Hallows (was: Re: Dumbledore - Good as Written?)

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 179376

> Mike:
> There is really no response to ones feelings regarding plot. Either 
> you liked it or you didn't, and you obviously didn't. I agree with 
> you insofar as the Hallows go. I didn't like their addition to the 
> plot (you mean that was the whole reason for the power behind the 
> spell DD cast against LV in the MoM atrium? Because he cast it with 
> the Elder Wand, though LV was able to counter it, still.) I suppose 
> JKR had always intended to use the Hallows, but I'd much rather she 
> had gone in a different direction.

a_svirn:
Well, actually I don't remember saying anything about that duel in 
the Atrium. But as for the Hallows, I am sure it was a relatively 
late inspiration on Rowling's part. I mean, honestly, in PS Ron, who 
had never seen an Invisible Cloak before had no difficulty in 
recognizing it and said that they are "rare". Which means, that there 
were a few of them in circulation, and the one Harry got answered the 
description. In GOF and OOTP we learn that others had Invisible 
Cloaks too, and not a word had been said about Moody's and Barty's 
cloak being inferior to the Potter's heirloom. And surely there is 
something more than a little absurd in the idea that Death Himself 
cannot see through the Cloak, but a death eater with magical eye 
prosthesis can? 

And the wand-lore thing is obviously recent too, or she would have 
dropped a hint or two earlier. Take the whole Shrieking Shack 
sequence in POA – first Sirius disarmed the Trio, then Trio disarmed 
Sirius, then Remus disarmed Trio, then Snape disarmed Remus, then the 
Trio disarmed Snape. What does it all mean in terms of the wand-lore? 
And I don't even start on the training sessions in the Room of 
Requirement.