Wand allegiance.

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 187265

---  "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
>  
> > kamion53 to lkutur@
> > emphasizing how important it is that the wand chooses the wizard from chapter 5 book1 on and then not taking care of the effects of forcefully taking over wands when it happens through 7 book, but only make a big tamaly in the last about it is sloppy executing of a law you set yourself in your work by my book.
> > 
> > kamion to Eggplant
> > please insult my intelligence by explaining why there are different laws for playfight and fights to the death considering the wands mechanics and functioning.The fights by the student were serious enough to be taken serious.
> > Do wands set themself on "playmode" when kids are making "just mischief"?
> >
> 
> Pippin:
> If wand function is supposed to be intuitive and/or mechanistic, then JKR failed. But  Ollivander consistently describes wands as subtle and sentient devices. That Voldemort doesn't  understand this leads to his downfall, so it seems to be a carefully thought-out part of the plot.  
> 
>...
> 
> But clearly wands rely on their own interpretation of events, and it's up to them to decide whether or not an attack must be taken seriously. ...
> 
> Pippin
>

bboyminn:

I'm more inclined to agree with Pippin's view of events. I think
people are trying to assigning too ridged a set of rules, and 
too much active intellectual intelligence to wands. 

Wands are magical, but at their core essence they are a stick
of wood and a core substance. 

When we say 'the wand chooses the wizard' are we really saying
'the wand /matches/ the wizard'?

Further, I think the wand interprets part of an encounter by
whether a dueling wizard gives back his opponents wand. If
he gives it back, he clear has to real intent to actively
defeat the opponent.

Further in competition dueling and in the DA club, opponents 
have given their permission to be disarmed or stunned or
otherwise cursed. I don't see how that can constitute a
defeat.

The same with Dumbledore, he gave permission for Snape to kill
him, consequently, their encounter does not count as a defeat.
Dumbledore intended for the last owner of the wand to go
undefeated when Snape killed him. I don't think he intended
Snape to be the new owner, only the new possessor of the wand.
The wand would do his bidding as any wand would, but not to
the extent that it would if Snape was the true owner and
master of the wand.

Again, wand 'transfer' is not down to a ridged set of rules, 
it is down to a very imprecise and subtle interpretation by
the wand. And, I don't think the wand does that by scientific
analysis of the situation; nothing so clinical as that.

It is more a case of a subtle sense of the parties involved
and its own instinctive interpretation of events. This is
not 'active intelligence' in the thinking, planning, plotting,
analysing form. This is a subtle intuitive sense of what is
happening around it.

I think those who can't see the subtle distinction, those who
would force wands into an absolute set of ridged rules, can't 
make sense of what is happening, because what is happening
absolutely does not fit that mind set.

Steve/bluewizard