Comments on: Episode #3: Just how dead is Dumbledore?

By: Laura

Laura — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:18:59 +0000

I was reading these comments and what IF he made a horcrux for himself? Sorry, pretty late on this comment, but somebody just sent me the link. As you may or may not know, Dumbledore DID say, “I will only have truly left this school when none are loyal to me…” I haven’t read books 6, or 7 yet, so I can’t really say anything further, but I think it means he’s still alive. (Sorry if this makes no sense, I have a killer headache right now. D:)

By: Ginny

Ginny — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:14:47 +0000

There is just one thing I want to say. HARRY IS NOT A HORCRUX. I say this because Dumbledore said that making a horcrux out of a living thing would be risky. Harry has pretty much had every injury in the book. Broken arm, huge cut, lots of negative spells, blah blah blah. Not to mentoin Voldemort wants to kill him. Now, lets think. Why would Voldemort want to kill somthing that had his soul in it??? Why would he want to bring himself closer to his own end??? If anyone has a RESONABLE answer to these questions, I’d sure like to hear them. BRING IT ON!!!

By: penny

penny — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:23:18 +0000

OK, that makes more sense now

According to an interview I read recently with JK Rowling, apparently we will be learning a lot about Dumbledore and his past in the 7th book. Whether it will be through is penseive or diaries or perhaps his brother, Aberforth will be the one who gives the information- I think whatever we do learn about him will be significant.

I don’t think that Dumbledore would make a horcrux for himself simply because of the way he explained the horcruxes to Harry. He was specific when he said that when someone makes a horcrux, they are splitting their own soul. He obviously had many issues with that. Also, someone (like Voldemort) would make a HOrcrux because they are afraid of their own mortality. Dumbledore didn’t fear death at all “To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.” (Quote from HP and the Sorcere’s/Philospher’s Stone)

By: J.O.

J.O. — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 03:37:52 +0000

Sorry, I see I mistyped what I intended to. I was wondering if Dumbledore ever made a horcrux *for* himself, not whether Dumbledore himself ever was a horcrux. We really don’t know how much of the Dark Arts Dumbledore knows, do we? Nor do we know much about his past. Also, how much do we know about this “war” with Voldemort? Presumably Dumbledore would have taken some small part, and presumably some dark wizards were killed (not saved for the Veil).

Anyway, this idea has probably been done to death elsewhere.

Keep up the good work!

By: penny

penny — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:13:49 +0000

I don’t think so because it was Voldemort who made the horcruxes. As far as Voldemort making Dumbledore a horcrux, he would have had to kill someone (I am thinking) while he was in close proximity to Dumbledore. I can see why Dumbledore would have been a good horcrux though being such a strong wizard and all. Good thought!

By: J.O.

J.O. — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:44:48 +0000

A strange idea came to me as I was rereading Half-Blood Prince; could Dumbledore have ever made himself a horcrux?

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 02:10:45 +0000

Janice, I think you are right. I also think Petunia will figure prominently in Book 7, we should talk more about this.

By: Janice

Janice — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:51:42 +0000

It’s very interesting to speculate about someone having been under that invisibility cloak at Godric’s hollow – or maybe even at some other death or significant past event. I’m not convinced that it was Dumbledore under the cloak, but I do find intriguing the idea of a parallel between Harry under the cloak witnessing Dumbledore’s death, and someone else in the past having undergone a similar experience of invisible ‘forced witness’ – either of the Potter’s death, or of something else. I haven’t any detailed speculations to add, but it’s a very interesting line of thought.

In reference to the comment above about the phoenix patronus that Penny didn’t remember – it’s not in the books, but I think JKR told us that it was a phoenix in an interview. Something else that also came out in an interview is that the 4 houses represent the 4 traditional elements – earth (Hufflepuff), air (Ravenclaw), water (Slytherin), and fire (Gryffindor). JKR also said something about the elements needing “balance”, but now the houses are “fragmented”. (I think you can find the quotes if you google some logical combo of words.)

The phoenix symbol is quite interesting, as are the fire associations. The phoenix symbolism is tied to Dumbledore, as his pet and his patronus; the phoenix is the symbol of the “good guys” via the Order of the Phoenix; and the phoenix is “fire-born,” while Gryffindor is associated with the fire element. There may be something here about symbolic “re-birth” of something – hope, values, faith, the “good” side, who knows? – through “trial by fire” or through a cycle of death of the old and rebirth in new generations. Maybe the phoenix should be read less as “Dumbledore will be back” (which we know is not true), and more as “what Dumbledore stood for/fought for” will be “reborn” in Harry, or Harry as the “torch bearer” of the good fight will have to undergo “trial by fire” to take his place as the leader Dumbledore was, etc. This is especially interesting insofar that the idea of death and RE-birth in the next generation in sort of a natural cycle stands in contrast to Voldemort’s fear of death and quest for eternal life in this world (“vol de mort” is sort of approximate French for “flight from death” or “theft of death”), death-eaters, etc. Perhaps there is some Christian symbolism involved too.

I don’t know, I’m just throwing some symbolic associations out there – they may not all be accurate, but I do think the use of the phoenix and fire association have symbolic value.

By: penny

penny — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 03:14:20 +0000

Leslie- Thanks for the comment. I agree with you- I am sure there is a good reason (as JKR has discussed in the books) that Harry has to be with his family (specifically Petunia) over the summers. I still wonder how responsible it was of Dumbledore to keep Harry there for the first 11 years of his life and during the summers. He was clearly mistreated by the muggles. Was nobody (especially Dumbledore) concerned that the “saviour of the wizarding world” was malnurished and verbally if not physically abused?

By: Leslie

Leslie — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:42:45 +0000

I disagree with the comment about why didn’t Dumbledore just let Harry stay in Hogwarts over the summer. MY prognostication is that we will find out in Book 7 that Petunia Dursley plays into the reason that Harry must go spend at least sometime with his mother’s relatives.

By: penny

penny — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:20:56 +0000

I don’t remember about the phoenix patronus. I still don’t think Dumbledore will actually come back to life and if you remember in HBP, when at Dumbledore’s funeral, Harry was talking to Rufus Scrimgeour and the conversation went like this:
“Such loyalty is admirable, or course,” said Scrimgeour, who seemed to be restraining his irritation with difficulty, “but Dumbledore is gone, Harry. He’s gone.” “He will only be gone from the school when none here are loyal to him,” said Harry, smiling in spite of himself. “My dear boy, even Dumbledore cannot return from the -” “I’m not saying he can. You wouldn’t understand.”

I know the point of that conversation was to show that “Harry is Dumbledore’s man through and through” but I think that it might be JKR’s way of saying- don’t even think of Dumbledore returning from the dead. Just my thought.

As far as the portraits go. When Greg and I were doing the podcast, the portrait I was thinking about most was Phineas Nigellus, so I think you and I are probably on the same wavelength there.

By: Dan J

Dan J — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:12:23 +0000

One thing I think is significant is that Dumbledore’s pet was a phoenix, and I think I recall reading somewhere that Dumbledore’s patronus was a phoenix. Phoenixes die and are reborn; I’m wondering whether that will occur during the next book, at least to a certain extent.

I don’t know whether I agree with your opinions about the portraits; it seems that they have taken a more active role in the past, such as with Phineas Nigellus and the one witch whose duplicate portrait exists at St. Mungo’s in OotP.

Looking forward to the discussion about Voldemort and how he may be a product of nature/nurture.