Disarming spell WAS: Re: Wandlore and more

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 185417

Carol earlier: 
> > What does not make sense--to me--is the DE's assumption that only
Harry would use Expelliarmus. True, he must have seen him use it in
the graveyard, but it's a highly useful spell. (Snape taught it to the
entire short-lived duelling club.) 
> 
> Pippin:
> As we learned in OOP, expelliarmus has a reputation as wimpy. One
can see why. It's easily learned, doesn't require a lot of magical
power, and doesn't cause pain, disability or disfigurement. 
> 
> In consequence, most wizards don't take it seriously. It's literally
kid stuff. The DE's know that no Auror or Order member would think of
using it in a serious fight. 

Carol responds:
I recall Zacharias Smith sneering at Expelliarmus in the DA meetings,
but I'm not sure that his attitude is widespread. Nor do I agree that
not Auror or Order member would think of using it in a serious fight.
Disarm your opponent, and he's helpless, at least if you catch and
keep his wand. If the DEs hold the view that it's kid stuff, it's the
perfect spell to use on them. I wonder, now that you mention it,
whether Gellert Grindelwald held that view. Here he is anticipating
some extraordinary magic from Dumbledore, and DD slips in an
Expelliarmus instead. Voila! He wins the battle (and the notorious
Elder Wand, one of the three Hallows, to boot.)

Think about it in Muggle terms. If you're confronted by someone
dangerous and both of you have guns, short of killing your opponent,
wouldn't the sensible thing be to disarm him? If he doesn't have a gun
and you do, he can't easily hurt you. You're in control. Ditto for a
wandless wizard, whose curses would be of no more use than Severus's
against James and Sirius after they disarmed him. I seriously doubt
that Moody shared Lupin's disdain for Expelliarmus.

Pippin:
> 
> Harry's success may change that -- but its general usefulness may be
limited if wizards are prepared for it. 

Carol responds:
I don't thinks so. Harry certainly found it useful. And Stunning
Spells, which the DEs would certainly expect, are no less useful for
that reason. (The darn things are overused, IMO.)

Pippin:
> IIRC, Harry  usually managed to keep hold of his wand if he was
expecting an attempt to disarm him. 

Carol:
Can you give an example of Harry's successfully anticipating an
Expelliarmus? 

Now *Snape* anticipated Harry's every spell, including Expelliarmus,
but he's a Legilimens. And, of course, a wizard with quick reflexes
can deflect or parry just about any (verbal) spell except AK the
second the first syllable is out of the other wizard's mouth even if
he's not a Legilimens. If spells require different positions or
casting styles, the opponent's movements might signal which spell he's
about to cast even if it's nonverbal. But except for Snape's one-sided
duel with Harry, we don't see any such thing. (Well, he conjures a
Protego against McGonagall the second he realizes that she's about to
raise her wand against him, but it's not clear whether he anticipates
*which* spell she's going to use. And Snape is no ordinary wizard, in
any case.)

Pippin: 
> Most wizards seem to have one or two spells that they favor in
combat--which makes sense. The wizard with a specialty will strike
while the other guy  is  making up his mind.

Carol responds:
I wouldn't say *most* Wizards have such spells. Snape reputedly has
Sectum Sempra though we only see him use it once; Harry has
Expelliarmus (learned from Snape); Dolohov has whatever that
purple-lit spell that hit Hermione is; Bellatrix has Crucio, but it's
not really a battle spell. Most Wizards use Stupegy unless their
intent is to kill. We get only a few other defensive spells whose
names we know (Petrificus Totalus, Protego, Reducto if you're aiming
at an object rather than a person) and almost no other offensive
spells (a little fancy nonverbal wandwork by LV and DD in the MoM and
DD and McGonagall right before Snape jumps through the window), but
for the most part, all we see is red and green light flying
everywhere. Gets very boring and predictable, IMO.

Just why Wizards bother to duel in battle rather than just AKing the
opponent (unless you're a good guy who only kills when he has no
choice) is unclear to me. I guess they're just showing off. (Too bad
we never see those spells that Bellatrix brags of knowing.)

At any rate, I was happy to see Percy hit the Minister with something
other than a Stupefy. Brought back memories of kids battling in the
corridors of Hogwarts. At least they used imaginative spells like
Densuageo and "Eat slugs!" Much as I hate to say it, using Scourgify
in a schoolyard fight was imaginative, too, though it was dirty
fighting to use it on a downed opponent. I'd like to have seen Harry
using some of the HBP's spells against DEs in the chase scene.
Wouldn't they have been surprised to find themselves suspended upside
down that far from the ground or to find their tongues glued to the
roofs of their mouths. 

Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you'd give examples or quotes to support
your generalizations. <smile> I had to think for a moment to figure
out what you were talking about regarding Expelliarmus's supposed
reputation as "wimpy." IIRC, Zacharias was the only student who held
that view.

Carol, may have confused Protego with Impedimenta in a previous post
but thinks that JKR could distinguish more clearly between them