Not disputing that, but 'Phoenix Bonds'? That's like saying soulmates are canon.

 

I think Phoenix Bonds are legitimate. Think about it, animal owners have some kind of relationship with their pets, it is a bond. With some animal it's stronger with some of them it's weaker. Like dogs or cats, they can sense their owners moods and feelings and act on it be it fleeing comforting or helping out and th aint no phoenixis with a buckload of magic in their ass. So Dumbledore and Fawkes could have a bond, because (that's my interpretation of canon) they care about each other, they help out each other of course if you throw in magic it can be a little stronger, but at least it's believable.

 

I'm sorry but I've gotta call you out on this.

I believe you mean that dogs and cats can read very simple human behaviour/body language.

I only mention it because the way you have written that implies that pets are psychically linked to their owners.

 

Yeah thats what I meant.

Fun fact: Or sometimes chickens. My grandfather had a chicken, which greeted him every morning when he went to feed the animals.

 

Uhh... no.

With what you're saying, there should be something like that with every magical animal. Does Harry have some magical bond with Hedwig? Does Hermione's 'magic' get influenced by the fact that she got herself a half-kneazle? No.

Fawkes is Dumbledore's pet. It's a bird. Quite intelligent, but nowhere is there any indication that he 'bonds' (in some kind of magical/thoughts/whatever way) with Dumbledore, can read his thoughts, or whatever. And it is most certainly not an indicator towards whether Dumbledore is "dark" or "light" (uggh... gotta agree with Portus here, sounds fucking awful).

EDIT:

Ever heard of Pavlov's dog?

 

Except of course Fawkes managed to hear Harry's statement about Dumbledore in a secret underground chamber miles under the school, which might lend some credence to the idea that Fawkes is either telepathic or has very acute hearing.

 

Some of the worst, most aggravating writing I have ever seen has been from people trying to write magical pets.

It's just not a good idea, full stop.

 

No and no. I didn't meant that there is a magical bond between every wizard and their pet. What I mean't is that Dumbledore is 150 year old so he had the time to create a 'relationship' with Fawkes, to learn her behavior and vica versa and I implied that magic might helped this along.

 

I'm no chicken expert, but my guess is that it was hungry and deduced that whenever he saw your gramps, he got fed. Elementary, my dear Miss Prissy.

 

I hate logic, it ruins all my good childhood memories.

 

@enembee:

1) Let's say phoenixes are telepathic. I believe the HP version of telepathy is legilimency. However, Dumbledore is a master occlumens, which Harry is not, at any point of the story.

2) You know, you actually made me bring out my German copy of the second book to re-read that part. lol

Riddle says (just translating here, don't know how the English version goes) "That's what Dumbledore sends his sole defender? A songbird and an old hat?"

This implies that Dumbledore sent Fawkes over for help. Which means that it was not Fawkes to be credited for knowing the situation, but Dumbledore.

@Stupid: ... While I agree with you, I don't see how that implies that there is a 'Phoenix Bond' or how it indicates that someone who has a phoenix as a pet is automatically 'light' or 'good'.

 

@addictedforlife: Because I didn"t say that. I just offered my explanation how could be there a bond.

 

Agreed.

Phoenixes seem like very fancy pets at most. And bullshit on the automatically 'light' or 'good'. I'm sure that an evil guy can have a pet phoenix. For all we know, "the song of the phoenix striking fear into the hearts of the impure" means that the non-virgins get scared. The only time Rowling wrote about phoenix song was while Harry couldn't get any.

 

You know, I will just assume that Fawkes was doing it on his own. Otherwise it means that Dumbledore thought that was alright to sent a bird and a hat to help twelve years old boy fight with the most evil wizard in history and his gigantic pet basilisk instead of going there himself.

 

A 16-year old Tom Riddle is a horribly unreliable source in this context.

 

Phoenixes are "light" creatures. One of the extra books Rowling wrote, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, talks about them more. Also, remember that Fawkes's tears cure Harry of the Basilisk poison.

That's definitely the mark of a light creature.

 

OMG Fawkes is Pedobear, because he likes them 'pure':awesome

 

Did you even read a few posts above yours?

 

Let's say that there are light creatures. A phoenix bond. That Dumbledore having such a familiar is proof that he himself is a 'light-sided' individual.

It's still shit to read about.

And if we're counting Fantastical Beasts and Where to Find Them as canon, I just looked at the entries and it has no mentions of light or dark creatures.

EDIT: Why not just say Dumbledore can't bring himself to personally kill an innocent child?

 

Yeah. Because the memory shade of 16 year old Tom Riddle is the source we should be trusting.

I believe the relevant section comes later in the book when Dumbledore is taking to Harry in his office. I don't have my CoS copy so I can't check but IIRC (paraphrased) his words are;