Social Justice a peripheral theme; Dumbledore’s mistakes; the Dursleys and 12 Grimmauld Place; E-Owl: Will Voldemort be redeemed?

Hog’s Head PubCast is available through iTunes.

Pub Menu

• Eroej Kab on Dumbledore and house-elves
• Hog’s Head PubCast #25: House-elves
• Mrs. Lovegood on 12 Grimmauld place part 1 and 2
• Garuda: Hindu Phoenix
• J.S. Batchler: What Will Harry Do?

Related Posts

• No Related Post

House-Elves – Happy Slaves? ; House-Elf predictions for Book 7; Can Harry’s blood disarm horcruxes? ; E-Owls

Pub Menu

• Behold a Phoenix on Harry’s Blood
• What Happened to Ollivander?

Related Posts

• No Related Post

I’ll freely admit that in my essay, What Happened to Ollivander?, the actual parts about Ollivander are the far-fetched parts. Really, it fills a plot hole – it’s an interesting way to solve a much greater problem lingering in the Harry Potter series, but one that is probably much more ignored in fandom. That problem is the wizarding world’s prejudice. We see it towards all kinds: muggles, giants, centaurs, goblins, house-elves. The idea of Ollivander being hid to supply wands for the magical brethren who are being oppressed in one way or another fits the problem, although it may be the furthest thing from the solution on Rowling’s mind.

So let’s get into the real backbone of that essay, the real reason I wrote it. That is simply this: Rowling is writing postmodern literature, telling us a story that deconstructs another more powerful, oppressive story.

PoMo 101

The key to understanding postmodernism and what Rowling is doing is getting a handle on the word metanarrative. A metanarrative is any overarching story about The Way Things Really Are. In short, it’s a story that tells us what reality is really like. To illustrate, we can take the extreme example of Hitler, whose German supremacy was the metanarrative driving the actions of the German government and military. Those who did not follow the story were trampled upon. We can even find traces of metanarrative in the rhetoric of our own president. When President Bush speaks of freedom and democracy being the goal of history, the real place where history is headed, he’s using metanarrative talk.

Metanarrative is rooted in Enlightenment thinking (though metanarratives certainly existed prior to the 1700s). The Enlightenment Project taught us, in layperson’s terms, that we all have excellent rational faculties, and if we all apply them, we’ll arrive at a universal reality. In other words, we’ll all, of our own rational capability, come to the right code of ethics, the right morality, the right way to treat our fellow humans. The problem, of course, became quite evident: After a few hundred years, not everyone agreed, and to complicate the problem, those who were in power used that power to silence the minority points of view. Suddenly, in the words of Voldemort himself, “there is no good or evil; only power, and those too weak to seek it.”

Because that’s what metanarratives basically boil down to. If I think reality is one way, and you think it’s another, and I’ve got a gun and you don’t, my reality wins. French philosopher Lyotard has defined postmodernism (admittedly, “simplifying in the extreme”) as “incredulity towards metanarratives.” Certainly, it is much more than that, and you learn from reading the likes of Derrida and Eco that it has a significant amount to do with the nature of truth and language itself. But the driving force behind postmodernism is the injustice caused by the powerful on those who had no power and dared to believe something different, or just be different.

The real problem is not the stories themselves, of course. We all have beliefs about reality that we hold to tenaciously. The problem is when the powerful impose their stories on the less powerful, the minorities, those who are different.

A postmodern writer, then, spends his or her efforts deconstructing these grand, overarching narratives. We’ve come to learn that we see reality in different ways, interpreting through the lenses of our own cultures; there is no “universal reason” that is driving us all to the same conclusions.

Metanarratives in Harry Potter

So Rowling has set up for us metanarratives in the Wizarding World that parallel the ones in our own, and she’s deconstructing them. Now, it should be noted that Rowling is not a pessimistic postmodern; she does believe we can “reconstruct,” so to speak, and move from wild cynicism about metanarratives to an ultimately better understanding (for more detailed looks at this, see this post at Muggle Matters, and be sure to read the comment by Felicity as well).

Voldemort/Slytherin
We’ve already mentioned Voldemort and his belief about power. We can add to that his taking up Slytherin’s crusade against Muggle-borns. The belief that only pureblood wizards should be accepted and valued is nothing short of an oppressive metanarrative, meant to destroy Muggles and Muggle-born wizards. Voldemort intends to act this metanarrative out in real history, and as such, the central problem of the Harry Potter series, Rowling’s contribution to the Problem of Evil, so to speak, is an oppressive idealogy, a metanarrative.

The Ministry’s Metanarrative: Prejudice and Slavery in the Wizarding World

The great irony is that the Ministry of Magic, as well as a large part of the Wizarding World, while hating Voldemort’s oppressive metanarrative, is operating on its own. But just because the line of prejudice isn’t drawn between purebloods and “mudbloods” doesn’t make it any better. The most obvious example of prejudice in the Wizarding World is the fountain, portraying the centaur, goblin, and house-elf regarding the wizard with great admiration. All one needs to do is consider the centaurs’ attitude towards wizards to know that the statue is a lie.

Prejudice in the Wizarding World exists far and wide. The fact that there even needs to be a Muggle Protection Act proposed in the first place demonstrates the prejudice against Muggles. We can hear echoes of prejudice in Slughorn’s surprise at the talent of certain Muggle-borns and in Ron’s repeating the “willing slave” line about the house-elves, which enslavement is in itself another obvious example. Despite some creative theories proposing that the house-elves represent house-wives, and Hermione is a rabid feminist, Rowling has been explicit in saying that the house-elf story is about slavery:

The house elves is really for slavery, isn’t it, the house elves are slaves, so that is an issue that I think we probably all feel strongly about enough in this room already. [original source]

So she’s telling metanarratives we know: prejudice, slavery, and even legislative action against those who are different. Consider, for example, the law against underage wizards using magic. This is nothing short of institutionalized prejudice against Muggle-borns, because, as Dumbledore explains in the spider-infested shed at the Weasleys, the Ministry only knows that magic was performed, not who performed it. It would be impossible to prosecute an underage wizard born to a witch and/or wizard, unless the parents were really honest and willing to turn their children in. In short, it’s a law that prevents muggle-borns from developing their talents during the summers while turning a blind eye toward established wizarding families.

And then there’s the wand issue, which is the inspiration for my Ollivander essay. The law forbids non-human magical creatures from carrying wands. There is plenty of canon evidence that both house-elves and goblins could use wands (Winky, for a house-elf example; and Harry’s OWL question is about goblins and wand restrictions), and we should assume that the law is not arbitrary: it’s obvious the Ministry is afraid of the goblins, and the house-elves have been oppressed for centuries. Banning wand use for each group is for the manifest purpose of maintaining wizarding superiority.

In short, banning wand use maintains the Wizarding World’s metanarrative that Wizards are better than all other magical creatures, and that, indeed, the entire rest of the magical world looks up to Wizards.

Dumbledore the Deconstructer

Albus Dumbledore does not wand to be Minister for Magic. He’s been offered the position three times, and continues to turn it down. Why? Because he is our postmodern deconstructer. He’s the one tearing down the false wizarding metanarrative. Consider the following:

Dumbledore employs house-elves and pays them if they want it. He does not demand respect of them as their usual owners would. He does not even demand that they always speak well of him; they may call him a “barmy old codger” if they’d like. As I argued in my Ollivander essay, House-elf life at Hogwarts under Dumbledore is a transitional period toward the hope of their future freedom (a hope that I think will get some wings and take off in book 7). Dumbledore agrees with Hermione’s views about the enslavement of the house-elves; he just has a different and more sensitive way of working for their freedom.

Dumbledore maintained good enough relations with the centaurs, who hate wizards, to have them show up and pay respects at his funeral. His hiring of Firenze must have been simply scandalous.

Dumbledore has accepted all sorts of “questionable” wizards, giving trust, acceptance, and second chances: Snape, a repentant Death Eater; Lupin, a werewolf; Hagrid, a half-giant; Mad-Eye Moody, an ex-auror gone a bit senile; Trelawney, an obvious fraud; Firenze, a centaur; Draco, offering redemption to his would-be murderer.

Dumbledore entreated Fudge to “extend [the giants] the hand of friendship;” otherwise, “Voldemort will persuade them, as he did before, that he alone among wizards will give them their rights and their freedom!” (GF-36). Once again, scandalous as far as Fudge was concerned. Two points are important from this exchange: (1) It’s obvious from Dumbledore’s argumentation that wizards have denied the giants their rights and freedoms, and (2) Fudge’s response, that people hate the giants and it would end his career, demonstrates plainly how widespread the prejudice is.

Dumbledore, from the start, has been the voice of tolerance, love, and acceptance. When Rowling wrote him as “the epitome of goodness” [source], she meant it. He is the representative for the deconstruction of the oppressive Wizarding World metanarrative.

I am agreed with Merlin that writing Dumbledore as manipulative is over-deconstruction. He sums it up beautifully here:

Dumbledore himself acknowledges making mistakes in regards to pairing Harry with Snape for occlumency lessons and not taking into account the impact their history will have on their ability to work together on it, and errors in judgment etc But to take it to the level that it sounds like it is being taken in some of the theories talked about, sounds like the deconstructionism is being taken too far, to the level where one has to deconstruct/discount the character responses to DD by other genuinely downtrodden and genuinely good characters (and ones who seem pretty discerning at that, I mean Lupin was able to approach Snape with thankfulness for the WB potion even though Snape exposed him in the end, and if all our “good Snape” theories are right, it would seem that Lupin at the Burrow is more right than he is at the end of HBP)

Dumbledore refuses the MoM position because he refuses to be part of the problem, and the corruption throughout the Wizarding World is far to extensive to simply assume the power of Minister for Magic won’t tempt one to compromise. No, better for Dumbledore to advise, and when necessary, criticize the Ministry from the outside, all the while raising up a new generation of wizards and witches, hopefully teaching as many of them as possible to abandon the old prejudices that result in oppressive metanarratives.

Reconstructed with Love

When the Ministry that is fighting Voldemort is bound by the same idealogical problems as Voldemort himself, what is a wizard to do? Like Harry, become “Dumbledore’s man through and through.” Stop scoffing, as Voldemort did, at the idea that love is the most powerful form of magic, and embrace the idea. The destruction of the fountain was a poweful symbol of the deconstruction of the Wizarding World’s oppressive metanarrative; it is to be reconstructed with love. It is no coincidence that Dumbledore insists “love” is “the power the Dark Lord knows not.”

Related Posts

• No Related Post

The disappearance of Ollivander is bigger news than the small amount of attention in gets in Half-Blood Prince. We hear about his being gone very briefly in Chapter 6 of Half-Blood Prince in concert with the disappearance of Florean Fortescue, who was “dragged off, by the look of his place.” (See thisessay for an interesting and plausible theory on that). It is unknown “whether he left voluntarily or was kidnapped,” but there was “no sign of a struggle,” and all his wands and everything in his shop is gone.

Wands have played integral roles in the plot line, even beyond the plain fact that they’re the basic instrument of magical activity. The most significant event, of course, is the priori incantatem effect at the end of Goblet of Fire. Voldemort’s having a wand that would be crippled in the battle against his prophecied vanquisher is not a reasonable option for the Dark Lord. So Ollivander has disappeared, and speculations have arisen as to how and why. But I don’t think the issue has been discussed enough. Let’s visit the current theories, and then I’ll propose my own.

Ollivander Kidnapped

Since it is believed that Fortescue was “dragged off” by Death Eaters (HBP-6), and his and Ollivander’s disappearances are mentioned together, it is assumed by many that the wandmaker was kidnapped as well. We’re even left with this impression quite plainly by Mrs. Weasley:

“Mum, d’you honestly think You-Know-Who’s going to be hiding behind a bookshelf in Flourish and Blotts?” sniggered Ron.

“Fortescue and Ollivander went on holiday, did they?” said Mrs. Weasley, firing up at once. “If you think security’s a laughing matter you can stay behind and I’ll get your things myself—” (HBP-6)

Why would Voldemort want to kidnap Ollivander? Most theories suggest that Voldemort needs a new wand – one that will work properly against Harry’s – and he’s forcing Ollivander to make him one. This is probably the most popular of theories.

But we have to wonder a few things. Would Ollivander make him one? And why would all his supplies be missing? And why no struggle? Perhaps Voldemort stole all the wands too, and he plans to try each one till another “chooses” him. Or perhaps he simply intends to “disarm” the good guys, i.e., take away their primary wand supplier.

There are too many unanswered questions about this theory, in my opinion. Rowling’s description of his disappearance leaves a lot of room for speculation. More than that, I think there are better options. I think Rowling’s leaving us with Mrs. Weasley’s impression that Ollivander was kidnapped was a misdirection. A voluntary departure by Ollivander seems more likely. But whence did he depart?

Ollivander is “An Evil Lord”

In the “voluntary departure” category, there are a few possibilities. Of course, he may have just gotten scared and hid, perhaps having become aware of Harry’s status as the chosen one and the inevitability of Voldemort’s wanting a new wand. But of those who posit a voluntary departure theory, Evil!Ollivander is much more popular. His name is an anagram for “An Evil Lord.” Perhaps the old man is revealing his true colors, and he has taken himself and all his weapons for the Dark Lord’s use. Some suggest that Ollivander’s statement about the Dark Lord doing “great things…terrible, but great” is evidence of his respect for Voldemort.

Yet we have to wonder why Ollivander wouldn’t have joined the Dark Lord during VoldWar I. And as far as anagrams go, we’ve only seen the one, as far as I know, and it was deliberate change on Tom Riddle’s part, not a hidden clue placed in the text by Rowling.

Ollivander is Being Hidden

My theory fits into the “voluntary departure” category, but I don’t think he went to Voldemort. I also don’t think the Order is hiding him, though that’s been suggested and I suppose is possible. It just seems that someone in the Order would know about it if that were the case.

I think Dumbledore was hiding him. Why? Let’s back up a bit.

What do we know about Ollivander? We know he makes wands in a business that is highly respected and has been around since 382 B.C. The Mr. Ollivander we know is not, obviously, the original owner of the shop, despite some strange speculations from fandom (no, Ollivander is not Flamel…that would be too old); most likely he belongs to a very, very old wizarding family (though it should be noted that that’s a long time to keep the same surname; there isn’t anyone with the names of the founders still running around, for example).

We also know that he’s in personal communication with Dumbledore, particularly on the point of Harry’s wand (GF-36). But why would Dumbledore hide him? To answer that, we need to start with an unexpected detour.

House Elves in Goblet of Fire

There’s a lot about wands in Goblet of Fire. Ollivander makes his only other “on-stage” appearance in the series for the “weighing of the wands” prior to the Triwizard Tournament (GF-18). It’s also in this book that Dumbledore reveals his personal communication with Ollivander about the Fawkes-core wands. And the most significant wand-related even so far – priori incantatem occurs in the book’s climax.

Goblet is also the book where S.P.E.W. is born, and Hermione begins her crusade to liberate the house-elves. There’s much to be said about this subject, of course, and it has provided a good amount of material for Harry-hating among some progressive/liberal types. After all, Hermione seems to be terribly mistaken in her political attempts to free the house-elves. And just what is Rowling playing at, writing “willing slaves” into her story?

But this is surely not all Rowling has to stay about the subject. She’s been quite clear in interviews that though Hermione is mistaken in her over-zealous attempts at liberation, the house-elves story is about slavery:

The house elves is really for slavery, isn’t it, the house elves are slaves, so that is an issue that I think we probably all feel strongly about enough in this room already. [Read entire interview]

Rowling’s obviously not condoning slavery, or trying to tell us there really are such things as people who want to be enslaved. Instead, Rowling is teaching us about psychological slavery; the house-elves have been enslaved for so long, their status has firmly taken root in their minds as unchangeable and even what’s right for them. Poor Hermione doesn’t appreciate the difficulty of the situation. Speaking of Hermione and S.P.E.W., Rowling says:

Yeah, that was fairly autobiographical. My sister and I both, we were that kind of teenager. (Dripping with drama) We were that kind of, ‘I’m the only one who really feels these injustices. No one else understands the way I feel.’ I think a lot of teenagers go through that….Hermione, with the best of intentions, becomes quite self-righteous. My heart is entirely with her as she goes through this. She develops her political conscience. My heart is completely with her. But my brain tells me, which is a growing-up thing, that in fact she blunders towards the very people she’s trying to help. She offends them…She thinks it’s so easy. It’s part of what I was saying before about the growing process, of realizing you don’t have quite as much power as you think you might have and having to accept that. Then you learn that it’s hard work to change things and that it doesn’t happen overnight. Hermione thinks she’s going to lead them to glorious rebellion in one afternoon and then finds out the reality is very different, but that was fun to write. [read entire interview]

Rowling, of course, is under no obligation to finish the house-elf story, but I have a hard time believing she’s going to end it with a misguided crusade that failed to do them any good. How will she do it? Who is the calm, reasonable voice for the liberation of house-elves, in contrast to Hermione’s self-righteous, condescending zeal?

Dumbledore’s Politics
I picked up on David Colbert’s linking of the Order of the Phoenix and a political group called The Fabian Society, and before pressing on, I’m going to need to clear that up, because it’s been misunderstood.

What I am not saying is that the Order is a political group. Obviously, the Order was formed to fight Voldemort, not to effect gradual socialist change over a long period of time. As such, it is not detrimental to the point I’m trying to make to document how successful or unsuccessful the Fabians have been, as if that proves anything one way or the other. Like it or not, the link between the Order and the Fabians is there.

So what am I saying? I’m saying that we can learn about (a) Rowling’s political preferences, and (b) something of Dumbledore’s character by observing the link. We’ve learned above from Rowling that Hermione’s all-or-nothing crusade was actually insensitive and misguided, even if the ideals were correct. Here is where a Fabian approach – slow, gradual change over time rather than a sudden revolution – comes in. The Order is Dumbledore’s Order, and Rowling deliberately links them to the Fabians. Hence, we can expect a similar political outlook from Albus (who is obviously a political figure, even if he distrusts Ministry politics in general).

Fast-forward with me then to the end of Order of the Phoenix. It is no coincidence that both Albus’ greatest conflict with politicians and a pretty good look at his political views appear in the book named after the organization he founded. Remember, the idea that someone as great as Albus Dumbledore would employ house-elves was simply scandalous to Hermione. But we learn from Albus at the book’s end that he quite obviously shares Hermione’s position on the house-elves’ enslavement. Recall the fountain in the Ministry which depicted house-elves, centaurs, and giants all look with admiration upon the wizard. This is blatant prejudice, as Dumbledore makes manifest:

The fountain we destroyed tonight told a lie. We wizards have mistreated and abused our fellows for too long, and we are now reaping our reward.

The real shocker about this statement is that it’s in the midst of explaining to Harry that Kreacher, whose primary fault it was that Sirius had died, was made the way he was because of the prejudice of wizards. It’s almost as if Dumbledore thinks this point so important to get across to Harry that he’s willing to risk a little more anger and destruction out of young Harry, who is already seething with rage.

It’s obvious enough that house-elf existence at Hogwarts is far better than in many other cases. Dobby is clearly better off, and Dumbledore is not opposed to giving wages to house-elves who want them. Think about this now: Dumbledore hasn’t given the house-elves at Hogwarts pay because, as of yet, they don’t want it. He’s not insulting them. But he has provided for them a positive atmosphere where they are treated well and given any freedom that they themselves want. Slow, gradual change. House-elves at Hogwarts under Dumbledore represents a transitional period for house-elf status.

Again, Dumbledore agrees with the heart of Hermione’s concern, just not the method of change. It’s time that we revisit Hermione’s concerns, and then try to put it all together.

The Goals of S.P.E.W.
Here are the stated goals of S.P.E.W.:

Our short-term aims…are to secure house-elves fair wages and
working conditions. Our long-term aims include changing the law about non-wand use, and trying to get an elf into the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures, because they’re shockingly underrepresented. (GF-14)

Fair wages, good working conditions, political representation, and … wands. Wands! I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the same book that focuses so heavily on house-elf slavery also focuses so heavily on wands, and makes the point that the wizarding prejudice against house-elves is actually institutionalized, by forbidding them wands. We should probably conclude from this that, with wands in hand, house-elves would be powerful enough to be a threat to wizards.

And a threat to wizards is exactly what we need, isn’t it? Let’s take up a quick assessment of Voldemort’s army: (1) Voldemort himself, (2) Death Eaters, (3) Dementors (a vast and growing army), (4) innumberable Inferi, (5) werewolves, and (6) giants. Yikes. Compare that to (1) Harry, (2) the bungling MoM, (3) the leaderless Order, and (4) a bunch of kids from Hogwarts, and it’s not much of a fight, is it? Something is going to have to give as full-scale war breaks out, which it will, now Dumbledore’s out of the picture.

So my theory is basically this: Ollivander’s been hidden by Dumbledore, maybe protected by a Fidelius charm (with Snape as the secret-keeper?), and he’s got wands for an army of house-elves, ready to fight for their freedom.

But they don’t want…
I know, I know. I’ve already established that a revolutionary change in house-elves’ status is not something the house-elves themselves are ready for. So why would they voluntarily fight? The key to this lies with Dobby.* Despite the fact that Dobby is held in ill-repute for wanting freedom and wages, he makes a point universal to house-elf experience in Chamber of Secrets: the house-elves were treated horribly during the first reign of Voldemort, and Harry is something of a hero to their kind. Let’s hear Dobby’s explanation:

Ah, if Harry Potter only knew…what he means to us, to the lowly, the enslaved, we dregs of the magical world! Dobby remembers how it was when He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named was at the height of his powers, sir! We house-elves were treated like vermin, sir! … life has improved for my kind since you triumphed over He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. Harry Potter survived, and the Dark Lord’s power was broken, and it was a new dawn, sir, and Harry Potter shone like a beacon of hope for those of us who thought the Dark days would never end, sir….(CS-10)

In short, then, Harry Potter may just be the person to inspire the house-elves to desire their freedom, especially if the alternative option is to return to the Dark days under Voldemort’s reign. Dobby’s words, combined with Dumbledore’s urgency to teach Harry about the evils of prejudice against other magical brethren suggests that Harry will be something of a great uniter in Book 7, and house-elves certainly have the motivation to follow his lead.

But house-elves must obey their wizarding families, correct? How many families will agree to give up their house-elves to VoldWar II, or even command them to go into battle? Probably not many.

There are, however, at least a hundred house-elves at Hogwarts, and the school may not even be open in Book 7. I’m willing to bet a good number of them were refugees from Death Eater households who fled to sanctuary with Dumbledore after Voldemort was destroyed and the DEs were rounded up after VoldWar I.

Consider this: Everything so far has foreshadowed an attempted Voldemort takeover of Hogwarts. In Books 1, 2, and 5, Dumbledore was tricked or forced entirely out of the castle. In Book 6, he was AK’d right out of the picture, and Death Eaters were loose in the school. “The only one he ever feared” is gone, and we learned from Book 6 that Hogwarts is the only place Voldemort ever truly had affection for. It’s where he wants to be. Expect an attempted Voldemort takeover of Hogwarts in Book 7.

Harry feels the same way about Hogwarts, and he’s not going to give it up without a fight. I don’t think the house-elves of Hogwarts would be too keen on having to submit to Voldemort himself, especially if many of them recall their days as slaves of Death Eaters. Look for a force of house-elves, finally armed with wands provided by Ollivander himself, in Book 7.

Where is Ollivander Hiding?
And who’s hiding him? Important questions, and I’m afraid we can’t be sure. So far, I’ve been trying to think thematically. At this point, we leave that realm, and I can only make some wild guesses. I’ll throw a few out, but don’t hold me to them.

Allow me to suggest two possibilities for his location: Godric’s Hollow or Hogwarts. The first is an attractive option for two reasons: (1) it’s a nice parallel to the Potters if there’s a Fidelius charm involved, and (2) Harry’s going there. The second is attractive for the simple reason that if Dumbledore’s plan was wands for house-elves, wouldn’t it work out nicely for Ollivander to be on-site with a hundred of them?

A fun possibility might be that he’s still in Diagon Alley, hiding at Fred and George’s place – there could be a lot of humor with the “fake wands” when the greatest wandmaker in the world is living with you. But that’s a long shot, I suppose. I’d suggest 12 Grimmauld, but as I said earlier, I’m not sure the Order knows he’s hiding.

Who’s hiding him? If there’s a Fidelius charm involved, I suggest Snape as the secret-keeper. He’s going to be all over the Book 7 plot, and it’d be a nice touch of irony (and perhaps a touch of redemption from his guilt about the Potter’s death) to be living with Wormtail and keeping a location secret from Voldemort. Because no matter what your theory, Voldemort would like to get his hands on Ollivander, or at least his supplies. Sure, there are other wandmakers, but Voldemort will settle for nothing but the best for himself. If there’s no Fidelius involved, just about anyone capable of keeping Voldemort from him will do. Whoever’s hiding him must have instructions from Dumbledore about when to reveal him and to whom – probably after Dumbledore’s death, and to Harry (this is why Snape is an attractive option, since he would have been in on the knowledge of Dumbledore’s impending death).

Wrapping it Up
As with all theories, this could be close or way off the mark, but I think it ties together some important questions: How will Rowling settle the house-elf story in a way that points them toward freedom that they want for themselves? Where is Ollivander? How in heaven’s name will Harry be able to contain Voldemort’s vast army? A hiding Ollivander, arming house-elves with wands, is a nice tie-up of all those loose ends, and perhaps a few more that I’m missing. Of course, the details could be different. Perhaps Ollivander is kidnapped, and he’ll be rescued before providing wands for the elves. But I think the theory fits well thematically, and it represents the overcoming of prejudice against house-elves. The Ministry would be forced to abandoned that prejudicial law if wand-armed house-elves helped with the defeat of Voldemort.

*It’s interesting to consider that the three magical brethren against whom the Wizarding World is fearful and prejudiced each has a representative loyal to the Good Guys in VoldWar II. Dobby is to the house-elves as Firenze is to the centaurs and Grawp to the giants. We’ll likely see Harry uniting at least some representatives from each of the groups. Correction: This is what I get for trying to finish an essay in the dark while my newborn is sleeping…the Giants are not “magical brethren.” The Goblins are the third group. Even so, the point at least stands that, of those groups oppressed by the Ministry, Rowling likes to teach us to side with at least one of their kind, one who might be able to persuade wizards to abandon their prejudices, and the outcasts to join in the war against Voldemort.

Related Posts

• No Related Post