History Headscratchers / HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsWandDisarmament

29th Apr '16 3:52:01 AM whendidthesuncomeup?
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** What I don't understand is how Grindelwald became the Elder Wand's master in the first place. He stole it from the previous owner, sure, but he never defeated him in a duel, and didn't kill him, as Voldemort did that decades later. He merely... took it. From like, his beside table, or something. Why did the Elder Wand decide that was enough for ownership? Some people think it's weird that Dumbledore was able to defeat Grindelwald despite being against the legendary wand that supposedly made it's owner invincible, or whatever. But if the wand never actually belonged to Grindelwald in the first place... The Elder Wand could have just been desperate for a true master, and happily accepted Dumbledore the first chance it got.
28th Feb '15 4:15:50 AM Lenoxus
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

***** One way of looking at it that combines both: Perhaps all the wand-related events prior to the last book are consistent with the "rules", either because genuine "defeat" hadn't occurred before, or because the Elder Wand is special. However, it might have been better for Elder-Wand-y-type rules to be sprinkled throughout the story for example, by having a friednly-fight disarmed wand always be returned to its owner in some kind of official "i give you your wand" ceremony, or by having Harry's wand do less well for him ever since some Death Eater or other had disarmed it in the Department of Mysteries.
15th Oct '14 10:12:12 AM beneficii
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** What I wonder is why Voldemort even thought it necessary to kill what he viewed as a loyal and very useful servant to gain mastership of the Elder Wand. By that time he understood that the Elder Wand had transferred its mastership from Grindelwald to Dumbledore, without the former's death, instead merely via the former's defeat in a duel with the latter. (Hey, Voldemort knew Grindelwald was still alive during the time Dumbledore had mastery of the Elder Wand, as he had visited and murdered him in prison after Dumbledore's death.) Voldemort should have understood from that that killing the master was unnecessary: Only defeating in a duel them was.
8th Jan '14 1:21:34 PM clcnova
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** I believe this issue is why in the movie, Harry simply snaps the wand and throws it off a bridge.
19th Aug '13 1:58:46 PM Reika
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Does anyone else agree that ''Deathly Hallows'' was purely driven by the [[AWizardDidIt Magical]] {{Phlebotinum}} {{Ass Pull}}? I mean really. My biggest problem is the whole "allegiance of wands" bit that allowed Harry to defeat Voldemort. The Trio, Dumbledore's Army, and the members of the dueling club in Book 2 ''have been disarming each other for years,'' and never before have their wands changed allegiance. Harry himself has been disarmed more times than I can remember (once caught of guard by Neville, I think) and his phoenix-feather wand served him the same way as it '''always''' did, right up until Book 7, when it got snapped in half. So since when, exactly, does Disarming anyone win you their wand? And how in hell did JKR pass off that crap at the end? Harry Disarmed Draco in Malfoy Manor, so the wand that Draco had Disarmed (but did not have on his person at that time and therefore was subject to none of the effects of the spell) changed its allegiance to Harry, despite the fact that Draco had Disarmed it nearly a year prior, had not seen it ever since, and held no allegiance to it. ''What?!'' And the whole "part of Volemort's soul was in Harry and part of Harry's soul was in Voldemort" thing had its plotholes as well. When Voldy's Avada Kedavera rebounded on him, shouldn't it have killed the bit of Harry that was still in Voldemort and allowed him to return, just as Harry had done minutes prior? Oh, and the Epilogue was crap. Just saying.

to:

* Does anyone else agree that ''Deathly Hallows'' was purely driven by the [[AWizardDidIt Magical]] {{Phlebotinum}} {{Ass Pull}}? I mean really. My biggest problem is the whole "allegiance of wands" bit that allowed Harry to defeat Voldemort. The Trio, Dumbledore's Army, and the members of the dueling club in Book 2 ''have been disarming each other for years,'' and never before have their wands changed allegiance. Harry himself has been disarmed more times than I can remember (once caught of guard by Neville, I think) and his phoenix-feather wand served him the same way as it '''always''' did, right up until Book 7, when it got snapped in half. So since when, exactly, does Disarming anyone win you their wand? And how in hell did JKR pass off that crap at the end? Harry Disarmed Draco in Malfoy Manor, so the wand that Draco had Disarmed (but did not have on his person at that time and therefore was subject to none of the effects of the spell) changed its allegiance to Harry, despite the fact that Draco had Disarmed it nearly a year prior, had not seen it ever since, and held no allegiance to it. ''What?!'' And the whole "part of Volemort's Voldemort's soul was in Harry and part of Harry's soul was in Voldemort" thing had its plotholes {{plot hole}}s as well. When Voldy's Avada Kedavera rebounded on him, shouldn't it have killed the bit of Harry that was still in Voldemort and allowed him to return, just as Harry had done minutes prior? Oh, and the Epilogue was crap. Just saying.



** And Dumbledore's Army also had the understanding that they were practising disarming spells so this probably acted as permission from the owner to be disarmed. Just as Dumbledore wish to be killed by Snape while EW was still in his possession. If the owner of the wand gives permission to be disarmed, then it's not a real defeat.

to:

** And Dumbledore's Army also had the understanding that they were practising practicing disarming spells so this probably acted as permission from the owner to be disarmed. Just as Dumbledore wish to be killed by Snape while EW was still in his possession. If the owner of the wand gives permission to be disarmed, then it's not a real defeat.



****** The argument saying that the invisible cloak really was created by Death; thus any instances where people can detect the person hiding underneath when Death himself can't, are inconsistent and AssPull, is ridiculous in itself. First of all, if there ''really'' was a personification of Death in the Potterverse, we'd be seeing him already, since there's a lot of deaths occuring throughout the books. Secondly, the tale was written in a ''children's book''; the point of the story is to incorporate AnAesop about the futility of cheating death (and some other moral messages Ron mentioned), and it simply uses the legendary Hallows in the story as a plot point. And Dumbledore did speculate that the Hallows are not mythical objects, and are simply powerful artifacts which have greater magical properties than most others. And Dumbledore's guesses are, most of the time, accurate.

to:

****** The argument saying that the invisible cloak really was created by Death; thus any instances where people can detect the person hiding underneath when Death himself can't, are inconsistent and AssPull, is ridiculous in itself. First of all, if there ''really'' was a personification of Death in the Potterverse, we'd be seeing him already, since there's a lot of deaths occuring occurring throughout the books. Secondly, the tale was written in a ''children's book''; the point of the story is to incorporate AnAesop about the futility of cheating death (and some other moral messages Ron mentioned), and it simply uses the legendary Hallows in the story as a plot point. And Dumbledore did speculate that the Hallows are not mythical objects, and are simply powerful artifacts which have greater magical properties than most others. And Dumbledore's guesses are, most of the time, accurate.



***** That's in Deathly Hallows, and I think it's Xeno Lovegood who says it. Which means there's no forshadowing for it at all throughout the series.

to:

***** That's in Deathly Hallows, and I think it's Xeno Lovegood who says it. Which means there's no forshadowing foreshadowing for it at all throughout the series.



*** The main difference between {{Chekhov's Gun}} and an AssPull is that {{Chekhov's Gun}} makes sense when you think about it and remember the subtle introduction earlier in the story.

to:

*** The main difference between {{Chekhov's {{Chekhovs Gun}} and an AssPull is that {{Chekhov's {{Chekhovs Gun}} makes sense when you think about it and remember the subtle introduction earlier in the story.
5th Jul '13 6:37:39 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


****** Where is it mentioned that no one can see through those 'useless ordinary cloaks'. Moody/Crouch certainly won't need to be seeing himself under the cloak with his magical eyes; he's not a student, so even if Mrs. Norris detected him, she wouldn't care. DD was not around when he was under the cloak, and I never read anywhere in the book that Snape could see through Harry's cloak- except in PrisonerOfAzkaban, where the cloak slipped off Harry, and his head was seen by Malfoy who reported to Snape.

to:

****** Where is it mentioned that no one can see through those 'useless ordinary cloaks'. Moody/Crouch certainly won't need to be seeing himself under the cloak with his magical eyes; he's not a student, so even if Mrs. Norris detected him, she wouldn't care. DD was not around when he was under the cloak, and I never read anywhere in the book that Snape could see through Harry's cloak- except in PrisonerOfAzkaban, ''[[Literature/HarryPotterAndThePrisonerOfAzkaban Prisoner of Azkaban]]'', where the cloak slipped off Harry, and his head was seen by Malfoy who reported to Snape.
30th Jun '13 5:01:09 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** I'm going to go ahead and call {{Retcon}} about Harry's Invisibility Cloak being the only "real" one. In ''GobletOfFire'', Barty Crouch has one. It is mentioned several times during TheReveal: Barty Jr. used it during the World Cup to hide in the stands, again when he attacked Krum and his father, and also when he buried his father's body. Until the seventh book, I was under the assumption that Invisibility Cloaks, while rare, were acknowledged by most to ''really exist'' in the wizarding world (as opposed to being considered a legend).

to:

*** I'm going to go ahead and call {{Retcon}} about Harry's Invisibility Cloak being the only "real" one. In ''GobletOfFire'', ''[[Literature/HarryPotterAndTheGobletOfFire Goblet of Fire]]'', Barty Crouch has one. It is mentioned several times during TheReveal: Barty Jr. used it during the World Cup to hide in the stands, again when he attacked Krum and his father, and also when he buried his father's body. Until the seventh book, I was under the assumption that Invisibility Cloaks, while rare, were acknowledged by most to ''really exist'' in the wizarding world (as opposed to being considered a legend).
3rd May '13 8:20:43 PM LucaUmbriel
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**What if ownership doesn't end at death? What if by giving the wand back to Dumbledore, even after his death, that ownership was returned. Since the wand was always taken by force, no one who gained ownership of it was ever generous enough to willingly give up ownership that way and thus the cycle was never ended before now. It would fall in with some of the other themes of the books and further Harry's distance from Voldemort who tried to get the wand even following his death while Harry, who had the wand thrust upon him by circumstance, gave it back to Death (even if the Death part of the legend is symbolic) and so ended the chain permanently.
7th Jan '13 10:15:01 AM Confetti
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*The way I saw it, it wasn't just disarming that made wands switch allegiances, but wrestling control from the original owner. In the case of the Elder Wand, well, its a fickle thing and changes around a lot easier.
25th Dec '12 3:31:44 AM Milarqui
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Methinks that Harry's plan is not to remain undefeated for the rest of his life, but, rather, to break the Elder Wand's power by making sure that no one actually knows who the hell is the actual owner of the Elder Wand. Sure, many at the school probably heard about the Elder Wand, but are you sure everyone is now going to know about it? There's a good chance that, after Harry gets into the Auror corps, that he could try to ensure that someone else gains the allegiance of the Elder Wand, and since they wouldn't know about it, then the ownership starts getting passed around by accident until no one really knows who is supposed to be the owner.
This list shows the last 10 events of 34. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsWandDisarmament