The Deathly Hallows: Morality of Mythical Objects

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 177403

va32h:
> Anyway, it's an old, old theme.  As it's used here, I'd say that 
> the idea is that you really can't cheat Death.  Death will always
> come for you, no matter how cleverly you think you've avoided him 
> and death will always win in the end.  You can act recklessly - as
> if you are above death (the brother with the wand), or you can
> wallow in  mourning for someone who's already gone (the brother
> with the stone) or you can accept that Death will be out there
> somewhere, sometime  and live your own life to the fullest, until
> you have to meet him.

Jen:  There's sort of a riddle to them as well, only one who doesn't 
seek them can find them; only one who doesn't attempt to use them to 
defeat death can work them properly or gain any benefit from them.  
They remind me of the Stone in the Mirror - only one who wants the 
Stone but not to use can get it out.   

va32h:
> Voldemort is very much like the first brother - he made his
> Horcruxes and thought he was above Death, and acted foolishly and
> arrogantly and in the end that killed him.  Snape is the second 
> brother - he is hopelessly lost to the past, devoting his entire
> life to someone who is dead and as a result not really living 
> himself.  Harry is the third brother - even at age 11, Harry freely
> acknowledged that death was inevitable at some point, even likely
> to strike him soon, and yet not the worst thing that could happen 
> to him. 

Jen: I thought of Grindelwald as the first brother because he 
obtained the wand by theft and wanted to use it for power and 
domination over others.  Eventually his evil plans were on such a 
grand scale that he was challenged and lost the wand to Dumbledore.  
Then Dumbledore was the second brother in my story because he 
was 'never free,' tempted by the Resurrection Stone to bring back his 
beloved dead.  First he wanted to bring back the dead as a young man 
to take away his unwanted responsibilities, then as an old man he 
hoped to see his beloved dead again.  Harry, third brother, yes.

The reason I wouldn't put Voldemort in is because he's so far removed 
from death he's actually defied it once.  He doesn't even bother 
learning about the Hallows because they are beneath him, less 
powerful than the Horcruxes.  Learning about a powerful wand is out 
of his need to find a wand that can work to kill Harry only and not 
as an attempt to unite the Hallows.  

va32h:
> She's sort of second brother-esque really, IMO.  It's one thing to 
> accept that Death is inevitable, it's another to create a 7 book 
> series as an homage to the fact that we're all going to DIE DIE
> DIE - I just felt hammered over the head by that particular 
> motif.   

Jen:  This is the part that worked best for me in the series because 
it was interesting to think about *if* a person had magical ability 
to seek a way to defeat death or bring back loved ones, what would a 
person do?  She made it seem realistic to me that a person could be 
shaped by how they used magical power, especially those using it in 
attempts to defeat either their own death, death of loved ones or 
bringing back lost ones.  I suppose on a personal level it's 
appealing for me to think of lost loved ones going on to 'the next 
great adventure' since I have no magical powers to stop death. :)  
(Not saying the way JKR approached death was appealing for everyone; 
I realize that's a very personal thing.)

Jen