Here’s the great irony of Dumbledore’s commentary on “The Tale of the Three Brothers” – The man who knows the dangers of temptation to power, particularly the temptation of deathlessness, used his authority as a well-respected, even revered, member of the Wizarding community to convince the Wizarding World that the three Deathly Hallows have no basis in reality.
This last bit of commentary is not Dumbledore explaining the real dangers of the Hallows and the need to abandoned them, destroy them, etc. It is Dumbledore burying the story further in the aura of legend and fable – and in doing so, attempting to accomplish, by the deception, the philosophical and moral point of the story for the entire Wizarding World.
Here are Dumbledore’s attempts at burying the Hallows legend:
- The Cloak: Dumbledore writes, “Throughout all the centuries … nobody has ever claimed to have found Death’s Cloak” (p. 97). This is likely true, in and of itself. We can’t even be sure James knew what the Cloak really was. Having written this commentary just 18 months prior to his death, Dumbledore had both possessed the cloak and knew its present location. What this means, in conjunction with his gift of the Beedle tales to Hermione, is: he trusted Harry to keep the secret.
- The Stone: He simply states that it’s never been found. Now, 18 months before his death, this was probably still true in Dumbledore’s mind. If he discovered the stone in the summer between Harry’s 5th and 6th year, then he wrote this line approximately 6-8 months before he discovered the Stone. His commentary then reverts to the lesson of Babbitty Rabbitty (no magic can raise the dead) and the fifth tale’s point that the Stone was Death’s trick to lure the second brother to his death. We can assume, of course, Dumbledore did believe the Stone existed.
- The Elder Wand: More of Dumbledore’s clever trickery here. He is obviously the wand’s possessor at this point, but he simply recounts the “bloody trail of the Elder Wand,” seemingly dismissive of the idea that there is one true Elder Wand passing from hand to hand (”the so-called history of the Elder Wand,” p. 106).
- On the whole, he reinforces his lesson to Harry from Book 1: That humans choose precisely the wrong things for themselves. Very few are those as wise as the brother who chose the Invisibility Cloak.
The final line is chilling: “Even I, Albus Dumbledore, would find it easiest to refuse the Invisibility Cloak; which only goes to show that, clever as I am, I remain just as big a fool as anyone else” (p. 107).
So Dumbledore, with knowledge of the Hallows in hand, chooses to use his authoritative voice in the Wizarding World to attempt to put a stop to any future seeking of the Hallows. More than that, he sought to protect the Wizarding World not only from themselves, but from wizards like himself.
Now, the question to be debated is: Was Albus Dumbledore right to do so?
Lily Luna on 
Arabella Figg on 
R. Ross on 
Loading ...
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 41 comments… read them below or add one }
Was Dumbledore right to deceive?
Yes.
As a seeker of the Hallows, Dumbledore must try not to repeat the errors of the two older brothers. He must not boast of his possession of the Elder Wand and he must not tempt others to bring their loved ones back from beyond the veil.
As for the Invisibility Cloak, deception is its purpose. So not revealing its presence is entirely proper.
So
At the time he wrote it, of course. What if Lord Voldemort read these papers?
Assuming they were meant for publication, the notes point to the existence of the real objects by discussing at such length the controversy despite the minority status of those who believe they exist. This is classic Straussian ‘hidden writing’ in which the best philosophers after the persecution and death of Socrates disguise their real meaning for ‘the few’ (see Strauss’ ‘Persecution and the Art of Writing’).
The point is that the few, namely Harry and friends, if they read these notes, would know immediately he was talking about real objects and act accordingly. Those who shouldn’t know, wouldn’t; those who should, would.
Rowling has Dumbledore write on two levels for two readers like Plato (’I have never written a word of philosophy:’ 7th letter), Maimonides, and other greats. A magnificent trick.
The word that best describes Dumbledore’s notes on the story is disingenuous: lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere
(And ingenuous in case you wanted to know, means: 1. free from reserve, restraint, or dissimulation; candid; sincere. 2. artless; innocent; naive.
3. Obsolete. honorable or noble)
He is arguing that it is sad that people (meaning wizards) actually believe there are such objects, and that their very belief – their desperate hope – is against the moral of the story: that these things are dangerous and should not be coveted, except perhaps for the last. And then proceeds to argue, convincingly, why these things can not exist. And that even if they did exist, they should not be coveted, because people can not be trusted to make the right choices with them. Arguing that even he himself can not be trusted to possess them. All the while possessing two of the items, and ready to risk all in order to possess the third.
His purpose may be to protect the wizarding world from the dangers of power, but his hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.
I think that it’s a masterful bit of writing by JKR: showing that Dumbledore stays in character all the way to the end, parsimonious with the truth, willing to tell lies and deceive people – and all for their own good.
I think yes, and no. Obviously, it’s imperative Voldemort not know about the Hallows & the truth of them, especially since the Cloak would’ve been very easy for Malfoy to steal. Of all of them, this was probably the most vulnerable Hallow, so it needed to stay hidden. This also serves to protect Harry himself, which is Dumbledore’s ultimate purpose. In the same vein, he can’t have anyone know he’s the master of the Elder Wand, especially when we see his hand & understand he’s quite ill. The Hallows are, at the base of them, weapons to be used. Of course nothing can stop death, but we see their value in the fight against evil (i.e. Voldemort). In war, you never show your hand to the enemy.
That said, should such relics of the wizarding world be kept hidden, even after Voldemort is destroyed? I’m not entirely sure. Imagine if our own Declaration of Independence was kept hidden from us because the ideas held within it were deemed “too radical” for public consumption…what then? What if the actual Ark of the Covenant, or Holy Grail, was actually found? Should those be hidden as well? I understand it might not be a perfect analogy, but the searches conducted for such items are akin to the searches for the Hallows. At what point would “knowing” benefit the wizarding world? Shouldn’t wizards & witches have the privilege of knowing such things exist in the world? Also, keeping them hidden just feeds into the whole fanatical worship of the Hallows; if wizards understood the Hallows existed & the power involved, everyone would know if they fell into the hands of a Dark wizard instead of just suspecting it. It would be tough for a Dark wizard to “get away with it,” so to speak.
(And yes, as much as the Hallows can be used to fight evil, they can be used to perpetrate evil. I get that…it’s just an interesting question to me).
All the while possessing two of the items, and ready to risk all in order to possess the third.
If my timeline is correct, he only has one of the items at this point (the wand). He’ll come upon the stone in about 6-8 months after his writing of these notes, and he’ll never seek the cloak again.
I think we find Dumbledore in the same position we’ve seen him in through the entire series: he knows more than everyone else, and he has to make a decision about what to do with that knowledge. In this instance, he decides to bury it, hoping it will die forever with him, and that the few after him who do know about it will keep to his plan.
Which is why it’s so important that Harry, walking to the forest, thinks, “I’ve got to be like Dumbledore.”
I imagine he’d always envisioned the Wand’s history would end with him. He had held the Elder Wand for 50+ years without abusing its power or bragging about it. He possessed the Cloak at one point, but he relinquished it when its rightful owner had returned to the Wizarding World.
So, in possessing the one Hallow he intended to be buried with forever, ending its bloody history, while writing this commentary, I’m not sure the hypocrisy charge sticks on that count.
His weakness remained the Resurrection Stone, and I can’t imagine how his momentary desire to see his family, to apologize, etc., makes him a hypocrite in the end; it simply makes him as “foolish” as he claimed to be in the final line of the commentary.
Ah, Travis, Dumbledore’s greatest apologist to the end.
Hehe. Yes. It’ll get boring around here if I ever change my mind.
Wait till you read chapter 9. I’m freaking Elphias Doge.
Nice characterization, Red Rocker. Maybe a little too harsh on Dumbledore but not essentially wrong about him. I think John hits it well, too, that Dumbledore is writing here on two levels, for the uninitiated & the initiated.
See, when you say it, Travis, it makes it all much more sensible.
I still think the reality is somewhere in between your position & Red Rocker’s, though.
I may be wrong, but I don’t think either of you really appreciate how much I like Dumbledore. He is probably my favorite character. I enjoy what I see as his hypocrisy, and his deceptiveness – and what Travis sees as his necessary discretion. His contradictions make him deliciously human.
BTW – and almost completely unrelated to the topic at hand – I was listening to Peter O’Toole in Ratatouille the other day, the part where’s he’s writing about how easy it is being a critic, and how wonderful it is to find a true genius. Take his voice and tone – the voice of experience and authority and wisdom, tired, spent, but still incredibly expressive and powerful – and transpose it over Dumbledore’s comments in Beedle and you have yourself an auditory delight.
Actually, Red Rocker, I do get it, and I see the brilliance of Dumbledore as you see him. I’ll be frank – I can see him read either way, and I’ve made a choice which reading I personally prefer.
Rocker, I knew you liked Dumbledore. I think it possible to like a character in a story even when we see their flaws. Just like it’s possible to do it in real life, too. I didn’t think you were being harsh because you didn’t like Dumbledore; just that your position on him as a character seemed too extreme.
Just thinking about your opening comment, Travis, that “The man who knows the dangers of temptation to power, particularly the temptation of deathlessness, used his authority as a well-respected, even revered, member of the Wizarding community to convince the Wizarding World that the three Deathly Hallows have no basis in reality.”
See, I never bought the argument that Dumbledore totally eschewed power & its temptations. He just took a different tack than either Grindelwald or Voldemort. He turned away from using force & especially governmental force but instead turned to using education to achieve his goals of a more tolerant Wizarding world. Capture the hearts & minds of the children & you can influence their direction. What an enormous, albeit subtle, power! A bit harder & not as fast working as direct force but in the long run more effective & lasting.
This gets back to the podcast you did on education from your NIU talk & the problem of education. One of the main problems I see with education nowadays is the misconception that somehow government schooling is value neutral. That all the little kiddies are having done to them is having their heads filled up with bits of totally unbiased knowledge. Well, they may or may not be, but what they are also learning is the morals & values that those in charge of the system want them to learn, whether they are being taught this consciously or unconsciously. So, the question becomes not, whether morals or values are being taught to children but whose morals & values are being taught to children.
So. all that’s an extended side note to show that Dumbledore didn’t turn away from power, only the forceful use of power. But as Headmaster of the primary Wizarding school in the UK & Ireland he would’ve had enormous power to shape the values & worldview of the children under his tutelage! And he would have the authority as well to shape the views of the Wizarding world as you point out in your comment, Travis.
Got to agree with revgeorge. I don’t think that Dumbledore rejected power: he just elected a different way of exercising it, a way which, not coincidentally, allowed him much more autonomy than being an elected official would have. He remained the leader of the Order, stayed on the wizard council (wizengamot?) was Headmaster at Hogwarts, allowing him access to and influence on the new generation, and again not coincidentally, on the boy who would ultimately bring down Voldemort. He put himself in a position where he could exercise maximum influence.
And honestly: do any of us here see him as second to any other character in the saga, living or dead, in power?
As for relinquishing the cloak, I don’t see that that means much. Not only did he not value it, he was capable of making himself invisible without it via the Disillusionment Charm, as per JKR.
The analogy I’ve been thinking of is nuclear power. We are all aware of the dangers of using nuclear power. Membership into the nuclear “club” is jealously guarded – countries are willing to do unilateral strikes to prevent other countries from developing the technology. But no country which has it is willing to relinquish it. I see Dumbledore’s possession of the Elder Wand like that. It is too dangerous for any wizard to have, and should be put away. But not by him and not in his lifetime. It does indeed take a better man, Harry, to do that. As for Dumbledore, the wand literally has to be pried away from his dead fingers.
Of course Dumbledore didn’t reject power. No one rejects power entirely. Everyone has some power over something. What he rejected was the kind of power that was his greatest temptation – the power to force his ideology on others, by converting or conquering. It was one type of power he gave up.
That’s the end point of the irony – that there’s really no such thing as “power-neutral.” It’s a matter of how power is accepted and wielded.
It is too dangerous for any wizard to have, and should be put away. But not by him and not in his lifetime. It does indeed take a better man, Harry, to do that. As for Dumbledore, the wand literally has to be pried away from his dead fingers.
But what if one country collected all the nuclear weapons, and then, without using them, plunged itself in its entirety, weapons and all, into oblivion? Because that’s what Dumbledore’s plan was about – end it forever. And when Harry, the better man, made his choice about the wand? He put it straight back in Dumbledore’s dead hands. They both seemed to think that was a good place for it. I don’t see Dumbledore’s still holding the wand in death as having anything to do with his obsession with power. Quite the opposite. I just don’t see reading that decision as Dumbledore saying, “I love this wand and its power so much, I’m taking it with me.” Not even close.
These are Dumbledore’s final words:
Wizards and Muggles alike are imbued with a lust for power; how many would resist ‘the Wand of Destiny’? Which human being, having lost someone they loved, could withstand the temptation of the Resurrection Stone? Even I, Albus Dumbledore, would find it easiest to refuse the Invisibility Cloak; which only goes to show that, clever as I am, I remain just as big a fool as anyone else.
It’s a fine piece of writing, profound in its ideas and sentiment. But read the last line. He’s telling us that not even he is equal to the task of resisting the temptation of the Wand or the Stone. All I’m doing is agreeing with him.
I didn’t mean to imply that he meant to take the Wand with him to his death, or that he was obsessed with it. He clearly meant Snape to have it. He was actually willing to pass it on. But not within his lifetime.
But beyond all this, I love that last paragraph, and that last line. If we read between the lines – and of course we do – we could call it Albus Dumbledore’s last confession – at least on this side of the Veil.
Travis, no, Dumbledore wasn’t forcing anyone to follow his position but he was certainly working on converting them! He was the guiding force behind the education at Hogwarts, molding the hearts & minds of future wizards & witches. It’s one thing to exercise the power of a janitor or the power of a hermit in the woods but quite another thing to exercise the power to imbue his students with his moral values. His ends & his means had changed but as Red Rocker points out, he still was doing much along the lines of “for their own good.”
In defense of Lucius Malfory as a parent, he had the right & the power to send Draco elsewhere or to teach him in some other way than in Dumbledore’s milieu. Quite too often that power & even the right is lacking for parents in our educational system.
Red Rocker, it is a fine piece of writing! In fact, as an aside, I have to say I really enjoy Rowling’s prose when she’s writing these kinds of stories. I know it’s only 100 very small pages, but I like the flow and feel of it better than the novels.
But back to the point at hand. I think what I’m doing is, to some extent, disagreeing with Albus in his last line. Let me qualify that. Albus was a fool concerning the Hallows. But the way in which he was a fool changed over time. Initially, he was a fool because of the temptation of the power they afforded. Later in life, he was a fool because of his never-ending regret for his foolish actions as a youth.
So, having learned about his first foolishness and having denied supreme political power as a result of his lesson learned, he was always suspicious of his own temptations to power and foolishness as a result. Still, the wand came to him. He had to duel Grindelwald, and the result of the win was the wand. Now, what to do with it?
Maybe even then a moment of his past foolishness reigned, and he held onto it. But the 50+ years after demonstrated that he was suspicious enough of his own foolishness never to abuse the wand’s power, and indeed, to construct a plan that would end the wand’s bloody history forever.
It reminds me of Dumbledore’s lesson to Harry at King’s Cross. Very few are fit for power, and certainly not those who seek it. It was only after Dumbledore gave up the Hallows quest that the wand came to him. He could only have ever been trusted with the wand after the tragedy of Ariana’s death. He had to come to full realization of his own foolishness before he could ever hold power responsibly.
So, Albus is right that he was too foolish to handle the the Hallows – and only in knowing this was he ever “fit” to possess the Elder Wand. (Remember, he told Harry that he did believe, in the end, that he was fit to possess it, because he had learned the problem of power and would never let the wand wreak its havoc again.)
Did Dumbledore mean Snape to have it? Unless I’m forgetting a key element, I don’t think so. I think his intention was always to pass mastership of the wand on to Snape, but never the wand itself. That was the key to the plan. Snape would be its master, but the wand would not be available, meaning that when Snape died, the Elder Wand’s transferable power would be exhausted once and for all.
What are you saying, Travis?
a) Dumbledore became fit to wield power after renouncing his quest for it but he himself didn’t realize it, still seeing himself as the man who was willing to rule the Muggles. In which case, we interpret the last line of his commentary as his being more humble than he needs to be?
b) Dumbledore knew that he was fit to wield power because he had renounced his quest for it and trusted himself to use the wand properly? In which case we interpret the last line of his commentary as being false modesty (combined with deception in order to throw the fictional readers off the scent)
Knowing what I do of Dumbledore, and seeing him as neither humble nor falsely modest, but rather high on himself even though remorseful for past actions, this is how I would interpret it:
c) Dumbledore renounced his dream of finding the Hallows and ruling the Muggles because of the fallout. He did not, however, reject any of the Hallows when they came to him, as they each eventually did. He used the Wand, gave away the Cloak (to its rightful owner, I might add), and tried to use the Stone – resulting in his own demise. The issue of “fitness” doesn’t enter into it.
I actually think the issue of “fitness” is a red herring. The wand goes to whoever’s the strongest, and seems to have had some pretty shady, evil owners in the past.
The issue of “fitness” is the Arthurian key to understanding Rowling’s use of Hallows! Dumbledore is the only character we know of, prior to Harry, “fit” to use the Elder Wand, because he’s the only one who didn’t use it for power. He and Harry are the only characters who are truly “worthy” of the Elder Wand – a wand that would actually win any duel – because they did not boast of it. Death’s design for the wand did not work on Dumbledore or Harry, making them the only worthy possessors of said Hallow.
I’m still torn, by the way, between options a and b.
I’d alter your “c” option by saying that Dumbledore renounced not just his dream of finding the Hallows, but the temptation to that kind of power that went along with them. He didn’t try to use the Stone for any attempt at power, but to see the sister he had a hand in killing in his foolish quest for power.
He did not reject the Elder Wand – possessing it – because, being suspicious of the temptation to its power, was the only one fit to hold it. He held the Cloak temporarily, but gave it to Harry. He held the Stone and in a moment of weakness used it, hoping to see what he saw in the Mirror of Erised. None of these were evidence that he remained a fool about the temptation of the potentially world-dominating power of the Hallows themselves.
I had thought, too, that the way Dumbledore came into possession of the Elder Wand spoke to his fitness for it. He did not seek out a confrontation with Grindelwald until begged by the Wizarding world to do so. He did not gain possession of the wand by killing its previous holder & he fought Grindelwald to save others.
Kind of like how Bilbo was not affected as much by the One Ring in LOTR because of the way he began his possession of it, with pity.
Travis, I am wondering about your statement:
“Did Dumbledore mean Snape to have it? Unless I’m forgetting a key element, I don’t think so. I think his intention was always to pass mastership of the wand on to Snape, but never the wand itself.”
I thought Dumbledore meant no one to have mastership of the wand. Mastership can only truly be gained by wresting the wand from the current owner against their will. Dumbledore ordered Snape to kill him in order that mastership would NOT pass. As usual I am more than happy to be corrected on this point.
Seajay,
I’m thinking you are right. If the master of the wand dies undefeated the wand’s power is broken & Dumbledore had arranged for his death at Snape’s hands if necessary therefore that event would not be a defeating of Dumbledore.
Yes, revgeorge and SeaJay are correct. Mastership would not have passed to Snape, because Albus would willingly have lost that “fight.”
I know this may sound a bit crazy but i’m not sure that i’m convinced that the Hallows really exist.
All we know for sure at the end of book seven is that Harry believes they do.
We can’t even say with 100% certainty that DD gave Hermione the Tales specifically for the sake of the last story and not one of the others.
In the final analysis the Hallows were really not all that important.
Did it really matter that Voldy had the elder wand which Harry believed belonged to him? Perhaps DD’s very normal but powerful wand chose a master loyal to DD as opposed to one who raided his grave?
Did Harry need the resurrection stone to get to Voldy? He could have cast a patronus or just said “Hey , Tom let me in”. If he needed to see his parents at that moment for the sake of his inner strength the Mirror of Erised would have done just as well.
Even the cloak is really useless for anyone powerful enough to cast a disillusionment charm and certainly not able to save anyone from Death.
Shimon, those who don’t believe Rowling is advocating any kind of life-after-death in the series tend to think the Hallows are somewhat fraudulent. The Stone, they argue, just projects Harry’s thoughts about his parents, Sirius, and Remus.
It’s an interesting reading, and I can see where you’re going, especially in light of the Elder Wand’s history. As Dumbledore wrote, it seems to get beat a lot.
But I’m much more inclined to think the Hallows were real, that Harry really did see his parents, Sirius, and James. I don’t think their “usefulness” to Harry’s making it to Voldemort determines whether or not they exist. And the Elder Wand, in the end, was the key to that last moment of victory over Voldemort. Expelliarmus does not cause Avada Kedavra to rebound on someone. Otherwise, AK wouldn’t be an unblockable curse. “The flaw in the plan” was that Draco – and now Harry – was the true master of the Elder Wand, not Snape-then-Voldemort. Without that reality, Voldemort wins that last duel.
Yes I admit that I tend to be in the rational “it is all in Harry’s mind” camp.
As far as the final battle, I was trying to suggest that the wand indeed backfired on Voldemort and was loyal to Harry not because of some mysterious powers but rather due to the very simple fact that it had belonged to DD.
DD could have actively/passively transfered the true mastership of his wand to his most loyal follower -Harry.
It would not work for Voldemort who both represented everything DD stood against and additionally took it in such an unethical manner.
I would like to add that I do believe that your reading is probably closer to Jo’s intention but I am very happy that she did leave the door open for other interpretations.
Also the demonstration of their “uselessness” was not meant to prove they don’t exist but to relate to the question of “what exactly did DD want them to learn from the tales?” and was it really the tale of the three brothers that was so important to him?
I understand Harry’s logic but there are just some things that are a bit of a stretch. I don’t see how Harry could become master of the elder wand by taking Draco’s other one. I think it is strange that never in history did anyone ever die peacefully while in possession of the elder wand. I also think it is quite a far fetched coincidence that the ring was actually a Hallow and more importantly that no one ever knew it. I don’t really see Harry as more worthy to use the stone had he come to find it at an earlier time he too would have been tempted to “bring back” his parents. The curse inflicted upon DD came from the Horcrux and not the Hallow.
I think there is a simple and logical explanation and the “flaw in the plan” is not quite as elaborate as Harry imagines.
I’m betwixt and inbetween between Shimon’s position and Travis’.
On the one hand, I don’t think the Hallows operate according to “fitness” of the owner. Whoever has them, has them – or in the case of the Elder wand, whoever wins it, gets to use it. They were not designed to be badges of virtue, or earned by virtue. But – and here’s the big but and the moral of the story – a person of virtue will refuse to wield all but the cloak.
It’s also true that we don’t know the true provenance of the Hallows. “Death” is a person only in allegories and fairy tales. We don’t know who or what created them, or what their design or intention was. All we know is that the Elder wand is powerful, and that the cloak works. We think the Resurrection stone works. But as Shimon points out, that could just be a figment of Harry’s imagination (as could King’s Cross, of course). The wand could just be a powerful wand, which has picked up some of its powerful past owners’ magic; the cloak could just be an invisibility cloak. And the stone? Just a stone.
While this is a possible reading of the story, I don’t see it as a probable reading. There just isn’t any suggestion in the story to suggest that when Harry walks in the Forest, and when he’s been AK’d by Voldemort, that he is alone and hallucinating. The author does not raise the possibility.
I agree, however, that the wand, stone and cloak need to be Hallows – i.e. possessing supernatural powers – for the life after death (and thus heaven and hell) premise to work.
Interesting, isn’t it, how we are prepared to accept all the spells and charms and animaguses and potions and Dark Magic without cavil, but argue the suggestion that there is a life after death so stringently. It’s only fantasy, isn’t it?
Or is it?
Red Rocker, I think you’ve nailed it down pretty well on these points.
Of the Hallows, the cloak is the one that allows you to protect someone else. It is in a sense the Hallow least likely to be used solely for selfish purposes & used to help someone other than the owner. The other two Hallows cannot be shared.
One might be inclined to think about the Elder Wand that the important thing about it, what made it powerful was its mystique & so powerful wizards were constantly going after it. But it is powerful in its own right as it is able to repair Harry’s wand at the end of DH, something almost impossible to do otherwise. One might also postulate that the wand is unbeatable but not the wizard who wields it.
I agree, too, that JKR writes the scene in King’s Cross to be ambiguous. Thus, it can be taken either way, although I think the evidence points more to something real going on & something being real doesn’t depend on our ability to empirically prove it or use the scientific method on it. Thus, Dumbledore’s comment that of course it’s happening in your mind, Harry, but that doesn’t make it any less real.
I think it’s harder to dismiss what’s going on in the forest with Harry’s use of the Resurrection Stone. Nothing in the text or in Harry’s demeanor indicates that he’s hallucinating or being delusional. Instead, he’s acutely aware of what’s going & of what’s required of him.
I meant to say, “Harry’s aware of what’s going on…”
I think also we’re forgetting that the way Jo presented wand lore was as something mysterious & beyond the normal workings of magic. In much the same way the magic of love is something mysterious & beyond nailing down with hard rules. The fate of the wizarding world all comes down, as Jo put it, to two young men physically wrestling for control of a wand. And that is something that no one planned for or could’ve planned for. It is more in the realm of fate or providence, as it were.
revgeorge,
You mentioned wand lore, and the magic of love, as mysterious things beyond the normal workings of magic. To that I would add the soul and death.
What interests me – fascinates me, actually – how a story which is fantasy can have its own fairy tales, it’s own realm of fantasy, and it’s own realm of the unknown. It’s up to the author to determine what is accepted as real by the inhabitants of her world, and what remains beyond their range of verifiable or at least universally accepted fact. And the fascinating part is how JKR places so much which is fantastical within the realm of “fact” in her fantasy world, where she draws the line, and what she places beyond. The soul is something we in this world conjecture about; we can not see it, and for us it is a matter of faith. In Harry’s world, through the actions of Voldemort, the soul becomes something almost tangible (via the scar, and the Horcruxes) and the fate of the man who messes with his soul is a matter of very tangible concern for everyone in that world. However, what happens to the soul after death is almost as much a mystery in that world as it is in ours. Harry’s walk in the Forest, and his conversation with Dumbledore – as well as his witnessing the eight ball of Voldemort’s soul he retains – are all outside the experience of the characters of that world.
What this says to me is that JKR herself is unwilling to cross the Veil – too much. She edges close to it several times, most nearly at King’s Cross. But Harry is clearly not dead at King’s Cross. He is a visitor only – he doesn’t have a ticket to the next station.
In that way, although the realm of Harry Potter is fantastical, it’s not that far from our world. Which explains to me, in a way, why JKR does not see herself as writing fantasy. For all of Voldemort’s messing around with his soul like it was an orange, Harry’s feet are still strongly planted in our world’s understanding of life, and death, and the human soul.
Hope I’m not meandering too much – I think there’s the germ of an idea somewhere in there.
Rocker, I know this is off topic but I found a great group on Facebook called “Remember Kids, Snape Didn’t Kill Dumbledore, Michael Gambon did.” If you’re on Facebook just type in Michael Gambon & this group will come up quickly since it’s got over a 1000 members. I’m glad I looked first & found something, because after watching the HP marathon this weekend I was going to start a group just to have a place to vent & also be able to spare the people on this list whenever I couldn’t hold back anymore.
Oh, back on topic, good comments above. Will comment on them later.
revgeorge, I don’t go to Facebook much. And I have a horror of being a part of a crowd. The people at this site – and the HogPro – suit me fine.
Having said which, I’m glad there are more people out there for whom Gambon just doesn’t do it.
BTW, no need to spare me any rantings on that subject. Perhaps there’s something wrong with me, but I can not reconcile myself to Gambon. He is so patently not Dumbledore that everytime I see him, I look around for the waiter to say; “This is not what I ordered. Please take it back to the chef and ask him to send back the real thing.”
On a cheerier note, I did not watch the marathon, but caught bits of it between hockey games (Caps won against TO last night; heartbreaking loss to Carolina tonight). The bit that caught my attention tonight was the scene at the end of PoA when Harry is watching Lupin walk away. Sad and sweet and Mr. Chips-ish.
Red Rocker, it was just a thought. I have no qualms criticizing Gambon’s performance when & where I can & I know I won’t bother you by doing so. I was just being altruistic & thinking of others.
Don’t follow hockey at all but I did watch most college football games & pro games this weekend. Being able to switch back & forth saved me from the worst of Gambon in GOF.
In POA, Gambon almost makes it work as Dumbledore. Almost, but not quite, especially at the end when he’s pounding on Ron’s injured leg. Gambon & the Talking Shrunken Heads are the most annoying things in POA & even last night when I watched POA I didn’t get as annoyed at the Heads as usual.
But to speak of something positive, David Thewlis nails Lupin. His performance in POA is spectacular!! As you said, very Mr. Chips.
Most of the casting in the movies has been good, if not great, but with that one glaring exception.
Personally i’m kind of fond of Gambon, but I just had this mental image of him reading Beedle’s Tales aloud and could not help chuckling.
On the one hand, I don’t think the Hallows operate according to “fitness” of the owner. Whoever has them, has them – or in the case of the Elder wand, whoever wins it, gets to use it.
That’s not what “fitness” is about, though. Fitness (or worthiness) is about them working as powerfully as they could. Of course whoever has them, has them, but was the Elder Wand unbeatable for everyone who possessed it? Certainly not! We could argue, “Well, the legend is wrong, and the wand isn’t unbeatable.” But the legend wasn’t wrong about the cloak or the stone. No master of the Elder Wand in the past was unbeatable, because he was unworthy to possess it. Only Dumbledore, and then Harry, were worthy, as far as we know.
I agree with the rest of the comment entirely, and the actual origin of the Hallows would be an interesting track to pursue. I’m guessing we’re supposed to believe that Arthurian lore is Wizarding World history, given the “Order of Merlin” honor. Does that mean we should consider them to be direct parallels to their Arthurian counterparts? I doubt it, but it’s one possibility. Beyond that, it’s pure speculation. We have no info.
Speaking of hockey, my Sabres are having yet another inconsistent season. Still, I’m almost willing to pay for cable just so I can start getting the games. All I want is the one channel. Although, if I got Direct TV, I could do the NHL Center Ice package…
Finally got myself a Sabres jersey – classic blue-and-gold Hasek jersey.
I can get almost all the Caps games. It can be good – and bad. Right now we’ve got 8 or 9 regulars on the injured list. Green. Semin. Federov. Poti. Erskine. Almost a third of the team are call ups from Hershey. We’re hanging in – barely. Ovie is averaging 26 minutes per night, sometimes playing 2 minute shifts. Starting to take bad penalties. Almost certainly playing injured. It’s not fun.
As for your Sabres, I see that they’re talking to Balsillie. I think it’s true this time because Balsillie’s lawyer is denying it. If the deal goes through there’s speculation they’ll be playing in Hamilton half the time.
The Half-Buffalo Sabres?
It would be exceedingly sad – and silly – if half the games are in Hamilton. It does appear Golisano’s gotten bored with being a hockey-team owner. Or perhaps he’s gearing up for a Buffalo Bills purchase and doesn’t want to handle both.
Don Cherry would happy. He said years ago that Hamilton, not Buffalo, should have a hockey team. I think my dad still hates Don Cherry to this day, though Cherry is one of the few guys who’ll still say on national TV that the Triple-OT Brett Hull “goal” in the ‘99 finals to “win” the Cup was not a goal. I was at that game. It wasn’t a goal. Cherry picked on Hull about it at last year’s Winter Classic, and it was indeed a classic moment.
Anyway, I’m hoping against hope that we lose neither the Sabres nor the Bills. If Buffalo loses either, expect that city to plunge even further into economic disaster.
Travis said, “No master of the Elder Wand in the past was unbeatable, because he was unworthy to possess it. Only Dumbledore, and then Harry, were worthy, as far as we know.”
You fleshed out a bit what I was thinking, Travis. The Elder Wand is unbeatable but not the wizard that wields it. Which is kind of funny in a way. But I think that’s part of the mystery of it all & part of Death’s trick upon the first brother. The first brother asks for the wrong thing. If he’d been thinking rightly, he would’ve asked that he himself be made unbeatable & not a wand that can be lost. Kind of like The Monkey’s Paw sort of wish or, to say it in a way Matthew could understand, how you had to very specifically phrase a Wish spell in D&D so that the DM wouldn’t twist your words.
But Dumbledore’s & Harry’s worthiness comes in the fact that they use the Elder Wand in the polar opposites of the way most people see it. That is, they don’t crave it’s power nor to seek to use that power to dominate others.
But Dumbledore’s & Harry’s worthiness comes in the fact that they use the Elder Wand in the polar opposites of the way most people see it. That is, they don’t crave it’s power nor to seek to use that power to dominate others.
revgeorge, exactly! And that’s why when Harry needed to wand to behave like it was supposed to, it did – it backfired on Voldemort, because it wouldn’t work on a true master who was worthy of it. The symbolism of Harry’s use of expelliarmus in that incident is potent.