Elder Wand mastery (was Re: need help for all of my confuse!)

[urghiggi]

No: HPFGUIDX 175717

> bboyminn:
> 
 
> Does that matter, is 'conquered' conquered, or does it
> have to be magically 'conquered'? Or, does it have to
> be conquered at all? Maybe it just needs to be captured.
> Grindlewald captured the wand from Gregorovitch. But, 
> we could say Grindlewald conquered Gregorovitch by 
> stealth and quick wits (plus a trace of magic). He 
> conquered him by out smarting him. 
> 

julie H:

Well, it's convenient for Ollivander to say it's complex & mysterious because it allows a lot 
of logical murkiness in this part of the plot, IMO :-)

I don't think just 'capturing' it would be enough to transfer the Elder Wand's allegiance. 
Because, if it was, how on earth could Dumbledore have beaten Grindelwald in the duel, 
when Grindelwald had this so-called unbeatable wand? The only possible solution is that, 
at the very least, theft does not constitute a wand ownership transfer, at least not with this 
particular wand. If Grindelwald 'conquered' Gregorovitch, it wasn't a good enough 
conquering to make the Grindelwald the true master.

Ergo LV's possession, which also stems from theft, would be illegitimate even if 
Dumbledore had still been the rightful master of the Elder Wand at his death. (But... the 
Dumbledore portrait also agrees with Harry when he says in the penultimate chapter of DH 
that if the master of the wand is never "defeated," its power would die with the owner... so 
if Dumbledore had died another kind of death, the wand's power would be gone. Clearly 
the wand had registered the Tower events as a true defeat, even though Dumbledore was 
arguably letting them unfold voluntarily.)

The only way I can logically make this work is this sequence:

1) Gregorovich had the wand and presumably was a legit 'master'. 
2) Grindelwald stole it and thought he was 'master' but was not, due to the fact that he 
had stolen the wand (apparently not constituting "defeat" of a definitive enough type).
3) Dumbledore bested Grindelwald in a duel and won the mastery of the wand. The wand 
by definition is 'unbeatable' in the hands of the true master. Ergo, 'theft' cannot constitute 
legit mastery, or Grindelwald would have been the 'master' and Dumbledore would not 
have been able to defeat him. 
4) Draco disarmed Dumbledore because Dumbledore did not fight (if he'd chosen or been 
able to fight, he'd have had to win, yes?) Draco did not have possession but was still by 
rights 'master' of the wand.
5) Harry bested Draco by physical overpowerment and took possession of Draco's 'regular' 
wand. Somehow this defeat also 'registered' with the Elder wand in DD's tomb. (here's 
where it all gets pretty goofy, imo.)
6) LV stole the wand from Dumbledore's tomb and thought it made him the master. But 
noooooo, because a) he'd gotten the wand by theft and also b) Harry was at this point the 
master of the wand.
7)LV thinks the Elder Wand isn't as juiced-up as it ought to be, according to its reputation, 
though why he thinks this is somewhat unclear ("The Elder Wand," page 656-57). He 
concludes that Snape is the true master, the "wizard who killed its last owner." He kills 
snape with the snake to supposedly ensure his mastery of the wand.
7) LV and Harry duel, casting curses simultaneously. "Harry saw Voldemort's green jet 
meet his own spell, saw the Elder Wand fly high, dark against the sunrise, spinning across 
the enchanted ceiling like the head of Nagini, spinning through the air toward THE 
MASTER IT WOULD NOT KILL, who had come to take full possession of it at last." (DH 
scholastic p 743-44, ALLCAPS mine)

So -- the logic of this wand appears to be:

1) Stealing the wand does not make you 'master'
2) Somehow you must defeat the current 'master' in some kind of fight. This fight does 
NOT have to involve actual fighting with the Elder Wand. (Indeed, it seems to me that the 
only way to take legit possession is to win some kind of battle where the current master is 
NOT using the Elder wand, because... it's an unbeatable wand in the hands of the master, 
yes?)
3) The Wand has some sort of built in 'sensor' registering such defeats -- cumulatively, in 
fact. (Because for Harry to be "the master it would not kill," the wand has to have 
registered Draco's ownership, though Draco never touched it, and then Draco's disarming 
by Harry.)

All very murky, but you CAN make it make sense if you puzzle over it for a while. 
Nevertheless, there are still holes in the logic. To wit -- if Gregorevich was the master and 
if the Grindelwald ripoff did not make HIM the master, who WAS the master after 
Grindelwald stole the wand? Still Gregorevich? How did the defeat of Grindelwald make 
Dumbledore the master if Grindelwald truly was NOT the master to begin with? But if 
Grindelwald was NOT the master, then how did he amass such power in a way that was 
attributed at least in part to his possession of this wand? But if he WAS the master, then 
how the heck could Dumbledore beat him in a duel? But if he WASN'T the master, then 
wasn't Gregorevich still the master -- and presumably not actually defeated until LV killed 
him, which would have made LV the master????

You see where I'm going? You can make it make sense, but only if you don't look at it too 
darned hard. Which is why it's so convenient for Ollivander to just throw up his hands and 
say "wandlore is a complex and mysterious branch of magic." DH p 494

yeah, you can say that again, wand dude.

Julie H, chicago