|
Search Beyond Hogwarts:
|
|
|
|
Into the Deathly Hallows
by David Haber
J.K. Rowling finally announced on that the title of Book 7 will be Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The definition of "Hallow" is something that has been "made holy, sanctified, consecrated". What consecrated place in the Harry Potter stories could this refer to? Could it be the Hallowed Halls of Hogwarts? Or perhaps, does this refer to Godric's Hollow, the place where it all started?
> Read the full articlePages: << < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 > >> Reader Comments: (Page 24) DH: I assumed (and I know I have very little clue for this) that the sword in Dumbledore's office isn't the real Gryffindor sword, but a sword created afterwards to replace the original, maybe very long time ago. Every year, we find out that old relics or paintings aren't the original ones, although the best experts said they were. Why not with the sword?
If the Dumbledore's office sword was a Horcrux, Dumbledore would know it: it would have marks from Voldemort's magic. Posted by herve from strasbourg on April 5, 2007 08:40 AM
Good info on the contents of the Hogwarts graveyard. I wonder if Moaning Myrtle was buried there? I suppose all Inferi should be mindless and somehow mentally controlled but perhaps te extant ghosts could animate them. I was really commenting on the doomed nature of one Harry James Potter.
Was it the locket that was the Horcrux or what the locket contained? Could we pass up the possibility of a magical photo being held within the locket originally and that it is a Horcrux. A photo of what though? Posted by ken from la ca usa ea(rth) on April 5, 2007 1:11 PM
Herve, all I'm saying is I don't think a "fake" Gryffindor sword could have helped Harry the basilisk. And I doubt it could have "materialized" in the sorting hat if it was. Anything, with the same properties as an original, would render it worthless. Posted by D H from Somewhere south of NY on April 5, 2007 4:58 PM
D H from Somewhere south of NY,
I agree with you, how could Harry have pulled the sword out of the hat if it was a fake? This is a standing argument that I have not been able to convince Herv� of.
Although, Herv� has shown convincive evidence of other things, the "Transfigured sword" theory has not yet convinced me either. Posted by Emilio from Mexico City, Mexico on April 9, 2007 10:32 AM
|
Emilio, DH: your remarks are very relevant and should lead to a good discussion.
My basic intuition is that Jo had so good reasons to have Voldemort make a Horcrux from each founder's relic, that I can't figure out why she would have abandoned this idea. She said that Dumbledore was never far from the truth, but she never said he was always right.
She also said that Harry isn't a descendant of Gryffindor (when asked if her previous answer ed the idea of Harry being a descendant of Gryffindor, she said: "yes, it does").
If the four remaining Horcruxes are relics from each founder, then we have several possibilities:
(1) The sword in Dumbledore's office is Gryffindor and is a Horcrux - unlikely: Dumbledore would have seen marks of Voldemort's curse on it.
(2) The sword in Dumbledore's office is Gryffindor and isn't the Horcrux. Then, another relic exists and Dumbledore doesn't know about it.
(3) The sword in Dumbledore's office is a fake one and was replaced after the end of CoS.
(4) The sword in Dumbledore's office is a fake one and was replaced earlier.
Obviously, Dumbledore himself put the sword in the Sorting Hat (he said, pages before, that everyone that needed help would find it at Hogwarts). He told Harry that only a real Gryffindor could have found the sword. Harry isn't physically a real Gryffindor (aka a descendant of Gryffindor) but his moral abilities are the ones of a real Gryffindor. He found the sword because he was brave, just the same way he found the stone because he was pure. I don't think that Harry found the sword because it was Gryffindor's sword, he merely found the sword because the Sorting Hat let him have it. We can easily imagine that Dumbledore told the Sorting Hat how it had to behave towards Harry.
Then, could any sword the basilisk? Probably yes. The basilisk isn't a phoenix. When severely wounded, he like any other animal. Notice that the sword didn't go towards the basilisk. The basilisk, blinded by Fawkes, attacked Harry and was wounded by the sword Harry was holding. Posted by herve from strasbourg on April 10, 2007 12:47 AM
Herv�,
I do agree with you that any sword could have ed the Basilisc, but as you mentioned,
It is unlikely that the sword on dumbledores office is a Horcrux, he would have seen marks of Voldemort's curse on it.
It is also unlikely that it is a fake, dumbledore would have noticed.
I also doubt that it was replaced after the end of CoS.
So I am ing to admit that there could be another relic of Griffindor that Dumbledore knew nothing about or that, as Dumbledore mentioned, Voldy would have to find another relic from other of the founders, either Ravenclaw or Huffelpuf.
Correct me if I am wrong, but he already had two of Slitherin (locket and ring), that had been in the Gaunt's possetion. Posted by Emilio from Mexico City, Mexico on April 10, 2007 10:32 AM
Just that the ring wasn't a Slytherin heirloom, it was a Gaunt heirloom. As far as we know, there was only one Slyhterin relic; the locket. Posted by Monkeeshrines from orlando, fl on April 10, 2007 12:15 PM
Monkeeshrines from Orlando,
When I read the book, although it was not mentioned, I was under the impression that Marvolo was boasting his Slitherin blood/line/ancestors by first showing the ring on his hand and then the locket hanging on Merope's neck but, as I said, it was not mentioned who was the original owner of the ring (nor the locket, although we latter find out it was Slitherin's), and as we know nothing about the Gaunt's ascendants, there is no way of knowing if they where important enough to brag about them. Posted by Emilio from Mexico City, Mexico on April 10, 2007 3:53 PM
|
You got me Emilio!
I hope I didn't come across as snippy or anything in my first comment. I just thought I'd take you up on your offer to correct you, but I guess I am unable to really do that! You're right, Marvolo never states outright that the ring is Gaunt rather than Slytherin. I guess we just took away different impressions then.
There are some clues, however, as to the importance of the Gaunt, or at least Marvolo's, family line apart from the Slytherin connection. It spans a few books and scenes.
In Order of the Phoenix, Sirius complains about his parents' superiority complex "convinced that to be a Black made you practically royal..." which points out that there are other "pure-blood" families that thought their own line was more important than others, regardless of relation to any Hogwarts founder. In Half-Blood Prince, Marvolo shoves the ring in Ogden's face, bragging about being "pure-blood all the way!" I equated this to what Sirius had said, and, yes, I assumed it was not connected to Slytherin. "With the Perevel coat of arms emblazoned on the stone." We don't know if Perevel was part of the Slytherin line or Gaunt line, or even when exactly Gaunt and Slytherin became one. Later, when he and Harry exit the Pensive, Albus descibes the Gaunt line, implying that they used to be a rich and probably well-respected family, not unlike the Malfoys, who have long since fallen from grace. Marvolo clung to anything he could.
There is the reason for my impression, but there is no clearly stated way to link the ring definitely to Slytherin nor can we say it is not Slytherin. Posted by Monkeeshrines from Orlando FL on April 11, 2007 5:18 PM
Has anyone else noticed Draco Malfoy wears a ring? Don't know if it means anything, just an observation. But I do know he has a penchant for things in Borgin and Burkes. And isn't that where Voldemort once worked? Perhaps he left a hidden horcrux there. Posted by DH from Southern USA on April 11, 2007 7:47 PM
Gaunt says (HBP, UK edition, the House of the Gaunt) that the ring's stone has "Peverell coat of arms" engraved in it, and is very valuable for this reason. Peverell was probably an ancestor of Gaunt, and had the ring made for him. Most probably, then, the ring has nothing to do with Slytherin. Posted by herve from strasbourg on April 12, 2007 02:58 AM
|
I disagree that Dumbledore placed the Sword in the Sorting Hat. We do know from the books that the Hat was Godric's and that it contained a part of each of the founders in some non-Horcrux fashion. What if Godric was Fawkes' former owner and somehow was roused by Harry's comments to instruct his former Phoenix to bring useful items to a struggling and faithful Harry.
Surely, had Dumbledore the chance to act, he would have arrived in person to help out an 11 year old Harry and not left him at risk against the Basilisk. Still Dumbledore DID leave Harry to fend for himself against Quarrel in the whole Philosopher's Stone endgame. Surely, a timeturner could have placed the Headmaster closer to the danger.
As a Phoenix, Fawkes is surely possilby old enough to have been Godric's pet at one time. The name Fawkes points us to Guy Fawkes who came along far after the likely end of Godric. The current resting places of the Hogwart's founders remain unknown to wizardom at the end of HBP. Posted by ken from la ca usa ea(rth) on April 13, 2007 12:20 PM
Pages: << < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 > >>
|
