Unless I'm wrong, the wand had to be conquered to change her allegiance.

This is why Dumbledore wanted Severus Snape to kill him. Had everything happened as Dumbledore wanted, the Elder's wand would have lost her power and become an ordinary wand since she would not have been conquered before her last master died. Sadly, Draco had to conquers the wand before Severus killed Dumbledore.

Because Harry was ready or wanted to die by Voldemort's hand, to sacrifice himself so everyone can have a chance to survive and kill Voldemort, the wand should have lost her power when he died, because Voldemort did not "beat" Harry.

However, Harry survived the killing curse for a second time, so the wand did not lose her power and Harry was still her master so she could not be used against him.

Anyway, if you ask me, wandlore is crap and a plot hole in itself.

 

Dude. I was just typing out a long response to you about how you try too hard and have no idea what you're talking about. And then I realized that I literally don't care about you at all, and it isn't worth it.

Basically, go fuck yourself.

 

-___________-

I agree with Sree: you bitches be reachin' .

 

The wand had very little to do with Harry surviving. I went back and read the King's Cross chapter again, where Harry speaks with Dumbledore about this very thing.

Apparently it's because Voldemort took Harry's blood and then built his body with it. This kept Lily's protection alive in some form and essentially turned Voldemort's body into Harry's horcrux. Harry lives while Voldemort lives, that's basically what the book says.

I can't really explain how the final AK got rebounded in the end. There's no real in depth explanation for it. Their little debate before the end and this line: "Harry saw Voldemort's green jet meet his own spell, saw the Elder Wand fly high, dark against the sunrise, spinning across the enchanted ceiling like the head of Nagini, spinning through the air toward the master it would not kill, who had come to take full possession of it at last."

I think the curse rebounded because Harry was finally ready and willing to actually take the wand for himself, rather than just dying in the forest.

EDIT: And obviously horcrux scar dies because it's not Harry and therefore not protected from the AK.

 

You're missing the point here.

You're trying to squeeze sense out of a world with flawed laws that often contradict themselves. You gotta see it from a writer's POV. Rowling needed her Harry to be perfect and innocent, to never have killed a man, so she pulled the shit she pulled to get across her message of "Love conquers all and inocence is a virtue."

And like someone said, this is a world of magic, so whatever holes you find regarding this can be explained away in many ways. I guess Rowling spotted the mistake, frowned for a few secs in front of her PC, then she shrugged, said "Fuck it, t'was magic", and wrote down her happy ending.

 

Yeah, you know what? You're right. There's inherent contradiction in the world of Harry Potter - and we're already here anyway. So to a degree, by definition, we've all already taken a look and said exactly that: "Fuck it. It is magic"

So yeah, you're right. This issue is no bigger than several others I can think of off the top of my head. So if we want to quibble, I guess we can. But in the end, guess it isn't that big of a deal. It isn't the reason I say that DH sucked anyway.

 

For reference, JKR herself tried answering this question after DH came out. The tl;dr summary goes something like, "Why did he survive? All of the above, plus some magic-based uncertainty." It also confirms that he was using the Elder Wand, if there were still questions about that:

(source of the above)

 

So... she fucked up and came up with "magic." :awesome

 

The resurrection stone more than likely also played a huge role here. He dropped it but it's effect was still active, and who knows exactly what the effect was, but it is definitely more than just seeing shadows of your parents. Harry was the owner of all three hallows at the time, so maybe the 'master of death' thing comes into play.

-edit- I guess I must have not realized this the first time around, but with what Rowling said there, the 'wand allegiance' thing only applies to the Elder Wand and not every wand, and that directly related to the Elder wand being unbeatable in a duel. Also, it looks like if Voldemort used a normal wand on Harry, he would have taken out both Harry's soul and his horcrux?

 

Heh. Something like that. Though I suspect it wasn't a fuck up in the sense that she tried to do something and got it wrong. More likely she looked at all the various bits she'd set up and decided that she'd add magic to the equation rather than try to balance it out using standard logic.

 

So what prompted the Holly wand to independent action on the motorcycle ride? Was that some function of the blood protection? There was no evidence of that in the graveyard following the triwizard. So confused...

 

In Half-blood Prince, Draco disarmed Dumbledore in the tower, he conquered the wand at that time. Harry explain this at the end of Deathly Hollow before his epic duel against Voldemort.

 

Right, but Harry never actually defeated Draco while the Elder Wand was in Draco's possession (it never was). This is completely fucked up.

Wands in general are fucked up if a simple Expelliarmus can "conquer" someone else.

I tend to agree that people are overreaching in this thread. Rowling gave a semi-plausible explanation (as plausible as you could reasonably from her, at least), and there are several other explanations already mentioned earlier that could work equally well.

 

From everything I've seen, the idea of conquering a wand only applies to the Elder Wand. I would also interpret the phrase 'unbeatable' as meaning the wand is uniquely powerful rather than not being able to lose with it. After all, skill > power in the end.

I am pretty sure that it is actually written in the book that even though Draco never held the wand himself that he was still the master of it because he disarmed Dumbledore. We can complain all we want about that, but that is how it was written.

 

Really off topic, why was there the backlash against Voldemort, it couldn't have been just because a Horcrux was destroyed, because Harry and Co. destroyed a lot of them and he never even noticed. Was it because of Lily's protection? im drawing a blank right now -_-

EDIT: Didn't pay enough attention and didn't realize there were two pages of this thread.

 

I think the idea that Harry wanted to be killed and that the wand obeyed him and thus he wasn't truly defeated makes a great deal of sense. The problem is that, to my mind, that throws up another plothole instead. Draco should never have been master of the wand because Dumbledore wished to be defeated and chose to let himself be defeated by Draco. So surely the wand should not have changed its allegiance to Draco at all.

 

He clearly cast the spell using his penis. His prehensile penis.

 

I figure that Dumbledore wanted to be defeated...by Snape. Snape is the one he arranged his death with - as far as the wand is concerned, there is no change in allegiance because by killing Dumbledore, Snape is still allied with Dumbledore and doing his wishes.

Dumbledore didn't have any such arrangement with Draco. True enough, Dumbledore chose to Body-Bind Harry rather than defend against Draco's attack, but not because he wanted to be defeated by Draco, IMO. Rather, it was the compromise he chose so that he could try to convince Draco to surrender. The cost of that compromise is that he could not avoid being defeated and disarmed by Draco's attack.

It's the difference between arranging to have a friend punch you in the face, vs. holding a friend back and getting a punch in the face from the person your friend is trying to fight with. In the first case, you haven't really been 'pwned' despite what it looks like to others. In the second case, you have been pwned.