Ollivander is still alive.
Xander: How? What? How? Giles: Three excellent questions.
Xander/Giles ,'Never Leave Me'
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***
DCJensen - Jul 30, 2007 1:25:39 pm PDT #2056 of 3301
All is well that ends in pizza.
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.
Juliebird - Jul 30, 2007 4:19:58 pm PDT #2063 of 3301
I am the fly who dreams of the spider
Perhaps Dumbledore also won due to some lingering affection Grindelwald had for him. Maybe G was doing the whole "I don't want to kill you, join me, and we can rule the muggles together (and by the way I am your FATHER!!!!" and D got the drop on him because G was holding back.
???
Vortex - Jul 30, 2007 4:34:38 pm PDT #2064 of 3301
"Cry havoc and let slip the boobs of war!" -- Miracleman
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."
I think that it's like having the best gun in the world. If you're a mediocre shot, a marksman with a rifle can beat you.
Polter-Cow - Jul 30, 2007 4:35:14 pm PDT #2065 of 3301
What else besides ramen can you scoop? YOU CAN SCOOP THIS WORLD FROM DARKNESS!
It was supposed to be some sort of epic duel the likes of which have never been seen, though. However Dumbledore won, he must have held out against Ol' Unbeatable for a while.