CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15, The Goblin

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 181859

> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,
> Chapter 15, The Goblin's Revenge
> 
> "The sword of Gryffindor was hidden they knew not where, and
> they were three teenagers in a tent whose only achievement was
> not, yet, to be dead."

> <snip admirable summary: I loved your starting with that quotation
and "extendable earshot." :-)>

Carol comments:

I would add that we know a few things about Dirk Cresswell, whose last
name you didin't provide. He was the former head of the Goblin Liaison
Office (which partially explains the presence of the two Goblins in
the party--note that he translates a comment in Gobbledygook for Ted
and Dean--and he was one of Slughorn's ex-Slug Club members (Carol
grants points to Slughorn for recommending a Muggle-born). One of the
men who speaks to Runcorn!Harry on the elevator credits Runcorn with
revealing Cresswell's family tree and hopes to get his job. (I can
find the page numbers for this info if anyone wants them.)

Questions for Discussion:
> 
> 1. The chapter opens with the burial of Moody's eye. Might this be
viewed as foreshadowing of the death of the trust among the trio at
the close of the chapter?

Carol responds:

I didn't get that feeling at all. It's the closest thing in the book
to a Christian burial (Harry marks the grave with a crude cross). i
thought it was a moving and significant gesture from Harry (though he
didn't share it with the others). Possibly, it helped to assuage his
guilt for taking the eye and revealing their presence; OTOH, I can see
why he didn't want Umbridge to have the eye and didn't want to use it
himself, useful as it might have been if they'd figured out a way to
use it. I think he was making up to it, or to the dead Mad-eye, for
the degradation of being used by the foul Umbridge to spy on her own
people. I don't see any foreshadowing; mor like closure. Harry didn't
get a chance to bury Hedwig or say good-bye to her (or to his
godfather earlier). At least he can do a bit for all that remains of
Mad-Eye. I think we see in this scene, as we do when Harry digs
Dobby's grave, that honoring and decently burying the dead helps to
heal the survivors, and a private ceremony is as good as if not better
than a splendid funeral like Dumbledore's. IOW, ritual, especially in
relation to death, serves a deep-seated human need.
> 
> 2. Hermione's suggestion that it is too dangerous to wear the
Horcrux is overruled by Harry who insists it must be worn in shifts
for security. Would the evil influence of the locket have been
lessened or avoided if Hermione's instinct had not been summarily
rejected and the Horcrux had been stored on their persons in her
beaded bag or Harry's moleskin bag?
> 
Carol:
Forgive me, but it's mokeskin, as zanooda pointed out to me soon after
DH came out. Hagrid's birthday present to Harry can only be opened by
the owner, but I'm not sure that it would protect Harry from the evil
influence of the Horcrux. It might not even be large enough to hold a
locket the size of a chicken's egg (only flatter??) with the items it
already had in it. And possibly putting it in the beaded bag isn't the
best idea, either, since, as Harry knows from experience, Horcruxes
don't respond to Summoning Charms, and it would be hard to find it by
fishing around among all those other items (which is why he resorted
to a summong charm for the Dittany). And, yet, it does seem like a
really stupid idea (not to mention to reminiscent of a certain ring
worn on a chain around the neck of a certain Hobbit) to wear the
thing. Are they afraid of losing it? Surely, they're not going to
fight over who gets to put it in their pocket. I would think that
putting it inside a pillowcase or medicine cabinet safely in the tent
but away from their bodies would be safest--unless, of course, Snape
hadn't delivered the Sword of Gryffindor and it had been in the tent
when the Snatchers caught them. That would have been disastrous!

> 3. Harry's belief about the importance of identifying the thief and
his hypothesis about Hogwarts being a likely place to locate a Horcrux
are also rejected. Were the weeks of wandering and wondering worse for
the trio than the risks of following these leads?

Carol:
Well, the identity of the thief isn't really a lead as far as the
Horcrux hunt is concerned. It ties in with the Hallows (and knowing
what Voldemort is up to). At least Harry knows that Voldemort is both
sidetracked from his takeover of Hogwarts and then the British WW and
perhaps WW!Europe after that, and stymied as well. (And he'd have
stayed that way if only they hadn't made their later excursion to GH!)
As for Hogwarts, I'm not sure that they could have gotten in without
Aberforth's help. I can just see them charging into snape's office
under the Invisibility Cloak, to be greeted by DD's Portrait and Snape
together. (Snape would, of course, guess who had invisibly opened the
door.) I suppose that snape could have treated the three of them to a
Pensieve excursion, minus the crucial self-sacrifice memory to gain
Harry's trust and simply handed him the real Sword of Gryffindor, but
it wouldn't make much of a story, would it?
> 
> 4. Ron's intuition about the danger of speaking "Voldemort" is
repeatedly met with skepticism and derision as well. What themes about
faith, trust and open-mindedness can be articulated based on these
scenarios in the chapter?

Carol:
Obviously, the Horcrux is spreading discord, but part of the problem
can be traced to Dumbledore's teaching Harry not to fear Voldemort's
name. I think, and I'm probably alone in this thought, that the fear
had a basis, not in superstition like "Speak of the devil, and he'll
appear," but in speaking Voldemort's name leading to discovery by DEs
or LV himself. Even if there was no jinx last time (and I suspect
there was), anyone who spoke Voldemort's name would instantly reveal
himself to any DE within earshot as an enemy. But Ron has been urging
them not to say Voldemort's name without any intuitive sense that it's
jinxed for years now, and both Harry and Hermione simply tune him out
(one more reason for Ron to feel like a useless third wheel). Probably
they should have gone along with Ron for the sake of peace, but he was
being such a whiny little jerk that I can see why they didn't. Score
one point for the Horcrux.
> 
> 5. What – besides the corrosive effects of the Horcrux – could
account for the paralysis created by Harry, Ron and Hermione not
taking each other's instincts seriously?

Carol:
Harry's history of being wrong, drastically so in the case of Sirius
Black's supposed captivity in the MoM, can't have helped. Neither can
lack of food, lack of a plan, and lack of guidance from Dumbledore,
whose legacy (a children's book, a Deluminator, and an old Snitch)
must seem frustratingly useless. Isolation (no way to correspond with
friends or even hear or read the news), and in Ron's case, fear for
his family, makes matters even worse. Even without the Horcrux, their
morale would be at its nadir at this point. (Well, not quite. I don't
want to jump ahead, but Ron's departure, grumpy though he was, doesn't
help matters, and they get worse before they get better.)
> 
> 6. If food is the first of five principal exemptions to Gamp's
> Law of Elemental Transfiguration, what could the other four
> exemptions be? And what could be the basis for these exemptions
> – the direct interaction between the element and the physical
> body of a human?

Carol:
Don't ask me to provide a pseudoscientific basis! But I'll bet that
another of the exceptions is money (or gold, silver, gems, and
anything else of similar worth). Leprechaun gold doesn't last, and
Hermione's fake coins are worthless except as a means of
communication. If money and other sources of wealth could be conjured,
there would be no need for Goblins to mint coins and no need for any
Witch or Wizard to go without the necessities of life. Lupin wouldn't
look thin and sickly (he's healthier at Hogwarts) and wear shabby
robes. the Weasleys wouldn't have to scrimp and buy used books and
robes. Witches and Wizards wouldn't even need to work if they could
conjure money without earning it. (what that would do to the economy,
I can't begin to guess.) I don't think that they can conjure potions,
either, or there would be no need for cauldrons and the exact art and
science of potion-making, to paraphrase someone we're all familiar
with. As for furniture, clothing, and shelter, we see both DD and
McGonagall conjuring chairs, but I don't think that such conjured
furniture would last. And if a skilled Wizard can conjure a shelter,
why are Dirk Cresswell and Ted Tonks hiding in the open? And if robes
can be conjured, why does Remus Lupin dress so shabbily? (Someone
should have taught that man some "householdy" spells so that he could
at least mend them neatly!) So that's five: Food; money/gems/valuable
minerals; clothing; shelter; permanent furniture--in short, the
necessities of modern life. Oops, that leaves no room for potions!

Let's say that I'm wrong about furniture and shelter. Could Hogwarts
(and its plumbing) have been conjured? Might the purple chairs that DD
conjured at the MoM have been permanent if he hadn't vanished them? If
so, then what about living things? Will Hermione's conjured birds keep
on flying and singing or fade away like Leprechaun gold? I vote fade
away. And I doubt that conjured flowers like the orchids that
Ollivander sent from Fleur's wand have a permanent existence, either.)

Revised list: Food, money (and gems, gold, etc.), potions, living
things (plant or animal--and, of course, you can't conjure people!,
and one I haven't mentioned before: Wands. Which would mean that, if
you know how, you can conjure houses, furniture, and clothing. Which
makes me wonder why the Weasleys and Lupin don't do exactly that. Is
it be a matter of skill and power that only the specialists can
master? Otherwise, surely Dirk and Ted could have conjured a shelter
for themselves and Dean and the Goblins--and, of course, hidden it
with spells that a girl who should still be at Hogwarts can teach herself!

> 7. Can the Weasley's ability to provide ample food while still
living in relative Wizarding poverty point to possibilities for the
other four exemptions?  (Ever so much more intriguing than questions
about the uses for dragons blood)

Carol:
Well, I don't think that sauce that comes from Mrs. W's wand has any
nutritional value, and they have a garden and chickens. they probably
grow the potatoes and sprouts and what-not. (Maybe not the satsuma
that Mr. W. was peeling in HBP.) And Mrs. Weasley can magically knit
socks and sweaters, but she has to have yarn. And, again, we have
those second-hand robes, which makes me think that clothes should go
back on the list. I think, frankly, that you can conjure just about
anything, but making it real and permanent is another matter. 

> 8. Did you, at Phineas Nigellus Black's revelation that Snape
"punished" Ginny, Neville and Luna by sending them on a field trip
with Hagrid, marvel at Harry still not grasping Snape's possible
(probable? obvious?) loyalty towards Dumbledore's cause??? Why or why not?

Carol:
Well, I was still struggling my own conflicting emotions, really
needing and wanting Snape to be DDM and yet fearing that I had been
tricked and that I was fooling myself by explaining away his killing
of DD and George's ear and the information that he gave LV about
Harry. But the unexplained "cruel" punishment that didn't leave any
lasting damage had me intrigued, and when I found that it was
detention with Hagrid, I'm sure I laughed out loud and called HRH
morons for not figuring it out. Such an obvious clue! Such willful
blindness! And yet, I had my own moments of misreading Snape, too, and
fearing that they were right. (Advice to anyone who's listening; Never
wait in line till one a.m. to buy a 759-page book, start reading it at
2 a.m., and keep reading it with almost no break till you finish it!
It does not make for sane and sensible reactions.)

> 9. The characterization of the Goblins as a separatist, self-
interested race is very reminiscent of the dwarf races in both
Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. Do any
other fictional or real-world equivalents or parallels come to mind?

Carol:
I'm not sure that I agree with you regarding Tolkien's Dwarves, who
are (at least in LOTR) figures of fierce dignity, secretive but not
greedy unless driven by some force (the Seven rings of the Dwarves?).
Gimli is both a representative of his "race" and a distinct
individual, and his friendship with Legolas is both amusing and
touching. Griphook (and to a lesser degree, Gornuk, whom we don't
really get to know) seems sneaky, conniving, glad to see a wizard
(seemingly) tricked by Goblins. He's distinctly unlikeable, and his
attitude toward other species is somewhere between hostility and
contempt. Goblins in general are, apparently, clever, malicious, and
ugly. I can't imagine an ancestor of Flitwick's marrying one (but then
I can't imagine Hagrid's father marrying a giantess, either). They're
not as bad as Tolkien's Orcs in LOTR, but they're not far from the
Goblins of "The Hobbit" (except that, mercifully, they don't sing!).
Griphook reminds me of Rumpelstiltskin, greedy and merciless (though
his just reward is not death but simply being magically robbed of the
sword that he unjustly claimed. (BTW, I know that some readers feel
sympathy for the Goblins, but I'm not one of them. They're simply
stereotyped fairytale beings used for JKR's own purposes, not
characters in whom I have any sort of emotional investment.
> 
> 10. The brief mention of the exploits of my beloved "other trio"
made me wish Rowling could have found a way to depart a bit more often
from her Harry-centric narrative. Are there any other "off-camera"
scenes you would wish you could have read?

Carol:
I would love to have seen Snape's welcoming speech and the efforts he
made to protect the students without blowing his cover, but, of
course, that would have ruined the plot. And, anyway, I'd rather
imagine them myself than have JKR's version. George's reaction to
Fred's death, maybe, but that might have been too painful. (Maybe
that's why she chose not to have him present?) Some memorial services,
maybe, so that we'd see the characters we were mourning properly
honored. I'd also like to know what Amycus Carrow taught the younger
students who didn't yet have "the nerve or the ability," to quote the
fleeing Prince of HBP.

Carol, thanking Dananotdayna for a fine and thought-provoking chapter
discussion