Wand Lore / Luna / Alchemy

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 181715

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> a_svirn:
> > Actually, they are neither theories, nor guesswork. They are an 
> attempt to unravel Dumbledore's possible intentions.
> 
> Carol responds:
> Which is exactly what the rest of us are also trying to do.
> 

a_svirn:
True.



> 
> a_svirn:
> > 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. 
> 
> Carol:
> Of course. No one, as far as I can see, is disputing that point. The
> question is whether the risks that Dumbledore took, both as Wizard 
and
> as portrait, were taken for "no purpose at all." And that's where 
you
> need to defend, or at least clarify, your position. Which risks did 
he
> take "for no purpose at all"? None that I can see.

a_svirn:
Then what was the purpose of leaving the Elder Wand to Snape? None 
that I can see.  I do, however see the risks such eventuality would 
entail. 
> 

> Carol:
> We don't know whether willing a person a wand makes the new 
possessor
> the master of the wand. It would have no more reason to choose its 
new
> owner than a stolen wand would. 

a_svirn:
But Death made that first brother a present of it. Of course, Death 
isn't just any person, but still the principle must be the same. 

> Carol: 
> If giving the wand made a person master of the wand, why did he want
> to give it to Snape? By your logic, that would make Snape master of
> the wand.

a_svirn:
He didn't intend to *give* it to Snape. He intended Snape to *have* 
it after he killed Dumbledore at his command. Since it would mean 
that Dumbledore gone undefeated, the wand would not recognise Snape 
as a master. Or so Dumbledore thought. For myself, I don't see how 
one can rely on wands to be this logical. What if it took fancy to 
Snape? But Dumbledore obviously thought it wasn't likely.  


> 
>  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. <snip>
> 
> Carol:
> Do you have an alternative? Not counting giving Harry the wand, 
which,
> as I've said, is not a feasible alternative because the whole point 
of
> dying as he intended (aside from the need to keep Snape alive and
> Draco from becoming a murderer) was to rob the wand of its powers?

a_svirn:
Not if he himself bestow it on Harry. Why not give Harry a powerful 
weapon. He certainly could use it. And in any case, I fail to see why 
he couldn't give Harry the wand even if it were robbed of its powers. 
It would not put Harry in anymore danger than he already was, but if 
would save Snape. Whom Dumbledore needed alive at least until he 
served his purpose. 

> Carol:
> As for Harry going after Snape, why would he do that? To get the 
wand?
> For revenge? 

a_svirn:
Because he would want the wand. Because he thought – up until the 
death of Dobby – that it would be better to go after the Hallows 
fist. Because Dumbledore made sure that Harry would think it. Revenge 
would be the icing on the cake. 

> Carol:
He *didn't* go after him, despite wanting to, throughout
> most of DH. 

a_svirn:
But then the Plan went awry, and Snape didn't have the wand. So, 
naturally, Harry didn't go after him. He had something more important 
to do after all.

> Carol: 
> Really, Snape having to deal with Harry before communicating his
> message is a minor matter, easily solved by Snape hiimself. 

a_svirn:
If you say so.

> Carol: 
(Snape
> must already have been thinking about it; he's looking all around 
for
> Invisible Harry when he talks to McG, and he tries at least three
> times to convince Voldemort to let him find the boy. 

a_svirn:
And every time he is unsuccessful. 


> Carol: 
I can't imagine
> his not having a plan for convincing Harry that he was on the same
> side and that Harry needed to listen. 

a_svirn:
I suppose he did. (Not that it worked, however.) But in any case we 
are discussing Dumbledore's plan, not Snape's. 


> a_svirn:
> > Didn't have to be a duel. He didn't duel with Amycus, Luna didn't 
> > duel with Alecto. 
> 
> Carol:
> And they didn't kill them, either. *Nor* did Harry try to kill Snape
> from beneath the Invisibility Cloak when he had the chance. 

a_svirn:
Well, he vented his rage on Amicus already. And Snape *didn't* have 
the wand, so Harry wouldn't have an excuse for attacking him. Through 
I must say it doesn't make much sense that he cowered under cloak 
while McGonagall was duelling with Snape. 

> > > 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.
> 
> Carol:
> As I said, all Snape has to do is cast a Petrificus Totalus and 
Harry
> has no choice but to listen. 

a_svirn:
But Harry would have had a better opportunity to cast it on Snape, 
than Snape on Harry. After all Harry is the one with the cloak. 

>  
> > a_svirn:
> > No, but he knew Voldemort. And Voldemort is fairly predictable in
> this respect. 
> 
> Carol:
> Voldemort doesn't even know about the Elder Wand until after "The
> Seven Potters," when he interrogates Ollivander after a glitch in 
both
> his and Dumbledore's plans. He's had Ollivander with him since the
> beginning of HBP, yet he still hasn't gone after the wand. How could
> Dumbledore *know* that he would do so?

a_svirn:
As I said before it never smart to rely on the best case scenario. As 
far as Dumbledore knew, Voldemort might have been searching for the 
wand ever since the beginning of HBP. 

> Carol:
> As for Snape's danger, he willingly put himself in danger of death
> every time he lied to Voldemort and by taking the Unbreakable Vow.

a_svirn:
That's neither here, nor there. He may be willing and even eager to 
die, but it still doesn't make sense for Dumbledore to put him in 
jeopardy for no reason at all.  



> Carol, who wants to know what Dumbledore intended to do near the end
> of HBP when he tried to get Harry to summon Snape *and* why DD 
wanted
> Snape to have the wand

Curiously enough so would I.  
a_svirn.