Muggle Matters Home
About our site
Make Site Suggestions
Narrative defined (Merlin)
Silver & Gold (Merlin)
Elendil's Sword (Pauli)
"X" Marks/Chiasm (Merlin)
Literary Approaches (Merlin)
We hope you enjoy reading our Harry Potter discussion weblog. Please feel free to leave a comment and return often for more discussion.
Cleaning up with Joseph Pearce, in Verse and Prose
Good blog entry by Travis on characters "turning g...
Muggling Along
Fact Become Myth: C.S. Lewis and Israelite History
Modern vs Post-Modern: An Explanation of Harry Potter
Giants and Gin: C.S. Lewis' Narnia and Paganism
A Mystery
Paul Simon's Heart
A Wrinkled Face and a Brand New Heart
JKR Reading our site
Hogwarts, Hogwarts,
Hoggy Warty Hogwarts,
Teach us something please,
Whether we be old and bald,
Or young with scabby knees,
Our heads could do with filling,
With some interesting stuff,
For now they're bare
And full of air,
Dead flies and bits of fluff.
So teach us stuff worth knowing,
Bring back what we forgot,
Just do your best
We'll do the rest,
And learn until our brains all rot!
1: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2: Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3: There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4: Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5: Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6: His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
7: The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8: The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9: The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
10: More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
11: Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.
12: Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.
13: Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.
14: Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
Mirvink has provided us with a good theory on how Dumbledore may have faked his death with Snape's help on the lightning struck tower. This originally appeared as a comment under the Sharp-Shooter Snape post. |
Comments on "Good theory from the "Dumbledore-faked-his-death" camp"
-
Silent Watcher said ... (January 06, 2006 7:11 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 06, 2006 7:58 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 06, 2006 8:06 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (January 06, 2006 9:19 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 07, 2006 12:26 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 07, 2006 12:51 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 07, 2006 1:19 AM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (January 07, 2006 1:25 AM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (January 07, 2006 1:34 AM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (January 07, 2006 1:49 AM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (January 07, 2006 2:22 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (January 07, 2006 3:42 AM)
:
post a commentfacinating... I never really thought into it that deeply after I read it. but you're completely right. it hurt my heart to see dumbledore die so easily... HOPE AGAIN!!!
I have a couple problems with it.
1. Several of the arguments rest on the assumption that he only way for DD to die is for Snape to be the source. IE, DD may not have been afraid of dying and may not have been pleading for his life, but for Snape to go through with the plan of letting him die as a ruse (tell me, can you think of ANYTHING you would guess DD to be "begging" for? you have to admit the image is suspect to begin with and there must be something hidden in it - but because it is less likely to be for his life does not mean it is more likely to be ... well, I'm not sure what it would be on the theory that he didn't die - I mean, keeping the ruse up really is Snapes best option - think of it, if he is begging Snape to keep the ruse up, DD does not have a wand and one of the other death eaters is going to off him and then what is he begging for, on the theory he was not going to die and did not ... he's then begging for his life. ... it's a mystery either way).
Likewise, he may have no reason to doubt Snape, but this does not mean he did not die (again it assumes that Snape MUST be the SOLE cause of Death)
2.The Unbreakable Vow: I think it would probably be enough of a cheapening of the cold, cruel and calculating efficiency of Voldy's malice to constitute a flaw in the writing of the character, were he not to have been calculating enough to set a time limit on Draco's task (like the end of the school year) and this would have been known by Narcissa and I think to say "well, it wasn't spoken" is sort of to appeal to a technicality that, if true in the work, would be a serious lesseing of the quality of the world Rowling creates - Narcissa would have meant that and Snape would have known it (think of it this way ... spells can be effective done non-verbally but vows can have such loopholes as "it wasn't said"?). It is conjecture about Voldy's demands and Snapes and Narcissa's understanding, but I think it is sounder conjecture than the other opetions that have been offered.
Secondly, I really do think unbreakable vows work like marriage in Rowling's world, "till death do us part." In other words I don't think Narcissa CAN release Snape - did the bursts or red magic come from her own wand? (reminds me of something Dr Hahn has always been hitting on, the modern confusion of vows and promises)
NOW, having said all that, I do have to say that I think the idea that Snape might have been actually only using levicorpus instead of Avada Kedavra is pretty clever ... and it is like her to hint at it with Harry using in non-verbally on Ron and the whole hovering thing (whichever personage came up with that - it was kind of unclear in the post where the citation began/ended)
DD killed so "Easily"? Christ had the power to call 10,000 angels and pretty much blow Rome and Palestine of the map (probably could have demolished the map altogether too)... but He didn't ... and all a soldier had to do was reach up and apply a little bit of pressure with a spear ... easily.
I've never liked the "too easy" argument. Even if Snape is evil (or was on the tower), DD was vulnerable to an attack by Snape because he conciously let himself be vulnerable. To use, "it was to easy," to me does not seem to add anything real to the mix.
I added some "tags" to show where Mirvink's thoughts begin and end.
Merlin, I think you are forgetting the nature of a vow. The words are very important as well as the intention of the person making the vow. This "vow" is actually more like a promise than, say, a marriage vow in that Narcissa doesn't promise to do anything for Snape at all within the context of the vow. I would suggest that Bellatrix as the witness would be able to let Snape off the hook rather than Narcissa, but, as we must always end these speculations we shall have to wait and see!
True, to quote St Sir Thomas More, "it's all in the words," BUT, you are forgetting some very important points of Catholic Theology as concerns the job of anullment tribunals.
If all a tribunal had to consider were the verbally spoken words all there would ever be are "pro forma" anullments (ie if two baptized persons in a state of relative sanity and sobriety stould before human witnesses, especially including a member of some clergy representing the "church," and verbalized standard marriage vows - there is no anullment - EVEN, from the standpoint of Catholic theology, in the case of batized non-Catholics - to quote Hahn, "don't the 'word-thing' fallacy," just because a baptized non-Catholic does not use the word "sacrament" and maybe even has an aversion to the word with regards to marriage, as many of the "reformed" camp do, this does not mean that their basic understanding of marriage isn't that of a sacramental thing).
Now, to be sure, there are a good many abuses of anullments going on these days, but as far as I know the Church still teaches that anullments other than "pro-forma" anullments are at least theoretically possible.
So, what does an anullment tribunal consider when trying to discern nullity? The words of the vows are usually the same in most cases (at least in cases of marriages that occur in some "mainline denomination" Church). What is investigated is the thinking/understaning and will of the persons concerning the words they spoke (both more "intangible" than the words). The two parties as well as witnesses from that time are questioned concerning the parties' understanding of what marriage is and their motivations in getting married then etc.
This is exactly the type of thing I mentioned conerning what would have been "unspoken" but commonly "known" between Snape and Narcissa. If Voldy had set a time stipulation in "Draco's Task" and both parties knew of it, then necessarily "finishing Draco's task" would have included the time stipulation.
And I think they both (Snape and Narcissa) would have known that the law involved here is not one with loopholes that will be respected ... it is the "law" simply of the tyranny of Voldy's will - both would know that Voldy would never stay his wand and the killing curse on Draco if he had set a time stipulation and the deed was not done by the end of the time period.
(NOTE: for the record, an anullment is always DISCERNED and not GRANTED. It is not within the Church's power to grant, only to discern within the bounds of relative certainty whether or not there were sizable enough obstacles to prevent a given marriage from being validly sacramental - ie, if it never BECOMES null because of the tribunal's "decision," the tribunal rather discerns that it was sacramnetlally null from the start - if you examine many vow formulas there is ALOT in the wording that is a particular way for very specific reasons, and any lawyer working in contract law can tell you that the same thing holds true of legally binding contracts - hence the reference to St Sir Thomas More - but these days a lot of people have forgotten those things, we speak many things without realizing or intending what they were once meant to mean and intend)
(I have actually emailed back and forth recently with the professor with whom I took an undergraduate course on the Sacraments concerning the matter of sacramental validity and anullment of the sacrament of marriage, as well as concerns of licitness and how they bear on this, mainly out of curiousity because one of the guys whoI am teaching in RCIA has been married and divorced with 1 son and is engaged to be married to a girl from the Parish here, but he has never been baptized ... so, by the teaching of the Church his first marriage is automatically considered null from the standpoint of sacramental validity because Baptism is the necessary sacrament that opens the soul to Sacramental Grace in the other Sacraments, and is therefore chronologically the first Sacrament - even though hierarchically the Eucharist is the first Sacrament because all Grace flows from it)
In Western Theology (not Eastern Orthodox Theology where the priest is viewed to be the minister of Sacramental Grace in the sacrament of marriage) - can a priest "let the spouses off the hook"?
I would be gravely disappointed in Rowling's presentation not only of vows but of magic in general (IE I would have to remove it from my former classification as "sacramental in nature")were she to commit the all too common confusion/radical identification of vows and promises (a promise would in no way require a third party winess, let alone particiapnt for validity, only a third party witness if there was to be public verification of the promise.) ... especially considering that it is the thing that struck me as so profound in the unbreakable vow image in the first place.
I was showing all this to Dom and he made a cool observation - that there may be a hidden referent to the Resurrection in the "Levi-Corpus" spell ... to "raise the body."
I have to admit, the whole "rag-doll" thing is something that is very odd and therefore might have some hidden meaning yet to be revealed. It is odd that DD should fly up in the air unless there is some psychic component to Rowlingian physics whereby intense emotion on the part of the curser might carry though into a sort of physical "shock wave" - but that is very speculative.
mmmm. unbreakable vow seems pretty 'unbreakable' to me. i get the feeling that's *the point*!
i DO see a 'levicorpus' possiblity, and think it may have been foreshadowed as you say.
what of DD lying spreadeagled at the bottom of the tower? (*sob*) does that also mean that they broke his limbs and fixed them again? possible i know in the wizard world, but still.....
mmmm i don't buy it i'm afraid.
i think the pleading is pleading to snape to not listen to his emotions, but remember the higher good and rescue draco from this situation and then head off away from the security (such as it was) he's enjoyed at hogwarts for the last x years and into being on the run from both sides of the coin!
HOWEVER the way the curse didn't work the way it usually did simply must point to something fishy.
perhaps the stoppered death thing?
roll on book 7!
cheers,
jkr (in australia)
JKR2: When are you going git yer own blog?? We're tired of you being "anonymous". Thanks for the comment, insightful as always, cheers.
sorry about the anonymous....
but i don't have anything original to say myself, only inane comments on other people's blogs!
jkr2 (i'll adopt that shall i?)
Yes, all this is speculative...but FUN!
I like the levi corpus insight....
I think discussing annulments is at least a little bit off the subject in a Harry Potter blog. I know JKR is steeped in medieval thought and philosophy, but she's also a Protestant who I believe has remarried, and in any case I'd rather doubt she intends her "unbreakable vow" concept to be a type and symbol of it. Especially this one - like I said it's 100% one-sided!
I shared the pain that Silent Watcher had while watching Dumbledore die, unarmed and completely defenseless. I can imagine that as a soldier, SW has even more passionate feelings about this and possibly even more appreciation for the sacrifice Dumbledore made...or appeared to make!!
JKR2,
I was wondering myself concerning the description of "spread-eagled" because I was trying to construct a possible sequence for DD surving a fall from such a height without the aid of a wand (but come to think of it, I just checked and nowhere in the finding of the body does she mention DD's wand laying anywhere nearby on the ground ... it could be possible, on the theory that he did not die, that he also only appeared to lose his wand - I have always thought that, given how things wind up, it was an oddly bold and rash statement for DD to say that it was Draco who was it his mercy, not vice-versa ... unles he actually did still have his wand - but I just looked at that too and I see nothing overtly suspicious about the description of DD losing his wand) ... I don't buy that he could have, without his wand, transfigured into an eagle (which I believe, if I remember correctly, although I may not be doing so, is a medeival Christ symbol - Granger does use the eagle prominently in his discussion of the degrees of symbol types in symolist literature and Eastern Orthodox Iconography - and it is the concrete term she uses to describe DD's position) and glided down to the ground unharmed - but if he did have his wand it might be possible.
Although, as you said,the "strange angle of his arms and legs" does seem to indicate some physical damage had occurred to him (or maybe she means "strange" only in regards to the statement that he looked as if he could have been sleeping - seeing as most people do not sleep in an extreme spread-eagle position, even one that they could do in waking hours without damaging themselves)
Pauli,
I never said I thought ALL of this to be speculation, merely the part about the possibility of a psychic element to the physics of Rowling's fictional world whereby the emotional state of a curser could cause the killing curse also to produce a physical shock wave that would send a body airborn (ironically, more attention should be paid to the words used - putting words in people's mouths is unsanitary, lol - ie "THAT is very speculative," vs "ALL OF THIS is very speculative").
As concerns whether or not certain possibilities of the unfolding of physical action correspond better or worse to an orthodox concept of the world, I do believe that there is an objective reality onto which these things hook and that it is possible to arrive at some degree of certainty on some issues.
Hence the comments on anullment. What is being discussed is the use of "vows" as an image, and being as the marriage vow is probably the primary instance in current western culture of a concept of "vows" that most closely resembles the ancient concept of vows, (for the most part the concept of vows professed in connection with political office are thought of, I would say, as "promise" oriented and "contractual" rather than "covenantal" - a point which Hahn has made, so I have been told by a former housemate who was in the class he made the comment in, concerning the movie Clear and Present Danger, when James Earl Jones refers Harrison Ford back to the vow he took in entering his profession at the CIA but then goes on to describe that "vow" only as making a promise to the people of the United States, with no inclusion of the ancient concept of calling on the name of a god - which in this case would have taken the form of at least including God with the people as the "boss of the president of the United States"), taken together with the fact that, I believe, Rowling's presentation of "vows" is unique in this culture because it does resemble the ancient understanding of vows ... matters that affect the common understandings of those things which can affect the validity of such vows and the extent to which they are binding are, I believe, germane to the discussion of an instance of the use of "vows" which has born a notable resemblence to central thinking on and definition of the nature of marriage as enacted in vows (ie the sacramental and covenantal nature of marriage as more than a "contract") as it has developed in the course or Western European thought.
I would warn with Hahn, again, against the "word-thing fallacy." It is entirely possible that, while Rowling might discuss her divorce in those terms usually used in this culture, her way of thinking about it might fall, in actuality, much closer to the Catholic concept of Anullment. It has always struck me that, for a protestant, her concepts and images fall so closely in line with orthodox Catholic thinking. (Historical Critical exegetes of the Bible make much the same error in ascribing so much weight as they do to "contemporary cultural forces")
I brought up anullment because somebody raised a consideration that they thought the unbreakable vow could effectually be "nullified" in the form of Narcissa releasing Snape from it (or in your case Bella).
And I don't believe it to be one-sided (italics aside). There is something to Narcissa's being the one to form and articulate the terms (basically she gave to the vow it's concrete form, in a similar way to Aristotle's definition of the soul as "the form of the body"). Thinking of things in terms of "Snape did all the giving and Narcissa all the taking" seems to me a fairly materialist take on the matter (along the same lines as thinking of the woman as "passive" vs the man as "active" in the material aspects of marriage).
IE Wedding vowS are precisely that, plural. Each side takes A vow involving the other, but together they are refered to in the plural (although each side does profess several vows, or at least makes several responses that comprise one vow) - whereas the covenant as a whole, enacted in the vows, is refered to in the singular.