Who WAS the True Master of the Elder Wand?

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 183947

> In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183935
> >
> > Leeann wrote:
> > Just possessing it or holding it does not make one its true 
> > master. It will work to some extent, but not to its 
> > full potential.

Mike:
There was a recent discussion about whether or not the Hallows needed 
to be introduced in DH. Centering on whether anything would have been 
left unresolved without them.

The Resurrection Stone. Eh, not really any need to resolve that plot 
line. It was only introduced in HBP and for all intents and purposes 
it's story seemed over. We did have Dumbledore's blackened hand never 
really explained. I mean, Snape said it was due to slow reflexes; and 
while it turns out that wasn't exactly true, who really expected 
Snape to be telling Bella and Cissy the whole truth? Besides, the 
real story left us just as many questions as the true story answered, 
didn't it?.

Harry's IC. JKR used one of her public statements to tell us that we 
should all be wondering why Dumbledore had James's cloak. Well, we 
had already been speculating about that, and came up with any number 
of possibilities. So other than JKR's intent to introduce *this* 
cloak as one of the Hallows, I don't see how this story line needed 
any more resolution. JMHO

The Elder Wand. Ah, this one is a little different, imo. First, we 
had Dumbledore blasting *through* a door and hitting Crouch!Moody 
with a Stupefy in GoF. Stupefy should not have been able to blast 
through a door, that spell should have been blocked by it. Heck, even 
Avada Kedavra doesn't go through doors. But I thought this was an 
indication of how powerful Dumbledore was. And JKR helped me along 
with that impression by having Harry notice "a sense of power 
radiated from Dumbledore". 

Yet something never jibed in that scene, for me. Now I realize it was 
because it wasn't Dumbledore's power that was on display, it was his 
wand "revealing it's wonders", "performing as legend says it must to 
it's rightful owner"; as Voldemort explained. I mean sure, Dumbledore 
is a powerful wizard. But I'll bet this was one of the few times 
Dumbledore used this wand in anger, used it in a way that it's maker 
intended it to be used. Harry sensed that Dumbledore was "giving off 
heat" in that GoF scene, but I think it was the Elder Wand. I imagine 
using this wand in anger is akin to what happened with Harry's wand 
in the Seven Potters, it gets energized. I s'pose y'all figured this 
out long before this, but it's just now dawned on me.

The second scene, and the one that really needed resolving in my 
mind, was Dumbledore's spell in the MoM that made Harry's hair stand 
on end. Was it some extraordinary spell, and if so, what was that 
spell? Turns out, no, it was the wand. Though this may not be a 
satisfying resolution for some, I think it would have been considered 
a dropped plotline had it not been resolved at all.


> In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183936
> Carol responds:
> 
> However, the master of the wand is in no sense unbeatable, since
> he can lose the wand through trickery or death.
>  ....
> And DD in the MoM, fighting Voldemort, does not definitively 
> beat him (though Voldemort resorts to possessing Harry).
> They appear to be equally matched;

Mike:
Adding on two points to Carol's. No doubt in a fair fight between two 
equally matched wizards, the one with the Elder Wand would prevail. 
But if the wizard without the Elder Wand is either more powerful or 
has better tactics/knowledge of magic, the Elder Wand is not going to 
teach it's master better spells or cause him to use superior tactics. 
On the contrary, having the Elder Wand may give that wizard a false 
sense of superiority. This may have been Grindelwald's Achilles Heel.

If the Elder Wand was all powerful, that shield that Voldemort 
conjured in the MoM battle shouldn't have stopped Dumbledore's spell. 
Though that spell felt powerful to Harry, it was not a killing spell, 
Voldemort and Dumbledore agreed on that. In fact, Voldemort must have 
known that Dumbledore would not cast an AK, otherwise he wouldn't 
have tried to block an unblockable spell. And the Elder Wand does not 
decide what spells are cast. It seems it doesn't display it's 
immense power unless it's used by its master in a deadly fashion.


> Carol responds:
> If the wand were unbeatable, it would have reacted as Harry's
> holly wand did against Voldemort, casting a spell of its own
> volition to protect its master.

Mike:
I do have a quibble here, Carol. Though I think the Elder Wand would 
react within its capabilities when used in anger against a known 
enemy, I think Harry's yew wand was treated to extraordinary 
circumstance. There was the Priori experience it had with Voldemort, 
and that was triggered by an AK from Voldemort. Then there was the 
soul bit link that may have been sensed by the wand as knowledge that 
a known enemy was about to kill its master. 

But most of all, not only was this a one off occurrence as far as 
Ollivander believed, even Dumbledore only had a guess as to how or 
why this happened. Point being, I don't think it would be fair to 
expect the Elder Wand to react like Harry's yew wand did. I don't 
think any wand, in different circumstances would. And that isn't 
where the Elder Wand's strength lies.


-- In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/183938
> Carol responds:
> It's quite possible that the Elder Wand, though undoubtedly
> powerful and capable of attracting those who crave power, is
> distorted into something greater than it really is.

> Montavilla47:
> 
> ... the Elder Wand (more myth than reality) ... 
> 
> But they have these reputations as unbeatable.  Well, neither of 
> them was--and we never even saw anybody put up a decent fight
> with Voldemort and lose.

Mike:
I think you've both hit the nail on the head. As Steve has countless 
times pointed out, there was the legend and then there was the 
reality. 

You've brought up another point, Montavilla, that I think was a lost 
oppurtunity. In seven books we didn't see anybody other than 
Dumbledore and Harry himself raise a wand against Voldemort. (I don't 
count those that fought him *after* Harry made his sacrifice that 
invoked the *power of love* protection against LV. There's no way to 
judge Voldemort's power or extraordinary magical abilities by that 
time.) 

We have to accept Voldemort's prowess on spec. If the story was told 
in one or two books, I suppose that would have to suffice. But with 
seven books, don't you think we could have seen one inferior wizard 
fight and lose to LV? Sure, fighting Dumbledore *and* the Elder Wand 
to a virtual stand still was pretty good. But I, like many others, 
think LV lost that fight even if he wasn't captured or incapacitated. 
Plus, it doesn't seem that Dumbledore even brought out a full arsenal 
to get this victory.


> Montavilla47:
> 
> I wonder if that was deliberate--if that was the real reason 
> we see James wandless--to deflate Voldemort as a scary 
> villain.  Wouldn't he be more scary if James had actually
> tried to fight him off?

Mike:
Oh, don't get me started! 

Question: Why would you think JKR would want to portray Voldemort as 
less scary? Wouldn't it help the story if he was scarier?


> Carol, who will be happy to revise these random thoughts based on 
> the arguments and evidence of other posters

Mike, who hopes he bolstered Carol's position rather than suggesting 
a revision, by adding to her points