Wand Lore / Luna / Alchemy

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 181710

> > a_svirn:
> > You may believe it but this is all guesswork. And even if you are 
> > right there were still alternatives. The easiest was for 
Dumbledore 
> > to give it to Harry even before he died. After all he was dying 
> > already, Harry needed to overcome the twin connection as much as 
> > Voldemort did, and it wouldn't put Harry in anymore danger than 
he 
> > already was.
> 
> Pippin:
> Aren't your theories guesswork also? <g> 

a_svirn:
Actually, they are neither theories, nor guesswork. They are an 
attempt to unravel Dumbledore's possible intentions. When you are 
planning something you don't deal in certainties, naturally. But then 
you don't indulge in wishful thinking, either (hopefully). You deal 
in contingencies. You must see that certain actions incur certain 
risks. It does not mean, of course, that all those risks would 
materialise, but there no sense in taking them if they can be 
avoided. Still less sense in taking them for no purpose at all. 

> Pippin:
But I don't understand how
> this one works.
> 
> Giving Harry the wand would not make him master of it. 

a_svirn:
Why not? When Ollivander sells an eleven-year-old a wand it 
recognises them as a master, and they don't have to duel with 
Ollivander. I suppose one can make a present of a wand or bequeath 
it. In that case a wand would change allegiances in accordance of its 
previous master's will. Moreover, even if Harry wouldn't be a master 
of the wand, he could be its custodian until Dumbledore died, and 
*then* he could become its master. 

> Pippin:
As has been
> pointed out, had Dumbledore  still been master of the wand and 
> died of either the ring curse or the poison, the new  master of the 
> wand would have been Voldemort. 

a_svirn:
That's not how Dumbledore himself saw it. He saw his death at Snape's 
hands would be "leaving on his own terms", that is to say undefeated. 
Personally, I think his logic was a bit contrived, but that's how he 
saw it, and he laid his plans accordingly. 

> 
> Magpie:
>  I was not talking about freak accidents, I was talking about
> things much more obviously violent. 
> <snip>
> Dumbledore's plans often fail to
> take into account all the crazy things that could happen, even 
though
> he himself witnessed the accidental killing of his sister, and the
> destruction of the Potters.
> 
> Pippin:
<snip> 
>  Dumbledore knew Harry, knew he would be tempted by the Hallows 
> and by the desire for vengeance,  but he also trusted that Harry 
would 
> grow out of those desires, and that is exactly what happened. 
> 
> Was it risky? Of course. Even Dumbledore couldn''t make an omelet 
without
> breaking eggs. There was no safe way to get rid of Voldemort, and 
who
> would want to read about it if there was? 

a_svirn:
The point is it was unnecessary risky. Dumbledore himself made sure 
that Harry would be tempted by the Hallows. What's more he made sure 
that Harry would misunderstand their significance. And if his plan 
had succeeded, Harry would almost certainly have gone after Snape. 
Whom 
Dumbledore needed alive at least until he delivered his message. 
Which is unnecessary risky and complicated. Sure you can't make an 
omelette without breaking eggs, but there was no point in 
deliberately giving Harry rotten eggs for his omelette. 

> > 
> > a_svirn: Here would be Snape, a man 
> > he hated as much as Voldemort, and whom he believed to be steeped 
in 
> > villainy, and he would have the very thing Harry would believe 
he'd 
> > need to vanquish Voldemort. Well, really, what would you expect 
him 
> > to do under such circumstances? 
> 
> Pippin:
> I wouldn't expect him to murder in cold blood, 

a_svirn:
And when ever Harry deal with Snape in cold blood? He had only to 
look at his prominent nose and greasy hair, and his blood started to 
boil. 

> Pippin:
and I wouldn't expect 
> him to be able to beat Snape in a duel. 

a_svirn:
Didn't have to be a duel. He didn't duel with Amycus, Luna didn't 
duel with Alecto. 

> Pippin:
Under those circumstances 
> Snape would have  time to convince Harry that he'd got things 
wrong. 

a_svirn:
Hardly. Under those circumstances Harry wouldn't likely to listen. 
Wouldn't even likely to grant Snape an opportunity to speak.

> Pippin:
If Harry
> was too angry to listen, he would  also be too angry to fight 
effectively.

a_svirn:
Don't see why. He's always angry when he fights. And he is effective 
more often than not. 

> 
> Magpie:
> Obviously there's more reason to symbolically kill the previous 
owner
> of the Elder Wand than to kill all of his followers at once as soon
> as he returned. If I wasn't surprised at all that Voldemort killed
> Snape it doesn't seem like Dumbledore should have been.
> 
> Pippin:
> How could we be surprised? If Snape was going to die, it would be
> either at Voldemort's hands or at Harry's -- nothing else would be
> dramatic enough. But Dumbledore doesn't know his universe is 
> biased towards drama.

a_svirn:
No, but he knew Voldemort. And Voldemort is fairly predictable in 
this respect. 
a_svirn.