for big time spell work, or they could simply be a symbol of rank, i.e. only the high ranking wizards and witches could carry batons; Merlin, the Founders, etc.

[lunar_music]

Or maybe it was a symbol of rank because only the highest ranking wizards and witches could actually use batons in the first place - you have enough magical strenghth to get good results out of a baton, you get counted amoung the "most important" witches and wizards.

[rotae]

I always thought that the length of the wand was determined by the height of the wizard. Umbridge is short; short wand, Hagrid is huge, huge wand, Harry and James' are the same height, Lily is slightly shorter, Voldemort was described as tall... anyway... just my two cents. ;)

Peace,
Rotae

[skree_ratling]

... the height of the wizard and the space between their nostrils. I remember that being one of the measurments Ollivandar took when Harry went to get his first wand.

(And your icon, rotae? Tee hee hee Could there be a link 'tween Howard and Wormtail? Look at the eyebrows...)

[rotae]

Lol.

OMG... totally!! lol. The first time I read GoF (2000, I think), I was watching the news that night, and Tony Abbott was on there for something or other, and I turned to Mum and said "That man, looks just like Voldemort" lol. It was great. Then when GoF came out at the cinema, it was just to good of an opportunity to pass up! lol.

Now I'm on a mission to get a wormtail/howard one... YAY!!

Peace,
Rotae

[rotae]

I did it!! Here you go: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v508/Rotae/sep1a.png TEE HEE!! whaddya think?

Peace,
Rotae

[psychic_serpent]

Granted, we don’t have much evidence of what difference having his own wand, as Neville plays a fairly small part in HBP, but I believe that his ineptitude comes as much from his using a hand-me-down wand as it does from an innate inability to work magic.

An innate inability to work magic? Hardly. The role that Neville does play in HBP specifically contradicts that. He and Luna are the only former members of the DA who join in fighting the invading Death Eaters with Ron, Hermione and Ginny, and neither he nor Luna had the benefit of taking the Felix Felices potion, yet neither of them is killed or even injured significantly, in contrast to Bill--a member of the Order and a powerful Charm-breaker--who is permanently disfigured by Greyback. Neville's doing just fine with his new wand, according to HBP, and does not seem to have "an innate inability to work magic".

The second hand-me-down wand user is none other than Ron Weasley. In the first book, he’s using Bill’s old wand, and he does seem to have a bit of trouble learning to do

[cnj1]

Interesting thought...esp. ppl. "outgrowing" their wands. But the only real trait Harry acquired from Riddle's attack is the parseltongue and the subconcious memory of the attack. But I wouldn't be surprised to see Harry end up needing a new wand after or during book 7.

I have my own theory about Harry's wand; check it out here and let me know what you think.

[auroraceleste]

the only real trait Harry acquired from Riddle's attack is the parseltongue and the subconcious memory of the attack

But, when Harry chooses his wand, he has much *potential* to be like Voldemort. They come from a simmilar semi-abused background with no parents or loving family. They are both discovered to have had magical parent(s) when they lived their lives as a normal person until that point. In the future they could end up simmilar: for example, Harry's rule-breaking tendencies could easily extend to manipulating people as well as situations. Harry was in a position, at the time, to be like Voldemort should he choose to. He chose differently, and subsequently became a person with traits very unlike Voldemort.

In actuality, Harry and Riddle's backgrounds were very different...

[cnj1]

But, when Harry chooses his wand, he has much potential to be like Voldemort. They come from a simmilar semi-abused background with no parents or loving family.

I don't think their backgrounds were really all that similar at all. Despite first glance appearances, if you look more closely, Harry and Riddle's backgrounds are actually very different and dissimilar. Riddle's dad did not die when he was toddler like Harry's; Riddle later hunted down his dad as a young teen and killed him.

And Harry did have a loving family for the first year and three months of his life, whereas Riddle never did; he was abandoned from birth onward.

And although Riddle was not loved, he was not abused either, nor was he made to basically parent his foster parents like Harry had been forced to take care of the Dursleys. Riddle had all his basic materal needs met, whereas Harry did not; Harry had to wear Dudley's old, ill-fitting clothes and was forced to sleep in a cobwebbed, dusty cupboard. Unlike Harry, Riddle was never locked in a cupboard or his room

[lunar_music]

There's also the connection between the two, remember? The one that makes Harry's scar burn when Voldie's near by or experiencing a particularly strong emotion?

[auroraceleste]

Neville's handmedown (also from a living wizard) is more problematic. Surely Augusta Longbottom could afford a lousy wand for her only grandchild. However, her whole relationship with Neville had been colored by that persistent doubt that he was any real wizard. And he was sharply drawn in the beginning as a forgetful and accident prone child. A handmedown might have seemed a perfectly legitimate solution at the time.

Could it be that since a wand is such a projection of personality that there is some kind of effect it has on the Wizard, as well? For example, could Neville's Grandmother be giving him his father's wand in hopes that he ends up like his father - powerful enough to be an auror, and strong enough in character to stand up to the cruciatus curse? Perhaps it was not a thought of affordability, but a family-heirloom issue that is hoped to help influence the user as well as being a tool.

[courtaud]

Surely Augusta Longbottom could afford a lousy wand for her only grandchild. However, her whole relationship with Neville had been colored by that persistent doubt that he was any real wizard.Maybe we shouldn't trust Ollivander when he says that "the wand choose the wizard". We know about three pureblood children, and all three do not have a wand measured by Ollivander: Ron uses his brother's wand, Neville his father's, and Narcissa bought Draco's wand when he was at Madame Malkin's