Subject: There is no definitive answer.
Author:
Posted on: 2016-08-26 17:13:00 UTC
But we have seen scenes like a competent witch and a competent wizard (McGonagall and Dumbledore) carrying petrified Colin Creevy, so it may be reasonable to assume that sharing the weight is less exhausting than one person levitating him. With an infinite well of magical energy, life would be too easy, and we should have seen much more magic than we actually did.
HG
For thousands of years, our European colleagues in the wizarding community have harped on one constant message: magic wands are better. They allow more advanced magic, more easily, with more control. They let witches and wizards who would otherwise be limited to a few minor curses craft elaborate charms and spells. "The wand did for magic what fire did for cooking," as one famous history put it.
All of this is true.
Strangely absent from the discourse coming out of Europe, though, is the terrible cost of wands. Not monetary cost - the cost to the living things whose powers we are stealing to fuel our own.
Does the phoenix feel the energy leave it each time one of its feathers is encased in wood? Does the rare magically-attuned oak or ash realise how it is exploited, when its branches are harvested to fuel human wizardry? How many magical creatures have had their lives lessened, shortened, by the leeching of their power to serve our ends?
It is not the time to turn away from the use of wands; every witch and wizard on the planet sees them as indispensable to 'proper' magic. But can we not be more considerate in their use? Can we not see them for what they are - tools for extracting another creature's power and using it to feed our own? If we can, then perhaps we can set foot on the path towards a new, kinder mode of magic.
-This message brought to you by the Wizarding Association of Non-Europeans (W.A.N.E.)
...This IS magic we're talking about here. It's completely reasonable to assume energy isn't taken from the origin of the wand's material because magic breaks known physics. For example, Polyjuice potions create matter out of nothing. It is therefore not a terrible mental stretch to say they do the same with energy.
Is that wands do not hold an active connection to the core's source: Harry's and Voldemort's wands do take their power from Fawkes, Fleur doesn't take magic from her grandmother, etc.
While wiki-diving, I've come across a bit that says about "residual power stored in a wand", so that's how I think of it: core substances have some residual power of the creature that came from and that's the wand's fuel - not enough for the (still alive) creature to feel the difference, but enough for a human to do some pretty awesome magic.
Now, having a core substance with the amount of power, the wood with the power (Giggity), and the wizard's innate power - and they do have some, since wandless magic exists in general - I'd say that's quite an amount of magical power, enough for a human wizard's life.
Across five continents, witches and wizards knew that magic cast by their own innate skill and power was the purest and most ethical mode of magic. Only in Europe did they reach beyond that level, plundering the natural world to fuel destructive and manipulative spells that made them supreme across the world - but at what cost?
No, there is no evidence of any link between a wand's core and the creature it came from, but even without that, what price must the beast pay? If we sever your finger to give advantage to another, you will feel the loss even though you can no longer sense the missing digit. What does it feel like, to have your magical ability and strength drained away, in feathers or hairs or horn? And what of the trees, who cannot even flee, but must submit to being harvested of their natural talents?
-W.A.N.E.
(I follow the Hermione Granger school of activism. Badges for teh win! ~hS)
I mean, it could go any way - maybe wand material loses power when you transfer it, maybe it retains exactly equal power, or maybe the witch-wood-beast synergy gives more power than the three individually.
Actually, question: is there any indication in canon that it's possible to run out of magic, or not have enough to cast a spell? My memory is that failure to cast powerful spells (Patronus and the Unforgivables spring to mind) comes from an inability to do it right/concentrate hard enough; I don't remember ever seeing 'I've cast too many spells, now I can't do any more!'.
So... is HP magic a literally infinite well, which any magic-user can tap as much as they want from? Is there even an answer to that question?
hS
But we have seen scenes like a competent witch and a competent wizard (McGonagall and Dumbledore) carrying petrified Colin Creevy, so it may be reasonable to assume that sharing the weight is less exhausting than one person levitating him. With an infinite well of magical energy, life would be too easy, and we should have seen much more magic than we actually did.
HG
I'd assume other wandmakers would do the same for an XXXX creature. Can't say anything about dragon heartstrings, however. I hope it's harvested after it's deceased. I've always wondered about that.