CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Silver Doe

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 182706

CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Chapter 19, The Silver Doe <snip summary>

Carol:
I'm sorry to snip your "admirably succinct and accurate summary," to
quote DD from memory. I'd like to state before I answer the questions
that this is one of my favorite chapters in DH, not only because they
*finally* destroy a Horcrux and Ron returns, but because it combines
suspense, excitement, humor, and pathos--JKR at her best. I loved the
description of the doe Patronus, which is clearly as powerful as it is
bright and beautiful, and Ron's characteristic "Are--you--*mental*?"
which not only sums up my own reaction (Are you crazy, Harry? Take off
the accursed Horcrux before you dive in!) but also lets us know in
three words exactly who is standing there, dripping wet, with the
Sword of Gryffindor in his hand. And, of course, there's the hint that
Snape is helping Harry . . . . All in all, one of the best chapters in
the book, IMO.

> Questions
>  
> 1.  Phineas Nigellus learns critical information about Harry's
location, which Hermione carelessly provides while the beaded bag is
open.  Has Phineas really been hanging out in that cramped bag all
this time?  Why is he willing to do this?

Carol responds:
Of course, not being Phineas, I can't answer with any certainty, but
he can no longer go to 12 GP even if there were any reason to do so.
His choices are reduced to Snape's office (where, as we learn in "The
Prince's Tale," he goes immediately to report HRH's location) or the
beaded bag. I think this is what he's been waiting for. IIRC, he
doesn't reappear after the Sword of Gryffindor is delivered, nor does
Hermione take out his portrait to keep them company after Ron returns.
I think that Phineas enjoys his role as both informant and informer
(that is, he drops tidbits of information to HRH like the nature of
Snape's detention for Neville, Luna, and Ginny and at the same time
listens for key information that HRH might provide if they drop their
guard, the most important being their location, which Snape needs to
deliver the sword). He's loyal to Headmaster Snape (we can see hints
of that in HBP, where he twice reacts to Harry's disparaging remarks
about the DADA professor) and the role suits him. I think even waiting
in Hermione's beaded bag for her to take out his portrait is more
exciting and rewarding than (literally) hanging around Snape's office
all day, listening to the other portraits talk or snooze. Also, he's
helping Slytherin, represented by headmaster Snape, to do its part in
the fight against Voldemort.
>  
> 2.  What did you think initially of the appearance of the silver 
doe?  Did you perceive clues (either on initial reading or rereading)
pointing to the identity of the doe?  Was it intended, in your view, 
as misdirection?  Was it effective?  Does it seem odd that Harry did
not attempt to identify the doe?

Carol:
My initial reaction was that it had to be Snape's Patronus, and, of
course, I was hoping that the opening chapter and George's ear were
misdirection (already partly balanced out by the revelation of the
detention that Snape had assigned), and we'd been told that Snape had
sent the Sword of Gryffindor to the Lestranges' vault, ostensibly not
knowing that it was a fake, and yet here was the real sword delivered
by someone with a Doe Patronus, so who else could it be? I was torn by
conflicting emotions, hope that this was the unarguable proof that
Snape was DDM (though the revelation of Harry's departure time and
George's ear still nagged at me), and annoyance that, despite my
theories that Snape was loyal to DD for some reason other than Lily,
the Snape/Lily shippers appeared to be right.

As for Harry's not attempting to identify the doe, both he and Ron
initially think it's that the other sent it, and in the next chapter,
as I noted in a recent post, they do speculate briefly that it might
have been Kingsley (ruled out because his Patronus is a lynx) or
evendead DD returning in some form (as Harry once thought that James
had returned to cast the Stag Patronus). Harry senses that it's
familiar, but I don't think he could possibly realize that it's
familiar because it was his mother's, or represents his mother, or
both. Interestingly, they never speculate that the caster might be
female, say, Mrs. Weasley. All they conclude is that the caster wants
to help them and that the Patronus is clearly not Dark magic. I don't
think they could have guessed, given their view of Snape as a
"murderer" and "coward" and traitor who "hated" Harry's "Mud-Blood"
mother, that the Patronus was Snape's, even if they figured out that
it was, in a sense, the mate to Harry's Stag Patronus and must
therefore have been his mother's. Obviously, Lily herself is not
casting it, and Snape's love for Lily is so incomprehensible to them
that it would not even occur as a remote possibility. (The characters'
preconceptions shape their interpretation of events and people
throughout the books.)
>  
> 3.  How long do you think Snape stayed behind the trees to watch? 
Did he leave when the sword was recovered, or might he have seen the
destruction of the locket?  How might Snape have interpreted this
action, given that he was unaware of the nature of the Trio's mission?

Carol responds:
That's a very good question, and I don't think that we have a
definitive answer since "The Prince's Tale" ends with Snape getting
ready to leave to deliver the sword of Gryffindor. However, Ron thinks
he saw something or someone move as he was running to rescue Harry. I
think that snape was on the verge of revealing himself when he
realized that Ron, not Harry, was going to retrieve the sword "under
conditions of need and valor." I think he watched just long enough to
see Ron emerge with Harry and the sword and to be sure that Harry was
alive before silently Disapparating. He might have seen Harry place
the locket on the stone and ask Ron to destroy it, but I don't think
so. And there was no reason for him to stay long enough to watch the
Horcrux destruction. If he did see the destruction of the Horcrux, I
think he would have realized that it, like Harry's scar, contained
part of Harry's soul and been angry with DD for not informing him
about it. (DD, for his own mysterious reasons, seems to be withholding
that information, and Snape, determined to do what he can, accepts
DD's secrecy, at the same time reassuring him that he won't let them
see him. It's interesting that he violates DD's instructions earlier
by saving Lupin, nearly revealing his loyalties by hitting a DE's hand
with Sectumsempra, and would apparently have done so again, revealing
himself and his loyalties by rushing forward to save Harry if Ron had
not shown up.) 

> 4.  The sword at the bottom of the lake is reminiscent of Arthurian
legend.  JKR is known for borrowing the stuff of legends and 
reworking those legends for her own purposes.  Is that what happened
here?  Is Harry at all comparable to King Arthur?  If so, how?  And
what about Ron's Arthurian connections, since it was Ron who succeeded
in retrieving the sword of Gryffindor?

Carol:
Yikes. A difficult question and one that requires a lot of canon from
both the HP books (all references to the Sword of Gryffindor, not just
this chapter) and to Arthurian legend. I'll just say that Harry's
ability to draw the sword from the Sorting Hat in CoS has always
struck me as being a cross between the boy Arthur pulling Excalibur
from the stone, accidentally revealing himself as the true king, and a
magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat. And in this chapter, we seem
to have a reference to the Lady in the Lake rising out of the water to
hand Excalibur to Arthur (though, of course, it's not nearly that easy
for Ron to retrieve it, and Harry, the Chosen One, ironically fails
altogether). At any rate, this scene, in addition to providing a
highly dramatic way for Ron to symbolically slay his demons, certainly
proves that he, like Harry earlier and Neville later, is a true and
worthy Gryffindor. (I wonder if the scene would have proven that Snape
was sorted too early if he'd had to rescue Harry himself. Would he
have left the sword or rescued both it and Harry?)

BTW, one of the Arthurian chroniclers, Geoffrey of Monmouth, calls
Arthur's spear "Ron." Wondering whether knew this tidbit and whether
it was relevant, I did a Google search and found an article called
"Ron the Spear," which discusses the Arthurian connections of the
Weasley family and Harry as JKR's "Once and Future King."
 http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=dorish&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3AdorishPost%3Aa8fe3539-0de2-46b4-ad5f-734b36883c98
  
> 5.  Why did it have to be Ron who destroyed the Horcrux?  Wouldn't 
Harry have been able to destroy it just as effectively?  If Harry had
wielded the sword, do you think the locket would have found a way to
torment him instead?

Carol responds:
I think that it was appropriate for Ron to destroy the Horcrux that
had tortured, enabling him to end his self-doubt and envy and jealousy
and resentment. Having Ron, who has just proven himself worthy of the
honor by saving Harry and retrieving the Sword of Gryffindor, destroy
the locket that tormented him not only allows Ron to strike a blow
against Voldemort, making him, in effect, Harry's equal on the Horcrux
quest, but it also, as I said, frees him of the demons that had
haunted him, which rise up out of the locket in very tangible form,
incidentally revealing to Harry exactly why Ron reacted as he did to
the locket Horcrux. It's not that Harry could not have destroyed the
locket just as effectively, given that he's also a worthy Gryffindor
and the sword is saturated with Basilisk venom, it's that "Ron the
spear" (sorry; overly influenced by that seeming coincidence) deserves
the honor and it serves a very important purpose to have him destroy
it. Harry is right, IMO, to believe that the one who retrieved the
sword should be the one to use it. His instinct here, as often (but
not always) is on the money. As for what would have happened if he had
destroyed the locket, I think the "demons" (Tom Riddle in some form)
would have tried to come between him and Ron, affecting them both.
Better to let Ron put an end to them once and for all.
>  
> 6.  The locket tortures Ron, but it begins with an observation and a
prophecy of sorts:  "I have seen your dreams, Ronald Weasley, and I 
have seen your fears.  All you desire is possible, but all that you
dread is also possible."  What does this statement tell us about Ron's
character?  And why didn't the locket just get on with the torturing?

Carol:
Just speculating here: I think this is one of Voldemort's false
promises, trying to make himself seem omniscient and omnipotent, like
his false promise to Harry in SS/PS that he, Voldemort, could bring
Harry's parents back to life if Harry handed him the SS. The locket is
trying to protect itself by claiming powers that it doesn't have (and
wouldn't use if it did). It's simultaneously a bribe (protect me and
I'll help you achieve your dreams) and a threat (endanger me and I'll
cause your fears to come true). It also serves as a preliminary to the
torture, which involves Ron's hopes (chiefly, earning Hermione's love
and admiration) balanced against his fears and self-doubts (chiefly,
that Harry will take Hermione away from him). Together, locket Tom's
remarks prepare Ron (and, incidentally, Harry and the reader) for the
tableau that follows, in which Locket!Harry and Locket!Hermione enact
those fears by taunting him and kissing each other. (What a scen that
will be if it's kept in the film!)
>  
> 7.  What is the significance of the scarlet in Ron's eye just before
he destroys the locket Horcrux?

Carol:
Very good question. It's quite scary because it's so reminiscent of a
similar red gleam in Diary!Tom's eye is CoS and in Tom Riddle's eye as
he examines the cup and the locket at Hepzibah Smith's house. My first
thought was that the locket Horcrux made a last-ditch effort to
possess him and Ron fought it off in the only possible way, destroying
the thing that tormented him, but I don't think that's the case. The
locket is winning at this point, and the figures of Locket!Harry and
Locket!Hermione are embracing and kissing. I think that, far from
being the final blow to Ron, this act enrages him, and he attacks the
figures out of pure fury, reflected by the red gleam in his eyes. (I'm
open to other interpretations; that's just the one that makes most
sense to me.)
>  
> 8.  What, if anything, do you make of the fact that the sword of 
Gryffindor was used only to destroy Horcruxes with a significant
Slytherin connection (the locket, the ring and Nagini)?

Carol:
I don't think it's significant. The diary also had a significant
Slytherin connection, and it was destroyed, ironically, by the very
Slytherin-related Basilisk fang (which, in turn, enables DD, Ron, and
Neville to use it against Horcruxes). I think its significance is that
it's the weapon of worthy Gryffindors under "conditions of need and
valor." (Harry has already used it to destroy the Basilisk, and the
Basilisk fang is just as effective.) Hermione is not in peril when she
destroys the cup Horcrux with a Basilisk fang (again associated with
Salazar Slytherin and Tom Riddle in various ways); we don't even know
if it produced some form of Riddle!Voldemort to torture her. (Could a
bit of Tom even come out of a cup?). And, of course, a Slytherin
destroys the Ravenclaw diadem (and himself) with a Dark curse intended
to kill Harry. So all of the Horcrux destructions are
Slytherin-related. Even Nagini's death, which seems to result from the
Sword cutting off her head, probably would not have occurred if the
sword hadn't been saturated with Horcrux-destroying Basilisk venom.
You can't rip, smash, crush, or otherwise destroy a Horcrux without a
powerful magical substance like Basilisk venom, which has no antidote
except Phoenix tears. In all cases, Voldemort's efforts to dominate
and destroy, to use Slytherin-related snakes as weapons and to teach
Dark curses to Slytherin students, backfire. In all cases, he's hoist
by his own Petard. In all cases, evil rebounds on itself like the AK
that rebounded off Harry, and LV's quest to prove himself the Heir of
Slytherin, like his quest for immortality (the Horcruxes) and for
power (the Elder Wand) works against him in the end.

> 9.  As Harry comforts Ron after the destruction of the locket, he 
finally realizes, now that Ron is back, "how much his absence had cost
them."  What was the cost?  How did Ron's absence affect their
progress?  How does his return change things?

Carol responds:
Another very good question! Aside from his saving Harry, retrieving
the Sword, and destroying the Horcrux, all of which, as Harry says,
make up for his absence, Ron's destruction of the Horcrux makes them
all feel that they've finally accomplished something. It's the first
thing they've accomplished since getting the locket from Umbridge.
More important, they've both missed Ron and having him with them
(healed of his demons and cheerful again) makes them whole. Harry and
Hermione were incomplete, a "brother and sister" and sister without
the third member of the group, whom Hermione loves (in spite of his
sometimes provoking behavior) and whom Harry has always regarded as
his *best* friend. (Harry's "Weezy" was the thing he would miss most
in the Second Task.) Without Hermione, of course, Harry would have
been in grave danger. She rescues him from Nagini and she provides the
protective spells (and I was glad to see those bluebell flames she's
been conjuring since first year finally play a small role). She
supplies books and book knowledge, but she also tends to panic in a
crisis (her handling of Nagini being a notable exception) and she's
weepy and depressed without Ron. His return allows them to be cheerful
again (once she's stopped beating him with her fists and calmed down).
In the next chapter, we see his optimism surface, and his perspective
later seems to provide a balance between Hermione's skepticism
regarding the Hallows and Harry's obsession with them. And in "The Doe
Patronus," he also brings them much-needed news (and provides a good
reason, which Harry would do well to heed, for not saying the name
"Voldemort").
>  
> 10.  Harry concludes that Ron's return went about as well as
possible, despite Hermione's reaction.  Do you agree?  Why?  What
purpose did that exchange serve?

Carol:
Yes, I agree. Hermione could have conjured her birds again and refused
to listen to Ron and Harry, in which case she would have missed out on
some important information. (BTW, have we ever seen a shield Charm
create a protective wall before this scene? I though it normally
caused the opponent's spell to backfire onto them, or just knocked the
other person over if he hadn't cast a spell.) I think the exchange
allows Hermione to express her pent-up fury and frustration (the
sadness caused by Ron's absence is no longer applicable, and her other
feelings have a chance to surface). It's revealing that Hermione
doesn't just welcome him with open arms; he's hurt her badly and she
wants to be sure that he knows it. And it's revealing, too, that Ron
doesn't just stand there and take it. He defends himself rather
spiritedly (though, as Hermione says, his two lost fingernails and
encounter with the Snatchers are hardly comparable with Nagini and
Voldemort). The exchange clears the air and at the same time allows
Harry, Hermione, and the reader to know what Ron has been doing while
he was gone.
>  
> 11.  This chapter is outwardly about Ron, but in retrospect the 
subtext is all Snape.  Is there a connection between these two
characters?  How are they alike.  To what extent are their 
differences the result of circumstances rather than character?

Carol:
Another excellent question. Of course, there's the surface resemblance
of Ron's seeming betrayal, but that's different from actually having
to kill Dumbledore and pretend to be a loyal Death Eater. Ron can
return to his friends and be forgiven (after, of course, rescuing
Harry, retrieving the sword, and destroying the Horcrux) but Snape has
to remain undercover, trusted by no one on the good side except a pair
of portraits. And, of course, both Ron and Snape are motivated by
love, but Snape's is unrequited and tinged by guilt and remorse, the
love of a dead woman which he can only show by secretly helping her
son and undermining Voldemort, whereas Ron's is requited but immature
and merely tainted by jealousy and self-doubt. Luckily for Ron, he
gets a chance to confront and destroy his inner demons. Snape, in
contrast, has to live with his, only sharing part of the with
Dumbledore. Tragically, Snape has no real friends, even Lily having
rejected him (with seemingly good reason) before she died. Ron knows
what love and friendship are, not to mention the family whose safety
he worries about even under the influence of the Horcrux. The boy
Severus, whose family was apparently even more pressed for money than
the Weasleys, may have been loved by his mother, but his father was
abusive. No one ever imagined the Snapes as one happy family, loving
and reunited. And, of course, both Ron and Snape are helping Harry in
this scene, and Snape, I'm almost certain, would have saved him as he
saved Draco and others if Ron hadn't arrived on the scene, but their
motives are very different.

I think, actually, that despite the inner demons that Ron and the
adult Snape have in common, that Snape's similarities are mostly to
Harry, from the abusive Muggle father or father figure and being
forced to wear shabby clothes to hair color and being bullied (Harry
empathizes with Severus in SWM) and body build to love of Lily (in
different ways) to their view of Hogwarts as their home and their
determination to destroy Voldemort. (One thing that JKR does extremely
well is create parallels between various characters, such as Severus
Snape and Sirius Black, or Snape, Harry, and Tom Riddle as a
threesome, or Harry and Draco in HBP or, on a small scale, Lily and
Ginny. It had never occurred to me to consider parallels between Snape
and Ron. It will be interesting to read others' responses.

Carol, who deleted a post (different thread) that for some reason
appeared twice and apologizes to anyone who was inconvenienced or
annoyed by the dupication

>