Discussion: The Deathly Hallows

[PeNgUiNsRuLe]

Originally Posted by bryanweasley

If Draco hadn't fixed the Cabinet and had made his move against Dumbledore that night, Snape would have been the owner of the wand. If Snape had been the owner, as played out, Voldemort would have been the true owner.

Which is why the plan backfired, not against Harry, but against Voldy. And also why it is a fairly good thing it did, although I personally feel Harry was a more powerful wizard and things still would have gone in his favor. Just goes to show destiny is a bit more powerful than DD's plans in the Potterverse though, doesn't it? Harry was Master of Death before he had all three Hallows in his possession, and it played out to where in the end he came into possession of all three and defeated death yet again. Even DD's plan wouldn't have allowed for that.

[hermione1975]

Originally Posted by Liselle

Please be aware of our Conduct Notice for participation in the Deathly Hallows Forums. Forum rules are in operation as always.

This thread is to discuss the Deathly Hallows. Some questions to get the conversation rolling!

1) How do you feel about the deathly hallows now they've been revealed?


2) Which had a bigger role in bringing down Voldemort ~ Harry finding the Deathly Hallows or the destruction of the Horcruxes??

3) What about Dumbledore's part in leading Harry to the Deathly Hallows?

I liked the idea of the deathly hallows. They added alot to the storyline and led to some really powerful and important moments in the story.

I think the destruction of the horcruxes led a bigger role in bringing down Voldemort. Destroying them was the only way that Voldemort was going to die. With them, he basically made himself immortal.

I loved Dumbledore's part in leading Harry to the deathly hallows. I've always loved the relationship between Harry and Dumbledore and I'm glad that she was able to keep that relationship going even though Dumbledore died.

[vampiricduck]

Originally Posted by PeNgUiNsRuLe

Yes, but how many people knew that was the wand? It took Voldy how long and how much traveling to figure that out? The thing is, that's not the way wands work. To gain the wand's ownership, one must defeat the person holding the wand one of about three ways I can think of. One must either disarm them using Expelliarmus, take the wand by force, or, an extension of the precious, kill them and take the wand. The first two, the wand comes to the winner pretty much unconditionally; the winner won the wand fair and square. But with the last, the wand has to be taken. Simply killing the person doesn't count as defeat of the wand. That would be like punching somebody and walking away and then later trying to say their wand passes to you. If you don't claim the wand, you don't have ownership. You defeated the person, yeah, but the wand doesn't see that part. It only recognizes you defeating and taking the wand, which, really is all Expelliarmus is. Simply defeating the person as a human or better fighter isn't it; you have to claim the wand somehow for it to count. One would would have to kill the person and then take the wand for the defeat of the wand to be complete. Else, I'd think the wand wouldn't see that as defeat of ownership. That's defeat of life, yes, but the two are not the same. Hence, with Snape not claiming the wand after DD's murder, if all had gone to plan, the wand's ownership would have actually died with DD.

I've come to agree with you, and admit that my theory was wrong, though not entirely!

Draco didn't claim the wand either, yet he was the owner, until Harry took Draco's wand, and thus, the Elder Wand. I agree taht this is because he disarmed Dumbledore.

As stated by master wand maker Mr. Ollivander, ownership can only be transferred properly. That is, the wand will only fully work for the new user if they disarm the previous user. This can occur during a duel (although because the Wand is very powerful, this would be rare), or in non-magical ways.

Thus did Antioch Peverell meet his end—murdered in his sleep by a rival wanting to claim the wand. Ever since, the wand has been sought by power-hungry wizards until it fell to Dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald, who stole it from famed wand-maker Gregorovitch. Albus Dumbledore later defeated Grindelwald and became the wand's master, though it remains a mystery as to how exactly Dumbledore was able to defeat Grindelwald while the latter wielded the supposedly "unbeatable" Elder Wand.

So, how did Dumbledore do it? He duelled Grindelwald, and took control over the wand. But all Grindelwald had done, was STEAL it from Greorovitch. This, yes, is non magical, and yes, it seems, Grindelwald did have control over the wand. Did Dumbledore do the impossible? Did he actually disarm Grindewald, who held the unbeatable wand?

Surely that's somewhat contradicting of the whole point of the wand?

[DrLazy_89]

Something I found interesting about the Deathly Hallows is the sign, the triangle withe the circle and line in the middle. If you watch the COS movie closely when Lucius Malfoy puts the diary in Ginny's cauldron you can see that the diary has a triangle on the front cover, but It happens very fast so its hard to see if the circle and line are there too. Just something I found interesting.

[PeNgUiNsRuLe]

Originally Posted by vampiricduck

So, how did Dumbledore do it? He duelled Grindelwald, and took control over the wand. But all Grindelwald had done, was STEAL it from Greorovitch. This, yes, is non magical, and yes, it seems, Grindelwald did have control over the wand. Did Dumbledore do the impossible? Did he actually disarm Grindewald, who held the unbeatable wand?

Surely that's somewhat contradicting of the whole point of the wand?

I would venture a guess that the wand is not so much all powerful, but truly only as powerful as the wizard wielding it. Yes, yes, I know. That is not how it is advertised, but I personally believe that even if Voldy had been the master of the wand, Harry would have won on skill alone. We see, in the end, Harry with no more edge given him by Voldy's transfer of powers. And yet Harry has the swiftness and ability to give challenge to Voldy that, despite his not mastering of the wand, has hurt many others before Harry's sacrifice. I think Harry truly was the most powerful wizard of his time, and as such, I think even with what was supposedly the most powerful wand ever, a weaker wizard couldn't really beat the more powerful.

Which brings us to the wizard, whom Harry followed in this title, Albus Dumbledore. He was called the most powerful wizard of his time for a reason. I think that even when Grindy mastered the wand, he was not as powerful as DD was, and so, I think it was possible for DD to win the duel and the wand. As even Ollivander said, you don't have to murder to control the wand, you just have to win its ownership. So DD just had to, as Harry frequently did, disarm Grindy with one good Expelliarmus. We know that the wand chooses the wizard and a wand will bend to a new master if its loyalty is won, but that doesn't change that Harry's original wand was the same wand that Ollivander said would do great things. It was a very powerful wand, and I believe that is because Harry was going to go on to be a very powerful wizard, in fact, in my opinion, the most powerful.

In then end, I think the "most powerful" was a title given the wand by legend and earned it by its history of powerful, dark wizards, but I think that its true ability was only measured in the ability of the wizard yielding it, not some mythical, magical property it possessed. So, when faced by simply a more powerful wizard, it became beatable. But this is, of course, merely my speculation. And I do reserve the right to randomly change it, if I find an idea I like better.

Originally Posted by DrLazy_89

Something I found interesting about the Deathly Hallows is the sign, the triangle withe the circle and line in the middle. If you watch the COS movie closely when Lucius Malfoy puts the diary in Ginny's cauldron you can see that the diary has a triangle on the front cover, but It happens very fast so its hard to see if the circle and line are there too. Just something I found interesting.

Interesting. I've never seen it before, but I'll have to check next time I watch and put it on slo-mo...

[vampiricduck]

Originally Posted by PeNgUiNsRuLe

In then end, I think the "most powerful" was a title given the wand by legend and earned it by its history of powerful, dark wizards, but I think that its true ability was only measured in the ability of the wizard yielding it, not some mythical, magical property it possessed. So, when faced by simply a more powerful wizard, it became beatable. But this is, of course, merely my speculation. And I do reserve the right to randomly change it, if I find an idea I like better.

I concur, BUT!

We are also told that Gellert Grindelwald and Dumbledore were both exceptionally powerful. It is mentioned that they were considered equals long before Grindelwald even got his grubby hands on the wand.

[horcrux4]

My son and I were discussing what would have to be cut out of DH to make the film and concluded that the Deathly Hallows would be the most logical bit, leaving in the Elder Wand as an object in its own right! But then the film couldn't be called HP & the Deathly Hallows which would be a problem!

I liked the storyline of the 3 objects but I thought they were in some ways superfluous to the plot. Harry didn't come back from "death" because he was master of the Hallows but because Voldemort had taken his blood at his resurrection. I agree that using the resurrection stone gave Harry the comfort and support of his family when he went to face his death, but if JKR had simply written that he set out alone and faced his death, I for one would have believed it. The Elder Wand was important to the plot but not necessarily as part of the Hallows.

I thought the Hallows were really a plotline to explain Dumbledore and the choices he had made, particularly in comparison to Harry which, while very interesting, weren't essential to the destruction of Voldemort which obviously the horcruxes were.

[ginnyluv]

i thought they were very interesting i VERY excited when harry was putting it all together that he was meant to use them to defeat Voldemort ....the story of the brothers was very interesting too i liked the ghost girl part alot and how it played out.

[Montse]

what ghost girl,havent gotten there yet inmy second reading and dontremeber that...
i thinkDD was very wise in this part ,he knew harry would feel just as he did and didnt want him doing that mistake,so he left the book to hermione to sorrt of get him to do the right thing

[ginnyluv]

the girl that the second brother made come back to life with the stone be she was still a ghost ....

[PeNgUiNsRuLe]

Originally Posted by ginnyluv

the girl that the second brother made come back to life with the stone be she was still a ghost ....

Does it describe her as quite a ghost? I dunno that we should necessarily use that term. When it was describing the people that came when Harry used the stone, I pictured them more like what happened in the graveyard when Harry and Voldy's wands locked. And that wasn't described at all as ghosts. They were smokier, denser, and had color, didn't they? I'll have to look it up later...

[vickilind]

they were more than ghosts, but less than human. Harry describes Lily, James, Sirius and Remus as being most like the Tom Riddle from the diary. More than ghosts but no true substance.

[vivekgk]

Originally Posted by vickilind

they were more than ghosts, but less than human. Harry describes Lily, James, Sirius and Remus as being most like the Tom Riddle from the diary. More than ghosts but no true substance.

I'm not sure about the 'no true substance' part. It appears that they were substantial, because Harry could feel and touch them. Even the diary Riddle was solid enough to hold and use a wand.

[im4prongs]

1. I loved the Deathly Hallows (the concept and story behind them). It would have been a bit better if she'd thrown a few more hints out about them, so they didn't just appear out of left field.
2. Horcruxes were key and Hallows were bonus.
3. Dumbledore is the chess master. Wow, the guy had seen all the angles and he REALLY understands people.

[owl post 1992]

I'm kinda worried, the story brought 2 of the wizarding world's biggest dark wizards about, whose to say a third won't rise and seek this power that is written in a children's story.

Who knew children's stories could be so powerful or evil..

[SinLooWho]

On the point of the Elder Wand being Unbeatable. Honestly, I think that that was part of the legend. I think that it was an exceptionally powerful wand, that through the years and stories got the reputation as such. Dumbledore informs us in Harry's "in between" state (as it seems to be coming known as) that the idea of Death creating the Hallows is a part of the legend. DD says that he thinks that they were created by the Three Brothers.

[Thefreak]

Wow, I feel like I might have committed a cardinal HPfan sin by contributing to that DH disappointment thread so liberally. What can I say, that's what I felt (I've read it once)- and I'm probably a born criticizer. Anyway... I still liked it. There were some lovely parts.
As for the deathly hallows themselves... I almost feel as though I should have thought of it before, that they're the opposite of the Horcruxes. I know I couldn't have figured out what they are or anything but hallows.. horcruxes... There is a trend with the letter H in the books don't you find? (Hagrid, Hogwarts, Hogsmeade, Hog's Head, Hedwig, etc.) But what am I saying, I've never "thought of it before" with anything! lol Yeah so the Hallows, these objects, I think are a beautiful and poignant way to end HP. I heartily disagree with anyone who says they were a waste of pages and storyline, or were distracting or worthless (I could go on). Contrast never fails to be poetic in books. If there are such things as horcruxes then there must be Hallows as well. Is it not ironic that the title bearing the most pleasant meaning conveys the scariest attitude, because of the word "deathly"? It's funny. That must be Jo's sense of humor. I love the Invisibility Cloak and its role in this book. I love that Harry is related to the Peverells, that we know where it was sort of before James' hands.

[PeNgUiNsRuLe]

Very good point. I like the irony that something called the "Deathly Hallows" is actually supposed to help one defeat death. Most of the speculation I saw before the book had to do with something special or some relic that would claim someone's life or nearly kill the trio or something. Who'd have thought that a part of something named so sinister would actually turn out to lend a helping hand to Harry throughout the last seven books.

[joeblack]

Why did Dumbledore need to teach Harry and pals about the deathly hallows?

Harry defeated Voldemort without the use of any of the hallows.

If he knew nothing of the Hallows he would still have found all the horcruxes and destroyed them. He would still have discovered Snape's memories and relaised he must submit himself to death.

Am I wrong in thinking that the deathly hallows were completely useless in the destroying of Voldemort. To me they seemed almost a secondary plot.

[Guilhe]

Originally Posted by joeblack

Why did Dumbledore need to teach Harry and pals about the deathly hallows?

Harry defeated Voldemort without the use of any of the hallows.

If he knew nothing of the Hallows he would still have found all the horcruxes and destroyed them. He would still have discovered Snape's memories and relaised he must submit himself to death.

Am I wrong in thinking that the deathly hallows were completely useless in the destroying of Voldemort. To me they seemed almost a secondary plot.

I also felt that all it was strange for Dumbledore to leave the book to Hermione this way sending them after the Hallows which had no practical effect. However the Hallows role may be important if you think the stone and the moral of the story helped Harry face death when he needed to.