Mr Olivander's Opinion

[feliciarickmann]

No: HPFGUIDX 42784

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:
> > Felicia wrote:
> > May we assume therefore that it was just the luck of the draw 
that 
> > Harry got the wand that was Voldemort's twin then, and that it is 
a 
> > coincidence that both are made out of wood associated in some 
form 
> > with death i.e. *Holly and Yew*, and that Lily Potter's wand was 
good 
> > for charm work and James's wand better for transfiguration by 
more 
> > arbitrary selection?
> > 
> > Surely it would be better to suggest that all wands will work to 
a  
> > greater or lesser extent with all wizards BUT that the right wand 
in 
> > the right hands would perform over and above a wizard's 
expectations. 
> > 
> > I think Mr Olivander has a point.
> > 
> > Felicia
> 
> I never said that there aren't better suited wands for every 
person. 
> What I'm saying is that wands *do not* have the intelligence to 
choose 
> the wizard they are going to be bought by. Someone used an example 
with 
> a violinist and violins, but he didn't suggest that when the 
violinist 
> went into the music shop the violin chose him, instead of him 
choosing 
> the violin that suited him best. We've seen more than our share of 
> intelligent objects in Potterverse in these four books, and the 
wands 
> are *not* as intelligent as the map or the diary, at least not 
> intelligent enough to choose. 
> 
> If you had taken some time to read through my post, you may had 
noted 
> that none of the above arguments contradict it: I agree that some 
wands 
> are better suitedfor some people and that they are better suited 
for 
> some sorts of magic. The only things that I believe in are that the 
> wands *don't* have that magical brain Arthur dislikes so much and 
that 
> when Olivader *says* that the wand selects the wizard, it is either 
a 
> figure of speech, or a strange theory of a strange man which is not 
> exactly true. The trouble is that that sort of figure of speech is 
> easily missinterpreted, especially in a world where cars can fly 
and 
> live wild in a forest, maps answer back to people and diaries 
control 
> the reader's mind.
> 
> Hope that helps,
> 
> Grey Wolf

Actually no, it doesn't help much.  JKR goes to considerable lengths 
to provide a wealth of detail about wands and their specific content, 
although it is not made explicit in canon, much is made of the fact 
that certain wands work better with certain people, my comment on the 
types of wood in Harry's and Voldemort's wands refers at this point.  
The crucial elements of the wand core (e.g. drangheart string) can, 
by inference, be assumed to form their brain or memory and this 
would, in the magical world form part of the selection process when a 
wizard choses a wand.

As so much is done by wands in canon, with the wizard or witch as 
executant of spells, charms etc., canon is fairly saturated with this 
intelligent form of magic with the wand as a conduit of magical 
energy and, as in GoF, able to *rewind* itself as in Fiat 
Incantatem.  Not the work of an inanimate object.

Felicia