Wand Size, was "Wands/Ron's Role/HHR's powers"

[ZaraLyon at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 32182

In a message dated 12/23/01 10:21:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, Katze wrote:
   
>A lot of people speculate that the length of the wand might have something 
to do  >with your powers, and possibly how strong. Now...Harry's is only 11 
inches. V's is >13.5 inches, and Hagrid's is 16 inches. Now Ron's is the 
second longest wand  >there is at 14 inches. So does this mean that's going 
to be powerful himself? But >then why would Harry's only be 11 inches? 
Also...Ron's wand is made of >willow...nice and wispy, good for charm work. 
So I wander if there was a bit of >forshadowing in that. Lily had a willow 
wand and was good at charm work, though >we don't know the core of her wand.

       I was always under the impression that a wand corresponded to the 
user's height... for instance, Harry's always been on the small side, and his 
wand is one of the smallest that we know of. Ron is considerably taller than 
Harry, and Hagrid, who has the longest wand mentioned, is of course a 
half-giant. I suppose that that could also explain why a wizard might need a 
new wand at times... they could literally outgrow it. If this is the case, 
then hopefully Harry won't hit a growth spurt until Voldemort is finished--at 
least, not if Fawkes isn't willing to provide another feather for the core.
       I have another theory, though, which is related to the one Katze 
mentioned. Ron-fans may not like me for this, though. We've all jokingly 
discussed the phallic references inherent in the wands; suppose the size of a 
wand is "compensation?" Wand size could be inversely proportional to the 
user's innate talents, again, going on the fact that Harry has one of the 
shorter wands and Hagrid (not that I dislike him, but he's probably the least 
competent wizard we've seen) has the largest. Anyways, just my two knuts.

Relurking now,
Rhiannon, a child of Slytherin and Ravenclaw


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]