CHAPDISC: DH25, Shell Cottage

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 183998

> Carol:
> Griphook himself is certainly no "fluffy bunny." He's tricky and
> treacherous, and his view that Goblinmade works, paid for by Wizards,
> belong to the Goblin who made them is preposterous. If I paint your
> portrait (pretencding that I can do so) and you pay me for it, you own
> the portrait. I *might* own the reproduction rights, depending on what
> society I live in, but not the portrait itself. 

Montavilla47:
I think this would depend on the original contract.  I mean, I can buy a car 
or I can lease it (or rent) it.  If I buy it, it's mine.  If I rent or lease, it remains 
the property of the owner, but I have the  rights to it for certain amount of 
time.  Maybe it was only for life that Godric Gryffindor leased the sword.  
We don't really know, do we?

I wonder why there is this question given about the sword.  It's not only
Griphook that Harry has a conflict with.  Scrimgeour refuses to hand the
sword over to Harry when Dumbledore wills it to him, on the principle
that the sword belongs to the *school* and that Dumbledore had no
 right to it after his death.

Was that just to bring it up so that we'd remember it when Harry needs
it?  That's not really necessary, since we have that gossip about the 
D.A. failing to steal the sword.  So, why the question of ownership?

Plus, the argument about the ownership of the sword is somewhat
unnecessary (as Mike Smith's brother, Jim, pointed out in sporking
the chapter).  It doesn't actually matter who owns the sword, because
Griphook wants Voldemort gone as much as anybody.  All Harry 
needs to tell him is that he needs the sword to accomplish that, and 
Griphook would probably lend it to him for the duration of the war.

So, I'm thinking there must be some hidden point to this question
of ownership.  What, I couldn't tell you.  The only thing I can add
(and I'm not sure it pertains) is that it sort of reminds me of stories
where people argue about who "owns" a dog.  Then, they always
settle it by putting the dog on the ground and having the disputed
owners call it.  Whoever the dog goes to is the owner.

Which works if the sword is a dog (i.e., a sentient being).  Maybe 
that's the point?

> > 5) We see many heroes in the Harry Potter books have bad qualities.
> Is the possibility of Godric Gryffindor's stealing the sword ("For the
> greater good") the thing Harry has to come to terms with about his
> house hero?
> 
> Carol:
> I don't think that Godric Gryffindor stole the sword that bears his
> name. It clearly was made for him to his specifications. As stated
> earlier, the fact that it comes to worthy Gryffindors under conditions
> of need and valor shows that it does *not* belong to the Goblins.

Montavilla47:
I really don't understand why the coming of the sword proves that
it belongs to anyone.  Hermione was able to summon the books
about Horcruxes, but they didn't belong to her.  It seemed to me
 that it wasn't the sword doing the coming, but the Sorting Hat
 that was fetching it in the CoS and with Neville.

Which makes me wonder.  Why did the Hat only produce the 
Sword?  Would it have summoned the Locket, if a Slytherin had
needed it?  Would it have brought the Cup for a Hufflepuff and
the Tiara for a Ravenclaw?

Heh.  If so, Dumbledore could have saved himself (and Harry)
a lot of bother.

Carol:
> nevertheless, we see Harry forced by circumstances into making a
> somewhat ethically iffy bargain--he intends to keep his promise to
> give Griphook the Sword of Gryffindor as his reward, but only when
> he's through with it. If Harry had named that condition, he'd have
> been more honest, but Griphook might not have agreed to that
> condition, and Harry couldn't take that chance. 

Montavilla47:
But why not?  Why would Griphook want to keep from Harry 
something that would help destroy Voldemort?  All Harry has
to say to Griphook is that he needs the sword to help defeat
Voldemort and that he'll give it to Griphook when Voldemort
is gone.  

The only way that doesn't work is if:  
a) Griphook doesn't believe Voldemort will ever be gone, or
b) Griphook doesn't believe that Harry will survive Voldemort, or
c) Griphook doesn't trust Harry to keep his word.

Well, there's no indication that Griphook sees this Voldemort
thing as eternal.  He obviously feels that there's going to be
life beyond LV, and thus he behaves in what he considers 
an ethical Goblin manner--rather than buckling down to the 
current regime.  (Also, what little know about the Goblin
wars shows that they keep coming back and never really give
up).

I suppose Griphook has no reason to think that Harry will
survive Voldemort, but there are plenty of witnesses around
who can testify about Harry's promise if that becomes an 
issue.  He could also ask for a written contract.

As for c), Griphook says that Harry is a very different wizard
(meaning that he's better than the other wizards who Griphook
doesn't trust), and Bill shows that wizards and Goblins can 
handle ethical working relationships, which involve some kind
of trust.  Also, as above, Griphook could demand a written
promise, which ought to be honored (unless Scrimgeour--
who is dead--pulls that "belongs to the School" business.)  

But if Griphook is that afraid of losing the sword, then he 
might as well just go ahead and steal it from the cottage 
and run off before the bank heist.