Search Beyond Hogwarts:
The Aftermath: We were all correct
by David Haber
Sometime a week before Book 7 came out, someone commented that Harry would die, but then come back. I think most everyone on the site thought it was a silly idea. But I told several people at that time that I thought that just might be the perfect solution, although I couldn't figure out how J.K. could make it work. J.K. did, of course! So, the half of the Harry Potter fans in the world who thought Harry would die were right! And the other half who thought he would live were also right!
> Read the full article
Pages: << < 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 > >>
Reader Comments: (Page 89)
My questions are about the Elder Wand.
Dumbledore wanted to undefeated so that the wand's power would . I get that. Snape wouldn't be "duelling" Dumbledore so the wand would not recognize Snape as its new master, had the plan gone off as hoped, and the wand's power would .
The original brother who owned the wand was ed in his sleep. Does this constitute "winning" the wand by the er? Maybe...
Somehow Gregorovich ends up with the wand. Did he win it from the previous owner? He appeared to be stu it. Then Grindewald stole the wand from Gregorovich. Was Grindelwald now the new master? Seems unlikely, since he stole it, he didn't win it. He did hit Gregorovich with a stunning spell after stealing the wand. I'm surprised the Elder Wand worked against Gregorovich as I'll get to in a moment.
Dumbledore then beat the unbeatable wand in a duel against Grindelwald. OK. So then we come to the Astronomy tower. Remember that Dumbledore was hoping to undefeated. He was not duelling Draco at the time, but Draco did disarm him. Does that constitute "winning" the wand's allegiance? Let's say it does. Next is the scene in the Forest, as Harry walks to his . Voldemort uses the Elder Wand to hit Harry with the AK curse. Two things here. The Elder Wand s Harry, its master? Surely the Elder wand didn't know about Horcruxes, all it knows is that it's being used to its master. How can this be, when in the final duel, the book says that the Elder Wand flies out of Voldemort's hand, refusing to its master. So why was it ing its master 2 chapters earlier? Also, when Voldemort "s" Harry in the forest, doesn't this now make Voldemort the new master of the wand? Harry makes a choice to come back to fight when he's in King's Cross, but he could just as easily decided to go to his . We see that in the case of the original brother, and Draco, and Gregorovich, the master of the wand doesn't have to be duelling be be considered "defeated", so wasn't Harry defeated, momentarily, by Voldemort, even if his defeat was a ing defeat?
In the end of the book, Harry is the master of the Elder Wand. But doesn't this mean that if anyone ever disarms Harry, that they now be the new master of the wand? He better not teach his kids any disarming moves, lest they disarm Harry and the Elder Wand changes allegiance to the person who disarmed, therefore defeated, Harry. Even if Harry isn't using the Elder Wand, wouldn't it change allegiance to the person who defeats Harry?
I'm really confused about the Elder Wand, and if anyone has any clarification, it would be helpful to me.
Posted by Michelle on November 13, 2007 06:51 AM
okay, Harry was following in Dumbledores's foot steps when he went to what he thought was his in the forbidden forest. He like Dumbledore gave up his life, therefore like Dumbledore the wand didn't reconize Snape or Voldemort in Harry's case as it's master. The wand didn't Harry, it ed Voldemort's soul that was in Harry, there fore it didn't go against it's master. I thank Harry figured this all out himself, remember after Voldemort thought he had ed Harry he used the crucio curse but it didn't work against Harry. Harry was braced for the pain, and there was none. What I like to know is after Voldemort got the wand, did he use or try and use it on Draco, if he had and the spell didn't work maybe in the shrieking shack that was one of the things Voldemort was talking about when he said the wand didn't work for him.
Posted by Pamela Sue from Ark on November 13, 2007 7:52 PM
Pamela Sue, Dumbledore didn't really give up his life. He was anyway, he just chose a different manner of . Harry, however, was young and in perfect health, and absolutely free to choose not to . He was not following in Dumbledore's footsteps when sacrificed himself.
I personally believe that the reason the Elder Wand "ed" its master was because Harry hadn't tried to defend himself. It was against its master's to stay alive, so the Wand ed him.
Posted by C.J. from Utah on November 14, 2007 12:41 PM
C.j. the wand did not Harry therefore it didn't go against him. The crucio cruse didn't hurt him either, anything that Voldemort did with that wand against Harry didn't work.
Posted by Pamela sue from AR on November 15, 2007 6:32 PM
What I'm trying to say, Pamela, is that the Elder Wand, nor the fact that he didn't defend himself, didn't save Harry. It was ONLY Voldemort's greed that kept him alive. He took Harry's blood, Harry lives while he lives. That's it. If Voldemort hadn't used Harry's blood to rebuild his body, then Harry would have d as he had planned. The Elder Wand ed him because he wanted to . That was the Wand's intention, it didn't work.
Posted by C.J. from Utah on November 16, 2007 12:25 PM
I found something interesting in Prisoner of Azkaban:
"He had a very strange dream. He was walking through a forest, his Firebolt over his shoulder, following something silvery-white. It was winding its way through the trees ahead, and he could only catch glimpses of it between the leaves. Anxious to catch up with it, he sped up, but as he moved faster, so did his quarry. Harry broke into a run, and ahead he heard hooves gathering speed. Now he was running flat out, and ahead he could hear galloping. Then he turned a corner into a clearing and---"
I think it was foreshadowing later on in the book, when he conjures the stag patronus, but it makes me wonder if this is, in any way, connected to the lake/doe scene in ly Hallows. If so, that is way cool!
Posted by Katie T from California on November 16, 2007 3:39 PM
Michelle: I think you're absolutely right. Now, we can manage all kind of further explanations on why the wand behaves in such or such manner. Even Jo, if asked, probably build some.
But the main reason for inconsistencies is that Jo seemingly didn't really take care of what was logical and what as not in DH. At least, she did't take care as much as she did in her first books.
The first three books really were inspired by detective novels: you're given hints, red herrings, and have to choose the correct hints to foresee the future. As detective novels, they were particularly clever, for it was hard not to consider Snape and Sirius as dangerous Eaters. But you could guess: Hermione hitting Quirell during the Quidditch game, Ron's rat getting way too old, for instance.
Jo seemed, in novel four to six, more atracted to the drama: Voldemort coming back, the fight in the ministry, Horcruxes and the of Dumbledore. There is no real hint in those books, but still those stories are pretty consistent. We're fouled in books 4 and 5 by the fact we root for Harry, and don't see that his attitude is wrong. There still is a slight hint in book 4 (Moody drinking every hour), but nothing similar in 5 and 6.
Then, we have DH: here, as far as I remember, no hint at all. And as you said, some inconsistancies: the wand, but as well, the fidelius charm on 12 Grimmault Place (considering that Snape could reveal the place to anyone, anyone could get there, so the place was from the beginning totally insecure). That's why I think Jo focused her energy on her telling (and trying to foul us on Snape's behaviour) much more than being consistent in her story.
Posted by herve from strasbourg on November 21, 2007 03:20 AM
You can also connect the content of the novels to the cover artwork (American Editions). In the first three, Harry is flying on something (broomstick, Fawkes, Buckbeak), and in four, five, and six, he is holding a wand. The seventh has no wands, nothing to fly on, but Voldemort is on it, and there are more than five people on it.
Posted by C.J. from Utah on November 21, 2007 12:07 PM
What parentage is Dumbledore? I've just read somewhere that he was half-blood, yet I've always assumed (especially since reading Harry Potter and the ly Hallows) that he was a full-blood as his dad was sent to Azkaban and his mother was left to look after Ariana who could often let off magic quite dangerously, so surely if Dumbledore's mother was a muggle they would not have left her alone with Ariana?
Posted by Samantha Rawdon from Kent, England on November 24, 2007 1:46 PM
Samantha - Dumbledore's mother, Kendra was a Muggle-born. So he was full-blood in the same way that Harry was full-blood. More full-blood than Voldemort anyway.
Posted by Elizabeth from Australia on November 25, 2007 04:00 AM
Harry and Dumbledore were half bloods because of one of their grandparents being muggles. i read it somewhere (may JKR website) that blood status is now defined based on the two generations, if your parents and both grand parents are wizards you are Full Blood otherwise Half Blood i.e. now James, Lily and Albus are full bloods (Harry, Ginny and parents of both of them being wizards) while Rose and Hugo'll be Half Bloods (Hermione, Ron and Ron's parents being wizards and Hermionee's parents being muggles). however i agree that Dumbledore and Harry were "more full blood than voldemort anyway" (and I mean not in term of parentage but by attitude, by their choices and by their deeds they were more "pure Blood").
Posted by swati from India on November 25, 2007 9:14 PM
swati - Jo did mention that on her website... as an example of Eater mentality and while comparing it to Nazi mentality during World War II - that one ancestor of the persecuted group "contaminated" the bloodline. She, as far as I could tell, did not mean to say that one Muggle grandparent meant you were half-blood. I think the point she was emphasizing is that it doesn't matter as long as you could do magic now, that means your a wizard or witch. If you really insist on considering Muggles as, perhaps, a different ethnicity or something, then Albus would be, as Elizabeth said, the same as Harry - classified as half-blood because one of their parent was Muggle born.
Posted by monkeeshrines from orlando fl on December 2, 2007 11:27 AM
Pages: << < 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 > >>