What a fantastic little story! Aside from being a delight to read, there’s some interesting commentary by Dumbledore, who notes that this is the only story of the five that almost completely plays by the rules of real Wizarding World magic.
It’s an interesting observation, because even though the magical world is not, as I’ve argued, taken by surprise by encountering magic (in the same way that we are when we encounter it in a story, because it’s so unfamiliar), nevertheless Beedle wrote four out of five tales using a different kind of magic – magic that didn’t behave in the same way as “real” magic does. In other words, the element of difference – creating an “other” world in which to explore problems in our own – is still a fundamental part of the Wizarding World’s fairy tales.
Lots of humorous commentary by Dumbledore on this one.
By the way – funniest line in the book is Dumbledore’s twice-repeated footnote, “Such as myself.”
revgeorge on 
Arabella Figg on 
Fricka on 
Lynn on 
Steve Morrison on 
Ally on 
Joivre on 
Loading ...
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
And, the reward for the story no one has anything to say about goes to …
Sorry, I got distracted by my wife getting home from work. I’ll try not to let it happen again.
It was a nice, funny story. I think its poignancy comes in the chief witch hunter actually caring enough about his best dog to want it raised from the dead. Even evil people love those who love them or who serve them well.
I think the let down of this story is that it is too much using magic in the way that everyone, in the Wizarding world at least, is familiar with & that makes it, well, familiar & thus more easily taken for granted. What’s so special about a witch making fools out of those stupid Muggles? The only enlightenment as Dumbledore notes is the realization that magic can’t reverse death. Which is powerfully important but still doesn’t provide enough umph for this story to take primary place.
I think the let down of this story is that it is too much using magic in the way that everyone, in the Wizarding world at least, is familiar with & that makes it, well, familiar & thus more easily taken for granted.
A very good point! Demonstrates both how accustomed we’ve all become to the Wizarding World, and how important it is for the fairy tale to create a different world with its own magical laws.
Well, to repeat what you two have already said: there isn’t much that’s new in the tale. The point is actually the foolishness of the mortals, how little they understand wizardry, and how easily they are bested by wizards.
There were only points that stood out for me. One was the footnote (#4) about how a wand “sometimes holds residual power that it may discharge at odd moments” , a point which JKR takes up in the last tale. The other was the observation that the Unforgivables were classified as such in 1717. I wanted to ask: “How come?”
This is probably my favorite as far as fun, cheerful, storytelling goes. It’s a bit of magic-can’t-d0-everything mixed with magic-shouldn’t-do-everything. I think it’s a bit less supportive of Muggles than previous stories, but it’s still saying Muggles aren’t what the Lucius Malfoys of the world make them out to be. Sometimes while reading the books, even I occasionally think of Muggles as dim witted, slow, blind fools who are inferior to wizards. Then I remember that every real great person (and every real person) was/is a Muggle. Magic should be more of an extracurricular kind of thing, in addition to normal “Muggle” studies. Even so, as in all the other tales, Beedle’s way ahead of his times.
By the way, I love how Dumbledore is also learned in Muggle studies like philosophy and history and literature. Obviously he would be, but wizards seem so…less educated. They learn magic and some history and maybe “Arithmancy” and “Muggle Studies,” but otherwise they have the education of a 5th grader. Slightly off topic
I found that bit of history interesting, too. It sort of settles the question, “Unforgivable by whom, the Ministry or God?”
If, that is, you take the Tales as part of Canon. And that’s a whole ‘nother discussion right there.
I made a comment about that last point – whether the tales are canonical -over at HogPro. I don’t think the tales need to be part of the canon – with the exception of the Brothers But for me Dumbledore’s comments felt like canon, especially, but not just for Brothers Dumbledore is in character throughout the commentaries. And in the comments following Brothers he is actually pursuing the same agenda he has throughout the saga – and using the very tactics which not only define him as a person, but which are endlessly fascinating to those of us who frequent these sites.
Life imitating art, or art imitating life as it may be. For tomorrow December 5th from wikipedia:
“1484 – Pope Innocent VIII issued the papal bull Summis desiderantes affectibus, giving Dominican Inquisitor Heinrich Kramer explicit authority to prosecute witchcraft in Germany.”
Getting onto the touchy subject of canon, I, first, want to say that we & the Hogpro’s which include a lot of us anyway are probably the only ones seriously discussing this, for which I am glad & proud. Most fandom is simply going to assume the simplest position, “Jo said it, that settles it.”
I agree with Red Rocker that Dumbledore is writing in character & thus these comments seem to dovetail into line with the main 7 books & so maybe should be considered canon. On the other hand, these books don’t really tell us anything about the themes of HP that we didn’t already know or couldn’t already figure out from the main 7 books.
So, I’m torn on how to consider these books. Right now they’re somewhere in between but maybe we can discuss this more in a thread of its own.