Dual-core wands? - Intuitive Sentience

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 181562

bboyminn wrote:
<snip> 

> Some here, in discussing the nature of a wands sentience, are
discussing wands as if they were intelligent thoughtful beings, that
is what I'm disputing. Wands are not whiling away their time
contemplating deep philosophical concepts. They are not pondering
politics or composing poetry. They are not making moral judgments.
They are not sentient in the 'intelligent' sense, but the do have an
instinctive ability to respond to the world around them and to events
in that world.
> 
> Hence, Harry's wand was able to act of its own accord, but did so
without thought or contemplation. It was simply an instinctive defense
mechanism in response to external stimuli.  
> 
> But I agree that the mechanism by which the sentience reveals itself
is based on some sort of magical resonance or harmony. The wand choses
the wizard because it senses a sympathetic resonance between them. <snip>

Carol responds:

No one is stating that wands ponder philosophical concepts or make
moral judgments, though some wands are probably more compatible than
others with Unforgiveable Curses and other forms of Dark Magic because
of the relationship they've developed with their Dark Wizard owners
(which is why, IMO, Hermione is so viloently repelled by Bellatrix's
wand--not *just* because of the spells it has performed but because it
actually feels evil to her). Nor do I think that Harry's wand
responded "instinctively" to Voldemort. It knew perfectly well who he
was, even though he was using Lucius Malfoy's wand rather than his
own, thanks to the duel in the graveyard, and it *chose* to defend
Harry against the owner of its own brother wand, whom it rightly
perceived as a deadly enemy. IOW, I think it acted of its own accord.
We don't see any other wand "instinctively" defending its owner. This
incident is unique, and, in some respects, unfortunate, since it
initiates Voldemort's quest for the Elder Wand.

I guess it depends in part on how you interpret "The wand chooses the
wizard" (SS/PS), to begin with. Ollivander makes it clear that it's
the wand, not the wizard, that does the choosing--also that some wands
are more powerful than others, that a wand performs better for its
owner than for another wizard, and that some wands are particularly
well suited for certain specialities, such as Charms (Lily's "first"
wand, whatever that implies) Or Transfiguration (James's--and we know
that was a hint at his Animagus abilities, as well as, perhaps, his
talents as a map producer).

So far, we don't really have an indication of how sentient wands are,
aside from an ability to detect whether a particular witch or wizard
is compatible with them. We also have instances of a wand not working
well for a particular wizard (notably Neville with his father's wand),
of two wands recognizing each other as "brothers" and refusing to work
against the other, producing that elaborate Priori Incantatem in GoF,
and Harry's wand recognizing Voldemort and acting on its own against
him. In addition, we know that wands recognize intention, including
nonverbal spells, and they sense magical ability in a person who
doesn't know any spells (Harry in SS/Ps) and anger (Snape in the
Shrieking Shack in PoA), sending out wand sparks in response without a
spell having been thought or spoken. All of this is open to
interpretation. Clearly, a wand is more than a stick through a spell
is channeled, but how sentient is it? Does it have some skill at
Legilimency like the Sorting Hat, to be able to read intention,
emotion, and nonverbal spells? I would say that it must; YMMV. It
can't communicate back to the Wizard in the way that the Sorting Hat,
Riddle's diary, and, to some degree, the Marauder's Map can, but it
can respond well, weakly, or not at all to a spoken or nonverbal spell
and/or a witch or wizard's intention depending on the degree to which
it empathizes with the wizard (for lack of a better word). The
blackthorn wand in DH is the clearest instance of a wand with no
empathy at all for a wizard. Not only has Harry not "won" it, so it
has no reason to "choose" Harry over its old master, it evidently
doesn't correspond with his particular magical strengths (DADA?) or
his personality. (I think though I'm not sure, that when the tape
measure magically measures Harry in SS/PS, it's "measuring him up" in
all respects--mentally, psychologically, magically, as well as
physically. 

On a side note, a wand can be temperamental, especially if it has a
Veela-hair core, so I don't see why the opposite wouldn't be true.
Some wands may be more patient or hard-working or loyal than others.
Maybe wands could be classed as the equivalent of Hufflepuffs,
Gryffindors, Ravenclaws, and Slytherins, etc. based on a combination
of wood (highly varied) and core (limited to three for Ollivander
wands, but differing from hair to hair or feather to feather or
heartstring to heartstring as one witch or wizard differs from
another). I think, for example, that a yew/Phoenix feather combination
was especially suitable for Voldemort given the association of both
elements with immortality (his sole desire other than power; he wants
to defeat death), just as a holly/Phoenix feather wand is especially
suitable for Harry, who has an element of immortality in him (the soul
bit) and has survived death through his mother's self-sacrifice (yes,
Goddlefrood; I agree that it couldn't have happened without Severus's
love for Lily). So Harry, too, is associated with immortality (the
Christian and pagan associations of holly), and I think that the wand
sensed that and chose him for that reason. (Potential DADA skill and
power may have had something to do with it, too, although Harry's
Patronus is really the only indication of exceptional power that I can
think of). At any rate, the compatibility of wand and wizard is
complex, and it's the wand, not the wizard, that senses that
compatibility. Oh, and wands also know when their masters have been
defeated and can, apparently, distinguish between practice and a real
duel; otherwise, every Expelliarmus in the book and every DADA lesson
and for that matter, every Stupefy (which results in a temporary
defeat for a wizard) would reult in a switch of loyalty. When I talked
about a wand as having "common sense," I meant the ability of a wand
to distinguish between a real defeat and a DA lesson--or, for that
matter, kids hexing each other in the hallways. Severus's wand didn't
switch loyalties to Sirius or James after they bullied him because he
got it back. Had they taken it after Disarming him, it might have been
another matter. But we don't know for sure. If it had developed an
affinity with Severus, merely capturing it from him might not have
been enough. I don't think that the wand *automatically* switches
loyalty. I think it has the *choice* of accepting a new master.

None of this really explains the *degree* of sentience in wands. For
that, we need Ollivander in "The Wandmaker":

"'Hawthorn and unicorn hair. Ten inches precisely. This was the wand
of Draco Malfoy.' 

"'Was?' repeated Harry. 'Isn't it still his?'

"'Perhaps not. If you took it--'

"'--I did--'

"'--then it may be yours. Of course, the manner of taking matters.
*Much also depends upon the wand itself.* In genral, however, when a
wand has been won, its allegiance will change.' . . . ."'You talk
about wands as if they've got feelings,' said Harry, 'like they can
think for themselves.'

"'The wand chooses the wizard,' said Ollivander. 'That much has always
been clear to those of us who have studied wandlore,'

"'A person can still use a wand that hasn't chosen them, though?'
asked Harry.

"'Oh, yes., if you are any wizard at all you will be able to channel
your magic through almost any instrument. The best results, however,
must always come where there is the strongest affinity between wizard
and wand. These connections are complex. An initial attraction, and
then *a mutual quest for experience, the wand learning from the
wizard, the wizard from the wand.* . . . . Subtle laws govern wand
ownership, but the conquered wand will *usually* *bend its will* to
its new master'" (DH Am. ed. 493-94).

It certainly sounds to me as if wands are sentient in the sense of
being able to *choose* and *learn* and having a *will* that can be
bent (or not) to that of a new master. (I can't see Bellatrix's wand
bending its will to Harry's, for example.) IOW, wands can, as Harry
puts it, think and feel. I am not granting them anthropomorphic
qualities; they are not human. But like the Sorting Hat and the diary
and the Marauder's Map and the portraits, none of which is alive in
the usual sense, they have some ability to interact with witches and
wizards, and, like the Sorting Hat and the Marauder's Map in
particular, and ability to sense thoughts and/or compatibility. (The
map knows an enemy like Snape from kindred spirits like the Weasley
Twins, much as a wand can sense a compatible wizard at the beginning
of the "relationship.") 

The key, though, is (IMO) Ollivander's words about the wand and the
wizard learning from each other. It's no like a kid with a
Stradivarius violin, who plays better than he normally would because
he has a fine instrument (assuming that he already knows how to play).
the wand itself improves iwth time and learns along with the wizard
(which, of course, would add to the formidable powers of the Elder
Wand, which has had a lot of time to learn and a lot of wizards to
learn from).

Carol, choosing not to argue with a wand expert like Ollivander when
it comes to the sentience of wands