Hallows... and Wand Lore (was: Re: Dumbledore - Good as Written?)

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 179380

--- "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
>
> > 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 ...
> 
> 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. ...

bboyminn:

As far as the story itself (DH), I think you have to take the
books as they come. The book is, as they say, a done deal, and
complaining won't change it. You were disappointed with the
flow of the story and the ending, yet many many were not. I
still say that to some limited extent, those that so
vehemently dislike the story, are those who are locked into
expectations that they can't let go of.

Still, all that said, there is still plenty of room for 
literary criticism and discussion.  

As to the Hallows, I think they exist in the story for a
very specific purpose, and that purpose, as I have said 
before, is to give Harry a choice. As I see the choices,
they are between 'Power' and 'Sacrifice'. Between choosing
immense power, and staying on the straight and narrow. This is,
in a very metaphorical sense, symbolic of the Last Temptation
of Christ.

Harry much choose between the immense power implied in
bringing together the Hallows and allowing his opponent
to have that power while he, Harry, pursues the Horcruxes. 

I think Harry needed this temptation and this test of 
character. It is clear Dumbledore wanted Harry to know
about the Hallows, but he also didn't want that knowledge
to come to soon. He didn't want Harry to act impulsively.
When Harry finally understands, for the first time in 
his life, he could see a clear course of action, and he
chose not to act. For me, that was a major turning point
in the story and in Harry's character. 



> a_svirn continues"
> 
> 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.
>

bboyminn:

I think you are missing a very important but subtle point. 
Wand Lore and wand allegiance are about wands defeating 
wands, not wizards defeating wizards. Again, the difference
is extremely subtle.

The most glaring example is the Brother Wands. People keep 
assuming that this means Harry and Voldemort can't Duel or
curse each other, but we see that is simply not true. It
is not when the wizards duel that the problem occurs, it 
is when the wands connect. When the wands rather than the
wizards duel each other. That can only happen under very
rare and specific circumstances. Both wizards must cast
their curses simultaneously, and those curses must 
collied head-on. Only then do the wands connect and the
Brother Wand effect comes into play.

In the Shrieking Shack and in the Room of Requirements,
people are not intent upon depriving the other wizard of
their wand permanently. In the Room of Requirements, the
people are disarming each other by mutual consent. That
means that is not a true defeat. In the Shrieking Shack,
no one is trying to defeat or conquer anyone. They fully
intend to give those various wands back to their various
owners. The intent is only to temporarily disarm them.

If the wand is as intelligent as it seems, then it also
seems to be able to understand the modified intent. If 
Harry had given Draco his wand back, would havening taken
it still constitute 'defeat' in the eyes of the wand? I
don't think so. It might have still been a wizard to
wizard defeat, but I don't think it would have been
a wand to wand defeat. 

Again, the distinction is very subtle. Even Ollivander 
whose family has been making wands since roughly 750 BC
doesn't full understand this transfer of power and 
allegiance. If he doesn't understand, then it has to
be a very subtle distinction rather than a hard and 
fast rule.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn