I hate it when the magic is sucked out of Harry Potter and that extends beyond spells. Compare the DADA professors in appearance and demeanour. Now extend that to the manner of carrying a wand.

To spell it out, a severe potions master and a pompous airhead would keep their wands differently. Molly her apron, Lucius his cane, Luna her ear, Ron his back pocket. It only matters when it informs and is particular to their character.

I think those quotes show that there is no standard way, and isn't the Harry Potter I know without it's strange charm, and variety is key to that. It might not be unique (hip outseam, breast pocket, belt) but it can't be as boring as picking out a pair of muggle sneakers off a shelf.

But what am I thinking? Don't we all want a world where every witch and wizard is paranoid enough to have a wand strapped to their arm?

I know I laugh at cowboys dumb enough to only wear two guns on their hips and a rifle on their horse, when they should be keeping a custom made deringer shotgun up their sleeve.

In fact so obvious is the need for instant access to death that Harry should be able to pick up a standardized, mass produced, one-size-fits-all, patented Ollivander wand holster with ejector.


I can already see the story...

............................................................

Harry, and only Harry, buys not one but two holsters. He wears the holsters for four years every single day and every single hour. Harry trains in a special time capsule trunk in the Chamber of Gryffindor to learn special dual wield magic Hogwarts doesn't teach, and isn't mentioned anywhere in the thousand year old Hogwarts library.

Harry sees Death Eaters picking on a witch and uses his new found secrets powers to effortlessly defeats five Death Eaters. Two he instantly kills thanks to his holsters, two more from being stunned witless at his amazing use of magic holsters, the last he finishes wandless.

Voldemort kidnaps Harry's several One True Loves. Harry walks into danger without his wand ready and is ambushed! But now, NOW his wand holsters will come in handy! Two wands instantly in hand he is about to kill everyone when Voldemort threatens to rape, murder, and eat the girls.

Harry raises his hands. Death Eaters take both his Holly wand and Gryffindors wand from his wrists, they also take the five Death Eater wands he captured; one at his ankle, on his lower back, his breast, over his shoulder, his hip. They even find his basilisk fang mithril runed wand stowed within his person (in case of shower shank emergencies).

Voldemort is giving his victory speech. Wandless and surrounded by Death Eaters, Harry smirks. He uses his left holster, which can summon or banish at will, to summon his powerless weeping harem into his arms. His right holster is actually a portkey and only activates with a special flick of the wrist, which he does after dropping a magically expanded bag of c4, which detonates as soon as he is gone, killing Voldemort and all the Death Eaters.

 

Solpagae,
Well said. I agree with pretty much everything you said, especially this part:

I wanted to seize upon your remark that you hate things that suck the magic out of Harry Potter.

For a story that I tinker with, I play a little bit with this theme, that this kind of boring "pragmatism" can suck the magic out of a something. I have this organization that apes after muggle militaries a little bit, with uniforms, clear rank structures, and, yes, wand holsters. However, this mugglish conformity has its drawbacks: the people belonging to the organization are becoming less sensitive to the subtleties of magic, and frankly gain very little in return. (These drawbacks would be only hinted at in story, not so much spelled out.)

Anyway, thumbs up for a nice post.

 

Wrist holsters are dumb, you'd have about 2-3 inches of your wand in your palm constantly and if you fell over you'd either jam it hard into your upper arm as you broke your fall, or snap the tip of your wand off.

The logical place is obviously at your belt, in some sort of scabbard, just like we did with swords and hundreds of other similarly shaped objects for thousands of years. Alternately, across your back would also be fine, because they're less than a foot long you wouldn't encounter the same issue with a wand that you do with a sword.

 

Wand up the sleeve is probably fine if you're looking to ambush someone. Kind of like hiding a long knife; stupid, painful and not worth the trouble in the long run, but if you want to sneak up on someone with a weapon it's one of the easiest places to quickly conceal such a large one.

I actually picture it backwards; that is, with you gripping the wand's handle and the rest up your sleeve, instead of having the tip peek out. Depending on the bagginess you could whip it out in a single motion. I could see someone slipping their wand just up their sleeve when they're passing through a shady alley; wand out is too aggressive, wand in the sleeve is kind of obvious if you're looking at it but hopefully projects just enough "leave me the fuck alone or I'll hex you" to deter most from bothering you. It can also be a bit more subtly intimidating than having your whole wand out, kind of like flashing the butt of a pistol.

Come to think of it, is it ever specified if the length of the wand includes the length of the handle/tip?

 

For my two cents - sort of agreeing with CheddarTrek above - all of the options work for me, because I envision the wands shorter - even more than by half. I just ignore inches and pretend it's in centimeters (phoenix wand is 11cm, in my HC), because 30+cm piece of wood doesn't seem like something you could do swish and flick at 11 years.

As for wands in robes, I imagine wizarding robes do have some pocket for wand - it is, after all, wizard's most imortant tool.

 

I'm not sure that I'm conveying what I mean to. Yes the wand is impractical compared to a modern cell phone. But a handyman has his tool belt, a business man has his briefcase, and a witch has a pocket or a bag of some description. I will argue against the idea of a holster, especially on the arm/sleeve/wrist, being the default.

I think it might be the mindset behind it that bothers me. If a handyman has a drill holster then that still conveys the idea that it is being used frequently. But, and maybe it's just me, the word and usage in fanon often speaks to a holster for a gun. A place to /keep/ a serious tool which is only used when absolutely necessary. I think for most witches it would always be about and that means having it out, and not in holster where it's almost locked away. I can see Harry misplacing it for a second- just like we might the phone, remote, pen, paper, knife and so on. A long if thin piece of wood might seem weird, but I think it would become as routine anything else being pulled out for little tasks all day.

The quotes indicate that wherever it is reasonably accessible is fine. It is only Ron with a hand me down wand who shoves it up his sleeve and in the back pocket. Not all will do that, just as some are Cedric's rather than Harry's when it comes to wand maintenance. In any case I think the problem is overestimated and over complicated. A big, deep old pocket. Might seem odd and awkward to us, but I think we'd get used to it quick. I've seen women keep coins, which seems super awkward, as well as cash (and probably more) in their bras. Pockets aren't fancy, but if needs be I prefer boring and utilitarian over bag of holding holsters.

As for somewhat more specific ideas I could:

- Stick it through my belt when walking between classes or rooms.
- Keep it my robes hip pockets, front pocket that may be on work robes, possibly in pants pockets (given wands wizards might have larger deeper pockets where muggles have pockets on occasion that can't hold anything)
- Keep it in a holder of sorts off the waist. ex. pouch like a medieval coin purse, or though I don't favour it a sword like sheathe, pistol like holster
- Keep it in a thin horizontal pocket contained on my belt/about my waist (front or back), at least 9-10" would work for me
- Keep it in a chic inch wide pocket on the hips outseam, smoothed so there is no unsightly bumps
- Stow it in a general carrying bag (schoolbooks, parchment)
- Keep it even with spine alone side of ribs, where the bend wouldn't disturb it (not the most enjoyable, but it might be or have been fashionable)
- Stick through long bound up hair temporarily (since ear won't work unless short, thin, light wand)

The point is convenience is probably key. I did a quick google and Ron kept his in his trunk on the way to Hogwarts. To take a day to day example Sprout takes it from bedside table where she puts it at night, tucks it in her apron like addition to her robes for most of the day, puts it in a bag like purse while out to the Three Broomsticks, and has it within hands reach on her desk while grading. All the while using it here and there and not simply trying to keep it in place.

Sorry for the length, but I can't spend more time right now to try and make it more concise.

 

a) 11cm is a bit over a centimetre longer than my FINGER, so I reeeeally hope he has an extra handle on that especially since he doesn't get a new one as he grows up;
b) 11 inches is not 30cm+; 12-inch rulers are called 30cm rulers for a reason;
c) Wait, what do you mean they can't swish and flick 30cm at eleven? What are these children made of, butter? I could flick and bend and whip wooden rulers at like six years old (though breaking them took a couple more years) and they're pretty rigid, not magical tools crafted to respond to their wielder's whim.

You might have noticed the contention was over inner pockets, which a robe can't (reasonably) have any more than a dress can have inner pockets. It's not a bathrobe or overcoat, it's a staple article of clothing that doesn't open up the front.

 

Are you absolutely certain? Perhaps what you have in mind when you say robe is different from what Rowling had in mind. Perhaps your usage is technically correct and she's thinking of something else, and yet the wizards have inner robe pockets in the books, and the movies clearly show that the robes open up in front.

The fanon idea of holsters, I imagine, come with charms for ease of use. Shrinking charms, or expansion charms, or something else.

One poster earlier suggested that they didn't like the idea of magic being used on wands, yet they can clearly interact with things like Hermione's magically extended purse or Harry's mokeskin pouch, so there you go.

More in line with canon, I imagine magical folk don't use holsters, and generally have rather large pockets. Harry carrying a wand around in school is akin to me carrying a pen around in my jeans pockets, only Harry's pockets tend to be larger to match the things he keeps in it.

 

And the movies are fantastically wrong on that. One, wizarding folk don't wear Muggle clothes under their robes, as evidenced by GoF World Cup dude and Snape's Worst Memory; the robes are the clothes. Two, descriptions of robes being taken off has them being pulled over the head, not unfastened and/or shrugged off the shoulders, which means little or no fastenings up front, or conversely so many fastenings that they're not worth the daily trouble.

The problem is that most people have no experience with robes as an article of clothing as opposed to easily-removed outerwear, and so they immediately imagine something like a bathrobe. On the other hand I've spent far too long around robes, so my first picture was of a loose soutane or a cassalb. Like I've mentioned, a cassalb has room for what could technically be considered "inner pockets" under the big front pleat, and Catholic priests have some of the biggest pockets known to mankind so conceivably you could stash an 11-inch piece of wood in there

 

It's easier if it's a loose garment, or one with a large neckline. Depends on how flexible you are; I can put my hand and like half my forearm down the neck of the oversized T-shirt I'm wearing with a little bit of contortion. The front of the robe could have an inner pouch that you can reach from the neckline. So "reaching inside" wouldn't necessarily mean reaching inside from the torso. (Or some sets of robes could be worn in multiple layers, with an over-garment that does open at the front like a blazer)

 

Is this particular quote from PoA, because I'm pretty sure that it's the time turner that she's returning there, it being on a chain around her neck it's not entirely evidence of this— she might have had robes that open and find it more convenient to pull the chain out of the neck regardless.

Not that I disagree with you. They don't open. That's why we see Snape's pants in the pensive. Nobody seems to think it's weird that he's wearing nothing else beneath his robes, which undoubtedly they would if they opened.

 

Umm

The quote in question is right above that line, complete with roared "Expecto Patronum"

 

You guys seem to be misunderstanding what I was trying to say. Perhaps my low post count threw you off, or my digital tone was read a certain way.

I am in no way trying to imply that the movies are at all an authority. I was merely questioning the repeated claim that the robes absolutely did not open up in front.

And I don't even mean to say I was questioning it as if I thought it was wrong. Only that I wasn't entirely convinced it was right, and that I would like to see some evidence that supports it. Thank you for all the quotes, by the way. Very helpful in that regard.

I mentioned, first, that robes have inner pockets, as mentioned by a previous poster earlier. Harry stored his wand in an inner robe pocket. That was presumably a quote from a book. That implies that an inner pocket is reachable, which leads one to imagine an open, or at least openable front.

After seeing some of your quotes, a deep front is probably more likely.

I also mentioned movie robes as an example of 'robes that are open in the front, but aren't a cape or cloak'. That's it. They certainly look vaguely robe-like, so perhaps it was possible that Rowling envisioned something similar?

Keeping in mind that this was said in conjunction with my acknowledgement of Rowling's fallibility, and my poorly worded request for further evidence to support his claims.

My, you lot are prickly about this sort of thing though, aren't you?

 

I always thought that wrist-holsters were an invention of the fannon. I specifically remember the earliest place I saw them in Harry McGonagall. It's been pointed out several times so I don't feel the need to belabor the point on length, but as far as storage is concerned, I imagine that it's simply tied to personality. Luna is an expression of whimsy, and so how she stores her wand reflects that. Snape had one wand on him and the rest stored away in a roll for specific occasions. Others kept them in other places, and I imagine that it didn't matter where Mad-Eye kept his. If you needed to be concerned about his wand, it was probably not going to be hidden away when you were around.

Spoiler

Really though this is all a moot point. The clear winner is to have an alternate pocket dimension available at your wrist in a magically enhanced runic tattoo. Actual physical holster are for people that can't properly make the cosmos bow to them with dead languages powered by your own blood.

 

The thing about holsters not fitting wands. Magically expanded holsters?? They are wand holsters, and so, bound to fit even the longest of wands, excuse the innuendo. Somewhat like a mokeskin pouch, except, strapped to the wrist.

 

Well no-one ever said a girl can't stash her wand between her boobs. I mean it's a slight tactical advantage when you're facing teenage boys, no? At least half of them are going to have their eyes on the cleavage and not the length of wood appearing from its depths.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk