I don't get how the three brothers are Voldy, Snape and Harry. Ok I get Harry, the owner of the cloak. But Dumbledore was the owner of the wand much longer than Voldemort ever was, why is he not one of them? And Voldemort deals out more death than anyone. And how does Snape represent the one with the resurrection stone? Don't get that one at all. He didn't kill himself to be with Lily.
Seems more like Dumbledore comes out as the master of death. He got the Elder Wand--and never attempted world domination. Or boasted. So, avoided that trap, especially for himself. When we meet him, he's very modest.
He gets the cloak from James, but gives it right back to its "rightful" owner. Doesn't really need it (as he tells Harry in the mirror of erised scene) and doesn't wait until death to give it to Harry. Who uses it relatively wisely and shares it--as Dumbledore seems to know Harry would.
As for the stone--that does tempt him. And he pays. But again--he gives it away to a boy who will need it to deal with his own impending death vs. calling back the dead.
So, Dumbledore actually masters death. Never falls under its spell. And chooses the manner of his own death--only with help.
And he's helped Harry learn the same lessons.
Am thinking I will leave this out when reading to my 6 year old. She already gets the books better than she should.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
This makes a lot more sense to me. And I agree that Dumbledore does master death, but what the theory said was that Dumbledore is death in the equation with the other three being the 3 brothers. So yes, I can see him playing that kind of role, but not being death. He does orchestrate the lives and deaths of the others. I can agree with your interpretation whole heartedly.
ow can you have a go at explaining to me the why the others fill the roles of the 3 brothers please? Like I said I can see Harry being the third, that doesn't present a problem. It's Voldemort being the combative one and Snape being the one consumed by grief that he joins his love that I have a hard time with.
Best I can do is this:
Voldemort gets set up to some extent to take the wand. Harry makes it clear Dumbledore thought the wand was supposed to go to no one. If Dumbledore chose the manner of his own death, no one bested him. The power of the wand died with him. But Voldemort didn't understand the wand. So, if Dumbledore had gotten his way, Voldemort would have sought a completely unremarkable wand (weird phrase). And, since it didn't go as Dumbledore planned, Voldemort ended up with a wand under someone else's control. So--Voldemort=brother who sought but didn't understand the elder wand.
Snape: chased the lost Lily via Voldemort. And then lost her for good. So, to keep her memory alive, and deal with his regret and misery at losing her, pledges to help Dumbledore protect Harry. Learns to hate Harry's resemblance to dead James and ignore Harry's resemblance (eyes and personality) to dead Lily. So, like the second brother, the "resurrection" of his beloved goes sour. But he still succeeds. And protects his beloved's beloved child. And gets to die.
Harry: Gets the cloak. Mischief, maybe. But as Dumbledore points out, the real magic of the cloak is that the invisibility can be shared. So it unites Harry, Hermione, and Ron in adventures. Harry never alone in the world. As haunted as he could have been by death, as isolated--he joins in life. And uses the cloak to live and enjoy and do things he thinks are important--with others. Seems like he never got mastered by death. Uses the invisibility cloak to go to his "death." Chooses to die. Like the third brother embraces death like an old friend. So Harry can save his friends. And then chooses to come back. Death was his friend, not something to fear.
That's my best shot.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
And BTW, I love that we are having a conversation about HP. It's so nice to talk with someone that understands and is articulate. I miss those boards in a way, but the stupid stuff fans came up with was annoying. Too many 13 year olds just gushing about their favourite characters and posting things with little to no substance.
Those HP forums were where I learned board ettiquette & how to be a philosopher! I loved the conversations about philosophical & spiritual alchemy especially.
It surprised me a lot of the times though that I was often chatting with middle-aged women rather than young teens. Nothing implied by that beyond the surprise.
Again excellent observation that I totally missed this because I was focused on the second brother dying in order to be with his love. Now that you mention this, I remember that Snape asked Dumbledore if he was meeting with him to kill him, so it infers that Snape went there fully knowing and maybe intending to die. Now Lily is still alive at this point, but it shows that he would rather die than live in a world where she doesn't exist.
I don't really understand why. He sought the wand because he could not use his Phoenix feather wand. Are you saying that Dumbledore had a hand in only allowing Fawks to give those to feather, knowing those two would get the brother wands? That's a bit of a stretch I feel.
That Dumbledore anticipated that Voldemort would want the Elder Wand is completely understandable. But Voldemort himself says that his Yew wand did all and more than he asked of it, so in that sense he still wants his old wand, he just can't use it, and hey who wouldn't want an unbeatable wand when you're trying to take over the world, lol.
I agree though that he got the folklore wrong and killed Snape because of it. Since he has no way of knowing that it's not the one who kills the owner that masters the wand, it's a reasonable assumption to make. What happened at the tower is probably a first in the history of the wand.
Okay--I phrased that very badly. Not "set up to want the wand." I meant that Dumbledore anticipated he'd want it, as you said. Ollivander told him about the wand right after Harry got his own wand. Then after the confrontation in the graveyard, Dumbledore must have known it was possible Voldemort would want it eventually. To make sure he could beat Harry. So, Dumbledore tried to make sure he died without being defeated. So, Dumbledore assumed Voldemort would be like the "wand" brother--seeing the wand but not understanding how the power really worked. That the wand had to choose him. Had to switch loyalties.
But what actually happened with the wand--may be a first in the wand's history. But still basic wand lore. Rowling makes that rule clear--wand chooses wizard. So Voldemort should have known (assuming Malfoy told him) that when Malfoy disarmed Dumbledore, Malfoy was its master. In this case, Voldemort (again, assuming Malfoy told him about the disarming) should have known who the master of the wand was. Basic. But he didn't. Like the "wand" brother.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
And BTW, I love that we are having a conversation about HP. It's so nice to talk with someone that understands and is articulate. I miss those boards in a way, but the stupid stuff fans came up with was annoying. Too many 13 year olds just gushing about their favourite characters and posting things with little to no substance.
Those HP forums were where I learned board ettiquette & how to be a philosopher! I loved the conversations about philosophical & spiritual alchemy especially.
It surprised me a lot of the times though that I was often chatting with middle-aged women rather than young teens. Nothing implied by that beyond the surprise.
There were some very interesting things on them. And the one's that did make it worth while where the middle aged women. I loved the essays on The Leaky Cauldron. The worst for teens was one where you could pick your own background, can't remember the name to save my life. The one run by Emerson. The teens always go in the middle of intelligent discussion I found and made it irritating to have to either ignore or correct them.
HA! You both had much better experiences than I did. I stumbled onto a board by mistake--was looking up a reference to a poem of all things. And instead found incredibly disturbing fan fiction.
And that was the end of that.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
Those HP forums were where I learned board ettiquette & how to be a philosopher! I loved the conversations about philosophical & spiritual alchemy especially.
It surprised me a lot of the times though that I was often chatting with middle-aged women rather than young teens. Nothing implied by that beyond the surprise.
There were some very interesting things on them. And the one's that did make it worth while where the middle aged women. I loved the essays on The Leaky Cauldron. The worst for teens was one where you could pick your own background, can't remember the name to save my life. The one run by Emerson. The teens always go in the middle of intelligent discussion I found and made it irritating to have to either ignore or correct them.
Yeah, I never really went to The Leaky Cauldron, nor Mugglenet (the website you were thinking of) for their forums. I was more often at Portkey, which most HP fans will know by reputation for what side it was on during the "Great Shipping Wars" than anything else.
::i agree:: the middle aged women were the ones doing the better discussions.
And instead found incredibly disturbing fan fiction
I clicked on incredibly hoping you had linked an example
“Never forget what you are, for surely the world will not. Make it your strength. Then it can never be your weakness. Armour yourself in it, and it will never be used to hurt you.” ― George R.R. Martin, A Game of Thrones
I clicked on incredibly hoping you had linked an example
Now I wish I knew what I stumbled onto. But it was years ago--books weren't even completed yet. But, trust me, reading adult fantasies about 13 and 14 year old children-- Run. Hide. Now.
It was Snape that actually told Voldy about it. When he was interrogated by Voldy as to why he was not there with the rest of the Death Eaters, he said he had been sleeping and was woken up by a student. He mentioned that he had not blow his cover by attacking the Order or Dumbledore's Army, but that when he arrived at the tower he found D wandless thanks to Malfoy.
Yes! I'd forgotten Snape's saying that. Thanks! So--Snape knew he knew. And didn't tell Voldemort he was wrong re: the wand when V. was going to kill Snape to gain control. Snape really was an extraordinarily good guy.
Did the wand brother not understand or did just take Death at face value. He asked for an unbeatable wand. I'm still a little unclear on this. Although I agree with you, Death is not combative. That was the wand brother's assumption. Oh what, never mind I just answered my own question, duh.
And yes! Wandlore 101, the wand chooses the wizard. Well done Sly Wren.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
I actually teared up when I heard about his death.
In my head, he's always Colonel Brandon from Sense and Sensibility (oh, such a good movie! Actually better than the novel--though it's not Austen's best novel. Not like Emma or Persuasion). Whenever I saw Snape, I saw frustrated, disappointed Colonel Brandon.
That man could really act beautifully.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.
I actually teared up when I heard about his death.
In my head, he's always Colonel Brandon from Sense and Sensibility (oh, such a good movie! Actually better than the novel--though it's not Austen's best novel. Not like Emma or Persuasion). Whenever I saw Snape, I saw frustrated, disappointed Colonel Brandon.
That man could really act beautifully.
Considering it's her second novel written, I give her some slack. She was still figuring things out. Just like I give her slack in Northanger Abbey--the first novel she wrote. Colonel Brandon's a holdover stock character from Gothic Romance like from the works of Ann Radcliffe, who Austen just gives a smidge more realism to (by increasing his age), but largely he's still stuck in the Gothic Romance world he was transplanted from--which is why I find Marianne's rejection of him initially to be so funny.
There's definitely a jump in style with the decade break she took between Pride and Prejudice and Mansfield Park. While she may have published the first three later, you can still tell they were conceived and written largely in the 1790s while Mansfield Park, Emma, Persuasion, & Sanditon are definitely products of the 1810s. The one work she has from that inbetween period that she abandoned, The Watsons seems like a messy transition between her two styles of writing ability. I wish she'd lived long enough to return to The Watsons and finish Sanditon. And Lady Susan definitely belongs to the same period of writing as Sense & Sensibility, Northanger Abbey, and Pride & Prejudice--though, it would have been great to get a novelization of that epistolary novel.
Considering it's her second novel written, I give her some slack. She was still figuring things out. Just like I give her slack in Northanger Abbey--the first novel she wrote. Colonel Brandon's a holdover stock character from Gothic Romance like from the works of Ann Radcliffe, who Austen just gives a smidge more realism to (by increasing his age), but largely he's still stuck in the Gothic Romance world he was transplanted from--which is why I find Marianne's rejection of him initially to be so funny.
There's definitely a jump in style with the decade break she took between Pride and Prejudice and Mansfield Park. While she may have published the first three later, you can still tell they were conceived and written largely in the 1790s while Mansfield Park, Emma, Persuasion, & Sanditon are definitely products of the 1810s. The one work she has from that inbetween period that she abandoned, The Watsons seems like a messy transition between her two styles of writing ability. I wish she'd lived long enough to return to The Watsons and finish Sanditon. And Lady Susan definitely belongs to the same period of writing as Sense & Sensibility, Northanger Abbey, and Pride & Prejudice--though, it would have been great to get a novelization of that epistolary novel.
Yup! Though I like Northanger better than Sense. Northanger always makes me laugh. And I would have loved to see what she could have done with a better epistolary novel. Things like Clarissa are SOOOO long. Interesting, yes, but massive. Seems like Austen could have gotten that done better.
Still, Emma Thompson nailed that adaptation. And Alan Rickman was a perfect Brandon.
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Oscar Wilde.