Episode 171: DH 21 – Windows In The Sky

Pull up a chair and grab a plate of Freshwater Plimpies because it’s story time! Join hosts Kat, Michael, Alison, and guest Ryan as they delve into “The Tale of the Three Brothers” – as read by Hermione in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Chapter 21 – arguably one of the most “inspired by” chapters in the series.

On Episode 171 we discuss…

→ Episode 170 Recap: Luna’s sad reality; Rooks, Knights, and Lovegoods
→ PQOTW Responses
→ Did Jo borrow from the Three Little Pigs?
→ Dumbledore as Death
→ What does the theme of “belief” mean to Harry Potter?
→ What type of stone is the Resurrection Stone?
→ Why are we shown Luna’s friendship mural?
→ Question of the Week
→ Check out the Alohomora! store

To listen to the show, simply click the player below or direct download the episode. You can also subscribe to us on iTunes. For more information about the podcast and to find out how to be on the show, check out our Be On The Show! page.

Don’t forget to leave us a voicemail at our phone number: 1-206-GO-ALBUS (462-5287). Skype users can also send us a message to username AlohomoraMN. And as always, be sure to continue the discussion below or on our Forums!

Listen Now: | Download (Right Click, Save As)

  • Phoenix

    The first two words on the gravestone might be “Te deus”. It could be the beginning of a sentence going “(May) God … you” – if that’s the case, we would need a verb next, like “Te deus adiuvet” (“May God help you”), but this one doesn’t fit because the first letter of the next word seems to be an E. Can anyone think of a Latin verb that fits?

    But maybe this is too much of a stretch anyway. After all, Kat(?) may be right and they could be nothing but random letters that aren’t really meant to be read. (We also know that Jo, although she has some knowledge of Latin, is pretty bad at it. :))

    • …also, sometimes ungrammatical Latin can sound better.

      • Phoenix

        True!

        • I’ve done Latin for four months. I no shtuffs.

          • Moa

            i’m a bit late here… At first I also read Te deus, but then I started googling phrase and now I believe the first world could be Tempus (time)? However I find i kind of strange that the first words on the second row (there should be something there, right?) are completely invisible. All we know is that the phrase should be long enough to be written in two rows and that the last words ends with “(i)ne” (which could be pretty much anything in latin).

          • Moa

            Back again! I believe the first row says Tempus erat – meaning time has run out/ended/it is time. Apparently this is common inscription on gravestones! My very first thought when looking att the stone was that the very last word is ”fine” (end) – which would be really fitting if the invisible words has something to do with greating/welcoming death —> ”The time to meet death has come at last”. Which obviously fits the story very well!

          • I’m pretty sure ‘erat’ means ‘was’. So time was? It was his time? Because, y’know, he took off the cloak.
            EDIT: Woops, posted this before realising there was a last sentance.

          • Moa

            Yeah, something like that i guess. I found ”tempus erat” as a common phrase here and there’s also the meanings of several of the pictures on the grave: coffin – mortality, Death’s head winged – mortality, no symbolism for the crossed bones though… http://www.raogk.org/encyclopedia/tomb/ But all in all is symbolism for acceptance of mortality?

  • Phoenix

    Who says Umbridge doesn’t come from the Selwyn family? She is certainly lying about the “S” on the locket standing for “Selwyn”, but her claim of being related to them might actually be true.

    • Silverdoe25

      Back story from Jo on the old Pottermore pretty much flushed that notion.

      • Phoenix

        Her backstory says that she pretends to be “pure-blood”, although she is not. But a “half-blood” can be related to a “pure-blood” family, in fact, it is very likely. For instance, her paternal grandmother could have been a Selwyn. Why not?
        Of course, it is just as possible that she made it all up…

        • We may never know.

        • HowAmIGoingToTranslateThis

          Umbridge’s lies tend to be rather transparent and she does claim them to be true, anyway. She tries to get her way and will not stop at attempted murder, deception or torture. So why bother to make up lies that are hard to disproof? If you contradict her, she’ll slice your hand open, that’ll teach you to keep your mouth shut.

          • Georgia Scherer

            Surprisingly true!

    • Actually, contrary to my other comment, and after reading the dialogue of Selwyn, why not? They feel the same.

    • Georgia Scherer

      When I first consider this it seems impossible, but if you think about it, it could definitely be true.

    • WhoDoYouKnowWho’sLostAButtock?

      I always agreed with you, TBH. I thought she was probably related to the Selwyns somehow, and the irony in that statement was that she was trying to use the Selwyn relationship to bolster her status, and use the locket to prove that — but she doesn’t realize that the S is for Slytherin, which would be a much stronger, more powerful claim.

      • Phoenix

        Exactly. She tried to think of a cool name with S, and the best she could come up with was Selwyn? That would be very sad indeed – unless it’s true.

        • But Slytherin would be like me declaring I’m related to the Royal Family. Stranded response: “Yeah, right”

  • DoraNympha

    Alas! My cover is blown. I am, in fact, Kevin Bacon in disguise. Now I have to Obliviate you all…

    • Who IS Kevin Bacon? Is it something to do with TV, my wand broke all of ours.

  • Silverdoe25

    Not done listening yet, but as the discussion turned to other ways that Death has been represented throughout the books, I thought of the Veil. I also love how Jo, in the Tale of the Three Brothers, writes of the 2nd brother’s experience with the Stone and his fiancée: “Yet, she was sad and cold, separated from him as by a veil.” I can’t help but think that this description was a deliberate call back to the Veil in the Department of Mysteries. Do you remember back to the days when predictions about Book 7 included a return to the Veil as part of the plot?

    • TickleThePear

      I legit shouted “The Veil!!” in the car as this was being discussed…later in the episode someone does bring it up but I would love more discussion around how the Veil might connect to the Tale of the Three Brothers.

      • Silverdoe25

        Ok, after listening to the end, I see that Michael brought up my point. Oops.

        • Michael Harle

          I try! But if I ever don’t, it’s usually ’cause we don’t have time and I hope that you, the listeners, will fill in. That’s why we want y’all around! <3

    • Roonil Wazlib

      Yesss love the mention of the Veil, was going to bring it up myself!

  • daveybjones999 .

    I actually have read the Pardoners Tale right after J.K. Rowling revealed that it was the main source for the Tale of The Three Brothers. I haven’t read it since then but I refreshed myself on the plot via Sparknotes so I’ll just post the plot summary directly from that site. I won’t post the stuff from the frame story just the part that directly relates to the tale in Harry Potter.

    “As three of these rioters sit drinking, they hear a funeral knell. One of the revelers’ servants tells the group that an old friend of theirs was slain that very night by a mysterious figure named Death. The rioters are outraged and, in their drunkenness, decide to find and kill Death to avenge their friend. Traveling down the road, they meet an old man who appears sorrowful. He says his sorrow stems from old age—he has been waiting for Death to come and take him for some time, and he has wandered all over the world. The youths, hearing the name of Death, demand to know where they can find him. The old man directs them into a grove, where he says he just left Death under an oak tree. The rioters rush to the tree, underneath which they find not Death but eight bushels of gold coins with no owner in sight.

    At first, they are speechless, but, then, the slyest of the three reminds them that if they carry the gold into town in daylight, they will be taken for thieves. They must transport the gold under cover of night, and so someone must run into town to fetch bread and wine in the meantime. They draw lots, and the youngest of the three loses and runs off toward town. As soon as he is gone, the sly plotter turns to his friend and divulges his plan: when their friend returns from town, they will kill him and therefore receive greater shares of the wealth. The second rioter agrees, and they prepare their trap. Back in town, the youngest vagrant is having similar thoughts. He could easily be the richest man in town, he realizes, if he could have all the gold to himself. He goes to the apothecary and buys the strongest poison available, then puts the poison into two bottles of wine, leaving a third bottle pure for himself. He returns to the tree, but the other two rioters leap out and kill him.

    They sit down to drink their friend’s wine and celebrate, but each happens to pick up a poisoned bottle. Within minutes, they lie dead next to their friend. Thus, concludes the Pardoner, all must beware the sin of avarice, which can only bring treachery and death.”

    • daveybjones999 .

      It’s been a day or two since my first comment but I’m finally ready to start my analysis. I’ll start by looking at a surface comparison between the two stories before starting an in depth analysis and finally looking at what which elements from The Pardoners Tale I think were the greatest influences on the Tale of the Three Brothers. Ignoring the frame story of the Pardoner, for now, both stories are about a trio of people getting into a confrontation with death in an attempt to get something out of it. Due to character flaws in the main characters all three die at the end of the story. Neither story gives much development to the three main characters, but J.K. Rowling’s story gives a lot more depth to them. All three of the characters from The Pardoners Tale are awful people and have the same flaws, while the three brothers by contrast don’t seem to be bad people, and have different character flaws. Also the youngest brother dies on his own terms in Rowling’s story while all three die because of the other’s plotting in The Pardoner’s Tale.

      Now to start the more in depth comparison there is a difference in tone between the stories. The Tale of the Three Brothers is played straight and goes for a serious tone and is a true morality tale, while The Pardoner’s Tale only appears to be. At a first glance the Pardoner’s Tale seems like it’s a morality tale but when I started analyzing it, I saw the opposite. Ignoring the frame story again and just looking at the story itself it’s actually quite tongue and cheek. The narrator constantly mentions how horrible all of the three main characters are, although that might just be how the modern day translation, which is the one I read, phrases it, the three characters also seemed to be over the top in their evilness which, to me, to be quite comedic. When I read the frame story the truth became inescapable; this is actually a parody/satire of morality tales. First of all, the Pardoner telling the tale is a hypocrite, and has his own agenda when telling the story and thus anything he says should really be taken with a grain of salt, kind of similar to Xenophilius Lovegood who prompts the reading of the tale in Harry Potter. There’s also the fact that this story is prompted by one person asking for a more lighthearted tale to lighten up the mood after the Physicians Tale, and another asking for a morality tale. By combining these we get a false morality tale, which is in reality a parody of one.

      Another character in The Pardoners Tale is the old man who sends the three to the tree. I think that it can be implied that this old man is an agent of death who knowingly sends the three to die. They want to specifically kill death to avenge their friends and they find it just like the old man says, only the three find death by dying rather than finding the once called death. Death in the three brothers is the real entity and gives them gifts with the intention to kill them. It’s subtler in The Pardoner’s Tale but serves the same purpose in both of the stories.

      Here’s a list of things that I think are direct influences on this chapter of Harry Potter. The teller of the tale has their own agenda, ripping money off of his companions for the pardoner and selling out Harry Potter in order to protect his daughter Luna for Xenophilius. Someone in the story within the story tries to tricks the three characters into dying, succeeding in The Pardoners Tale and only partially in The Tale of the Three Brothers. The three die because of their own greed in both stories.

      I enjoyed analyzing and comparing The Pardoners Tale to the Tale of the Three Brothers. I thought that I’d have more to say, and I probably missed some stuff and might be able to add some more later in the week, but for right now I think I’ve found everything I can.

  • Lupinionated

    Firstly, thanks again for another awesome episode guys 😀

    Secondly, you were talking about how Harry having all three Deathly Hallows thus making him the master of death didn’t really mean anything or was more of a symbolic thing, but I tend to disagree.

    So granted, the reason Harry doesn’t die when Voldemort AKs him in the forest is because Voldemort has tethered his life to Harry’s by using his blood in his reincarnation ritual, but I can’t help but wonder if without all three Deathly Hallows, Harry might not just have died and immediately come back to life without the Kings Cross scene.

    If you think about the scene, all three Hallows are utilised. He remains unbeaten (the Elder Wand), has a conversation with his departed mentor (the Resurrection Stone) all the while being concealed from his enemies (the Invisibility Cloak).

    Not only that, but he then gets to choose whether he lives or not. In a way the choice is similar to the choice a witch or wizard makes to come back as a ghost, with the important difference being that Harry comes back completely alive. OR Dumbledore and Harry could have easily gotten on a train together and left the rest of the story to the others to finish (which gets really interesting when you think of Dumbledore as death and them departing as equals).

    It may be a stretch because blood magic is such a weird and complex thing, but I think that the fact that Harry got this out of body experience, conversation with Dumbledore and the choice over life and death, means that becoming “Master of Death” is more than just a symbolic thing.

    • Silverdoe25

      I was thinking along the same lines. Harry did have ownership of all 3 Hallows and direct possession of 2 of them in the forest. And he ends up mastering Death.

    • Phoenix

      I agree, and I think the fact that Harry is never physically in possession of all three of them at the same time even makes them even more powerful objects. It demostrates that physically holding an object and being its owner are two very different things in magic. Voldermort effectively attacks Harry with Harry’s own wand, and this is the reason for his defeat.

    • Slyvenpuffdor

      I think it’s a great thing that we don’t know what would happen if he didn’t possess the hallows. Also I think you bring up an important question: is Harry the master of death because he gets to choose life or death? Or because he conquered the fear of death by confronting it in the forest? hmmmm.

      • Fear of Death, I think. Harry was lucky to have that choice, full stop.

  • Yellow Badger

    The hosts discussed Ron and Hermione’s lack of fear of the depiction of Death in the Tale of the Three Brothers. This got me thinking of Ron being terrified of the Grim, the symbol of death in Prisoner of Azkaban. Ron can relate to the Grim, because his Uncle Bilius died shortly after seeing it. Interestingly, Ron’s middle name is Bilius, which might have increased his connection to his uncle and his fear of the Grim. There is no personal connection that Ron has to Death in the Tale of the Three Brothers, which can explain why it doesn’t frighten him.

  • The Pardoners Tale in short.
    The Pardoner is the person telling the tale. He is a horrid man who does not apologize for his misdeeds. He preeches a sermon about how greed is the root of evil. He then says he will tell a tale about greed.

    Three young men are in a tavern. They are drinking, gambling and commiting acts of blasphemy. The Pardoner states that they are gluttonous, they swear, they drink and gamble, when they shouldn’t.

    They hear a bell to signify a burial. The three young men had lost a friend. Their friend was killed by Death. They vowed that they were going to get revenge on Death and kill him.

    An old man tells them that he has asked Death to kill the three men, but has failed. He tells them that they can find Death at the foot of an oak tree.

    The three men go to the tree. At the foot of the tree they find a big pile of coins. They forget about their vow to kill Death. They choose to spend the night by the tree so that they can take the coins in the morning.

    They have a need for food and wine so they draw sticks. The youngest man draws the shortest stick and leaves. The other two men plot to overpower him on his return and stab him to Death. The youngest man plots to kill the other two also. He buys rat poison and puts it into the wine.

    Upon his return the other two men stab him to death. They then consume the food and poisoned wine and die slowly and painfully.

    The old man gets his wish and Death takes the three men.

    The Pardoners Tale is told to lighten the mood after the dark proceedings of the previous tale.

    That’s the Pardoners Tale in short.
    I also just realized I’ve logged into the wrong account. Luna Lives on Radishes Alone AKA I Got Transfigured into a Rhubarb.

  • The Half Blood Princess

    I haven’t read the pardoner’s tale, but after I read the thing JK Rowling said about the tale of the three brothers being based off of it, I, naturally, looked it up on wikipedia. It’s basically, 3 guys go out to kill Death. They find some gold under a tree. They forget about killing death, and send one of them to get food. The guy who’s getting food wants the gold all for himself, so he poisons the food. The other 2 also want the gold all to themself, so they decide to kill the guy getting the food. They do, then they eat the food and die.

    The tale of the three brothers reminds me of the golden bird. Both stories have 3 brothers, and the oldest 2 are foolish, while the youngest is the hero of the story.

    3 is a good number because the first two start a trend, (both of the first two brothers die soon after) and the last one breaks it (the third brother lives a long, happy life)

    I’d pick the cloak. Not because it’s the “right” answer, just because we never really get to see the power of the wand, so it’s just “this is an all powerful wand- just take my word for it. Oh, and people will try to kill you over it.” And the stone killed DD.

    I took this awesome workshop once called phycology of Harry Potter, and I ended up playing Harry in a skit about an AU where Harry kept using the sorceror’s stone after book 7.

  • When talking about the cloak, Xeno says that “None of them have ever seen such a thing.” and The possessor would be immeasurably rich, would he not?”

    First of all, ha, it’s possessor IS (though not immeasurably) rich, and second why exactly does Xeno think that with the cloak comes riches?

    • Phoenix

      Good question, I was wondering about that, too. Either Xenophilius thinks that the cloak will enable its owner to get rich by stealing, spying or the like – but that only works if the owner is that kind of person. An honest and law-abiding cloak owner would not necessarily be rich. Or Xeno thinks that the cloak itself is so valuable that possessing it makes the owner rich, even if it is the only thing they own.

    • TickleThePear

      I always took it to mean that that person would have the ability to steal, the ability to listen in on conversations to their profit, etc. Granted, as Phoenix says, it certainly depends on the type of person. I don’t see Harry for example, ever using his Invisibility cloak to profit monetarily.

      • Yeah, Harry already has tons (Gallons?) of money. Though maybe he needs his job to take care of his children, idk, 17 years later.

    • DoraNympha

      I think it probably just means that if the Cloak of the tale existed, it would be an invaluable, priceless object to have in one’s possession, therefore that person would be immesurably rich, not because of the abilities it grants or because it is worth so much in money but kind of like how a UNESCO site is irreplacable and so is more valuable than any giant skyscraper of the modern times. Like a really old crown or a mantle of a king or Tutankhamun’s mask or Ravenclaw’s diadem or Gryffindor’s sword, as a matter of fact, not valuable only because they are made of gold or might have magical abilities but because they are unique and irreplacable. (Can you tell I still mourn the loss of the diadem? Or the Stone?? oh dear…) These relics are not just valuable for their material or powers but because of their history, would sure be subjects of a Wizarding Trust or something, which would be cool.

      • So if we believe this (which kinda makes more sense then what I thought) then Xeno isn’t as learned in Hallow History as we (and indeed he) thinks he is. I would’ve thought that it would be a very key fact to finding them – this Hallow is passed from father to son, this one through battle and this one by chance.

        • DoraNympha

          Right, he might not know nearly as much about the Hallows as the trio, or maybe they just hadn’t got round to chatting about details enough to go into how they are passed down according to legend, but I mean it’s not a stretch to assume Xeno also has his own delusions about the Hallows like he does about most things. I wonder what he thinks, perhaps that the Stone is currently in the possession of international singing sensation Celestina Warbeck?

  • Okay, okay, interesting thought: Have we ever seen an example of Ron’s second saying (“Jinx by twilight, undone by midnight”) Maybe the Death Eaters in the café at the start of the book? But what time was that….

  • Rapier: From the French for “rasp”. This could be foreshadowing of his death… though arguably he never had time to rasp.

  • Arthur Dent

    For the record: I think Kevin Bacon might be a Slytherin — a “good” Slytherin in the Slughorn/Snape-way, though. 😉

  • TickleThePear

    On the theme of “belief” in HP…

    I was always particularly intrigued with the way Hermione based her knowledge in education in the traditional sense (books, exams, studying) even after being introduced to the thoroughly fantastical magical world. I imagine she was always a bookworm, even before learning she was a Witch. Perhaps the only way she was able to make sense of the new world she’d been thrust into was to throw herself into her studies the same way she did in the muggle world?

    Incidentally, I wonder how that initial conversation went when Hermione was told about Hogwarts. I believe Muggle-borns are visited by a professor from the school…who do you think went? Do you think they had to demonstrate magic (similar to how Dumbledore set Riddle’s wardrobe on fire) to “prove” to Hermione magic was real? Accepting an entirely magical world would be a big stretch for someone so rooted in facts.

    I agree with the sentiment that it would’ve been nice to see Hermione come full circle with the whole faith/belief thing. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think we ever see her take something on faith, though I think she may have been capable of it by the end of book 7.

    Great episode, as always guys!

    • SlytherinKnight

      I’m pretty sure that McGonagall was the one who visited Hermione when giving Hermione her letter. The Desk Pig scene isn’t it?

      But your point is one I’ve always had issue with regarding Hermione. Why is she so against believing in things that haven’t been discovered, when she is now living in a world that has unicorns, dragons and a whole bunch of different animals and things that the Muggle worlds believes to be nothing more than myth? I think JK went overboard in having Hermione hold onto that ‘seeing is believing’ characterization in the series, since she has no problem believing that she is a witch, has magic and can now do all these amazing things with magic but doesn’t believe in some other abstract theories.

      • Flying My Ford Anglia

        I’ve always found Hermione’s fixation on what can be proven to be the Ravenclaw in her showing. While she values bravery and shows a great deal of it herself, the sorting hat still seriously considered putting her in Ravenclaw. While some Ravenclaws go the Luna route, being open minded and curious, Hermione shows more of the type A logically oriented side of the house. I understand how faith would be difficult for her as it might mess abandoning how she understands the world and herself.

  • Phoenix

    Am I the only one who has always been slightly bothered by the fact that Hermione is wrong about the Hallows, although her reasoning is flawless? Hermione’s outrage at Xenophilius’ proposition that the absence of evidence to the contrary proves his claim is perfectly justified. The notion that someone is right if nobody can prove them wrong is widespread and a popular trick used by all kinds of pseudoscientists and denialists in order to silence critics. It can’t be pointed out often enough that this is utter nonsense. Hermione does just that, and she turns out to be mistaken. Although I like the intuitive way Harry eventually figures out the truth, I have always felt uneasy regarding the role Hermione plays in it.

    • MartinMiggs

      Yet there is evidence. No spell/magic can truly bring back the dead and the story shows the Ressurection stone cannot either. We know ghosts exist, Priori Incantatum in the graveyard scene brings back the dead so why can’t the stone exist? Xeno asks have you ever heard of a true cloak of invisibility and the trio thinks oh right Harry has one just like that. There is evidence of the Elder Wand’s existence. Dumbledore has used the symbol in his letters and has given a book to Hermione with the story for a reason. This is a world where a stone can make you immortal and a fable of a Hogwarts founder building a secret chamber where a monster purges the school of muggle borns is actually real so why can’t the Deathly Hallows exist? We are led to believe that maybe they do exist through Harry’s thoughts and dialogue so I am not bothered at all by Hermione being wrong this time she is human after all.

      • I think that it was a simple thing in Hermione’s mind; she might’ve even taken it as plausible but it is presented to her in the wrong way.
        Xeno begins loses her with the term ‘Quest’ his pedantic nature, his illogical stubbornness his unyielding belief in this kids bedtime story as gospel, and “Death as a Figure” as Hermione tells herself that there is no spell to rewaken the dead, that maybe Harry’s cloak is so old that it got added to some older legend, that it is wistful thinking that there is an Unbeatable Wand that can do anything… (“I s’pose this is the man that brought us the Crumple-Horned Snorkak” said Ron) then Harry goes mad in the tent (really though, Harry… “it’s in here?”) and finally cements her certainty.

        • Phoenix

          You’re right, and of course, this is a very clever trick employed by Jo: she chose to introduce us to an important concept through an utterly untrustworthy source. To be fair, many of us wouldn’t have believed it either, except that we knew we were reading a book called “The Deathly Hallows”, which is kind of a hint that such things exist. 🙂

  • Slyvenpuffdor

    Glad to be able to listen again after a hectic month! I only have a couple quick thoughts on the episode.

    Firstly, while the hosts were talking about the resurrection stone, I thought “What if the stone just projects memories of the user?” So either 1. It legitimately lets the user communicate with the souls of the dead OR 2. It projects memories from the user of the dead and creates a sort of painting-like half-life of the people the user wishes to communicate with. Thoughts? (I think this depends on whether or not the stone could resurrect people the user has no memory of, but I’m not sure we know if that’s possible).

    Second thought. Please forgive me if this is a movieism but I’m pretty sure it’s in the books (I don’t have my collection where I live) but there’s a moment when Luna explains thestrals to Harry in the woods (right?). I think this is an absolutely crucial moment in their friendship, the moment when they both have someone else who in some way understand their experience (to our knowledge the other students can’t see the thestrals right? Which is odd, you’d think more would be able to see them). This is definitely an emotionally charge moment, I think, for Harry, and builds a real amount of understanding and respect for Luna.

    • Alison

      I like the projected memories idea, but I think the scene in the Forest contradicts it. Harry clearly sees his parents, Sirius, and Lupin, and asks they questions that a projected memory wouldn’t be able to necessarily answer. You could argue they were generic, but if we follow JKR’s idea that they were there to usher Harry into death, they seem to be intended to be actually there in some way.
      And I’m pretty sure Harry and Luna in the forest is a movieism, though it’s one of my favorite reimagined scenes because it shows the connection that Harry finds both reassuring and weird between him and Luna (Hagrid teaches them about thestrals in CoMC class in the book).

  • Slyvenpuffdor

    A quick thought on the Veil: do we think it’s a natural phenomenon or that a wizard/witch created it?

    • I like to think of it the way Ryan did – an ancient piece of magic (druids?) meant for sacrifices or worship that became buried underground and was then just another good reason to build the Ministry in this area, so wizards can study it.

    • lifeanddragons

      ALIENS.

      • Yeah, yeah, just like Newgrange. Though Jedi can use magic.

  • DreamGalleon88

    With what was brought up in this chapter discussion about the similarities between Luna and Harry as characters, I think this comparison is well thought out, though probably in more ways than a reader would initially realize. The quote that most stresses the connection between Harry and Luna, to me, is in the sixth movie, Half-Blood Prince, when Dumbledore says “…at times I still see the small boy from the cupboard.” Both Luna and Harry were virtually cut-off from the wizarding world during their summers away from Hogwarts. Harry was with the Dursleys, muggles almost insane with their hatred of wizards; Luna was with her father, a man almost insane from losing his wife. Un till they came to Hogwarts, Harry certainly didn’t have any friends and it is implied that Luna didn’t have friends either, as evident from the amount of time and detail she’s put into decorating her room. It is well established in the book series that both Harry and Luna share experiences seeped in grief, while also being able to see thestrals, but I believe Luna is the only other person Harry meets who has spent lonely months in seclusion also. Although it can be said that Luna has a better relationship with her father than Harry surely does with the Dursleys, it seems that Harry wasn’t the only isolated wizard who sat waiting for September 1st to arrive, and for letters to be brought to his room that took years to come. Each time I reread this chapter, I hope that while Harry is exploring Luna’s room, he will notice a stack of opened letters her new Hogwarts friends (Hermione, Neville, Ginny, Ron or Harry) had sent to her over the summer.

  • DreamGalleon88

    Has anyone thought that the Resurrection Stone could be made of jet? I feel that this stone’s history fits with the mystery surrounding the identity of the Resurrection Stone. Several coincidences in the stone’s characteristics create similarities between that and the Resurrection Stone. First, jet is created from wood (a connection with the Elder Wand perhaps, it also being a Deathly Hallow). Also jet has been around for millions of years, making it certainly old enough to be used during the life time of the Peverell brothers, and specifically jet has been used countless times in Britain over the years. I discovered recently that not only did people hundreds of years ago associate jet with having unique curative abilities, but that, by the end of the medieval period, it was being admired more than ever (around the time the Peverell brothers were alive). Afterwards, jet was commonly worn as jewelry when a person suffered a death of someone close to them.

    • Okay, wow. This is so true, especially when you consider you can cut it to make it all shiny. And the history/meaning suits it better then onyx. ‘Commonly worn as jewellery when a person suffers a death of someone close to them’… yup, this is it.

  • Georgia Scherer

    I was thinking about what you said about personifying death, and it occurred to me, the definition of personification is giving human qualities to an animal or object. But I can’t seem to think of death as an object. When I try to picture death as a person, I can’t help picturing him as a dark cloud. But would you consider death an object or an animal or a person? Or could you think of death as an idea? Am I alone in this opinion?

    • Death as a Humanoid is a wistful idea.

    • lifeanddragons

      You could call it a personification, but in reality most myths and stories feature a character that draws you to death (as is the case in the Tale of The Three brothers), and death in and by itself is a separate event that happens to a person. In Hindu mythology its a dark skinned God by the name Yama, who rides a buffalo and carries a noose. When it’s your time to go and if you haven’t been a good person in your life, be prepared to be dragged by the neck to death.

  • Georgia Scherer

    I think that Luna’s painting seeming to come alive is just a result of her talent. She seems like the type of girl who might have a certain hidden talent such as painting. And until the seventh book, there really is no mention of Luna enjoying painting.

    • Or that masterpiece from Dobby was actually created by Luna.

  • Georgia Scherer

    I would choose the cloak purely because I agree with you that it would be awesome to be able to like sneak around invisible and know everybody’s secrets.

  • Mypatronusisadoberman

    On The Partner’s Tale from Canterbury Tales: Didn’t Rosie study medieval English literature at university? Where is Rosie when we need her?

  • Mypatronusisadoberman

    On the symbols of death scattered throughout the series: You guys completely skipped over the one most obvious to me, which was Sirius as “the grim” in Book 3. Poor Sirius; he was doomed from the start.

  • Mypatronusisadoberman

    On the master of death discussion, I’ve always found it quite fascinating that at the moment that Harry presents himself to Voldemort in the forest, he is already the master of death, which is why he cannot die. In fact, if you look closely, it is indeed Harry’s ownership of all three Hallows that keeps him alive. Specifically, I believe it is his ownership of the Elder Wand that prevents Harry from dying, as the wand seems to have refused to kill its own master, just as it does later in the final battle.

    Also intriguing is the fact that Dumbledore was ALMOST a master of death, but he didn’t quite make it. True, he did briefly possess all three Hallows at the same time, but he was never able to use the stone. He tried, but he was instead cursed with the touch of death itself. Only Harry Potter was ever able to utilize all three Hallows and truly become the “master of death.”

  • SpinnersEnd

    I think Harry could be the embodiment of all four characters in the Tale of the Three Brothers. At face value, he needs the Elder Wand, he wants the Stone and, in the end, chooses the Cloak. He is on a mission to kill Voldemort, so I think he very well could possibly take on the roll of all four characters.

  • SpinnersEnd

    One of my favorite things about this book is the fact that it is Xeno Lovegood that tells the Trio the Tale of the Three Brothers. Xeno is a really unreliable character. The Trio, and we as readers, aren’t certain we can trust the things he says because he may or may not be a little crazy. If this story had been told to us by almost anyone else, we wouldn’t have questioned it so much, we’d have taken it as a matter of course. If this information had been given to us by anyone else, Hermione would have been more inclined to accept it, and, by proxy, so would we.

  • lifeanddragons

    Sure we can give Harry credit for the detective work of this chapter, but there is no taking away from the blunders that happened at Godric’s Hollow. Harry still has a long way to go…

  • WhoDoYouKnowWho’sLostAButtock?

    I’ve brought up this theory before when talking about archetypes and archetypal shapes, but I’m bringing it up again now because it really speaks to the Dumbledore-as-Death theory.

    Dumbledore functions as Death in the sense that he is the source of the Cloak, the Stone and the Wand for the various characters that possess them (mainly Harry and Voldy). But he is also Death in the items he bestows on our own trio in his will. The items he leaves each member of the trio parallels the item each member of the trio says they would choose for themselves once they hear the Tale of the Three Brothers.

    The Hallows symbolize three things: wisdom, power and (depending on your interpretation) regret, love, or seeking something out of reach. Each of the trio seeks one of those things in a rather primal way.

    Ron answers, “The wand.” To him, the wand of ultimate power would be the best thing to have, which makes sense, as he is a character who often feels powerless. He wishes to have more power in his own life, his choices, and how he is perceived by others. Fittingly, he is willed a Deluminator by Dumbledore, which mimics the cylindrical shape of a wand, and it is an instrument of power. It gives him the power to return to his friends when he feels most powerless.

    Hermione answers, “The cloak.” Her choice is mimicked in the book she is given. Both are gifts of knowledge and wisdom, and provide the recipient with the wisdom to make the best choices. They are both, in a way, a protection, to those who know how to use them. And again, the basic shape is mimicked when you imagine a broader, flatter shape, something which can cover. (The cloak isn’t necessarily a true triangle, so it’s a passable comparison with the book. But if you want to get pickier, the book is marked with the Hallows symbol, so I think that’s a passable triangle tie-in in terms of archetypal shapes being mirrored.)

    Finally, Harry answers, “The stone.” He is given the Snitch (and of course the Stone) by Dumbledore — the round shape, the circle, the journey that ends where it begins, “I open at the close.” These are dual symbols when paired. The Snitch is a reminder of his direct, literal role as Seeker, as well as his role as the Seeker of the Hallows, the Horcruxes, and the truth. He is also left the Stone, as the thing which will enable his seeking, and again, mimics the sphere of the hero’s arc. It’s been observed how important shapes are in the series, particularly circles — for example, the shapes of glasses. As Hogwarts Professor John Granger has pointed out, Dumbledore wears half-moon shaped spectacles, symbolizing that he only partially completed the circular journey of the hero, but did not complete it, whereas Harry is characterized by his perfectly round spectacles, the shape of the true hero’s journey, the completed character and the whole, undamaged self.

    Together, the three are able to face down death. Together, the book, the Deluminator, and the Snitch lead them to the true objects they foreshadow. And each object from Dumbledore’s will is given to the one whom it suits most. Hermione gains the knowledge of the Hallows, Ron gains the power to rejoin his friends and follow his true path, and Harry gains both the final Hallow and the way to end his search, if only temporarily, and be reunited with those he has been seeking his entire life. Wisdom, power, and the search.

  • WhoDoYouKnowWho’sLostAButtock?

    I have also always loved the names of the Peverell brothers. Antiochus has such a strong Biblical connotation for me, but interestingly, Antiochus IV historically was a rather power-hungry, ambitious man who loved conquering and invading, and died in a fascinating way: “According to the second book of maccabees, he died in the following manner : “But the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel , struck him an incurable and unseen blow. As soon as he ceased speaking he was seized with a pain in his bowels for which there was no relief and with sharp internal tortures – and that very justly, for he had tortured the bowels of others with many and strange inflictions. Yet he did not in any way stop his insolence, but was even more filled with arrogance, breathing fire in his rage against the Jews, and giving orders to hasten the journey. And so it came about that he fell out of his chariot as it was rushing along, and the fall was so hard as to torture every limb of his body.”[21]”

    A fitting end for a violent man, to die tortured as he had tortured others.

    Cadmus is a quieter name, historically. It’s related to the Greek mythology character of Cadmus, known to many as the ‘father of the word’ or alphabet. Sent to fetch his abducted sister Europa back from Tyre.

    And finally, Ignotus, meaning “unknown.” Even now, we have the word ‘ignoble,’ which means humble, unassuming.

    They always make me smile, these names.

  • Yo Rufus On Fire

    I really like the talk about the number 3. I looked into where 3 is used throughout the Bible. Here is what I found. The meaning of this number derives from the fact that it is the first of four spiritually perfect numerals (the others being 7, 10 and 12). This is interesting because 7, and 12 are used a lot throughout the series. Only three people were allowed to ask God ANYTHING. They were Solomon (1Kings 3:5), Ahaz (Isaiah 7:11) and, of course, Jesus Christ (Psalm 2:9). This reminds me of the three brothers who could ask Death to have anything they wanted. The three gifts given to Israel by God were his law, the land of their inheritance, and their calling (the world to come). This is like the gifts that Death gave to the three brothers. These are only a few small connections to the bible, but I love how versatile Harry Potter is.

  • DoraNympha

    Two things about Portkeys and the Taboo:

    – You guys talked about whether there’s a portkey-delivery service in place: there could be, but Portkeys have to be licenced by the Ministry so it’s more likely that fragile stuff is delivered by some summoning charm if not by owl. And not everything can be delivered by owl, some things might blow up, melt, go cold, or something that can’t be helped with a charm, or if things are ordered by people who can’t undo conservation charms (e.g. Freezing Charm on some ice-cream? You’d have to put the charm on the box not the product OR yes deliver it by summoning charm instead of owl.) The thing is, though, you’d have to take it on trust that the payment for the item will be sent back to you because there’d be no owl to pick and bite at the buyer until they put some coins in their pouch or something. But why didn’t the Death Eaters come by Portkey/Apparition/Floo? Why did they come by broomsticks? The Ministry is under their control now, surely it could have been arranged in a second. (Maybe they just fancied stretching their legs a bit?)

    – Which brings me to my other point: in the movie, Xeno calls the DEs by uttering Voldemort’s name. And I wondered if there are actually helpful ways of using a charm like the taboo. Most importantly, an utterance that acts as a taboo-call to St Mungo’s in case of an emergency or accident where someone can’t be taken to the hospital or there’s no one around to help them and it would take way too long to owl the hospital or something. This magical ambulance call would work on the same principle as the taboo, wouldn’t it? What Ron experienced when uttering Hermione’s name and being lead to them was kind of the same magic, too, wasn’t it?

  • Mythrandier

    I’ve thought about other trios that could stand in for the three brothers and I keep coming back to Grindewald, Albus, and Aberforth.
    Grindewald is the first brother because he is interested in power. I say Albus is the second brother because he is most haunted by the deaths of Ariana, Kendra, and Percival. These are his personal ghosts. Aberforth is relatable to the third brother because, as I suspect, he has always felt invisible. Aberforth has always had to live in his brother’s shaddow; he keeps his head down and just wants to be left alone. In some ways, Aberforth is the most humble Dumbledore.
    I put Ariana in the role of Death because it is her death which causes this trio to go each their own way. If she had not died “at the proper moment,” events would have unfolded very differently.

  • Mythrandier

    I’ve thought about other trios that could stand in for the three brothers and I keep coming back to Grindewald, Albus, and Aberforth.
    Grindewald is the first brother because he is interested in power. I say Albus is the second brother because he is most haunted by the deaths of Ariana, Kendra, and Percival. These are his personal ghosts. Aberforth is relatable to the third brother because, as I suspect, he has always felt invisible. Aberforth has always had to live in his brother’s shaddow; he keeps his head down and just wants to be left alone. In some ways, Aberforth is the most humble Dumbledore.
    I put Ariana in the role of Death because it is her death which causes this trio to go each their own way. If she had not died “at the proper moment,” events would have unfolded very differently.

  • Mythrandier

    I think maybe what is meant by “Master of Death” is that the bearer of the Hallows can pass between the worlds of the living and of the dead. That is, she could pass through the veil currently at the Ministry and come back through. Maybe such a person could actually bring back people with her, like a more successful Orpheus.

    With the cloak, one could pass through the literal veil unseen. The stone would allow one to summon those to be brought back. The wand would allow one to conquer any defenses met on the other side.

    This could be what the Unspeakables at the Ministry are studying. Then again, it could simply be like The Cave in the show ‘Merlin.’ Points to anyone who gets that reference.

  • DisKid

    Anyone who tries to beat the Ravenclaw player in the video game: Use an online computer game where your piece is her pieces and the computer is your piece. Do the same move she does and the computer will show you what move to do for yours. She’s good, but she’s never beaten me when I’ve used the computer trick hehe. I’m so bad.

    I also wonder what the true story behind the Deathly Hallows is. Many real life fairy tales are based on real people and, sometimes, possessions they have; but the plot of the story was made up to make a good story. I wonder if the story of the Deathly Hallows is made up plot wise with only the brothers and their items being true. Especially since it was pointed out later in the book it would be improbable for Ignotus to hide his entire life from death with the cloak. If this is the case, I wonder what the real story is behind why they invented these items. Especially the invisibility cloak. The wand, it’s a good guess that the wizard really did want to be the most powerful wand holder. Perhaps he was picked on or not very good at magic to begin with. The resurrection stone is probably the easiest to figure out. I bet that man really did miss his wife dearly and wan to see her. But what is the need to invent an invisibility cloak other than you’re either nosy or trying to hide from somebody? And the ultimate question: if death didn’t really give the brothers these items (for the sake of the argument that the plot is not true), then who invented these items and how did they do it? Whoever did so, very smart and creative person!

  • Batty Bags

    It’s been a while since I posted, but this chapter is so important that I had written a paper on the connection between the philosopher’s stone and the resurrection stone:

    Each time I read the
    Harry Potter series, I find more and more connections between subjects,
    characters, and objects in the books. These connections seem to run deeper than
    just general and vague connections, but sometimes crop up again, and again… To
    the point of not being ignored. One such connection I find in the series is the
    connection between each book, and a Horcrux. I personally believe that each
    Horcrux, and for all intents and purposes Harry’s Scar, find a specific
    connection to each book. These connections are great “Easter Eggs” and add
    certain depth to the books, that take them from simply amazing books, to some
    of the most intriguing writing I have had the pleasure to read outside of scripture.

    In this paper, I plan to explore the
    connections between Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, and the
    Resurrection Stone. In a book that Hermione had checked out from the library,
    we read “The ancient study of alchemy is
    concerned with making the Sorcerer’s Stone, a legendary substance with
    astonishing powers. The stone will transform any metal into pure gold. It also
    produces the Elixir of Life, which will make the drinker immortal.” [1]From
    this definition, we find that the stone deals with monetary wealth and
    immortality. What interests me about this stone can be summed up by Albus, “You know, the Stone was really not such a
    wonderful thing. As much money and life as you could want! The two things most
    human beings would choose above all – the trouble is, humans do have a knack of
    choosing precisely those things that ware worst for them.”[2]
    I love this insight. To me, it marks Riddle’s ultimate downfall: his
    inability to accept death. In book 6 we read “There is nothing to be feared from a body, Harry, any more than there
    is anything to be feared from the darkness. Lord Voldemort, who of course
    secretly fears both, disagrees. But once again he reveals his own lack of
    wisdom. It is the unknown we fear when we look upon death and darkness, nothing
    more.”[3]
    I find this explanation by Albus quite fascinating. We see him teach Harry time
    and time again to not fear death. I don’t think he teaches him to embrace it,
    but rather to accept that it will happen.

    I
    personally think that this is one of the tools Voldemort inadvertently arms
    Harry with, the ability to accept death. Harry has had quite a bit of time to
    accept major deaths in his life. His mother, father, Cedric, Sirius, Albus,
    Remus, Severus, and Fred are some of the major deaths he has to accept before
    going in to the forest to allow Voldemort to kill him. I think this uniquely
    prepared Harry to accept his own death with the aid of the Resurrection Stone in
    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

    This
    brings me of course to the Resurrection Stone. In “The Tales of Beedle the
    Bard” we read “Then the second brother,
    who was an arrogant man, decided that he wanted to humiliate Death still
    further, and asked for the power to recall others from Death. So Death picked
    up a stone from the riverbank, and gave it to the second brother, and told him
    that the stone would have the power to bring back the dead.”[4]
    What really helps me make the connection between the Philosophers Stone, and
    the Resurrection Stone is the comment Hermione makes while discussing the
    subject with Harry. “Beedle probably took
    the idea from the Sorcerer’s Stone; you know, instead of a stone to make you
    immortal, a stone to reverse death.”[5]With
    this thought from Hermione, we can establish the connection. The objects are so
    similar, and play such an important role in the story.

    Interestingly enough, Ron catches
    the morality side of the tale. “Nah, that
    story’s just one of those things you tell kids to teach them lessons, isn’t it?
    ‘Don’t go looking for trouble, don’t pick fights, don’t go messing around with
    stuff that’s best left alone! Just keep your head down, mind your own business,
    and you’ll be okay.”[6]Although
    I think he misses the actual morals trying to be taught in the story, I do
    think it is a morality tale. We learn later that Harry is the only one to ever
    master the stone. Once again, I credit this to his ability to accept death. “Like rain on a cold window, these thoughts
    pattered against the hard surface of the incontrovertible truth, which was that
    he must die. I must die. It must end.”[7]”The
    black stone with its jagged crack running down the center sat in the two halves
    of the Snitch. The Resurrection Stone had cracked down the vertical line
    representing the Elder Wand. The triangle and circle representing the Cloak and
    the stone were still discernible. And again Harry understood without having to
    think. It did not matter about bringing them back, for he was about to join
    them. He was not really fetching them: They were fetching him.”[8]This
    thought is further explained by Albus. “After
    another short pause Harry said, “You tried to use the Resurrection Stone.”
    Dumbledore nodded. “When I discovered it, after all those years, buried in the
    abandoned home of the Gaunts – the Hallow I had craved most of all, though in
    my youth I had wanted it for very different reasons – I lost my head, Harry. I
    quite forgot that it was now a Horcrux, that the ring was sure to carry a
    curse. I picked it up, and I put it on, and for a second I imagined that I was
    about to see Ariana, and my mother, and my father, and to tell them how very,
    very sorry I was… “I was such a fool Harry. After all those years I had learned
    nothing. I was unworthy to unite the Deathly Hallows, I had proved it time and
    again, and here was final proof.”… The stone I would have used in an attempt to
    drag back those who are at peace, rather than to enable my self-sacrifice, as
    you did. You are the worthy possessor of the Hallows.”… If you laid hands on
    (the hallows), I wanted you to possess them safely. You are the true master of
    death, because the true master does not seek to run away from Death. He accepts
    that he must die, and understands that there are far, far worse things in the
    living world than dying.”[9]
    It’s very interesting to me that even Albus stumbles when it comes to the
    Resurrection Stone. Even though his feelings are understandable, it is only
    Harry and the unique outlooks he contains that master the stone.

    Albus believed that love was the
    only power Harry possessed that Voldemort did not, but I feel that is not
    entirely true. I think Harry’s ability to accept the death of others, and his
    own death is power that Voldemort also doesn’t have. In the Half-Blood Prince,
    we read “Was my father a wizard? He was
    called Tom Riddle too, they’ve told me.” “I’m afraid I don’t know,” said Dumbledore,
    his voice gentle. “My mother can’t have been magic, or she wouldn’t have died,”
    said Riddle, more to himself than to Dumbledore.[10]This
    enlightening passage helps us to understand Voldemort’s motivation. It’s
    interesting how similar Harry and Voldemort’s childhood situations truly are.
    Both are orphans through no fault of their own. Both live in places that
    reluctantly give them room and board. Yet, they each react in very different
    ways. Harry meekly accepts his lot in life, while Voldemort uses his
    extraordinary gifts to terrorize those around him. Harry accepts that his
    parents will not come back, while Voldemort blames his parents for his
    circumstances.

    Both Voldemort and Harry pick up on
    their similarities during and after the confrontation in Harry Potter and the
    Chamber of Secrets. Seeing that this might discourage Harry, Albus tells Harry that
    his choices make the difference. He was put in Gryffindor because he asked the
    sorting hat to do so. While trying to help Harry understand his unique gifts in
    the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Albus says “It is essential that you understand this!” said Dumbledore, standing
    up and striding about the room, his glittering robes swooshing in his wake;
    Harry had never seen him so agitated. By attempting to kill you, Voldemort
    himself singled out the remarkable person who sits in front of me, and gave him
    the tools for the job! It is Voldemort’s fault that you were able to see into
    his thoughts, his ambitions, that you even understand the snakelike language in
    which he gives orders, and yet, Harry, despite your privileged insight into
    Voldemort’s world (which, incidentally, is a gift any Death Eater would kill to
    have), you have never been seduced by the Dark Arts, never, even for a second,
    shown the slightest desire to become one of Voldemort’s followers!” “Of Course
    I haven’t!” said Harry indignantly. “He killed my mum and dad!” “You are
    protected, in short, by your ability to love!” said Dumbledore loudly. “The
    only protection that can possibly work against the lure of power like
    Voldemort’s! In spite of all the temptation you have endured, all the
    suffering, you remain pure of heart, just as pure as you were at the age of
    eleven, when you stared into a mirror that reflected your heart’s desire, and
    it showed you only the way to thwart Lord Voldemort, and not immortality or
    riches. Harry, have you any idea how few wizards could have seen what you saw
    in that mirror? Voldemort should have known then what he was dealing with, but
    he did not! But he knows it now. You have flitted into Lord Voldemort’s mind
    without damage to yourself, but he cannot possess you without enduring mortal
    agony, as he discovered in the Ministry. I do not think he understands why,
    Harry, but then, he was in such a hurry to mutilate his own soul, he never
    paused to understand the incomparable power of a soul that is untarnished and
    whole.”[11]

    With this passage (which is one of
    my favorites) we have the whole issue clarified to us by Albus. Its Harry’s
    ability to love, accept death, and his desire to save others that gives him
    power over Voldemort. “He was more afraid
    than you were that night, Harry. You had accepted, even embraced, the possibility
    of death, something Lord Voldemort has never been able to do.”[12]Voldemort
    only cares about the legacy his family left him. Even at the young age of 11 he
    only had use for his family as long as they were powerful. His mother’s
    inability to stay alive underlined a weakness in her as far as he was
    concerned. His father and grandparents were killed to “prune his family tree”.
    He spends his entire life making himself immortal, and making himself the most
    powerful wizard ever. How interesting that those are the two things that the
    sorcerer’s stone provide: immortality and wealth. “That
    which Voldemort does not value, he takes no trouble to comprehend. Of
    house-elves, and children’s tales, of love, loyalty, and innocence, Voldemort
    knows and understands nothing. Nothing. That they all have a power beyond his
    own, a power beyond the reach of any magic, is a truth he has never grasped.”[13]

    In contrast, Harry spends his life
    trying to make sure others don’t experience the horrific loss of loved ones to
    the dark arts. He focuses on his friendship with Ron and Hermione, and makes
    sure that he is there to thwart Voldemort at every turn. He cherishes the
    sacrifice that both his mother and father, as well as others made for him. He
    mourns the loss of every person that dies for him, and eventually presents
    himself to Voldemort to keep others from being hurt. Once again, I point out
    the symmetry in Rowling’s writing when Voldemort tries to twist Harry’s
    sacrifice into an attempt to run and hide.

    I think the ultimate connection
    between the two stones is in the way Harry collects the stones. In Harry Potter
    and the Sorcerer’s Stone, we read “He saw
    his reflection, pale and scared-looking at first. But a moment later, the
    reflection smiled at him. It put its hand into its pocket and pulled out a
    blood-red tone. It winked and put the Stone back in its pocket – and as it did
    son, Harry felt something heavy drop into his real pocket. Somehow –
    incredibly—he’d gotten the Stone.”[14]
    Albus explains this event to Harry later on in the book. “You see, only one who wanted to find the Stone – find it, but not use
    it – would be able to get it, otherwise they’d just see themselves making gold
    or drinking Elixir of Life.” [15]Throughout
    the first book, Harry is prepared for when he steps in front of the mirror. He
    is shown its functionality by Dumbledore during the Christmas holidays. When
    the time comes, as quoted earlier, Harry looks in to the mirror and finds a way
    to thwart Voldemort. This closely mirrors how Harry obtains the Resurrection
    Stone. “Hermione looked simply bemused.
    Ron, however, gasped, pointing frantically from Harry to the Snitch and back
    again until he found his voice. “That was the one you nearly swallowed!”
    “Exactly,” said Harry, and with his heart beating fast, he pressed his mouth to
    the Snitch. It did not open. Frustration and bitter disappointment welled up
    inside him: He lowered the golden sphere, but then Hermione cried out.
    “Writing! There’s writing on it, quick, look!” He nearly dropped the Snitch in
    surprise and excitement. Hermione was quite right. Engraved upon the smooth
    golden surface, where seconds before there had been nothing, were five words
    written in the thin, slanting handwriting that Harry recognized as
    Dumbledore’s: I open at the close.” Just like with the mirror of erised,
    Albus had given just enough clues for Harry to figure out the use of the Stone,
    between the Snitch and Hermione’s copy of “The Tales of Beedle the Bard.”
    Throughout the book, Harry continually returns to the Snitch, and its purpose.
    When he learns of the Deathly Hallows, he correctly assumes that Albus left him
    the Stone in the Snitch. As previously quoted, Albus wanted to make sure that
    Harry was ready when he obtained the Hallows. Albus had already remarked about
    how few people could actually look in to the mirror and see what he saw, and I
    will say that even fewer people could have had the strength to tell the snitch
    that they were going to die. The symmetry between these two events proves to me
    that the Sorcerer’s Stone and the Resurrection Stone are indeed connected.

    I loved all of the connections I found between these two
    objects, and how they lead to other connections that I will be exploring as I
    look in to other Books and Horcruxes.

    [1]
    Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, Page 220 US Edition

    [2]
    Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, Page 297 US Edition

    [3]
    Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, Page 566

    [4]
    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, page 407 US edition

    [5]
    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, page 416 US edition

    [6]
    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, page 414 US edition

    [7]
    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, page 693 US edition

    [8]
    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, page 698 US edition

    [9]
    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, pages 719-721 US edition

    [10]
    Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, page 275 US edition

    [11]
    Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, pages 510-511 US edition

    [12]
    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, page 711 US edition

    [13]
    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, pages 709-710 US edition

    [14]
    Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, page 292 US edition

    [15]
    Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, page 300 US edition

  • Mischief Managed

    While I was listening, the hosts speculated about the stone being somehow taken from the archway holding the veil.

    This sent me into conspiracy theory mode and I immediately thought “what if all three came from the veil?”

    So I came up with this: the stone was taken from the archway. The cloak was somehow derived from the veil itself…part of the veil itself was somehow imbued into the cloak. After all, this is supposed to be the cloak of death itself. Finally, the wand was taken from an elder bush growing right next to the veil itself.

  • PenelopeClearwater

    I always felt this air of neglect during these two chapters in the Lovegood home. Almost that Xenon became paralyzed after Pandora’s death. I liken his decisions to that of Marissa Malloy’s. They both would do anything to save their children. But both have a little Slytherin going on. I don’t think Lily would have given up someone else’s child, like Xeno did, to save her child. I don’t think Lily would have pointed to say…Neville and the Longbottoms in order to save Harry. That’s the biggest difference between her moment in front of Harry’s crib and Xeno standing with his arms spread wide in front of the stairs to prevent the trio from leaving.

  • Narsista’s Mista

    I’ve always been curious as to the wand woods and cores of Dumbledore and Grindlewald before either obtained the Elder Wand, especially in this episode as you discussed how they seem to reflect the masters personality, though sometimes rather loosely (almost in the way star signs are to muggles). I don’t believe we ever get specification as to Dumbledore or Grindlewald’s wand specs, and thought it would be interesting to speculate as to how their personalities would be summed up by a wand.

    Along this train of thought, I imagine a wand choosing a wizard has much to do with this personality reflection, and was wondering if as one grows and develops, whether one could ‘outgrow’ a wand by having a change in personality or value. Is this possible, or do you always retain the same core values? We know that, of course, Dumbledore obtains the Elder Wand, but (debatably) he has been through a change in perspective regarding his ideas of the greater good. If he had not switched to the Elder Wand when he defeated Grindlewald, would he have had to do so anyway because his ideas had reversed?

    I also wanted to compare the ‘particular affinity’ that the Elder Wand bearer is said to feel for those with a Rowan wood wand to the relationship between Dumbledore and Grindlewald. Grindlewald has the mysterious, superiour demeanour with possibly dark intentions that could be reflective of the Elder Wand.He at least believes himself to have the ‘special destiny’ that Olivander explains on Pottermore, and holds the incredible power to match the wand’s. In a way can be considered ‘deeply unlucky’ to those around him, considering the world domination and everything.
    Dumbledore, on the other hand, is ‘much favoured’, is ‘reputed to be more protective than any other’, is able to be ‘defensive’ and ‘difficult to break’, and at his core, is not an evil person, which fits as ‘no dark witch or wizard has ever owned a rowan wand.’ He is ‘clear-headed’ and ‘pure hearted’, but still ‘the equal of any, often the better, and frequently out-perform others in duels’. Both these wand woods reflect my ideas of Dumbledore and Grindlewald very suitably, and I feel are what each wizard considers, perhaps unconciously, to be his true or preferred wand.