Wands and other confusion about Deathly Hallows plotline

[Beatrice23]

No: HPFGUIDX 174317

Irene, these are great questions.  I also had a lot of questions 
along these lines, so I managed to read the text again last week.  I 
will take a stab at answering to the best of my ability.


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "irenek90" <irenek90 at ...> wrote:
>
> While I enjoyed a lot of aspects of the three hallows plotline, in 
> the end, there was a lot of confusion about the wand situation and 
> also, the hallows almost seem like a pointless diversion (though 
I'm 
> hoping someone can convince me otherwise). Here are a few 
> questions/concerns:
> 
> 1. The blood of Harry in Voledemort was what saved Harry in their 
> first confrontation in the forest, so the role of uniting the three 
> hallows or the wand issue never came into play.

Beatrice:  I think that you are right that uniting the three hallows 
doesn't really play a role in Harry's salvation.  The first time I 
read DH I thought as Harry went to his "death" that the ring would 
save him, but of course as soon as he dropped it in forest I realized 
I was wrong.  I think that the Deathly Hallows served a couple of 
purposes.  First, to extend the readers suspense and keep them 
guessing about the outcome.  Second, to highlight Dumbledore's flaws 
and humanize him.  Third, to educate Harry about the power of these 
three object, but to ultimately have him reject their power because 
Harry has never sought power for himself and this rejection 
reinforces his purity.  Fourth, so Harry could prevent them from 
ending up in the wrong hands, eg another Death Eater or LV himself. 
> 
> 2. Also, if, for argument's sake, the drop of blood was never a 
> factor in keeping Harry alive, how could the wand kill Harry in the 
> forest if he was its master? (I thought the wand wouldn't kill it's 
> own master.) I feel this takes away some of the power of the blood 
> protection.

Umm...I think that the wand could kill its master if it is forced 
to.  Although the magic might be less effective when a wand is welded 
by someone who is not its rightful master.  I think that the wand 
could kill Harry simply because he allowed it to.   He didn't attempt 
to duel or resist so the wand had nothing preventing it from doing as 
LV asked.
> 
> 3. If Harry's blood in Voldemort protected him from death, then why 
> does the "master of the wand" issue even matter in the second 
> confrontation in the Great Hall?

This also puzzled me.  I think it(Harry's speech) delays LV from 
acting, and it means that the magic LV performs with the wand will be 
less effective. So his spells aren't as powerful as usual.  Also 
while Harry's blood saved him in the forest, he no longer has LV's 
soul bit to protect him like it did in his escape from Privet Drive.
>