The Deathly Hallows: Morality of Mythical Objects

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 177438

Well, thanks for all the interesting responses! Got to read a lot of
different thoughts, some of which I'd like to comment on...

lizzyben:
But I think it really comes back to JKR's odd ideas about ambition.
She considers ambition & cunning to be "evil" & Slytherinish; traits
that lead to a desire for power & tyranny. The polar opposite of
ambition & accomplishment is - invisibility. That's why it's a "good
thing" that Harry gives up assertive power (the Wand), and accepts
passive invisibility (the Cloak). Of course, JKR later tells us that
all the heroes were wildly successful in their careers. But not
because they really wanted to be!! It's weird, but if you accept that
ambition=evil, the motif works better. It's not that ambition is a
"good" Slytherin trait - it's a Slytherin trait because it's "bad" in
JKR's world.

Prep0strus:
Not sure I WANT to accept this thesis, but it makes a lot of sense.  A
lot of people responded with what they think the moral is - that the
third brother was willing to face death fairly, not try to cheat him,
so he won.  And that's all well and good, I just think an invisibility
cloak is a really weird way to represent that.  You make an attempt to
explain why invisibility is used to represent something good in JKR's
world, and... it makes a lot of sense.  I mean, I agree with JKR that
ambition (especially the unchecked, 'do anything to get what you want
kind) is not good - and certainly not equal to the other traits, but
to have 'becoming invisible' be the ultimate good choice one can make
in a fable is a very strange metaphor.


zgirnius:
I think that Death did not deliberately fail to deliver a working
device with the Stone. Rather, what the brother asked for is
*impossible*. The dead who are not ghosts have moved on to
their 'next great adventure' and cannot truly be called back,
certainly not to live life again. The Stone brought a shade of the
brother's fiancee back, but she was not happy, and could not make him
happy, but this was his fault for requesting the impossible.

Prep0strus:
I mean, sure, I suppose, but that kind of sucks.  He probably thought
death had power over these things.  Death could have been like, 'nope,
can't do that one'.  Yes, it's a fable, but it just strikes me as odd
that his gift does not work as requested, and the others do.

Debbie:
Invisibility has many positive connotations as well. It recalls the
anonymous benefactor of Scripture, in contrast to the one who makes a
big show of his good works. His sole reward was public awareness of
his deed, whereas the first would be rewarded in heaven. If you do
something for fame or glory, you will have your full reward right
away. However, if you live your life justly and honestly, but quietly,
you will be able to meet Death as an equal, without fear. Harry never
felt comfortable with his fame, and the Invisibility Cloak allowed him
to accomplish much good he could not have achieved in public.

Prep0strus:
I suppose. I mean, it is true that Harry uses the cloak well.  All I
know is that if I were given various superpowers, I would know what to
do with them.  And maybe it's me, and my flawed mind, but if I were
given an invisibility cloak, I think I would wind up spending more
time fighting temptation to do things I shouldn't do with the cloak
than I would be able to actually think of things that I could do with
it to be useful. It all depends on your own reading, but to me,
invisibility is associated with shame or fear more than other
attributes - certainly not courage or responsibility, which JKR
appears to stress in the rest of the story.

Bart:
So, the Wizards choose the route of being hidden from the Muggles (the
invisibility cloak). This way, they can live out their lives
undisturbed from the outside.

As I implied, this is from asking the question, "What COULD it mean?"
but I think I have a good fit.

Prep0strus:
I doubt this is what she actually meant to do, but it certainly is an
interesting interpretation that includes the invisibility cloak as a
viable metaphor. Still, once taken away from the 'story within a
story', and then applied from the Harry Potter world to our world,
invisibility still remains to me a strange choice to be admired - it's
like, the opposite of the metaphors implied by The Invisibles, and
other stories where it is stressed that to be unique is good, to be
special is good, and we do not all need to be the same, mediocre,
unnoticed.  With glorifying invisibility, even within the context of
hiding from muggles, I think it is a pointed message of, 'Don't stand
out!'

I really like fables and fairy tales and thought it was cool that JKR
included one, especially as it then related to their actual world. 
But I don't think she executed it wonderfully, and I especially found
the metaphor of the cloak to be lacking - it really just makes me
wonder whether it was in her mind the entire time, or she thought of
the story long after incorporating the cloak and had to jam it in some
way.

~Prep0strus(Adam)