Harry Potter Book 7--WARNING SPOILERS!!!!

[Kegan]

Ah! Very good point that I noticed. Stupify?! Seriously, come on - they know much more spells than that, but it proved that they were still good and that Harry still cared about people. In the end his love for people prevailed, along with his own self sacrifice. I gotta admit...I did expect a little more of Ginny, but I guess they didn't want to make it too lovey dovey.

All good points Barry.

-Kegan

 

[Jeremy Ordan]

Plot Hole #2
The evil Grindewald has the Elder Wand, so he's unbeatable. Right? Then how did Dumbledore defeated him and take his wand? It's not like he just stole it in the middle of the night. There was a big epic battle that everyone witnessed and wrote about. So if the Dumbledore can defeat the unbeatable wand, what makes it so special? For that matter, once he has the wand, why didn't he just go look for Voldemort and beat him down since the wand is invincible?

I was thinking about this last night and completely bothered by it, but then I saw that JK explained it.

Grindewald was never the owner of the wand, he stole it, he never defeated the true owner of the wand.

THEN

Voldemort, he was never the true owner of the want... Malfoy was, and Harry took the wand from him.

It all goes back to Olevander and wand lore being a complicated art as well as the rules that Harry relays during the duel with Voldemort.

------------------------------

I'm still working on the other plot hole... not sure how to deal with that one yet.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

seems like I cannot unsubscribe from email notification without posting - sorry if there is a way to do it, cannot figure it out though.

I will read the book or see the movie one day so unsubscribing for obvious reasons.

Sorry for random contentless post, have fun discussing the book, ya'll.

 

[Huy Vu]

I was thinking about this last night and completely bothered by it, but then I saw that JK explained it.

Grindewald was never the owner of the wand, he stole it, he never defeated the true owner of the wand.

This doesn't work either. Because if the rule is that you have to defeat/disarm the owner of the wand in order to own it, then Dumbledore doesn't own the wand either when he defeats Grindewald. So when Malfoy disarms Dumbledore, he wouldn't own the wand. And by that progression Harry wouldn't own the wand when he disarms Malfoy.

 

[Kegan]

What do you mean? Grindewald STOLE the wand, so its powers were rendered inactive. When Dumbledore beat Grindewald, the magic was restored to the wand. That's how it progresses.

-Kegan

 

[Huy Vu]

What do you mean? Grindewald STOLE the wand, so its powers were rendered inactive. When Dumbledore beat Grindewald, the magic was restored to the wand. That's how it progresses.

-Kegan

Dumbledore would have to defeat the previous owner for the wand to become the new owner. Taking the wand from its current holder doesn't give you power, but defeating its owner does because Harry disarming Malfoy makes him the master of the wand. If that isn't true then the killing spell would have killed Harry because the wand has yet to recognize him as its master.

That's why I said the theory of Grindewald stealing the wand doesn't work because himself, Dumbledore, Malfoy and Harry would have all been bystander who has nothing to do with the wand. For that matter, since Grindewald stole the wand from Gregorovich and Voldemort subsequently killed the wandmaker, that would make Voldemort the true master of the wand.

 

[Barry_Green]

http://www.potterpuppetpals.com/bothering.html

 

[mikkowilson]

Yes, that is very bothering.

- Mikko

 

[Weston]

Plot Hole #2
The evil Grindewald has the Elder Wand, so he's unbeatable. Right? Then how did Dumbledore defeated him and take his wand? It's not like he just stole it in the middle of the night. There was a big epic battle that everyone witnessed and wrote about. So if the Dumbledore can defeat the unbeatable wand, what makes it so special? For that matter, once he has the wand, why didn't he just go look for Voldemort and beat him down since the wand is invincible?

It is only said to be unbeatable in the three brothers childrens story which in the book is mentioned to be slightly exaggarated. In the real Harry Potter world its just a more powerful wand...therefore Dumbledore still could have defeated Grindelwald by being a better wizard.

 

[Huy Vu]

It is only said to be unbeatable in the three brothers childrens story which in the book is mentioned to be slightly exaggarated. In the real Harry Potter world its just a more powerful wand...therefore Dumbledore still could have defeated Grindelwald by being a better wizard.

It's kind of a gray area here and I'm willing to accept the possibility. But Dumbledore admitted that he was just "a shade" more skilled than Grindewald, and Grindewald was pretty good already without the wand. So imagine how powerful he'd be with the wand. Unless of course he just plain sucked as a wizard and only gained his reputation cause of the wand.

Of course this is just a minor thing but it really stand out to me because the other books were so tightly knit in term of plotting. All the other ones felt like the way stuff happened were logical, without the "because the writer wanted it to happen" mentality. Somehow I got the feeling that Rowling did a 180 somewhere along the line of writing this book and came up with a whole new angle with the Deadly Hallows, then backtracked to tie it back with the other book. She did a masterful job, but not everything fits.

Book 4 remains the best in the series for me.

 

[Weston]

It's kind of a gray area here and I'm willing to accept the possibility. But Dumbledore admitted that he was just "a shade" more skilled than Grindewald, and Grindewald was pretty good already without the wand. So imagine how powerful he'd be with the wand. Unless of course he just plain sucked as a wizard and only gained his reputation cause of the wand.

Perhaps Dumbedore saying "just a shade" is him being modest. But yeah...the book did mention Gellert to be Albus's equal....

One thing Ive been wondering......what exact universe is this taking place in? In the 1940's when Gridelwald was dumping on everyone in the wizarding world...was Hitler simultaneously bringing about WWII in the muggle world? Could they have been in league with each other...or is Grindelwald just a stand in for Hitler in the story?

It seems that JK is saying that when things go bad in the muggle world they are partly to blame or caused by the wizarding community. Certainly Hitler has to exist in the Harry Potter universe....because the Harry Potter universe is supposed to be based on the world as it is......plus a bunch of magical people no one knows about.

Yet the deathly hallows sign previously emloyed by Grindelwald seems to be a stand in for the swastika.

Any thoughts or opinions on this?

 

[Huy Vu]

Perhaps Dumbedore saying "just a shade" is him being modest. But yeah...the book did mention Gellert to be Albus's equal....

One thing Ive been wondering......what exact universe is this taking place in? In the 1940's when Gridelwald was dumping on everyone in the wizarding world...was Hitler simultaneously bringing about WWII in the muggle world? Could they have been in league with each other...or is Grindelwald just a stand in for Hitler in the story?

It seems that JK is saying that when things go bad in the muggle world they are partly to blame or caused by the wizarding community. Certainly Hitler has to exist in the Harry Potter universe....because the Harry Potter universe is supposed to be based on the world as it is......plus a bunch of magical people no one knows about.

Yet the deathly hallows sign previously emloyed by Grindelwald seems to be a stand in for the swastika.

Any thoughts or opinions on this?

I think we can put a rough real world timeline based on the info in the book. Harry's parents were killed in 1981 (according to their tomb stone) so if he were one year old then it put the start on the first book at 1991, so definitely not WWII. Last book would have taken place in 1998. The events in the book might have been a metaphor for the Holocaust certainly.

 

[Weston]

I think we can put a rough real world timeline based on the info in the book. Harry's parents were killed in 1981 (according to their tomb stone) so if he were one year old then it put the start on the first book at 1991, so definitely not WWII. Last book would have taken place in 1998. The events in the book might have been a metaphor for the Holocaust certainly.

Yes I realize that the timeline of Harrys story ended back in 1998 or so...(with the prologue being in 2017 or whatever...)

I'm talking about Grindelwald in 1945. If his downfall was in 1945 (same year as Hitler) and he was causing alot of trouble previous to that...it would have been during WWII. I'm just wondering if WWII and Hitler exist in the Harry Potter world....whether Harry was born yet or not. The Universe of Harry Potter goes back way farther than him cause there are always those obscure history dates such as when wizards went into hiding in 1600 something.

So...I'm asking...is the Muggle world exactly as our own is? Has britain gone through two world wars? I assume that the answer is yes...which means that Grindelwalds reign was far too similar to Hitlers to either 1: not be a metephor for hitler (which would imply there was no WWII in harrys muggle world) or 2: Gridelwald and Hitler were involved with each other. Perhaps Grindelwald was Hitlers unknown Rasputin of sorts. It would be to coincidental that peace came over Europe after they both had died in 1945.

Of course i know all this is fiction...i just want to pin down the correct fictional universe this is taking place in.

 

[DanW]

Perhaps Dumbedore saying "just a shade" is him being modest. But yeah...the book did mention Gellert to be Albus's equal....

One thing Ive been wondering......what exact universe is this taking place in? In the 1940's when Gridelwald was dumping on everyone in the wizarding world...was Hitler simultaneously bringing about WWII in the muggle world? Could they have been in league with each other...or is Grindelwald just a stand in for Hitler in the story?

It seems that JK is saying that when things go bad in the muggle world they are partly to blame or caused by the wizarding community. Certainly Hitler has to exist in the Harry Potter universe....because the Harry Potter universe is supposed to be based on the world as it is......plus a bunch of magical people no one knows about.

Yet the deathly hallows sign previously emloyed by Grindelwald seems to be a stand in for the swastika.

Any thoughts or opinions on this?

I think you're on to something. I think Rowling is implying, not so gently, that Grindelwald set up the Holocaust, using the Imperius curse on Hitler and all of eastern Europe. Remember that Krum is ready to kill over a symbol which he takes to be Grindelwald's, and you hear that from where he lives, Grindelwald did horrifying things, but, in England, they didn't feel them that much, though they feared him. In muggle history, the British were able to fight off the Germans against all odds (this would suggest, because of Dumbledore's protection.) Of course England was right in the heart of WW II, but the Holocaust never reached them. Europe, particularly Eastern Europe, on the other hand, was the site of wholesale slaughter of Muggles in concentration camps. This would have been "for the greater good" according to Grindelwald, as it was to Hitler. WW-II would have just been the means to acheive this end for Grindelwald, since he continued to keep the magic world secret from the muggle world.
The only one in the world who could defeat Grindelwald was Dumbledore. Because of his history with him and his remorse, he delayed, but finally went to defeat him, and WW-II then came to an end, capturing the deathwand at the same time. Now, Voldemort is going to do in England what Grindelwald did in Europe, instead of the wizarding world exterminating and subjugating the Muggles, it will be pure-blood wizards alone on top. The fear seen in the Wizarding world, especially in the higher level of government (the Ministry) is reminiscent of not just Germany, but all of Europe in that time.
England felt WW-II much more personally than those of us "across the pond." To think that a Brit would write about a devastating European tragedy brought about by someone who wants to rule the world in the middle of the 20th century, and have WW-II and Hitler not cross her mind would be impossible!