![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
OMG, I'm writing about Deathly Hallows. Because I was having this conversation about something in it that really bugged me. So this is about something I didn't like in DH. If you are bummed out by the negative, don't irritate yourself by clicking this
By the end of the series, we have two different and contradictory explanations for how Wands work with Wizards--and now I think about it, those explanations reflect an ambivalence already present in the series.
The very first book establishes the substitution of magic for school. Harry will go to school just like the reader, but he learns magic instead of other subjects. Which is fine, but sometimes leads to a little canonical confusion between "smart" and "magically adept." When Hermione does Transfiguration on the first day of class we understand she's a good student even though wand movement is more physical than mental. In OotP, iirc, there's a conversation with a Ravenclaw in the DA where he asks why Hermione isn't in that house when she's doing NEWT level magic--again, we've never seen that being a primarily mental process. Although there are some vague references to theory or esoteric knowledge that Dumbledore has but can't explain, and things to memorize, Harry never really encounters anything beyond magic as a physical skill.
This question of brains vs. skills carries over to Wands. Which one eventually dominates? In the end, are they tools of learning or tools of battle? The answer: tools of battle. Are they like a violin or like a sword? They are like a sword.
We got the first explanation of how wands work back in PS/SS. That's where Harry's wand chooses him and we hear its particulars: It is made of holly and has a phoenix feather core. The affinity for Harry comes from the qualities of the wood and core, and the folklore and fictional connections with each one. We hear James' wand was good at Transfiguration, a clue to his being an Animagus. Lily's was good at Charms--her protection of Harry was presumably a Charm. It was another one of those built-in personality tests. Who can say if holly is a nicer wood than maple? Nobody, really, it's personal taste. Everyone is different but everyone has a wand meant for them.
Unfortunately, this goes out the window in DH when Ollivander introducers the startling idea that in fact a wand becomes "yours" if you win it from someone else in a duel, either by yanking it from them or blasting it away from them or just beating them up and taking it. Iow, whatever hints we've gotten about love or learning, it's about power. Wands instinctively "bend their wills" to the person who's the most dominating physically and magically. If someone has beaten you, your wand--that thing that's been like an extention of yourself--is no longer yours!
These two ideas are contradictory and can't both be true, and in DH it's made clear that it's the domination idea that is the true one, otherwise the story wouldn't work. (So much for that Muggleborn's tearful, "But it's my wand! It chose me!" line--it's chosen Umbridge now, lady, if she took it from you.) It's a shame, actually, because with just a little tweaking JKR could have saved the original idea. She could have said that only the *Elder Wand* (the one already uniquely created to dominate others) bent to the will of he who won it. It could have been done with little changes to the story, saved the former ideas about Wands, and avoided questions like why Ollivander thinks he knows who any Wand belongs to after it leaves his store.
But that's not what happened. Instead we have all these careful scenes showing us how Harry can't work with the blackthorn wand (does he even struggle a little with Hermione's freely lent one?), but can work with Draco's because he yanked it out of his hand and thereby won it by physically besting him. Wood and core ultimately mean nothing at all. If they did, then in the scene where Harry shows Ollivander the Wands he's brought from Malfoy Manor Ollivander wouldn't have been going on about how the wand no longer belongs to Draco because Harry won it.
If we stayed with the original idea he should have been talking about wood and core and things like that--Harry's wand was made of holly; Draco's is hawthorn; Harry's has a phoenix feather core; Draco's has a unicorn hair core. How, if as we were originally told, the wood and core are in sympathy with the Wizard, could Harry be expected to use this one easily? Well, he could if Ollivander had just said something like "This wand will never be right for you, but it could be a lot worse. The Wand might feel more cold or detached than your regular one because of the unicorn tail, and you'll probably have to cast spells with more force than your used to in order to compensate for the hawthorn wood. To someone with an affinity for holly, that wood may feel contradictory and less focused. It will feel "lighter" in general, so be careful you don't overdo it."
Or whatever. Had that happened Harry probably still could have used it to win the battle. Draco would still be the Master of the Elder wand because *that* Wand only recognizes that kind of brute force, and Harry would still be the one who defeated him no matter what Wand he was using. He just would have beat Voldemort while struggling to work with a wand that would never truly be his or feel as good as his own for him. (Of course, I can't help but already worry that's getting into dangerous territory, as if Harry is somehow learning to work with Malfoy rather than more satisfyingly dominating him and having his wand like him better.)
It would have been preferable to me personally, though. I far prefer the original idea that Wands are tools of learning that reflect each person's personal experience and the wisdom they gained through it to the one where Wands are phallic weapons turned on by the best fighter, who then just gets to choose which one to use based on whether they prefer kicking ass with a .44 Magnum or a .38 special. Certainly I think this is a hell of a thing to toss in as if it's something only somebody well-versed in Wand-lore would know, when this is the kind of information Wizards would consider hugely important and have noticed immediately.
By the end of the series, we have two different and contradictory explanations for how Wands work with Wizards--and now I think about it, those explanations reflect an ambivalence already present in the series.
The very first book establishes the substitution of magic for school. Harry will go to school just like the reader, but he learns magic instead of other subjects. Which is fine, but sometimes leads to a little canonical confusion between "smart" and "magically adept." When Hermione does Transfiguration on the first day of class we understand she's a good student even though wand movement is more physical than mental. In OotP, iirc, there's a conversation with a Ravenclaw in the DA where he asks why Hermione isn't in that house when she's doing NEWT level magic--again, we've never seen that being a primarily mental process. Although there are some vague references to theory or esoteric knowledge that Dumbledore has but can't explain, and things to memorize, Harry never really encounters anything beyond magic as a physical skill.
This question of brains vs. skills carries over to Wands. Which one eventually dominates? In the end, are they tools of learning or tools of battle? The answer: tools of battle. Are they like a violin or like a sword? They are like a sword.
We got the first explanation of how wands work back in PS/SS. That's where Harry's wand chooses him and we hear its particulars: It is made of holly and has a phoenix feather core. The affinity for Harry comes from the qualities of the wood and core, and the folklore and fictional connections with each one. We hear James' wand was good at Transfiguration, a clue to his being an Animagus. Lily's was good at Charms--her protection of Harry was presumably a Charm. It was another one of those built-in personality tests. Who can say if holly is a nicer wood than maple? Nobody, really, it's personal taste. Everyone is different but everyone has a wand meant for them.
Unfortunately, this goes out the window in DH when Ollivander introducers the startling idea that in fact a wand becomes "yours" if you win it from someone else in a duel, either by yanking it from them or blasting it away from them or just beating them up and taking it. Iow, whatever hints we've gotten about love or learning, it's about power. Wands instinctively "bend their wills" to the person who's the most dominating physically and magically. If someone has beaten you, your wand--that thing that's been like an extention of yourself--is no longer yours!
These two ideas are contradictory and can't both be true, and in DH it's made clear that it's the domination idea that is the true one, otherwise the story wouldn't work. (So much for that Muggleborn's tearful, "But it's my wand! It chose me!" line--it's chosen Umbridge now, lady, if she took it from you.) It's a shame, actually, because with just a little tweaking JKR could have saved the original idea. She could have said that only the *Elder Wand* (the one already uniquely created to dominate others) bent to the will of he who won it. It could have been done with little changes to the story, saved the former ideas about Wands, and avoided questions like why Ollivander thinks he knows who any Wand belongs to after it leaves his store.
But that's not what happened. Instead we have all these careful scenes showing us how Harry can't work with the blackthorn wand (does he even struggle a little with Hermione's freely lent one?), but can work with Draco's because he yanked it out of his hand and thereby won it by physically besting him. Wood and core ultimately mean nothing at all. If they did, then in the scene where Harry shows Ollivander the Wands he's brought from Malfoy Manor Ollivander wouldn't have been going on about how the wand no longer belongs to Draco because Harry won it.
If we stayed with the original idea he should have been talking about wood and core and things like that--Harry's wand was made of holly; Draco's is hawthorn; Harry's has a phoenix feather core; Draco's has a unicorn hair core. How, if as we were originally told, the wood and core are in sympathy with the Wizard, could Harry be expected to use this one easily? Well, he could if Ollivander had just said something like "This wand will never be right for you, but it could be a lot worse. The Wand might feel more cold or detached than your regular one because of the unicorn tail, and you'll probably have to cast spells with more force than your used to in order to compensate for the hawthorn wood. To someone with an affinity for holly, that wood may feel contradictory and less focused. It will feel "lighter" in general, so be careful you don't overdo it."
Or whatever. Had that happened Harry probably still could have used it to win the battle. Draco would still be the Master of the Elder wand because *that* Wand only recognizes that kind of brute force, and Harry would still be the one who defeated him no matter what Wand he was using. He just would have beat Voldemort while struggling to work with a wand that would never truly be his or feel as good as his own for him. (Of course, I can't help but already worry that's getting into dangerous territory, as if Harry is somehow learning to work with Malfoy rather than more satisfyingly dominating him and having his wand like him better.)
It would have been preferable to me personally, though. I far prefer the original idea that Wands are tools of learning that reflect each person's personal experience and the wisdom they gained through it to the one where Wands are phallic weapons turned on by the best fighter, who then just gets to choose which one to use based on whether they prefer kicking ass with a .44 Magnum or a .38 special. Certainly I think this is a hell of a thing to toss in as if it's something only somebody well-versed in Wand-lore would know, when this is the kind of information Wizards would consider hugely important and have noticed immediately.
