First of all, you have to love Mrs. Weasley. 
And Voldemort's dead!!! Harry lives!!! I was going to be fine whether Harry lived or died, and while I am slightly disappointed in JKR for conforming to the happily ever after ending, I'm still happy that Harry's alive.
I only have the epilogue left...And then Harry Potter is over forever...Luckily, I can always reread.
And Voldemort's dead!!! Harry lives!!! I was going to be fine whether Harry lived or died, and while I am slightly disappointed in JKR for conforming to the happily ever after ending, I'm still happy that Harry's alive.
I only have the epilogue left...And then Harry Potter is over forever...Luckily, I can always reread.
Psychee wrote:
Bently, please don't misunderstand my opinion of the Floo network. Mugglenet, Accio!Quote and the Lexicon are extremely well done, and I have relied on their work for a long time. They deserve the commendation they received from JKR.
And I do believe that their editorials are well thought out and that they try, as much as they can, to base their theories on canon. But those theories are not canon in and of themselves; those theories often include speculative guesses. Take a look at the list of editorials written in the past now and you will see that many of the conclusions they reached prior to the publication of DH turned out to be wrong. The beauty of their work is that they are very careful to distinguish between personal opinion (editorial) and canonical fact (Lexicon), and I don't think they would be very happy about anyone claiming that something is true just because someone stated that as an opinion or guess or hypothesis in an editorial.
Going back to the wand, it is my understanding that you believe that Grindelwald was never the Master of the Elder Wand because he just stole it from Gregorovitch, and had not in any other way, insofar as we know, "defeated" him. You base your belief that he was not the Master of the wand on a further belief that "stealing" is not the same as "defeat". You then suggest that Dumbledore must have defeated the real last Master (Gregorovitch or someone before him) in a duel outside of what we were given as canon and that is how he became Master of the wand. (If I have misunderstood your position, please correct me...)
But I then say that canon tells us (through the story of the Three Brothers) that the first brother lost the Mastery of the wand in this manner: "That very night another wizard crept upon the oldest brother as he lay, wine-sodden, upon his bed. The thief took the wand and, for good measure, slit the oldest brother's throat."(p.408) First he stole it as a thief and then "just for good measure" killed him.
Lovegood then says that Masters of the Wand can be easily traced through history by the fact that "the possessor of the wand must capture it from its previous owner, if he is to be truly the Master of it."(p.412) He does not use the word "defeat"; he uses the word "capture".
He then says that one of the owners, Godelot, died in his cellar after his son Hereward took the wand from him. Again, this is an example of the wand being stolen or captured by another and the Wand then giving its allegiance to the man who captured it.
Then, we have the canon evidence that Harry never fought Draco to get his wand; he simply took it (and two others he was holding) out of his hand. In other words, he "captured" it.
We also have numerous instances in the book of wizards feeling powerless and impotent when their wands are taken from them or broken. Once a wizard loses his wand he feels "defeated".
Finally, the whole idea of "unbeatable wand" is only given to us as part of a Children's Fairy Tale -- " a wand that must always win duels for its owner". (p.407) Lovegood later tells us, though, that we can't take everything written by Beedle as actual truth; that it is, after all, a story for children.
On the basis of that canonical evidence, I believe that we can take the story at face value -- that even though he just stole the wand, Grindelwald was a true Master of the Elder Wand, and when Dumbledore somehow captured it from him, in a duel, Dumbledore became the Master of it.
I don't think I've strayed one iota from canon here, have I? Have I imagined duels that were not in the text, or third party people who were defeated who were not in the text?
But I do agree with you about one very important thing -- it really would have been nice to have had this "unbeatable wand beaten" thing (and several other logic puzzles she left us with) clarified more in the text of the last book. On the other hand, if you like puzzles, then her lack of clarification about these things was a Dumbledoresque gift. I happen to like puzzles, so this was an unexpected gift to me -- a logic puzzle that I was still thinking about a week after I had completed reading the book...
Let me just add that I am "persisting" in this debate only because it is a fun mental exercise for me and you are a fun person to debate things with... thanks for that!
BRAVO Psychee! :-)
Psychee wrote:
Bently, please don't misunderstand my opinion of the Floo network. Mugglenet, Accio!Quote and the Lexicon are extremely well done, and I have relied on their work for a long time. They deserve the commendation they received from JKR.
And I do believe that their editorials are well thought out and that they try, as much as they can, to base their theories on canon. But those theories are not canon in and of themselves; those theories often include speculative guesses. Take a look at the list of editorials written in the past now and you will see that many of the conclusions they reached prior to the publication of DH turned out to be wrong. The beauty of their work is that they are very careful to distinguish between personal opinion (editorial) and canonical fact (Lexicon), and I don't think they would be very happy about anyone claiming that something is true just because someone stated that as an opinion or guess or hypothesis in an editorial.
Going back to the wand, it is my understanding that you believe that Grindelwald was never the Master of the Elder Wand because he just stole it from Gregorovitch, and had not in any other way, insofar as we know, "defeated" him. You base your belief that he was not the Master of the wand on a further belief that "stealing" is not the same as "defeat". You then suggest that Dumbledore must have defeated the real last Master (Gregorovitch or someone before him) in a duel outside of what we were given as canon and that is how he became Master of the wand. (If I have misunderstood your position, please correct me...)
But I then say that canon tells us (through the story of the Three Brothers) that the first brother lost the Mastery of the wand in this manner: "That very night another wizard crept upon the oldest brother as he lay, wine-sodden, upon his bed. The thief took the wand and, for good measure, slit the oldest brother's throat."(p.408) First he stole it as a thief and then "just for good measure" killed him.
Lovegood then says that Masters of the Wand can be easily traced through history by the fact that "the possessor of the wand must capture it from its previous owner, if he is to be truly the Master of it."(p.412) He does not use the word "defeat"; he uses the word "capture".
He then says that one of the owners, Godelot, died in his cellar after his son Hereward took the wand from him. Again, this is an example of the wand being stolen or captured by another and the Wand then giving its allegiance to the man who captured it.
Then, we have the canon evidence that Harry never fought Draco to get his wand; he simply took it (and two others he was holding) out of his hand. In other words, he "captured" it.
We also have numerous instances in the book of wizards feeling powerless and impotent when their wands are taken from them or broken. Once a wizard loses his wand he feels "defeated".
Finally, the whole idea of "unbeatable wand" is only given to us as part of a Children's Fairy Tale -- " a wand that must always win duels for its owner". (p.407) Lovegood later tells us, though, that we can't take everything written by Beedle as actual truth; that it is, after all, a story for children.
On the basis of that canonical evidence, I believe that we can take the story at face value -- that even though he just stole the wand, Grindelwald was a true Master of the Elder Wand, and when Dumbledore somehow captured it from him, in a duel, Dumbledore became the Master of it.
I don't think I've strayed one iota from canon here, have I? Have I imagined duels that were not in the text, or third party people who were defeated who were not in the text?
But I do agree with you about one very important thing -- it really would have been nice to have had this "unbeatable wand beaten" thing (and several other logic puzzles she left us with) clarified more in the text of the last book. On the other hand, if you like puzzles, then her lack of clarification about these things was a Dumbledoresque gift. I happen to like puzzles, so this was an unexpected gift to me -- a logic puzzle that I was still thinking about a week after I had completed reading the book...
Let me just add that I am "persisting" in this debate only because it is a fun mental exercise for me and you are a fun person to debate things with... thanks for that!
Sorry Psychee..busy elsewhere. Sorry for the delay in responding; but I have finished thinking about the book; but just happened to check back.
I have to agree that the Floo Network deserves a hand and is quite a credible site. Like I said their hypotheses which I passed on in a helpful way to one of the posters was on the Lexicon. I am glad also that you persevere. I found it odd that one of the posters (I think the one that I tried to assist with the Floo Network response...obviously thinks that there is some sort of Harry Potter type duel going on here and I hate to disappoint that person; but there is not). I think that every person should have the right to express their opinion or their version of the facts (even though we are talking about a work of fiction) and their rights to do that should be respected. I certainly respect your right to disagree with me and I assume that you feel likewise. It also doesn't mean that I agree with your hypotheses any more now than I did originally though I admire your stamina. So if I do not respond, I don't want anyone to assume that I have skulked off to lick my wounds. Au contraire..Not. I find the site very enjoyable and love the give and take and the ability for a good old fashioned debate. I know Psychee that you would agree as well.
Now getting back to the other points you raised:
I read and internally listened to your arguments and you make a good case. However, there are so many exceptions to everything that Rowling has said previously, put in the books and now discussed on a variety of tv spots and interviews that there is very little that can be nailed down by text in the books any longer. She negated and/or invented responses for all of the anomalies or inconsistencies. I personally am disappointed that this happened; but I understand that the young readers are looking for closure and see these characters as friends, etc. and as living people rather than fiction. I am still convinced that the unbeatable wand statement is not verifiable and most likely untrue. And there is still the discrepancy between capture and defeat versus the wand having some free will or artificial intelligence (like Harry's wand when he claimed that it was making decisions and fighting on its own). Rowling is brilliant, the series is brilliant and I am happy with the inconsistencies and am not losing any sleep over it. I am sticking with my consensus that there are still many unknowns and/or contrived Rowling responses after the fact. I doubt however we will see any series have the phenomenal success of HP in the future.
I agree it all is a puzzle and I loved that about the series and the book. Your energy has been quite contagious on the thread and I can see that you are a good sport despite my agnostic conclusion on the matter.
Take care,
Bentley
