Don Marquis once said that "an idea isn't responsible for the people who believe in it". The author of this story (IMO) has produced the likely effects of differing ideas of three very powerful men. Men that are willing to fight for an idea, for a way of life. At the heart of it, every great struggle is borne of dissenting ideas. The German Weltpolitik didn't sit well with French liberté de l'allemagne and British freedom to rule the seas, World War I evolved. Lebensraum and Aryan Rule precipitated with French fear and British appeasement gave way to World War II. The Northern states turned their noses up at slavery and the Southerners believed it to be their birth-right and you had the American Civil War. The Soviet Union proposed Communism and the Western World backed free-markets and Democracy, this bubbled into the Cold War. Ideas, pure in intent can still lead to conflict when opposed.

You're looking at this from a very modern perspective. The presentation of the meeting shown is very traditional, even though it is a bit over-the-top. In the olden studies and practices of war, it was a gentleman's conflict fought under the bane of certain rules and codes of conduct that were universally accepted and followed. Not doing so is what labelled an army as 'savage' in the earlier eras. All of that changed with the first extended warfare in Europe i.e. World War I. But the Wizarding World holds itself to traditions and values, respect and stout beliefs. It is not that distant from the realm of imagination to believe that Generals meeting under such conditions is part of a gentleman's partaking of wits.

I think there is a very good chance they would jump on the bandwagon. Dumbledore wanted equality, that is what he fought for and believed in, he never wanted or anticipated the carnage and violence that followed his idea. Harry fought for independence, but that seemed like an increasingly diminished possibility because the War would never end and there would be nobody left to enjoy independence, if it came.

These three are Masters of the various Hallows they control. These Hallows have undoubtedly played a significant role in moulding these men into the positions of authority, power and reverence they maintain, it is not that far of a stretch to believe that they have discovered secrets of the Hallows hitherto unknown. They are fated for their positions because Dumbledore won his Wand by right, Voldemort and Harry inherited the Stone and Cloak by rights of passage, it is what binds them together but their ideas pull them apart. Conflict rises from their dissension and they come together to end said conflict.

Good question, no idea on that front. Immortality can be achieved in more ways than one: the Philosopher's Stone, horcruxes or the Hallows. The Flamels picked one way, the three faction leaders of this war picked another.

Like I said before, they could have delved deep into the study of the Hallows and had some idea of time-travelling abilities. But that was rendered impossible to experiment with because the owners of the other two Hallows were the ones each was at war with. Why bother delving further into the fruiless possibility? I think Dumbledore's hesitance amounted to them making matters worse because he anticipated that peace would never be achieved.

I think that's the point, there is NO resolution. An idea can create and kill, depending on how it is used. There is a cyclical, almost mystical, quality of the end that implies that the fighting will never end, there will be no resolution and the ideas that these three men possess will continue to decimate the world around them because they will never let go. It is more of a cynical outlook to the actions of the leaders and those in power and how their one view or belief can shape our world.

Remmy.

 

The constructivist stand you take here may work for a small, parasitic social unit like the wizarding world, but in the world of international relations, it`s blind if not aided by a strong materialist analysis of the underlying reality.

LOL WUT? This is an extremely romanticized picture of historical warfare, one that is lightyears away from reality.

Yeah, Voldemort holds to traditions and values...:facepalm

That`s an interesting proposition to make this story coherent, but sadly IdSayWhyNot didn't think of it, as the dialogue of the three charcters makes clear:

Not the reactions of people who know what Voldemort is talking about.

Why did he consent in the end if you are right?

No, an idea can do nothing at all, it`s just neurons firing inside a brain. People have to transform an idea into action for it to impact the real world.

The "Great man" theory of history is dead. I`m rather happy about that and would prefer to let it stay in its grave.

 

Because if you read a few words further you'll realize those three goons are Harry, Dumbledore and Voldemort. Seeing as you're reading Harry Potter fanfiction, I assume you care about Harry.

If that's your way of saying Harry, Dumbledore and Voldemort were OOC, then I agree. Luckily for me, that was done on purpose.

Dumbledore has the Elder Wand; he's unbeatable. Voldemort has the Resurrection Stone; he can't be killed. Harry has the Invisibility Cloak; Death can't find him.

If you were in any of their positions, you wouldn't mind meeting your enemies to discuss the war. You simply can't die. Keep in mind this is a tale, like the tale of Hercules or any kind of mythology. If you extrapolate this to reality, the premise of the Deathly Hallows falls apart. JKR explained the Tale of the Three Brothers as them being powerful wizards who created powerful items, but in the tale, Death is personificated and it is Him who makes the objects.

This is the same. It's just a spin-off of the original.

Again, you are extrapolating this to reality, it being the magical world. This is a tale, and as far as I'm concerned, for this particular one-shot, the Flamels could very well not exist. I didn't even think about them when I wrote this. It's not so much that I failed to make this fit into the magical world JKR wrote, but that I purposefully disregarded most of it, only taking the elements that I wanted.

In context, Harry and Dumbledore jumping at the chance of a new world is fairly understandable. Their motivations are mostly hidden, but I don't see why they wouldn't be in favor of reversing the damage they have done.

As for why they accept it immediately, that's admittedly a mistake of mine. And that is a technical aspect of the writing. I should've made them go through the thought process of accepting or discarding the idea, but without going into too many details.

Maybe I'll fix that one day.

United, the Deathly Hallows make the one who possess them Master of Death. Time slowly kills everyone, and if you beat Death, you beat Time. Again, this is a tale. Extrapolating it to reality would be like saying science has never found any proof of magic.

You don't read fantasy and scoff at dragons and goblins and elves. You read fantasy and accept there are certain rules in this world that are not necessarily the same as the real one.

Put it simply, neither of the three can die, not ever.

The lack of development regarding the choice they make was addressed above.

There's no contradiction. By 'world' Voldemort meant Time. Each would get a different Time in history to make of their ideas what they wished. Voldemort, as the firm believer of some being superior to others could've taken the Middle Ages. Dumbledore, as a believer of equality could've taken the XX century (human rights). Harry, as a fighter for freedom could've taken any point in history where a civilization or group of people fight oppression or similar.

And yet, even if they are separated by time, the ideas of the three are always in constant conflict. This one-shot is vague on purpose, so that the reader can interpret it the way he likes. In my case, I made the characters embodiments of different ideas that are present almost constantly throughout history. These ideas never stop fighting each other.

Ironically enough, the plot is the solid part here, while the technical aspect of my writing is severely weak. I've only noticed this when others commented on specific things I hadn't thought of. You might think I didn't have a solid plot or idea in mind when I wrote this, but the truth is I had one. I just failed in the execution, as evidenced by the comments on this thread.

Meh. You can't always get what you want.

Amen, Jagger.

 

Voldemort would make the Dark Ages, I imagine. A perfect time for witches and wizards to start gathering in England.

Dumbledore could've done many things, because of the three wizards he has the widest range of general knowledge. I imagine parents would tell children that he invented candy, or something.

Harry was Robin Hood. I think it totally fits, except for the fact that wizards with bows breaks the all-important combat triangle.

Really, this would've been fantastic if it were written as a bedside tale, because there are many things you could've done.

 

Um, I did that. Not exactly what I pictured in my mind, but I tried to do that.

Unless by "this" you mean those ideas about Voldemort in the Dark Ages and Harry Hood. That'd be a pain in the ass to write, and I was aiming for something a little more general and that encompassed all three ideas (superiority and oppression, freedom, and equality and rights).

 

No, I meant in most every aspects. Sure, it reads like a tale, but it reads like a reworked tale meant for a high school audience(but that's a shitty analogy). A bedside tale wouldn't often tell you what people were thinking, or concern itself with background description unless necessary.

I was little confused as to what exactly Dumbledore's goal was. Sure, equality is a noble goal, but at least with freedom and tyranical power you have a way of enforcing it; unless Dumbledore puts himself above everyone else, there would be no one to keep any insurgences down, and if he was above everyone else, then it's not equal, is it?

 

Ha! Now I'm picturing commie!Dumbledore.

Well, that's more of a political debate. It also depends on what you understand by "equality", so you could say it's a philosophical debate, too. And nobody wants to get into those murky waters.

Let's just say Dumbledore has a - dare I say it - magical solution that allows for equality while simultaneously him being in power that we don't know about.

 

(First fiction I'm officially reviewing on DLP)

I like it.

Or at least I like it as much as I can like a one-shot. I hate one-shots.

But I like it.

It's an interesting idea with a fairly poetic telling. My only real problem with it is that it combines vague, surrealist imagery with very abrupt specifics;

It just feels like clumsy writing.

The only other note is pertinent to most one-shots; I hate epilogues that don't have stories. I want to read how they got there - how these characters I once knew very well became the foreign creatures they are here.

But a solid 3.5/5 for the idea and a mostly fluid prose.

 

Interesting concept, I suspect that it's an Infinite loop with the way it ended. Well written if a touch improbable I can't see the three of them getting together and talking like that given the backstory of their universe.

3/5