Wands and Wizards...Again (Was: Epilogue ...)

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 183566

--- "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> >....
> 
> Magpie:
> ... There are these random lines about hating characters 
> because they're drawn to the Dark Arts when Dark Arts don't
> really seem to be a problem at all. ... it's not asking so 
> much to expect that the author has a clear idea of what she 
> means when she says it.
> 

bboyminn:

Well, there is part of the problem; first, you are assuming
what is and what isn't 'Dark Arts'. You say 'Dark Arts don't
really seem to be a problem at all...' but what are you 
referring to? Do you mean Harry's use of an Unforgivable?

If so, do you have proof that Unforgivables are truly 
classified as Dark Arts? Certainly they are bad, but does
that automatically make them 'Dark Arts'? 

There is the downfall of most, you are assuming certain things
are Dark Arts when really you have nothing but your opinion to
back that up. Do the books specifically say what is and what
isn't classified as a Dark Art? 

Was Harry using an Unforgivable a good thing? No, it was 
certainly a bad thing and a wrong thing, but it was those things
within a certain context. Harry was provoked, not just by the
incident with McGonagall, but through years of continued
oppression, abuse, and cruelty. Further, he was in an unusual 
situation. He was in the very heart of the lion's den. He was 
in a sufficiently dangerous situation, having invaded Hogwarts, 
that virtually any action could be justified against people who
would have killed him and his friends in a heartbeat. 

> A.... 
> 
>  
> 
> > 
> > Pippin:
> > > Back in Book One, Ollivander said  that the wand chooses
> > > the wizard, and let us know that wizards may have more 
> > > than one wand. He remembered Lily choosing her first one.
> > > He never said that once a wand chooses you, it's yours 
> > > for life. ...
> > 
> > ...
> 
> Magpie:
> ...
> 
> ... We start out 
> with a quasi-romantic relationship of a wand choosing a wizard
> due to things they have in common, a common desire to learn 
> etc. Then that's wiped out by the out-clause that if you 
> overpower a person and take their wand you own it more. Power
> wins because that's what was apparently needed for Harry to 
> win on a technicality (Draco disarmed Dumbledore first, and 
> Harry already happened to yank his wand out of his hand 
> earlier). That's not just a little thing that can be thrown 
> in without affecting the earlier version. It had to go and 
> now it's gone. You only have that first relationship with 
> your wand if nobody's every grabbed it from you. Then it will
> transfer its loyalty to the more powerful wizard. 
> 
> -m
>

bboyminn:
First - Harry /already/ yanked WHOSE wand out of WHOSE hand
/earlier/? 

The problem with this discussion is the people keep thinking
that wands operate with clearly defined logic and against a
set of clearly defined rules. They do not. 

Ollivander with his many years of experience, and a long
ancient family history of wand making doesn't full understand
this aspect of wands. That makes it clear that it is not cut
and dried. 

People always question how the DA club could train without
their wands constantly changing allegiance. But those training
session are voluntary. The attacker has no real intent to 
defeat, and the attacked has no real intent to be defeated. 

Further, let's go to an even more extreme example. Let's say
that two opposing wizards duel. One wizard absolutely crushes
and defeats the other, then simply turns and walks away 
leaving the defeated wizard and defeated wand together. 

Will the allegiance instantly change hands? Will the defeated
wizard lose a degree of power in his wand? I don't think so.
I think the defeated wand will have an affinity for the 
defeating wizard, but if he doesn't claim his prise, if he 
doesn't claim the spoils of war, then the wands allegiance
gradually drifts back to it's original owner. 

He might have some downturn in the quality of his spell work,
but I think gradually as it becomes clear that the defeating
wizard has relinquished all claims, his spell work would
return to normal. The wand would retain its affinity for its
original owner. 

Notice that Harry didn't just borrow Draco's wand, he 
forcefully took it from Draco and kept it for his own use.
I suspect, if he had taken Draco's wand, used it for what he
needed in the moment, the tossed the wand aside. It would 
have retained its affinity to Draco. 

Further Harry has a path of logic that says Draco defeated
Dumbledore, I (Harry) defeated Draco, which, in turn, makes
me that Master of the Elder Wand. Yes, Harry thinks that,
but does he or we know it for a fact. Maybe, as so often
happens, Harry simply got lucky and defeated Voldemort by
accident. 

Maybe rather than switching allegiance to Draco or in 
Voldemort's mind, to Voldemort via break in to Dumbledore's
tomb and/or defeating/killing Snape, the wand simply kept 
its allegiance with Dumbledore, and since Harry was clearly 
friends with and bend on avenging Dumbldore, the wand 
merely had sympathy for Harry; sympathy, not allegiance.

My point after all this rambling, is that there is no precise
logic or clear set of rules for wands changing allegiance.
Consequently, it doesn't and won't make sense to us who try
to find the logic or define the rules. This is magic at its
deepest, and if you read Ollivander's statements on the matter,
they are very vague and imprecise.

Hey...I'm just saying.

Steve/bluewizard