Showing posts with label wandlore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wandlore. Show all posts

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Ron starts Hogwarts at a significant disadvantage

I'm wondering if maybe Ron Weasley was at a bit of an unfair disadvantage in his first couple of years at Hogwarts. Even more so than is at first obvious.

Why? Because of his wand.

As he admits to Harry in their important first meeting on the Hogwarts Express, Ron is using "Charlie's old wand". Rowling later describes it as "a very battered looking wand. It was chipped in places and something white was glinting at the end." That something white, Ron explains, is the unicorn-hair core poking out.

Two reasons this might be a problem for Ron: first, because it is clear that this wand did not choose Ron as its master; and, second, because of the damage this wand has suffered even before it is broken at the start of The Chamber of Secrets (when the flying car is attacked by the Whomping Willow, Ron's wand is one of the casualties).

Remember what Ollivander said to Harry when our hero bought his own wand? "And of course, you will never get such good results with another wizard's wand." As we learn later, this simple rule is not entirely accurate; in fact, the full rule is that you will never get such good results with another wizard's wand, unless you win its loyalty by defeating its owner.

But Ron is using a borrowed wand from the day he starts at Hogwarts. His magical power is already inhibited by the fact that his wand did not choose him, that he is using "another wizard's wand."

Charlie, at some point, bought (and was chosen by) a new wand and Ron is left with his sloppy seconds. I doubt Ron "defeated" Charlie at any point, although it is possible that the Weasley's knew enough to have a pre-Hogwarts Ron disarm Charlie so that the wand transferred its allegiance to the little boy.

That's an interesting thought, to be honest. Hmmm...

The second factor, the damage, is not so easily dismissed. There is evidence throughout the novels that a damaged wand will not function as well as one in good condition. Recall the horror Ollivander displays when he realises that Hagrid might be attempting to use his own broken wand (and Hagrid's own inept spellcasting with the damaged wand). Remember how much worse Ron's own wand performs after it is further damaged by the Whomping Willow.

And think about the scene in The Goblet of Fire when the four Tri-Wizard Champions present their wands for inspection prior to the beginning of the competition. Dumbledore explains that Ollivander will examine their wands "to ensure that they are in good condition before the Tournament." The implication is that, if a wand has been damaged in any way, it might not perform properly and would, therefore, be a danger to its owner.

Ron's wand is already rather badly damaged ("battered" is the term J.K. uses to describe it) when he arrives at Hogwarts. In its battered state, it probably can't perform as well for Ron as a new wand that had chosen him would.

It's no wonder Ron struggles in his first two years at Hogwarts. It's only after his parents buy him a new wand in the summer before his third year that he has an instrument through which his magical power can be properly channeled: a new wand, in perfect condition, that has chosen him.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Draco's redemption and the Room of Requirement

Three days to go and I'm starting to crack -- I am now thinking of going to the very first showing here in my hometown, which starts at just past midnight on Friday morning. I've just read too much good stuff about this movie to wait.

Meanwhile, I've gone back to www.rottentomatoes.com to watch some of the excerpts from the movie again and one of them keeps jumping out at me. It's the scene in the Room of Requirement when Harry has just found the lost diadem of Ravenclaw. Unfortunately, the excerpt does not allow us to see how Harry manages to find the diadem in the first place (remember, in the film adaptation of The Half-Blood Prince, Harry never saw the diadem when he hid his potions text from Snape).

Harry stands, examining the diadem, when Draco Malfoy appears with two cronies, just as he does in the book, wands drawn on Harry, who is temporarily separated from Hermione and Ron.

At first, the dialogue between them is fairly close to the original novel (Draco demands his wand back from Harry; Harry asked whose wand Draco is using now; Draco says it's his mother's wand), but then it changes. In the book, Draco's cronies brag about cornering Harry and getting rewarded by the Dark Lord for doing so; in the film, well, Stephen Kloves uses this opportunity to explore at least a tiny bit of the wandlore that plays such a major role in the book.

When Draco demands his own wand back, Harry asks, "What's wrong with the one you have?" and Draco says, "It's powerful but it's not the same. It doesn't understand me. Know what I mean?"

I know that it is one drawback of films that they cannot explore the same depths that novels can. Kloves has been forced to cut out literally dozens of subplots and scenes from the movie script in the interest of time. But I like what he does here. In just a few seconds, he at least gestures towards the complexities of wandlore that Rowling so lovingly develops in the book.

I might not like most of the changes Kloves makes but I think this is a really good one.

And I like the direction he takes the next part of the confrontation between Harry and Draco. Immediately following Draco's admission that his mother's wand doesn't understand him, Harry changes the subject: "Why didn't you tell her?" he asks. "Bellatrix. You knew it was me. You didn't say anything."

Harry is, of course, referring to the scene in Part 1 where Draco refuses to identify Harry to Bellatrix Lestrange after Harry, Hermione and Ron have been captured by the Snatchers. Although Rowling never says it, I think a reader of the book is led to believe that Draco recognized Harry in that scene but isn't willing to admit it, knowing that Harry will be murdered if he does so. In the film version, the scene is less clear.

The excerpt from the film on Rotten Tomatoes ends before Draco is able to respond but I have to admit it: I'm glad that Kloves has Harry ask the question. I've often wondered it myself. Why doesn't Draco give him away? I think it's part of Draco's redemption, a redemption Dumbledore recognised was possible when he told Draco that Draco is not a killer at the end of The Half-Blood Prince.

All of that said, I like the fact that Kloves addresses the issue here. I will have to wait to see the movie itself to find out if Draco actually answers Harry's question but, by raising it, Kloves has highlighted the fact that Draco is no killer. It's an interesting addition to the scene and, once again, one I can't help but appreciate.

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Hermione, Fluffy and Harry Potter's wand

Another detail I failed to notice the first 20 times I read The Philosopher's Stone: when Hermione performs the Alohomora charm to open the door that leads to Fluffy, the three-headed dog, as they run from Peeves and Filch, she uses Harry's wand.

I don't know why I find this so amazing but I do. I only noticed this little detail when I read it in French, probably because I'm being forced to read the book very slowly and to consider every word in order to understand it.

One of Hermione's first acts of magic under pressure is performed with Harry's wand! With all the discussion of wandlore in The Deathly Hallows, I guess we should be happy that Harry's wand actually worked for Hermione here and worked well. Remember how much trouble Harry has in the seventh book with the snatcher's wand.