Search Beyond Hogwarts:

Reference Desk:
•	Beyond Hogwarts FAQ
•	Wizard to Muggle Currency Converter
•	Harry Potter Spelling Reference

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 95)

It's true that Snape was "evil and a bully." He also was brave enough to be a Gryffindor (possibly braver than some Gryffindors!) and unshakably true to his promises to Dumbledore regardless of his personal preferences. Snape was a mix-- just like most of us.

Posted by Alice from Newark (formerly Milton) on November 25, 2008 06:13 AM

True. Snape is evil. But have you ever thought that he was forced into it? "I'll your love if you don't help me," Is what Voldemart could have said. But I do think he is evil.

Posted by Nyx on November 26, 2008 3:38 PM

Snape wasn't forced into it. He was into the Dark Arts and a Voldemort supporter in school. If anything, he was forced by Dumbledore into protecting Harry and being a double-agent.

Posted by Perdita from Arlington, MA on November 28, 2008 10:49 PM

I have some questions about wandlore. Especially the bit about wands having to be taken or won in order to work well for the new owner.

For instance, when Lupin took Harry's, Hermione's, and Ron's wands in POA (in the Shrieking Shack), didn't the wands then owe their allegiance to him, not the kids? And when they were practicing disarming each other in the Room of Requirement, or even in class, didn't wands change ownership dozens of times?

Posted by Perdita from Arlington, MA on November 30, 2008 11:20 AM

I don't think wands change allegiance in a situation like practicing or learning. when You are really having a duel kind of situation that it should matter. Lupin merely disarmed the trio to stop them from jinxing Sirius, not for winning. Same goes for DA Practcing sessions. If wands have enough "Artificial Intelligence" to be able to choose the wizard themselves, they might read the intentions too.

Posted by swati from India on November 30, 2008 8:12 PM

Wands don't just change owners. the only want that changed owners was the one that was a ly hallow. It was that only wand, average wands don't have the privelage of changing owners

Posted by Nyx on December 1, 2008 2:43 PM

Actually, all wands can change owners. That's how Ron wins Wormtail's wand and how Harry wins Bellatrix's and Draco's original wand. The wand that Harry took from Draco was not the Elder Wand, but since Draco was the Elder Wand's master, winning his regular wand made both wands change their allegiance to Harry. I agree with Swati on why wands don't change allegiances many times.

Posted by Anonymous from Arizona on December 1, 2008 3:05 PM

And/or, maybe wands don't switch owners, but add owners. So, since Harry won Draco's wand, it owes allegiance to him, but also recognizes the wand as previously being Draco's and Dumbledore's, which means --

Wait, now I'm confused. It made sense in my mind.

Posted by Perdita from Arlington, MA on December 1, 2008 5:17 PM

After reading The tales of Beedle the Bard I realized that wands do change owners. But it can be hard. Owners have different habbits with their wands that the wands understand after a while. So when they change owners they have to learn all of the new owners habbits.

Posted by Nyx on December 30, 2008 12:28 PM

I think your wrong Perdita so I explain it for you.

With the likes of the Elder wand, it has passed down from generation to generation, wand learning from each different wizard. That is how it has supposed to become so powerful. If it could resurface under a number of different masters it would definately hot have been so powerful. When Dumbledore came to be in possession of it, it had no influence from other wizards for years until Draco forced it from him against his . Not being in the possession of Draco, it could not pick up any habits from him and could not add him as an owner. For it to be his, he has to be in full possession of it and against the masters , not under the influence of other wizards.

Posted by Craig Edwards from Telford on April 4, 2009 05:55 AM

this book was absolutley amazing and incredible and i have never been happier with a book in my life
my biggest fear was that it wouldnt be written as well as the others and would e rushed and either dragged out or wrapped up too quickly or whatever
it was completely brilliant

she managed to tell the story thoroughly, break all our hearts, make us love the characters even more and tell each and every part of the story in precise detail

she has set the standard for what all ending books to a series must be like
she is such an amazing author that she managed to make the story seem like reality and she gave it all the history of the world

and i never be able to get over her ability to link the most insignificant details to the greatest moment of all the books in the whole world

i wish there could be endless harry potter books that i could read for ever but sadly it is over for me and sadly i never have the thrill of picking up a brand new harry potter book that i have never read before

oh well. thank god i was born in the hp generation

Posted by lalalalalalalala from australia on May 3, 2009 9:10 PM

If i am wizard A, who has defeated a thousand wizards, does that mean that i'll be the owner of so many wands? if someday wizard B defeats me, that wizard be the owner of all those thousand wands+my wand, and if some wiard C defeats wizard b and he becomes the owner of thousand and 1 wands + wizard b's wand...this could go on for ages and never end and someday wizard Z, be the owner of billions of wands? how can that be? I dont think i've understood this part quit well..

Posted by Apoorva from India on May 31, 2009 09:44 AM

Pages:  <<  <  77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97  >  >>