Also, apparently Draco was the first person ever to disarm Dumbledore, even briefly. Which I wouldn't find so unlikely if it were someone other than Draco.

[thumbs through book]

"Dumbledore had wordlessly immobilized Harry, and the second he had taken to perform the spell had cost him the chance of defending himself." (p.584)

I thought I remembered it that way.

hermione wants to be the best, but I think she is pretty quick to know when she isn't good at something ( broom riding,predictions , etc) . And I really think it bothers her when someone does better than she does - in something she thinks she is good at. Or ignores how good she is.

I think that none of the houses are that different- they all just have a different emphasis on the same values. Tonks, for example, was a very talented wizard - and intelligent. I could see her in Ravenclaw. However, I think Tonks was interested in a more balanced life, therefore she ended up in Hufflepuff. (this is why I think the hat takes into account personal desires)

The fact that the Sorting is so important for me to figure out tells me that I am in the right profession.

The only part of the chain of wand possesion that I had trouble with was how Grindelwald got it. I can kind of explain it away as "Grindelwald disarmed Gregorovich, but Gregorovich somehow got back physical posession of the wand in a non-magical way, and then Grindelwald stole it," but that's a lot of convolution to not be explained, especially since it's a pretty major point later that just taking it in a non-magical-fight way isn't enough.

I think that none of the houses are that different- they all just have a different emphasis on the same values.

Yeah, this.

With all the callbacks, I really feared that the beaming blonde thief in Gregorivitch's place was going to be Lockhart. Soooo glad that we didn't have to see that prat again - insane or otherwise.

OMG, me too! On both counts.

Finally, I realized that he was catching the Elder Wand, and that made me realize that the shot of Voldemort on the back wasn't him trying to reach Potter before he completed some action, but that Voldemort was actually falling backwards dead. Really, brilliant misdirection in that cover.

Okay, that's really cool!

I haven't really looked at the cover, too busy devouring the book.

Regarding the wand, I think the act of Grendelwald stealing it from Gregoravitch was considered "beating" Gregoravitch. It didn't have to be won in battle per se, else the original Peverell brother's getting his throat slit while he was passed out wouldn't have been enough to transfer power.

Perhaps it must be taken from the owner against his will.

Regarding the wand, I think the act of Grendelwald stealing it from Gregoravitch was considered "beating" Gregoravitch.

So then why wasn't stealing it from Dumbledore's grave considered "beating" Harry? Same sort of thing -- taking it while the current owner's back is turned. Just that in this case, the current owner didn't know he was the owner.

Hmm. Maybe that's it? The current owner has to be aware of being beaten?

Ollivander says, "Of course, the manner of taking matters. Much also depends upon the wand itself. In general, however, where a wand has been won, its allegiance will change." And also, "Wandlore is a complex and mysterious branch of magic."

If Harry was just undermining Voldemort's confidence by making up some plausible nonsense about something he knows V is ignorant, all those problems just melt away. And Harry wins because he's younger, faeter, and has his soul all in one place.

Eta: Alternatively, Harry was trying to convince the wand

Eata: I never did fully grasp what H's wand moving on its own meant.