Wand Lore / Luna / Alchemy

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 181848

zanooda said:
> >  
> > > I was wondering: if DD had died from the cave poison, were 
> > > we supposed to think that it was LV who killed him?
> >
> >  --- and later zanooda said ---
> >
> > Yeah, maybe it would :-). OTOH, DD didn't expect to die from the
> > potion, at least that's what he told Harry.
> 
> Mike:
> See now, you've called the cave's green goo both potion and poison. 
> What I want to know is what makes us think this stuff was "poison"? 
> Dumbledore didn't expect to die from it. Kreacher *didn't* die from 
> it. 
> 
> Everything we know says the potion caused a nasty reaction of 
> recalling past indiscretions and an intense thirst. It was this 
> thirst thing, dipping into the lake and activating the inferi, that 
> was supposed to cause death. The boat was supposed to allow only one 
> wizarding passenger so nobody would be available to help the person 
> that drank the potion. 
> 
> Why would it be made poisonous? Could it have included a poison if it 
> had all those other qualities? I'm thinking not. I'm thinking 
> Voldemort and his ego would have enjoyed the idea of first torturing 
> then have the inferi finish the trespasser off, and no need for a 
> backup for his brilliant trap. HE would think it undefeatable. <snip>

Carol responds:
I agree with zanooda that the potion is also a poison (both poisons
and antidotes are apparently taught in Potions class). Yes, it causes
the victim to relive his worst memories and want to die, but we also
see it weakening Dumbledore, who at one point looks like he's going to
die, and it causes such torment (beyond thirst--I think it must feel
as if the person's insides are on fire) that he screams in agony and
says something like, "I want to die! KILL ME!" If it were only thirst,
he would be able to wait to get back to the shore, past the Inferi. I
think that he would have died in agony had Harry not splashed the few
drops of water on his face (at least one drop of which must have
gotten into his mouth). Neither Kreacher nor Regulus could endure the
thirst, burning pain, or whatever agony the potion/poison caused. both
were forced to drink the water. (Kreacher, fortunately, escaped the
consequences of doing so.) Dumbledore is still so weak that he needs
Harry to side-along-apparate him to Hogsmeade and twice asks him to
summon Snape. He tells Harry in his usual understated manner, "That
potion was no health drink." It's only the stimulus of the Dark Mark
that gives him the energy to fly to the tower. After that, he quickly
loses stamina again; the strain of talking to Draco and then the DEs
causes him to slip farther down the wall he's leaning against for
support. Amycus comments that DD looks like he's dying.

All in all, I'd say that, yes, that potion was a poison, and DD might
well have died from it had he not forced himself to stay alive long
enough to be killed by Snape (which was still important to his plans
even without the Elder Wand--he still didn't want Draco to kill him
and he still needed Snape alive and trusted by LV).

> Mike:
> I don't give wands credit for quite the degree of sentience that 
Ollivander seemed to credit them. I think Ollie was a bit of a 
romantic (and, let's face it, a wand geek) prone to exaggerate wand 
capabilities.
> 
> My Take: 
> Wands absorb the magic imprint of the wizard the uses them. They
also recognize other wands that they encounter, especially other wands
that act magically upon them. <snip>

Carol:
I'd say that Ollivander is also right about some wands being more
powerful than others and about wands being particularly suited for,
say, Charms or Transfiguration. It also seems clear from SS/PS that
the wand does choose the wizard, and, at least some of the time (and
JKR is not consistent here), a wand that has no affinity for a wizard
and that has not been won by him doesn't work as well as his own wand.
Also, of course, a wand (in the hands of a somewhat skilled wizard,
old enough, experienced enough, and powerful enough to have mastered
nonverbal spells) can understand intention, not just spoken
incantations. And a wand can sense a wizard's emotions (sparks coming
out of Snape's wand when he's angry in PoA). I know you don't credit
JKR's interviews, and neither do I in general, but the interview
segment in which she refers to wands as "quasi-sentient" is
interesting in showing how she "intends" us to view wands. If you want
to disregard interviews, then we're left with our authority on wands,
Ollivander, whose remarks after a long life spent studying wands I see
no reason to disregard. (The man can tell what the core of a wand is,
and, IIRC, exactly how long it is, not to mention the wand wood, which
he probably recognizes instantly, just by looking at it, not just the
wands he made himself, however long ago, but even wands he's never
seen before, like Krum's, which he also recognizes as a Gregorovitch
creation. And, of course, he knows about Priori Incantem and the Elder
Wand, but not the legend of the Deathly Hallows. If we can't trust him
as an authoritiy on wands, we're left with no one.)

Mike:
> I've been hard on DD in the past for his ridiculous penchant for 
secrecy as well as his poor leadership style. But this is one place 
where I can't really fault him. His intention was good, and there 
really wasn't any right answer to this EW dilemma. I *don't* think he
 intended to set Snape up, even though that's what happened.

Carol responds:
Exactly.

Carol, happy to agree with Mike on one point, at least!