Follow TV Tropes

Following

Context Headscratchers / HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsWandDisarmament

Go To

1Please check [[http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq.cfm?ref=aboutthebooks JK's FAQs]] before asking a question that may have already been answered.
2----
3* 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 Voldemort's soul was in Harry and part of Harry's soul was in Voldemort" thing had its {{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.
4** Not exactly sure, but the way I see it, is that the Elder Wand is the trickiest wand. Your own personal wand won't necessarily just leave you, because it has stronger ties to you than the Elder Wand does. The EW goes with the person who has the most power; it's not about individual respect/loyalty, like a normal wand would. "The wand chooses the wizard", and if during a duel, your wand decides to stay with you, that's the wand's choice. Even when other people have gained the allegiance of someone else's wand (when Harry had Draco's original wand), it didn't work perfectly for him. It would have soon gone back to Draco. The wand doesn't always decide to leave you. The EW is just more easily swayed to a different master.
5*** Furthermore, the dueling club and the DA were for practicing spells, not actual fights, and no one technically claimed any wands they took, they gave them back to the original owners.
6*** "The Elder Wand is the trickiest wand." Yes, the Elder Wand was made specifically by Death to screw with the oldest brother and everyone down the line. Other wands, not being made by a vengeful supernatural entity, wouldn't switch hosts.
7*** The wand is probably not supernatural (well, anymore supernatural than other magic). Dumbledore gives the much more sensible explanation that the whole Death thing is a myth, and the hallows are just legendarily powerful magical objects created by a trio of genius brothers.
8** Except that it was also established that physically taking or handing over wands was enough to also change their allegiance. So yes, the students had been disarming themselves for ages, but they never ''kept'' the wands after. For example, in the third book, Lupin disarms Harry and takes his wand. At that point, he was technically the owner of it. He then ''gives it back'' to Harry, and thus Harry is made the owner once more.
9*** All explained by WordOfGod: Your personal wand is quite loyal to you, and even the Elder Wand won't change allegiance if your friend jinxes you on April Fools' Day: it has to be with intent.
10** And Dumbledore's Army also had the understanding that they were 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.
11** What about the AssPull of the "Deathly Hallows" themselves too? So much of the backstory (including the bit that apparently ''everyone but the main protagonists'' knew about wands changing owners) would have been much better spread out (or hinted at (better?)) in previous books. Hermione notes at one point she'd wondered about Harry's invisibility cloak, but... Never mentioned it? And no one else mentioned it, even with the occurrence of other invisibility cloaks (other than them mentioned as being generally rare to find)? And we never had any hints about Dumbledore's past being connected to all these things? (Aside from the practically throw-away line about him returning the invisibility cloak to Harry.) It just seemed like the entire book was a damn AssPull with poor-to-no foreshadowing, and some rather massive changes/revelations (take your pick) about how one of the fundamentals of magic (wands) work. The sixth book was a bit better, but it got a little into AssPull territory with the massive infodumps on Snape and Voldemort... I mean, maybe JK Rowling planned it all out, but she should have ''spread'' it out too.
12*** I'm going to go ahead and call {{Retcon}} about Harry's Invisibility Cloak being the only "real" one. In ''[[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).
13*** It's not a retcon. You're misunderstanding the relevance of the Deathly Hallow Cloak. Its ability never deteriorates over time like all other cloaks do. In fact it's mentioned that Mad Eye has at least two invisibility cloaks, probably because one's usefulness has deteriorated. Harry's cloak is just a very well made one (or, if the legend is true, Death's own Invisibility Cloak), and all the other rare ones are just not-as-well-made imitations.
14*** The thing that makes it such an AssPull that Harry's cloak is a Deathly Hallow (rather than merely a high-quality example of an invisibility cloak) is that there are so many forms of magic that it ''doesn't'' conceal the wearer from. Moody's magical eye, for example, is presumably a very rare artifact (if for no other reason than that the demand for magical X-ray eyes is surely quite low), but it's no Hallow. So why is it fully capable of seeing Harry under his cloak, if it's so much better than other invisibility cloaks? Why can Dementors see him under a cloak that's supposed to hide him from Death itself?
15*** Dementors can't see him, they do not have eyes. (As far as we know.) They sense emotion. The Invisibility Cloak doesn't disguise that. Likewise, it doesn't hide you from magical spells that do not use sight, of which Dumbledore knows at least one. No one ever said it was perfect, I'm not sure why people think that, unless they're interpreting the 'hide from Death' myth a little too seriously. What made it so amazing is that it lasts forever and is indestructible. (And also can't be Summoned, but since we have no idea how how complicated such a spell is, it might be easy.)
16** There is an essential difference between the useless, ordinary invisibility cloaks of Crouch, Moody, etc. versus Harry's super-dooper Hallow forged by Death '''himself''': DD, Crouch, Mrs. Norris, Snape, etc. can see through the super-dooper cloak; but no-one can see through useless ordinary cloaks. Muggles like me are so morally and racially inferior that we think an invisibility cloak that people cannot see through is better.
17*** 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 ''[[Literature/HarryPotterAndThePrisonerOfAzkaban Prisoner of Azkaban]]'', where the cloak slipped off Harry, and his head was seen by Malfoy who reported to Snape.
18*** There is a theory going around that Moody's eye was enchanted by Dumbledore using the Elder Wand (thus the balancing of the Hallows, and also explains why Dumbledore can see through the cloak) in order to allow it to see through the Invisibility Cloak. The Dementors don't see Harry through the cloak; they can sense his emotions. Also, it's sometimes brought up that the whole myth behind the Deathly Hallows is, in fact, fiction, and the true story is that the brothers were just really good at crafting items.
19*** 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 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.
20*** Mrs. Norris is a cat, she could be smelling Harry, not seeing him (I don’t remember exactly if the book actually states she sees him, is more like that she notices him, that considering cats' more developed sense of smell and ear is not hard to believe). And even if she saw him under the cloak, it is possible that certain animals can see through the cloak as it was something design to hide you so maybe the creator has to say, when casting the charm: “this cloak will make me invisible from humans, dementors, giants, dragons [add everything that can harm you]” and he didn’t include domestic cats for obvious reasons. Actually now that I think about it, doesn’t Hermione’s cat also seem to perceive people under the cloak? This would add to the theory that cats’ eyes can see though the cloak for whatever reason.
21*** Is there anywhere prior to Book 7 where it is suggested that invisibility cloaks wear out? Otherwise, I think the {{Retcon}} call is fair. Yes, Mad Eye had two, but Mad Eye was a paranoid nutcase who keeps about seven dark-wizard detecting gadgets at all times, so the mere fact that he had two isn't a suggestion he was worried one might wear out.
22*** ^ Yes, I believe it was mentioned in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, although I can't be sure because it's been a few years.
23*** There's nowhere specifically in the canon, but prior to the seventh book and shortly after the sixth was released, JK revealed that the number one question she was never asked was "Why did Dumbledore have James's Invisibility Cloak?", which would hint that it's more than it seems as far back as book one.
24*** I can think of two hints throughout the entire series; they're both very subtle though. Sometime in either the 5th or 6th book, someone talks about some of the objects that Fred and George sell. Someone mentions that charms gradually wear off of objects. It's easy enough to assume that this would apply to Invisibility Cloaks, even though no one mentioned Harry's getting weaker. The fact that Mad Eye Moody needs a second cloak is the other hint. Considering how much time people spent analyzing her potential foreshadowing in the series, she must have thought that this was enough.
25*** I forget which book specifically, but Hermione says that most invisibility cloaks have invisibility charms, or are woven out of demiguise hair, which turns opaque as the years go by, IIRC.
26*** That's in Deathly Hallows, and I think it's Xeno Lovegood who says it. Which means there's no foreshadowing for it at all throughout the series.
27** Wasn't Rowling putting {{Chekhovs Gun}}s throughout ''the entire series''? Sometimes the only difference between that and an AP is when it's introduced.
28*** The main difference between {{Chekhovs Gun}} and an AssPull is that {{Chekhovs Gun}} makes sense when you think about it and remember the subtle introduction earlier in the story.
29*** One of the ''first'' things Harry and the readers are told is that the wand chooses the wizard, waaay back in book one. We forget about it for six books, and whoop, there it is again. In other words, whether someone finds it an AP or a CG ''is entirely subjective''.
30*** 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 friendly-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.
31** Where did you get the impression that part of Harry's soul was in Voldemort from? Voldemort had some of Harry's blood in him, and some of the magic that protected Harry from Voldemort, but that wouldn't have helped him survive Avada Kedavra; the blood magic was geared towards protecting ''Harry'', not Voldemort. Agree that things like the whole wand allegiances, Deathly Hallows, and the like could have been foreshadowed better though; those things seemed to come out of nowhere, I didn't suspect a thing about the Invisibility Cloak until Deathly Hallows.
32*** Dumbledore really got his suspicions confirmed in Chamber of Secrets. He was suspicious once he heard about Harry sensing Voldemort's presence; his scar hurting when he was nearby he'd never heard about anything about that no doubt. The fact that he had proof that Voldemort used Horcruxes made the theory all but confirmed, after all it wouldn't be that too far out when dealing with uncommon magic like Horcruxes.
33*** Oh, I agree that Rowling foreshadowed Harry being a Horcrux (and the Horcruxes in general) long before books 6 and 7. In Chamber of Secrets, Harry actually asks if he has a piece of Voldemort in him, and Dumbledore confirms that he does. Nobody ever said that Voldemort had a piece of Harry in him, though - he had some of Harry's blood, but not his soul, the connection between them was 100% down to the piece of Voldemort's soul in Harry. It's the other stuff, like the Hallows and the wand allegiances thing, that weren't foreshadowed enough. I mean, did ''anyone'' suspect Harry's invisibility cloak was in some way unusual before Deathly Hallows, or that Dumbledore's wand was anything special? Sure, he could do some amazing stuff with it, in particular during his duel with Voldemort in [=OotP=], but before Deathly Hallows, I thought it was all Dumbledore. They should have made some mention of the Elder Wand before book 7 - if not as the Elder Wand, then by its better-known names, like the Deathstick or Wand of Destiny. Hermione says in Deathly Hallows that Binns mentioned those wands in class, but when?
34** Cats don't have great senses of smell, relative to other predators. That misconception in fact was addressed (albeit not well) in book three (Crookshanks likely did smell Scabbers but couldn't sniff out his exact location). What cats do have that most other predators lack is an ability to sense air currents, which allows them to ascertain the location of objects and their general surroundings even when they cannot see (or ''smell'', or even hear, which is why cats have their infamously flighty reactions when they are caught off guard. They get used to having an idea where things are before their other senses identify what they are). The invisibility cloak would not stop its user from displacing air, so any cat that's not distracted would be able to tell ''something'' is around them. When it's sight doesn't match the air currents, it's going to know something is wrong and focus its other senses. Given enough time, Miss Norris should be able to tell living from ghost, but all the cloak wearer really needs to do is keep moving. As long as they don't make too much noise, the cat's still going to have trouble tracking what it can't see, and will have to find it all over again should the cat leave the area to, say, get Filch.
35** In response to the above 'disarming each other' thing, please note part of Harry's TheReasonYouSuckSpeech to Voldemort: Dumbledore and Snape specifically planned that Snape would disarm Dumbledore, so '''his wand would be taken with his knowledge and blessing'''. Harry himself also states that overpowering Malfoy and taking his wand was what transferred its, and by extension the Elder Wand's, allegiance. The DA meetings didn't do jack for allegiance because all members were perfectly fine with being disarmed by each other.
36** There's also the comment about how a captured wand will bend its will. A wand wouldn't really be bending to another wizard's will unless they started using it. So if Person A disarmed Person B and pocketed the wand or handed it back to Person B, it'd be no harm, no foul. If Person A disarmed Person B and then started using Person B's wand, ''that'' would be bending the wand to Person A's will.
37** I wondered about this too, but the disarmament thing is explained in "The Flaw in the Plan." Snape didn't become master of the Elder Wand after defeating Dumbledore because he killed Dumbledore with permission, and therefore he wasn't taking the wand against Dumbledore's will. Likewise, in the dueling club and the DA meetings, the kids were disarming each other with permission, so the wand wouldn't shift loyalties then, either. Seems like kind of an ass-pull, though, that winning a wand from someone means you win EVERY wand the person might have.
38*** You don't, you just win the Elder Wand if they have it. The Elder Wand, being the ultimate sort of booby-trap, going to whoever overpowers its owner in any way. Other wands are presumably a bit more loyal.
39*** Alternately, hilariously, Harry was utterly wrong, and the Elder Wand thought Draco Malfoy was still its master... and thought that he, the person wielding Draco's wand, was Draco.
40*** Except that if the Elder Wand's owner was anyone but Harry, V's spell will have no reason to rebound (even V isn't the wand's master, neither is the target) and Harry would die because V is still stronger and more experienced in magic than Harry.
41*** I think I like that theory the best.
42** And back to Binns... since when has Harry paid any attention in that class? Since never, that's when.
43* Why doesn't every pureblood have a lot of spare wands inherited from their ancestors? Why didn't Lucius use his father's or mother's wand for example when his own was destroyed? Ron used Charlie's wand (in fact, why did Charlie need a new one?), and Draco used Narcissa's wand, so relatives' wands should work acceptable. Or is it tradition to bury a wizard with his wand? If it is, isn't it kinda stupid?
44** I wouldn't say it's stupid exactly. Lots of people choose to be buried with a treasured possession. I always figured that a wand was an extension of the wizard - it seems to be implied in the books that a wizard keeps his/her wand throughout their life, unless it's broken or stolen, etc. So it stands to reason that they would want to keep it with them even after they've died. How many times have you seen a wizard without their wand - by choice - in the books? And in reference to Charlie getting a new wand, maybe the wand he passed down to Ron was of poor quality. Considering the Weasley's financial situation, maybe it wasn't an Ollivander wand and when Charlie got his own job, he was able to buy an Ollivander wand and pass his old one down to Ron to save Molly and Arthur the trouble of buying a new one.
45** Thing is, we don't really know for sure where Lucius Malfoy's wand came from originally. Maybe it was an heirloom from his mother or his father. (The Harry Potter wiki claims that it is 1000 years old, but does not source its claim.) That wand was destroyed in the Battle of the Seven Potters. Which is kind of the point - Wands wear out (though Pottermore states that an old core might be encased in a new wood, 'axe of your grandfather'-style), wands are broken, wands turn out to be unsuitable for certain personalities, and a healthy society tends to have more children than grandparents or great-grandparents to inherit wands from. Lucius's wife, after all, had two sisters. So no doubt some pure-bloods have a spare wand or two from their ancestors, some don't, some have wands with family cores that have been refurbished, and some have had to buy theirs new.
46** Longbottom has his father's wand, and it doesn't work well for him. So, no, just inheriting the wand isn't enough. "The wand chooses the wizard" thing was literal, if it doesn't deem you worthy, too bad. What makes the Elder Wand special is that it has a tendency to deem the holder unworthy, should they fail. Other wands might deem more than one person worthy to work with. Furthermore, the elder wand is fickle, not only does it tend to change allegiances entirely but will do so very quickly for petty reasons. Whether or not Death itself literally made it to get people killed or not doesn't change the fact there is historical evidence, InUniverse, of the Elder Wand getting many people killed. There is also historical evidence, Death made or not, that the Hallows are ''not'' infallible. They are very good at what they do, but ''not'' perfect, nor absolute. So what, these details were in ''Tales From Beetle The Bard'', AllThereInTheManual if you will, but they were still written down in a book for fans who wanted to know more about the setting.
47* There's the song that Hagrid sings that suggests at least some of them have their wands broken after they die.
48->And Odo the hero, they bore him back home
49->To the place that he'd known as a lad,
50->They laid him to rest with his hat inside out
51->And his wand snapped in two, which was sad.
52
53* Voldemort was under the impression that the Elder Wand would belong to whoever killed its previous owner. And because Snape killed Dumbledore, the wand belonged to Snape. So, Voldemort has HIS SNAKE kill Snape. Wouldn't this mean that the Elder Wand would belong to Nagini instead of Voldemort? Can a snake even own a wand? Surely, Voldemort would have thought this through.
54** Nagini was his Horcrux and was even closer to him that Fawkes was to Dumbledore. And she was an animal. So ordering her to kill Snape counted as Voldemort killing him. He couldn't have used the Elder Wand to kill its owner after all (or so he thought).
55** 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 them in a duel was.
56*** 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 its 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.
57*** In the book, Grindelwald hit Gregorovitch with a spell as he made off with the wand, which counted as a defeat. Voldemort also may've thought that you had to prove you were more powerful than the wand's owner, in order to truly master it yourself. Snape killing Dumbledore was more powerful than Dumbledore disarming (or whatever he did) Grindelwald - therefore, Voldemort had to overpower Snape's defeat in order for the wand's allegiance to transfer. And in the film, Voldemort makes it a point to slit Snape's throat ''before'' setting Nagini on him, presumably to circumvent the original headscratcher.
58* So, let me see if I understand Harry's plan for the Elder Wand. He plans to never be defeated so that by the time he dies a natural death, the wand loses it's power because ownership is never transferred? Harry Potter, who is likely to still have enemies in Death Eaters still loyal to Voldemort's cause, wanting revenge, is planning on not getting into a fight in which he will be defeated FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. And by 'defeat', it can be something as simple as a disarming spell, which can happen easy to even the best of wizards, as Draco disarmed Dumbledore. And the person in question doesn't even have to be wielding the Elder Wand. And, to top it off, he is enacting his plan while pursuing a career in which he hunts down Dark Wizards. If there is ever a Harry Potter 8, I don't think this plan is gonna hold up.
59** Well, even if it doesn't hold up, and he is defeated, it's not very likely that many others will know about the Elder Wand, or where it is. So even if he is defeated, and then the person who defeated him is then defeated by someone else, and it continues on like that, the Elder Wand is very unlikely to be used properly again if it ever is recovered.
60*** You mean aside from everyone else at the battle?
61** 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, 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.
62** I believe this issue is why, in the movie, Harry simply snaps the wand and throws it off a bridge.
63*** He could theoretically have done this "offscreen" in the books too, before reburying the fragments with Dumbledore.
64** Harry was in the Headmaster's office when he announced that he would return the wand to Dumbledore's tomb. Ron, Hermione, and the portraits on the walls were the only other people there to hear him. Even if someone does manage to disarm Harry to try and get the wand, they won't know where to find it.
65* 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, it's a fickle thing and changes around a lot easier.
66** 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.
67* If the wand chooses the wizard, and it's meant to be this special mystical bond (as implied by Ollivander going on about different wand affinities to their owners), how come stealing someone's wand transfers all its loyalty? The wand chooses the wizard until its choice is overpowered and then it just goes with whoever's stronger? The Elder Wand doesn't seem to have any choice in the climax; it just gets passed unknowingly from wizard to wizard until it finally ends up in the same room as its actual master.
68** Stealing someone's wand doesn't guarantee that it will completely accept you as its new master - it depends on the type of wand, and specifically its core. Some wands choose one witch or wizard and won't function nearly as well or at all in the hands of another. Each and every one is unique.
69** The Elder Wand, meanwhile, is a special case, as it seems to work on an ExactWords / LoopholeAbuse type of deal. The oldest brother in the tale asked for a wand that was unbeatable, and would always win duels for its master - because of this, the wand, while still more powerful than most others, is designed to just switch to the allegiance of whoever wins a duel, rather than guarantee that the one wielding it now ''will'' be the winner.
70* Particularly that we repeatedly see wizards are rendered helpless when they are disarmed, which in later books often leads to their death. For some reason, there seems to be an unwritten rule amongst wizards that you can't carry ''a spare wand''. So, why not?
71* The series of events starting from the break-in at Gringotts to Voldemort's demise take place in a little under 24 hours. When the trio leaves Bill and Fleur's house, Hermione has transformed into Bellatrix and uses her wand, which Ron stole from her in Malfoy Manor a few weeks earlier. Hermione had also lost her original wand there. What bugs me is how Hermione specifically says she ''hates'' this wand, feeling like a piece of Bellatrix, but later on, Hermione can use this wand with no problem whatsoever. It's also never mentioned again, and Hermione's wand is being referred to as her own. Besides, since it takes place over a single day, how is there a possibility of having changed wands in that time?\
72I do have a theory that either A: Hermione is just that skilled, or B: Since Ron took the wand, it became his wand, and since Hermione loves him, that makes it easier. Or maybe both. But if it became Ron's wand, then why does Hermione still sense it to be Bellatrix' wand later on?
73
74----

Top