Chapter 7: The Will of Albus Dumbledore

Wow, it seems I wrote so much that Travis gave me chapter headings of my own! I don’t know if that’s a good thing or not.

Ah, it’s one of those efficiency things!

I’m a nerd. I admit, I knew who Gregorovich was immediately. Sigh.

On another note, though – I didn’t get the impression that Ron and Harry didn’t know about flesh memories. I get the impression that they were just completely surprised that Hermione did.

Amanda, I hadn’t thought of it that way, that Harry & Ron were shocked at Hermione’s Quidditch knowledge. I got the impression the other way, though, that as with most things, she knew more than they.

Helen, thank you for your comments & for the link to that truly disturbing article. We perhaps should have scientists read Frankenstein and The Warlock’s Hairy Heart before they do any experimentation.

Okay, here is my Crazy Theory on Dumbledore’s three gifts:

They consist of:

A Quidditch ball

A book of children’s stories

A device for putting out candles

I think these gifts are JKR’s take on the three traditional and well-known elements of the rite of excommunication—- bell, book and candle.

As part of the ritual expelling a person from the Church, a bishop in the High Middle Ages would:

1. Close the Bible to signify the seperation of the excommunicated person from the Church and the Word of God.

2. Ring a bell to symbolize mourning, in the same way bells formerly tolled to mark the death of some member of the community.

3. Snuff out a candle to symbolize the extinguishment of the excommunicant’s soul and his removal from the

I think JKR has made these three gifts Dumbledore’s last spell, an act of Deep Magic (if you will) that is his answer to the Dark Magic ritual Voldemort used to return to his body. JKR changes the items to reflect her school setting: the bell becomes a ball (both words sharing a common root); the Bible becomes a book of children’s stories (which is what JKR is writing); and the Put-Outer is literally a device that does the same thing as snuffing out a candle, but which also appeared in the first chapter of the series.

I think what we are supposed to take away this episode is that Dumbledore’s plan to destroy Voldemort is not slipshod and poorly planned, as it would appear. Dumbledore’s actual plan is not about telling people what they need to know and ensuring they have the right tools. His actual plan is magical. It succeeds not because of good planning, but because Dumbledore chose the correct magical way to direct the circumstances. His uses the rite of excommunication as a template for his own magical ritual designed to bring about the extinguishment of Voldemort’s soul.

Assuming that this theory is true, I have to admit that I admire this bit of writing quite a lot.

For what it’s worth, I love Ron. He’s one of my favorite characters. I find his behavior in this chapter a bit out of proportion, but fitting for his character and his character development. Ron’s always been overly protective of Ginny. That’s just part of who he is.

revgeorge, I really wasn’t trying to do Ron-bashing: it was his behaviour which struck me as uncalled for. And not uncalled for in a silly or impulsive or immature sort of way, but uncalled for in a where-the-heck-are-you-coming from sort of way.

I suppose how you interpret his behaviour has something to do with what you’re sensitized to. In my neck of the woods a father, mother and their 20 year old son were just charged with a quadruple murder: the bodies of three of their daughters and a cousin were found in a submerged car. Turns out that one of the daughters, the 19 year old, was dating and wearing clothes the father and son disapproved of. There was more to it than that, but the idea was to get rid of females whose behaviour was embarrassing to the other family members. There are a lot of things that go wrong before someone does something like this, but one of the things that goes wrong is the attitude that a female is accountable to her male relatives for her sexual conduct.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Ron is capable of violence towards his sister. But the attitude, that he has some say over whom she kisses, is similar.

I don’t believe, btw, that JKR was trying to paint Ron as a paternalistic, overcontrolling brother. I think that she wanted that kiss interrupted, and used Ron as her handiest tool, without really thinking out what his actions would say about his character. In other words, she sacrificed his character development to the requirements of the plot. At least, that’s what I hope.

It’s hard to plot someone else’s story, but given what she’d done with him before, I think that a more likely reaction would have been an embarrassed cough, and maybe a sympathetic look. Or maybe even asking why Harry had “ditched” his sister if he still had feelings for her. The way it was presented, it looks like Ron is accusing Harry of taking advantage of his sister – “snogging” her without wanting to marry her – and I don’t think that is how Ron would think of Harry’s behaviour.

Red Rocker, wouldn’t a cough be an appropriate interruption? Just Ron’s presence would have broken the atmosphere–I think it would have been adequate if Ron’s anger was just a plot device.

RT, had to read your comment twice before I understood it. But you are right, if all JKR had wanted was an interruption, then a cough would have been enough; she wouldn’t have had Ron going all cave-man protective over Ginny. So there was a point to how he reacted.

The two interpretations we have suggested here are that either he is being protective of his sister, or he is being overprotective of his sister. If he is being protective, then he’s doing it in a typically emotionally over the top Ron way. Which would not be that far off the mark, actually, given his general awkwardness with interpersonal stuff.

On the other hand, if he is being overprotective, then his actions can all too easily be interpreted as being controlling and acting on the belief that he has some say over her sexual behaviour.

I honestly can’t believe that JKR would deliberately present one of her protagonists in this latter light. Would she? I know that she ridicules some characters (the Dursleys, Umbridge, Filch). And that she pokes fun at even the most sympathetic of her characters (Hermione), but would she deliberately show Ron in such an unsympathetic light? What would be the purpose?

And I can’t believe she doesn’t realize that Ron’s attitude towards his sister’s sexual behaviour is inappropriately controlling. That she herself somehow thinks it’s an expression of appropriate brotherly concern.

Someone help me out here: what is JKR’s purpose in showing Ron acting like this?

Amanda, don’t feel too nerdy. I had picked up Gregorovich’s name from Goblet on my reread prior to book 7. Now I had guessed wrong at this point why LV was looking for him.

Revgeorge, excellent post. I believe that I disagree with you on Scrimgeour though. I think that he wants to defeat LV just as much as Harry/Dumbledore/Snape, he just puts his faith in the established institution instead of them and does not understand why they want to circumvent it as they do. Although that does not excuse his hostility towards Harry, Ron, and Hermione in this chapter. I guess I have always had more sympathy for Scrimgeour as the Churchill to Fudge’s Chamberlain, and all of the tough cards he and the ministry was dealt with Fudge bumbling LV’s return. Or maybe, we both see different things as our political views don’t line up completely the same, but I do respect your position very much.

Nice post, revgeorge.

The kiss is of great importance later in the Forest Again scene. Back in OOTP, Harry expeled Voldemort, who was possessing him, by thinking of his love for Sirius and his joy that he would see him again if he died. “Grief it seemed drove Voldemort out, though Dumbledore would say that it was love.” (Or something like that; I’m too lazy to verify the precise wording.) In The Forest Again, as Harry stands there waiting for Voldemort to AK him, he thinks of Ginny and her blazing look and her kiss. Her kiss gives him the courage to stand there waiting for Voldemort to proceed. It in a sense deepens his sacrifice because he knows he has someone who loves him romantically (which most teenagers do not) and is willing to sacrifice what could have been a HAPPY life in order to stop Voldemort form killing or torturing any more people. At the same time it gives him additional motivation to decline the opportunity to stay dead and to return. The memory of The Kiss thus helps him drive the Voldycrux out of his head and helps him return to finish off Voldemort for good.

In addition, Ginny’s kiss is a counter to and the opposite of the Dementor’s Kiss, the threat of which haunts all the books from POA on. Harry sees her a bright light that he almost can’t bear to look into, the opposite of a dementor.

Ron acts like a jerk here. His actions here are what Harry feared, and why Harry held back for so long, in HBP. And despite Ron’s purported concern for his sister, he doesn’t seem to care that he’s leaving her crying in her room after dragging Harry off. I have to wonder how Ron’s jealousy of Harry as a perceived rival for Hermione’s affections plays into this. Is he thinking, at least subconciously, that Harry always seems to get the girl? I’m not suggesting for a minute that Ron has inappropriate feelings for his sister, but rather that he might see Harry as celebrity Harry, the Chosen one, Triwizard Champion, “never been more fanciable” as Hermione describes him in HBP (to Ron’s dismay). The interruption of the kiss may foreshadow Ron’s jealousy and bad behavior while they wander in the wilderness.

Revgeorge, loved the post! Especially your comment on Ginny’s motivations in kissing Harry and the power of Rowling’s writing there.

I thought your notes on Ron’s growing up were interesting, too. His fascination with “12 Fail-Safe Ways to Charm Witches” made me laugh so much that I hadn’t thought to take it seriously. He “tries too hard”, as it were, but I do love watching him realize who he loves.

Lily Luna, excellent point about the importance of Harry and Ginny’s kiss to the forest confrontation! I hadn’t thought of that. Fascinating stuff.

As for the big Ron interruption under discussion: My problem with Ron’s breaking off of the kiss was mainly that he accused his best friend unfairly. He seemed to assume that Harry initiated everything, had gone into Ginny’s room to take advantage of her. But I’m glad JKR broke off the kiss, if she did it to prevent a bedroom scene (which hadn’t crossed my innocent little mind before, but makes sense.)

The passing on of Fabian Prewett’s watch is another of the sweetest (at least of the non-climactic) moments in the book, and is a nice little hat-tip to Harry’s inheritance not only as a Weasley but as a Fabian. Social change through character transformation, here we come!

I guess, to put it more concisely, the difference between concern and control is power. In HBP, he’s intervening as an older male relative who doesn’t want a sister whos a __________, in DH he’s intervening with Harry to say “dude WTF are you doing” but he’s his friend and equal and he understands that he can’t tell him what to do. He’s telling him the consequences of what he’s done already.

The deluminator serves two important purposes in DH. First, it provides a guiding light which enters Ron’s heart to help him find his way back to Harry and Hermione. Second, it provides light in the dungeon at Malfoy Manor. The light comes from the lamps in their magical tent, which Ron deluminated when the snatchers surrounded them. In the dungeon, Ron has Luna use it to illuminate the dungeon, the orbs of light hanging under the ceiling, banishing the darkness. The light enables Luna to unbind them, which leads eventually to their escape and Dobby’s death, which as we’ve discussed before begins the rubedo of the book and rekindles Harry’s faith in Dumbledore, the first day or begining of the end. See Genesis 1:3 (which I don’t have time to quote now as I have to leave). One could say that Ron receives the deluminator in the beginning of their journey, the guiding light is like the wise men following the star to Bethlehem, the beginning of Christ’s life and Christianity, and the light in the dungeon and the beginning of the final stage before the final battle is like the beginning of the world. I know I’m straining this but I’ll throw it out there and everyone can cavil away.

revgeorge, in re Scrimgeour’s heroic death, this is the first time I’ve really noticed that the following dialogue:

Scrimgeour: “It’s time you learned some respect!”
Harry: “It’s time you earned it.”

took place on the day before Scrimgeour’s death under torture! It’s almost as if he realized he did need to earn Harry’s respect…

revgeorge, good job of recapitulating the key themes and scenes.

There were a few small details you may have left out, but you are writing a summary, after all: Lupin’s dismay at his incipient fatherhood (Tonks, of course is “radiant”); Norbert’s transformation into Norberta, Scrimgeour’s patronus.

But what struck me most about this chapter was Harry’s puzzling over the inscription on the snitch: I open at the close, in Dumbledore’s writing. Harry holds in his hand, and of course, nothing happens. What is fascinating for me is the transformation that he undergoes between now and the point when the snitch does open for him. Basically, the whole of DH is about what has to happen before the snitch opens. And the thought that Dumbledore knows this, has planned it, and has planned for it, is pretty darn impressive too. Nice plotting. JKR at her best.

Korg, that’s a very interesting hypothesis you raise, that the incident of the kiss gives Ron the chance to be one-up on Harry, a position he rarely is in. In fact, his envy and resulting resentment of Harry is one of his defining traits as a character. So from that perspective, his reaction is consistent with his character. It’s not about Ginny at all, but about Ron vis a vis Harry.

Very interesting. Still patriarchal, in the sense that women become the objects through which men work out their status in the pecking order, but interesting and a satisfying analysis all the same.

About Dumbledore’s being manipulative or willful I think that is a miss read of his character. I think instead he is a man who only acts to support the natural course of events. He is more akido then chess. It is not his planning but his reading of the plans of LV and then by the most subtle intervention he allows those plans to work against LV. He puts the tools along the path for the trio to find but only their seeking shows them the way. It is his faith in Harry and not Harry’s faith in Dumbledore that matters. He learned his lesson from his past that one can’t wield great power without becoming corrupted by it so he uses his influence in as small and delicate way as possible and in tune with his belief that good will win out in the end.

I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned that Ron’s gift to Harry was foreshadowed back in chapter 26 of OotP. Ron and Harry tell Hermione she should write a book “translating mad things girls do so boys can understand them.” Ron gets such a book from his brothers, and then uses it on Hermione. Seems a little cynical to me…

Thanks Aerisflowers. I think in your last sentence “wants” may even be too strong a word how does ” DD just provides what they need to make the choices that he trusts they will make” sound?

How many times have we had to come to grips with DD trust?

Going back to “the Ministry,” it’s natural enough that the character and actions of the Minister should come to represent the Ministry, and that people should be disappointed to think of the trio eventually taking up careers there. Fudge was certainly weak, fearful and self-serving; if Scrimgeour was stronger and more courageous, he was not willing to entirely reverse earlier mistakes (he should have denounced and fired Umbridge, for example). Yet the ministry also employs the aurors, many of whom are clearly on the right side, as well as Mr Weasley. During the trio’s later foray into the ministry, we’ll see plenty of apparently good people doing necessary jobs. It’s not monolithic; good can be done despite the folly or cowardice of people at the top. Brent, I appreciate your insights into Scrimgeour’s point of view. As the minister, he is responsible for protecting the wizarding and muggle worlds, and it must seem that Dumbledore, and now the trio, won’t meet him halfway. He was the head of the Auror office, wasn’t he? – probably not a politician’s personality, and we see that in how he deals with Harry, of course. Neither is in the least conciliating.

aerisflowers, I’ve decided that the interface between the wizard and muggle worlds is pretty weak, illogical and inconsistent; it’s meant as somewhat fuzzy background, not to be seriously analyzed. So I try not to think about it a whole lot. One of the advantages of high fantasy being separated entirely from the existing world is that the writer doesn’t have to figure out the interface. Some things work well enough, like Diagon Alley; but the considerable number of muggle-borns made the strict separation of cultures and the secrecy, IMO, simply impossible. Well, this is fantasy!

Red Rocker, I am not convinced that Rowling understood that to some of us Ron’s behavior is inappropriately controlling rather than concerned-in-an-awkwardly-Ronnish-way.

It’s interesting that there’s disagreement over whether Rowling gives Hermione or Ron more character development – Dave thinks Ron is neglected while Nadia thinks Hermione is. As I was reading HBP, I decided Quidditch seemed really irrelevant and had been thrown in only to allow for Ron to develop some confidence and have some time to shine. Then I realized that we see Hermione develop slowly throughout the series (except for the startling bit during and after the troll incident in Book 1); it happens subtly with her, more dramatically with Ron in the Quidditch games and the horcrux incident.

908ssp, yes, I believe you are right, ‘trusts’ is a much better word. I think that DD chooses very carefully in whom he places his trust. While Snape is the obvious example here, I think it is important to note DD’s lack of trust in himself. As he reveals to Harry on ‘Platform 9 3/4′, he never accepted a post at the MoM becuase he could not trust himself with that power. He carries the guilt over what happened to his family with him for the rest of his life. I think this informs every decision that he makes from that moment on. To some extent, this might explain why he chose not to reveal everything he knew or suspected about LV to Harry all at once.

To Library Lily, This is what I came up with, Am I correct? ”Is How Not Your Face But Your Hearts Desire” very cool, yes! thanks

JKR surely got it correct making the WW in our world but invisible. Logically that is absurd but it makes the entire series so much more attractive especially for the kids. In the recess of your mind you wonder might I see a witch apparate, will I be notified on my 11 birthday, was that weirdly dressed guy a wizard?

908ssp, that’s what drew all those kids into the occult!

Nadia, I agree with you about Ron. I think a lot of people mistakenly perceive Ron as underdeveloped because it takes him a lot longer to mature than say Harry or Hermione. I actually love to watch him grow throughout the series.

A moment that always resonates with me is when he returns to the trio in DH and Harry suggests that Dumbledore left Ron the Deluminator not because he knew that Ron would leave them, but because Dumbledore trusted that Ron would want to return to them. Ron has huge heart.

Red I agree Ron has it rough and that he over comes all those obstacles is a sign of his true character. He is to Harry what Sam was to Frodo neither would have made it as far as they did with their faithful side kick. By the way Snape is Gollum we don’t know his true value till the end.

Well, let me defend the scientist in the article. His research was intended to help autistic people who have trouble empathizing with others; the potential for making “love potions” and “anti-love potions” wasn’t anticipated. It sounds as if most of the talk about chemically adjusting one’s tendency to fall in love came from the reporter, who may have been trying to sensationalize the story.

Forgive the double negative above: I meant that Larry Young doesn’t need defending.

I love how far the speculating and analyzing can go when regarding the Harry Potter series. Great post by the way, revgeorge. Love the discussions going on here.

The “trace” issue has always bugged me too, but here is how I understood it when DD explained in HBP. DD’s exact quote was, “You are quite right – they can detect magic, but not the perpetrator.”
So to me , this sounds like when an under age witch/wizard or a ‘non-wand’ carrier does magic, there would be some sort of ‘magical disturbance’ in the “trace system” at the Ministry of Magic. This system can detect the location on where the magic was performed, but it cannot identify the exact being who cast it. Why I add ‘non-wand’ carriers is because this is the only way I can think of as to explain why Harry was given a warning letter by the Ministry when Dobby cast that Hover charm in CoS. I’ll get to the Dobby part later.

So let me try to clarify this ‘disturbance theory’ a little further with the help of DD explanation & some of the questions that were posted above about the “trace”.
When LV stupefied and altered Morfin’s memory, a disturbance occurred in the MoM’s “trace system” because LV was under age at that time. The MoM however didn’t bother to send a warning letter or take action on that specific disturbance because the Gaunt residence is a wizard’s house & DD mentioned that the ministry relies on witch & wizard parents to enforce their offspring’s obedience while within their homes. The same concept is applied to the question asked by Derek D on whether the ministry would know if Ginny performed magic in her house. The ministry couldn’t know its Ginny herself who did it, but they will know its done by an under age witch/wizard at a wizard’s house. Therefore, no action will be taken against Ginny.
As LV went over to the Riddle Mansion to kill his father and grandparents, there would be a disturbance with the “trace system” again. This time, the ministry did take appropriate action because the magic has occurred in a Muggle-home. But because the “trace” is simply unable to identify the exact culprit who executed the spell, LV managed to escape unpunished. Instead the ministry arrested the Muggle-hater that lived nearby.
Aerisflowers brought up the fact that there were a lot of magic performed by others (excluding Harry and Dobby) at #4 Privet Drive through-out the series that had not been detected by the Ministry. Well if you noticed, they were all adult witches and wizards therefore they are unlikely to have the “trace” on them.
Back to the Dobby issue. One may argue that if house-elves, goblins and other magical cretures (‘non-wand’ carriers) who have their own brand of magic are included in the system, won’t there be disturbance occurring all the time in the “trace” system at the MoM? Well, my only defense would be that they are magical creatures, therefore they will live in the purely wizardry areas and not Muggle inhabited places because their physical appearance are different from that of humans. Dobby was in a Muggle house when he cast that charm and that is why I think it got detected. Harry got the blame because he was the only wizard known to live in that area.

Couldn’t the trace be a plot device that has its uses, but is ultimately too complex or even impossible to work in reality? Sort of like giants (someone once proved mathematically that the human skeleton couldn’t support the weight of a body much more than 10ft), or exceeding the speed of light (something about mass increasing the faster the object goes, requiring more and more energy, to the point of infinite mass and infinite energy for an object moving at the speed of light)? Perhaps all JKR really wanted was a simple way of keeping Harry from totally destroying the Dursleys without relying too much on his sense of compassion and decency. And didn’t pause to work out all the permutations and ramifications of said plot device.

Back to the romance: I’ve always suspected that Hermione did write “Twelve Ways to Woo Your Witch” (or whatever the title was) under a pseudonym and make sure it got into Fred and George’s hands, knowing they would pass it on to Ron. It is a lot more typical for Hermione to try to get relationships right from books, she “goes by the book” on everything else.

Anyway, Ron had just given a copy of the book to Harry. Who did he think Harry was going to use it on?

Red Rocker, I agree with you to some extent regarding the possibility of the trace being simply a plot device that may have gotten overly complicated. However, I almost hate to distill it down so easily, not only because we know that Jo spent a great deal of time coming up with the ‘laws of physics’ for her world, but also because doing so essentially renders any close analysis (of any work of literature) useless if it can all be summed up by a simple ‘that was just a plot device’.

Treebeard, I agree with Arabella – good observation about Ron, the book and who Harry would be using it on!

It’s been fun reading this discussion from the sidelines!

I just have to throw my two cents in and say that anyone interested in a deeper discussion of Ginny’s “gift” to Harry (virginity is still a present these days? huh.) should check out my essay “Ginny Weasley: Girl Next Doormat?” in the wonderful anthology Hog’s Head Conversations.

(Sorry revgeorge!)

It certainly is agreeable to take the “trace” issue as a plot devise used by JKR whenever necessary. I actually do that for the case of the fidelius charm for it does seem inconsistent, especially in DH. But the thing is every time I re-read the books, I find the fidelius charm issue doesn’t bother me as much(although I know of it’s flawed) because it had it’s own mystery to it and I don’t find myself trying to link it back to the other incidents where it was used.
But as for the “trace” issue, I always had a hard time grasping the concept of it during my re-reads. So, I tried to find the best way I could to understand it.
Derek D, you point out insightful facts and questions about the “trace” and I certainly did not feel like I was being ‘picked’ on. So no worries there
But you certainly made me think over about how to compromise the “trace” problem again, especially about the Morfin part. Morfin’s age was never mentioned and Harry kept describing him as “the man in ragged clothes” when he first saw him in Ogden’s memory. So he couldn’t have been young, maybe under age at that time, but certainly not below 15 or 16. I presume a teenager’s appearance could be described as man-ish from about 15 onwards. But since he left to Azkaban for 3 years, he certainly would have come of age by the time he returned to the Gaunt house where Tom Riddle Jr. met him. Hence, Morfin wouldn’t have the “trace” on him. You could be right about LV managing to work around the “trace”, but then it makes me think that if LV at 16 could work around it then, DD would surely know the knowledge on how to suppress it when they needed Harry to be moved from #4 Privet Drive in OotP. I mean why risk all the order members lives when there is a better solution.

Now the only way I can try stick to my concept of the “trace” (which I’m sure many of you will find some kind of loophole in it ), is by assuming that the MoM was not troubled by the fact that the Riddle murders were done by an under age witch/wizard. Since the culprit went missing, they had to find other sources. They know something had to be done and was satisfied enough when Morfin gave a boastful confession. I can sort of lean on this because throughout the series we know how the MoM always wanted to be seen doing something when anything troubling happened. The situation in Morfin’s second arrest seem to mirror Hagird’s arrest in CoS because both cases appear to based on similar reasons. They assumed Hagrid opened the chamber the second time because he was accused for it the first time without further investigation. As for Morfin, the MoM proceeded to his house because he had previous records of attacking one of the Muggle that died in the Riddle Mansion and he was also known as a Muggle-hater. It seemed to be enough evidence for the MoM.

As for the subject about the “trace” appearing in the chapter ‘A Place to Hide’ in DH, I think Harry based it on Dobby’s act in CoS. I believe he just assumed that was the case. If he was somewhat right, then all the other times that magic was preformed near him by other adults in Privet Drive would have made Harry expelled from Hogwarts for sure.

To touch on the other questions Derek D had regarding my concept of the “trace”, I think you all would need to see how I picture it in my head. And I have to add that how I imagined it, is very much based and compared with the stuff in the real world we live in (with magical conditions), so I hope you don’t find my lack of imagination silly(hehehe). This is how I see it:
It’s some sort of magical map of Britain(something like Google map) with sensors that detect the “trace” when triggered. So when it does trigger, the exact location on where the magical disturbance occurred is revealed. If it’s in a wizarding family house, then the sensors report as “disregard”. If it’s in a Muggle home/area, then it would report as “breached”. Now, for areas where it’s fully witch/wizard populated, where no Muggles can be found(like Hogsmeade, Diagon Alley, Hogwarts, Platform 9 3/4, etc.), then there will be no sensor alert at all. I guess you can say that the sensors are sort of “programmed” that way to make exceptions for these types of places.

You asked about whether all under aged Muggle-born witches/wizards would have to go to one of these exempted places if they want to do magic undetected. Well, yes. But the thing to keep in mind is, that the MoM has no issues with under age magic occurring once or frequently. The only issue that will matter to the MoM , I believe, is when under age magic is done in a Muggle area; or upon a Muggle/Muggles; or in the presence of a Muggle/Muggles. So even if the “trace” gets triggered repeatedly by an under age witch/wizard in a wizarding family home, the MoM can ignore it just as many times because it won’t matter.

The whole idea of the “trace” seem to be a precaution taken by the MoM, to not reveal the Wizarding World to the eyes of the Muggle World. Why is this precaution only extended to under age witches/wizards? I guess it’s because they are the ones who are more prone to be reckless with magic than adults. It’s more unlikely for them understand the necessities of keeping the Wizarding World a secret from the Muggle World.

TJ_Das, you make excellent points. Things still aren’t totally clear (they might never be), but I appreciate your analysis and speculation. Thanks.

Interesting thought, that: anti-women women. Scary. But yes, I agree that not all women are feminists. And based on the discussions we’ve been having here, I don’t think I’d say JKR was a strong feminist. Some feminist leanings, but also lots of pre-feminist views.

I can already anticipate the argument that the books were not designed to be a feminist manifesto, and that JKR is just reflecting the reality she sees. But I think there’s a difference between having feminist views and writing a feminist manifesto. I don’t think a book needs to be less entertaining if it comes from a feminist perspective than if it comes from a perspective where women for the most part stay in traditional sex-role stereotypes – and are happy to do so.

Just because a woman is not a feminist in the same way other women are feminist or just because she isn’t as feminist as some people may think she should be, does not ipso facto make her an anti-woman woman.

I don’t think anyone was making this argument, about JKR or women in general. I was simply pointing out the converse of “if a woman does it it’s not sexist.” The great thing about feminism is that it’s not a black and white issue.

I can already anticipate the argument that the books were not designed to be a feminist manifesto, and that JKR is just reflecting the reality she sees.

Shouldn’t that be a feminist manifesta? lol.

I agree that JKR is reflecting the reality of gender and gender roles/relations in the novels, hence we can identify (with) the characters and situations. That’s the logics of current and classic gender understanding, but we also have to look at the effects of gender within the series on the outside world. Just because a novel or other text accurately reflects the real world doesn’t mean we shouldn’t question both the fiction and the reality. Rowling writes realistically (say that 5 times fast!) about racist views, but we question them nonetheless.

Gwen, I read your essay in Hog’s Head Conversations last night. I must admit that it never occurred to me how Harry and Ron (and even Ginny herself) treat Ginny as a commodity, but I am quite convinced by your argument. I did always feel that while Ginny is presented as one of the ’strong’ women in the stories the lens through which we see her does sometimes take away that power. At the same time, I absolutely agree with diva_alex re the statement that Gwen quotes above. So perhaps in the moment in which Ginny offers herself as a gift to Harry it is because it is her choice she is actually being empowered in this scene.

However, I was most disappointed by her characterization (if you can call it that) in the epilogue. I feel like the Ginny we see in the epliloge has been stripped of her spunk and seems to exist only as Harry’s wife. (Much the same as Bella at the end of the Twilight series – sorry to make that reference!)

Are you really unsure whether it’s a bad thing that a girl’s virginity is conceived of (in contexts within and outside of the series) as a gift? Because I’m pretty sure women are punished even today for who and when they have their first sexual experience with. Is a man’s virginity thought of in the same terms?

Speaking for myself, I think it’s absolutely a good thing to consider virginity as a gift–though I would wholeheartedly agree that a man’s virginity should be thought of in the same terms. His is just a little harder to prove. Nature stuck us with that one.

Whether virginity is in question in the text … that’s rather vague. It’s never said openly in the books when and where anyone gave that up. As a big fan of chastity I like to think of the characters as having lived with virtue, but seriously: if one of the Harry/Ginny pair came into their relationship with previous experience, it was certainly Ginny. And Harry, as far as we know, never even asks. I think it’s safe to say he accepted her and loved her either way.

Ginny’s “gift of herself” seems relevant to an important aspect of love, one backed up by Rowling’s text. What is love, really, without giving oneself? Harry gives himself for the Wizarding World. I believe that eventually he and Ginny very mutually gave themselves to each other. Taking that in the sexual sense, I just hope they got married first.

Thanks for your comment, Gwen!

We can debate over terminology elsewhere, this probably not being the place. I’ll even break my own fast from controversial topics and offer my blog for that, if you would like. But you are talking to at least one person here for whom the whole human person and its commodities, including the body and the sexual act and the virtue of virginity, are gifts that can be given. I can’t go denying my deeply-held beliefs (backed up by regret-free personal experience) to say that because some societies have wildly misused the concept, the idea itself is evil.

Library Lily, terminology debates are fun! If only I had access to the OED off campus…
…and I’ve revealed myself as a word nerd. Ah well.

We give gifts involving our bodies all the time–labor, time, personal care, mentoring, errands.

Well, as far as labor and errands go, if they are “gifts” of our bodies I’d certainly like to take mine back and use it elsewhere!

I think the examples you’ve provided Arabella are more about time than bodies, and they’re in very different and less volatile contexts than sex itself. As this discussion shows, sex is a highly charged arena no matter where one comes from.

Kissing the person you love before they go off on a dangerous mission (cliche as it is) isn’t commodifying your sexuality. But the fact that Ginny does so while saying “I couldn’t think what to get you…I didn’t know what would be useful…I’d like you to have something to remember me by, you know, if you meet some veela” objectifies her sexual expression in this moment. At this point, with this context, the kiss isn’t about showing Harry how much she loves him for the sake of the love itself; rather, it turns into an exchange within the sexual economy.

I don’t want to get into Hermione’s kiss, I’ll just quote Rowling and let everyone decide for themselves how much of a reward the kiss is: “Ron had finally got S.P.E.W. and earned himself a snog!”

Some random thoughts here.

Part of what confuses the issue – for me, anyways – is mixing the literal and metaphorical meanings of the word “gift”. Literal gifts can be given and taken; they can be owned. Metaphorical gifts – usually actions or thoughts – can be “given”, but they can’t be taken, and they can’t be owned.

The other confusing issue is the nature of the concept of virginity which is a fairly complicated thing ( I can hear the howls of derisive laughter, but bear with me for a second here). For you to “give” someone your virginity two conditions have to be fulfilled: you have to have not had sex with someone before; and you need to have sex with the person you’re “giving” your virginity to. More simply put, you’re saying “no” to one or more people, and then saying “yes” to one person. Which is nice, I guess, if what you’re giving is in limited supply and there isn’t enough to go around, or if the value of what you’re giving is diminished by having given it before. I don’t think the first condition applies to having sex – it’s not like a cake, or a bar of chocolate, which can only be divided into so many pieces. But the second condition? The second condition, that the value of the act of sex is diminished by having had sex with someone else before, that I suspect is the real issue behind this concept of giving someone the “gift” of virginity.

But how could that be? How could what I did with someone else take away from what I do with you?

I don’t know the answer to that question. Exclusivity, monogamy, chastity, sex only within marriage – none of those values adequately explains why being the first is special enough to be considered a “gift”.

But accept the premise for the sake of argument (as many do). Does the rule then apply equally to men and women? What do we think when a man brings his bride the “gift” of virginity? Is it a gift women want? Is it a gift men are proud of giving?

Do the words “double standard” come to mind?

Red Rocker, it would seem we differ greatly in our ideas of the very nature, meaning, and purpose of sex. And I could perhaps answer some of your questions in ways that might surprise you. But I’m honestly hesitant to continue this particular conversation any further; I keep thinking I see Aberforth casting glances at this corner. We’re a long way from talking Potter at this point, and I’d hate to get tossed from the bar on account of disorderly conduct. I haven’t finished my butterbeer yet.