deathtocapslock | Rita Skeeter posts a contribution to our discussion

Entry tags:

Rita Skeeter posts a contribution to our discussion

I just re-read what Rita wrote after reproducing Albus’s charming letter to his lover. And it’s instructive, as Rita always is. Here she is, in all her audience-wooing. muckraking glory:

“Astonished and appalled though his many admirers will be, this letter constitutes proof that Albus Dumbledore once dreamed of overthrowing the Statute of Secrecy and establishing Wizard rule over Muggles. What a blow for those who have always portrayed Dumbledore as the Muggle-borns’ greatest champion! How hollow those speeches promoting Muggle rights in the light of this damning new evidence! How despicable does Albus Dumbledore appear, busy plotting his rise to power when he should have been mourning his mother and caring for his sister!”

Rita Skeeter, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore, quoted in DH 18.

And there we have it. What strikes US (or, at least me; I shouldn’t jump in and speak for other Muggles) as unthinkably shocking and horrifying about Albus and Gellert’s youthful fancies is that they quite seriously plotted to set themselves up as total dictators, whatever violence—to body or mind—was required for them to “seize control” and maintain it afterwards.

What Rita expected to astonish and appall her magical readers, conversely, was that Albus “once dreamed of overthrowing the Statute of Secrecy.”

Um. So. Plot mass murder and absolute, inescapable repression? Dream of enslaving, both body and mind, all the survivors of your original coup? MILLIONS of victims? (Most of them Muggle, by definition.)

And then force your slaves to recite, in unison, that it had all been for their own greater good. Really.

(In real life, some Western slave-owners actually DID make this argument. Had they not mercifully caused African natives to be kidnapped and worked [or tortured] to death, said natives might well have gone through their whole lives without ever, perhaps, having received the benefit of learning about Christianity!)

The response of Rita’s Daily Prophet readers to such a program?

Neh. Boys will be boys, and it’s good to have ambitions.

But. Plot to overturn the Statute of Secrecy?

How despicable does Albus seem!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Oh, good catch! Brava!

I've been figuring that his delayed action RE Gellert and, er, 'muggle-loving' ways, etc. etc. might have had people wondering for quite a while if Dumbledore wasn't quite as firm in his belief about the need for Secrecy as he might put about. And then of course the Ministry's paranoia in OotP that he was forming a private army to overthrow the Ministry.... (Paranoia, of course, which wasn't quite founded on nothing...)

But this would have just been the shocking nail in the coffin, wouldn't it? The cherry on top of the ice cream sundae of his political stance, rejection of Ministry authority, and, um, curious hiring practices.

And, well... If in a deep part of his heart he really DID want Secrecy dismantled still, well, that's another subconscious motive to do what he can to ensure Tom's victory, isn't it?

To adjust a TVtropes term, we thought the "Murder & Arson" part of DE (or Grinderwald) terrorism was bad, but the W-World only cared about the part that to us amounted to "Jaywalking".

Yes! All this about the statute of secrecy and what it really means is most interesting - not to say illuminating. And, of course, Severus and all true half-bloods are a walking threat to the Wizarding World by their very existence.

But the whole concept of the "Death Eaters" just bothers me so much. Why death eaters? Do we ever see any of them eating death? What does the term even mean?

I am so glad Condwiramurs started on this set of essays.

Funnily enough, we do have an example in the books of literally eating death and surviving: Fawkes. Who swallows an AK. Is that how phoenixes normally handle death curses? Is "Death Eaters" just a darker, edgier way to say... phoenixes?

Wow! I like that idea! Of course, Terri has argued earlier that, whatever they are in other mythologies, phoenixes in the Potterverse don't seem to be particularly altruistic birds. So it isn't necessarily saying anything good about the Death Eaters if this is true.

Still, cool idea.

Well, no, it wouldn't. But they are powerful and have really cool ancient magic, which seems to make them a viable mascot anyway, at least if sports team mascots are any guide. Kids who root for the Harpies (not known for their kindness) probably think Team Phoenix sounds pretty cool.

"Death Eaters" just a darker, edgier way to say... phoenixes?

That does create another nice parallel between Dumbledore & Voldemort.

They both have an order of the phoenix! It would make sense, them both being such fans of immortality research, that they'd go for similar names. Voldemort just picks the "darker" version.

As far as we can tell, Tom named the Death Eaters first.

So Albus named his group of blind followers after Tom's.

Makes one think, eh?

Indeed.

Although it seems likely that Albus acquired Fawkes before the Death Eaters were formed, so it might be a case of Tom naming his group as a needly sort of backhanded compliment ("You influenced me so much, Professor! Love, Tom..."), and then Albus naming his group as a sort of "Nuh-uh, we're the original real deal," and it's impossible to really say who really "started it." Just to trace the steps of escalation.

As the Ravenclaw dorm asks, "Which came first, the phoenix or the flame?"

It seems likely... ha! But I never noticed until you pointed it out that canon doesn't say so. Just doublechecked my memory with the Lexicon, and heres what canon says: that Ollivander sold a phoenix-feather wand to Lord Voldemort, that Ollivander knows or believes that that specific wand gave Harry his scar, that the brother wand was sold to Harry in 1991, and that, acto Albus, Fawkes was the phoenix who donated the two tail-feathers used as wand-cores.

And we know that, as of 1992/3, Fawkes belonged to Albus and was apparently very loyal to him. But we don't actually know for how long this had been the case.

I'd previously speculated that Albus had traded the two feathers to Ollivander for a lesson in wand-lore. Or, two lessons: wandlore in general and the Elder Wand. Which, if Tom bought that wand as an eleven-year-old, would put Albus owning Fawkes back in the thirties.

But, you know, canon doesn't say so. For anything we know, Albus might have acquired Fawkes long after the two feathers were donated. Or at least, long after the first one was.

In fact, it doesn't even say that the Fawkes-feather wand is the one Ollivander sold eleven-year-old TOM RIDDLE. It might be the one he sold the self-styled Lord Voldemort on his arrival in Britain from the Continent.... (And all our speculations how Ollivander recognized Tom Riddle as Lord V and why he didn't say anything to anyone else, so much hot air. If Albus can change wands in midlife, why not Tom?)

In fact, it's even possible... well, what if phoenixes can only be tamed by humans who share their own penchant for immortality? That's why it's impossible for most wizards to domesticate them. So Fawkes belonged either to Tom or to the Flamels, before the parties involved proved themselves mortal--then it settled on the Master of the Deathstick (and master alchemist) as the next best person. (If on Tom's discorporation, Fawkes went to the possessor of two of the three Hallows, whereas Tom had only one when he seduced it.... Also if Fawkes originally belonged to Tom, Ollivander was probably commissioned to make that yew-and-phoenix wand.)

Oh, good points! I was going to say I'd bank on Fawkes belonging to Flamel over Voldemort, but then, Dumbledore would hardly go about telling people he had Voldemort's pet, would he? But the provenance of the feathers would be easier to guarantee if Fawkes had belonged to Flamel or Dumbledore at the time. And I wonder if having a phoenix familiar was one of the things that made people so sure Dumbledore was a super-duper powerful wizard who could settle their Dark Lord problems and ought to be Minister. (Possibly Fawkes belonged to Flamel, and Flamel told him to keep an eye on that young whippersnapper, and everyone just assumed Fawkes already belonged to Dumbledore. He'd hardly correct them.)

If the yew-and-phoenix wand was little Tommy's first, Ollivander might still have assumed that this Voldemort fellow killed him and took the wand. I think at least some people assumed that Tom Riddle was the first of the "mysterious disappearances" eventually attributed to Voldemort. A preemptive strike against anyone powerful enough to oppose him.

Fawke's feathers... what if Lord V gave Ollivander two feathers, initially, just in case the first attempt didn't work quite right? (And what if the yew-wood in question were from the Little Hangleton graveyard?) Perhaps then Ollivander held on to the second feather, but never dared use it as a core until after Voldemort's first defeat. That would be a good reason for Ollie to believe NO other feathers from that particular phoenix were ever used in wands.... Otherwise how would he be sure that some feather acquired on the open market--or the black market--weren't from that same bird?

Having a phoenix familiar (and a phoenix patronus) might well be one of the things that impressed the hoi polloi that Albus was Hot Stuff, yes. And that would push Fawkes back into the forties again--though you're right, he could have still belonged to the Flamels until their deaths.

Hmm, back to Swythyv's supposition that Albus was the Flamels' AGENT in the modern WW--not a very satisfactory one at that, and their deaths saw his reputation plunge because he'd been coasting on their coattails--the loan of Fawkes could have been the visible symbol of the trust they reposed in him.

Ooh, I like the idea that Tom Riddle's disappearance was attributed to Voldemort. Aggrandizing his reputation as the dark and powerful Lord V by faking his own death--that would be twisted! And then, yes, his using Tom's old wand would carry the same message as Albus's using Gellert's. (Which, by the way, shows once again how indifferent Albus is to the trappings of power. Even though the admiring multitudes don't know that Gellert's wand is the Deathstick.)

In fact... well, Albus said "Tom resigned his post and vanished," decamping with Hepzibah's two greatest treasures after her murder. Faking his own death (like Peter did) would be a good way to deflect attention from himself if anyone started to question Hokey's guilt. And then when Lord V showed up with some of Tom's treasures, well, he'd stolen them from the thief.

But... well... if someone DID recognize him as the former Tom Riddle--and believed (possibly correctly) that he'd died and returned to life--well, that would REALLY enhance Lord Flight-from-Death's (or Stolen-from-Death's) reputation. Yes?

Albus having Fawkes (whether fully or on loan) would also make the timing of his naming his Order back in 1974 or so a little smoother. "Yup, naming my order after my familiar, which is a symbol of life and hope and stuff *handwave* and possibly a reminder that I have worked on alchemy with the immortal Nicholas Flamel" would raise less eyebrows than "Naming my order after a creature animal which is not particularly associated with me (but there are rumors about my enemy)."

Tom as an early "disappeared" victim also could help smooth out the contradictory statements that (a) few people know Voldemort was once Tom Riddle and (b) most people who knew him at school are afraid to talk. He implies that they're afraid because they know he's Voldemort and don't want to bring down his wrath, but what if he means that they're afraid because a few other people who tried to investigate what happened to poor Tom also came to bad ends? Poor Tom, who suddenly "resigned" (OR DID HE) and disappeared after those valuable artifacts went missing--well, suppose Voldemort was the thief, Tom found out about it somehow due to his connection with Hepzibah, and there's something in that whole murder and robbery affair that Voldemort doesn't want anyone looking into? (Not that he minded taking out Tom to eliminate a possible adversary as well, but perhaps Tom also Knew Too Much.)

Best not to even think about whatever it is Voldemort doesn't want people to know. Best not to mention you knew much about Tom at all, just to be safe. If he could take out Tom Riddle to cover it up, you'll be dead before you know it.

Or (and/or?), if one of the reasons Tom never got caught in school was because he Obliviated his victims, Dumbledore might not have been asking people about what Tom was like, exactly. He might have been saying, "I think you were Obliviated in school, and recovering your memories might give some important information. There is, alas, a slight risk that doing so will damage your mind somewhat..." So they weren't necessarily directly afraid of Tom/Voldemort, but of the PROCESS of remembering.

Oh, you're right. Thinking Tom died and returned as Voldemort would be impressive.

Is it possible that Fawkes belongs to Hogwarts? I've read some fics in which that's the case.

I'd say that's canon-shafted by his disappearance after Albus's death.

Well... we don't know for sure that Fawkes completely disappeared; we just know that Harry didn't see him again after the funeral. IDK, I have trouble stomaching the idea that Fawkes chose Albus as his companion. And I like the idea that the founders left behind magical creatures to guard Hogwarts - the basilisk, the giant squid, Fawkes, maybe the house-elves.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Rita Skeeter posts a contribution to our discussion

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Heh! Good catch! and it gets better....

Re: Heh! Good catch! and it gets better....

Re: Fawkes's acquisition

Re: Fawkes's acquisition

Re: Fawkes's acquisition

Re: Fawkes's acquisition

Re: Fawkes's acquisition

Re: Fawkes's acquisition

Re: Fawkes's acquisition