Meta: thoughts on the ownership of wands

[snorkackcatcher]

Inspired by schemingreader's post about the mechanics of the final showdown between Harry and Voldemort -- originally a comment there which she encouraged me to repost, it's been expanded here with some further thoughts.

Right. I suspect that many of us were a little surprised by the emphasis placed in DH on the 'wand choosing the wizard', which had never been treated in detail before. Even more so, the idea of the ownership of a wand changing when it was captured was new -- raising the question of why wands weren't changing hands during DA practice more often than Teddy Lupin changes the colour of his hair. And then you wonder: how did Dumbledore beat Grindelwald in their duel, if the latter was in possession of the supposedly unbeatable Elder Wand at the time?



Well, to quote Ollivander, "subtle laws govern wand ownership", and "the manner of taking matters. Much also depends on the wand itself". No kidding, Ollie.

The first thing to note is that it seems that changes of wand ownership only seem to apply if the wand is taken by force, with the intention of permanently depriving the previous owner of it -- basically, you have to conquer the previous owner in a real fight and take their wand as spoils. So if you merely disarm someone in duelling practice, or even in an ordinary one-off duel, without preventing them from getting the wand back afterwards, that doesn't get the job done. For example, when Neville disarmed Harry (along with a Death Eater) in the Department of Mysteries, he didn't gain his phoenix wand -- because he didn't make any attempt to keep it. But when Harry physically wrested Draco's wand from his hand in DH and Apparated away with it, that was enough to make the wand switch owners.

With the Elder Wand, however, there does seem to be something more involved -- as nzraya put it in the comments to the schemingreader post: "I think the special feature of the Elder Wand is not that 'knows' who its master is -- because as we've seen, all wands do that, which is why Harry works best with his own wand -- but that unlike other wands, it is COMPLETELY unloyal to one master. Other wands sort of have personalities of their own that have to mesh with that of their owner, which is the 'fit' that Ollivander looks for with his clients. The Elder Wand, on the other hand, is ... impartial ... it is owned ONLY by right of conquest". That conquest can apparently be of the owner, not just the wand itself -- it seems to have a definite tendency to be super-sensitive to bad things happening to its master that result in it switching allegiances, or perhaps even a tendency to cause such things (maybe some sort of curse placed on the wand by the Peverell who created it, as a brake on its power?).

After all, its schtick is that it's supposed to be unbeatable in a duel, right? So normally the only way to deprive someone of it would be by a non-duelling method -- typically non-magical murder (many times) or theft (Grindelwald taking the wand from Gregorovitch). However, in odd cases, something else will work. So exceptionally Draco is able to actually beat Dumbledore with Expelliarmus (and thus get the Elder Wand's loyalty) because Dumbledore chooses not to attack with it when he hears noises on the Tower stairs -- he first protects Harry by making sure he can't do anything to interfere, and thus loses his chance to fight a duel.

But how do we explain Dumbledore's success against Grindelwald? In King's Cross he doesn't give any detail of the fight. I can think of at least two possibilities, both of which echo later canon happenings.

Early on, Rita hints that there's more to that duel than meets the eye, suggesting that Dumbledore didn't actually beat Grindelwald in combat, Grindelwald practically gave up and came quietly -- perhaps having a moment of weakness in which he was unable to kill his old friend, allowing Dumbledore to cast a winning spell while he was distracted, in the same way Draco did? That's one possibility - we never did get to read Rita's full theory of the duel, but while she twists things and puts the worst possible spin on them, she usually has an underlying basis of fact on which to work.

Alternatively, we could hypothesise that Dumbledore first deprived Grindelwald of physical possession of the Elder Wand by subterfuge or opportunism, either before duelling him, or by some non-magical means during the duel (kicking it out of his hand after creating a distraction, for example). If Grindelwald used another wand for the rest of the duel (Careful Dark Wizards Always Pack A Spare), it would provide a precedent for the Elder Wand changing allegiance when its master is conquered while using a different wand.

And on a closing note, I think it's clear from Harry's thoughts and comments when he and Voldy face off ("I know what you're thinking, punk. You're asking yourself, did the Elder Wand change hands six times or only five? Well, to tell you the truth -- I don't know myself. But what you should be asking yourself is -- do I feel lucky? Well do ya, punk? Go ahead. Make my day." Or something like that :D) that he isn't sure he's worked this out correctly, and whether beating Draco was enough to gain mastery of the Elder Wand. Fortunately, he has; I'd guess that he got the idea when Voldemort's Crucio failed to take effect on him, not before. So as JKR said, the fate of the wizarding world came down to a physical scrap between two teenagers. :D

Does any of that make any sense?

Comments

[house-illrepute.livejournal.com]

Does any of that make any sense?

it does make sense. part of the 'lore' of the Elder Wand was basically that its 'power' made it coveted... and that was the sacrifice of having that power: you can have this powerful wand, but by taking it you realise that others will covet it and try and steal it. thus, the lesson becomes, you can have power, but you must always be looking over your shoulder.

so yeah.. make total sense.

also, seeing as Grindy seemed to have a 'change of heart' and, with the end of the series come and gone, we can assume that he refused to tell Voldy where the wand was out of a sense of 'regret' for his actions. any other reasoning is too much extrapolation for a closed canon.

so, maybe their 'duel' wasn't a duel at all, not in the sense that we think it is. maybe they had a final showdown of words, where Dumbly was able to 'attack' Grindy's ideals using logic, argument, and rhetoric—coupled with a dash of guilt and sprinkled perhaps with a bit o' love.

Dumbly didn't say "we fought", did he? i thought he merely used words like 'confrontation'. certainly, in history books (like in real life) the more glamorous or exciting version wins out. Dumbly arguing someone into submission isn't as grand as a 'final showdown duel confrontation'...

so, maybe ANY 'defeat' can win the heart of the wand, if only temporarily. "well.. if you pussies are just gonna argue, i'll at least go with the winner..."

since Grindewald turned himself in -- or let Dumbly take him in -- i would consider that a defeat, surely.

[gloryforever.livejournal.com]

Dumbly didn't say "we fought", did he? i thought he merely used words like 'confrontation'. certainly, in history books (like in real life) the more glamorous or exciting version wins out. Dumbly arguing someone into submission isn't as grand as a 'final showdown duel confrontation'...

Not only does that make sense, it's also perfectly in character. In "The Only One He Ever Feared" (OotP) even Voldemort remarks how Dumbledore is above the brutality of seeking to kill him, and despite what Michael Gambon might have lead us to believe in Movie!GoF, Dumbledore has never been one to resort to violence if it could be helped.

[house-illrepute.livejournal.com]

and despite what Michael Gambon might have lead us to believe in Movie!GoF, Dumbledore has never been one to resort to violence if it could be helped.

actually, given the info that we have been given, Gambon's performance may have been spot-on.

Dumbly had a temper, certainly. He wasn't egging Harry on by saying he, himself was rash and selfish... that wasn't just lip service. I think we are to take it that he WAS rash and, possibly, mildly blood racist, just on the softer side. The murder of his sister may have seriously been his rock bottom, from which he was able to re-evaluate his ideals, ways, and means.

Now, take Harry... the Dumbly Rowling wrote simply doesn't jive. He's a planner -- a plotter... and Harry makes the THIRD TIME his machinations have been unraveling right before his eyes.

Not the first... (his sister/Grindy)

Not the second... (tom riddle and his decision not to be more active in the boy's life)

but the third.

And, given what he said in OotP about actually CARING about Harry and, by that point he had acknowledged that his decisions were purely selfish, this is a man who has found -- for the third time -- that someone is out to get Harry right from under his nose...

The addition of the scene where he's saying "I feel like I'm missing something" shows the "i'm not omniscient" side of Dumbly that Rowling simply would have us assume....

For me, Rowling simply wrote a bad character. I'm sorry, but given his failures, given his careful planning, given those plans unraveling BEYOND HIS CONTROL (again), Gambon's reaction simply was more realistic... esp. in light of the Dumbledore we're seeing in HP:DH.

That wasn't anger at Harry we saw in movie!GoF -- that was frustration at the situation -- that was desperation.

Dumbly in the first one? I can see the desperation thing not playing out... it's the first one, after all...

The second one? Okay, this is stickier... but still... this is all stuff that was basically set in motion prior to Harry entering Hogwarts...

The third one? Okay, now this is getting desperate... Because this rat has been under my nose since Percy (and maybe since Charlie and/or Bill, too)...

the fourth one?

yeah... he wouldn't be calm.

Not in my opinion, of course.

By this point, the archetypal image should have dropped... okay, but Rowling didn't do it... I think it a mistake and poor writing, but it's her character. Still, movie!GoF Dumbly made more sense as a REAL character and, to me, a perfectly reasonable interpretation.

MO, of course. I know i'm in a minority on this... ;)

[snorkackcatcher]

A bit of a minority, yes. :) I thought Dumbledore's character worked -- in fact, I thought DH enhanced the character and fleshed him out nicely. It showed him as clever and mostly successful in his planning, but still having things come undone because of unforeseen circumstances, not once but several times. I think that's plausible, indeed realistic -- super-Machiavellian generals who control all the fine details are a bit over the top.

Gambon!Dumbledore lovers unite!

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, I'm just an LJ lurker. Don't wanna talk about wand lore (which I think Rowling didn't think through nearly enough for anyone's tastes) but instead just here to give a shout out to another Gambon!Dumbledore fan. No offense to Richard Harris (who got the twinkly, grandfatherly Dumbledore right) but Gambon knocks my socks off. He makes Dumbledore feel like a real person and not just a "type", and I'm beginning to wonder if Rowling wrote Dumbledore in Book 7 as a nod to Gambon (depends on how much of the story you think she planned out in advance).

[eroej-kab.livejournal.com]

Don't blame the actor. The director decides how he wants the actor to portray the characted,

[snorkackcatcher]

Not sure about that ... I interpreted Dumbledore not attempting to kill him as knowing he couldn't do so because he suspected that there were more Horcruxes, and probably shouldn't anyway because it might mess things up for Harry if Voldy went through the whole blood-of-the-enemy routine again with someone else, and thus didn't want to give away the fact he knew this by even trying?

Agree that Gambon's performance (well, direction) was odd, though. Still, they have trouble even getting Ron and Hermione right ...

[snorkackcatcher]

He just says "I won the duel. I won the wand" -- which doesn't really say that much (especially as this scene, and the one in the Forest, are carefully set up so that Harry doesn't really get much (any?) information he hadn't worked out for himself and can't be sure what was really going on). I doubt Grindelwald was ready for a complete change of heart at the time of their confrontation -- he'd have been at the height of his powers, I imagine -- but he might just have been starting to be remorseful enough at what he'd done for it to make the difference. Either way, he must have lost and Dumbledore took the wand from him.

[lls-mutant.livejournal.com]

You wrote an intelligent meta and I should have an intelligent comment, but I'm ODing on Moose Munch popcorn and estrogen. All I can say is that this:

("I know what you're thinking, punk. You're asking yourself, did the Elder Wand change hands six times or only five? Well, to tell you the truth -- I don't know myself. But what you should be asking yourself is -- do I feel lucky? Well do ya, punk? Go ahead. Make my day." Or something like that :D)

made me laugh WAY too hard. And you should make an icon out of it.

[snorkackcatcher]

Bit long for an icon, although I suppose it could be an animated one. :) I'm afraid I thought of that almost as soon as I read the passage. BAD ME.

[vera-pavlovna.livejournal.com]

I think this is a great essay...the wand ownership issue has been bothering me for some time, especially since it doesn't come up in previous books.

I have a question about Draco gaining ownership of the Elder Wand from Dumbledore. When Draco disarms Dumbledore, there's no indication that he intended to *permanently* deprive Dumbledore of his wand. Draco doesn't even retain possession of the wand. So, why does the wand pass from Dumbledore's ownership to Draco's? Something special to do with it being the Elder Wand?

[animus-wyrmis.livejournal.com]

I think maybe because it was a serious fight. Draco *did* mean to disarm/neutralize Dumbledore, although he was wavering on the killing part. But I think the wand sees a "defeat" as a reason to switch masters; in that fight, Draco's disarming of Dumbledore was an actual defeat...he rendered Dumbledore helpless without his consent, sort of. (I hope that makes some kind of sense.)

And this was a FANTASTIC essay! The wand stuff took me a lot of rereading to figure out, and I'm still not entirely clear on everything...

[snorkackcatcher]

Yeah, I think you're right about what Draco did inflicting a real defeat -- after all, the boy isn't supposed to be able to defeat the most powerful wizard in the world who's carrying an unbeatable wand, right?

[snorkackcatcher]

Good point -- I suppose the argument would be that Draco did intend to permanently deprive him of the wand, because he Disarmed Dumbledore with the intention of then going on to kill him; indeed, it did cause his death (albeit indirectly) as Dumbledore was unable to fight back when the rest of the DEs arrived.

It probably is a special feature of the Elder Wand too -- it almost seems as if it's one of those magic objects that are looking to switch owners if they can't control them.

[freakonsale.livejournal.com]

But what you should be asking yourself is -- do I feel lucky? Well do ya, punk? Go ahead. Make my day.
LOL, FANTASTIC.

The wands have bothered me for awhile but this makes it all make more sense.

[snorkackcatcher]

Cheers. I'm afraid Harry's "so it all comes down to this" speech just made me think of that. :)

[lazy-neutrino.livejournal.com]

Early on, Rita hints that there's more to that duel than meets the eye, suggesting that Dumbledore didn't actually beat Grindelwald in combat, Grindelwald practically gave up and came quietly -- perhaps having a moment of weakness in which he was unable to kill his old friend

I'd assumed that was the key. She spends quite a lot of time in book 7 building up the deep friendship between DD and GG. If GG's mindset in the final duel didn't allow him to see a way to win without killing, his heart may well not have been in it. And he's almost been down that road once, and ran away. (I think: I haven't re-read the early backstory bit, but the friendship shines through).

[snorkackcatcher]

Mmm. I see she's doing another reading and interview in NYC soon -- maybe someone will ask her what exactly happened in that duel!

[eroej-kab.livejournal.com]

If you can steal the wand and get "ownership" why doesn't LV's stealing the wand from the tomb work?

If you must defeat the master of the wand (how that has happened through the ages is a quandery) then here is a thought - Grindelwald does not defeat Gregorovitch, but ultimately LV AK's Gregorovitch. Why is not LV actually the real master of the wand? DD beat Grindelwald because he is not the wand's master. Draco disarms DD because he is not the wand's master. Why then does the wand not mastered by LV?

[snorkackcatcher]

Interesting thought that -- and you also wonder whether Gregorovitch was the true master, because I doubt he was meant to be a killer (he could even have been studying the wand on someone else's behalf, I suppose). In that case, the special magic of the wand could even have expired some time previously.

I think we have to assume that theft works as a way of defeating the previous master, because the final showdown seems to assume that Harry is the new master -- the wand won't kill him. Mind you, that might apply to any wand, so 'the wand is no longer special, just ordinarily powerful, and no-one realises that' would indeed be another interesting theory.

here via the daily_snitch

[norisis.livejournal.com]

If you can steal the wand and get "ownership" why doesn't LV's stealing the wand from the tomb work?

Hi, could this be because 'technically' the Elder wand was no longer Dumbledore's at that point? It seems you'd have to best the *owner* directly - by theft, punching him, winning an argument, whatever - for the wand to change allegiances.

Re: here via the daily_snitch

[snorkackcatcher]

Yes, that seems to be the key. At this point, the Elder Wand is sort of waiting around for the true owner to claim it, and it hasn't been Dumbledore's for a long time. From the 'wand's POV', presumably Voldy removing it from the tomb is no different from someone picking it up from the ground below the Astronomy Tower and putting it in the tomb in the first place.

Re: here via the daily_snitch

[eroej-kab.livejournal.com]

Gringelwald only stole the wand from a workshop. Although he shot a stunner at Gregorovitch after the fact we are not told if it actually hit him. What wand did GG use? His own? The Elder Wand? Just more and more questions!?

Re: here via the daily_snitch

[snorkackcatcher]

It probably didn't hit him as Gregorovitch saw Grindelwald jump out of the window afterwards. I get the impression that he used the Elder Wand, as Harry said he couldn't see what he'd stolen -- but at that point he didn't realise it was a wand.

[snorkackcatcher]

That would be another interesting approach -- that the wand isn't unbeatable as such, that's just part of the legend. It's merely extremely powerful and works as a sort of wand equivalent of Felix Felicis, which means that it looks like it's unbeatable. As you say, that's probably not the reading JKR meant, but you never know! :)

[shiiki.livejournal.com]

Does any of that make any sense?

*nods* A lot. The whole wands issue has definitely been one of the hardest things to figure out in DH, and I think you did a good job trying to explain it.

You're right - the simplest explanation would be that a different set of rules govern the Elder Wand's allegiances.

And your assessment of Harry/Voldemort showdown? Brilliant. Punk. *snorts*

[snorkackcatcher]

Yes, it seems to be the case that the Elder Wand is special in more than one way -- perhaps because whatever (semi-Dark?) magic makes it unbeatable in a duel also makes it disloyal to an owner who can be beaten by force in some other way.

I couldn't resist reading that as Dirty!Harry -- maybe I will make an icon of it, as lupinslittlesis suggested. :)

[darth-kittius.livejournal.com]

I have to say that I'm still COMPLETELY confused by the wand thing and plan to write a huge, confusing post on it someday. I just don't buy that a wand which can be physically stolen by a thief and also be obtained by defeating an owners OTHER wand. I just don't get it.

But that's for another day.

That all said. It is an interesting question -- how did Dumbledore defeat Grindelwald? Very interesting indeed.

[snorkackcatcher]

JKR's general 'out' on this is probably reflected in the Ollivander quotes above -- 'it all depends', and that there are certain things going on -- 'the incalculable power of certain acts' -- which are, well, magical and not easily susceptible to logical explanation.

[oboros.livejournal.com]

nice pist. I like it. I agreee you need a HP Make My Day icon. =)

[snorkackcatcher]

Working on it. :)

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

That conquest can apparently be of the owner, not just the wand itself -- it seems to have a definite tendency to be super-sensitive to bad things happening to its master that result in it switching allegiances, or perhaps even a tendency to cause such things (maybe some sort of curse placed on the wand by the Peverell who created it, as a brake on its power?).

well, if you look at what's implied by casting Death as the wand's creator, and under what circumstances the wand actually got created, i think both of your posits are both true. it was made, imho, for spite, for selfish gain, and at the price of murder for the power; the Devil always has a price, doesn't he?

good essay, btw.

[snorkackcatcher]

The fairy-tale version of the Tale of the Three Brothers was probably meant to be something that sprang up after the fact when people knew about the three Hallows and the way the wand worled in particular. But of course the means of transfer does mesh with that story.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

fairy tales are cautionary tales. i'd guess that the Tale was started to prevent future wizards from what the Peverells did, and Death was used as the metaphor for what the wand required.

that's how i read it, anyway.

[snorkackcatcher]

Could be, yeah.