Wandlore and more

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 185391

---  "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
>
> > Carol:
> > 
> > <snip> The only question here is whether Draco's wand, which
> > had already successfully cast both spells (I'm assuming that
> > he and not a fellow DE Imperio'd Rosmerta) aided Harry, 
> > making it easier in terms of both power and will to cast 
> > those spells. ...
> 
> a_svirn:
> Ok for successfully, but willingly? Wouldn't it imply that 
> the wand affected Harry's will as well as his skill? ... If
> we 
> accept the possibility that his casting successful 
> unforgivables depended on the wand he was using, that would
> mean that it influenced him the same way ... the diary and 
> the locket .... (it) would open a discussion on who masters
> whom when it comes to powerful wands. Frankly, it doesn't 
> strike me as plausible: wands may have certain sensibilities,
> but they do not sway or manipulate wizards. 
> a_svirn.
>

bboyminn:

I'm inclined to agree with A_Svirn, people are assigning too
much intelligence and self-awareness to wands. Certainly, as
a wand repeats a spell, it becomes successively easier. But
I don't think the wand influences the wizard in the sense 
that is being implied. It simply becomes a wider conduit for
any particular spell being cast.

I very much DO think that the circumstances and Harry's mood
very much affected his ability to cast unforgivables. At
Gringotts it is a matter of pure survival. You do what you 
must to survive, and in that case, the 'must' was the 
Imperius curse. But notice that Harry did not compel 
anyone under the Imperius curse to do any thing inherently
bad. He didn't make them kill anyone, he didn't make them
jump off a cliff. I think that was very restrained in his
use of the curse.

Again, at Hogwarts, Harry was in "the lion's den", he was
under eminent threat of death. He could not have possibly 
been in more danger. And he used the Cruciatus curse against
someone who was absolutely ruthless and uncaring. This is 
a teach who was complicit in the torture of students for 
minor infractions. This was someone with no conscience at 
all. Someone who knew he could act with impunity, and gladly
did so. 

But again, notice that while Harry used an Unforgivable curse,
he did so judiciously. He cast the Cruciatus for a matter of
seconds; he did not sustain it, he did not repeat it. He did
just enough to get the job done, and no more. 

Plus at this point, Harry is acting with a certain fatalistic
resolve. Based on his conversation with Aberforth, Harry is
determined to move forward, never wavering, until either he 
or Voldemort are dead. When you are in the heart of the enemy
stronghold, and marching toward sure death, what's 2 seconds 
of Crucio here or there? 

So, two underlying points. Wands do not act with intelligence 
or forethought; at best a very vague intuition.  

Second, while Harry did use Unforgivables, in every case, he 
did so with great restraint. He did what was necessary, though
certainly, his emotions got the better of him on occasion, but
even when compelled by emotions, in the heat of anger, his 
actions were still substantially restrained.

Steve/bluewizard