The importance of wands (Was: Magical Theory)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 164816

Ronin wrote:
<snip>
> Also, if the PERSON is magical, why is the wand so necessary to cast
spells? Harry can cast accidentally when he becomes emotional and
Dumbledore seems to be able to cast some spells without a wand
(perhaps using old magic). But mostly, wizards and witches without
wands are helpless. 
> Shouldn't they be able to learn and control their power without the
use of a wand at some point? <snip>

Carol responds:
Maybe "at some point" is the key phrase here. We see a bit of
controlled wandless magic (Dumbledore's "change of decoration" through
clapping his hands, Snape's summoning the ends of the cords binding
about-to-transform Lupin by snapping his fingers) and quite a bit of
uncontrolled wandless magic (from Harry's making his hair grow as a
small child to his "blowing up" Aunt Marge in PoA), so clearly a wand
helps to control and focus the magic. (Imagine an Avada Kedavra or
even a Petrificus Totalus coming out of your hand. And, no, Pippin, I
don't think "Quirrell raised his hand to perform a powerful curse"
means that he wasn't holding a wand in that hand.)

But a wand is magical in itself. It's not just a stick like a prettily
carved conductor's baton. The wood a wand is made of along with the
"powerful magical substance" that forms its core determines the
qualities of that specific wand. Note that Lily's first wand was "a
nice wand for Charm work" (a hint about DH Lily?) in contrast to
James's, which was a little more powerful and suited for
Transfiguration (a big hint toward Animagus James, whom we learn about
in PoA). "the wand chooses the wizard," and the immensely powerful yew
and Phoenix feather wand (brother to the one that would eventually
choose Harry) chose Tom Riddle. Yew and phoenix feathers are both
associated with immortality, Tom Riddle's ultimate goal. "You never
get such good results with another wizard's wand" (as Neville's
struggle with his father's wand illustrates). So the wand and the
wizard work together, the wand sensing the wizard's intention even in
a nonverbal spell. the more powerful and skilled the wizard, and
perhaps the more suited the wand to the wizard, the better this
process works (which is why, IMO, Voldemort would never relinquish the
wand that has served his needs and desires so well, performing "great
but terrible" feats, for any other wand, Priori Incantatem effect or no).

Think about Ollivander and his shop, how he remembers every wand he
ever made, how the whole shop tingles with magical power when Harry
enters. It takes, IMO, a highly skilled and very powerful wizard to
make a wand, and Ollivander has made hundreds or thousands, each one
unique, some more powerful than others. A unicorn hair in an ash wand
is different from a unicorn hair in a mahogany wand, and Ollivander
knows how each substance will react to each wood. It isn't just a
matter of length and flexibility (the obvious differences we see in
the weighing of the wands in GoF). The materials make a difference,
too. Ollivander won't use Veela hair because it's too "temperamental."

I take all this to mean that a wand, like the wizard it chooses, has
specific strengths and even, to some extent, a personality--which is
not to say that Barty Jr. can't use Harry's wand to cast a Dark Mark
or Sirius Black couldn't have used Snape's wand to kill Wormtail, as
he intended. But I'll bet that the DEs who escaped from Azkaban were
using borrowed or stolen wands, their own having been confiscated or
destroyed when they were arrested, which could partly account for
their ineptitude in the MoM.

Of course, JKR isn't altogether consistent on this point. Ron does
reasonably well with his brother Charlie's old wand until its broken
in CoS, and when he gets a new wand, it, too, has a unicorn hair core
(maybe Charlie's and Ron's personalities and magical abilities are
similar enough that Charlie's wand worked for Ron almost as well as
his own, while Neville is different enough from his Auror father to
make Frank's wand a serious mismatch for him?)

At any rate, I think that wands are more than a conduit for the
wizard's magic. They are themselves powerful magical objects, and for
most wizards, they're an essential part of the magic, just as a
computer an essential part of Internet communication. Apparation and
transforming into an Animagus form don't require a wand, but most
magic, even potion-making, requires one.

Carol, noting that even Dumbledore was powerless without a wand
(unless, perhaps, he could have summoned Fawkes but chose not to do so)