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

[urghiggi]

No: HPFGUIDX 175839

> 
> Debbie:
>  I think the rules can be made to work with the facts we're given:
> 
> 3. Dumbledore became master by defeating Grindelwald in a duel.  If, as the
> tale says, the elder wand must always win duels for its owner, then
> Grindelwald must not have been using the elder wand when he was defeated.
> Perhaps the key to Grindelwald's defeat was that Dumbledore switched the
> elder wand for another before the duel.  
> 

Julie H:
Ah, well, sure. If we want to give Grindelwald a different wand, then the problem dissolves. 
But it's a pretty key point to be totally ignored in the text. Because the facts we're given 
are: a) Grindelwald "acquired" the Elder wand from Gregorevich; b) Grindelwald and 
Dumbledore had a very famous duel in which Dumbledore beat Grindelwald; and c) 
Dumbledore became master of the wand by virtue of that duel. If the wand's unbeatable in 
a duel, then there only seem to be a few choices --  Grindelwald wasn't really 'master' due 
to the manner of taking (despite the fact of his great power partially being attributed to 
his possession of the wand), or Dumbledore did something we can't possibly imagine to 
defeat him, outside the normal context of a duel, or, as you said, Grindelwald was not 
using that wand (though we're given no reason to think that he wouldn't be). (A fourth 
choice of course being Steve's hypothesis that the wand is, in actuality, NOT unbeatable.)

My point I guess is, in part, that the whole thing is just irksome, and interferes with my 
enjoyment as a reader who would prefer to see the puzzle more elegantly constructed. Not 
irked so much at JKR -- with such a complex and inventive plot there are bound to be 
'issues' -- but with the editors who are supposed to be keeping her honest. It is hard for 
me to believe that any editor worth his/her salt would not have raised this point with her, 
at least on a second reading. All they would've had to say was, "umm, Jo, about that Elder 
wand, very cool plot device, but how did Grindelwald lose to Dumbledore in a duel if 
Grindelwald had an unbeatable wand?" And a good author (who presumably already had an 
answer for that question in her head) would've listened to that editor and thought, "hey, 
good question, I'd better put a bit in to clarify that." Just a comment from Ollivander, for 
instance, implying that Dumbledore cheated somehow, or that he was such a genius 
dueler that he thought of some never-before-imagined strategy, or even that 
grindelwald's mastery was illegitimate (though that raises its own problems). Lord knows 
the book is long enough, a couple more sentences woudn't have screwed it up. 

This is what a productive editor/author relationship is all about. At least since OoP I've 
thought that JKR's editors have not served her that well, in terms of asking her to make 
some tougher choices and clean up inconsistencies. She herself says that OoP is too long 
(and I agree with that). I don't like to think Jo's hard to work with -- there is no way of 
knowing, of course -- but it's certainly possible that the editors were blinded by book 6 
and beyond by all the stardust. It's hard to argue with a woman who's become a 
kajillionaire with her books (and made a kajillion for her publishers who employ the 
editors). But a good author knows she needs good editors to backstop her, especially in a 
pressure situation like this, where the stakes are high, the plot is extremely intricate, and 
the readers are obsessive. I think her editors let her down.

> Julie H:
> 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).
> 

> Debbie:
> I think this is explained.  He's expecting super performance from the wand,
> but he's only getting the same performance he always got.  ("I have
> performed my usual magic.  I am extraordinary, but this wand . . . no.  It
> has not revealed the wonders it has promised.  I feel no difference between
> this wand and the one I procured from Ollivander all those years ago.")
> 

Julie H:
Oh, certainly, certainly. I read that, but I don't think it's all that clear. What I was looking 
for I guess were some examples as to what kind of performance evidence would've made 
LV feel that way, and worry enough to kill Snape to supposedly ensure his mastery. 
Because we're given no real info about what kind of  "wonders" the wand can do beyond an 
ordinarily good wand, other than being unbeatable in a duel. Thus it seems unfair of LV to 
be expecting any kind of super performance beyond... being unbeatable in a duel. (Which 
is why he wanted it -- to be sure of beating HP.) 

All LV says is he "feels no difference" -- which implies that he expected the wand to 
provide some sort of different sensory feedback than his own very powerful wand. Since 
the only real evidence of his mastery would seem to be ... that he would be unbeatable in a 
duel, and we know no one has beaten him at that point, with that wand or any other. But, 
you know, we don't have enough info to really surmise what sort of difference would be 
expected, beyond the obvious, so ... we're back to "complex and mysterious" again. I think 
his comment about the wand "not revealing the wonders it has promised" actually muddies 
the water in that it implies that he expected to SEE something different than with an 
ordinary wand (again, a performance proof). If she'd left that out, the "feels no difference" 
would probably have been a stronger statement, since there is a good bit in DH about how 
the wand feels to a wizard, a feeling of affinity.

Julie H, Chicago