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

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 179384

> > 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.

a_svirn:
You mean all that fuss about Dumbledore defeating Grindenwald is just 
that – fuss? It was actually Dumbledore's wand that defeated 
Grindenwald's? I wonder what did they give him the order of Merlin 
for? 

> bboyminn: 
> 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. 

a_svirn:
Where is the difference? I thought they can only connect when wizards 
duel. 

> bboyminn: 
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. 

a_svirn:
Wait a moment. *Wizards* must cast their curses, or *wands* must do 
something? Because if it's all down to wizards, then
 it's all down 
to wizards. 


> bboyminn:
> In the Shrieking Shack and in the Room of Requirements,
> people are not intent upon depriving the other wizard of
> their wand permanently.

a_svirn:
I beg to differ. In the Shrieking Shack Snape was bent to deprive 
Sirius of his soul permanently, let along a wand. And he hoped to 
have Lupin incarcerated in Azkaban permanently. Wandless. 


> bboyminn:
> 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. 

a_svirn:
Huh. Does it have eyes as well as intelligence? Seeing as we don't 
know where it keeps either, would you say that that wand-lore thing 
belongs properly to the Dark Arts?