Episode #50: The Quest for the Deathly Hallows
This episode is about the Deathly Hallows. Not the book “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” but rather the Deathly Hallows in the book Deathly Hallows. Does that make sense? I hope so, since the Deathly Hallows (the things, not the books) is pretty confusing. We’re not quite sure we’ve got them figured out, but we’ve taken our best shot. It’s very zen-like: When is the Deathly Hallows not really the Deathly Hallows?
Oh, and this is our 50th episode! Hurray!
No news this week.
You can listen to the podcast with the player below, or download it directly as an mp3.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Greg was wrong about the man with the invisibility cloak. He passed it to his son (which means he was not alone in life) and then welcomed death. I am not sure that JKR means that Harry’s money is from stealing–though I agree it is intimated in the referenced chapter.
September 17th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I agree Bobbi, I don’t think Ignotus spent his life alone. He was under the Invisibility Cloak to avoid death until he was ready, not to hide from life. Harry also spent some time under the cloak. He wasn’t alone. Greg, you said it yourself, the cloak was able to hide others as well, so there was no reason for Ignotus to spend his life alone.
Also, the Potters were descended from a very old wizard family, the Peverells. While some ancient families go broke, like the Gaunts (who were crazy), many others amassed vast fortunes, like the Blacks, Malfoys and Potters. I don’t agree the referenced passage meant somebody stole the money while under the cloak. We were never given the idea that any of the Potters were dissolute or dishonorable. I read “immeasurable weath” as a metaphor for the value of the cloak. It was literally priceless not only in it’s monetary but also emotional value.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
A wise man does not fear death, nor does he welcome it.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Great show! I really liked that idea – about hiding from death (cloak), fighting off death (wand), bringing back from death (stone) – and how it just makes one a slave to death in the end. Obsessing about death instead of enjoying life is not having a real life. What did Voldemort gain in the end? No love, friends, joy – all he did was worry about dying and in the end his life was cut short because of it and his soul was twisted and ruined.
Bobbi and Elizabeth – you may be right but couldn’t Ignotus had already had a son? Maybe he did spend his life under the cloak, hiding from death. Harry only used it occasionally and often while going into dangerous situations not just to hide from death. I agree with you Elizabeth about Lovegood’s comment – I don’t think he meant you could steal things with it but that it was a priceless object.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:56 am
I had the impression that ‘master of death’ meant, at least partly, that the terms of the title mean that the protected one embraces death, but on their own terms. The first two brothers reached their end in undesirable ways, but the third brother sought death when it pleased him. In the story he is also the wisest of the three.
Where did the idea of uniting all three hallows to become master of death originate? That isn’t part of the children’s story; as it’s written, it sounds like only the cloak is necessary. I’ve taken that to mean, perhaps completely in error, that the third brother possessed all three hallows at the time he and his friend Death departed life.
As far as where the Potters gained their fortune, earlier books state that the older wizarding families are generally wealthy. Why not simply assume that the ancient families of Potter/Peverell amassed their money over the centuries, instead of having stolen from untold others? Xenophilius may very well have been referring to the value of the cloak, not the thievery one could wreak with it.
September 18th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Great episode!
I think a distinction must be made between “Master of Death” and “Conquering Death”.
“Master of Death” is someone who is not afraid to face death. This allows him to live a fulfilling life – but does not protect him in any way from dying. Anyone can be the “Master of Death” but someone who has had any one of the Deathly Hallows and chosen not to use it has proven himself. One who has all three becomes the true “Master” not because of anything magical (as popularly believed) but rather because he has proven himself in the ultimate most definitive way possible – by rejecting all three hallows.
“Conquering Death” is in the strict sense of the word – impossible. No one is immortal. However in a broader sense death can be conquered and immortality achieved through the loving relationships one creates during his lifetime. “He (Dumbledore) will only be gone [from the school] when none here are loyal to him.” This is also alluded to in the quote from William Penn brought at the beginning of book seven. Albus, Severus, Lily and James all “live on” in the hearts and in the children of those they loved.
Many times the two go hand in hand. It is however possible to conquer death without being the total master (Dumbledore). It is also possible to be unafraid of it (master) without having forged the loving relationships that allow it to be conquered.
September 18th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
A few more thoughts…
Greg is right about the cloak.
To the extent used for the purpose of avoiding death one forfeits the same extent of a normal life.
I also think he is correct in his prognosis as to how the Peverells/Potters amassed their fortune.
Penny is spot on about Dumbledore.
Without his guidance Harry would almost definitely make the same mistakes as him. His experience is invaluable to Harry precisely because Harry is so similar to him. I think it is fascinating how much Harry mirrors him. They both see basically the same thing in the Mirror of Erised. Harry is almost paralyzed by the images (which play the part of the resurrection stone) until Dumbledore pulls him out. When the trio debate at the Lovegood’s house which hallow to choose – Harry chooses the stone. When Dumbledore made the mistake of trying to use it, it was not as in his youth out of a quest for power. Harry could have very easily made the same mistake.
September 18th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I’m not sure if I agree that Ignotius Peverell lived a shell of an existance under the Cloak for the rest of his life. The story definitely portrays him as a wise and thoughtful man– as others have said, he did not strive to avoid Death, only meet it on his own terms. He also seems to have had a happy and dignified end, at peace and equal with Death. I don’t have much basis for doing this, but I like to think of “hiding under the Cloak” metaphorically; Ignotius did not allow his Hallow to cause his death, unlike his brothers. Instead, he “hid” from Death, perhaps using the Cloak when neccisary, but not recklessly. Death couldn’t find him because he did not lead the sort of life that would allow it to. (The way I see the story, by the way, is that Death could not actually take someone who wasn’t supposed to die. The brothers were, having crossed the bridge, and Death therefore set them up to bring about their own ends. It worked for the first two, but not on the wiser Ignotius.)
Plotwise, though it pains me viscerally to say it, I did feel that the introduction of the Hallows was in fact a little extraneous… the story could (I think) have worked out more or less the same way without them. But it’s not my story, and it certainly does add a beautiful layer of mysticism and metaphor to the plot.
Also, I have a vauge idea tickling my brain about the Hallows somehow echoing the function of the Mirror of Erised, but I haven’t quite got it yet. Does anyone else have an idea towards this?
September 18th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Ok my take on the 3 brothers was the one with the wand was murdered for it. The stone just caused such depression in the other brother that he let grief consume him. The cloak brother was marked as the wise one. He lived a happy life and died with no regrets at a ripe old age. As with most fables this story had a message to give. Essentially what you think you want may not be what you think it is. As far as Harry being the master of the Deathly Hallows I disagree. These were objects/tools nothing more. They can be mastered as a musician masters an instument. What style of music he plays is his choice not the instuments. Who is to say what is the right or wrong way to use them. Harry’s use was noble but did the hallows care? Was he the master of death because of them or his actions. Could he have not achieved the same result with out them as he did as an infant? As far as Xenophilias’s references about The cloaks owner being wealthy this statement is only his opinion not a fact, Consider the source and this information is sketchy at best. Greg only pointed out this viewpoint but actually fell short of endorsing it. Just explored the possibilityand the temptations that comes with such an object. I think the cloak being used for personal gain would not fit into the moral of it’s story.
On a happy note. HAPPY ANNIVERSARY TO HP PROGNOSTICATIONS! one year and looking fine! Congrats guys! Keep on prognosticating.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
I agree with Micah that the brother with the cloak did not lead a shell of a life. He used it to not only hide himself but his loved ones from death. He continued to protect his family from death/ danger when he passed along the cloak from son to son. Harry did the same when he used it to hide Ron and Hermoine. Not only did they want to protect themselves from death but they wanted to protect their loved ones.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Michal wrote:
Also, I have a vauge idea tickling my brain about the Hallows somehow echoing the function of the Mirror of Erised, but I haven’t quite got it yet. Does anyone else have an idea towards this?
Michal,
I see what you are saying. The mirror shows the person their deepest desire. The Deathly Hallows gives the same. Of course, the hallows won’t make Ron the Best Boy in a family of best boys, but if he deeply wanted to be unbeatable, the wand would give him that power. The mirror is passive, while the hallows are active. However, with both the mirror and the hallows, the real power comes from being able to discard what you have seen (mirror) and what you can have (hallows).
I’d love to hear more later about how Dumbledore and Harry are mirrors of each other. I think that is completely accurate, and colors everything Dumbledore does in regards to Harry. It also shows how different they are with their choices. One mirror here though: how did Dumbledore get his scar? Was it in the Grindelwald fight that killed Ariana? He spoke easily of his scar, as if it meant nothing, but like Harry’s scar, did it mean something much, much more when it was fresh?
September 19th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Just a thought, and I can’t give any facts to back this up, but I thought in one of the first books, they mentioned why Harry has so much money. His parents did have money to start with, but also people gave money to the account after they died for Harry. Since he was orphaned, and he was also “The Boy Who Lived”
I could be pulling this out of some other place, because I haven’t read the first book in so long, but its always been that reasoning I’ve used in the back of my head…
September 19th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I couldn’t help but keep thinking of The Three Billy Goats Gruff when I read the story of the Deathly Hallows, kind of the grass is always greener on the other side moral. And the Hallows could also refer to wanting something to make your life better but in the end the outcome is far worse. Must go and read my son’s Three Billy Goats to see what actually happened to the two older goats.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Forgot to add when it comes to the Potter wealth, I likened the old wizarding families to the aristocratic society of the 1800’s England. Many inherited their wealth or married into it. With the money also came large estates like Malfoy Manor. They also interbred rather than marry someone without money, a bit like the story of all the pure blood families interbreeding.
What interests me is it sounds as though most of the ‘rich’ families had property, Malfoy Manor, The Black’s family home. What or where was the Potter home. It wasn’t Godric’s Hollow as that was somewhere where they went to hide from Voldemort, there must’ve been somewhere before that, there is never any mention of Harry inheriting a house only money.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I had a similar thought to Mizz Andy’s. In the Bathilda’s Secret chapter when they visit the shrine which was the Potter’s house it is called a “cottage just like those that flanked it”. So unlike the Malfoy’s they did not squander their wealth on fancy living it would appear. Perhaps the house and land was purchased for the memorial by the ministry?
And to me, the phrase “The possessor would be immeasurable rich” by Xeno does not refer to the price they paid for the cloak or the riches to be made in an underhanded way, but rich in the sense that the person would have unlimited possibilities with such power.
Love the show and congrats on the big 50th.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:32 am
All: thanks for the comments; I definetly see the other side of the picture that many of you are presenting regarding the Tale of the Three Brothers, I’ll have to think about it some more. I was focusing more on Dumbledore’s statement in King’s Cross about not using the Hallows represents mastery of them/Death. It could be that the appropriate way to view the Deathly Hallows is separately; how they are in the story, and how they are in the present with regard to Harry and his quest. Thanks everyone for the comments!
September 20th, 2007 at 7:37 am
It is clear that using the cloak is indeed less harmful than the other hallows. It is indeed the wisest choice and if used sparingly can help one to evade death for some time without hampering ones life too much.
However, I don’t think it is feasable that there are no disadvantages whatsoever to using it. Otherwise who would give it up? Mr. Peverll just got bored one day and said “o.k. this seems like a nice day to die” ???
September 20th, 2007 at 9:25 am
On second thought I do have to concede the way the story of the three brothers is presented the cloak does appear in a most favorable light.
I really like the idea of viewing the story and real life seperately. I think that while in the story if you are protected from being killed – you are protected from death in real life this is not enough to make one immortal.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
It seems that the Deathly Hallows actually follow a Star Wars theme, by which I mean specifically Darth Vaders/ Anakin’s deisire to become the most powerful Jedi. Undefeatable and capable of keeping those he loved protected from death. Was it not the same temptations represented by the Deathly Hallows that turned him to the dark side? More and more I think the force was with Harry.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:57 am
And what I really like is that of the three Hallows that Harry keeps, he keeps the cloak which is as Shimon says the wisest of the three items.
September 21st, 2007 at 6:39 am
I loved this episode!
I never thought about the possibility that the Potter´s wealth might have been stolen using the cloak…I´m not sure I believe it but it´s a very interesting idea nontheless.
Maybe you could have mentioned the parallels between the three brothers and Voldemort, seeking the power of the elder wand, Snape, who would want nothing more than to bring back Lily, and Harry, the wisest of them.
You could see Dumbledore as either the first or second brother but as Harry himself groups Voldemort, Snape and himself together as “the abandoned boys”, I think it´s more fitting to compare the three of them to the three brothers from the tale.
September 21st, 2007 at 6:39 am
I loved this episode!
I never thought about the possibility that the Potter´s wealth might have been stolen using the cloak…I´m not sure I believe it but it´s a very interesting idea nontheless.
Maybe you could have mentioned the parallels between the three brothers and Voldemort, seeking the power of the elder wand, Snape, who would want nothing more than to bring back Lily, and Harry, the wisest of them.
You could see Dumbledore as either the first or second brother, but as Harry himself groups Voldemort, Snape and himself together as “the abandoned boys”, I think it´s more fitting to compare the three of them to the three brothers from the tale.
September 21st, 2007 at 6:42 am
Sorry about that!
October 4th, 2007 at 12:28 am
You know your podcast reminded me how much Rowling and Tolkien have in common unconsciously. I mean their styles are different of cause, totally different, but their messages are “essentially the dame. Loyalty, bravery, the fear of death, defeating the dark Lord and saving the world.
The chapter of King’s Cross reminded me of a quote form the Two Towers when Faramir explains the History of Numenor.
“Death was ever present, because the Numenoreans still, as they had in their own kingdom and so lost it, hungered after endless life unchanging. Kings made tombs more splendid than houses of the living, and counted old names in the rolls of their descent dearer than the names of sons. Childless lords sat in aged halls musing on heraldry; in secret chambers withered old men compounded strong elixirs, or in high cold towers asked questions of the stars. And the last king of the line of Anorien had no heir.”
They also were trying to cheat death instead of accepting it like they should have done. They have the life of the Second Born. Illuvatar gave them the gift of Man. Elves can live forever but all they love dies eventually and all they have left is to wait for them to fade away and to enter the House of Mandos, or to go to the west, but they will find no more joy in Arda.
Frodo_harry/