Help me understand something.
In all of the time Dumbledore spends teaching Harry about Voldemort's past and the existence of the Horcruxes, why doesn't Dumbledore ever mention the lost Diadem of Ravenclaw?
Dumbledore takes great care to ensure that Harry learns two things that will help in his search for the Horcruxes: 1) that Voldemort will use important items to create his Horcruxes and 2) that Voldemort has a special affinity for relics related to the four founders of Hogwarts.
The Headmaster identifies three of relics related to the school's founders: Slytherin's locket; Hufflepuff's Cup; and Gryffindor's sword. Only the sword is still safe from Voldemort's clutches.
If there are six Horcruxes, Dumbledore and Harry agree, then they can deduce that they know the identity of five of them: the Diary (destroyed), the Gaunt ring (destroyed), Slytherin's locket, Hufflepuff's Cup; and Nagini. The identity of the sixth remains a mystery but they believe it must be associated with Rowena Ravenclaw, the school's fourth founder.
So why, at that point, does Dumbledore not say, "And I believe it likely to be Ravenclaw's lost diadem" or at least "I would suspect that it might be Ravenclaw's lost diadem if it weren't for the fact that it is, indeed, lost".
The way the scenes between Harry and the Headmaster in The Half-Blood Prince play out, it would appear that Dumbledore is unaware of the existence of, or the legend of, the lost diadem.
And that makes no sense to me. Dumbledore knew more about Hogwarts and its history than anyone. It is not possible that he would be unaware of the diadem and its story. And he was determined to give Harry as much information about the possible location of the Horcruxes as he could. It is also not possible that he forgot to mention the diadem to Harry at that point or chose not to so so.
The only possibility I can think of is that Rowling had not yet conceived of the lost diadem when she wrote the sixth book. That it was simply fortuitous that she had Harry use a tarnished tiara to mark the location in which he hid his potions book in The Half-Blood Prince and that then, when she came up with the idea of having a lost item of Ravenclaw's be the final Horcrux in order to add more suspense to the ending of The Deathly Hallows, she realised that she had already inserted just the thing in her story.
If that is actually what happened, I think it's awesome! I am in awe of Rowling's creativity and care in crafting these incredibly rich, detailed stories. I will be even more in awe if it is confirmed for me that, at the height of her writing, she was able to make such an amazing, inspired connection with an innocuous detail from her earlier novel to such dramatic effect.
But, if not, then Dumbledore should have mentioned the diadem to Harry.
Showing posts with label Nagini. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nagini. Show all posts
Friday, June 27, 2014
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
"The Riddle House" opens the fourth book with a bang
I'm just getting back to reading HP, after spending the past six weeks doing my Christmas reading, and it's The Goblet of Fire that's next on the list.
Although this is not my all-time favourite Harry Potter novel, it does feature one of my favourite beginnings. "The Riddle House" is almost like a short story unto itself, focusing on the events in Little Hangleton exclusively, with the narrator positioned for once far away from Harry himself.
It's a neat little chapter. Through first the town's people and then Frank Bryce, the gardener, we get our first chance to experience Voldemort from a more objective, Muggle point of view. And it's interesting to see that Frank is not at first terrified of the intruders he finds in the Riddle House. It is only when Nagini slithers past that he begins to feel any real fear.
I think it's a beautifully written passage, one that contains a great deal of information that will be very important later on, both in the book itself and throughout the rest of the series. We learn, even if we are not fully aware of it, about Tom Riddle's past, about how he murdered his parents and how he allowed an innocent person to take the blame. It's a pattern he would use often in his life.
I particularly like the portrayal of Frank Bryce himself. Rowling introduces him first as the suspect in the murders and she uses both Bryce's own odd behaviours and the responses of the townspeople to the news that he has been arrested to attempt to convince us that he is indeed guilty. It is a common trope in literature to use a physical disability as a sign of an interior, moral defect and Rowling uses that trope to good effect here.
Bryce must be guilty because, well, he's strange and he has a physical disability and he was never right since he returned from the war.
And, even though the police find themselves forced to release him without pressing charges, we still want to believe, as the villagers believe, that he is in fact guilty anyway.
It's another example of one of Rowling's greatest strengths as a writer: the ability to manipulate how we, as readers, read, react and respond to her characters in a very subtle way, to get us convinced in our impressions only then to undermine those impressions in equally subtle ways.
We believe Frank Bryce must be guilty. Or, rather, if we did not know that we were dealing with a world filled with dark, dark magic, we would believe that Frank Bryce must be guilty.
And, in the course of "The Riddle House", we almost forget that this is, indeed, a world filled with magic and that these are, in fact, Voldemort's father and grandparents who are discovered dead in their dining room. We start to believe in the guilt of Frank Bryce.
And then J.K. shows us Frank in action. She lets us in on his thought processes as he stands in the hallway, listening to Voldemort and Peter Pettigrew discuss, in an almost offhand way, the capture, torture and murder of Bertha Jorkins.
Frank Bryce, the person the village was convinced murdered three people years before, stands in the hallway absolutely appalled that Voldemort and Pettigrew could discuss committing a murder in such a casual manner, almost with amusement.
And just when we begin to respect Frank Bryce and his morality, his courage, when we begin to like him...
Voldemort turns and kills him.
And then, at the end of this wonderful little vignette, Rowling picks up the threat that leads us back to Harry Potter and the central story.
It's wonderful writing. It's Rowling at her best. And it's an early sign that J.K.'s writing talents extend beyond her amazing Harry Potter stories.
Although this is not my all-time favourite Harry Potter novel, it does feature one of my favourite beginnings. "The Riddle House" is almost like a short story unto itself, focusing on the events in Little Hangleton exclusively, with the narrator positioned for once far away from Harry himself.
It's a neat little chapter. Through first the town's people and then Frank Bryce, the gardener, we get our first chance to experience Voldemort from a more objective, Muggle point of view. And it's interesting to see that Frank is not at first terrified of the intruders he finds in the Riddle House. It is only when Nagini slithers past that he begins to feel any real fear.
I think it's a beautifully written passage, one that contains a great deal of information that will be very important later on, both in the book itself and throughout the rest of the series. We learn, even if we are not fully aware of it, about Tom Riddle's past, about how he murdered his parents and how he allowed an innocent person to take the blame. It's a pattern he would use often in his life.
I particularly like the portrayal of Frank Bryce himself. Rowling introduces him first as the suspect in the murders and she uses both Bryce's own odd behaviours and the responses of the townspeople to the news that he has been arrested to attempt to convince us that he is indeed guilty. It is a common trope in literature to use a physical disability as a sign of an interior, moral defect and Rowling uses that trope to good effect here.
Bryce must be guilty because, well, he's strange and he has a physical disability and he was never right since he returned from the war.
And, even though the police find themselves forced to release him without pressing charges, we still want to believe, as the villagers believe, that he is in fact guilty anyway.
It's another example of one of Rowling's greatest strengths as a writer: the ability to manipulate how we, as readers, read, react and respond to her characters in a very subtle way, to get us convinced in our impressions only then to undermine those impressions in equally subtle ways.
We believe Frank Bryce must be guilty. Or, rather, if we did not know that we were dealing with a world filled with dark, dark magic, we would believe that Frank Bryce must be guilty.
And, in the course of "The Riddle House", we almost forget that this is, indeed, a world filled with magic and that these are, in fact, Voldemort's father and grandparents who are discovered dead in their dining room. We start to believe in the guilt of Frank Bryce.
And then J.K. shows us Frank in action. She lets us in on his thought processes as he stands in the hallway, listening to Voldemort and Peter Pettigrew discuss, in an almost offhand way, the capture, torture and murder of Bertha Jorkins.
Frank Bryce, the person the village was convinced murdered three people years before, stands in the hallway absolutely appalled that Voldemort and Pettigrew could discuss committing a murder in such a casual manner, almost with amusement.
And just when we begin to respect Frank Bryce and his morality, his courage, when we begin to like him...
Voldemort turns and kills him.
And then, at the end of this wonderful little vignette, Rowling picks up the threat that leads us back to Harry Potter and the central story.
It's wonderful writing. It's Rowling at her best. And it's an early sign that J.K.'s writing talents extend beyond her amazing Harry Potter stories.
Friday, September 23, 2011
On Draco's Redemption and Voldemort's humanity
I received some great comments from "Anonymous" on the issues of Draco's Redemption and the portrayal of Voldemort in the final film. As you might recall from some of my earlier posts on these subjects, I was more mystified than anything about the way Draco behaves in the seventh and eighth films and I was very unhappy with the way Stephen Kloves wrote Voldemort for the final movie, turning him, in my opinion, into a bit of a putz.
I think Anonymous makes a great point when she/he says that Draco's behaviour is actually laudable, that Draco's decision to join his mother and father just before the last battle and to leave Hogwarts while the battle still rages fits well with J.K.'s theme that real courage is shown in standing up against your friends. Draco and his family clearly make a decision that, even if Voldemort wins his fight with Harry, they no longer want any part of the Dark Lord and his monstrous ways.
On the issue of the portrayal of Voldemort in the final film, however, Anonymous and I will have to agree to disagree. Anonymous argues that Voldemort is more real, more human in the eighth film than in the final book and Anonymous likes that. I respect that position but I would argue that Rowling intended to make Voldemort less and less real, less and less human, more and more flat and one-dimensional in the later books precisely because of what he had done to his soul.
By splitting his soul into eight pieces, Voldemort filleted himself and his humanity. By the time only two bits of his soul survived (the one in him and the one in Nagini), Voldemort's humanity is paper thin. He is flat and soulless.
I think the movie version betrays what J.K. was trying to do. In the novel, Harry tells Voldemort that he can repair the damage to his soul by showing sincere regret for his evil deeds. By that time, however, Voldemort no longer has enough soul left even to consider being anyone other than his evil self. There is no regret coming because there is no regret possible for such a decimated person.
You can find Anonymous' very interesting and well-thought-out comments attached to the posts of July 28 (Draco's Redemption: How Can he just walk away?) and and July 20 (The film's Voldemort becomes a sad and silly caricature). I'm interested to read what other people think!
I think Anonymous makes a great point when she/he says that Draco's behaviour is actually laudable, that Draco's decision to join his mother and father just before the last battle and to leave Hogwarts while the battle still rages fits well with J.K.'s theme that real courage is shown in standing up against your friends. Draco and his family clearly make a decision that, even if Voldemort wins his fight with Harry, they no longer want any part of the Dark Lord and his monstrous ways.
On the issue of the portrayal of Voldemort in the final film, however, Anonymous and I will have to agree to disagree. Anonymous argues that Voldemort is more real, more human in the eighth film than in the final book and Anonymous likes that. I respect that position but I would argue that Rowling intended to make Voldemort less and less real, less and less human, more and more flat and one-dimensional in the later books precisely because of what he had done to his soul.
By splitting his soul into eight pieces, Voldemort filleted himself and his humanity. By the time only two bits of his soul survived (the one in him and the one in Nagini), Voldemort's humanity is paper thin. He is flat and soulless.
I think the movie version betrays what J.K. was trying to do. In the novel, Harry tells Voldemort that he can repair the damage to his soul by showing sincere regret for his evil deeds. By that time, however, Voldemort no longer has enough soul left even to consider being anyone other than his evil self. There is no regret coming because there is no regret possible for such a decimated person.
You can find Anonymous' very interesting and well-thought-out comments attached to the posts of July 28 (Draco's Redemption: How Can he just walk away?) and and July 20 (The film's Voldemort becomes a sad and silly caricature). I'm interested to read what other people think!
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Neville is one proof that Rowling planned it all
Neville Longbottom. Introduced in almost the first magical-world scene of The Philosopher's Stone and still around to kill Nagini in one of the final scenes of The Deathly Hallows. Clearly, J.K. knew what she was doing when she created him in the first novel, proof that she had the whole series planned from the start.
Had Voldemort not chosen Harry, it would have been Neville who was the chosen one. Did Rowling have this plan in mind from the moment she wrote The Philosopher's Stone? I'm not sure. But if she didn't, she certainly did a great job of weaving what she wrote in that first book into the finale several years later.
I'll count Neville as one piece of evidence that Rowling had it planned from the start.
Had Voldemort not chosen Harry, it would have been Neville who was the chosen one. Did Rowling have this plan in mind from the moment she wrote The Philosopher's Stone? I'm not sure. But if she didn't, she certainly did a great job of weaving what she wrote in that first book into the finale several years later.
I'll count Neville as one piece of evidence that Rowling had it planned from the start.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Savouring the end of The Deathly Hallows
Okay, here's where I am. Harry has just reviewed Snape's memories, he's told Neville to kill Nagini if Neville gets the chance and he's walking into the Forbidden Forest to fulfill his destiny and die under the wand of the Dark Lord.
I have forced myself to put the book down and take a break. I've read it probably ten times already and I've listened to the audiobook several times as well. But I want to take a moment to savour...
That's long enough. Back to the exciting conclusion of The Deathly Hallows!
I have forced myself to put the book down and take a break. I've read it probably ten times already and I've listened to the audiobook several times as well. But I want to take a moment to savour...
That's long enough. Back to the exciting conclusion of The Deathly Hallows!
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Some Thoughts on the Last Movie
I spent some time last night watching the trailer for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 on the internet. I am very excited about the premiere of this last film in the series in mid-July and wanted to get an early idea of what they filmmakers have done with the second half of Rowling's epic seventh novel.
Here's what I liked:
1. It looks like they're actually going to include Harry's trip through Snape's memories after Voldemort kills Severus. I had worried, after their disinclination to show most of the memories about Voldemort in The Half-Blood Prince, that they would cut this important vindication of Harry's longtime nemesis but the trailer clearer shows Lily and Petunia as girls, an important scene from Snape's childhood;
2. The action scenes in Gringott's and later in the Room of Requirement appear to be vividly evoked;
3. They don't seem to have pulled any punches when it comes to the Battle for Hogwarts, which should be spectacular;
4. Molly Weasley's duel with Bellatrix Lestrange seems to be included, one of my favourite developments late in the novel; and
5. Neville still gets to grab some glory for himself by killing Nagini with the Sword of Gryffindor (this information comes from one of the promotional photographs I've seen, not the trailer itself).
Things I wonder about, however, include:
1. The fact that it looks like they've taken the final duel between Harry and Voldemort outside; I liked the fact that Harry's showdown with the Dark Lord takes place, in the book, in the Great Hall in front of a large crowd of people, with Harry and Voldemort circling each other warily;
2. The fact that it looks like the movie makers have surrendered to the temptation to make that final duel spectacular, with lots of fire works, rather than following J.K.'s very satisfying, appropriate approach from the book: now that Harry and friends have eliminated all of the Horcruxes and now that Harry knows he is the true master of the Elder Wand, the final duel is almost an afterthought. It's all over with a single spell and elegant simplicity;
3. The strange scene in the trailer where Harry and Voldemort are arm in arm, standing above a precipice, and Harry says something like, "Let's end it Tom the way it started: the two of us together" and then launches both of them into the abyss. I don't have perfect recall of the final book but I cannot fathom where this goes and what it's meant to represent.
I'm sure there's much more I could say at this point but let's leave it at this: the last movie looks like it's going to be a blast. Not perfect but pretty thrilling nonetheless.
Here's what I liked:
1. It looks like they're actually going to include Harry's trip through Snape's memories after Voldemort kills Severus. I had worried, after their disinclination to show most of the memories about Voldemort in The Half-Blood Prince, that they would cut this important vindication of Harry's longtime nemesis but the trailer clearer shows Lily and Petunia as girls, an important scene from Snape's childhood;
2. The action scenes in Gringott's and later in the Room of Requirement appear to be vividly evoked;
3. They don't seem to have pulled any punches when it comes to the Battle for Hogwarts, which should be spectacular;
4. Molly Weasley's duel with Bellatrix Lestrange seems to be included, one of my favourite developments late in the novel; and
5. Neville still gets to grab some glory for himself by killing Nagini with the Sword of Gryffindor (this information comes from one of the promotional photographs I've seen, not the trailer itself).
Things I wonder about, however, include:
1. The fact that it looks like they've taken the final duel between Harry and Voldemort outside; I liked the fact that Harry's showdown with the Dark Lord takes place, in the book, in the Great Hall in front of a large crowd of people, with Harry and Voldemort circling each other warily;
2. The fact that it looks like the movie makers have surrendered to the temptation to make that final duel spectacular, with lots of fire works, rather than following J.K.'s very satisfying, appropriate approach from the book: now that Harry and friends have eliminated all of the Horcruxes and now that Harry knows he is the true master of the Elder Wand, the final duel is almost an afterthought. It's all over with a single spell and elegant simplicity;
3. The strange scene in the trailer where Harry and Voldemort are arm in arm, standing above a precipice, and Harry says something like, "Let's end it Tom the way it started: the two of us together" and then launches both of them into the abyss. I don't have perfect recall of the final book but I cannot fathom where this goes and what it's meant to represent.
I'm sure there's much more I could say at this point but let's leave it at this: the last movie looks like it's going to be a blast. Not perfect but pretty thrilling nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)