by Travis
This story has been making the rounds for years, and apparently scientists are getting ever closer to making a magical object a reality. Despite the fact that I argue in chapter one of my book that magic and science need not be antithetical, something about the possibility of a real invisibility cloak leaves me un-enthused.
Maybe it’s that the idea of that technology being real is a little scary for matters such as warfare. Maybe it’s the simple fact that it feels like some of the magic gets lost – or more importantly, that it might be seen as an Enlightenment rationalist’s one-up on a supernaturalist (“While you’re over there playing with stories about being invisible, we’re over here making it happen for real”).
More than anything, I think it’s the fact that the cloak in the Potter books is so invested with meaning that I don’t want to see it detached from that meaning. The invisibility cloak has a long history in story. King Arthur had one. Harry had one. Those are two biggies. I’m not sure I want everyone to have one. Dumbledore’s got wisdom for us all: this one is more real in my head than it would be in my hands.
Arabella Figg on 
Joivre on 
PotterMom05 on 
Red Rocker on 
korg20000bc on 
Loading ...
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Based on my own, VERY rudimentary understanding of it, there will – at least initially – be some problems with the real-cloak, as it currently is designed.
If you stand facing someone who is wearing the cloak, you don’t see them. This is because the material on their BACK allows the light to pass around them, relatively undisturbed, around to the front, where you see the light as though nothing got in its way.
But if you look down at their feet, I’m not sure what you will see. Where with Harry’s magical cloak, you see the floor directly beneath him. However, the real-cloak has no material underneath the person wearing it – so I can’t begin to imagine what you will see when you look there.
That said – there WAS a very cool picture of someone wearing a prototype of the real-cloak with the original CNN article, but it’s been taken down. Not sure why, but I’m wondering if perhaps it was an “artists interpretation” and they realized it was causing confusion …? Anyway, it was pretty impressive.
Well, don’t fret yet, Travis. The only improvement (which is a huge step, don’t get me wrong) is that they have changed the method of light diversion. The thing they are as yet unable to do is get it to work on structures of above-microscopic size.
And really, do (sub-)microscopic structures really need to be hidden with an invisibility cloak ?
Why aren’t they working on my flying car & personal transporter?
It is just a matter of time…
I don’t see why the cloak should be different than many other forms of magic which are completely analogous to specific technological advances.
As far as the warfare aspect you can’t get much worse than the H-bomb deathstick.
The symbolic meaning is already somewhat obscured by the fact that anyone can perform a dissilusionment charm.
Good points, Shimon. The meaning for Harry in particular, though, goes beyond the overall symbolism of invisibility.
Agree with Shimon’s point: many magical items are completely analogous to technological devices. In some cases, even, I think technology has magic beat. I have to laugh at my own reaction when the HP characters look at moving pictures in picture frames and newspapers. My first reaction is: oooh! And then I remember all the technology that exists for doing exactly the same thing, including cell phones and digital picture frames and e-books and e-newspapers and God knows what else (I’m not an early adopter.
I think that the symbolism in many magical objects is not inherent, but acquired through association. Invisibility cloaks are rare but there are other invisibility cloaks. Presumably there were other horcruxes (although probably no human horcruxes). There are other powerful wands. The Room of Prophecies is full of prophecies. Many swords besides Gyrffindor’s.
What makes this particular set of objects we see so significant are the events, and people and deeds which revolve around them. Without all that, they are just objects, magical or not.
A good example is the prophecy that Trelawney makes about Voldemort and Harry. If Voldemort hadn’t taken it to heart, and tried to kill Harry and in doing so forge his own doom, then the prophecy would have been empty – or so we are led to believe. Instead, we now refer to it as “The Prophecy”.
Analogies from our world are things like the sarcophagus of King Tut, Lucy, Glenn Gould’s CD 318, and from the tragic end of the scale: Fat Man and Little Boy and the Twin Towers. There were many golden sacrophagi, Lucy presumably had a tribe, there were lots of Steinways, lots of atomic bombs, and lots of skyscrapers. But these ones stand out for us, and carry a lot of symbolic associations. Not because they were outstanding examples of their kind – although some were, of course – but because of their history, because of what men did with them, and how our culture sees them.
So when someone does something heroic – or dastardly, with an invisibility cloak in our world, then that cloak may well acquire the patina of symbolism Harry’s has.
Three Rings for Elven Kings under the sky
Seven for the Dwarf Lords in their halls of stone
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die
One for the Dark Lord on his Dark Throne
in the land of Mordor where the shadows lie.
Sorry, Red Rocker’s post just reminded me of the history & lineage connected with many items in Middle Earth.