= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 2 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (696)
Why do wizards - particularly in MoR, where most people are smarter - carry one wand apiece? This doesn't seem to be an absolute practical limitation wherein only one wand may be mastered at a time. In book seven, Harry is simultaneously the master of the Elder Wand and his own original with Fawkes's feather in it. Why doesn't everyone habitually walk out of Ollivander's with two, so as to have a spare in hazardous situations or in case one should be lost?
We know that, in a pinch, you can use someone else's wand. But can you use nobody's wand?
Maybe the wands are intelligent enough that they don't fully activate (although they will still do testing waves) until after they choose a wizard, but stupid enough that they'll let anybody use them once they've been activated.
We also need a rule to deactivate the wand after its wizard dies, although a tradition of burying a wizard with their wand might be enough. There could be a black market in used wands, but as long as it's small, most people will still only have one.
The wand chooses the wizard and so on... I'm pretty sure that the Elder Wand and Harry Potter was a weird exception to the rule that you are paired with one wand at a time. On the other hand, I can imagine all sorts of scenarios where having two (or more) wands, even if the extra ones are less than fully powerful might be a good idea.
Expense?
Note how much difficulty the Weasleys have in buying wands. Rowling isn't very good about economics, but I get the impression that buying a wand is comparable to buying a car or perhaps a house - except that you can't really share a wand like you would a car or house and you can (and do) carry your wand everywhere with you. So 1 is the best number.
Wands cost 7 Galleons. People throw around comparable sums all the time in canon. Percy Weasley bets 10 Galleons on a Quidditch game, heck, Harry buys three sets of Omnioculars (wizarding binoculars) at 10 Galleons apiece to watch the Quidditch World Cup. Many wizarding supplies less useful than a wand cost considerably more. There really is no good reason for witches and wizards not to carry multiple wands except for tradition. Even the Weasleys could afford multiple wands if they made it a priority.
Rowling's money is wildly inconsistent. I use the figure of one Galleon = $100USD and stick with it.
Still doesn't make sense why Gred and Forge would have used wands. $700 for the right wand is a perfectly sensible purchase, even on a limited budget, considering how much difference it tends to make and that a wand typically lasts a lifetime.
OK, those are good examples. I didn't remember the specific numbers, but now I'm wondering why Ronald had to suffer with a broken wand so long if they are just 7 galleons. Hogwarts seems to be expensive; surely letting Ronnie go without, damaging his grades and learning, isn't a very good idea.
It might be partly psychological. The Weasleys are poor, and they're habituated to trying to save money. Ask someone who lived through the Depression whether they would rent a nice suit for a job interview, or pay double for high-reliability smoke detectors. Or, ask yourself whether you have more than one smoke detector in each room of your house, with the batteries changed out of phase (one set replaced in summer and winter, the other in spring and fall).
One is no doubt the best number for most people, but there's considerable variation in wealth-- Malfoys should have extra wands.
Good wizards seem to be able to do magic without a wand in a pinch, so I could see why they might not have it on their person at least.
Good point. Two on your person and at least one stashed somewhere else. Probably one in accio range too.