Deathly Hallows: Central Theme or Distraction?

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 173702

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" <Aisbelmon at ...> wrote:
>
> > 
bboymin:
> > Also note that when Harry 'defeated' Draco by taking
> > Draco's wand, it was the Hawthorn wand he took. Harry
> > also never touched the Elder Wand. Is simply capturing
> > /any/ wand from a wizard enough to cause the shift in
> > allegiance of the Elder Wand, which neither of the
> > involved wizards has ever touched? Maybe...maybe not.

Valky:
> Not only had this wizard
> taken control of the last wand to defeat the Elder, but he had also
> overcome the Elder wand's power by surviving it's lethal spell in a
> direct hit. 

I just had a brainstorm as I posted this. The
media-that-must-not-be-named version of Goblet of Fire fails to
explain what happened between the brother wands in the graveyard
battle. I personally thought that this was a really big mistake in the
screenplay, until now, where I think it might actually still focus on
the  most important factor in the wandlore after all. 
Voldemort's Yew wand and the Elder wand had something in common in
their battle scenes with Harry, both were confronted by a wizard that
survived a direct AK from them. if we are to say that the Elder wand's
memory of Harry Potter was a major factor in the final battle, then it
would be the same case with the Yew wand in the graveyard. Of course
the Yew wand was properly allied with LV at the time so it did not
abandon him like the Elder one did. But OTOH it did not do it's
masters bidding and kill Harry, either. The priori incantatem effect
seems, still, to be unique in this instance, but apart from that,
could there have been a recognition by the Yew wand that the wizard it
had killed, direct hit, had inexplicably returned to battle it? 

Valky just making the HP finale overly complex with random thoughts now..