CHAPDISC: DH24, The Wandmaker

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 183701

> Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 24:  The Wandmaker 
<snip thorough and accurate summary>
 
> QUESTIONS
> 
> 1. "It was like sinking into an old nightmare; for an instant he 
knelt again beside Dumbledore's body..." [p. 386].  Is there any 
character in this series who has as much experience with old 
nightmares?  If you think there is another (or other) candidate(s),
present the case, or the case that it *is* Harry.

Carol:

Again, I'm responding without having read anyone else's responses,
partly for the sake of time and partly because I don't want to be
influenced by anyone else's ideas.

We don't generally get into anyone else's mind, so it's hard to answer
this question. However, I'd wager that Neville also has "old
nightmares" dating to the time of his parents' being Crucio'd into
insanity. I suspect that both Dumbledore and Snape suppressed their
nightmares (DD's relating to Grindelwald and Ariana and Snape's to the
Prophecy and Lily's death) usng Occlumency. Harry not only doesn't
know Occlumency but he also has a variety of bad experiences to dream
about, with the flash of green light and the cold laugh displaced by
Cedric's death in the graveyard and his own experience with being
tortured. Whether he also dreams about the MoM and, later, the cave
and/or Dumbledore's death, I don't recall. Sorry I can't come up with
a better answer. :-)

> 2. Many readers feel that the death & burial of Dobby is a turning 
point in Harry's journey.  What significance do you think there is, 
if any, in the fact that Harry prepared Dobby's grave without the use
of magic?  Why does it lead to "understanding blossom[ing] in the 
darkness" [p. 387]?

Carol:
I think, on the one hand, it finally gives him a chance to
symbolically bury his dead, and in burying Dobby by hand using a
Muggle spade (conjured by Bill, along with the other two spades? I
can't imagine Bill keeping spades on hand), he has time to think and
to grieve, as he did with Dumbledore but not with Hedwig or Sirius
(yes, he had to weeks to mourn Sirius but not to be healed of his
grief and guilt because there was no memorial service and he was
separated from his fellow mourners). I think that the simple physical
act of digging Dobby's grave is in itself a release as a magically dug
grave would not be. (Cf. Hagrid, who dug Aragog's grave by hand.) And,
of course, there's the matter of Horcruxes vs. Hallows, in which Harry
comes to the "right" decision, that is, the one that Dumbledore
ostensibly would have wanted and the one Hermione feels is right. It's
also the one decision that will enable him to sacrifice himself when
the time comes. If he'd had the wand and Snape had found a way to
communicate with him, would he have risked all, or would he have
counted on the wand itself and/or the combined presence of the Three
Hallows to protect him against Voldemort--who, of course, would still
be attached to the earth through the existence of one or more
Horcruxes? Yep. Like it or not, it seems to be the right decision. And
love does have something to do with it. Dobby's heroic death saving
Harry and his friends no doubt prepares Harry for what he doesn't yet
know that he'll have to do--willingly walk to his "death" to save the WW.
> 
> 3.  What do you think of the description that "every drop of 
[Harry's] sweat and every blister felt like a gift to the elf who had
saved their lives" [p. 387]?  What do you imagine Dobby would have
thought of that?

Carol:
He would have understood. His whole life had been spent working for
wizards, the last six years willingly serving Harry at every
opportunity. Even though Dobby used magic to do his work and
consequently had an easier time (except for the Malfoys' cruel
punishments) than many a human slave, he would still have understood
the significance of work as a gift to someone you love and as an
expression of gratitude: Dobby worked for Harry not only because he
was the Boy who Lived and Dobby's hero, but also, and perhaps
primarily, because Harry freed him from the Malfoys. Now Harry, in
turn, works for the dead Dobby, who saved him and his friends from
death, returning to the home of his feared and hated former masters to
do so.
> 
> 4.  Why, after all this time and all the various efforts, has Harry
 *now* managed to "learn control at last... the very thing Dumbledore
had wanted him to learn from Snape" [p. 387]?  Why does the death
trigger this in Harry?

Carol:
Very good question, and I'm tempted to say "because it's convenient
for JKR's plot." However, I suppose it harks back to his ability to
force Voldemort out of his mind through love (grief, compassion) when
Voldemort possessed him in the MoM. Standard Occlumency based on sheer
will power doesn't work for Harry, but feelings that Voldemort has
never experienced and can't understand serve the same purpose with
regard to the scar link. It's yet another form of love magic, I
suppose; another way of showing that love is stronger than any form of
Dark Magic.
> 
> 5.  Is there significance to JKR's choice of "Nurmengard" as a name
for the prison?

Carol responds:

It's German or German-sounding and it resembles the name of the Nazi
prison Nuremberg. I don't speak German, so I don't know whether the
etymology has any further significance. However, as someone pointed
out online, it's a bit ominous that Nurmengard still contains at least
one prisoner (or did until Voldemort murdered him). Is it now used for
the equivalent of Nazi war criminals, that is, Grindelwald and his
allies? Did GG *have* any allies or minions, or did he work alone?
Probably another detail that JKR didn't think about.
> 
> 6.  Is there significance to the fact that Harry used the wand which
was Draco's, rather than the wand which was Bellatrix's, to etch the
words "Here lies Dobby, a Free Elf"?  

Carol:
For one thing, he didn't capture Bellatrix's wand from Bellatrix. Ron
disarmed her but Draco snatched it up again, possibly preventing it
from switching loyalties since he intended to return it to Bellatrix,
and then Harry snatched it from Draco, who was not its master. Given
the complexities of wand ownership and the strong bond that the wand,
Bellatrix's partner in crime, would have formed with her, I think that
wand was probably still loyal to her. I'm surprised that Hermione
could use it at all, which seems to violate all the rules of wand
loyalty and behavior that we know about. (Cf. Harry with the
Snatcher's wand.) However, even if the wand had switched its loyalty
to Harry, I'm sure that he would have considered it inappropriate to
use the wand of Dobby's murderer to carve his epitaph. At least Draco
was an unwilling participant in the whole debacle. (I could talk more
about wand loyalties here, but I think I've stated the main points of
my position.) At any rate, compassion trumped irony in this instance.
> 
> 7.  As you read this the first time, did you feel confident that
Harry could know and not seek?  Could YOU have known & not sought?

Carol:
Another good question. I think that he didn't quite trust himself,
which is why he chose to talk to Griphook first. If he'd talked to
Ollivander first, he might have rushed to Hogwarts, anticipating
Voldemort's action and either confronting him prematurely, before all
the Horcruxes were destroyed, or violating DD's grave himself and
snatching the Elder Wand. It might have been impossible, then, to
return to Shell Cottage and arrange with Griphook to break into the
Lestrange's vault. At any rate, having made the decision to talk to
Griphook first shows that he had already, in effect, chosen Horcruxes
over Hallows and that he could, indeed, know without seeking. 

As for me, I'm quite sure that I could know without seeking. I'm not
made for perilous quests, as I think Frodo said at some point, and I
certainly would rather use words than weapons!
> 
> 8.  When Harry is talking in his mind as if to DD and asks if he is
meant to know but not to seek, he also asks, "Did you know how hard 
I'd find that?  Is that why you made it this difficult?  So I'd have
time to work that out?" [p. 391]  What do you think is the answer to
that?  How about what you thought on your first read?  Did you feel a
new understanding along with Harry, or had you see his mission 
differently than he had before this dawning?

Carol:
It's really difficult to remember my first reaction, when I was
reading for the emotional experience and for information (who lived
and died, the truth about Snape, how it would all end, etc.). 

As for what I think now, it's obvious that DD set up the Resurrection
Stone to be released only at the bitter moment of self-sacrifice
(whether its mere presence in the unopened Snitch would have protected
Harry if he had all three Hallows in his possession, I don't know).
And perhaps he did count on Hermione's hesitation in investigating the
Hallows to slow Harry's pursuit of them, which certainly does take on
the coloring of an obsession when the other two are trying to continue
the pursuit of the Horcruxes, clueless though they are as to the
whereabouts of the things. It's certainly quite possible that DD,
knowing Harry's penchant for action over contemplation, did try to
slow him down. However, there were other obstacles. He couldn't openly
give Harry either the Sword of Gryffindor, which had to be earned
through valor, etc., or the Resurrection Stone, which had to be hidden
in such a way that only he could access it and only at the proper
time. Even Hermione's gift (and Ron's, though it doesn't relate
directly to Horcruxes vs. Hallows) had to be given without
explanation, as a mystery to be solved, to avoid interference by
Scrimgeour, or worse, confiscation by his DE successor. At any rate, I
think now that DD had every reason for caution, including the reasons
Harry cites.
> 
> 9.  Harry Potter has been derided by many for not being much of a
thinker.  He becomes a thinker in this chapter, and quite decisive. 
What do you make of this?  Is it a change?  Did it surprise you?  Has
it always been there?

Carol:
I think that Harry has been starting to think things out since the
disastrous MoM expedition. Despite his lamentable tendency to blame
Snape for Sirius Black's death, he has at least been less rash most of
the time. He and his friends carefully plan the invasion of the MoM,
for example (although they don't anticipate what will happen when they
get inside, and rashness strikes again when Harry takes Mad-eye's
magic eyeball). The Godric's Hollow experience may well have made him
more cautious, as well. Regardless of what Lupin says, Harry's
instincts aren't always on target, and thinking things out has always
been Hermione's forte, not his. However, the decisiveness once he's
made up his mind doesn't surprise me. Harry has always been decisive
(unless you count hesitating to teach DADA lessons). That's why he,
not Ron or Hermione, is the leader of their little group. (That and
being the one who will ultimately have to face Voldemort!) 
> 
> 10.  What did you think was going on when you first read that Harry
was laboring over seeing Griphook or Ollivander first... and chose
Griphook? 

Carol: 
I had only the vague idea that talking to Ollivander related to wands
and therefore must have something to do with the Elder Wand. I don't
remember what I thought about Griphook or whether I realized that it
must have something to do with Gringotts and Bellatrix's vault. I
probably didn't realize that it meant the difference between going
after the Elder Wand and letting Voldemort take it. However, by that
time, after staying up past 1 a.m. just to get the book and hours of
straight reading with almost no break and very little food, I was not
in peak mental condition!
> 
> 11.  What, in your opinion, was carried in Griphook's comment, "You
are an unusual wizard, Harry Potter"?  Do you think Harry is an
unusual wizard?  If so, in what way(s)?

Carol:
Certainly, his experiences are unique, as is his link to Voldemort,
and he's unusual in being a Parselmouth, not to mention having blood
protection in various forms. His greatest skill, flying/Quidditch,
doesn't even come into play in this book. But aside from these talents
and what experience has made him, I don't think he's all that unusual.
He's a better young man than his father, equally courageous and more
compassionate, but his magical powers (the Patronus perhaps excepted)
are not exceptional. He's certainly no match for Snape, much less
Voldemort, in the dueling department, for example. In fact, it's his
very ordinariness in many respects (an incompletely educated, very
young wizard against the greatest Dark Wizard of the century, if we
believe the hype that makes Voldemort greater than Grindelwald) that
makes his achievement special. 

But, of course, that not what Griphook meant. He was talking about
Harry's burial of a House-Elf without magic (which may well be a
first) and his saving the life of a Goblin (which probably isn't
unique but is no doubt unusual). But I think that Griphook, having no
compassion and no scruples himself, expects others, especially
Wizards, to be like himself. IOW, he underestimates Wizards in
general. Hermione's views of House-Elves (and Goblins) in general are
more liberal than Harry's (Harry is treating the House-Elves and
Goblins he encounters as individuals without thinking of them as
underprivileged groups). Dirk Cresswell and Bill Weasley are more
knowledgeable about Goblins than Harry, actually speaking with them in
their own language and even personally liking some Goblins. Would
either of those men have rescued a Goblin if they could have done so?
Yes, I think they would have. And so, if she hadn't been injured and
didn't panic so easily, would Hermione.

Unusual Wizard? Yes and no, IMO. 
> 
> 12.  Is Griphook correct that this is "precisely about" wizards vs.
goblins?  Why did he drop the subject so abruptly?

Carol:
It's not about Goblins and Wizards at all. It's about Harry vs.
Voldemort. IMO, he drops the subject because one of the "wand
carriers," Hermione, persuades him that she's as much a victim of
persecution as he is and that she does care about the plight of
Goblins and House-Elves. Not one to admit that he's wrong, Griphook
simply shifts the subject to Harry's reason for wanting to break into
the Lestranges' vault. (I think he's also curious as to what they're
up to and what they want from him. Greed--hope of thw sword of
Gryffindor as a reward for his services--may also be a factor, as it's
certainly his reason for ultimately agreeing to work with them.)
> 
> 13.  Why did Harry remove the Sword of Gryffindor when he left
Griphook's room, and why did he not say anything as he did so?

Carol:
Because if he left the Sword in Griphook's position, he'd have no
bargaining chip. He can't appeal to Griphook's compassion or good
nature. And not saying anything is simply common sense. He didn't want
to call anyone's attention to it, which might raise a discussion and
ruin everything.
> 
> 14.  When Harry said he understood bits of Voldemort and then went
on to say he wished he'd understood DD as much, were you surprised? 
Why do you think he made this remark instead of sticking with
Voldemort as the topic of his understanding?

Carol:
I've never thought about the subject switching, to tell the truth. I
suppose it's because Dumbledore has been on his mind since the
beginning of the book, and he's as much interested in discovering the
truth about DD (somewhere between Elphias Doge's blind devotion and
Rita Skeeter's snide insinuations) as he is in finding the Horcruxes.
The Horcruxes are a duty imposed on him; the truth about DD is his
personal obsession or quest. And, of course, the Hallows vs. Horcrux
question again places DD at the forefront of his mind. In any case,
there's not much to understand about Voldemort. He wants immortality
and power and will do anything to get and/or preserve them. He has no
mercy or compassion even for his followers. He expects blind devotion
and unquestioning service. He may be powerfully magical and well
versed in the Dark Arts, but he's not at all complex. Dumbledore is
another matter altogether, a riddle whose solution this group will
probably never agree on. At this point, though, "What did Dumbledore
want me to do?" is virtually synonymous with "What is the right thing
to do?" As for what Voldemort wants, it's obvious.
> 
> 15.  How do you react to those remarks of Ollivander's concerning
wand ownership and control?  Since they're really JKR's words – and
rules – are they reasonable? Fair?  Do they tell us enough? "Subtle,"
"complex," "usually," "in general" – is this just the nature of wand
lore, and it *is* nebulous and imprecise?  Or is this simply a way to
leave open more possibilities for the author?

Carol:
In a way, she's covering her tracks since wands don't always follow
the rules that she's set out. But I personally like the
open-endedness, giving wands a bit more awareness and power of choice
than would be implied if a wand *always* bent its will to that of its
captor. I think, for example, that a long-term bond between wand and
Wizard (Bellatrix's wand--which, BTW, ought to have been confiscated
when she was sent to Azkaban) would not be as easily broken as a
short-term bond (Wormtail's new and made for him by Ollivander). The
wand *chooses* the Wizard in the first place and it learns along with
the Wizard, implying that it's not merely sentient (able to perceive
and feel) but capable of something resembling human thought, the
ability to make choices (to bend or not bend its will to that of its
captor). The Elder Wand is apparently unique in *always* choosing the
Wizard who captures it by force, and even it is forced to choose
between the Wizard who disarmed Dumbledore (Draco) and the Wizard who
snatched Draco's own wand, not the Elder Wand itself. I think, and no
doubt some readers vehemently disagree, that the Elder Wand learns of
Draco's disarming only when Harry talks about it and at that point
*chooses* to give him his loyalty. (Apologies for jumping ahead to
later chapters, but it's pertinent here.) So, yeah. I think that
Ollivander, the wand expert, is right. Wandlore is complex. He's
studied it for years if not decades, and even he doesn't know
everything about it. I would guess, BTW, that each individual wand is
different, just as Ollivander indicates in SS/PS. Just because two
wands are the same length, made of the same type of wood and the same
kind of core doesn't make them identical, but they'd be more similar
in temperament and in the kind of Witch or Wizard they would choose
than wands of a different size, wood, and core type. Ollivander may
even have created certain wands to have an affinity with different
skills (e.g., Charms or Transfiguration) as SS/PS implies.

Good for Ollivander for using "in general" and other qualifying terms.
Let's have no absolutes in wandlore. And, besides, JKR would be
violating her own rules if those rules were absolute.
 
> 16.  Ollivander says he has no idea why the wand Voldemort borrowed
failed against Harry's wand.  He says "something unique" happened.
What was that something unique, do you think?

Carol:
IIRC, Dead!Dumbledore gives the best explanation we're going to get in
"King's Cross," something about Harry's wand having absorbed some of
Voldemort's Dark Magic in the Priori Incantatem incident in the
graveyard. Clearly, it also recognizes Voldemort as its own and
Harry's deadly enemy (more evidence that wands are more than
sentient--it acted of its own volition, not Harry's). My guess is that
it used one of Voldemort's own Dark Spells against him. Why it didn't
use an AK, I don't know. Maybe it sensed that Harry couldn't kill LV
or didn't want that particular spell used against him. After all, it
would know Harry pretty well after six years of learning magic with him.
> 
> 17.  It has long been an interest of many just what Ollivander is
all about.  Something about the way he described Voldemort as
"great"... something about how he made the hair stand up on Harry's
neck....  In this chapter, we have Harry suddenly thinking about
having been unsure how much he liked Ollivander back when they first
met, and even now, "the idea of the Dark Lord in possession of this
wand seemed to enthral him as much as it repulsed him" [p. 402].  And
yet Luna seems genuinely fond of him.  What do you make of this man?

Carol:
I think that his scholarly interest in wands is no different from a
history professor's fascination with, say, medieval warfare. He's very
much an expert in his own complex field (imagine being able to make
wands and to have some notion what the specific powers and strength of
each wand would be). He remembers every wand he's ever made, in itself
an extradordinary feat. But he seems to be at a loss outside his field
of expertise. He knows nothing about the Hallows. Quite possibly, he
can't make a potion to save his life. He's more timid than I expected
though granted, he's an old man made increasingly weak by prolonged
imprisonment. He's no braver than the average Wizard when it comes to
torture (quite possibly he was a Ravenclaw). I don't judge him for his
academic interest in wandlore and his fascination with Voldemort as a
study in power--at least he's apparently repulsed as well as
fascinated (rather like a kid looking up poisonous snakes on the
Internet or a reader of vampire novels). Nor do I blame his weakness
any more than I blame Xeno Lovegood's (though I find myself admiring
Grindelwald's courage in contrast to Ollivander's timidity--or
cowardice if you prefer--even though Ollivander is essentially
harmless and GG was a tyrant and mass murderer).

As for why Luna would like Ollivander, and vice versa, it's that
Ravenclaw eccentricity, IMO. They're kindred spirits. She may well
have listened to his wandlore when he had the strength to talk about
it; her unquenchable cheerfulness and optimism undoubtedly made his
imprisonment more bearable than it had been before her arrival. (She
may even have him believing in Crumple-Horned Snorkacks!) I used to
think that they must be related given their misty silver eyes. I would
have liked for Luna to take over his wandmaking business in the
absence of an heir. Oh, well. At least they became friends and he made
her a free wand.
> 
> 18.  How is it that, compared to the end of OOTP, Harry can be so 
certain the visions he's having are real?  We know now that they are,
but how could he be so confident after what happened in OOTP?

Carol:
Because his scar hurts much more than it did when he thought that
Sirius was imprisoned (except during the original "vision"), because
he's not having repeated dreams that seem designed to lure him
somewhere, and because they show him what Voldemort is doing,
following a logical progression in quest of something that turns out
to be the Elder Wand. He sees Voldemort pick up the photo that he,
Harry, dropped, and he even follows him into Gregorovitch's mind.
These are clearly not implanted visions that Voldemort wants him to
see. In fact, Voldemort would no doubt much rather Harry wasn't seeing
them.

The question, for me, is not why Harry believes the visions to be real
but why LV is no longer using Occlumency against Harry. Maybe he
doesn't sense Harry's presence and so feels that it's no longer
necessary? Or maybe he's so intent on his new plans, first the
takeover of the MoM and then the Elder Wand that he forgets about
Harry? Maybe it's a necessary Flint because JKR needs him to have
access to LV's mind?
> 
> 19.  What did you think was coming next, as you read the end of the
chapter and knew that Voldemort had taken possession of the Elder Wand?

Carol:

I wish I could remember. I don't think I *thought* anything. I only
felt a terrible apprehension. Events seemed to have reached a climax.
And what do we get in the next chapter? An interlude at Shell Cottage!

SSS: 
> Please feel free to add your own questions to the discussion!

Carol:

How could Bellatrix still have the wand that Ollivander had made for
her decades before? Surely it would have been confiscated when she was
sent to Azkaban? (I'm also wondering how Hermione could use that wand
so effectively, but that part of the question technically belongs to
the "Gringotts" chapter.

Carol, thanking SSS for a great discussion and sure that her responses
are just as "overwordy" as SSS's very thorough synopsis