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

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 183567

> > 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?

Magpie:
I'm referring to stuff that I have reason to think actually are Dark 
Arts. Unforgivables are taught in DADA--defense against the Dark 
Arts. I was actually referring to JKR describing hexes and curses as 
dark arts on her website as well, with curses being darker than hexes 
etc. Sectumsempra is also said to be dark magic by its creator and 
Harry uses it twice. (I would also include the creation of Inferi and 
Horcruxes under Dark Arts.)

But the fact that we can't assume that a curse to torture somebody is 
a dark art is exactly why we're all wondering about it. The fact that 
you can bring up Harry's use of a curse called unforgivable which the 
kids are taught about in a class about Defense against the DARK ARTS 
that is made purely to torture somebody, a favorite of DEs and say 
maybe they don't qualify because Harry did it and Aurors have used 
it...sounds like the Dark Arts are pretty poorly defined. Which is 
what it seems like in canon. But I think the canon I'm using (though 
some of it is website) to figure out what JKR would describe as the 
Dark Arts makes sense. 

Steve: 
> 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. 

Magpie:
So it's not Dark because Harry had a lot to be upset about. Snape 
created Sectumsempra under similar duress, I think he would say. But 
if the Dark Arts are actual Arts that include specific spells I don't 
see why that would change due to how Harry felt and how justified he 
was for wanting to sadistically enjoy hurting someone for a moment. 
Why can't he just want to use a Dark Art in some instances? Are the 
Dark Arts just forever some unknown and undefined thing so that Harry 
and James can disapprove of their enemies' obsession with and 
anything they might do is totally different? Maybe, but it's 
understandable why some of us then find the whole concept of Dark 
Arts a little useless in that case. 



> > 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. 

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

Magpie:
Harry already yanked Draco's wand out of Draco's hand before facing 
Voldemort and has become its master.

Steve:
> 
> 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. 

Magpie:
Sometimes, they do. Actually, usually they do. DH spends a lot of 
time showing us wands switching allegience if they're "won" and not 
switching allegience if they're not. Harry has a whole speech 
explaining how he's got the hawthorn wand at the at the end. It's not 
a mystery, it's explained very straightforwardly. As opposed to when 
Harry's wand fights against Voldemort on its own. That's an example 
of a wand not following clearly defined rules. Wands switching 
allegience to the person who won them is not--however Ollivander says 
it's complicated to incorporate the earlier idea.

Steve:> 
> 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.

Magpie:
But in DH we have plenty of examples where there was an intent to 
defeat and the wands switch allegience. Easy as that. 

Steve: 
> 
> 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? 

Magpie:
You have divest the person of their wand. If he's still holding it or 
he just drops it it won't. If you disarm him it will. There is a 
logic to the wand switching in DH. Ollivander's statements aren't 
really that vague or imprecise. He makes them sound that way with 
references to things being complex, but what he actually says is 
striaghtforward and is demonstrated to be straightforward throughout 
the book.

Could there be loopholes? I'm sure there could be. But none shown so 
far. There's nothing particularly confusing in what we see. With all 
that information I don't see why I would say "But maybe Harry's 
wrong" about being the master of the wand in the end. Unless I just 
wasn't satisfied and wanted to make up something better.

-m