 |
|
Reply
| |
| The Amazing, Incredible Harry Potter Phenomena | I grew up a child in the 50's and 60's. It was the time of the cold war, "commies" hiding under every rock, Cuban Missile Crisis and the threat of nuclear war. "Duck and cover" was practiced in school while the local Air Force Base flew fighter planes over Brooklyn, breaking the sound barrier. The sonic booms could be heard as we practiced our abc's and 123's. Yes, I grew up in a paranoid society, afraid that tomorrow someone, probably the "commies", could "drop the big one" and we would all end up embroiled in WWIII, with the whole thing ending in a big mushroom cloud. But come the weekend, we would all escape to the movies. Everyone has their preference. Romance was popular, but I was hooked on a particular flavor of movie - The Science Fiction B Film. Yes, I would run out to see the latest cheap black and white "monster" film. And they were monsters - The Blob, Cape Canaveral Monster, The Amazing Colossal Man. Radiation Theater. Giant Ants. Giant Tomatoes. I could go on and on. All threatening our safety as a nation and a planet, and all met with the same solution - shoot first, ask questions later. And we triumphed over all kinds of threats. This was the answer to our paranoia. While we tackled the "commies" in real life, and never seemed to make headway, we always were victorious over the monsters in the Science Fiction "B" Films. America walked away the champions each and every time. Once the Berlin Wall fell, and we realized we had overcome the enemy, not with guns and tanks and armies, but with capitalism. Actually, we never did defeat the "commies" - they kinda defeated themselves. And our view of the world started to change. Enter Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The spaceman was no longer a threat. He actually was holding his hand out in friendship. And we were returning the handshake. But the real change came in one movie, ET. We met the enemy, and he was cute, hung out with our kids and changed our entire outlook. He was the change in our perspective on the entire world. We were no longer shooting the monster, we were greeting the "Aliens". They were not the threat we had envisioned. Well, to a few leftover paranoid refugees from the 50's and 60's, yes, he still was. But to our generation, the monsters were gone. All that was left was a new idea, to embrace those things we feared only to find out we had created the monsters, the real aliens were a vast unknown to be explored. As my tastes changed, my love for movies remained much the same. Enter Hammer House Studios and their beloved "monster" films. Most of them started Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee as the vampire and the vampire hunter. But there were these movies with witches and witch hunters. Oh, Hammer Studios knew how to scare a fledgling witch. Burn them at the stake, run around with a cross and drive wooden dowels through the vampire's heart. We had something new to be afraid of. Threats against our immortal soul. I got into these kinds of films about the same time I was discovering alternative religions. Interesting how again, we strike out against what we do not know, rather than looking at what it may be and examining it further. For all we knew, we were looking at ET again, only this time he was an Elemental, and we just drove a stake through his heart. But, being the kind of person I am, I have a sense of humor, and I rather enjoyed some of the attempts at portraying witches. The Witches of Eastwick, which I found hilarious, and Jack Nicolson as the devil was a scream. Also - Hocus Pocus, an all time classic witch film. But my favorite has to be one of the earliest movies with witches. Kim Novak and Jimmy Stewart in Bell, Book and Candle. While the witch changes at the end of the move, and I was sorry to see that, it was the closest portrayal of what real witches might be of the time. Normal people, for the most part, if you realize that beatniks were popular at the time and the movie portrayed the times. I loved her brother portrayed by Jack Lemmon. Witch movies have come to a crossroad. We are now presented with something that the Religious Right has every reason to fear. While Practical Magic was not all that accurate a portrayal, it was very close to the American Witch. We are pretty, we are real people, we are quirky, and we practice magic. Not too much emphasis on the Goddess, but enough to make us almost likable. Blair Witch was a terrible spook story, the first one at least. And there was no witch in that one. The second movie, however, had a Wiccan Witch. I wonder how many people saw that one, much less understood it. If you did, write me and let me know. Then there is Drawing Down the Moon. Realistic - well, sorta kinda, but not out in the public enough. Just never caught on. Now - Harry Potter. The books have brought kids who normally would not read into the book generation with a delightful fantasy series that entertains, delights and gives kids a chance to use their imagination. Who doesn't have a very definite picture of what a Quidditch game is all about? What do Harry and his friends look like to you? And who is not in love with this series of books the likes of which we haven't seen since the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew? The movie is out, and we all have the opportunity to see how close Hollywood has come to making our fantasy heroes come alive against the images we have fixed in our minds. We have all run out to see the movie or our kids have dragged us to see it. And we all love it. Not just our witchy types, but everyone. Harry Potter is a household word. Our grandkids and kids are reading, yes reading, and enjoying it. The TV was turned off while they ran to their rooms to read the next chapter, or we got them to bed and they sat with attentive eyes and ears as we have read these books to them. But wait. Something is going on in the background. The paranoid Religious Right is getting very nervous. Seems they are afraid of what is going on. People are changing, and the Religious Right is up in arms. The one thing the Religious Right detests is change, especially when it comes to words like "witch". The enemy they have been beating back for centuries is at the door. In true ET manner, people are looking, questioning and coming to realize that, even though Harry Potter is pure fantasy and has nothing to do with real witches, he is a likable person. Our kids love him and the parents like that their kids are happy with a book that they are actually - GASP - reading. And maybe, just maybe, the stigma associated with the word "witch" is being examined, and possibly even - GASP - overlooked. People are not firing their guns and shooting first. They are, instead, offering their hand in friendship to Harry Potter, welcoming him into their homes for - GASP - their children to be introduced to. After all, as parents, whatever gets them to read. But, there is something deeper here. Something that everyone is overlooking. Harry Potter is fiction. It is fantasy. It is magic. After years of paranoia, after centuries of denying that magic exists, we are finding that Harry Potter is a spell we can all live with. It is something that we want in our lives. We loved those stories when we were kids where the Fairy Godmother granted Cinderella her wish and she went to the Ball and found her prince. The magic of Beauty and the Beast - look how successful that play has been. Practical Magic has been extremely popular. It's the magic. People want some kind of magic in their mundane (muggle) lives. We can not live on "fire and brimstone" anymore. The world is not a dark, dank place with some guy yelling at us telling us we are going to burn for eternity. We need positive affirmations in our lives. We need to know that there is more than be good and you will go to heaven, muck up and you will be damned. We want to see we can exist on earth and enjoy our time here. And we need to see that we can make this a better place for everyone, if only we have a touch of magic to help us through. Life is for living and enjoying, within the boundaries of common sense. We can have a good time, enjoy ourselves, and still find spiritual happiness, without being threatened or paranoid about who we are or what we do. And God (or Goddess) is a kind and loving God (or Goddess). After all, He gave someone the idea to write Harry Potter to entertain and delight both the reader and the audience. We are going to experience those people who find anything that is enjoyable must be bad for you. They have every right to fear. Their world is changing. We are going to start enjoying ourselves, having a good time, and not worrying about how we feel about it. Feeling good is good. Enjoying a movie is good. Getting our kids to enjoy reading is good. And none of that is going to threaten our immortal souls. Maybe even Harry Potter, the witch, is a good thing, and it is not going to cost our immortal souls to say so. Is Harry Potter the ET of the witch movies? I could only hope so. I am tired of everyone fearing what they don't understand. Is this going to change everyone overnight? No, I don't think so. But Harry Potter has opened the box of change. He has come out of the broom closet and shown the world that fantasy is nothing to be afraid of. And maybe, just maybe, he will show that being a witch is nothing to be afraid of either. We are just a little bit different. We believe in that magic that everyone is looking for. And maybe, just maybe, we will be able to spread that magic around and everyone will find it in their hearts, where it has been all along. | found this interesting article from -Boudicia- website L.S.M. |
|
 First
Previous
2-13 of 13
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
Of Myth, Fantasy and the Death of Albus Dumbledore
by David Nagore
Well, Rowling did it. She really did it. She said that a "major" character would die and she was true to her promise. Yet despite her warnings, the ultimate revelation of Dumbledore's death nevertheless sent shockwaves through her millions of readers, including yours truly. Yet in retrospect, to me he seemed the most obvious choice from a plot development point-of-view. I would have offed him had I been Rowling, despite the reaction I knew such an incident would cause with my readership. It fits the storyline perfectly, as far as I'm concerned.
Still, as this site entails, Dumbledore's murder begs one question: Is ol' Albus truly dead? Frankly, I have my doubts, and it has nothing to do with any clues Rowling may or may not have in HBP. Part of her genius as an author is that she leaves just as many red herrings in her work as real clues, forcing us to guess wildly what will happen until after the fact. Rather, my doubt comes from death possessing a unique fluidity and transience, in deep connection with the supernatural and myth, which is not without precedent in fantasy works. In fact, the genre is replete with death/rebirth examples, not only in modern literature but going back thousands of years to the ancient myths and folklore that are modern fantasy's progenitors.
It is important to note that, since the entire Harry Potter saga is, at its core, a children's story, the majority of its readership are still young people who have not been around long enough to be thoroughly read in the genre, although one would hope that current education hasn't degraded to the point where the most basic stories are now out of the curriculum. By seeing that death and rebirth are well established within the genre, as well as the many forms they take, then perhaps Rowling's younger audience will understand Dumbledore may not be dead after all, or that his death, if it is final, will have a more profound and positive result than we now perceive.
As such, I will barely focus on the sonata of the Harry Potter saga itself, but instead plant my attention squarely on the cacophonic symphony that is all myth, folklore and fantasy that came before it, and present to you, dear reader, with the tiniest snapshot to illustrate my claims.
First, let's take a look at two of the most influential early civilizations in Western culture, Egypt and Greece. Ancient Egypt's religion was almost entirely based on the notion of death as a transient state. Aside from the phoenix myth, which Rowling has tied closely to Dumbledore, one of the most well-known Egyptian death/rebirth stories relates to the murder of the god Osiris by his brother, Set, and his subsequent resurrection because of his wife, Isis, which signified the ancient Egyptian's view of nature's self-renewal.
The ancient Greeks had many cyclic, death/rebirth myths. Zeus saving his siblings after their father, Kronos, ate them is one. Another Greek death-renewal myth concerned the death god Hades and his wife, Persephone. According to this story, winter occurred during the time of year Persephone spent with Hades to the netherworld, her absence reflecting, like Osiris' annual death and rebirth, the death and rebirth of nature.
Jumping centuries ahead to the middle ages, we find the legend of King Arthur and his own personal wizard, mentor and advisor, Merlin, the archetype for almost every wizard character in modern fantasy. This story, which has been and continues to be reinvented and reinterpreted countless times in both print (Sir Thomas Marlory's Le Morte d'Arthur, The Once and Future King by T.H. White, The Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley and many others) and cinema (Camelot (1967), the adult-oriented Excalibur (1981; sorry kids, not for you), the made-for-television stinker Merlin (1998) and again, others), nevertheless (most of the time, anyway, depending on how the legend is interpreted) depicts Arthur's loss of Merlin near the end of the story that is tied directly to death or is in some way symbolically death-like. Yet there also is the promise of Merlin's return when he is needed, or he actually does return. Arthur himself makes a bid for rebirth when, though mortally wounded at the end of his legend, he is taken to Avalon to sleep until England needs him once more.
From this perspective, we can view Harry as a kind of Arthurian hero. Near the end of his quest, he must now rely on his own skills to see him through, whether Dumbledore comes back or not.
Next, on to the 20th Century and modern fantasy. My first example needs even less of an introduction than Rowling and Dumbledore: J.R.R. Tolkien, his masterpiece The Lord of the Rings, and Tolkien's own nod to Merlin, Gandalf the Grey. In Fellowship of the Ring, as the Fellowship is trying to escape Moria, Gandalf battles a Balrog, a demon from Middle Earth's First Age when Sauron was just a glorified yes-man to that world's original Dark Lord, Morgoth. He defeats the Balrog, but in the process Gandalf himself experiences a form of death, only to be reborn as Gandalf the White, a more powerful transcendent being. Tolkien leads us on initially, making his readers believe Gandalf is indeed gone until a good way into the second book, The Two Towers.
Michael Moorcock, one of the "New Age" fantasy and science fiction writers of the latter 20th Century, has built an entire career out of death and rebirth. The adventures of his Eternal Champion, a single name for an infinite number of heroes inhabiting an infinite number of alternate realities known as the multiverse, take up almost every title in his huge catalogue of novels and short stories. Each Champion fights and dies for the Cosmic Balance, only to be reborn in a different universe to fight and die all over again.
Other modern fantasy works, such as in the dark fantasy/horror sub-genre, also make the use of death and rebirth, but to more terrifying effect. H.P. Lovecraft, viewed by many as the father of modern dark fantasy, in his own fiction weaves a threatening undertone of dead, mad gods that once ruled the earth and mean to live once more and rule again. This darker side of the death/rebirth motif lives on in the Potter novels, as Lord Voldemort regains his power and body in a new bid for tyrannical power.
I should also note fantasy's many appearances on both the big and little screen (some already noted above), much of the time, in the author's opinion, falling well short of the genre's great potential in that medium. One movie, despite its shortfalls, does rate a mention concerning the transient nature of death and life in fantasy. The Paramount Pictures/Disney debacle, Dragonslayer (1981), is framed around a wizard's magical faux death, as well as some of the best special affects for a dragon ever done in cinema, outstripping even the CGI work in Dragonheart (1996).
One of the better examples in cinema concerning fantasy's take on death's temporary nature comes from the original Star Wars movie trilogy. Granted, this is science fiction, but it borrows liberally from fantasy, particularly concerning the death of its wizard, Obi Wan Kenobi. "You can't win, Darth," Kenobi says in his last duel with Darth Vader during the first movie, A New Hope (1977). "If you strike me down I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine." And this is spoken to a character that, as the story goes, was conceived by The Force! When he dies Obi Wan does become more powerful, so much so he can even return from the dead in spirit form.
If Rowling brings Dumbledore back, how she will do it? There are many other ways in Fantasy to rise from the grave besides those noted here. Or she can, as she has done so many times in the past, think up a new solution.
But we also must consider, just as we must now consider the possibility that Harry himself will die in the last book as Rowling also has hinted at, that Dumbledore is gone and gone for good. Does this invalidate him as a character, or his affect on the rest of the storyline? Certainly not. Harry and Company now have something that Voldemort and his Death Eaters have already proved they are incapable of comprehending: a martyr. When everyone thought Voldemort was killed in his first encounter with Harry, did the Death Eaters regroup? No. They scattered, were arrested, feigned ignorance or pretended to be cursed. We don't even have to look at myth or literature to see examples of martyrdom's power. Martyrs played a central role in early Christianity's growth, and our televisions show us daily examples of sad, deluded fools blowing themselves up on what they think is martyrdom's path. Harry and Company now have a symbol from which to derive a continuous and unlimited stream of inspiration and motivation to defeat Voldemort and his chumps.
In the end, we must place our faith in Rowling, just as she as a writer places her faith in the muse she follows as she writes. Her readership has been with her for the past sixth books, and the most important thing they need to believe is that she, like a good ship's Captain, will guide them through the storm and resolve Dumbedore's death with satisfaction, even if it is in a way that none of us expect. That is another aspect of Rowling's work I find admirable, as I'm sure you do, too. And like everyone else, I'll have to wait another two years to find out.
David Nagore lives in Tucson, Arizona with his wife and three kids. A University of Arizona graduate with a BA in Creative Writing, his fiction and nonfiction work has appeared in Dream International/Quarterly, Tucson Weekly, Western Outdoor News and others. A great lover of speculative fiction and fantasy in particular, his daughter turned him on to Harry Potter when she made him promise to take her to see the movie version of Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone. An admitted literary snob, he read the book before taking her, and before he know it had read every volume published to that point.
| |
|
Reply
| |
Dumbledore's Horcrux
by Jan-Marie Spanard
How does a wizard learn about the existence and properties of Horcruxes? Who knows what they are, how to make them, what they can do? What wizard would make a Horcrux? Under what circumstances? And for what reasons? And why are they so evil? Hermione is working very hard to answer these questions. As Hogwarts virtual library search-engine, she is coming up empty - no answers to these questions can be found at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry so far.
Tom Riddle Fifty years ago, Tom Riddle, while still a student at Hogwarts, somehow learned of Horcruxes. How he did this is something of a mystery since Tom has no wizarding family, no connection with anyone in the wizarding world outside of Hogwarts (that we know of), and attended a school where Horcruxes were a banned subject, where Dumbledore at the time was, as Slughorn explains, (HBP, US version p. 499) "particularly fierce about it..." ("it" being the ban on Horcruxes). And yet by the end of Book 6, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, we believe that Tom Riddle-turned-Voldemort had probably divided his soul into seven parts and created six external Horcruxes in his lifetime.
How do we learn of the Voldemort Horcruxes?
Through Dumbledore's suspicions.
Dumbledore is the only wizard who suspected that Voldemort created Horcruxes. When the Avada Kedavra curse Voldemort used against Harry backfired and diminished Voldemort, Dumbledore suspected that Voldemort had made a Horcrux. Then Tom Riddle's diary came along in Chamber of Secrets and Dumbledore's theory gained some support. No mere memory, the being in Tom Riddle's diary began to come to life and behave like a Horcrux, restoring Voldemort to life.
But then Tom Riddle's diary was destroyed when Harry stabbed it with the poison basilisk fang, and Voldemort did not perish. So here Dumbledore must have begun to realize that either he was wrong about his theory that Voldemort had made a Horcrux or that there may have been more than one Horcrux. What an astounding idea this must have seemed! And in Book 6 when Harry returned from the graveyard and reported what Voldemort told his followers at the end of Goblet of Fire about having gone further than any other wizard, Dumbledore believed that this information provided support for the possibility that Voldemort may have been using Horcruxes, but had been using more than one of them. Remember, it wasn't until Harry finagled that bit of memory from Slughorn (in HBP) that we got any confirmation at all of Dumbledore's Horcrux theory. Slughorn's memory shows the first hard evidence linking Voldemort with the Horcruxes.
But Dumbledore suspected the possibility of a Horcrux from the beginning. Why? Why suspect a Horcrux? Was it because he was familiar with the concept? Was it because he had already created one?
Dumbledore create something as evil as a Horcrux! Impossible!
Or is it? (Hmmm, perhaps I should write for the Quibbler...)
Here's a thought: perhaps it is not the Horcrux itself that is evil, but killing someone in order to create a Horcrux that is evil. Slughorn explains that the Horcrux is created: "By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use this damage to his advantage: He would encase the torn portion (of his soul in a Horcrux)" (HBP p. 498).
Killing rips the soul apart. This is important: Killing rips the soul apart -- whether one makes a Horcrux or not. The evil act is in the killing. If a wizard had killed another person, regardless of his intent, the ripping of the soul would have occurred.
There are three possible forms of intent involved in the act of killing. The first is malice, the desire to inflict harm and affect a killing. We usually associate this with anger or hatred and Muggle and Wizard societies both punish this type of act. The second form of intent is self-preservation. Here the person who affects the murder is justified in doing so because he, his family, his friends or even his society as a whole are in danger from the person who is about to be killed. In this case the killer is not punished by society. And the third form of intent is actually lack-of-intent. This is the case when a person or persons are killed inadvertently, or accidentally. In the Muggle world this is sometimes punished, sometimes not. If the killer's lack of due diligence caused the death(s) -- as in drunken driving -- we tend to punish it, even though it was not intended by the killer. If the killer shows due diligence -- and someone simply jumps out onto the road in front of a moving car -- we tend not to punish the killer.
I do believe that killing under any of the three forms of intent causes damage to the soul. Maybe there is no blame to be laid, no guilt to be levied, but there would still be great anguish to the soul of someone who realizes he has taken a life. Whether through malice, self-defense, or completely by accident, the person who kills is diminished in some way by having taken a life. I believe this is the damage to the soul. It is not a punishment by society, but a natural result of destroying life. And I think this damage occurs no matter how good or evil the person who affects the killing is as a person. In fact, it is easy to imagine that the anguish of a good person who is pressed to kill is far greater than that of someone who feels no loss at ending someone's life.
The damage to the soul would be irreversible. And here a wizard could use this damage "to his advantage (by) encasing the torn portion in a Horcrux." Creating a Horcrux, in and of itself, is not evil. It is the murder that precedes the Horcrux creation that causes the soul to be ripped apart that is evil. Killing is, as Slughorn explains, "the supreme act of evil." The evil is done. And then you have a damaged soul. Encasing your now-damaged soul in a Horcrux neither extends nor eradicates the evil born of the murder. A Horcrux is simply a container for that already-damaged portion of the soul.
We know, from Albus Dumbledore's chocolate frog card (Philosopher's Stone, UK edition, p. 77), that "Dumbledore is particularly famous for his defeat of the dark wizard Grindlewald in 1945, for the discovery of the twelve uses of dragon's blood and his work on alchemy with his partner Nicolas Flamel." So, in 1945 Dumbledore defeated the evil wizard Grindlewald. How might he have "defeated" Grindlewald? Did he need to kill him as perhaps Harry needs to kill Voldemort? There is no mention of Grindlewald in Azkaban. I suspect that the defeat did involve a killing.
If Dumbledore had killed Grindlewald, then perhaps Dumbledore might have created a Horcrux. Not necessarily an evil Horcrux, but the product of opportunity rather than the product of an evil act. Dumbledore is a very intelligent, logical being. If the killing of Grindlewald was necessary, then the possibility of creating a Horcrux might be a logical follow-up. And if the killing was a positive event eliminating evil from the wizard world, then perhaps Dumbledore's Horcrux -- though borne through dark magic -- would not be an evil thing. Not creating a Horcrux would not have changed his need to kill Grindlewald.
Why would Dumbledore even consider making a Horcrux? In Book 1, McGonagall has a conversation with Dumbledore in which she points out that he knows all of the Dark Magic, but that she believes he chooses not to use any of it. Perhaps he has had good reason to use Dark Magic for some positive purposes. And remember, Dumbledore's old friend, Nicholas Flamel, sought eternal life with the Philosopher's Stone. Why is it hard to suppose that Dumbledore may have sought eternal life as well? A different means to that end, yes, but still with a goal to the same end.
But would Dumbledore have committed this supreme act of evil? If Dumbledore has committed a killing, he would have to have a damaged soul. The damage done by killing another is absolute. Does Dumbledore have a damaged soul? Having a soul like Harry's that is "untarnished and whole" (p. 511) is certainly wonderful but may not be something that every witch and wizard can claim. Dumbledore is 150 years old and has been battling evil in the wizarding world for quite some time. Is it possible that his soul is still untarnished and whole? That he has never harmed another witch or wizard, evil or otherwise? I think not. Only youth has such purity and innocence. As people go through life, wizards and Muggles alike, we are confronted with difficult choices and obstacles, points in our lives at which there is no easy answer.
So let's assume Dumbledore did need to finish Grindlewald to remove his evil influence from the world. What Horcrux would hold Dumbledore's damaged bit of soul? Gryffindor's Sword perhaps? One of the many silvery spindly objects in his office? I don't think so. I think Dumbledore's Horcrux is the phoenix Fawkes.
Isn't it most interesting that Dumbledore suspected that Nagini was one of Voldemort's Horcruxes? We know Voldemort to be a friendless person who collects inanimate artifacts and objects for his Horcrux keepers. Why would Dumbledore think that Voldemort might choose Nagini to guard a portion of his soul? Why suppose that a wizard would choose any animal as a Horcrux, unless of course you had already done the very same thing yourself.
There is no comparison between Nagini and Fawkes as viable soul-keepers, or Horcruxes. Nagini is a snake, a magical creature with questionable moral values. Fawkes is a magical creature known for extreme loyalty, the ability to heal wounds and transport very heavy loads for long distances. Fawkes seems to be all positive attributes. And even more importantly: Nagini can be destroyed. Fawkes, a phoenix, cannot be killed. He will continue to rise anew from the ashes, reborn to continue on. Fawkes is an excellent choice for a Horcrux. Fawkes will live forever.
All right, so let's say we allow the assumption that Dumbledore has made a Horcrux. And let's go on to the next step and allow that Harry discovers it. This is, by the way, quite necessary since the Harry Potter stories are all told from Harry's point of view and we would certainly not know of the Horcrux unless Harry knew of it as well. How would this Horcrux work itself into the story in Book 7? What would be the value and difficulty of discovering that Dumbledore had created a Horcrux?
The value is easy to spot. There is then the possibility that Dumbledore isn't gone for good. He may have died physically, but he could be reborn through the use of his Horcrux. This is, for everyone except Voldemort and the Death Eaters, a very uplifting possibility. Dumbledore's abrupt departure from the quest to destroy Voldemort at the close of Book 6 is quite disturbing. It is as though, after so many, many years of his research and discovery to identify Voldemort's weakness(es), Dumbledore simply vanishes.
What if Harry is not the only one to learn of Fawkes's role as a Horcrux? Then what? Who else might be trying to recover Fawkes at the same time as Harry?
The most likely wizard to join Harry in the pursuit of Fawkes would be -- Severus Snape. Somehow, Snape will know that Fawkes was Dumbledore's Horcrux and will be trying to get Fawkes. Harry will discover this. Not knowing whether Snape is good or evil, we won't know whether Snape should get Fawkes or not. Hermione will tell us we should trust Dumbledore's faith in Snape; Harry will be convinced Snape is up to something evil. It is possible Snape is supposed to acquire Fawkes, that Dumbledore wants him to, and that Snape was aware -- at the moment of the Avada Kedavra curse on top of the tower -- that there would be further steps to having Dumbledore return to make sure that Voldemort was vanquished.
Furthermore: How would Dumbledore have protected Fawkes from Voldemort? Surely Dumbledore would have foreseen that someone on the Dark Side might have discovered Fawkes's value as a Horcrux. How might he have provided protection for Fawkes? Perhaps in was in the same way he protected the Philosopher's Stone. Remember the protection Dumbledore placed on the Stone in the Mirror of Erised? "You see, only one who wanted to find the Stone -- find it, but not use it -- would be able to get it..." (PS p.217) Perhaps Harry will need to want to recover Fawkes, but not activate Dumbledore's Horcrux in order to gain Fawkes.
Maybe when Harry discovers that Dumbledore has a Horcrux -- Fawkes -- a choice has to be made about bringing Dumbledore back or going on without Dumbledore's help. What if the choice was there and Harry has to decide whether to rely on Dumbledore's help or to move on as a now-adult wizard (Harry comes of age at the start of Book 7 on July 31) and accept his role as The Chosen One? A choice between what is right and what is easy, perhaps.
Somehow, I have found it hard to believe that Dumbledore would so easily leave the battle with Voldemort. Dumbledore has spent many years researching Voldemort's background and looking for ways to finish him. Why would he bow out so easily, before he could see his work brought to closure? Completed by Harry, yes, but brought to closure.
And the wording of Professor Trelawney's prophecy is curious, as well, "one cannot live while the other survives..." If Harry, himself, does not directly cause Voldemort's death, Harry will retain his pure, untarnished, virgin soul. He will remain in many ways childlike and pure. Is this desirable? Or does Harry need to pass through a gauntlet of sorts to become an adult? Perhaps Harry must kill Voldemort to become an adult. Perhaps this is a painful process that must be done. Harry came awfully close to damaging his soul with the Septumsempra curse on Malfoy. It is not impossible to believe that Harry will have to suffer the consequences of his anger and hatred toward Voldemort (and maybe Snape). As a minor (under the age of 17) Harry still has a pure untarnished soul. But is it realistic to expect that this will continue throughout his adult life? I think not. Life is not that simple.
Meanwhile, there is one other important player in this search: Hagrid. Rubeus Hagrid, Keeper of Keys and Grounds at Hogwarts, is our resident expert in Magical Creatures. That's Fawkes, a magical creature. Hagrid will know how to recover and capture Fawkes (just like Hagrid knew how to lull Fluffy to sleep) because Dumbledore would have told him. Dumbledore tells Professor McGonagall in Book 1, "I would trust Hagrid with my life," and he has. Dumbledore has shared with Hagrid Fawkes's secret.
So while we know there will be a search going on for Voldemort's Horcruxes in Book 7, we may learn that a parallel search will commence for Dumbledore's Horcrux, Fawkes.
I really do believe that Dumbledore does have a Horcrux. The Horcrux is Fawkes, his soul mate, literally. And Hagrid is the Secret keeper of the Horcrux secret.
Hagrid will likely die protecting this information. And what does that mean? Hopefully we'll find out soon, because J.K. chose this topic as one of the three FAQ questions she would like to answer on her web site: What happens to a Secret after the Secret keeper dies? I don't think this is of terribly vital importance to 12 Grimmauld Place, but I do think it will matter even more when it comes to losing Hagrid.
We learn of the existence of Horcruxes out of the blue in Book 6 of the seven book series. No mention of them in any of the thousands of pages preceding Half-Blood Prince in Books 1 through 5. Will we learn in Book 7 that there is another Horcrux? Dumbledore's Horcrux?
Jan-Marie Spanard is a visual artist who tends to notice many of the small details in light, color, language, people's expressions, coins in the parking lot, and life in general. She says she is over-educated (with two masters degrees and a PhD) and has read each of J.K.'s Harry books at least a half-dozen times (so far).
Jan-Marie Spanard is a visual artist who tends to notice many of the small details in light, color, language, people's expressions, coins in the parking lot, and life in general. She says she is over-educated (with two masters degrees and a PhD) and has read each of J.K.'s Harry books at least a half-dozen times (so far). | |
|
Reply
| |
CSI: Hogwarts
by Galadriel Waters and E.L. Fossa
It's not enough to have a feeling that Dumbledore's not dead, or to want him not to be dead. What you need is a way to prove he's not dead.
We at Wizarding World Press are happy to help you work on techniques needed for doing that.
Now, if life was a Jasper Fforde novel, you could just walk right into Book 6 and do a little poking around like his Jurisfiction operative Thursday Next. You could get there before Hagrid, for instance, and listen to ALL of that conversation Dumbledore had with Snape. That would rock, especially if it meant you heard something that meant the book was supposed to have ended differently.
Sadly what would be standard operating procedure for Thursday Next would be fanfiction for us. So what to do, what to do...
You could always engage in what has come to be known as "HP Sleuthing."
Sleuthing Harry Potter has become a popular sport -- er, pastime -- for thousands of series fans. The serial publishing of seven books, in essence seven parts of an epic mystery, has led to fans trying their best to stay one step ahead of that redoubtable Games-Mistress who has kindly told her fans to call her "Jo". Can fans figure out what's going to happen before Jo makes it happen? Before the last book? Before the last page? Maybe. Can we figure out the great Dumbledore question, once and for all? Maybe.
Long ago in the English classes you were forced by law to take, they tried to teach you a technique they called "close reading". Pull your memories of that skill out and dust them off. The teachers who told you it was useful weren't lying, any more than the ones who told you that you would need math.
Some familiarity with great literature won't hurt, but isn't absolutely necessary. And if you decide you need to know what TS Eliot (for example) has in common with Harry Potter, there's always the Internet. WWP deeply admires the work of www.bartleby.com, which has gathered a reference-library full of wonderful stuff and placed it at our busily tapping fingertips.
Finally, you need to read the Harry Potter books. Again, and again, and again, and again. How often is really necessary, you ask? Well, if you have a bookcase with a copy of Goblet of Fire that's been reduced to a series of soft-cover pamphlets, you've probably read the series enough to get started.
Like most talented magicians, Jo is a mistress of misdirection, and has created books that are able to be read on so many different levels.
There are the readers who genuinely admire the story, and who are happy to wait to find out what happens when each book is released. They share the series with their friends, they share it with their children -- especially with their children, of course, it's a children's series, isn't it? ;) These readers don't sleuth.
Then there are the learned readers, who know all about literary tradition and criticism. They sleuth, but in the time-honored fashion. They didn't have to dust off their knowledge of close-reading. There's a lot in Harry Potter for these folks to find -- hero's journey, mentor's revival, Greek traditions, Egyptian legend. It all relates, it's all there, you can find the parallels, you can do a LOT with close reading and literary analysis in Harry Potter. For those readers, sleuthing is just one of many means of dissecting and analyzing the septology.
Then there's the rest of us.
We have watched the evolution of Jo's trio over a series of six books now, and we have seen the patterns develop on her loom as surely as the wildest paisley. We have realized that Jo does nothing without reason, even if the reason is to camouflage her plans. Where in the world did Hagrid get that flying motorcycle? Poor Harry, getting sent to that old bat's house to look at pictures of cats so he won't blow up the house... Isn't it funny that Montague got shoved in that cabinet and disappeared!
Look for Jo's odd words, sprinkled like fancy stitches woven into the tapestry. If you have ever come across a name, magic spell, or other word in Jo's books and said to yourself, "Gee, this sounds like the word..." then you have encountered a Rowlinguistic. Many times those strange names and words in the Harry Potter books have been made up by Jo from French, Latin, or other derivations. It is no coincidence that the names seem to relate directly to the personality of the character or the purpose of a spell. Remember those two words: No coincidence. It is very important that you remember them if you are going to sleuth.
The shuttle goes from left to right, then back again, and the cloth lengthens, and the story grows. Here a Muggle-born witch, there a pure-blood boy, there a half-blood with a past -- and always in the background of the design, the elderly wizard with a twinkle in his eye and a secret. Maybe many secrets.
The hardest part is to not get so involved in the story that you forget to keep looking for the clues. With Jo's works, that is quite tricky. You may need to start passages, pages, or even chapters all over again, when you suddenly realize you haven't been paying attention because you got caught up in her world. The slight-of-hand is Jo's cleverest move. She will draw your attention one direction while handing out clues off in the corner. Keep your eye on the lady!
For instance: In Chapter 16 of Book 1, J. K. Rowling writes that Harry "watched an owl flutter toward the school across the bright blue sky, a note clamped in its mouth." Even after reading the book several times, it still catches readers by surprise when they realize that this note was probably the message used to trick Headmaster Dumbledore into leaving the school for a trip to London. That clue doesn't help us solve the plot of the book and it was never explained or mentioned again, but when we see similar clues in other books, we know that we need to pay much closer attention.
It is the charge of the HP Sleuth to predict the pattern as it grows and changes. Does a repeated mention of goblin wars mean something? Why was it Hermione never told all of what she read in the library about house-elves? Can you believe what you've been told about, say, Aberforth?
Because you couldn't believe what you were told about Gilderoy, could you?
Prediction is, as Trelawney herself would admit, an uncertain thing. HP Sleuths theorized, from Jo's "running bits" in Book 5, that water would be important in Book 6, but who could have imagined the kind of watery world in which Jo was going to immerse us? Look for her repetitions, it's a tool HP Sleuths use often, and to good effect, to construct theories.
HP Sleuths also use a tool in theory construction that serves much the same purpose as the carpenter's adage, "Measure twice, cut once". It's called Two Degrees of Separation.
We all love fanfiction, there's just a big difference between fanfiction and theory. Basically it is this: a theory is based directly on canon. If I say, "Snape was a Death Eater", that is canon - verifiable from what Jo has specifically stated in the novels. If I say, "Snape was a Death Eater, therefore he might have been there when the Potters were killed", that's a theory based on the canon we all know to be true. If I say, "Snape was a Death Eater, therefore he might have been there when the Potters were killed, so he might have preserved Lily's soul in a potions bottle he had on him for that purpose and now he's keeping her soul upstairs at his house in preparation for the day when he's able to restore her body just like Voldy's body was restored! And that's why Wormtail's there, he's watching it!", that falls under Two Degrees of Separation, otherwise known as fan fiction. (Okay, it's, um, six degrees -- Snape keeping Lily's soul in a potions bottle was two -- but once you get to two why bother counting any further?)
You want to prove Dumbledore's not dead? Go for it! We at WWP would dearly love for him not to be dead. Just remember, though, if you get to the point where he's being kept in a bottle upstairs at Snape's house, check your Degrees of Separation. They probably got a bit too separated. ;)
Galadriel Waters is a professional HP Sleuth and author of several books that explore the mystery of Harry Potter, including The Ultimate Unofficial Guide to the Mysteries of Harry Potter (Analysis of Books 1-4), The Ultimate Unofficial Guide to the Mysteries of Harry Potter (Analysis of Book 5), and editor of The Plot Thickens... Harry Potter Investigated by Fans for Fans.
| |
|
Reply
| |
Will Harry Potter Live or Die? British Literature Professor Says Beloved Character Will Survive Book 7
By KW
February 05, 2007
Harry Potter will survive past July 21, 2007, the publication date of J.K. Rowling's final Potter book, predicts a British literature expert at the University of New Hampshire.
Rowling said on a British television talk show last summer (when the book was not yet completed), that she had decided to kill off two more characters in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows than she originally planned, while another got a reprieve. She also said she would be willing to kill off Harry to prevent other authors from writing sequels.
UNH Professor James Krasner says, however, that Harry will make it to the end of Book 7. "There's no way Harry will die," he says. "Harry won't die largely because these are comic stories, like Dickens' novels, in which good has to win."
Rowling has threatened to kill off major characters before. According to Krasner, Rowling caused a media sensation when she said a "major character" would die in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Rumors targeted Harry's best friend, Ron Weasley, but in the end, it was Sirius Black, who Krasner says "was an important supporting character, but not really a major character like Ron."
If at least two characters are dead by the end of Book 7, who will it be?
"Lord Voldemort has to die," says Krasner. "And Snape, who is really fighting for good despite all appearances, will likely die. Neville Longbottom is really the chosen one, so I suspect he'll die," he says.
And readers shouldn't be surprised if the much-loved Professor Dumbledore, who died in the last book, returns. "Obi-Wan Kenobi, Gandalf-type paternal wise man mentor characters always die. This is a multi-genre convention, turning up in war stories, medieval romances, fantasy, adventure, cop movies, martial arts films. They come back as ghosts," Krasner says.
Other fans agree Harry will make it
According to an ongoing poll at HPANA.com, the Harry Potter Automatic News Aggregator, in which more than 83,000 fans have voted, more than 60 percent believe Harry will survive the last book of the series.
This differs markedly from the poll that took place back in 2005, when 53 percent believed Harry would be killed off.
On the television program, the Rich & Judy Show, Rowling noted that she wrote the final chapter of the series back in 1990.
Sources:
UNH Media Relations, press release posted February 1, 2007, (http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2007/feb/lw01potter.cfm)
HPANA.com, The Harry Potter Automatic News Aggregator, (http://www.hpana.com/news.18526.html), (http://www.hpana.com/news.19467.html)
| |
|
Reply
| |
'Harry Potter' Banned In Atlanta?
ATLANTA (October 4, 2006) -- A suburban county that sparked a public outcry when its libraries temporarily eliminated funding for Spanish-language fiction is now being asked to ban Harry Potter books from its schools.
Laura Mallory, a mother of four, told a hearing officer for the Gwinnett County Board of Education on Tuesday that the popular fiction series is an "evil" attempt to indoctrinate children in the Wicca religion.
Board of Education attorney Victoria Sweeny said that if schools were to remove all books containing reference to witches, they would have to ban "Macbeth" and "Cinderella."
"There's a mountain of evidence for keeping Harry Potter," she said, adding that the books don't support any particular religion but present instead universal themes of friendship and overcoming adversity.
In June, the county's library board eliminated the $3,000 that had been set aside to buy Spanish-language fiction in the coming fiscal year. One board member said the move came after some residents objected to using taxpayer dollars to entertain readers who might be illegal immigrants.
Days later, the board reversed its decision amid accusations that the move was anti-Hispanic.
Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. | |
|
Reply
| |
'Harry Potter' End Bittersweet For J.K. Rowling | Celebrity and Hollywood News AP
'Harry Potter' End Bittersweet For J.K. Rowling
NEW YORK (February 6, 2007) -- How does J.K. Rowling feel now that she has finished the seventh and final Harry Potter book?
As the author herself confided Tuesday on her Web site, "Charles Dickens put it better than I ever could":
"It would concern the reader little, perhaps, to know how sorrowfully the pen is laid down at the close of a two-years' imaginative task; or how an Author feels as if he were dismissing some portion of himself into the shadowy world, when a crowd of the creatures of his brain are going from him for ever," reads the passage from Dickens' preface to "David Copperfield."
Adds Rowling: "To which I can only sigh, try seventeen years, Charles."
Rowling announced Feb. 1 that "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" would come out July 21, bringing to an end one of the great phenomena of literary history. More than 325 million copies of the first six books have sold.
So, how does she feel? Having quoted Dickens, Rowling has a go at it on her own.
"I always knew that Harry's story would end with the seventh book, but saying goodbye has been just as hard as I always knew it would be," she writes. "Even while I'm mourning, though, I feel an incredible sense of achievement. I can hardly believe that I've finally written the ending I've been planning for so many years. I've never felt such a mixture of extreme emotions in my life, never dreamed I could feel simultaneously heartbroken and euphoric."
She continues.
"If it comes as any consolation, I think that there will be plenty to continue arguing and speculating about, even after 'Deathly Hallows' comes out. So if you're not yet ready to quit the message boards, do not despair," she writes. "I'm almost scared to admit this, but one thing has stopped me collapsing in a puddle of misery on the floor. While each of the previous Potter books has strong claims on my affections, 'Deathly Hallows' is my favorite, and that is the most wonderful way to finish the series."
Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
| |
|
Reply
| |
Ingredients:
- ½ cup light cream or evaporated milk
- ¾ cup firmly packed brown sugar
- ¼ teaspoon salt
- 4 ounces of unsweetened chocolate
- 2 tablespoons unsalted butter
- 1/3 cup molasses
Directions:Step 1: In a large bowl, mix cream, brown sugar and salt together.Step 2: In a saucepan, melt the chocolate and butter together. Remove from heat and add molasses.Step 3: Add the chocolate mixtures and cream mixtures together. Pour mixture into a pan and let cool.Step 4: Cut into squares after cooled and serve. Enjoy!  | |
|
Reply
| |
Ingredients:
- 2 cups sugar
- 8 tablespoons of butter
- ½ teaspoon vanilla extract (or imitation)
- 1½ cups water
- Additionally, a candy thermometer is required
Directions:Step 1: In a medium saucepan, mix all ingredients and melt over medium heat until sugar is completely dissolved.Step 2: Without furter stirring, boil until mixture reaches 290°F on your candy thermometer.Step 3: Pour mixture into a greased or buttered 9"x12" pan and let cool until almost firm to the touch.Step 4: Score surface into 2" squares with a sharp knife, but do not cut completely.Step 5: When cool, break into pieces (this should be easier if toffee was properly scored).Step 6: Enjoy! Makes 1¼ pounds of toffee.  | |
|
Reply
| |
Half-Blood Prince Release Date here is the release date for the new harry potter movie the Half Blood Prince 21 November 2008 |
|
Reply
| |
The Dark Lord
To the tune of 1985 by Bowling for Soup
Harry just hit the wall
Never had it all
His cousin is a pig
And all his family is dead
He dreams about a door
All thanks to Voldemort
He was born to stop him
So where is his plan
He was going to save the wizards
He was going to pass the NEWTS
He was going to save them all
From mighty Voldemort
Voldemort is his archenemey
Looks back in time
And sees that nothing has been alright
Since he started Hogwarts
Everything's a problem
With Ron and Hermione
Helping him along the way
The slytherins tell him that he's uncool
But he is preoccupied
With the, with the, with the Dark Lord
Whooo
The Dark Lord
Whooo
Chorus
He's heard all the prophecies
He knows every line
From the one when he was born
Even Voldemort's
Hes been knocked out, wham
Not a big Voldemort fan
Thought he'd get a hand
From Dumbledore
Where his firebolt
Made of mahogany
And whose idea was it, to make him the start of the prophet?
When did he become, the chosen one?
Chorus
He hates his scar
It hurts him
When did Voldemort get inside his head
And did Ron become a keeper
Please make this stop, stop
So he can understand
Chorus x2  |
|
Reply
| |
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named
To the tune of 1985 by Bowling For Soup.
Hermione just hit the wall
Thought she knew it all
12 classes every day
Never had time to play
Her dreams went out the door
When she went to Hogwarts School
Guess she can forget
About the family business
She was gonna be a dentist
She was gonna be famous
She was gonna help others out
When they got sick and ill
The Slytherin team, is now the enemy
Looks at her muggle life
And nothing, has been, alright
Since Flammel and Binns
Way before McGonagall
There was Dumbledore and Flitwick
And Harry's parents were still alive
Her two friends, in Hogwarts
They tell her that she's too smart
But she's still preoccupied
With He-who, He-who, He-who-must-not-be-named
She's read all the spell books
She knows every line
Expelliarmus and Lumos
Even Avada Kedavra
She rocked the Yule Ball
Not a big Rita Skeeter fan
Thought she'd get a hand
From Professor Twelawny
Wears the black robe, made of cotton
And whose the dog that guarding secret rooms
When did Neville start to like her?
Whatever happened to Viktor Krum
On the quidditch team
Flammel and Binns
Way before McGonagall
There was Dumbledore and Flitwick
And Harry's parents were still alive
Her two friends in Hogwarts
They tell that she's too smart
But she's still preoccupied
With He-who, He-who, He-who-must-not-be-named
She hates Snape
Make him leave
When did Malfoy become his little pet?
And when did pixies, become a lesson?
Please make him leave!
Leave!
Leave!
And bring back
Flammel and Binns
Way before McGonagall
There was Dumbledore and Flitwick
And Harry's parents were still alive
Her two friends in Hogwarts
They tell her that she's too smart
But she's still preoccupied
With He-who-must-not-be-named
Flammel and Binns
Way before McGonagall
There was Dumbledore and Flitwick
And Harry's parents were still alive
Her two friends in Hogwarts
They tell her that she's too smart
But she's still preoccupied
With He-who, He-who, He-who-must-not-be-named
|
|
|
First
Previous
2-13 of 13
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to Witchy Movies...