Wands to Order Was:Re: Naughty, Guilty! DD ( was Connecting the dots

[annemehr]

Argh. Tiny font in reply box! *squints* 

Nora:
> There's a slight non sequitur there between "DD is able to determine 
> what the core of the wand is" and "the wand chooses the wizard".  
> Just because Dumbledore has Fawkes give two feathers (although Fawkes 
> is not a mere pet, per FB) does not mean that Dumbledore has the 
> power to explicitly determine the recipient of the wand.  It is 
> questionable to consider wands in the same category of determination 
> as the other magical objects listed above.

Anne:
If you don't like to allow for Dumbledore to determine a specific
wizard, surely we can go a long way toward the idea just by looking at
the canon.

Ollivander describes Lily's wand: 'Ten and a quarter inches long,
swishy, made of willow. Nice wand for charm work.'  And that's without
even mentioning the core, or that of James.  Does the same for other
wands, including the cores this time - the ones he has Harry try. 

He says, 'No two Ollivander wands are the same, just as no two
unicorns, dragons, or phoenixes are quite the same.'  The variables we
know of are core, wood, length, flexibility; the particular animal
used matters, and it's a safe bet so does the particular tree (and we
know not every tree is a "wand tree").  

Later, in GoF, we find Cedric's core came from a particularly fine
male unicorn (must have been seventeen hands high) that nearly gored
Ollivander when he plucked the tail hair with his own hands.

And besides all this, you could never convince me that old Ollivander
doesn't have plenty more secrets in his wandmaking that he hasn't
told, otherwise anybody could slap a core into a bowtruckle's twig and
call it a wand.

We know Dumbledore and Ollivander consult with each other about
Harry's wand: Mr. O. wrote DD immediately when Harry bought it. So
it's no real stretch to imagine that earlier, Dumbledore told
Ollivander what kind of wands he wanted made: ones for powerful
wizards, ones good for wizards powerful in certain ways.  Both of
them, or just the second; theorise both ways if you want to. James'
wand was good for tranfiguration, Lily's good for charms.  What powers
can phoenix feathers be good for? Fawkes' feathers?  What power might
Dumbledore have asked for in that wand Ollivander made of holly?

There're possibilities here. Let's play.

Nora: 
> Trying to work out things like "What did DD know and what didn't he" 
> according to strict logical principles is an exercise in frustration, 
> because all the outcomes become (at present) slightly ridiculous.  
> It's enough to at times make one throw up one's hands and realize 
> that fiction works upon its own rules.

Anne:
Aw. That's no fun.

Nora:
> the last laugh will rest upon accuracy, 
> the one area where none of us have much to stand on at the moment.  
> Except for Faith.  She's the real survivor.

Anne:
Heh.  I believe the real Faith is tougher and twistier than many
people think.

By the way, "the wand chooses the wizard" need not cause so much
trouble among the readership.  There's no need to anthropomorphise the
products of Ollivander's skill.

Suppose it was up to the wizard to go into Ollivander's shop and
choose a wand for himself -- he'd probably pick a core of his favorite
animal, maybe he likes oak better than ash, and I'm sure all the boys
want the longest ones. :P  But, not being experts on wands, they have
no way of picking the one that suits their particular talents best.

"The wand chooses the wizard" in my opinion, merely means that, when a
wizard finally picks up and waves one right for him, the wand responds
- resonates to him, if you will.  No brain required, yet still driven
by the qualities of the individual wand.  Simple, no?

Anne
being rushed out to dinner by hungry family; will proofread later. ;)