Mr Olivander's Opinion

[feliciarickmann]

No: HPFGUIDX 42904


> 
> bboy_mn throws in some more thoughts"
> 
> Hi, I'm the guy who used the violin/violinist example. I agree with
> the phrase, 'the wand chooses the wizard' as a figure of speech; 
but I
> also agree with Grey Wolf when he says that the choosing of the 
wizard
> is not done in an intelligent way. It is, as I suggested, a harmony 
or
> magical resonance that the wand and wizard share.
> 
> The wands done sit around after a student has left the shop 
saying, 'I
> didn't like that kid, he had shifty eyes' or 'no, he was OK, but I
> prefer a wizard who's taller'.
> 
> While wands may have some inherent magical smartness, they are not
> intelligent objects in a 'thinking' sort of way. 
> 
This would fit in with the concept of selective cogniscance that I 
have long thought wands possess which would labour under the label of 
*intelligence* for want of a better word.

After all, a wand will sense when it is in the hands of a *beginner* 
and when it is picked up by a considerably more experienced wizard.
Ron's wand, for example, is hand me down as he is, obviously, a 
beginner and can managed with this.  While the 'shifty eyes' concept 
is a little silly there is some sense within the wand that it would 
perhaps be better suited to another than to the wizard who has picked 
it up.

After all why would Mr Olivander go to such lengths to produce wands 
of such quality, if they can be produced by any tin pot worker 
working in a backstreet lock up.  It does wand makers a disservice to 
devalue their work without putting wands, their workings and 
construction into a proper context.

Felicia
off to have supper 18.50 GMT