Quotes of the Week 5

[rattlesnakeroot]

Some thought-provoking quotes from Beedle the Bard, not from the stories, but the Intro, commentary, and footnotes. (JKR writes that certain footnotes were written by her to explain things to Muggles, but some of them seem to come from Dumbledore, while others may have been written by Hermione ) Since these are spoilers, I'll put them under an LJ-

Comments

[a_waffling]

1. "Beedle's story is quite explicit about the fact that the second brothers lost love has not really returned from the dead. She has been sent by death to lure the second brother into Death's clutches, and is therefore cold, remote, tantalizingly both present and absent."
~ Dumbledore writing about the "Tale of Three Brothers," making a slightly unexpected remark considering Harry's walk in the forest with his own entourage of cold, remote, present, and absent spirits, who could be seen as "luring him" to his death. Or maybe they were there to help him. Contradiction much?

Well, as this is Albus Dumbledore writing: I see no contradiction. He was less than truthful that often that I don't see any reason to believe him in this case.

[rattlesnakeroot]

How odd that Dumbledore would write that in his comments, but then put on the horcrux ring for the precise purpose of trying to see his loved ones again!

He sounds as if he felt abandoned when he wrote that, so he was thinking of the departed as cold and remote. But Harry certainly seems to have an opposite experience in the Forest.

I have a hard time believing that JKR is using Dumbledore there to be expository, since she has said she wept over "The Forest Again" and that Harry needed his "heroes" to walk with him! I don't know - it just strikes me as an odd thing for Dumbledore to write.

[rattlesnakeroot]

But yes - I see your point. Maybe Dumbledore is writing what he thinks he should for future generations, instead of being honest about how much he would like a chance to use the Stone.

[a_waffling]

The way I read it: in his commentary he wants to make believe that the hallows don't exist, and even if they should exist they would be useless.

As even Harry observed: DD rarely talked about personal things, and the one time he did (concerning the mirror of Erised) even Harry gets it that DD probably lied.

[rattlesnakeroot]

Great point about pretending the Hallows didn't exist (though he knew he had the Elder Wand all along).

Dumbledore is always editing himself depending on his audience, whether it is Harry, Snape, Tom Riddle, or Cornelius Fudge.

[a_waffling]

Dumbledore is always editing himself depending on his audience, whether it is Harry, Snape, Tom Riddle, or Cornelius Fudge.

He's the one who remained most enigmatic when we tried to analyse Potterverse characters' ethics in one of my seminars just after DH was published.

I share most of Aberforth's judgements concerning Albus.

[rattlesnakeroot]

*LOL* I find that I've become much more critical of him, when I used to accept everything he says in the books at face value. He spins the truth a bit too much.

[a_waffling]

Yeah, and I think JKR has her timelines mixed up again. Somewhere in there is a comment that as near as anyone can tell, Dumbledore's exposition was written in the year before his death...right around the time he'd have put the ring on and sentenced himself to long, slow death.

Kristin

[rattlesnakeroot]

Thank you for writing that - I had a sense of unease about the timeline, too, and didn't bother to really get into that. I'm terrible with timelines, but it really seems odd. I'm going to look for that tonight and check back here. (I'm supposed to wrap this book soon as a present for my son, so I have to read it and then hide it.)

[a_waffling]

My daughter begged me for it when we were at the grocery store the other day. "As an early Christmas present." So I bought that and Twilight and now I'm running out of Christmas ideas for her. LOL

About the timeline, it says in the exposition that no one knew who the owner of the Resurrection Stone was...but we know that it was Voldemort. And Dumbledore has known since before the night that James and Lily were killed that the Invisibility Cloak was in fact THE Cloak of Invisibility.

I guess the little cabal of believers in the Deathly Hallows really was a secret society if Dumbledore knew these things and wouldn't admit it to anyone, not even in his writings.

I wondered if JKR was making a sexist statement when she says that no witch has ever claimed to be the owner of the Elder Wand.

Kristin

[rattlesnakeroot]

I took it as sexist. To me there is a strange idea in the books that women are superior, but they also have to stay pure, so they can't fight or use weapons - unless they are as old as Molly Weasley. Ginny doesn't fight her own battles at all - Molly saves her from Bellatrix.

Hermione never destroys a horcrux, which is one of my pet peeves. Why Neville and not Hermione? Why Neville and not Luna - who is also locked away just like Ginny? Arghhhh! Don't get me started, lol.

[saiphgrl]

I thought Hermione destroyed the cup?

[weerdone]

I am positive she did. When she and Ron disappeared into the Chamber of Secrets, Ron felt it was her turn to destroy the cup with the basilisk fang. Then they returned to the group with an armful of fangs.

[bluestockingbb]

Hermione destroys the cup. As I recall she did it in the Chamber of Secret.

[a_waffling]

I thought that both Ron and Hermione destroyed the cup. After all, it was Ron who suddenly and miraculously spoke Parseltongue to open the Chamber in the first place, something that never occurred to Hermione. :))

Kristin

[rattlesnakeroot]

I stand corrected then! But it's off-page and out of sight, right? We don't actually see the action in the book, do we, because I don't remember it??? I need to go read it again.

I really think it would have been more meaningful if Ron and Hermione destroyed the locket together, since Voldemort used Ron's fears about the relationship as protection for it. But that's just me.