Hey everyone,
Welcome to another installment of Harry Potter Theory.
In today’s video, we’re going to be discussing the instrument through which witches and wizards
channel their magic- I am of course talking about wands.
More specifically- we’re going to be discussing wands in the context of their necessity- how
come some wizards use a wand while others seemingly don’t have the need for a wand
at all?
And lastly, and more importantly, why don’t witches and wizards use MULTIPLE wands?
There’s source information in the original books which suggests that using multiple wands
is plausible- so, why isn’t anyone doing it?
Let’s dive in.
Now, we know that in the wizarding world it is commonplace for young witches and wizards
to visit Ollivanders and receive their first wand.
An instrument with which they are able to begin HONING and channeling their magical
abilities.
“A wand is the object through which a witch or wizard channels his or her magic.
It is made from wood and has a magical substance at its core.
Wands made by Ollivander have cores of phoenix feather, unicorn hair or dragon heartstring,
and are of varying woods, lengths and flexibilities.”
And on the day that they get their first (extremely personal) wand- their journey in to the depths
of the wizarding world truly begins- finally able to untap and uncover its mysteries.
The importance of wand ownership in Harry Potter is emphasized to suggest that, essentially,
no witch or wizard, no matter how powerful or weak, is complete without their wand.
"The wand chooses the wizard.
That much has always been clear to those of us who have studied wandlore...
If you are any wizard at all you will be able to channel your magic through almost any instrument.
The best results, however, must always come where there is the strongest affinity between
wizard and wand.
These connections are complex.
An initial attraction, and then a mutual quest for experience, the wand learning from the
wizard, the wizard from the wand."
And from the day the pairing of wand and witch/wizard first occurs, the wand becomes more and more
a vital part of their existence.
The wand and wand owner establish an almost symbiotic relationship- and part of this aspect
comes down to the fact that wands are quasi-sentient- able to independently perform actions through
their own will.
Okay, so wands are important, and the relationship with their caster is important- but, the first
thing I want to look at here (before we get to multiple wands is)- are they NECESSARY?
We see some wandless magic in Harry Potter, and it’s always a bit confusing.
Wait a second- don’t you need a wand to perform that spell?
Well, here’s the thing: Wandless magic only really stands out to us because of its ubiquity
among the wizarding world that we have become familiarized with.
Through the books and films we are indoctrinated from the start to think that a wand is essential
to magical achievement, where in reality wandless magic is actually a norm for other species
and cultures.
Perfect examples of magical beings that are able to perform magic without wands include
goblins and elves- whose lack of wand usage has even prompted them to refer to humans
as ‘wand bearers’.
Expanding on this, in the world of Harry Potter, the wand is said to be a European invention,
which means that cultures outside of Europe would have always practiced magic without
one.
It is said that Native American wizards have their own methods of producing magic predating
colonization, and that African wizards only adopted the wand in the 20th century.
So really, wandless magic is a lot more common than you may think.
I think that outside of these cultures and species, the use of wandless magic in a world
where the use of a wand is ubiquitous can be attributed to one of two things:
Powerful magic ability, vast experience and calculated casting OR lack of experience and
accidental casting.
Essentially, if you’re a gifted witch or wizard, and you’re powerful enough to channel
magic without a wand- you don’t need it.
However, for those that have more difficulty channeling magic, or want to cast an exceptionally
powerful spell, then a wand might be a good way of achieving this.
For the most part, I imagine wizards like Dumbledore and Voldemort don’t see the need
for using a wand- as their power has transcended most others in the wizarding world.
However, come time to duel- a wand might be a lot more important- and that’s likely
WHY Voldemort and Dumbledore heavily leveraged their wands against one another in their fated
duel.
Okay- now on to MULTIPLE WANDS.
So- if wands aren’t even necessary to begin with, why on earth would one entertain the
idea of using several at a time?
Does it allow you to channel magic FURTHER?
Why does Harry use three wands against Fenrir Greyback in the Deathly Hallows?
“He leapt over an armchair and wrestled the three wands from Draco's grip, pointed
them at Greyback, and yelled, "Stupefy!"
The werewolf was lifted off his feet by the triple spell, flew up to the ceiling…”
What it sounds like from the above passage is that Harry using several wands actually
AMPLIFIED the effects of the spell, causing Greyback to fly up to the ceiling.
So, is that truly the result of several wands?
Or would ONE wand have done the trick?
Here’s what I think: Harry’s spell (in this instance) was not amplified by using
multiple wands.
Okay, but- if it didn’t amplify the effects, then why did he use them?
The answer?
Reflex.
If we examine the passage closely, we can see that Harry rather aggressively wrestled
the wands from Draco’s grip- immediately yelling a spell.
This wasn’t a controlled environment- Harry didn’t see three wands and think “oh,
that’ll be triple the power” - he just did whatever he could in the moment, and-
as it turned out, Draco had three wands in his grips.
Okay- now I’m going to dive in to reasons for how I think using multiple wands COULD
work in some (extremely rare) cases, but doesn’t work most of the time.
The first problem is wand ownership.
As I mentioned earlier, the relationship between a wand and a witch or wizard is highly unique,
and extremely complicated.
It’s a sort of symbiotic bond- a 1 on 1 relationship.
We know what happens when witches and wizards are paired with the wrong wand- think Ron
Weasley’s hand me down wand- or Neville Longbottom’s wand - it just doesn’t end
well.
These illustrate that it’s hard enough to gain the allegiance of one wand, let alone
multiple, so, how can we reasonably expect that a given witch or wizard could garner
the allegiance of multiple and then capitalize on all of them at once in a battle scenario.
Yes, it’s POSSIBLE to gain the allegiance of more wands by ‘besting’ the previous
owner- but it’s also a highly complicated subject and the ‘laws’ of wands are not
entirely clear- as we’ve seen with the highly temperamental elder wand.
Don’t get me wrong- wands ARE capable of changing masters, but it’s not so easy to
win someone’s wand from them.
Usually you have to disarm, stun or kill the opposing witch or wizard, and even then- the
wand may not choose you, it may honour its connection with its previous master.
Furthermore, I can’t imagine it’d be easy to WIELD multiple wands- how do you even hold
three things in your hand at once like that?
Sound’s hard to aim.
Try holding three chopsticks in one hand and aiming them all at the same thing- it’s
not easy.
A real world example would be weapons- sure, a sword is a powerful weapon- but using two
doesn’t mean that it’s going to be an improvement over one- it probably just means
you’ll be less effective with each- and that’s kind of how I see the use of multiple
wands going for someone- EVEN WITH proper allegiances established with all of these
wands (which is already highly unlikely).
I think that the only way that this could work is if someone HAPPENED to have multiple
wands choose them while they were young.
This would give them allegiance to multiple wands, and also give them an opportunity to
get USED to multiple wands.
But even then, I’m not sure it would be any kind of an advantage.
What do you guys think?
Did you ever think about this?
Let me know in the comment section below
Until next time
Remember
Time will not slow down when something unpleasant lies ahead.