Well, it's the most powerful wand in the world, I don't know that it would let itself be destroyed.
He could be like Captain Kirk and show the wand that certain of its assumptions were contradictory, thus causing it to explode.
Mal: Which one you figure tracked us? Zoe: The ugly one, sir. Mal: Could you be more specific?
'Out Of Gas'
The Buffista Book Club: the Harry Potter iteration
This thread is a focused discussion group. Please see the first post below for the current topic and upcoming book discussions. While natter will inevitably happen, we encourage you to treat this like a virtual book club and try to keep your posts in that spirit.
By consensus, this thread is reopened specifically to discuss Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. It will be closed again once that discussion has run its course.
***SPOILER ALERT***
tommyrot - Jul 30, 2007 1:20:53 pm PDT #2053 of 3301
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
sumi - Jul 30, 2007 1:22:47 pm PDT #2054 of 3301
Art Crawl!!!
Are there any wandmakers still alive that might have knowledge of how to undo or unmake a wand?
sumi - Jul 30, 2007 1:22:51 pm PDT #2055 of 3301
Art Crawl!!!
DCJensen - Jul 30, 2007 1:25:39 pm PDT #2056 of 3301
All is well that ends in pizza.
Ollivander is still alive.
Hil R. - Jul 30, 2007 2:00:44 pm PDT #2057 of 3301
Sometimes I think I might just move up to Vermont, open a bookstore or a vegan restaurant. Adam Schlesinger, z''l
I do suppose, though, that Harry’s Harry James. Perhaps it was a Marauder thing.
And Bill is William Arthur. Didn't really ping me at all.
DebetEsse - Jul 30, 2007 2:51:53 pm PDT #2058 of 3301
Woe to the fucking wicked.
I think it was really that Remus is a unique name to my Muggle ears, whereas James or Arthur, nsm.
Gris - Jul 30, 2007 3:40:26 pm PDT #2059 of 3301
Hey. New board.
My question: how on earth did Dumbledore defeat Grindelwald if Grindelwald had an unbeatable wand? I'm thinking the wand is some sort of silly trickery.
Vortex - Jul 30, 2007 3:55:44 pm PDT #2060 of 3301
"Cry havoc and let slip the boobs of war!" -- Miracleman
My question: how on earth did Dumbledore defeat Grindelwald if Grindelwald had an unbeatable wand? I'm thinking the wand is some sort of silly trickery.
Because Dumbledore was the better wizard? It's about aiming the spells, as well as knowing what to cast, right?
Gris - Jul 30, 2007 4:00:31 pm PDT #2061 of 3301
Hey. New board.
Yeah, but an unbeatable wand should make one unbeatable against any foe, I'd think. Isn't that the point? If it's only unbeatable against foes you could already beat... it's not unbeatable. I mean, I'd think an unbeatable wand would mean "Hand this to Colin Creevey and watch him beat Voldemort."
-t - Jul 30, 2007 4:14:47 pm PDT #2062 of 3301
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration
Well, Draco defeated Dumbledore because Dumbledore didn't have time to do anything, being all preoccupied with petrifying Harry. So if Dumbledore could get the drop on Grindelwald in some way - knowing he could count on G attacking him with something he could easily defend against, or knowing a weakness because of their shared history or whatever - that could work.
In which case, I think Dunbledore's unbeatableness would be greater than Grindelwald's had been, since he took the wand by force of magic rather than stealing it and firing off a token Stupefy the way G did.