Interesting headcanon, would make the 7th book even more stupid but since that is impossible it doesn't...

 

One way of getting around Moody's eye seeing through the cloak is saying Dumbledore (using the Elder Wand) enchanted the eye himself as a favor to Moody. Only a Hallow is defeating another Hallow.
But I think Taure's explanation is the best one.

 

It's not headcanon, just plain old regular canon. It's from Dumbledore's notes in Tales of Beedle the Bard.

And I don't see how saying that a myth found in a children's story, with an anthropomorphic Death, is fiction within the HP universe makes it more stupid. It makes the Deathly Hallows a human invention, thus bringing them in from the realm of myth into that of reality (albeit HP reality).

 

So Dumbledore not only touched a ring he knew to be both cursed and a horcrux but also despite having readily available information that it was useless to him because he wrote the authority in the subject? Yeah sorry but I would rather avoid even more bashing on Dumbledore. Bad enough all the stories on the subject.

Though I will check that just in case, granted never was much to consider anything else than the actual 7 books as canon since that at least I can keep track of what is not fanon but figure should check before saying anything else.

 

Please try to not be so stupid.

The reason why he touched the ring was because he knew it wasn't useless. It does bring back the dead. He would have been able to speak with his family again. It just won't bring them back to their bodies, and they wouldn't have wanted to hang around. But that's a far cry from "useless".

 

Serves me right for posting with no sleep.

 

The problem with the Hallows being just man-made objects is that they were such a big deal in the end of the book 7. Why would Dumbledore go through with the whole "I open at the close" scheme if there really wasn't anything all that special about the stone and being able "to master the death"?

Also having superpowered man-made magical objects skims a bit too close to the "shopping trip of ultimate wish-fulfillment" trope as well as the "forgotten ancient arts" one.

What I'm trying to say that if the Hallows are in fact physical manifestations of Death itself, they at least have some "deeper" meaning instead of just being yet another gimmick in a story about a treasure hunt.

 

Even within the myth, realisation that the Hallows aren't all that special, beyond being remarkable magical artifacts, is the key to being Master of Death. So even if we take your supposition - that the myth is true - then the conclusions you consider unpalatable still result.

The "open at the close" thing was vital for Harry's motivation. Without his parents et al encouraging him, he may have lost his courage and failed to face Voldemort in the way that was required. That was the sole role of the resurrection stone in DH: to gift Harry with a conversation with his parents.

Being master of death (clearly explained to be a false title, the real master of death being he who recognises that and doesn't seek to oppose death or have power over it - essentially rejecting the Hallows) had no role in the plot of Deathly Hallows, beyond the fact that Harry happened to reflect those qualities. Being master of the Elder Wand, however, did.

Seriously, did you people even read DH? Dumbledore explained all this quite clearly.

 

Or Dumbledore could have intended for the ring to help Harry sacrifice himself to Voldemort. Dumbledore had things planned down to some pretty minute details (deluminator, etc.), and providing Harry with access to his dead loved ones to comfort him at the end and make sure he followed through sounds like a pretty good idea.

Also, your point about magical artifacts is pretty ridiculous. Harry Potter is full of powerful ancient or old artifacts. Gryffindor's Sword, Ravenclaw's Diadem, the Philosopher's Stone, the Mirror of Erised, the Goblet and even the Veil are all extremely old and more powerful than what most modern wizards can accomplish. Compared to some of the items on that list, the Hallows aren't that far fetched.

There is nothing to imply in canon that the Hallows have any deeper meaning than being powerful artifacts. If anything the story tries to imply the exact opposite, that it's Voldemort reading deeper meaning into something than there actually is like he did with the prophecy.

Edit: Ninja'd by Taure. What he said, too.

 

Taking in account what Dumbledore did, it's funny how he used the mythical concept of the Hallows to ensnare Lord Voldemort in an almost fruitless pursuit for the Elder Wand. That's one of the things that I understood in the "King Cross Chapter"; Harry was near to fall for the decoy too and, as DD counted on, was saved by Hermione.
It's clear that in the end, once the curse on his arm was a reality, Dumbledore used the great majority of his last moments planning the book 7 outcome. And Voldemort fell for that.
The concept is similar to the one Tolkien created for the Ring. Sauron spent most of the time searching for the Ring in distance, neglecting Mordor's frontiers and pretty much rendering useless (for a couple of months) his great army.
How much of the time Lord Voldermort spent pursuing the Elder Wand, was an instant breath of fresh air for Harry and company?

 

The books leave it ambiguous as to the true origin of the hallows. Dumbledore speculates that they were the inventions of the three brothers, but speculation is all it is, just as the myth that they were the creation of Death is just myth.

It's possible to read the story so that Harry had the choice to return because he was "Master of Death" but you can also read it so that it was Voldemort's using Harry's blood in his rebirth ritual that made it possible.

You also have to keep in mind that the Dumbledore in King's Cross Station might not have been Dumbledore at all. It could have been Harry's subconscious working things out, could have been a divine emissary taking a form Harry was familiar with, and it might have been Death, avoiding being under Harry's control by pretending to be an old friend and casting doubt on the what the Hallows meant for selfish reasons.

 

Hum... I think I know what the problem here, we have given different values to the difficulty of the task at hand and so I misunderstood you saying that the Stone doesn't actually bring back anyone just at best(more likely less) something like the shades that show up in book 4.

I believe you think someone being capable of creating a body for the soul is harder than someone figuring out how to summon a soul perfectly in the first place and if I am correct in this then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

By this reasoning you can also argue that Thor handed down the Hallows to the Peverells, that Harry survived because he was the son of Zeus and that it was actually Draco Malfoy that spoke to him on the platform at King's Cross. I mean the book doesn't explicitly state that none of these are the case, right?

The best evidence we have for each is the following:

Dumbledore believes that the Peverells were merely ingenious wizards that managed to create powerful magical artefacts. This is a man who is, by a hundred miles, the best and most informed wizard in the books. A man who made it the study of his lifetime to research and understand the Hallows. We have this to compare against what is, essentially, a children's mythological bedtime story. I don't know about you, but I'm backing Dumbledore here.

Dumbledore also explicitly states that it was Voldemort's use of Harry's blood that allowed him to survive the curse. Again, best and most knowledgeable wizard in the series. Remember also that he realised this the moment he'd heard what Voldemort did in the fourth book (the gleam of triumph in his eye), it wasn't just something Harry's head invented in King's Cross.

Only the third point has any real merit to it, even Dumbledore admits that it might all be in his head. Except that, at least to my eyes, he tells Harry an awful lot that he couldn't have just guessed (mostly with regards to his family). I don't have a copy of the books to hand, but it's reasonably explicit that he is actually talking to some version of Dumbledore.

Was there any implication that these was actually the 'souls' of dead people he'd brought back? I don't think that the representations created by Priori Incantatem were the souls of Voldemort's victims in the same way that I don't believe that the representations of the stone were the souls of Harry's parents and their friends.

What follows is an almost Taure level of headcanon but indulge me.

If I recall correctly (I might be making this up) the only two things that JKR tells us about the appearance of these 'spectres' are that:

• Sirius and Lupin appear younger than they were when they died. Making them all roughly the same age.
• They resemble not ghosts or actual flesh, but Tom Riddle's memory.

I personally believe the implication is that they are merely memories. If not Harry's then perhaps the traces they left behind them from their years at Hogwarts (thus the whole much younger thing). Or some combination of the two. In the same way that portraits and Priori Incantatem and horcruxes are just simulacrum comprised of tiny fragments of personality, the same I think is true of the spectres conjured by the Resurrection Stone.

 

Gryffindor's Sword is just another goblin made sword with some pretty stones in it and some fancy charmwork tying it to the hat. Ravenclaw's Diadem is completely unknown, as it hasn't been used by anyone except Rowena (one would assume Voldemort would have chosen to use it instead of just hiding it if it was actually any good), and there are potions that can be brewed by fourteen year olds that do pretty much the same thing as the Diadem is rumored to. Mirror of Erised is basically a boggart (a relatively common "low-level" dark creature) reversed, so I wouldn't call it something that couldn't be reproduced if needed. We have no idea if the Goblet has any other use than just being a lottery machine, and the function of the Veil is also pretty straight forward (unless you want to argue that it is in fact a physical representation of death...).

The Philosopher's Stone I'll give you, but then again that is not something invented by Rowling but a part of general folklore.

All in all I don't like hand-waving things away by saying they were made with ancient technology that we couldn't possibly hope to reproduce. Same goes to finding super-awesome spells that'll beat everything in "old, dusty tomes". Old != better.

 

Actually you're wrong. In the world of HP magic, 'old' artefacts are far more likely to be powerful than newer ones simply by the merit that they still exist.

You sum up the fallacy of your own logic by comparing it to technology, but magic is nothing like technology. Technological advances are built on other scientific and technological advances, creating an incredibly intricate system of reliance between various fields. Science and technology are constantly adapting, mutating and advancing.

Magic is evidently not like this, it has no 'shelf life'. Voldemort used the same magic for immortality that Herpo the Foul did thousands of years earlier. The only difference he made was that he did more of it and he died without anyone really knowing how he did it. This happens all the time. The deluminator is, as far as we know, a one of a kind. If he didn't write it down, Dumbledore took the secrets of how to create it to his grave, as did Flamel with regards to the Philosopher's Stone. Magic can be lost.

If an exceptional wizard creates an object that is unique and has an extraordinary effect and that will be as potent in a thousand years as it is in the moment that it's created, you can expect to see it sticking around. On the reverse, if something is created that is transient, or does something that isn't useful or that is easy to reproduce, chances are it will be discarded. This will inevitably lead to a correlation between the age of a magical object and its potency.

That's not to say that people should be picking up world ending spells from dusty tomes, but evidently magic does not progress in the same way that scientific study or technology does.

 

You know, I never thought it was like that. And you sound very right. Now that I think about it, "you can't bring the dead back" is one of Rowling's unbreakable rules. Maybe it was all made by Harry's imagination. Except for the talk with Dumbledore in King Cross, of course.

 

Hum... I will speak my point again. Dumbledore believed it did. If it was just memories or such then he could have done that already.

Essentially the choice comes between Dumbledore being stupid, Dumbledore knowingly fooling himself(which considering the stakes isn't much different from the previous one) or Dumbledore being right and it does bring back the actual person.

Perhaps it is just the reaction to all Dumbledore bashing but I like to believe that Dumbledore put the ring on because he absolutely knew he could use it to speak again with people that died.

 

Edit: Nevermind

 

Not really. The books include the story of the hallows as making a person a master of death as well as evidence that numerous wizards believe in the legend so much that they spend their lives seeking them out--and not just the Elder Wand. There is no such mention of Zeus or Thor.

So, no, making up your own crap and saying one is just as likely as the other is not the same thing as saying there's an alternate interpretation that fits with canon other than the one you've chosen.

You completely left out the sign of the Deathly Hallows and the numerous wizards over the years that have sought them out, including Gellert Grindelwald, who was just as brilliant as Dumbledore and apparently a true believer in the hallows.

Honestly, that's not a very good argument. When Dumbledore is confident of something he uses more strident wording, such as "I'm confident that," and "I can assure you," etc. At King's Cross his phrase is more along the lines of "I would guess," or "I suspect."

Dumbledore doesn't know. He chooses not to believe there is a Death incarnate, or at least that the hallows were created by such an incarnation, and says so, but wisely allows for the possibility that it is true.

Yet, Dumbledore is also the one who speaks of Harry as being the only one to unite the hallows, to be the master or all three. He links Harry's attitude towards accepting his own death with his worthiness to hold the hallows, which is more consistent with the interpretation that the myth is true.

I'm not saying both interpretations have equal weight. I share your interpretation of what it means for the very reasons you gave. However, claiming that has to be the only way to see it is nothing more than dogmatism. We're talking about a work fiction and fanfiction about that work of fiction.

There is nothing in canon which precludes the interpretation that the deathly hallows were a creation of death and more than enough detail to support it. Canon also supports your position, but not nearly so strongly as to justify such a strong claim as you are making.

As I said, I personally think Dumbledore was right, they were just made by the brothers, that's how I read it. But it would be foolish to try and claim that's the only "right" way to think about it.

It's the same thing with Luna and nargles. You can see Luna as a girl living in a fantasy world of her father's creation to escape reality (there are no such thing as nargles) and that fits. You can see her as a mystic dreamer in touch with a more real reality than the rest of us (it's everyone else who is blind to the existence of nargles), and that can fit. Or you can see her as a person more open to ideas and concepts than most people and is something of an anti-skeptic, and that fits.

Don't mistake headcanon for actual canon.

 

I disagree. Dumbledore acted having never seen the effects of the stone. We on the other hand, as the reader, see first hand exactly what the stone produces and you are speaking with hindsight. Dumbledore may well have believed the possibility that the stone functioned as described in the myth, but he had absolutely no way of knowing.

Moreover, Dumbledore himself admits that he was not acting in full control when he did it:

"...I lost my head, Harry. ... 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..."

So yes, Dumbledore made a mistake. When faced with the possibility of his greatest desire, he had a momentary lapse of judgement and tried to take it.

It's also worth noting that none of the Hallows work as they are described in the myth. The wand is not unbeatable, the cloak is not infallible, it stands to reason that the stone does not bring people back from the dead.

Also worth noting is the fact that Dumbledore explicitly states earlier in the series that no spell can bring the dead back to life.

Lol. The books include a myth. A myth that time and time again is proven to be spurious; the wand and the cloak do not function as described. It is a myth that Dumbledore doesn't believe and one that Xenophilius Lovegood believes.

Find one passage in the books to support this claim. You won't because it isn't true. There's no suggestion that Grindelwald ever thought that the Hallows were really handed down by the personification of Death, only that he believed the items themselves were real. Which they were.

It's also worth pointing out that Voldemort, who is the third of the trio of most powerful and knowledgeable wizards seen in canon, is stated to not believe the story either.

As I said before, the group of people that actually believed the myth itself to be true consisted of the likes of Xenophilius Lovegood, which is not a strong indicator of plausibility.

Like all of those times that he says 'I suspect' or 'I believe' when discussing the nature of Harry's blood protection, the brother wands, Voldemort's horcruxes and Voldemort taking Harry's blood? Wait, wasn't he proved right on all of those occasions?

No. It isn't. I don't think we read the same book. When Dumbledore talks of Harry being the one worthy to unite them, he is making a statement about hubris. He admits that he has been able to possess the Elder Wand for so long because he did not boast of it and did not use it to kill. This is not because the Elder Wand has deemed him 'worthy' but because nobody knew he possessed it.

The same with the stone. Dumbledore wanted to use it to make himself feel better and he was cursed for his trouble. This wasn't a comment on the stone itself, but on his choices. A comment on the fact that his desire overwhelmed his common sense and he died because of it.

And this all comes down to my original point; you can either take the strongest evidence you are presented with, or you can not. But there is no good reason for assuming the opposing view, other than that you are mistaken or deliberately want to interpret the information presented incorrectly.

We are told essentially everything we know about magic and the wizarding world, by characters. The only litmus test we have for whether these things are right, are the track record of the character's being right and the way that other characters, with established levels of non-bullshit, respond to their ideas.

Now, Hermione is proven demonstrably right on several occasions. She does not believe Luna, who seems to just believe anything, on the topic of Nargles. I seriously hope you can agree that Hermione is a more reliable source of information than Luna. She's not always right, but she's generally right, in comparison with someone who believes a total crock of bullshit and is never proven correct about any of those ideas.

If you want to believe Nargles exist in Harry Potter, you are directly contradicting the only provided evidence. (I mean other than the fact that JKR later came out and said that Luna talks shit.)

The Hallows are a murkier subject, because we know their existence to be true, but are given two different possibilities for how they came to be created.

One is supported by the most knowledgeable character we see in the books and who is evidently one of the greatest wizards that has ever lived and who has a phenomenal track record of being correct about obscure, powerful magic.

Not only is it supported by this, it is supported by the logical consistencies of canon. We know that powerful wizards exist. We know that powerful wizards occasionally create incredibly powerful objects that last, seemingly, forever. We also know that the wizarding world has a penchant for manipulating the truth and talking bullshit.

On the reverse side, we have a children's story that is only believed (at least 'on screen') by people that unanimously talk shit. The consistency of which isn't supported by anything else we see in canon (there is no indication that death ever takes any manifestation, nor is there any other personification of a conceptual entity). And it is a suggestion that is not believed by any of the most intelligent views we have on the subject. Hermione does not believe it, Dumbledore does not believe it, Voldemort is stated not to believe it. In addition to this, many other primary aspects of the myth are proven false. The cloak is not infallible, the wand is not unbeatable.

Now, of course you can say that it is open to interpretation, but JKR makes it pretty clear what the truth is. It is possible, of course, to believe whatever makes it makes one happy to believe.

But it's like comparing evolution to intelligent design. You are welcome to believe in intelligent design, if you wish, but you are ignoring the evidence to do so.