Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Wands: Your Thoughts After Book Seven

Go down

Wands: Your Thoughts After Book Seven Empty Wands: Your Thoughts After Book Seven

Post  Potteraholic on Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:56 am

This topic serves as an archive of a thread from the Harry Potter Lexicon Forum as hosted on World Crossing, which ceased operation on April 15, 2011. It was copied/saved by Lady Arabella and reformatted/reposted by Potteraholic. ~Potteraholic

Kip Carter - Jul 24, 2007 10:27 am
Edited Sep 26, 2007 2:32 am

This thread is to discuss the Wands: Your Thoughts After Book Seven.

This thread was suggested by Ludicrous Patents Office; therefore sharing her feeling behind this thread's direction is important:

"...wands in general, not just the Elder Wand. Several people lost their wands and had to learn to use others with varying success. Wands really took on an almost sentient quality. We have a lot of information from Mr. Ollivander about wand ownership. On the other side we see how wands have caused a lot of discord between different species."

Have Fun!
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 4241
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Wands: Your Thoughts After Book Seven Empty Wands: Your Thoughts After Book Seven (posts #1 to #50)

Post  Potteraholic on Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:59 am

Ludicrous Patents Office - Jul 24, 2007 6:28 pm (#1 of 124)

Yea first post! I never realized until DH how important wand status is. When Voldemort "borrowed" Lucius' wand Lucius lost not just his wand but respect and control in his house. I thought it was interesting that Narcissa gave Draco her wand instead of giving it to her husband. As old as Malfoy Manor is I'm sure there must be some ancestor wands laying about for family members to use. LPO

Veritaserum - Jul 24, 2007 6:30 pm (#2 of 124)

I felt Harry's loss of his wand almost as deeply as if someone had died, and I was really hoping, like he was, for the whole book that someone would be able to fix it. I didn't realize how attached I'd grown to it, and how much Harry had. Think of what they've been through together!

Ludicrous Patents Office - Jul 24, 2007 6:34 pm (#3 of 124)

I did to Veritaserum. It was as bad as losing Hedwig. It also felt like losing Fawkes again. LPO

Jenniffler - Jul 24, 2007 7:11 pm (#4 of 124)
Edited Jul 24, 2007 8:11 pm

Harry's wand breaking was foreshadowed in the Odo song in book 6.

It's the final possession that harry has "taken" from him. I thought then he would rescue Ollivander and get a different wand.

I loved all the stuff about wand-lore, because it show wizards are able to make really dramatic changes in their lives. For example, Draco and Lucius lost their wands and had to start again with wands not accustomed to all their tricky little evil ways. IMO.

Mrs. Sirius - Jul 27, 2007 9:32 pm (#5 of 124)

I am going to need deep therapy on this wand thing. I am still reeling. I finally managed to wrestle a copy of the book from one of my kids, and re-read some of the confrontation in "The Flaw in The Plan". Where is the therapy room?

Steve Newton - Jul 28, 2007 4:31 am (#6 of 124)

But I don't think it’s as bad as figuring out time travel. Isn't that a relief?

Puck - Jul 28, 2007 5:24 am (#7 of 124)

Oooo, do you think that was why Harry was suddenly able to work Unforgiveable curses, because Draco's wand already knew how?

Choices - Jul 28, 2007 8:44 am (#8 of 124)

Oh, that's an interesting thought, Puck. I think that's very possible.

Esther Rose - Jul 28, 2007 9:51 am (#9 of 124)

Actually, that was what I assumed. Harry also found it easier to do Occlumency but had difficulty (at first) with conjuring the Patronus with Draco's wand as well.

Veritaserum - Jul 28, 2007 12:47 pm (#10 of 124)

Very interesting, I hadn't thought of that at all!

Ludicrous Patents Office - Jul 28, 2007 12:53 pm (#11 of 124)

I thought the Occlumency was explained by his grief/love for Dobby. He learned to control it while he was burying Dobby.

Interesting suggestion about the curses though. I'm sure Draco's wand has a lot of experience at it. LPO

Mrs. Sirius - Jul 28, 2007 10:07 pm (#12 of 124)
Edited Jul 28, 2007 11:09 pm

As always Jo works in many a layered ways. I think I have been released from St Mungo's couch. I re-read the "The Flaw in the Plan" (chapter 36) and I wrote out the sequences of ownership in wands.

But help me with one last:

Draco disarmed Dumbledore becoming DD's wand's master (without ever touching the wand). (HBP)

DD was buried with that wand.

Harry disarmed Draco, therefore becoming master of Draco's wand.

The wand that Harry disarmed from Draco was the hawthorn wand. Which Harry had in the hawthorn wand pointed at Voldemort at this point in time.

So my question is, in disarming Draco of the hawthorn wand,

1) did that caused Harry to be master of all Draco's wands, and that included the elder wand, the elder wand that would then not kill its master? or

2) was Harry master of the hawthorn wand which obeyed him implicitly, while LV had the elder wand that would not obey him, allowing Harry to disarm LV?

I don't think the second scenario is correct, because Expelliarmus from the hawthorn wad disarmed LV of the elder wand and the AK cast by LV backfired and killed him.

Veritaserum - Jul 28, 2007 10:30 pm (#13 of 124)

I think scenario 1 is closer, because I think the reason the Elder Wand lost because it was doing battle with its master. Now whether its master was Harry itself or rather just the hawthorn wand (with Harry as its owner), I am not sure.

The Wandless Wizard - Jul 29, 2007 4:09 am (#14 of 124)

Ludicrous Patents Office wrote: "I never realized until DH how important wand status is."

There is a good reason for that. It was never foreshadowed. Considering JKR had the ending planned for years, it would have been nice to have a little bit of foreshadowing that arcane wand lore would be so important as to be the downfall of the Dark Lord. And here we thought it would be love. Granted, love played a role in getting Harry to the situation to defeat Voldemort. but Harry's understanding of wand mastery delivered the death blow.

It would have been nice to have some previous examples of wands not working correctly when they had not been mastered. The only one I can think of is the scene where Harry gets his first wand and rejects several before finding the right one. After that, wand mastery isn't mentioned much. It is something I will definitely look for when I get around to re-reading all 7 books.

It is quite possible I am just not remembering any examples. Can anyone else think of examples where a wand did not work correctly in someone else's hands pre-DH? We have seen plenty of people using someone else' wand.

Puck - Jul 29, 2007 4:54 am (#15 of 124)

Ron and Neville went to school with hand-me-down wands. When each in turn broke his and got a new wand, they got better results.

The Wandless Wizard - Jul 29, 2007 5:13 am (#16 of 124)
Edited Jul 29, 2007 7:25 am

That is true puck. But were Ron and Neville at the same point where Harry could not even levitate a rock with the wand Ron gave him (captured from the retrieval squad)? Ron and Neville both passed Hogwarts' exams with their old wands. Ron levitated a giant's club in SS. Neville showed vast improvement in the DA lessons before his wand ever broke. So his improved skill after his broke could be due to increased confidence and Harry's patient teaching. Still, I do remember it being mentioned that both improved after getting the new wand, so it is something.

Edit to reply to Chemyst below: Lockhart can be explained by Ron's broken wand, not the mastery issue. Ron ended up burping slugs due to its malfunction. There were other instances of the broken wand reversing or amplifying the intended effects of spells.

Chemyst - Jul 29, 2007 6:01 am (#17 of 124)
Edited Jul 29, 2007 7:16 am

A guess: Ron and Neville both obtained those hand-me-downs "legally" (as they were given with intent,) and the wands and wand-bearers were learning to work together. When Lockhart took Ron's wand "illegally," he blew his mind.

Which sort of puts a new perspective on that incident. I had thought Lockhart was very good at the "Obliviate" spell, but maybe the stolen wand gave it an extra boost during rebound. That could explain why Lockhart's other victims had selective memory loss but could still function in their lives, but he ended up in St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries.

Magic Words - Jul 29, 2007 6:59 am (#18 of 124)

And yet, Lockhart's acquisition of Ron's wand exactly mirrored the way Harry got ahold of Malfoy's hawthorn.

Esther Rose - Jul 30, 2007 5:47 am (#19 of 124)

True Magic Words but the Ron's wand was broken and had previously backfired on its owner before. ("Eat Slugs!")

Mrs. Sirius - Jul 30, 2007 5:58 am (#20 of 124)

I thought more was made of Neville's wand being a hand-me-down. I don't remember if it was at the end of OoTP or in HBP. But I vaguely remember emphasis on Neville’s improvement with his new wand and his grandmother saying something to the effect of him now being up to his father stature.

Joanna Lupin - Aug 5, 2007 7:54 am (#21 of 124)

According to Ollivander, wand learns from a wizard, wizard learns from a wand. That explains why Ron and Neville had fairly good results (wands previous users being Bill and Neville's dad), whereas Harry was so frustrated with the blackthorn wand (its previous master being probably half-troll, not very bright etc.).

Viola Intonada - Aug 5, 2007 9:44 am (#22 of 124)

I came away from DH thinking that the only wand that changes masters by conquest is the Elder Wand. Otherwise, wands would have been exchanging masters constantly during DA meetings while practicing Expelliarmus.

I wonder if Harry's wand, once repaired worked for him as well as it used to. I felt that Harry's wand (brother to Voldemort's wand) chose him because he had a part of Voldy's soul. With that portion of soul gone, would the wand work for him as well as it did?

Veritaserum - Aug 5, 2007 1:08 pm (#23 of 124)

I've always felt that it chose him because of his connection to Fawkes/Dumbledore more than his destiny with Voldemort, but good point, Viola. Still, Harry and his wand have been through so much together, I would think they've kind of grown accustomed to each other by now.

Steve Newton - Aug 5, 2007 1:15 pm (#24 of 124)

Viola, I don't think that practice, as in the DA, would transfer masters. It is practice and not a real fight. Similar to Snape not becoming master of the Elder Wand because it was planned.

TomProffitt - Aug 5, 2007 4:29 pm (#25 of 124)

Steve, I think you have the right of it. I think to take Mastery of a Wand you have to intend to forcibly take control of the wand. In the DA no one was intending to capture and keep a wand, only to "spar," there was no intention of never returning a "captured" wand.

Conversely Draco had no intention of allowing Dumbledore the use of his wand once his Expelliarmus succeeded. He may not have wanted to kill DD, but he definitely didn't want DD to have a wand. It's more confusing with DD's wand because I believe DD expresses two conflicting plans, one to leave the Elder Wand in Snape's control and another time suggests he wanted the Wand to have no Master at his death.

zelmia - Aug 5, 2007 10:18 pm (#26 of 124)

Well it could be in Snape's control (I.e. Snape knew where it was, had access to it, etc) without Snape being its master. I don't think that's conflicting.

mollis - Aug 6, 2007 6:34 am (#27 of 124)

The way I read into the whole switching masters deal was a little different. As Steve said above, disarming someone in practice (as in the DA) would not cause a wand to switch allegiance. I think that to claim the allegiance of someone else's wand you would have to both disarm them and physically take the wand. Or simply snatch it out of their hand, as Harry did to Draco. When Draco disarmed DD, the situation became slightly more complicated. I think that if DD had walked away from the tower and picked up his wand, it still would have been "his". If DD had lived but Draco had gotten to the wand first and kept it, it would have switched loyalty to Draco. Because DD died shortly after being disarmed, the wand recognized the master of the hawthorn wand as its master (since Draco hadn't touched the wand it did not know Draco's identity apart from his wand). Had DD's plan gone through without any flaws, the wand would have been in his possession when he was killed. He would not have used the wand to attempt to defend himself and the wand would not have been beaten. There would be no new master of the Elder Wand.

That said, Grindelwald gained the loyalty of the wand simply by stealing it. Would someone in the future be able to steal the wand from DD's tomb and become its master? Or would they have to steal it from Harry to become the master? I do remember that it was said that Harry has to die a natural death for the Elder Wand's powers to fade. If someone murders him, they become the master. Whether they know it or not.

Viola Intonada - Aug 6, 2007 7:33 am (#28 of 124)

As Ollivander said, "Subtle laws govern wand ownership."

I did go back over this chapter and realize my initial impressions were wrong in my previous post and that there is only legend of one wand passing from hand to hand my murder. Other wands can usually change ownership by being beaten.

This means that Expelliarmus is a very powerful spell and I am surprised that that is the first thing taught in Dueling Club.

Viola Intonada - Aug 6, 2007 2:53 pm (#29 of 124)

I wonder if a wand that has been won actually recognizes both people, the one who won it and the one who it was won from. But if the winner gives the wand back to the loser, then the wand returns its ownership to the loser. The Elder Wand would be the exception, that it only recognizes the winner and cannot be given back.

Therefore, when practicing "Expelliarmus" in DA meetings, the act of giving the person their wand back caused the wand to return its allegiance to its original owner.

Choices - Aug 6, 2007 3:15 pm (#30 of 124)

Wands, My thoughts after Book 7 - I still want a real one. :-(

T Vrana - Aug 6, 2007 3:50 pm (#31 of 124)

I wonder if DD had died from either the ring curse or the potion in the cave basin, would LV have defeated him and would the Elder wand recognize LV as Master? Have mentioned this on the DD thread because I think it was why DD mentioned that Snape must kill him before the year is out, indicating the cursed hand. I think DD had to be killed by Snape to protect the Elder Wand, even if Draco never made his move.

LV seems to think killing Snape with a snake would work, so why not a curse?

valuereflection - Aug 6, 2007 8:34 pm (#32 of 124)

T Vrana, I think you are correct that the Elder wand could have recognized LV as its Master if LV had defeated Dumbledore through either of his curses on the ring Horcrux or the potion in the cave basin. What further implications would be caused?

What a scary thought.

Madam Pince - Aug 12, 2007 9:53 am (#33 of 124)
Edited Aug 12, 2007 10:54 am

Regarding the "hand-me-down" wands, JKR says in her Bloomsbury webchat that the family connection in such situations gives the new owner better results / control than if was just some random person's wand. So I took that to mean that because Neville had his Dad's wand, and Ron had Bill's, that they got more passable results with them than they would've if they'd just gotten their wands in some second-hand shop or something.

Brings to mind... presumably Ron's old wand had originally chosen Bill. So why did Bill get a new one, and pass on his old one to Ron? Surely he would've wanted to keep the one wand that originally chose him, as it would give the best results? Hmmmm...

This whole wand thing still gives me headaches. I think this is just one of those issues where JKR let the edges get a bit fuzzy, in order to make the storyline fit/progress. She was wanting to emphasize that Ron's family was poor and that they had to "make do" with hand-me-downs, hence she put in that even Ron's wand was a hand-me-down. But in light of the later significance she puts onto wand ownership, I humbly submit that she might ought to have thought that one through a bit more. But who am I to talk? The only thing I've ever had published is a letter to the editor...

Viola, excellent observation about Harry's wand possibly choosing him because of the Voldy-soul-bit-part in him -- brother wand and all that. Good catch!

megfox* - Aug 12, 2007 10:56 am (#34 of 124)

Madam Pince, here is what I came up with for why Ron would have Bill's old wand:

In SS/PS, Ollivander mentions that Lily's wand was good for Charms, and James was good for Transfiguration. Maybe Bill needed a wand that had different properties for working at Gringotts. Bill's wand is already very "weathered". It has dents and scratches, and the unicorn hair is poking out of the end. If Bill was working, he could afford to replace his wand. As you mentioned, Jo wanted to show that the Weasley's passed things down a lot. Well, if Ron needed a wand, and Bill could afford a new one, it would make sense that his old wand, which still worked, could be passed down to Ron. My first car was a very old Honda Civic that my uncle sold to me very cheap, because he was buying a new one and wasn't going to get very much on the trade in. People often buy new cars even when the old one still works, because their needs (or wants, or financial situation) change. So this could be what happened with Bill's wand.

Or, it could be a continuity error on Jo's part!

Choices - Aug 12, 2007 11:10 am (#35 of 124)

That was my thinking also, Megfox. When Bill became a curse breaker, he needed a better, more powerful wand that was good at breaking curses. His old wand was rather worn and didn't go with Bill's new, more professional look.

Elanor - Aug 12, 2007 11:24 am (#36 of 124)
Edited Aug 12, 2007 12:27 pm

What if Bill's wand had not been Bill's in the first place? Maybe Bill inherited the wand from another family member first and later he got a wand which was really his this time, either when he started to work at the bank or as a present when he became Prefect or Head Boy.

It could have even been the wand of one of Molly's brothers first for example. Molly gives Fabian's watch to Harry for his birthday in the DH and she says that Fabian "wasn't terribly careful with his possessions" (p.114, Sch.).

Lots of possibilities! I hope Jo tells us about it sometime.

Viola Intonada - Aug 12, 2007 7:29 pm (#37 of 124)
Edited Aug 12, 2007 8:30 pm

I'm with you, Elanor.

I think Bill had the wand as a hand-me-down, therefore purchased his own wand when he had a job. No one in the family had really figured out how old Scabbers was because they kept passing him along. (Similar thing had happened with a First Communion dress. I knew mine was passed down from my sisters, but didn't realize that they had gotten it from my aunt.)

A wand would be like any piece of equipment, such as golf clubs or tennis rackets. When you start out you don't need the best, and can get by with something used. But as you become more proficient, you need something better suited to you.

Gerald Costales - Aug 12, 2007 9:43 pm (#38 of 124)
Edited Aug 12, 2007 11:01 pm

But, Wand Lore is an arcane subject. Wand Makers like Mr. Ollivander and Gregorovitch or people like Dumbledore and Xenophilius Lovegood, could be amongst the few people aware of the importance of Wand Ownership, the Mastering of Wands, or having knowledge of the Elder Wand.

Not even Hermione, the Series' resident "Know-it-All", has heard of the Elder Wand -

. . .Hermione looked exasperated: The expression was so endearingly familiar that Harry and Ron grinned at each other.

. . .’The Deathstick, the Wand of Destiny, they crop up under different names through the centuries, usually in the possession of some Dark wizard who’s boasting about them. Professor Binns mentioned some of them, but - oh, it’s all nonsense. Wands are only as powerful as the wizards who use them. * Some wizards just like to boast that theirs are bigger and better than other people’s’ *

. . . ‘But how do you know,’ said Harry, ‘that those wands -- the Deathstick and the Wand of Destiny -- aren’t the same wand, surfacing over the centuries under different name?’

. . . ‘What, and they’re all really the Elder Wand, made by Death?’ said Ron.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (DH, page 415, American hardback edition)

Magical Objects just can't be tossed into a Dustbin. So, having an attic, basement, or dungeon of old Wands, Watches, etc. is probably the norm for any old Wizarding Family. Unless there are Wizard Toxic Dumps, for cursed objects, etc., to handle truly unwanted Magical Objects. (cough)Opal Necklace(cough) (cough)Gaunt's Ring(cough) (cough)Slytherin's Locket(cough)

* PS A good example of Wand Envy, you know what I mean??!!??*

. .PPS Gives new meaning to the phrase ** "Speak softly and carry a big stick" ** GC
Edited for html errors, etc. - GC

Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 13, 2007 7:03 pm (#39 of 124)


Wands do wear out. I would imagine old families/houses would have extra ones lying around from past generations though.

Part of the wand ownership issues I think come from two things: there is a state of war. Wands don't normally change hands unless there is war. HRH are adults and can perform very complicated magic. They are inexperienced with using other people’s wands. Perhaps it takes more of a focus of will to force the wand to do your bidding. LPO

mollis - Aug 14, 2007 10:00 am (#40 of 124)
Edited Aug 14, 2007 11:01 am

LPO - "I would imagine old families/houses would have extra ones laying around from past generations though."

I totally agree with this statement, LPO. Which is why I was so shocked to see so many witches and wizards doing without wands now the Ollivander was gone. I had never even conceived of the notion of a wizard trying to live without a wand. After Voldy's takes Lucius' wand, we don't see him with another (that I know of). And Draco says me borrowed his mom's when he shows up in Hogwarts. So there doesn't seem to be a stash of backup wands available. It would seem to me that an affluent witch or wizard might want several wands, each specializing in a different type of magic (I.e. charms, transfiguration, darks arts(?) ) Similar to how wealthy people may have multiple vehicles.

And as for wand ownership/loyalty. You would think that the general concept would have been more widely known. Ollivander said "the wand chooses the wizard" as if it were common knowledge. And if hand-me-down wands happen as frequently as we've seen, a simple "Expelliarmus" to the former owner should do the trick.

azi - Aug 14, 2007 10:41 am (#41 of 124)
Edited Aug 14, 2007 11:43 am

Maybe wizards are often buried with their wand like Dumbledore was? That also happens in the Odo the Hero song. It would explain why there aren't dozens of wands lying around.

Joanna Lupin - Aug 14, 2007 10:42 am (#42 of 124)
Edited Aug 14, 2007 11:45 am

Isn't it the custom to bury the wand with its master (Dumbledore, Odo the hero)? Besides, why make a stack of wands if the wand that chose you does your bidding best?

Azi - we cross-posted, it almost feels like Legilimency was involved...

azi - Aug 16, 2007 10:58 am (#43 of 124)

Either that or we're both geniuses.

I was just reading PS and came along this line, said by Ron; 'I've got Bill's old robes, Charlie's old wand and Percy's old rat.' (Bold mine, pg 75 UK edition).

So where in the book does it say it's Bill's old wand? I was under the impression it was Bill's as well.

megfox* - Aug 17, 2007 5:14 am (#44 of 124)
Edited Aug 17, 2007 6:15 am

Azi, I am rereading SS, and on page 100 of the US Scholastic version, it says the same thing... Oops. Guess we all goofed! Good catch! The same arguments could probably apply to Charlie's wand, too though.

Gerald Costales - Aug 22, 2007 12:08 am (#45 of 124)
Edited Aug 22, 2007 1:30 am

(I recycled some old ideas for our current discussion about Wands.)

Now, let me suggest this possibility. Mr. Ollivander gathers and collects the best Wand materials and crafts the best Wands possible. Better materials. Better Wands.

. . . . . . ‘Ah, now, this is one of mine, isn’t it?’ said Mr. Ollivander, with much more enthusiasm, as Cedric handed over his wand. ‘Yes, I remember it well. Containing a single hair from the tail of a particularly fine male unicorn . . . must have been seventeen hands*; nearly gored me with his horn after I plucked his tail. . . .’

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (page 309, GoF, American hardback edition)

* Seventeen hands is HUGE! Read the following about a popular breed of draft horse: The Clydesdale - Most of the horses range in size from 16.2 to 18 hands and weigh between 1600 and 1800 lbs. Wow, that’s the weight of a small compact car!!!!!

Does this sound like Mr. Ollivander is simply concerned with stocking his shop with as many wands as possible? Does Mr. Ollivander maintain a large inventory of Wands just to sell a high volume of Wands and maximize profits? Bigger stock and inventory; greater choice and variety; and of course quality should insure that no Wizard or Witch would leave Mr. Ollivander’s shop empty handed. Cha-ching, another Wand sold!!!!! Money in the bank!!!!!

(But, we know of Frank Longbottom’s old Wand going to Neville. And of course, Charlie’s Wand went to Ron. So, not every Wizard or Witch purchases a new Ollivander Wand for their Magical Needs. Neville’s Grandmother had some reason (and I doubt that it was Money) to have wanted Neville to use his Father’s old Wand. While on the other hand, the Weasleys because of Money handed down old items from older sibling to younger sibling. Wonder if there is an Old and Used Wand Shop in Knockturn Alley? Mundungus Fletcher must sell his stolen goods somewhere.)

Well, I seriously doubt that Mr. Ollivander has a workshop of House-Elves that are building Wands in mass. Mr. Ollivander is a craftsman!!!!! That’s why he can remember each Wand he has ever sold. Mr. Ollivander probably crafted every Wand in his shop. Better materials. Better Wands. (Most of us assume Fawkes is an exceptional Phoenix. So Fawkes’ tail feather should be exceptional or ‘particularly fine’.)

Now, a few questions should be asked of Harry’s ‘Holly Wand’.

. . . . I. Was the "Holly Wand" crafted before Harry's birth or after his birth?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Or better yet ask -

. . . . . . . Was the ‘Holly Wand’ crafted before or after the Prophecy?

In regards to the ‘Holly Wand’, we need to ask if there is a connection between the ‘Holly Wand’ and the Prophecy. Like Mikie wrote:

‘ . . . . . . I think DD could have foreseen the need for a brother wand to Tom's wand so that after Voldemort killed Harry's parents DD got Fawkes to give another feather.’

If the ‘Holly Wand’ was crafted before the Prophecy. Then I could imagine that the ‘Holly Wand’ could have been ordered or crafted at a time as early as Tom leaving Hogwarts or at the time Dumbledore knew that Tom was the last heir of Slytherin. (A time when Tom was still Tom Riddle.) If the ‘Holly Wand’ was crafted after the Prophecy. Then Harry’s future Wand was most likely crafted after the rise of Lord Voldemort or after the murder of Harry’s parents. (A time when Tom Riddle had been transformed into a Dark Wizard.)

But, this maybe the most important question. And it applies to both Wands -

. . . . II. Were both Wands preordained to go to Tom and Harry?

The Graveyard battle between Voldemort and Harry seemed for me to answer that question. NO ‘Brother Wands’ then Voldemort wins and the Series ENDS. So, what is more important to the Series the Prophecy or the Wands?

If you think the Prophecy is more important then the Series should be subtitled -

‘The Prophecy: The Rise and Fall of Lord Voldemort’

If the Wands are more important then the Series should be subtitled - ‘A Tale of Two Wands’

Only time will tell.

PS Then again the subtitle should be ‘A Fawkes Tail’.

‘Ahab is forever Ahab, man. This whole act's immutably decreed. 'Twas rehearsed by thee and me a billion years before this ocean rolled. Fool! I am the Fates' lieutenant; I act under orders.’

Moby-Dick, or, The Whale

PPS I was a bit disappointed that neither the ‘Prophecy’ or even Fawkes seemed important in Book 7. I didn't think Wands would be that important. GC

(This post is base on the following older and original post -Gerald Costales, "+ Mr. Ollivander" #148, 26 Jan 2005 9:23 pm .)

PPPS But, Book 7 proved to be just ‘A Wand Song’. GC

Phelim Mcintyre - Aug 22, 2007 2:04 am (#46 of 124)

GC that pps is groansome. I only expect puns that bad in a Christmas Cracker.

valuereflection - Sep 28, 2007 3:58 pm (#47 of 124)
Edited Sep 28, 2007 5:01 pm

While rereading Deathly Hallows, I noticed that Ron had NO trouble with using the blackthorn wand, unlike Harry's difficulty. Ron had won the allegiance of the blackthorn wand but Harry had not. Ron won its allegiance because he hit a snatcher in the stomach and then grabbed the blackthorn wand from the snatcher’s hand. Immediately afterward, Ron successfully used that blackthorn wand to Disarm another person in the Snatcher’s gang who was holding his own (Ron's) wand -- Ron needed no practice in order to do this with the blackthorn wand, unlike Harry. It is true that Ron next Disapparated but didn't do so well -- but that particular piece of poor spellwork was performed with his own wand, not the blackthorn wand; it was not caused by any incompatibility with the blackthorn wand. (DH chapters 19-20)

Later Ollivander confirmed that Ron had taken true possession of Wormtail's wand because he won it by taking it from his hand. He said this principle holds true for all wands. (DH chapter 24) Thus Ron won the allegiance of the blackthorn wand in the same manner as he won Wormtail’s wand.

Did anyone else notice while reading Deathly Hallows that Harry had difficulty with the blackthorn wand but Ron did not?

Also, maria cloos made some comments which relate to this thread's discussion about wandlore, over on the thread "The Elder Wand -- Deathly Hallow #1":

Okay, I’m going to try to see if we have the facts straight with a summary of everything we’ve learned. Using info from this forum, other sites and the interviews:

Disarming: We see numerous instances of people being disarmed. We also see that wands do not just "change loyalties" upon each disarming. The difference would seem to be the ultimate intention of the person doing the disarming. In a practice situation you are not trying to devoid the person of a wand permanently....it just that, practice. Even in a duel situation it seems that if you disarm someone and that person retrieves his or her wand from you the wand's loyalties still lie with the original owner.

Using another's wand: There are a few examples we should look at. Neville, in particular, has used other people's wands. His first wand had been his father's and it seemed to have worked decently for him (although we see his talent increase once he has a wand of his own after his father's is broken.) In the DoM he picks up Hermione's wand and uses it with the same amount of flair as he did his father's. Why? I think that Hermione wanted him to use her wand to continue the defense of the group. It would be her intentions that the wand would still be carrying out. Additionally we see Harry have difficulty using the wand that Ron stole from the snatchers (because Harry did not successfully overcome the wand's owner) but that he was using Hermione's wand with no difficulty (again due to Hermione's wishes).

The Elder Wand and its owners: As Ollivander tells us, the owner of a wand must be overcome in order for the wand to change allegiance to the person who overcomes the original owner. Let's look at the specific instances when we see the Elder Wand change hands.
#1) Antioch- The wand is stolen by another while he is asleep. **For good measure the thief kills him.
#2) Gregorovitch- He had possession of the wand (we will have to assume for arguments sake that he is the master of the wand). Grindelwald showed up at his shop and overcame him by stealing the wand from his possession (stunning Gregorovitch in the process) and began using it.
#3) Grindelwald- We know that DD fought a duel with Grindelwald and that he was defeated and sent to Nurmengard. We DO NOT know that Grindelwald was actually defeated during the duel (or if he was defeated, how). This may have been something that occurred later (more on that below).
#4) DD- Upon their arrival on the tower, Draco comes upon DD and Harry. Now, in that moment DD uses his wand to immobilize Harry and is not fighting against Draco (which is significant). Draco therefore disarms DD successfully. Unlike most duel situations, DD never retrieves his wand and Draco was intending to overcome him.
#5) Draco- The Elder wand has now given its allegiance to the person who overcame its previous owner, although Draco is obviously unaware of this. Moments before Harry and his mates Disapparate Harry overcomes Draco by snatching the three wands he holds. Again, this was with the intention of overcoming Draco, and Draco never retrieves his wand from Harry. Note- LV tried to steal the wand out of DD’s tomb. But he was not overcoming the wand’s owner in any way. He was robbing DD, not Draco (who was the wand’s master).

(Quote by maria cloos, from Post #176 on the thread, "The Elder Wand - Deathly Hallow #1")

Hieronymus Graubart - Mar 7, 2008 1:43 pm (#48 of 124)

A very belated response to the discussion about Ron's "hand-me-down" wand starting with:

What if Bill's wand had not been Bill's in the first place? Maybe Bill inherited the wand from another family member first and later he got a wand which was really his this time

and going on to:

I was just reading PS and came along this line, said by Ron; 'I've got Bill's old robes, Charlie's old wand and Percy's old rat.'

Guess we all goofed! Good catch! The same arguments could probably apply to Charlie's wand, too though.

These arguments apply much better to Charlie, because he is the one Weasley who didn't perform well at school. Did he get more then one O.W.L. (Care of Magical creatures, and you don't need a wand for this)? Charlie really had to get his own wand as soon as he could afford it!

Joanna Lupin - Mar 24, 2008 4:13 am (#49 of 124)

How do you know Charlie wasn't good at school? Do we learn that anywhere in the cannon? I got the impression the twins had the poorest results, and they got 3 O.W.L.s each, didn't they?

Orion - Mar 25, 2008 12:27 am (#50 of 124)

I can't remember Charlie's poor results either. Would Charlie have got the responsible job as a dragon researcher if he hadn't an at least decent Hogwarts diploma (or whatever the document you get after your NEWTs is called)?
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 4241
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Wands: Your Thoughts After Book Seven Empty Wands: Your Thoughts After Book Seven (posts #51 to #100)

Post  Potteraholic on Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:01 am

Steve Newton - Mar 25, 2008 6:17 am (#51 of 124)

I think that there are hints that Charlie was not an outstanding student. First of all Molly never brags about his OWLs. And then, of course, is the stuff that I am now forgetting, but, we spoke about on one of the read-alongs.

How's that for gripping exposition?

Orion - Mar 25, 2008 7:42 am (#52 of 124)


Hieronymus Graubart - Mar 25, 2008 8:41 am (#53 of 124)

Yeah, the point is that we never learned anything about Charlie at school, except that he was an excellent Seeker and liked Care of Magical Creatures.

There were also some discussions (connected to Quidditch timeline) about Charlie leaving school before the end of his seventh year.

rambkowalczyk - Mar 25, 2008 2:10 pm (#54 of 124)

One of Charlie's claims to fame was that he was the captain of the Quidditch team. Ron always felt he was lacking when compared to his older brothers. I don't think there was any implication that Charlie was a poor student.

Julia H. - Mar 27, 2008 10:52 am (#55 of 124)

On "hand me down" wands: The wand is the most important instrument in school. The Weasley parents consider their children's school achievements too important to let them go to school with wands that do not work properly for them. They must have at least checked this before the children went to Hogwarts first. "The wand chooses the wizard": I don't think Ron had to disarm Charlie before starting to use his old wand. So the Weasley parents know either less about wandlore than we do or know something that we don't. For example, is it possible that the allegiance of wands can be intentionally transferred (rather than "won") within a family?

Orion - Mar 27, 2008 1:30 pm (#56 of 124)

If not, we now have an explanation why Ron performed so poorly at school and why his wand didn't work properly for him even before it was broken. Wands don't seem to like being hand-me-down.

Solitaire - Mar 29, 2008 6:11 pm (#57 of 124)

The point is that we never learned anything about Charlie at school, except that he was an excellent Seeker and liked Care of Magical Creatures.

In Chapter 9 of OotP, upon learning that Ron has been made a prefect, Molly Weasley says, "Oh, Ron, how wonderful! A prefect! That's everyone in the family!"

"What are Fred and I, next-door neighbors?" said George indignantly ...

We learn that Charlie was a prefect, which is apparently quite an honor. Wouldn't that mean that Dumbledore and (probably) McGonagall felt he was a reasonably good student or had some redeeming qualities or abilities?


Steve Newton - Mar 29, 2008 6:42 pm (#58 of 124)

I don't know, Fred and George seem to have their nonprefectness ignored and Quidditch captains seem to get all of the privileges of prefects.

Solitaire - Apr 6, 2009 8:23 pm (#59 of 124)

On the Dumbledore thread, we were discussing Hagrid's wand and whether it had possibly been repaired by Dumbledore. We do know now that the Elder Wand can repair other wands, because it was used to repair Harry's Phoenix-feather wand.

I'm curious about something. How does Ollivander get those cores into the wands? Are the wands hollow, with a hole in one end through which the item is inserted, and then the wand is capped in some way ... or magically sealed? Could the Phoenix feather have been removed from the broken parts of Harry's wand and placed in a new wand ... if the original was not able to be repaired? Or does the magical core lose its "strength" or magic once the original wand is broken?

I think Jo needs to do a book on Wandlore in HP.

me and my shadow 813 - Apr 6, 2009 8:45 pm (#60 of 124)
Edited Apr 6, 2009 9:56 pm

Soli, I am fascinated by the craft as well. In fact, I'm in a FanFic writing contest and if I do get to choose next topics at some point, I decided already that one of the options will be this very subject.

If we wanted to speculate (why not!) on wandmaking, I imagine it to be one of the most magical processes in the WW. Mechanically, I would say the core is inserted into the wood -- magically, of course. On top of that, though... a tree, to me, is the closest thing to a sentient being, only missing the ability to be independently mobile. This type of mystery is alluded to in Lord of the Rings and countless fairy tales. Wood has ancient and wise consciousness in the world of magic. Then there is the core... each (dragon, phoenix, unicorn) from a living magical being with its own will. But both the wood and animal part come into harmony with the wizard to whom they pledge allegiance. I know it is assumed that a tail or heartstring would not have consciousness but in the world of magic I cannot believe this to be true. It is a wonderful topic to delve into, albeit with no true "logical" answers, in my opinion.

Back to your enquiry, I do feel that once the wand is made it is "sealed" as you said. To me, one cannot be taken apart and mixed and matched to make other wands.

edit: I just had an image of a wand being made like a fine cigar... with thin sheets of the wood rolled over the core. But it is more likely a twig with a hollow core in which the core element is inserted...

Solitaire - Apr 7, 2009 8:11 am (#61 of 124)
Edited Apr 7, 2009 9:13 am

a tree, to me, is the closest thing to a sentient being, only missing the ability to be independently mobile.

Excluding the Whomping Willow. Imagine a wand made of that wood ... with a Veela hair core! LOL Who knows what it would do? Just think ... every time you miscast a spell, or said the words incorrectly, your wand would bonk you on the head!

Mrs Brisbee - Apr 7, 2009 8:53 am (#62 of 124)

Excluding the Whomping Willow. Imagine a wand made of that wood ... with a Veela hair core! LOL Who knows what it would do? Just think ... every time you miscast a spell, or said the words incorrectly, your wand would bonk you on the head!-- Solitaire

LOL! Maybe Whomping Willow wood was what the gimlet-eyed Headmistress' wand was made of (since she seemed to use it in a Whomping-Willow-approved way to persuade Phinneas Nigellus to be helpful).

Ludicrous Patents Office - Apr 7, 2009 6:11 pm (#63 of 124)

I've wondered about the "wand chooses the Wizard" how the wand achieves some sort of sentience. Is it the combination of the wood, core and the magic of the wand maker? There is some form of personality. Harry's wand acted on its own accord to Voldemort's. I love Shadow's idea of the tree imparting some of its intelligence to the wand. Ents are my favorite characters. LPO

PeskyPixie - Apr 7, 2009 8:37 pm (#64 of 124)
Edited Apr 7, 2009 9:37 pm

Ah, the Ents. It is so difficult to explain them to those who haven't read LOTR. ("So, why is the tree walking?" )

Solitaire - Apr 7, 2009 8:41 pm (#65 of 124)


me and my shadow 813 - Apr 7, 2009 9:53 pm (#66 of 124)
Edited Apr 7, 2009 10:59 pm

Ents are the guardians or shepherds of trees in LOTR, Soli.

I do feel that the elements of a wand are conscious in their own way and contribute to not only the behaviour of the wand but the "choosing" of the wizard. JKR could easily have made the cores be a precious metal (I.e., Harry's being of the steel that was used to forge Gryffindor's sword or some particular ancient gold) or some other substance but she used magical creatures. She also has said that she studied Celtic lore about their tree reverence, which I believe bordered on tree-worship in ways. At the very least, they believed a type of tree imparts a particular symbolism or association with it. In our case this reflects the wizard himself and displays the aspect in their magic. Holly associated with "holy" and Yew associated with death and longevity.

Regarding those two wands, there is a discussion on another thread about the twin phoenix wands, and someone posted about the Priori Incantatem not being of any help to Harry. I feel that Dumbledore never wanted Harry to AK Voldemort; that he understood the Prophecy to mean Harry's uniqueness was that the concept of Love would be his "weapon" to overcome Vold, not wand battle. So the wands not working properly against each other would serve to prevent Voldy’s from working against Harry, in my opinion.

rambkowalczyk - Apr 8, 2009 4:53 am (#67 of 124)
Edited Apr 8, 2009 5:56 am

I feel that Dumbledore never wanted Harry to AK Voldemort; that he understood the Prophecy to mean Harry's uniqueness was that the concept of Love would be his "weapon" to overcome Vold, not wand battle. So the wands not working properly against each other would serve to prevent Voldy’s from working against Harry, in my opinion. MAMS

This makes sense as Dumbledore did not kill Grindelwald. Still the prophecy said something to the effect that only one will survive. I'm sure Dumbledore wondered how Harry would accomplish that without killing Voldemort.

Where I was arguing before (Things that struck you as odd part 2 post 8 and 12) was the idea that both Dumbledore and Ollivander were somehow conspiring to give Harry the phoenix wand. I don't believe there was any planning but I do acknowledge that Dumbledore may have seen the significance of the brother wands when told by Ollivander.

Soul Search - Apr 8, 2009 5:59 am (#68 of 124)

Ollivander knew about the "brother wand" effect, since he told Voldemort about it in Deathly Hallows. Must be what he was thinking when he said "curious ..."

Solitaire - Apr 8, 2009 9:15 am (#69 of 124)
Edited Apr 8, 2009 10:17 am

Ollivander knew about it in DH, because it had happened already ... but did he know about it in PS/SS? He might have known it could happen, but whether it ever had, do we know? Didn't Dumbledore ask Harry, following his return from the graveyard in GoF, what had happened when he dueled with Voldemort? This makes it sound to me as though no one was sure what would happen, because maybe it had never happened in anyone's memory.

I think what Ollivander thought curious was the fact that a wand with a "brother" core to Voldemort's wand would choose Harry ... that's all.

Thom Matheson - Apr 8, 2009 3:54 pm (#70 of 124)

I'm with you Soli

shepherdess - Apr 8, 2009 3:58 pm (#71 of 124)

I'm sure that Ollivander didn't know about the prophecy or Harry being "the chosen one". So I doubt that there were any kind of pre-arrangements made between Ollivander and Dumbledore for Riddle/Voldemort and Harry to have brother wands. Why would that be necessary unless Harry was the one who would have to defeat Voldemort? And why would that be the way to go if Harry was the one? You would think everyone would want Harry to have a wand that could defeat Voldemort, not one that wouldn't work against Voldemort's wand. (From Ollivander’s point of view, of course.)

Perhaps Ollivander knew about Harry vanquishing Voldemort as a baby, and also about the "brother wand effect", but he probably didn't know for sure that Voldemort would come back. So to him, the brother wand choosing Harry would mean that if Voldemort managed to come back someday, and if he and Harry were ever to duel, the "brother wand effect" would happen. That would be curious to me too, if I were in his place.

I wonder if a similar thing would happen with two wands containing tail hairs from the same unicorn? Surely you could get two tail hairs from the same unicorn. After all, that would be the easiest type of wand core to acquire, so there are probably more wands with those than with phoenix feathers or dragon heartstrings, simply because the phoenix is more rare and the dragon would have to be killed to get it's heartstring. And since there are limited numbers of unicorns, it seems to me it would be necessary to get more than one tail hair from each one.

me and my shadow 813 - Apr 9, 2009 8:30 pm (#72 of 124)

shepherdess, this seems "odd" to me as well (I know, wrong thread...) One would imagine many unicorn tail hairs coming from the same animal... and yet we are led to believe that the "twin/brother" phenomenon is rare. On the Lexicon I love how it says Cedric's wand contained the tail hair of a particularly fine male unicorn. Perhaps they are only stray hairs which are "wildcrafted" (as in Hagrid's collection from random brush in the Forest) rather than "yanked" (as in an entire tail chopped off like the horn?).

Solitaire - Apr 10, 2009 11:55 am (#73 of 124)

There is an interesting article about Snape's wand and wand core over on halfbloodprince.org: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] The writer speculates on what Snape's wand core is and why it might be that. Those interested in both Snape and wands might enjoy it.

me and my shadow 813 - Apr 10, 2009 12:12 pm (#74 of 124)

Great, Soli! I've had this on my mind and came to the decision it would be birch with dragon heartstring. I looove the idea of ebony and had totally forgotten Harry tested ebony wands. I, too, would believe it to be too exotic. Thanks!

Solitaire - Apr 10, 2009 1:04 pm (#75 of 124)

Scary thought ... the second Fawkes-feather wand chose Harry because it recognized the bit of Voldemort in him. Could this also be why the wands couldn't duel properly--because it would be like Voldemort trying to use his wand to kill a part of himself? Just a crazy, random thought ...

me and my shadow 813 - Apr 10, 2009 4:36 pm (#76 of 124)
Edited Apr 10, 2009 5:42 pm

I don't think it's crazy, particularly about why the second wand chose Harry. I personally believe the "twin" wand effect has more to do with the wands themselves not wanting to battle their kin. But it is entirely possible that, since the wands are connected, that when Harry held the second wand there was a familiarity due to the soul bit.

I feel it is a possibility, although it doesn't please me because then it is implied that Fawkes did not choose Harry but the soul bit. I really feel that Fawkes would not want to have a part of himself in Riddle's hand all the time. It just doesn't seem right to me, that Dumbledore's treasured companion would participate in all that dark magic. Riddle has no interest or even knowledge of this very special creature. In the Chamber he is so dismissive towards Fawkes's power, it just doesn't seem fair or right that the wand would choose young Tom, immortal yearnings or not. *sigh*

The only real "rationale" I can come up with is that the same mysterious magical force that provides Prophecy is responsible for Tom being chosen by that wand. I keep going back to the idea that Tom having that wand was destiny, a way of ultimately helping the Prophecy to be fulfilled for the "good". Whether JKR intended anything on this or not... we'll never know.

shepherdess - Apr 10, 2009 4:46 pm (#77 of 124)

If the wands had trouble dueling in part because of the soulbit in Harry, we must also remember that Harry's blood was in Voldemort.

shepherdess - Apr 10, 2009 4:47 pm (#78 of 124)

If the wands had trouble dueling in part because of the soulbit in Harry, we must also remember that Harry's blood was in Voldemort.

Thom Matheson - Apr 10, 2009 4:50 pm (#79 of 124)

MAMS, I know that you are firm in your belief here, but I have a bit of trouble. Do you not subscribe with the notion of "the wand chooses the wizard"? What I mean by that is at age 11 who could know what Riddle would turn out to be? Even the school teachers thought him remarkable.

Then here comes Harry, same age and with thousands of choices and a dozen or so actual wands tried, Ollivander gives Harry the Phoenix wand and it chooses Harry.

I don't fully see your connection. I can see the Phoenix wand choosing Harry, as it recognized a lot of the same qualities as Riddle because of the soul bit, but at the time no one knew about Horcruxes or that Riddle had made 7 of them, but that is as far as I can see to make any connection. I need more to further understand your theory.

me and my shadow 813 - Apr 10, 2009 5:17 pm (#80 of 124)
Edited Apr 10, 2009 6:32 pm

I know, Thom. I am so right brained I have to wear a special hat with weights on the left side so I don’t tip over.

I’ll try to explain (it’s not a theory or anything, it is just something that I cannot reconcile within the fluidity of the connections/destiny between Riddle and Harry)

First off, I am fully on board with ‘the wand chooses the wizard’. If that isn’t apparent, then I’m really in trouble

What I mean by that is at age 11 who could know what Riddle would turn out to be? Even the school teachers thought him remarkable.

But Dumbledore did not think him remarkable. Not in the positive sense of the word. And Fawkes is Dumbledore’s companion, they communicate on so many levels, they seem to have an extraordinarily strong bond. I cannot help but think that this bond is also connected with Gryffindor for various reasons I have stated and I’m sure most folks were already perfectly aware of.

Meanwhile, back at the orphanage, at the time of Dumbledore’s meeting Tom, he was distinctly aware of the boy taking part in petty theft, animal abuse, and possible bullying if not worse before Tom had even reached Ollivander’s shop. Therefore, I find it odd bordering on wrong that a wand with Dumbledore’s beloved Fawkes’s tail feather at it’s core would choose - out of all the kids that cross the threshold of that shop - crazy mixed-up Tom Riddle, regardless of his age at the time.

If Fawkes was not ‘owned’ by Dumbledore at the time of Tom’s wand purchase, this would make more sense why the tail feather didn’t care if it was going to a crooked, naughty Slytherin descendent. But, most importantly, I do feel that Fawkes was in control of who got the wand. I just cannot understand why it was Tom. If it had been any other phoenix, I wouldn’t be talking about this. I hope that makes sense.

edit: To put it another way... wouldn't you find it strange if Fawkes's tail feather was in Bella's or Lucius' wand?

Solitaire - Apr 10, 2009 5:35 pm (#81 of 124)
Edited Apr 10, 2009 6:36 pm

If the wands had trouble dueling in part because of the soulbit in Harry, we must also remember that Harry's blood was in Voldemort.

No wonder the poor wands were confused! First, they are being asked to duel against themselves as duplicate cores. Then, we have Voldy dueling against his own bit of soul in Harry (unknown by him, of course). Finally, we have Harry's blood in Voldy being asked to duel against itself! (unknown by Ollivander) No wonder even Ollivander was a little confused about it all. There are so many reasons for the wands not to want to do battle.

me and my shadow 813 - Apr 12, 2009 9:32 pm (#82 of 124)
Edited Apr 12, 2009 10:33 pm

Speaking of Voldy’s wand reminded me of The Enchanted Island of Yew by L. Frank Baum. Here is a clip of a synopsis on wikipedia:

He next has a stay in the curious hidden kingdom of Twi. As its name suggests, everything is doubled in Twi, and everyone is a twin. The people even lack a word for "one." The High Ki of Twi (twins like everyone else) is considering the fate of the intruding Marvel, when he places a spell on the rulers, dividing them from their united and shared mind into two separate consciousnesses, good and evil. The results are disastrous, and Marvel has to remedy the mess by re-uniting the twins.

I find it interesting that yew, twins and Marvel (Marvolo) all recall Riddle and his wand.

me and my shadow 813 - Jul 18, 2009 6:36 pm (#83 of 124)
Edited Jul 18, 2009 7:38 pm

Transferred from the Horcrux thread. I know it's not organised, but here are my responses:

But if Voldy's wand was beaten by Harry's wand back at the graveyard, then Harry is the master of Voldy's wand.

But Harry did not have the intention of disarming Vold, merely to defend himself. And, he did not disarm Vold (I.e., the wand did not leave Voldy’s hand). In contrast, Draco actively intended to disarm Dumbledore and the wand left DD's hand.

technically, wouldn't Harry have been the master of Voldemort's original wand since Voldemort tried to kill Harry when he was a baby and Harry lived and Voldemort was destroyed?

Harry as an infant was not in a conscious, wand-at-the-ready battle with Vold, so this was not a 'disarming' or valid way to be entitled to have mastery over another's wand, IMO.

me and my shadow 813 - Jul 18, 2009 8:45 pm (#84 of 124)

I will edit my comment, although I don't have access to a GoF book and cannot go into minute detail. If Harry did incant Expelliarmus then, yes, there was an intention to disarm. However, it was not successful due to the Priori Incantatem and that is what is significant I suppose.

Solitaire - Jul 18, 2009 9:59 pm (#85 of 124)

Yes, he did use Expelliarmus! In the graveyard. This is why Lupin cautions him after he uses it on Stan Shunpike in The Seven Potters: "Expelliarmus is a useful spell, Harry, but the Death Eaters seem to think it is your signature move, and I urge you not to let it become so!"

Gerald Costales - Jul 18, 2009 10:15 pm (#86 of 124)
Edited Jul 18, 2009 11:36 pm

From your post in the Horcrux + thread -me and my shadow 813, "+ Horcruxes" #1288, 18 Jul 2009 7:43 pm

MAMS - "Gerald, don't get me started again. Folks here heard me on a few threads about that exact subject. I'm writing a fanfic about it as we speak because I think it's a wonderful 'hole' in the story"

I haven't posted in a while and would like a bit more info. on the comment you posted above.

Solitaire and I have been posting some comments about wands in the Horcrux thread that should be here in the Wand thread. But, for now just need to get a feel for the current topics being discussed in the Wand thread.

I agree with you that Harry didn't have mastery over the Yew Wand by either way of the rebounding AK when Harry was an infant or by the Priori Incantatem in the Graveyard (the brother wands locked).

And here are my thoughts on the Elder Wand, these ideas may have already been discussed here in this thread. But, I haven't gotten a chance to scan the older posts.

I believe when Harry defeated Malfoy in the 7th book (and since Malfoy disarmed Dumbledore and was the Master of the Elder Wand) Harry then became Master of the Elder Wand even though the Elder Wand wasn't being used by Malfoy. (I believe that should be right. I don't have the books in front of me and I'm going from memory of the events in 7th book.)

This wandlore stuff can get a bit tangled. That's for sure.

Additional comments on Elder Wand from the Horcrux thread - Solitaire, "+ Horcruxes" #1290, 18 Jul 2009 8:58 pm

Me ---> I think that the Holly Wand was made for the "Chosen One" to counter Tom's Yew Wand.

Solitaire ---> I disagree. If it had been made specifically for Harry, I think it would have been the first wand Ollivander gave to Harry to try. I think he held off on giving it to him to try because it was brother to Voldemort's. After all, he seemed to think it was "curious" that it would choose Harry, given its relationship to Voldemort's wand.

Dumbledore owned the Elder wand because he had defeated its previous owner, Grindelwald.

more comments - Gerald Costales, "+ Horcruxes" #1291, 18 Jul 2009 9:10 pm

Me ---> But, if the Elder Wand wasn't important then why wouldn't Dumbledore have just kept his original wand?

Dumbledore needed to defeat Grindelwald. Just as Harry needs to defeat Voldemort. And how Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald is probably wandlore that only JKR knows.

Just thought of this.

Solitaire ---> "I disagree. If it had been made specifically for Harry, I think it would have been the first wand Ollivander gave to Harry to try. I think he held off on giving it to him to try because it was brother to Voldemort's. After all, he seemed to think it was "curious" that it would choose Harry, given its relationship to Voldemort's wand."

Ollivander didn't know about the Prophecy.

That's enough for now.

Solitaire - Jul 19, 2009 2:02 pm (#87 of 124)
Edited Jul 19, 2009 3:12 pm

I'm not sure what spell Dumbledore used to defeat Grindelwald, but he won the Elder Wand from him when he did. At that point, the Elder Wand would have given its allegiance to Dumbledore. As to why he didn't continue using his previous wand, as Harry did, perhaps he felt the Elder Wand would be safer on his person than stored away somewhere, particularly if no other living people knew about the Hallows and realized what it was. Since Dumbledore wasn't about to go bragging about the fact that he owned the Elder Wand, he probably believed it's power had a good chance of dying out, once he was gone. And it would have done so, had he died the way he'd planned.

Gerald Costales - Jul 19, 2009 9:05 pm (#88 of 124)
Edited Jul 19, 2009 10:16 pm

My thoughts on Dumbledore and Grindelwald's duel. Here are some possible ways, that I've come up with, that Dumbledore could have defeated Grindelwald.

1. Unexpected magic - example: Voldemort’s rebounding AK. No need to rehash that incident.

2. Another Magical Object or Device - there is a lot of examples on this - the Basilisk's Fang destroyed Tom Riddle's Diary and Gryffindor's Sword destroyed 1. the Basilisk; 2. Marvolo's ring; 3. Slytherin's locket; and 4. Nagini. (Note: Three Horcruxes were destroyed by Gryffindor's Sword.)

Even an unmagical object or device something as simple as a mirror could have rebounded a curse, hex, or spell. The Basilisk's stare was reflected by a mirror; a pool of water, and passed through Nearly Headless Nick. The only person or thing killed by the Basilisk was Moaning Myrtle who caught the Basilisk's stare full force.

3. Wandlore - Dumbledore could also accidentally or by plan caught Grindelwald unaware. I copy and pasted this from the Lexicon

"Upon his death, Dumbledore intended for Severus Snape to become the master of the Elder Wand, but failed to take into account that, as his death was pre-planned, Snape had not truly defeated him. Instead the wand's rightful master became the wizard who had disarmed Dumbledore just prior to his death: Draco Malfoy. When Harry stole Malfoy's wand during a confrontation in the Malfoy Manor (DH23), he became the master of the wand, though neither he nor Malfoy had ever touched or used it (DH36)."

Under Wandlore one could include simple theft -

"At one point it (the Elder Wand) was owned by Gregorovitch, the wand-maker who made Viktor Krum's wand, and stolen from him by a young, blond Grindelwald . ."

(Source - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for red text)

Of the three possibilities that I've come up with. I could see the latter more likely happening. Though I don't see Dumbledore just stealing the Elder Wand.

Solitaire - Jul 19, 2009 10:28 pm (#89 of 124)
Edited Jul 19, 2009 11:42 pm

I do not think a rebounded curse defeated Grindelwald. Dumbledore simply won that battle. Voldemort is the one who killed Grindelwald; Harry saw this happen in one of his forays into Voldemort's mind. I also do not believe Dumbledore used any special device to defeat Grindelwald. He was simply the stronger Wizard.

At King's Cross, Dumbledore tells Harry, "... you know what happened. I won the duel. I won the wand." Dumbledore has the Elder wand for one reason--he won it in his confrontation with Grindelwald. Dumbledore did not steal the wand. I believe this would be considered canon.

He goes on to tell Harry the following: "I was fit to own the Elder Wand, and not to boast of it, and not to kill with it. I was permitted to tame and to use it, because I took it, not for gain, but to save others from it."

Question: Did Grindelwald not have access to the full power of the wand because of how he had acquired it? I believe he simply stole it from Gregorovitch's workshop. Harry's taking of Draco's wand--by actually wresting the three wands directly from Draco's hand--is different from the way Grindelwald took the Elder Wand from Gregorovitch.

I believe that is why the true ownership of the Elder Wand--which had transferred to Draco at the moment he disarmed Dumbledore, even though he had never touched it--then transferred to Harry, who had also never touched it. Even though Voldemort held the wand, he was not really its master it, because he had not taken it from its true owner (Draco). He had simply gained it the way Grindelwald did--burglary!

Gerald Costales - Jul 20, 2009 5:45 am (#90 of 124)
Edited Jul 20, 2009 7:03 am

re: post# 89

"I believe that is why the true ownership of the Elder Wand--which had transferred to Draco at the moment he disarmed Dumbledore, even though he had never touched it--then transferred to Harry, who had also never touched it. Even though Voldemort held the wand, he was not really its master it, because he had not taken it from its true owner (Draco). He had simply gained it the way Grindelwald did--burglary!"

Then because of the "burglary" of the Elder Wand by Grindelwald, Grindelwald was not the Master of the Elder Wand. So, Dumbledore could defeat Grindelwald and become the true Master of the Elder Wand.

Without the information on Wandlore, one couldn't even be able to guess how Dumbledore could have won the Elder Wand. Your explanation makes a great deal of sense.

I still hope JKR pens another book or two on Harry to fully explain so many of the unanswered questions left from the series.

Steve Newton - Jul 20, 2009 7:18 am (#91 of 124)

It’s been a while but I think Grindelwald's burglary scene shows him waiting for the owner of the wand to appear and defeats him.

Solitaire - Jul 20, 2009 10:31 am (#92 of 124)
Edited Jul 20, 2009 11:37 am

Steve, the passage in Ch. 14 says this: "... there on the window ledge sat perched, like a giant bird, a young man with golden hair. In the split second that the lantern's light illuminated him, Harry saw the delight upon his handsome face, then the intruder shot a stunning spell from his wand and jumped neatly backward out of the window with a crow of laughter."

To me, it looks like Grindelwald already had the wand in his hand. There was no duel. He stole the wand; he didn't win it or take it by force. The next page over, Harry sees into Voldemort's mind and says, "He wanted something from Gregorovitch. ... He asked him to hand it over, but Gregorovitch said it had been stolen from him ..." I do not think there was any dueling or even a taking of the wand as Harry took Draco's wand. It sounds as if Grindelwald took it from Gregorovitch's workshop.

me and my shadow 813 - Jul 20, 2009 3:31 pm (#93 of 124)
Edited Jul 20, 2009 4:32 pm

Yes, it seems Grindelwald 100% stole the wand with no disarming whatsoever. Now, why Vold would ask Gregorovitch to "hand it over" is odd. Wouldn't he need to disarm Gregorovitch? Both these examples add to the strangeness.

The Expelliarmus spell itself is also ambiguous. It had been used repeatedly throughout the 7 books and yet we cannot assume each of those wands changed allegiance or was overpowered by the one who did the disarming. It is a subtle "law" which, I believe, JKR uses as she needs to.

Solitaire - Jul 20, 2009 4:14 pm (#94 of 124)

Perhaps this is another of the "gaps" in Voldemort's knowledge. He may have figured he was so powerful that regular means of acquiring a wand's allegiance did not apply to him.

About all of those Expelliarmus! spells ... I think intent must figure into whether or not a wand changes allegiance. Perhaps, too, a permanent "keeping" of the wand is required. What I mean is this ... an opponent disarms Harry and gets his wand. Hermione disarms the opponent during the confrontation and returns the wand to Harry. Perhaps the wand must be retained at the end of the duel/confrontation in order for it to change allegiance.

Having reread the Tottenham Court incident in Chapter 9, I am now struck by the fact that the kids did not keep the wands belonging to the DEs. As they certainly defeated them, the wands would have worked for them. They should have foreseen that perhaps some extra wands would have come in handy. At the very least, two DEs would have been minus wands!

That also reminds me of something ... I wonder if Hermione ever got her own wand back. Was it in use by Bella or one of the other DEs in the Battle of Hogwarts?

me and my shadow 813 - Jul 20, 2009 9:03 pm (#95 of 124)
Edited Jul 20, 2009 10:06 pm

Perhaps the wand must be retained at the end of the duel/confrontation in order for it to change allegiance.

Draco of course did not retain the Elder Wand. IMO this wand was different because of just how many times it changed hands, so the once strong bond between wand and wizard had become diluted or progressively weakened. JM2K but it would make sense, with how the story seems to unfold.

Solitaire - Jul 20, 2009 9:18 pm (#96 of 124)
Edited Jul 20, 2009 10:19 pm

It is, perhaps, a "situational" issue ... meaning every situation is unique ... relative to those involved.

Gerald Costales - Jul 20, 2009 9:27 pm (#97 of 124)
Edited Jul 20, 2009 10:47 pm

But, wands seem to be reused several times in the Series. Neville had his father's, Frank Longbottom, wand. And didn't Ron have Percy's old wand.

The wand may choose the wizard. But, there are times when a witch or wizard may have no other choice but to make due.

. . . said Mr. Weasley, "looks like Ollivander's gone too."

"The wandmaker?" said Ginny, looking startled.

"That's the one. Shop's empty. No sigh of a struggle. No one knows whether he left voluntarily or was kidnapped."

"But wands -- what'll people do for wands?"

"They'll make do with other makers," said Lupin. "But Ollivander was the best, and if the other side have got him it's not so good for us."

(page 106, American Edition, HBP)

Could the quality of a wand affect how it acts? With a quality wand being more loyal and a poor quality wand maybe working for just about anyone. Who knows?

Solitaire - "situational" in regards to the witches or wizards involved or the wands involved.

PS Wasn't it all about the Wands. Voldemort's Yew Wand, then Harry's Holly Wand, and finally the Elder Wand.

Solitaire - Jul 20, 2009 10:37 pm (#98 of 124)
Edited Jul 20, 2009 11:49 pm

I think a lot of emphasis is put on wandlore in DH. First, Harry's wand seems to act of its own accord, snapping Lucius Malfoy's wand, which had been borrowed by Voldemort. After Harry's wand is broken, we see him struggling with the blackthorn wand given to him by Ron (who took it from the Snatchers). Hermione makes light of his complaints and says he just needs to practice. However, she is not comfortable using Bellatrix's wand later when they go to break into Gringotts. Several pages are devoted to Ollivander's information about wands. Finally, we see Voldemort obsessed with the Wand of Destiny (the Elder Wand), and more explanation devoted to this in the final duel between Harry and Voldemort.

Neville's wands ... It is difficult to say how Neville would have done if he'd had his own wand from the start. Although she loved him loads, I believe Gran Longbottom undermined Neville with constant allusions to his dad's tremendous talent and his own lack of it. His fear of Snape didn't help. It is true that Neville really came into his own in books 5-7. Was it due partly to having a wand that chose him? Hard to say. I think it was having his Gran actually express pride in him for the first time.

Ron's first wand had, I think, been Charlie's. Had it also been through other kids? Had it possibly belonged to one of the Prewett brothers before Charlie? Again, hard to say. We know a wand that is damaged doesn't work very well, thanks to Ron ... and Lockhart.

Are there poor quality wands? Maybe there are Dollar Store quality wands, but it seems going to Ollivander's may be a right of passage for most kids who are not getting a hand-me-down wand. I wonder who the French wandmaker was.

Gerald Costales - Jul 21, 2009 4:44 am (#99 of 124)

We know House-Elves do Wandless magic. And there is a bit of Wandless magic by Harry in the Series. The question maybe is it the Wand or the Wizard? Do you see a great Wizard like Dumbledore struggling with any wand? We may never know.

me and my shadow 813 - Jul 21, 2009 3:34 pm (#100 of 124)
Edited Jul 21, 2009 4:38 pm

A while back I discussed how, since a wand contains part of a living or once-living magical creature, this could create a form of consciousness in the wand. Certainly, the idea that 'the wand chooses the wizard' alludes to the wand having made a choice or decision, which alludes to the wand having consciousness. So along those lines, I continue my train of thought above. The Elder Wand changed hands so many times that the bond between wand and wizard has been diluted and basically it takes very little to "own" it. In other words, it might have been loyal to Antioch Peverell and was difficult for others to wield (I.e., how Ron, Neville, Hermione, Harry etc. found using others' wands to be). But, if initially a wizard needed to AK or severely defeat the Elder Wand's master and retain it in order to be its "master", over the centuries it has known so many masters that it has very little loyalty left; thus, it takes very little to master or transfer it.

I am reminded of a loyal pet who unfortunately gets stolen or taken and passes hands so many times, trained to kill and loses its feeling of kinship with its "master", that this pet would care little for loyalty. It would have none of the "will" or choice/deciding that we hear in 'the wand chooses the wizard'.

Sorry that was long-winded...
Edited for clarity
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 4241
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Wands: Your Thoughts After Book Seven Empty Wands: Your Thoughts After Book Seven (posts #101 to #124)

Post  Potteraholic on Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:03 am

Gerald Costales - Jul 22, 2009 5:30 am (#101 of 124)

If wands have consciousness, which does make sense, then wands could also have a personality. The Elder Wand could crave power and responded to only powerful Wizards or deserving Wizards. Neither Grindelwald or Voldemort deserved to hold the Elder Wand. So, the Elder Wand is less effective. Again Wandlore, who knows. (Only JKR.)

I still would like to know when the Yew and Holly Wands were made. The fact the Yew and Holly Wands are brothers because they contain a feather from Fawkes is not a coincidence. Then factor in that Dumbledore owns Fawkes. Only JKR knows the importance of all these tidbits of information.

me and my shadow 813 - Jul 22, 2009 2:41 pm (#102 of 124)

Gerald, as mentioned I brought that topic up a while back and we discussed it at length. You can read the discussion earlier on this thread and on "Things Which Struck You As Odd".

Potteraholic - Jul 22, 2009 6:30 pm (#103 of 124)

Gerald, I've been meaning to read this thread for a while, and finally managed to today. I think I may have come across the post that MAMS is referring to her in post #102. It may be this one. It's from April 6th, 2009, making it just over 3 months ago.

Gerald Costales - Jul 22, 2009 7:52 pm (#104 of 124)
Edited Jul 22, 2009 9:07 pm

Potteraholic - Thanks for the link. I checked it out.

I'm rereading Book 6 and my son is rereading Book 7. My son had a question about the Elder Wand. And I was trying to explain that whole Wand Mastery thing. Draco disarms Dumbledore. Draco gains Mastery of the Elder Wand. Voldemort kills Snape to get the Elder Wand and gain Mastery of the Elder Wand. But, Draco not Snape has Mastery of the Elder Wand. Voldemort only has physical possession of the Elder Wand and No Mastery of the Elder Wand. (are you confused yet. ) Harry wrists Draco's Wand and somehow gains Mastery of the Elder Wand. (Read below for hopefully a better explanation.)

My son thinks JKR may have slipped up on this Elder Wand Mastery thing. Here's the Lexicon' explanation:

"Upon his death, Dumbledore intended for Severus Snape to become the master of the Elder Wand, but failed to take into account that, as his death was pre-planned, Snape had not truly defeated him. Instead the wand's rightful master became the wizard who had disarmed Dumbledore just prior to his death: Draco Malfoy. When Harry stole Malfoy's wand during a confrontation in the Malfoy Manor (DH23), he became the master of the wand, though neither he nor Malfoy had ever touched or used it (DH36)."

(Source - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for red text)

It does seem like Solitaire commented in her post in post #96:

"It is, perhaps, a "situational" issue ... meaning every situation is unique ... relative to those involved."

Honestly, Book 7 is not really my favorite book because of issues like Wandlore, etc.

Solitaire - Jul 22, 2009 8:12 pm (#105 of 124)

Gerald, when it comes to certain aspects of the Harry Potter saga, I find that it helps to employ what Samuel Taylor Coleridge called "willing suspension of disbelief." Actually, I suppose we do that with the entire series!

Gerald Costales - Jul 22, 2009 8:37 pm (#106 of 124)
Edited Jul 22, 2009 9:41 pm

Again, Wandlore is only part of the reason Book 7 isn't one of my favorite books in the Series.

I just reread Ch. 36 (DH) - The Flaw in the Plan - from pg 737 to 744. And I believe I understand the Mastery of the Elder Wand thing. But, really how much "willing suspension of disbelief" should one give to a piece of fiction.

I bought into the Potter Series - Hook, Line, and Sinker several years ago. But, I do think some parts of Series are weaker than others. I am a Potterfanatic, just not a total Potterfanatic.

mona amon - Jul 22, 2009 8:50 pm (#107 of 124)
Edited Jul 22, 2009 9:55 pm

I too have only just read all the new posts here. Interesting discussion!

Then because of the "burglary" of the Elder Wand by Grindelwald, Grindelwald was not the Master of the Elder Wand. So, Dumbledore could defeat Grindelwald and become the true Master of the Elder Wand.

Without the information on Wandlore, one couldn't even be able to guess how Dumbledore could have won the Elder Wand. (Gerald Costales)

I think Grindelwald really was the master of the wand, or how else could Dumbledore have become its master? If the wand hadn't transferred allegiance to Grindelwald, then Gregorovitch would still be its master, and Dumbledore would have had to defeat Gregorovitch to gain mastery.

I have no problem with Dumbledore defeating the master of the Elder Wand. He was simply the better wizard. The Wand being unbeatable is only a myth, never actually proved, although it was a very powerful wand.

I feel the GG/DD duel was like a tennis match where the weaker opponent has a very superior racquet, while the stronger opponent has an inferior racquet. However, it's not the racquet alone that determines the outcome of the match, and the stronger player was able to win in spite of using a racquet that was not as good as his opponent's.


Some of the questions recently asked on this thread have been answered by JKR in the Leaky Cauldron's Pottercast interview, so I thought I'd quote it here -

MA: Quite a lot. But wandlore. Can you go into in a more detailed fashion the way wands change hands, and how different the Elder Wand is? Because the fans are confused.

JKR: I am going to put up another update on my website about this, and I have one half-written. Essentially, I see wands as being quasi-sentient. I think they awaken to a kind of- They’re not exactly animate, but they’re close to it, as close to it as you can get in an object, because they carry so much magic. So that’s really the key point about a wand. Now, the reactions will vary from wand to wand. The Elder Wand is simply the most dispassionate and ruthless of wands, in that it will only take into consideration strength. So one will expect a certain amount of loyalty from one’s wand. So even if you were disarmed while carrying it, even if you lost a fight while carrying it, it has developed an affinity with you that it will not give up easily. If, however, a wand is won, properly won in an adult duel, then a wand may switch allegiance, and it will certainly work better, even if it hasn’t fully switched allegiance, for the person who won it. So that, of course, is what happens when Harry takes Draco’s wand from him. And that’s what happens when- But you know what I mean? (MA: Mm-hm.) (SU: Yeah.) Oh yeah, Ron, (MA: Yeah.) the Blackthorn wand, from the snatcher. So that would be sort of rough and ready, common or garden, a wand favoring the person who had the skill to take it, it would favor them. However, the Elder Wand knows no loyalty except strength, so it’s completely unsentimental. It will only go where the power is. So if you win, then you’ve won the wand. So you don’t need to kill with it, but as it’s pointed out in the books, not least by Dumbledore, because it is a wand of such immense power, almost inevitably, it attracts wizards who are prepared to kill, and who will kill. And also, it attracts wizards like Voldemort who confuse being prepared to murder with strength. (JN: Interesting.) Does that clarify anything?

JN: Yeah! And we’re looking forward to reading your thing on it, too. We hopefully didn’t

MA: Step on it too badly?

JN: Yeah.

JKR: No, I don’t think so, I mean, I have been asked a lot of times, what about dueling club and so on? I think it’s clear there that in practice, where there’s no real weight attached to the transference of a wand, where it’s almost done for fun or purely for competition, there’s no enormous significance attached in either wizards mind, to a wand flying out of someone’s hand. But there are situations in which the emotional state of wizards, where a lot hangs on a duel. That’s something different. That’s about real power, and that’s about a transference that will have far reaching effects in some cases. So I think the wand would behave differently then.

me and my shadow 813 - Jul 22, 2009 9:06 pm (#108 of 124)
Edited Jul 22, 2009 10:07 pm

Thanks, mona! I've never listened to or read that interview. It is precisely how I imagined it.

Gerald, regarding your earlier post, I think Dumbledore sought to have Severus be the master without being in possession of it. It would then hopefully "rest in peace" with Dumbledore in the grave. Of course, this left Severus hanging out to dry, as they say, if and when Vold hunted down the Wand's current master.

But I see it all as JKR telling us her view of destiny, that once its wheels begin to turn (in this case when Severus overheard the Prophecy) destiny has a mind of its own or is driven by the will of the "Chosen One". JM2K

Gerald Costales - Jul 22, 2009 10:06 pm (#109 of 124)
Edited Jul 22, 2009 11:08 pm

"Ahab is forever Ahab, man. This whole act's immutably decreed. `Twas rehearsed by thee and me a billion years before this ocean rolled. Fool! I am the Fates' lieutenant; I act under orders. . ."

Moby-Dick, Or, The Whale By Herman Melville - ch 134

(Source for red text - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] )

The book has Tom Riddle and Harry both on the roll for Hogwarts at their births. Destiny is a real part of the Wizarding World. Both the Yew Wand and Holly Wand were destined for their respective owners.

But, what is the first pebble to start the ripples of Destiny in the Harry Potter Books? The birth of Tom Riddle with his abandonment by Merope or the magic used by Merope to entrap Tom Riddle Sr.

The Prophecy doesn't create Destiny. Destiny is immutable. Voldemort tries to alter Destiny by killing Harry. But, Harry survived. Harry is "the Boy that Lived". Harry is "the Chosen One".

Harry would have killed Voldemort with a toothpick if need be. But, Harry had Dumbledore to shepherd him from Voldemort's murder attempt. While Tom Riddle had no one, a true orphan in every sense.

me and my shadow 813 - Jul 23, 2009 3:07 pm (#110 of 124)
Edited Jul 23, 2009 4:33 pm

Gerald, I personally don't feel that the first pebble of the HP books was the birth of Tom Riddle. If Vold had not made Harry the "Chosen One" by choosing him then we would read the Neville Longbottom books and he might or might not have had Harry's will/desire/constitution to go through the quest. We don't know but as far as the HP books go, it is reasonable to say the wheels of destiny began to turn when Severus overheard the Prophecy, IMO of course.

The above discussion belongs on another thread, and of course we've also covered this at length beginning with this post -- but basically I believe that destiny is somewhat "written" but that doesn't mean that destiny will not accommodate the "right and brave" choices of the Chosen One. So in that sense, to me, the details are definitely mutable. Who is to say if Neville would have been capable of such choices from age 11 when confronted with Quirrell-mort. And would he have had a Ron and Hermione?

Back to the wands, Harry did indeed have Dumbledore to shepherd him and I feel that he would have done the same (but in different ways) for Neville. I believe the Holly wand would have picked Neville, but Neville did not shop for a wand. Would it have waited for him or would his Gran have "changed" her mind and taken him to Ollivander at age 11? It begins again with "mutable destiny or not..."?
Edited for clarity

Solitaire - Jul 23, 2009 6:03 pm (#111 of 124)
Edited Jul 23, 2009 7:05 pm

You think that if Neville had gotten to Ollivander's first, the Phoenix wand would have chosen him instead of Harry, even though Voldemort himself had chosen Harry as his most dangerous enemy and used his own Phoenix wand against him? Curious ... very curious!

me and my shadow 813 - Jul 23, 2009 6:14 pm (#112 of 124)
Edited Jul 23, 2009 7:16 pm

No! I am speaking above of the idea that if Vold had not made Harry the Chosen One and we were reading the Neville Longbottom series. In that series I believe the Holly wand would have chosen Neville. The only problem is Gran does not take Neville for his wand when he turns 11 and is about to enter Hogwarts. So, would Gran have been 'mutable' and changed her course for destiny?

Gerald Costales - Jul 23, 2009 9:57 pm (#113 of 124)
Edited Jul 23, 2009 11:04 pm

I'm rereading Book 6 - excerpts about the Prophecy

Pointing at Harry with his black withered hand, he(Dumbledore) said, "You are setting too much store by the prophecy!"

pg 509 - HBP- American Edition

.."If Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have been fulfilled? Would it have meant anything? Of course not! Do you think every prophecy in the Hall of Prophecy has been fulfilled?"

pg 510 - HBP - American Edition

. . . . ."You see, the prophecy does not mean you have to do anything! But the prophecy caused Lord Voldemort to mark you as his equal. . . .In other words, you are free to choose your way, quite free to turn your back on the prophecy! But Voldemort continues to set store by the prophecy. He will continue to hunt you. . . which makes it certain, that --"

.."That one of us is going to end up killing the other." said Harry.

pg 512 - HBP - American Edition

PS I'll be posting this in the +The Meaning of the Prophecy thread

me and my shadow 813 - Jul 24, 2009 8:52 am (#114 of 124)

Yes, that is an important passage and what I get from it is that Dumbledore (who often speaks for JKR) does not believe in an immutable destiny -- not in the sense that Harry was "meant" to be the Chosen One because JKR has said that Neville could just have easily been chosen. I guess you could say there was a 50/50 chance?

In the case of wands -- given what I had speculated and what JKR seems to imply in the recent quote from an interview -- it does seem that the "brother" Holly wand chose to be with the Chosen One. Whether that had to do with the soul bit in Harry or with the Yew wand itself, or both or neither, is up for discussion.

Betelgeuse Black - Jul 30, 2009 4:34 pm (#115 of 124)

On the subject of people using other people's wands,

I think that the wands tend to have a certain tendency or alignment for some personality characteristics. Harry was able to use Hermione's wand without much problem. I think this is because they have a lot of the same characteristics that matter to the wand. Hermione didn't like Bellatrix's wand (and vice versa) at all since she didn't overpower her so Bellatrix's wand didn't "align" itself with Hermione. This comes back to JKR's comments that were posted.

I think Ron was able to use Charlie's old wand because they are similar people. Neville was able to use his dad's since they were similar people. Harry would not be able to use Draco's if he didn't take it from him against Draco's will.


Solitaire - Aug 1, 2009 4:40 am (#116 of 124)

I believe Harry took three wands from Draco, one of which was Bella's. He chose to use Draco's because it felt "friendlier" in his hand. Interesting, isn't it, that the wand which felt "friendliest" of the three belonged to the one (Draco) who, till that moment, had been the true master of the Elder Wand?

Gerald Costales - Aug 1, 2009 12:26 pm (#117 of 124)
Edited Aug 1, 2009 1:27 pm

Maybe Harry and Draco have similar qualities. Both, Harry and Draco are loyal (albeit to different sides), both value family, both are determined, and both are leaders.

Draco was trying his best in Book 6 to eliminate Dumbledore. Just as Harry is trying his best in Harry's quest to eliminate the remaining Horcruxes in Book 7. So, Draco's wand would feel friendlier to Harry.

The Elder Wand would recognize Harry and Draco's similar qualities and had no problem recognizing either of them as a Master.

Solitaire - Aug 1, 2009 12:32 pm (#118 of 124)
Edited Aug 1, 2009 1:34 pm

I actually think it is because the only wand in Draco's hand that has allegiance to him is his own wand. He is just holding the others. He didn't take them from anyone. Therefore, when Harry takes the wands by force, the only one he actually takes from its master is Draco's wand.

I do not think it has anything to do with the qualities of the two boys. JM2K

Gerald Costales - Aug 1, 2009 8:05 pm (#119 of 124)
Edited Aug 1, 2009 9:06 pm

You're probably right about Harry mastering Draco's wand when Harry took the three wands that Draco held in Malfoy Manor. And having Mastery of Draco's wand let Harry later become comfortable and better able to use Draco's wand properly.

But, let's say someone like Hermione had taken Bella's wand. I don't think Hermione would ever have felt comfortable with or that Hermione would ever use Bella's wand properly.

Wands do have qualities that attract them to their Masters. Hermione hated using Bella's wand.

Solitaire - Aug 1, 2009 8:40 pm (#120 of 124)

Hermione had not won Bella's wand, so I'm sure that had something to do with it. However, isn't it the wand she used in battle at Hogwarts? It seemed to be working fine for her by then.

My guess would be that, if she did not recover her original wand--which she may have done, if Bella was using it in her final battle--she may have given up Bella's wand and had a new one made for her by Mr. Ollivander. Actually, since Molly killed Bella, I suppose she might have won whatever wand Bella was using at the time. If it was Hermione's wand, I would imagine she'd have returned it to her.

Given the way things turned out, it may well be that Harry returned Draco's wand to him after everything was over. Harry loved his own Fawkes-feather wand well enough to prefer it to the Elder Wand, and he had enough compassion for Draco--whether he deserved it or not--that he may have believed Draco would like his own wand back. Whether it would work for him that way, I do not know ... but it might have.

Soul Search - Aug 2, 2009 6:11 am (#121 of 124)

I doubt Harry would have returned Draco's wand after the battle of Hogwarts.

Harry understood wands by then and would have known that just giving Draco back his wand it wouldn't have accepted Draco as its master. It would not be the same wand Draco had used before. The Hawthorne wand had accepted Harry and done well by him. Giving it away would have been a disservice to the wand. Draco needed a new wand.

Draco and the Malfoys were still enemies. Draco had the opportunity to switch sides and really didn't. Narcissa and Lucius did not fight on Voldemort's side, but mostly because they had no wands. It is hard to tell what either would have done had they wands to fight with. Giving Draco his wand back would have been like handing a defeated soldier his gun back. No telling what would happen.

Draco's wand killed Voldemort (more or less.) It was famous and maybe just as much a hero as Harry. Couldn't just give a treasure like that away. Something to keep and show your kids.

I note that Harry's Phoenix wand was conveniently spared the nasty spells Harry had to perform at Gringott's and Hogwarts. It was not sullied by Dark Magic the way the Hawthorne wand was. Harry became an Auror. He would need a wand proven to perform Dark Magic and the other nasty stuff it would have to do for an Auror. I would bet Harry kept the Hawthorne wand for his Auror work, keeping his Phoenix wand for the nicer side of magic.

rambkowalczyk - Aug 2, 2009 9:01 am (#122 of 124)

When Harry was questioning Ollivander about wands, Ollivander thought it was unlikely that Draco's wand could be returned to him.

Solitaire - Aug 2, 2009 10:47 am (#123 of 124)
Edited Aug 2, 2009 11:49 am

I guess it would be a good idea to stash those extra wands somewhere ... just in case. As much as Harry had not liked the blackthorn wand, it did come in handy. As to giving Draco back his wand, I meant after everything was over and the dust had settled ... not in the midst of battle.

You are probably correct, though, about Draco and his original wand ... it probably wouldn't have worked for him anymore, since its allegiance had changed. It did not kill Voldemort, however. It couldn't have, since Harry did not use a killing curse. Voldemort killed himself with the Elder Wand. He attempted to use it against its rightful owner without having legitimately won it, and it did not obey him. Tsk! Tsk!

Harry's worked for him in the end, after it was repaired, because it had not been won from him; it had been unintentionally broken by Hermione's curse. I guess that's the difference. Well, that's how it all looks to me, anyway.

Gerald Costales - Aug 2, 2009 9:48 pm (#124 of 124)
Edited Aug 2, 2009 10:51 pm

Maybe we should retitle the thread - Wandlore 101. This wandlore stuff is just too messy.

Just finished rereading Book 6 and near the end of Book 7. Harry asked about how the Holly Wand had acted on its own in the Seven Potters chapter of the Book 7. Even Dumbledore doesn't know the answer and must guess. Something about the Holly Wand recognizing Voldemort.
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 4241
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Wands: Your Thoughts After Book Seven Empty Re: Wands: Your Thoughts After Book Seven

Post  Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum