The Elder Wand v.2

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

OK, I think I see what you're saying. However, aren't we giving the Elder Wand more power than it really has? The Hallows is a legend that grew around the creation of 3 very powerful magical items according to Dumbledore, and the creators were probably the Peverell brothers. However, none of the hallows assures the safety or power of their owners. The cloak can hide the owner most effectively, but that is all. The stone can bring back echoes of those whom the owner loved but have died, but can't restore them to life. And while the wand focuses power more effectively than perhaps any other known wand, the scope of its power seems to depend on the owner/user.

I agree to a certain extent that the EW is almost only as powerful as the current master. I doubt that Draco's ownership of it endowed him with EW superpowers to rival that of Dumbledore or Voldemort, for instance, but I do think that it probably has the ability to somehow enhance its master's powers. Voldemort himself seemed to endow the wand with super capabilities when he makes the assumption that his own magical prowess should have increased by his supposed ownership of the wand (the "no, I have performed my usual magic, I am extraordinary" or whatever the exact quote is).

So while the Elder Wand in the wrong hands can wreak havoc and destruction, (as in the hands of a very powerful wizard like Voldemort) the wand does not make the owner invincible/unbeatable regardless of their personal magical power. Having the Elder Wand around is a problem, but perhaps we're giving it too much importance in the scope of things.

We, readers, are giving it importance because the characters themselves give the wand a great deal of importance. The Elder Wand is dangerous because of the lengths to which characters will go to gain its mastery. They will kill for it. Regardless of whether the wand actually enhances its owners magical abilities, the fact that it is such a sought-after object that people are willing to kill for it, to me, suggests that it is an important, valuable object that is worthy of discussion.

I agree, though, that in the scope of things the horcruxes and their destruction is of greater importance. The issue, though, is that the EW is so much more interesting to talk about!

Originally Posted by Dedalus Diggle

Perhaps it is like Gandalf's reaction to holding the one ring - he could feel that to a powerful person the temptation of such power was overwhelming, even though he ultimately could not control it. Similarly, Dumbledore could not bring himself to destroy the Wand of Destiny because the power is too much a draw to such a powerful wizard as he was. But Harry proved himself once again the true Master of the Hallows, because he could claim the Elder Wand as his own, and then put it away forever.

That's a good example, I think. Perhaps, just as with the one ring, it takes the right person with the right motives under the right circumstances to destroy such an object as the EW. Technically, Gandalf could have taken the ring to Mordor himself and thrown it into Mount Doom, but he knew that along the way he would have become seduced by its power. Likewise, Dumbledore could have destroyed the EW himself but he gained mastery of it while still in recovery from his youthful seduction of it. Just as with alcoholics, drug addicts and former smokers, you're always in some form of recovery and I see Dumbledore's youthful seduction by the hallows as a kind of addiction in a way.

I also see an adult Dumbledore finding himself with this historic artifact associated with great power and destruction having the opportunity to destroy its power and influence but becoming seduced (through is own arrogance and ego) into thinking that he could be the one to turn the wand toward goodness and end its evilness thus allowing the wand to survive while he technically has the ability to destroy it.

Originally Posted by ArwenBlue

I just fugured out how to use smilies.

Careful, they're addictive!

[wolfbrother]

Originally Posted by mirrormere

Dumbledore had the wand, one of his fascinating Hallows, for over 50 years - he would have known how to destroy it even if it would have been harder to do than the average wand.

Only if he spent time trying to figure out how to destroy it. I don't think he ever had the slightest inclination to destroy it. Aside from the power aspect, it was also an old unique object which likely held lot of magical knowledge. I don't think Dumbledore was ever the type to destroy knowledge even if it was "evil".

Besides, the Beedle the Bard quote indicates it could simply have been burned. Seeing as how the Sword of Gryffindor damaged the Resurrection Stone, the EW would have had similar vulnerabilities.

Normal wands are buried or burned. I don't think that would work for the Elder Wand. If wizards could quite easily avoid being burned to death, I'm pretty sure the Wand would have.

The Sword of Gryffindor didn't actually damage the Resurrection Stone; the Stone worked for Harry.

Originally Posted by ShadowSonic

Or, he could've thrown it in a Volcano, or the Marianas Trench, or shot it into space, etc.

I think Dumbledore decided to end the power of the Wand instead of hiding it. Hiding it would only delay the inevitable. I'm not entirely sure that Voldemort would have turned up to fight Harry if he didn't have the Elder Wand.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

We, readers, are giving it importance because the characters themselves give the wand a great deal of importance. The Elder Wand is dangerous because of the lengths to which characters will go to gain its mastery. They will kill for it. Regardless of whether the wand actually enhances its owners magical abilities, the fact that it is such a sought-after object that people are willing to kill for it, to me, suggests that it is an important, valuable object that is worthy of discussion.

I agree, though, that in the scope of things the horcruxes and their destruction is of greater importance. The issue, though, is that the EW is so much more interesting to talk about!

I notice you didn't comment on the part of my post where I point out that the witnesses at Hogwarts see Harry (who was using Draco's former wand, nothing special) defeat Voldemort (who was using the Elder Wand, or so-called Death Stick). Wouldn't this greatly diminish the perception in the wizarding world of the supposed power of the wand? Not to mention they had to notice that the former owners kept getting defeated.

[ccollinsmith]

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

I notice you didn't comment on the part of my post where I point out that the witnesses at Hogwarts see Harry (who was using Draco's former wand, nothing special) defeat Voldemort (who was using the Elder Wand, or so-called Death Stick). Wouldn't this greatly diminish the perception in the wizarding world of the supposed power of the wand? Not to mention they had to notice that the former owners kept getting defeated.

Not necessarily. Harry proclaimed loudly that the Elder Wand never belonged to Voldemort... and then the crowd saw the Elder Wand turn around and kill the most powerful Dark Wizard of their age when that Wizard attempted to use the Elder Wand against its rightful master.

The Elder Wand killed Voldemort. Even if the crowd couldn't figure out why, it certainly saw the green light leave the Elder Wand and backfire on Voldemort. Everyone would know that an Expelliarmus could not create that effect. It had to be something about the Wand in Voldemort's hand - the Wand Harry proclaimed did not belong to Voldemort.

If I were in that crowd, I'd probably be more in awe of the Elder Wand's power.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by ccollinsmith

Not necessarily. Harry proclaimed loudly that the Elder Wand never belonged to Voldemort... and then the crowd saw the Elder Wand turn around and kill the most powerful Dark Wizard of their age when that Wizard attempted to use the Elder Wand against its rightful master.

The Elder Wand killed Voldemort. Even if the crowd couldn't figure out why, it certainly saw the green light leave the Elder Wand and backfire on Voldemort. Everyone would know that an Expelliarmus could not create that effect. It had to be something about the Wand in Voldemort's hand - the Wand Harry proclaimed did not belong to Voldemort.

If I were in that crowd, I'd probably be more in awe of the Elder Wand's power.

Yeah, he explained all of the facts out loud. I don't think we can deny that people who were in the Great Hall and listening to the conversation knew that Harry was the master of the Elder Wand. However, that being said, the people in the Great Hall listening to the conversation were generally loyal to Harry, and we don't know the extent to which the story would get out.

Not everyone would have heard everything correctly, and not everyone would have remembered what they had heard, and so there would probably be many different versions floating around, if indeed people were of the mind to gossip.

[ccollinsmith]

Originally Posted by willfitz

Yeah, he explained all of the facts out loud. I don't think we can deny that people who were in the Great Hall and listening to the conversation knew that Harry was the master of the Elder Wand. However, that being said, the people in the Great Hall listening to the conversation were generally loyal to Harry, and we don't know the extent to which the story would get out.

Not everyone would have heard everything correctly, and not everyone would have remembered what they had heard, and so there would probably be many different versions floating around, if indeed people were of the mind to gossip.

Oh yeah. I was accounting for not everybody understanding what they heard and the possibility of many versions (or no versions) floating around. Some versions might even have Harry possessing a hitherto unknown form of magic capable of killing Voldemort by talking him to death!

Mainly, though, I was responding to the idea that the Elder Wand would lose its reputation as a result of Voldemort not defeating Harry with it. One thing that should have been very clear to everyone in the Great Hall was that Voldemort had no business claiming that Wand and that he was putting his own life on the line by casting that Avada Kedavra with it.

No matter what individual people in the Great Hall may have thought they heard, I'm sure that a good number of them would have grasped that point. So I don't think its a given that Voldemort's failure with the Wand would have undermined the Wand's reputation.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by wolfbrother

The Sword of Gryffindor didn't actually damage the Resurrection Stone; the Stone worked for Harry.

Actually, the sword did damage the stone (it cracked it), what it didn't do was destroy the power the stone had been imbued with.

Originally Posted by HedwigOwl

I notice you didn't comment on the part of my post where I point out that the witnesses at Hogwarts see Harry (who was using Draco's former wand, nothing special) defeat Voldemort (who was using the Elder Wand, or so-called Death Stick). Wouldn't this greatly diminish the perception in the wizarding world of the supposed power of the wand? Not to mention they had to notice that the former owners kept getting defeated.

The EW being defeated by a "lesser" wand hasn't diminished the wand's legendary power in the hundreds if not thousands of years of the wand's existence. What's so (forgive the pun) magical about this defeat? Furthermore, the wizarding world, at large, doesn't seem to have much of a perception about the EW to begin with. In terms of the hallows, they consider it a fairy story. In terms of real wands, it seems to reside in the realm of legend or popular myth with which to build superstitions around, except to the few (the Ollivanders and Gregorovichs of the world) who believe there is actually such a thing as a real Elder Wand that is really incredibly powerful and passes hands by murder.

As for the comment about the wands' former owners always getting defeated, this is a less thought-out hypothesis (I'm actually completely winging it, here):

It seems to me that the EW is desired by the kind of people who think that they alone would be able to tame the wand, to master it, to rule over its will, to end its power. They seem to be the kind of people who are seduced by power, who are somewhat arrogant and egotistic, who are boastful. It's no wonder to me that the idea that every previous owner had been defeated was no deterent to the next owner, because the next owner would most likely be the sort of personality to believe that they alone are great enough to weild the wand and that all previous owners weren't actually worthy.

And let me clarify that when I'm talking about owners here I'm refering to people who knowingly search out or come by the wand's mastery, not the owners such as Draco who know nothing about the wand or that he's even master of it.

Originally Posted by ccollinsmith

Some versions might even have Harry possessing a hitherto unknown form of magic capable of killing Voldemort by talking him to death!

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

Actually, the sword did damage the stone (it cracked it), what it didn't do was destroy the power the stone had been imbued with.

I've always wondered how much of this had to do with the stone being turned into a Horcrux. As a Horcrux, it needed to be capable of breaking in order for the soul piece to leave, but without that property, would it still have cracked? I mean it's still functional, so just a Resurrection Stone, it certainly isn't broken. I've always thought of it more that the Horcrux could be destroyed, but the Resurrection Stone couldn't.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by willfitz

I've always wondered how much of this had to do with the stone being turned into a Horcrux. As a Horcrux, it needed to be capable of breaking in order for the soul piece to leave, but without that property, would it still have cracked? I mean it's still functional, so just a Resurrection Stone, it certainly isn't broken. I've always thought of it more that the Horcrux could be destroyed, but the Resurrection Stone couldn't.

Replied to in the Questions about Horcruxes thread since it's off topic here.

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

Replied to in the Questions about Horcruxes thread since it's off topic here.

It's not necessarily off-topic in the Elder Wand thread, as I believe that we might be able to relate the breakability of the other Deathly Hallows to the breakability of the Resurrection Stone.

It appears that even when the stone (as a container for the Horcrux) was broken, its functionality remained intact. This really speaks to some kind of rare, magical durability, I would think.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by willfitz

It appears that even when the stone (as a container for the Horcrux) was broken, its functionality remained intact. This really speaks to some kind of rare, magical durability, I would think.

Perhaps, but It's rather like dropping your cell phone and the case getting cracked but the phone still functions and, certainly, things like cell phones don't have magical protection. The damage done to the stone was not sufficient to break it in half, in fact it's described as having a crack in it so we don't actually know how deep the crack goes or how large it actually is. (Frustratingly, I can't find the first reference in the books to Dumbledore wearing the Gaunt ring, I don't have time to comb my audiobook for the quote and google is being very unhelpful so I'm not 100% sure I'm even describing the crack correctly; I'll have to look the quote up later.)

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

Perhaps, but It's rather like dropping your cell phone and the case getting cracked but the phone still functions and, certainly, things like cell phones don't have magical protection. The damage done to the stone was not sufficient to break it in half, in fact it's described as having a crack in it so we don't actually know how deep the crack goes or how large it actually is. (Frustratingly, I can't find the first reference in the books to Dumbledore wearing the Gaunt ring, I don't have time to comb my audiobook for the quote and google is being very unhelpful so I'm not 100% sure I'm even describing the crack correctly; I'll have to look the quote up later.)

Horace Slughorn He shrugged and spread his hands wide, as though to say that age had its compensations, and Harry noticed a ring on his uninjured hand that he had never seen Dumbledore wear before: It was large, rather clumsily made of what looked like gold, and was set with a heavy black stone that had cracked down the middle. Slughorn's eyes lingered for a moment on the ring too, and Harry saw a tiny frown momentarily crease his wide forehead.

Judging from this, I would hazard a guess to say that the only thing holding the stone together may well have been the setting of the ring. That's just how I would interpret "cracked down the middle" as opposed to "having a crack down the middle."

There is certainly more than one way to interpret it, though. I'm at least partly influenced by the fact that the stone being completely split in half seems to fit the description of "irreparable damage" more than a simple scratch.

Actually, now that I think about it, it may well be that the ring was split into two, but a new setting was made by Dumbledore. The words 'rather clumsily' make me think that there was certainly some remodelling work done. Also, the fact that Phineas Nigellus describes the scene thus:

the Goblin's Revenge I believe that the last time I saw the sword of Gryffindor leave its case was when Professor Dumbledore used it to break open a ring.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by willfitz

Judging from this, I would hazard a guess to say that the only thing holding the stone together may well have been the setting of the ring. That's just how I would interpret "cracked down the middle" as opposed to "having a crack down the middle."

Firstly, thanks for providing the quote, I was one chapter off in my search (a great rationale for getting the books for my kindle so that I can search for canon quotes)

Secondly, we're drifting off topic of the EW and since my reply has no cohesive link back to the topic of the EW I'm going to post it in my reply to you in the Questions about Horcruxes thread, along with my reply to you on our other discussion there. The argument about breakability may relate but until we bring it back round to the EW it's probably best to move the discussion.