|
Post by Author By Night on Feb 20, 2009 18:57:04 GMT -5
Was anyone else surprised that the Pot was quite morbid? I don't know what I was expecting, but I definitely wasn't expecting that!
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Aug 26, 2009 12:06:42 GMT -5
The introduction to the pot was extremely interesting the way wizards hid the baudlerized the stories original message and made it the opposite of its intent. I like the way Dumbledore points out the offense in its seemingly simple heartwarming message.
I love the way Dumbledore hides his past even in his own private notes and the poignant hidden meanings that lie hidden in so many of the notes. Ariana remains an untouchable secret even here but the following quote brought her to my mind:
"Wizarding families were particularly prone to losing younger members, whose inability to control their own magic made them noticeable and vulnerable to Muggle witch-hunters."
Thinking about Dumbledore's history while reading his discussion of Wizards attitudes toward Muggles really opens food for thought. At first he appears to be big-hearted in his ability to throw aside bitterness and hate after what was done to his sister. But when we remember his plans with Grindelwald the whole picture becomes more complicated. When did he put aside his bitterness and when did he start learning their culture and literature. How soon before the true results of Grindelwald's plans became clear did he embrace this new attitude? How much did Gridelwald's brutality affect his views?
How much was bitterness over his sister to blame for his attraction to Grindelwald's ideas?
It's interesting that even here not only can't he mention Ariana but he can't be open about his own past.
Fanfiction tends to focus on his sexual attraction to Grindelwald and his Romantic feelings when they consider his defeat of Grindelwald and his early adherence to the wizard's ideas, but I think there is a lot to explore in his attitude about Muggles, its connection to his upbringing and the attack on his sister. How much did guilt play a role in his abandonment of bigotry?
Which version of the Hopping Pot did he grow up with?
|
|
|
Post by MWPP on Sept 25, 2009 0:06:00 GMT -5
First : Ask Dancing Pony for her version. It s MUCH better!
Second : I agree that Dumbledore was seriously under-challenged, over-burdoned, lacked stimulation and was still in formative years when he suddenly had the isolating responsibility for the care of his siblings thrust upon him. With the emphasis on his intellectualism, and everything we hear of either his brother or sister being as far from intellectually stimulating as could be (Aberforth is "earthy" Aberforth and Arianna is erratic and handicapped), it would seem like any mentally stimulating person to interact with would influence him inordinantly.
That Dumbledore didn't kill Grindelwald to prevail in the final duel says more about Grindelwald being influenced by Albus than the other way around. (Since G had the unbeatable wand, he HAD to give in to D, to intentionally lose, either because he'd been influenced by D's higher ideals or had some feelings for the man himself.)
Mostly, I agree with Vega's contemplations on this, though. .
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Sept 25, 2009 9:18:04 GMT -5
That's an interesting point that about G. defeat of Dumbledore. I felt when we see him in the last book his words sounded very much like Dumbledore talking. When did that come? This is a man who was responsible for the killing of large numbers of people. What was he thinking while he did it?
|
|
|
Post by dancingpony on Sept 25, 2009 13:27:18 GMT -5
Wow. Thank you very much. Although, even though I like my version, I think JKR's version fits better into the darker, more somber mood of her collection of Bard tales.
I don't believe this is necessarily true. The "unbeatable" wand was beaten countless times during its history. It certainly gave its owner an edge . . . but not an insurmountable one.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Sept 25, 2009 22:29:14 GMT -5
Yeah I agree with that. It could be beaten, but the wizard who did so would have to have an edge of somekind, guile probably.
|
|
|
Post by MWPP on Oct 24, 2009 0:40:23 GMT -5
(Or history with that person/friendship/caring, or guilt for knowing who had hit Ariana, or being drawn over to the more positive side/personal spiritual growth.)
However, by definition, unbeatable means unbeatable. Therefore, there would have to be some momentary hesitation (much like Wormtail's) by the one the wand held allegance to for it to not prevail.
.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Oct 28, 2009 9:27:20 GMT -5
Yes the assumption is the person wielding the wand made the mistake not the wand itself. Otherwise a two year old could be master of the wand, but he might just drop it etc. The wand had the reputation for being unbeatable, folklore and tradition called it so, but was it really unbeatable itself?
|
|
|
Post by queenie on Feb 22, 2010 3:30:26 GMT -5
You know, this must be quite an old story, as it predates the Seclusion Act. The Hopping Pot's sense of responsibility sounds really reminiscient of Terry Pratchett's witches, whose job is to be basically the - well, 'witch' of the local village - medicine woman, busybody, ear for everyone, person everyone listens to, but who has no lawful authority. Wonder if there's some influence going on here.
|
|