If Gellert Grendelwald had the Elder Wand, and the Elder Wand was undefeatable, how did Dumbledore defeat him in the duel? Did I miss something, or was this giant, gaping plot hole, large enough to drive a semi through, never explained?
Draco wasn't using the wand because he didn't know what it was, and it wasn't in his possession anyway. Gellert knew what it was, and, so far as we know, had access to it, so why would he go into a duel without it? Maybe he did, but couldn't she have dropped a sentence or two saying so, and why?
I got the impression that a better wand could give you an edge, but, y'know, Albus was just that hardcore.
The Elder Wand was clearly NOT undefeatable, since its entire history is "its owner gets defeated and loses the wand".
Which makes me wonder just what's so cool about it. I figure it's basically a +3 Wand Of Dueling, or something like that. Given that there really aren't many other wands with plusses, that makes it pretty darn cool, but the +3 isn't undefeatable.
But in all the other examples with much detail, the owner wasn't dueling with the wand when he was defeated. It's supposed to be undefeatable in a duel.
My take is, there is a myth surrounding the Deathly Hallows. In the myth, the wand was made by Death and was undefeatable. Dumbledore suggested it may have simply been made by a very powerful wizard. If so, it was possibly a Very Powerful Wand that seemed to always win, hence the legend, but not undefeatable.
Of course, not much is known of Grendelwald, and he could have chosen to use his regular wand against Dumbledore out of some sort of pride thing or possible bow to their old friendship. The phrase "I defeated the other most powerful wizard... with my normal wand!" might have had a nice ring to it.
If he wasn't using the Elder Wand in the duel, someone should have said so at some point. It's plausible, but not established, unless I missed it -- I was hoping someone who read slower would point out to me where I missed just such a statement.
I think it was that Grendelwald didn't defeat the previous owner in a duel to the death (or kill the previous owner), therefore didn't get the full benefits of the wand. Didn't he steal it from the previous owner, basically?
Since he wouldn't have had the full benefits, Albus would have just kicked his ass because he was more skilled... or something. Just my impression anyway.
In that case, Gregorovitch would still have been the wand's master, and presumably, Voldemort would have gained it's power when he defeated Gregorovitch. Since he didn't, and DUmbledore apparently did have it's power, I can only assume that something about the way Gellert stole it was good enough to count. Perhaps stealing it directly from its master, as GEllert did, counts, but stealing it from someone else (Voldemort stole it from Dumbledore's tomb, not from Draco directly) doesn't.
It's a good question, especially given Dumbledore's description of himself as maybe a shade better than Grindlewald. My wife and I kicked it around and the thought that she came up with was that Dumbledore basically got into his head somehow. He concentrated on staying alive and keeping Grindlewald busy while talking to him (and we know how good he is at that). Whether it was just to put G. off balance or maybe to try and convince him of how misguided he was (since, from what little we know of him, he was not the stone sociopath that Voldemort was), we have no idea...but in a duel like that, if you're off your game at all, you're gonna lose.
I think that the wand was undefeatable, not the wizard. Get the wand away from the wizard, and you can win.
Dumbledore knew Grindelwald well enough to be able to gain his trust; because they'd been friends and concocted this 'authority over Muggles, for the greater good,' thing together, then had no contact while Grindelwald was raging over Europe, Grindelwald might have trusted Dumbledore enough to put the wand down for a moment. Dumbledore was dark enough to persuade him that he was on his side, and knew him well enough to know the right things to say.
Then, once the wand was down, Dumbledore attacked.
That could even explain why Rita Skeeter was able to say that the final battle wasn't as meteoric as people said; like the final battle between Harry and Voldemort, it was more of a mental battle than lots of fireworks. Those who knew the situation (in both cases) understood that the mental battle was a lot harder, but it wouldn't come across so well in print. And if part of the mental battle were Dumbledore persuading Grindelwald that he really was on his side, that really wouldn't go over well out of context.
A simpler explanation is that, because Grindelwald and Dumbledore were equals in the plot to get the wand, the wand had equal allegiance to them, so the final battle was like them them calling a puppy and seeing who it would recognise as its master!
(I came here via your comment on Esprix's journal).
It's not that I can't see a plausible explanation -- I can; more than one, even. It just bothers me that J.K. Rowling didn't close the hole, when it would have been so simple to drop a line in any of the places the duel was mentioned which would resolve the question.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-22 01:39 am (UTC)Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-22 05:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-22 02:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-22 05:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-22 03:28 am (UTC)The Elder Wand was clearly NOT undefeatable, since its entire history is "its owner gets defeated and loses the wand".
Which makes me wonder just what's so cool about it. I figure it's basically a +3 Wand Of Dueling, or something like that. Given that there really aren't many other wands with plusses, that makes it pretty darn cool, but the +3 isn't undefeatable.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-22 05:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-22 08:50 am (UTC)(And isn't a Gellert a Neopet or a Pokemon or something?)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-24 03:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-23 04:51 am (UTC)Of course, not much is known of Grendelwald, and he could have chosen to use his regular wand against Dumbledore out of some sort of pride thing or possible bow to their old friendship. The phrase "I defeated the other most powerful wizard... with my normal wand!" might have had a nice ring to it.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-23 05:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-23 06:13 am (UTC)Since he wouldn't have had the full benefits, Albus would have just kicked his ass because he was more skilled... or something. Just my impression anyway.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-23 05:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-23 06:18 am (UTC)Dav2.718
no subject
Date: 2007-07-24 02:40 am (UTC)Dumbledore knew Grindelwald well enough to be able to gain his trust; because they'd been friends and concocted this 'authority over Muggles, for the greater good,' thing together, then had no contact while Grindelwald was raging over Europe, Grindelwald might have trusted Dumbledore enough to put the wand down for a moment. Dumbledore was dark enough to persuade him that he was on his side, and knew him well enough to know the right things to say.
Then, once the wand was down, Dumbledore attacked.
That could even explain why Rita Skeeter was able to say that the final battle wasn't as meteoric as people said; like the final battle between Harry and Voldemort, it was more of a mental battle than lots of fireworks. Those who knew the situation (in both cases) understood that the mental battle was a lot harder, but it wouldn't come across so well in print. And if part of the mental battle were Dumbledore persuading Grindelwald that he really was on his side, that really wouldn't go over well out of context.
A simpler explanation is that, because Grindelwald and Dumbledore were equals in the plot to get the wand, the wand had equal allegiance to them, so the final battle was like them them calling a puppy and seeing who it would recognise as its master!
(I came here via your comment on Esprix's journal).
no subject
Date: 2007-07-24 03:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-24 02:03 pm (UTC)