Simon ,'Jaynestown'
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***
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?
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."
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.
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.
???
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.
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.
Did we get a description of the duel, or could it be that people just assumed that it was epic?
Eta: Regardless, Juliebird's scenario would work in the midst of an epic battle. And Unbeatable != Cannot be Shielded Against in my book
I'm re-reading and noticing things. My god, Hermione whines. "But Harry you promised you wouldn't let the Dark Lord overpower you anymore and get into your head!" Damn it, girl, you think he enjoys this? You think he doesn't remember anything unless you harp about it?
And Harry calls Draco "Draco" in his thoughts after he sees Draco being the one casting the Cruciatus on Dolohov. Has he ever referred to Draco by first name in his own thoughts?
Yeah, I'm a slasher, what of it?
On re-read I am noticing that JKR does spend a fair amount of time on wandlore even if it is still convoluted in the climax. t /porn
Like someone said...the wand may be unbeatable, but that doesn't mean the wielder is.
Excalibur was supposed to grant unearthly powers and unsurpassed victory to Arthur...but the dude is still dead and shit.