CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - The Will of Albus Dumbledore

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 179031

Kathryn Jones wrote:

> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - The Will of Albus Dumbledore
> 
> 	I feel that I must warn you that the length, and tediousness of
this chapter is only exceeded by those describing the camping trip.  A
great deal happens in this chapter, but the author describes it in
such a way as to hide the importance of any new happenings. Only seven
other chapters are as long as or longer than this one. <snip most of
summary>

Carol responds:
While it's true that the chapter could have been divided into two,
length doesn't always equal tedium. Maybe she was increasing the
suspense as to what was in DD's will by making us wait! And I also
think that, like Scrimgeour, most readers thought there was more to
DD's bequests than appeared on the surface. I enjoyed the chapter,
especially the part about the will, myself. 

I do, however, have some comments about the chapter itself, so, if
you'll forgive me, I'll just use bits of your excellent summary as
jumping-off points for my own commentary before answering the questions.
>
Kathryn:
> Hagrid gives Harry a furry moleskin pouch as a gift. <snip>

Carol comments:
Just wondering here: Does the Bloomsbury edition say "moleskin" (like
Hagrid's coat in PoA)? The American edition says "mokeskin," which I
thought was a typo except that its used consistently throughout the
book (a moke being a silver-green lizard that can shrink at will, as a
fellow listmember mentioned to me offlist--how it could be furry,
escapes us, however. I confess that I read it as "moleskin" until she
asked me about it, and I was surprised to find "mokeskin" throughout.
I guess my mind automatically supplied what it thought was the correct
reading.) Anyone else have any thoughts on mokeskin/moleskin? 

Kathryn:
> As they enter the sitting room, Harry flicks his wand at the lights
to turn them on. <snip>

Carol comments:
An action that serves in advance to make the Deluminator seem
superfluous, right?--though it does turn out to have its uses. (I
always wondered why either DD in SS/PS or Mad-Eye in OoP needed the
thing when they could as easily have used a wand to put out and
relight the street lamps. Maybe the advantage is that, with the light
actually sucked out of them, they can't be relit by any means until
the balls of light are returned to them?)

Kathryn:
> Harry asks why Scrimgeour has decided to let them have their things
now.  Hermione answers again that he must give them up because he is
only able to hold them for thirty-one days and the time is up. <snip>

Carol comments:
And yet DD died in early June, right around Draco's seventeenth
birthday (June 6). If Scrimgeour confiscated the will at the first
opportunity, wouldn't the thirty-one days have been up around three
weeks earlier? Why would he wait until June 30 to obtain the will,
considering that he's the Minister of Magic and there's no Amelia
Bones or other conscientious and high-ranking Ministry official to
hinder his doing so? Just wondering if JKR is off in her calculations
yet again.

Kathryn:
>  Ron examines his deluminator.  When Hermione arrives, she casts
"Muffliato", one of the Prince's spells to silence the room.  She
replies "Times change," in response to Ron's query regarding her use
of the spell. <snip>

Carol comments:
A bit ironic that its okay to use Snape's spells now that she knows
they're his considering that she also thinks he's DD's murderer. Is
she giving tacit approval to Harry's earlier use of Sectumsempra on
Draco (which she had previously criticized, and rightly, IMO), or do
her words foreshadow Harry's changed views on Sectumsempra? (Maybe the
words reflect JKR's own views: desperate times call for desperate
measures--not that Muffliato, always a useful spell, is a desperate
measure. Maybe all Hermione is saying is that it no longer matters to
her whether a spell is Ministry-approved (and considering that the
Ministry is already crumbling, with Scrimgeour as the best it now has
to offer, perhaps that view is understandable).

Kathryn:

>  Beadle the Bard is a book of children's stories. 

Carol comments:
Technically, Beedle the Bard is the author; the book itself is "Tales
of Beedle the Bard," a title that reminded me of "Tales from Grimm"
(my childhood edition of the tales by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm).
Interesting how often "tale" appears in DH, in contrast to the six
previous books: "Kreacher's Tale," "The Tale of the Three Brothers,"
"The Prince's Tale." I'm not sure of the significance of this motif,
but we certainly get a variety of tales within a tale.
> 
> Questions:
> 
> 1.	Why does Voldemort seem relatively reasonable in this viewing? 
Is this a way for the author to tell us that Harry and Voldemort are
becoming more indistinguishable from each other?  We have often seen
Harry unable to think of anything else other than his obsession of the
moment.

Carol responds:
Interesting perspective, but this example of Harry dreaming from LV's
perspective is the only one of its kind in the book, IIRC. In all
other instances, he feels his scar hurt and is quite able to
distinguish LV's rage and/or calculated killing from his own feelings.
I thought it was just an indication that the scar connection was
unblocked again or unguarded, perhaps strengthened by the destruction
of another Horcrux (the ring). Or perhaps, with DD's death and his own
victory near at hand (and the distraction of the wand), LV is
overconfident, underestimating the danger from Harry and unaware that
the scar link is still working. As for his seeming "relatively
reasonable," I think that's explainable by overconfidence, too. he's
not expecting to be thwarted in his goal. He's not angry; he's eager.
And even LV doesn't *usually* kill without a reason (the needless
murders of the German woman and her children later in the book may
indicate a further loss of control, as the murderous rages almost
certainly do).
> 
> 2.	Have we heard the name of Gregorovitch before in previous books?
Is this another way to add confusion to the separation/connection
between the minds and memories of Harry and Voldemort?  Are the
details of the name, the place abroad, and the Quidditch connection
enough of a hint to let us know who Voldemort is looking for?

Carol responds:

Leave it to Harry, whose memory is not particulaly retentive, to
associate Gregorovitch with Quidditch rather than with wands (I'm sure
it's the Krum connection, and Krum, despite having been a TWT rival,
is in Harry's mind primarily the world's greatest Seeker). I knew
right away where I'd heard the name, in GoF ("The Weighing of the
Wnds") and that he was the wandmaker who had made Krum's unusually
thick hornbeam wand. And so, of course, I connected LV's search with
the torture of Ollivander, the twin cores, the destruction of Lucius's
wand, etc.--not, of course, with the whole Elder Wand subplot or the
Deathly Hallows. JKR was leaving hints for the reader to pick up
rather more easily than Harry did without giving away the whole story.
I didn't see the confusion between LV's and Harry's minds and memories
that you're talking about. LV would have learned about Gregorovitch
from Ollivander (as Harry did, too, indirectly), but Harry had his own
Gregorovitch memory. He just recalled it imperfectly (as people do so
often in real life--"I know I've heard that name somewhere
before"--and so he has).

As for the Quidditch connection being enough of a hint, for me, it was
a momentary distraction. (Huh? Gregorovitch is a foreign wandmaker.
What's the Quidditch connection? Oh, yeah. Viktor Krum is the
Bulgarian team's Seeker.)


> 3.	We see Harry hit himself in the eye with his glasses and tie his
shoelaces in a knot.  Ron suggests that he continues to do up his fly
by hand. We have seen Harry perform other minor or unsuccessful
spells.  Is this repetition of ineptitude a way for the author to
increase our concern for Harry.  Is this a way for the author to
encourage less talented readers that they can be heroes?  

Carol:
I just thought it was a bit of humor and a reminder that he and Ron
are still teenage boys who would joke about what would happen to a boy
or man if he ineptly zipped up his fly. I didn't see it as Harry being
inept so much as being overeager and attempting to use magic for every
little thing (a la the Weasley Twins when they came of age--remember
the skid marks from the scalding soup kettle and the knife that struck
the table just where Sirius's hand had been a second before in OoP?)
It served to lighten the mood temporarily. It certainly didn't
increase my concern for Harry (though I agreed with Harry himself that
he's less powerful and talented than everybody but Snape seems to
think). not that I wasn't already concerned for him, but more because
of the first few chapters than because of anything in this one.
  
> 4.	There appears to be no sensation in either the placing or removal
of the Trace.  If the Ministry of Magic, for any reason, can apply a
trace, what does this say about privacy issues in the Wizarding World?
 Considering the fact that Harry performed under-aged magic on several
occasions, inadvertently, without causing any repercussion from the
MOM, does this plot point make consistent sense?

Carol:
I think we're supposed to believe that accidental magic (such as the
broken brandy goblet) is normally ignored if it can pass as an
accident or if the person performing it is too young to have a wand
(as Sev tells Lily in "The prince's Tale"). I think we're being set up
for the Taboo (as we have been since SS/PS by the fear of speaking
Voldemort's name). But, of course, the Ministry itself has undergone
several changes in attitude in the books: In CoS, we have what I
presume to be the normal attitude toward underage magic in connection
with magic performed in front of Muggles, essentially a slap on the
wrist. In PoA, circumstances have changed: Harry is presumed to be the
intended victim of a mass murderer. In OoP, they've changed again,
with Harry viewed as a propaganda tool for Dumbledore, who is
ostensibly plotting a coup, and Fudge is now persuaded that Harry is a
an emotionally unstable liar. And now, of course, the Ministry is
about to fall, and by the time that the Taboo is in place, it has
already fallen. So, although I certainly see inconsistencies, I think
that the repercussions of Harry's performing underage magic depend in
large part on the Ministry's attitude toward him at any given time.

> 5.	This [birthday gift] seems odd to me, as Harry has split with
Ginny for her protection.  Why would Ron encourage Harry to seek other
female company when he knows how upset Ginny is and how Harry feels
about Ginny?  Does Ron actually understand that Harry is not likely to
survive?  

Carol:
First, I don't think that teenagers in general see themselves and
their friends as mortal. Nor do I think that Ron is putting two and
two together regarding Harry and Ginny. IMO, he's made a great
discovery (how girls' minds [supposedly] work and how to "charm" them
in more senses than one) and wants to share it with his best friend.
(He even gives Harry a thumbs up for complimenting his [Ron's] mother,
possibly thinking that they can soften her up through flattery. The
old "roses and lollipops" attitude. Give a woman flowers and candy (or
compliments on her taste or appearance) and she'll give you anything
you want--depending, of course, on whether she's your mother or
teacher or sister or girlfriend. Before anyone jumps on me, of course
I realize that the whole theory is sexist nonsense, but I think that
JKR is laughing at Ron here. At least he's attempting to be tactful,
which, for Ron, who has just started to understand his own feelings
for Hermione and is still very far from understanding her, considering
how she might react to his words is a step forward. As for Harry's
applying the technique to Ron's own little sister, whom he has broken
up with, I don't think it entered Ron's head. (He may be under the
same delusion as Ginny, that Harry may encounter a Veela or some other
beautiful girl on their "adventure," and engage in a flirtation or
some serious snogging in between duels with Dark wizards. He
understands that they're going into danger, but, IMO, he's
romanticizing the Horcrux hunt, which will be both tedious and
perilous but, with the exception of the Sword of Gryffindor incident,
neither as glamorous nor as exciting as he anticipates.)

> 6. We have seen Dumbledore's watch, Ron's watch, Molly's clock, and
now Fabian's watch.  We have also seen time-turners.  What is the
fascination with time?

Carol responds:
I don't know about the fascination with time (except that I'm sure
everyone has wanted to go back and change something that happened in
their lives at one point or another), but the idea of giving someone a
watch when they come of age may tie in with the Muggle idea of giving
them a watch when they retire. At any rate, it seems to be a
traditional gift. For me, the significance is not in the watch itself
(though Harry may need one if he hasn't replaced the one he ruined in
the Second Task) so much as the fact that the watch belonged to Fabian
Prewitt, who died with his brother Gideon heroically facing five Death
Eaters. Ron, used to receiving his brothers' cast-offs, appreciated
having a new watch of his own but would have regarded Fabian's as yet
another hand-me-down. Harry, OTOH, has lost enough loved ones to
understand what the watch means to Molly, and he appreciates it far
more than he would a new watch that he could easily buy for himself.
His reaction to the gift, wordless emotion and a hug, is one of my
favorite Harry moments. And I liked the fact that he was still using
that beat-up old watch in the epilogue. nice touch, JKR.
> 
> 7.	We have seen Hermione as the boys' conscience, their researcher,
their tutor.  Why are we seeing this "Suzie homemaker" side of
Hermione?  Is this in character?  Is JKR correct in assuming that all
young girls want to impress their boyfriends with their homemaking
abilities?

Carol:
Um, I'm not sure where this idea is coming from. My understanding is
that Hermione was waiting for Ron's pants ("underpants," in the U.S.
edition) to come out of the wash so that she can finish packing--not
so much "Suzie Homemaker" as Boy Scout Hermione ("Be prepared" is our
used to be the Boy Scout motto). She's practical, preparing for almost
any emergency, with her beaded bag and her stacks of books she thinks
they might use, whereas they're, well, teenage boys who don't think
about packing--or would do it wrong or forget something important. She
knows that they'll need the Sneakoscope, at least. (I'm not sure
whether Harry ever uses his magical razor or even remembers that it's
there, given his appearance in the "Malfoy Manor" chapter.) Maybe
she's playing little mother, but she's also thinking in practical
terms, as the boys obviously are not.
> 
> 8.	Have we seen Hermione obey Ron like this before?  Why does JKR
make Ron look like an idiot most of the time and then demonstrate this
masterful side?

Carol:
I don't think she makes Ron look like an idiot most of the time. He
does, on occasion, assert himself when he thinks that Hermione is
butting in. Usually, it's to tell Hermione that Harry can think for
himself and to stop nagging him to do what she thinks is the right
thing (or not to do what she thinks is wrong). In this instance, I
think he believes that this is Weasley family business and that he's
his sister's defender and protector, so he wants to deal with Harry
"man to man." It may be sexist, but in my experience, it's how teenage
boys (and some adult men) think. IMO. JKR is being realistic here
rather than politically correct. (And it's no as if Hermione has never
silenced Ron when she considers herself to be the authority or the
injured party.)
> 
> 9.	How does the pouch know that ownership was transferred?

Carol:
Maybe Hagrid talked to it: "I'm givin' yeh to Harry now, an' he's yer
new master." :-) Otherwise, maybe it's like a wand and has some
magical means of knowing who its master, erm, owner, is.
> 
> 10.	Is this patronus appropriate for Arthur Weasley from what we
know about his character?  Is it a foregone conclusion that some
Weasley will have a weasel for a patronus?  Wouldn't Percy make a
better weasel?

Carol:
Well, I hate to bring in JKR's interviews, but she's expressed a
fondness for the Mustelid family (weasels, ferrets, otters, etc.),
which she considers to be unfairly maligned. (I'm not sure where
Draco's transformation into a white ferret comes in, but maybe he was
temporarily a tow-headed Weaselby. ;-) ) Hermione's otter Patronus
surely represents Ron, another "weasel," or rather Ron's playful side.
The Weasleys live in *Otter*y St. Catchpole, another variation on the
weasel/otter motif. I don't think that Percy, who loves his family and
comes around to the right side in the end, is any more a "weasel" in
the derogatory sense of a sly, sneaking person (after all, he's pretty
open in his rebellion) than any other member of the family. (IMO, his
patronus is probably a beaver, considering that he loves work, even
though a beaver is a rodent and not a mustelid.) The badger, symbol of
the loyal Hufflepuffs, is also a mustelid, and all mustelids are
fearless. So I'd say that assigning the family the name Weasley and
the weasel Patronus to Arthur is a kind of left-handed compliment on
JKR's part. Both Weasleys and weasels are misunderstood and
underestimated. Just my take on the name and the Patronus.
> 
> 11.	Does Lupin explain later?  Why are they afraid for Scrimgeour to
see them?

Carol responds:
Lupin or Tonks, I forget which, does explain later (IIRC in "The
Wedding"), but since this post is already too long, I'll let someone
else look up the canon. It's also possible that Lupin thinks that
Scrimgeour shares Umbridge's views on werewolves; clearly, he thinks
of himself as persona non grata for having married a witch and Tonks
as the same for having married a werewolf. 
> 
> 
> 12. Does Scrimgeour see Ron as the weak link?  Do we see Ron as the
weak link?  Ron was portrayed as equally skilled in the first book and
was more knowledgeable about Wizarding things than Harry or Hermione.
 Has this change in position added to the books? 

Carol:
Scrimgeour doesn't know Ron--or Hermione, for that matter. But
clearly, he wanted to talk to the kids separately because they'd be
more vulnerable that way, unable to work as a team. Ron is only the
"weak link" in that he inadvertently blurts out his lack of a close
relationship with Dumbledore (which Scrimgeour, probably an former
student of DD's himself, would consider to be normal; DD's mentorship
of Harry, sporadic as it has been, is highly unusual and highly
publicized. A similar connection with Ron or Hermione or any other
student does not exist, and Scrimgeour knows it). Harry's knowledge of
the WW has to some extent caught up with Ron's (but Ron is still the
authority on UVs in HBP) and both of them have learned from Hermione
(who also learned from Ron; in CoS, for example, it's Ron who tells
Hermione what "Mudblood" means, the movie to the contrary). And in DH,
it's Ron who tells them about the Taboo. Harry would have done well to
listen to him. All in all, they balance each other out. And Ron at his
best is courageous and loyal, more important traits, according to
Hermione herself, than books and cleverness. (Both Ron and Hermione
get to destroy a Horcrux, with Harry aiding Ron and Ron aiding
Hermione. They're a team, and Harry needs them both.)

> 13.	Does this [Hermione's answering Scrimgeour's questions] seem
more like our Hermione?  Which Hermione do we like better?  Is there
consistency with this character?

Carol:
Certainly, answering Scrimgeour's questions as if he were a teacher is
in character for Hermione (though the only teacher she's ever defied
as she defies Scrimgeour is Trelawney). It's as if she sees him as
simultaneously an authority figure, an intellectual equal, and her
moral inferior. But taking the packing and planning into her own hands
(rather than trying to get the boys to take part in it and perhaps do
an inadequate or inferior job) is in character for Hermione, too, just
as she took the jinxing of the parchment and the evacuation of her
parents into her own hands. Hermione does not delegate authority well.
She wants things done "right" (her way). And, in this instance, she
does an excellent job of finding everything that they might need
(except food) and a way to bring it all with them. (Let's hope that
she doesn't do everything for her children when she grows up, or
they'll be far too dependent on her.)
> 
> 14	Many of the laws in the Wizarding World seem intrusive. Is this
to maintain some kind of control over magical and powerful citizenry,
or is it misuse of power by magical legislators?  Hermione shows that
the laws in the Wizarding World have the expected checks and balances,
but do we see them used?

Carol:
We've seen that the wizarding laws are all too easily changed and the
government too easily taken over through what amounts to a military
coup. Maybe the government is too centralized; certainly, from a
democratic standpoint, it would benefit from a separate judiciary and
from general elections rather than appointed officials, not to mention
a free press rather than one government-controlled newspaper and a few
independent rags. Maybe JKR is satirizing the British government here;
I can't say. (And speaking as an American, I can't honestly say that
our antiquated Electoral College system is much better.)
> 
> 15.	Didn't we all think that Hermione's knowledge of Quidditch was
negligible?  Is she studying Quidditch to become more the kind of
person most suited to Ron?  

Carol:
I think her knowledge of Quidditch *is* negligible in terms of the
names and rankings of players and the best broom and so forth. But in
terms of magic (the spells on a broom or a Snitch) or history (the
inventor of the Snitch, etc.) she probably knows as much or more than
the boys. She's not caught up in the sport itself, but I'm sure she's
as interested in the theoretical and historical aspects as she is in
magical theory and history of magic in general. And, no, I don't think
it has anything to do with Ron (whereas his statement about food being
an exception to Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfiguration in "The Lost
Diadem" has everything to do with Hermione).
> 
> 16.	Is there any mention about the flesh memory in any prior books
or was this just tossed in as a belated plot point?  Was Wood wearing
gloves when he first taught the rules to Harry? 

Carol:
Well, JKR couldn't have provided this information earlier without
spoiling part of the plot, and I do think sh planned from the
beginning for the Snitch that Harry nearly swallowed to play a role in
DH, silly tough it seemed at the time. Again, I'll let someone else
look it up, but I did notice that Film!Wood wasn't wearing gloves. Oops.
> 
> 17.	Does anyone feel that the antagonism between Scrimgeour and
Harry is too contrived? Is it necessary to the plot?

Carol:
I felt that he needed an adult antagonist other than Snape, and we did
have more than a book to wonder where Scrimgeour's loyalties lay. I
don't think that the antagonism is contrived--Harry has good reasons
for his hostility to the Ministry (though how he expects Scrimgeour to
connect the scars on his hand with Dolores Umbridge is unclear; I
doubt that Scrimgeour knows about the quill). What i thought was
contrived was Scrimgeour's spending all that time studying the will
and trying to figure out the secrets of the Snitch, the book and the
Deluminator. Hiding in his office for a month when DD was dead and LV
could strike at any moment makes no sense given his personality and
his Auror past; I think JKR needed him dead to make a DE takeover easy.
> 
> 18.	Could anyone please explain to me why a flesh memory in a snitch
would be likely to tell the difference between flesh and lips? 

Carol:
Well, not lips but tongue. Maybe it needed Harry's saliva to recognize
him. (Sorry. You asked.) 
> 
> Extra questions:
> 
> 19.    What is the most important "happening" in this chapter:
Voldemort's search for Gregorovitch, Harry's birthday, the loss of the
trace, the flight of the Lupins, the bequests from Dumbledore or the
antagonism of the Minister?

Carol:
IMO, the bequests, as suggested by the chapter name. Also, each one
constitutes a minor mystery and is tied directly or indirectly either
to the Horcruxes or the Hallows.
> 
> 20.	What parts of this chapter would you have left out as
unnecessary to either plot or characterization?  

Carol:
I wouldn't have left anything out since it's all important to varying
degrees, but if I were JKR's copyeditor, I'd suggest dividing the
chapter in two.

Carol, whose only objections to the chapter apply to the book as a
whole--inconsistencies with previous books, especially regarding the
magical properties of familiar objects and operations, and some
too-convenient coincidences