Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.

[eggplant107]

No: HPFGUIDX 187324

 "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:

>  Harry doesn't have the innate caution
> or the self-discipline that Dumbledore had. 

That is contrary to cannon. Dumbledore was a good man but not perfect. Dumbledore used the wand for 50 years doing a lot of good with it in that time. Dumbledore admits that Harry is an even better man. I conclude that Harry could do even more good with it than Dumbledore did.

> carrying the wand increases the chances that
> someone will be able to take it from Harry,
> and that person will almost certainly *not*
> be a safe guardian.

If someone can defeat Harry even though he has the Elder Wand then it would be child's play to defeat him if he wasn't using it; then that person would be the new master of the Elder Wand. I agree he would not be a safe guardian. 

> There's no advantage to superior weapons
> if the enemy doesn't give you a chance
> to use them. 

By that same reasoning there is no reason Harry shouldn't stop using any wand at all to defend himself. I don't get it, JKR could have avoided the need for all these unconvincing and convoluted explanations with a simple stroke of her pen; All she had to do is have her character do the logical thing that any real flesh and blood Human Being would do and keep the Elder Wand. It would certainly make for a more interesting ending to the story. I'd prefer to think that Harry spends the next 50 years disrupting evil plots to take over the world and dodging assassins. But if he insists on not using that wand Harry will only spend a few months dodging assassins. 

It's more logical, more realistic, and it's artistically superior too, so why not do it? I think it was a last minute change.

 Eggplant