Fly from Death? Steal from Death?

I am still brooding over the question of how to pronounce the Dark Lord's chosen name: Voldemort.


I will accept as a basic assumption J.K. Rowling's assertion that the name should be pronounced as a French word with no "t" sound at the end.


That makes sense to me. I can't say I was smart enough to catch it when I first read the books -- I have called him "Vole-de-morte" in my head from the beginning -- but it makes sense to me now.


But, as I asked several posts ago, now that we have the pronunciation of the last syllable of the name correct, how do we pronounce the first syllable?


I pointed out that there seem to be two options for that first syllable (and that each option has been used in the films by different characters): "Vole", with a long "o" sound, and "Vol", with an "a" sound to rhyme with "ball" or "tall" or "call".


I prefer the former, personally, but which is correct?


Jo says it's a French word and should be pronounced as a French person would.


So I spoke to a colleague of mine who is both a native French speaker (born and raised in France) and a big Harry Potter fan.


Interesting conversation.


First, she said that, because she is French, she pronounces the name "Vole-de-more".


Perfect. Question answered. Proper pronunciation established.


Then she said she had never noticed that, in the movies, the name's last syllable was always pronounced "morte" and its first syllable was sometimes pronounced "Vall" and sometimes "Vole". She simply heard it pronounced the way she would say it herself.


Interesting.


We then talked about what the name means in French. If you break it down into its three syllables, you will find that it is made up of three French words:


"vol", which can mean either to "steal" or to "fly";
"de", which means "from" or "of"; and
"mort", which means to "die" or "death".


Wow. My friend had never thought that through. "She's brilliant, isn't she?" she said with a smile, thinking of how carefully J.K. had developed the name.


I would have to agree. The Dark Lord's chosen name means either "fly from death" or "steal from death".


And that's exactly what he has attempted to do throughout his entire life: to escape death, to cheat death, to steal from death.


And that's exactly what the Deathly Hallows are about, aren't they:


The Cloak is meant to allow its bearer to escape Death;
The Stone is meant to allow its bearer to steal from Death (by bringing people back); and
The Wand is meant to allow its bearer to defeat/cheat Death.


Cool cool cool. So cool, it's almost scary.

It's about time. It's always about time...

I am on record (numerous times in fact) as to how much I like and admire Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. I think it is one of the best of Rowling's seven HP novels and I look forward to reading it every time I pick it up.

But I have to admit, I really regret the fact that J.K. introduced time travel into her magical world.

I have felt the same about the introduction of time travel into all kinds of other wonderful works of fantasy and science fiction: time travel, if it is accessible and fairly easy, completely ruins the drama and introduces all kinds of problems with the story at hand.

In Rowling's third book, time travel allows the creation of a very exciting, interesting plot and a very creative resolution, to be sure. But...

1. If time travel is so dangerous and so strictly controlled by the Ministry, why is it made available to a 13-year-old girl who wants to overload on classes at school?

2. If time travel is so simple to perform, why does the Ministry not use it to avert any of the major disasters that take place in the Potter novels, like the rise of Voldemort, the death of Harry's parents, the murder of dozens of people by Peter Pettigrew, the escape of Sirius Black from Azkaban, the escape of Wormtail, the attack on the Department of Mysteries, the murder of Cedric Diggory, Voldemort's resurrection in the grave yard, Dumbledore's death, the final battle of Hogwarts and on and on and on?

3. If Hermione and Harry can go back three hours in time just by turning the time-turner three times, why not go back five, six, ten hours in time and catch Peter Pettigrew before all the drama begins?

4. Why, in the seventh book, when Harry seeks the Resurrection Stone in a desperate hope of seeing his parents again, does he not, instead, decide to go back in time to save his parents from death in the first place?

5. Why does Voldemort not steal a time-turner and go back in time to avoid his pivotal attack on the infant Harry?

When you introduce time travel, you introduce problems.

I also have to ask the question: why does Dumbledore send Harry and Hermione back in time to save Buckbeak and Sirius rather than simply going back himself? Surely, he would be much more likely to succeed than would these two underage wiz-kids.

As usual, I ask these questions with a smile on my face. These are small issues when compared to the strength of Rowling's creation.

Harry, Dumbledore and the Resurrection Stone

I have a question. When Harry walks into the Forbidden Forest to face his death near the end of The Deathly Hallows and turns the Resurrection Stone thrice in his hand, why doesn't he invite Albus Dumbledore back from death as well as his mother, father, Sirius Black and Remus Lupin?

I think it's really nice, and quite fitting, that Harry calls back those four people.

But why not Dumbledore, the man about whom he has been mooning for the entire duration of the book? It doesn't make sense. Given the opportunity to talk to someone, anyone who is already dead, why wouldn't he choose to talk to the man with all the answers?

It's strange. It doesn't make sense, really, when you consider where Harry's mind has been for months prior to that pivotal moment. I think it's a lovely scene as written (and as filmed, to be honest), but it doesn't seem right to me.

How real is Harry's response to his impending death?

A friend at work recently read The Half-Blood Prince and The Deathly Hallows for the first time. I know: amazing to think that anyone out there hasn't already read all of J.K.'s novels!

This friend is a highly intelligent, quite thoughtful man who has an interesting way of seeing the world and whose opinions I respect. Thus, when he made an offhand comment that he felt that Harry seemed a little too mature in the way he faced his death in the final novel, I felt I had to take this comment seriously

I asked him to explain what he meant. He pointed out that Harry, at that point, is merely 17 years old and, despite his rather event-filled life, it seemed hard to believe Harry would be able to 1) accept the fact that Dumbledore had been planning for him to die right from the start and 2) face his death with such seeming equanimity. It's an interesting point.

But also one with which, having considered it seriously for several days now, I find myself having to disagree. I don't think Harry's behaviour at that point belied his tender age; I think it spoke volumes about the depth (and depths) of his experience. Harry might be 17 at that point but, by then, he had suffered more in his life than most people do over their 80 years on earth.

I won't recite here all the challenges he's faced (anyone who would spend time reading a Harry Potter blog is already fully familiar with Harry's life-time of tribulations and suffering) but I can't imagine that the Harry Potter I know so well after reading his exploits in those seven books responding to the situation he is presented with at the end of Book Seven in any way but the way he does.

Harry is not entirely without emotion in these scenes; in fact, he mentions numerous times how difficult he was finding it to drag himself away from this friends and the fight. But he finds his strength with the Resurrection Stone and the four people who have been together for so long, first supporting each other, then him since they met at Hogwarts years before.

I actually find J.K.'s depiction of Harry's mental state at that crucial moment to be entirely convincing. It is absolutely real for me, right down to the maturity with which he faces his impending death. It is true to the soul of this young man that he would choose to walk into the woods and face his death once he realises that he must die to protect his friends and loved ones from further harm. I still respect my friend and his opinions; I just disagree with him on this point. Very strongly disagree, in fact.