Dumbledore **spoilers**
#1
Was anyone else amazed to find out how dumbledore susstained his injuries from the hoarcrux? To be honest, It made me feel sad, he wanted his family so much that he wore a cursed ring to try and see them. Do you think he used the ring to see his family after the curse had been lifted? I think he would do as he did with power and recognise it as a weakness and resist the temptation. What are your thoughts on dumbledore in the last book?
Reply
#2
I got the impression that he didn't put on the ring to see his family - that thought was completely driven from his mind by the very existence of the ring itself, at least at that moment. He had been looking for the Hallows for *years* at this point. He put the ring on to possess it.
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#3
I agree with Lt.Joe. Dumbledore didn't want to _possess_ the ring, I think. His greatest wish was to see his family again to have the chance to talk to them about what happened and why. Maybe to apologize.
Leben Sie lange und in Frieden!
Reply
#4
GamgeeFest Wrote:I got the impression that he didn't put on the ring to see his family - that thought was completely driven from his mind by the very existence of the ring itself, at least at that moment. He had been looking for the Hallows for *years* at this point. He put the ring on to possess it.
He had indeed been searching for years. But while he admits that in his youth he wanted it for different reasons, Dumbledore says "I picked it up, and I put it on, and for a second I imagined that I was about to see Ariana, and my mother, and my father, and to tell them how very, very sorry I was...." so I think that by the time he got it, he really wanted to see his family.
Lt. Joe Wrote:Do you think he used the ring to see his family after the curse had been lifted? I think he would do as he did with power and recognise it as a weakness and resist the temptation.
I must agree with this. Dumbledore had to have had tremendous will power.
Reply
#5
Dixie Wrote:He had indeed been searching for years. But while he admits that in his youth he wanted it for different reasons, Dumbledore says "I picked it up, and I put it on, and for a second I imagined that I was about to see Ariana, and my mother, and my father, and to tell them how very, very sorry I was...." so I think that by the time he got it, he really wanted to see his family.

Ah, thanks! The end of the books are sort of a blur, and perhaps I was a bit confused by that other Ring. Wink I will have to take more time on the reread and take notes. Smile
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#6
GamgeeFest Wrote:The end of the books are sort of a blur, and perhaps I was a bit confused by that other Ring. Wink I will have to take more time on the reread and take notes. Smile
lol, same here. So much to take in
Reply
#7
Dixie Wrote:He had indeed been searching for years. But while he admits that in his youth he wanted it for different reasons, Dumbledore says "I picked it up, and I put it on, and for a second I imagined that I was about to see Ariana, and my mother, and my father, and to tell them how very, very sorry I was...."

Thanks for that explanation! Had no chance to read the book a second time by now because my little sister wished to read it first... And she has already been reading for two weeks now! Sad
Leben Sie lange und in Frieden!
Reply
#8
Would someone please remind me: did the ring have the power like the mirror of Erised for people to see their family? I missed the part about DD seeing his family using the ring. When I read that I assumed that just having the ring on reminded him of his family, not that he had hoped that he could use the ring to see his family? The "different" reasons, I thought, were that he wanted it for the power when he was young, but to destroy it when he was older.

There were two rings? * mind swirls around *
Reply
#9
Arcadia Wrote:Would someone please remind me: did the ring have the power like the mirror of Erised for people to see their family? I missed the part about DD seeing his family using the ring. When I read that I assumed that just having the ring on reminded him of his family, not that he had hoped that he could use the ring to see his family? The "different" reasons, I thought, were that he wanted it for the power when he was young, but to destroy it when he was older.

As I recall, and I'm not drawing directly from the book but straight from memory, when Dumbledore acuired the Ring of Mavolo, he recognized what the stone was, one of the Deathly Hallows. He decided to try to use it to see his family, but the ring itself (Voldemort didn't know what the stone was) was cursed, and that's what caused Dumbledore's arm.

I got the impression that following the curse, Dumbledore did not attempt again to try to see his family. I know he said he wanted to, that the desire remained, but it is never stated that he did, and baring that, I would argue, as we've said, that Dumbledore saw this as something of a weakness not to be indulged, and thus went ahead and destroyed the horcrux. It is possible, though I think unlikely, that he didn't know the stone would still work, and so never tried it again.

But that would mean his inclusion of the stone in snitch served only to let Harry know the horcrux had been destroyed, and I like to think that Dumbledore knew Harry had the strength to offer himself as sacrifice to Voldemort to destroy that horcrux. He was emboldened, strengthed by the pressence of his family and friends, and Harry was the only one who could truly use the stone with pure intent.

Quote:There were two rings? * mind swirls around *

I don't think so.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#10
Thanks. What about using the pensieve to see his family? I guess I don't understand what power the ring had to enable him to see his family? It wouldn't bring the family back, or would it?
Reply
#11
Arcadia Wrote:Thanks. What about using the pensieve to see his family? I guess I don't understand what power the ring had to enable him to see his family? It wouldn't bring the family back, or would it?

Again, opperating from total memory here, but it seems that the ring/stone had the power to actually bring them . . . not back, but present into this world. This is different from the penseive which only allowed memories of people, similar to a video-movie of them. They went through the same motions, and while it felt like you were in that world, nothing you did or said was acknowledged.

In using the ring/stone one could actually converse, and to some extent "be with" the dead for whatever period of time the holder chose. The brother who had the ring/stone first and used it to bring his love back, seemed to have spent some time (days, weeks, months?) with her before realizing that she was not happy with being back in this world where she didn't belong. Harry was able to interact with those friends and family that were dead, and I want to say that his mother and father (?) touched him, physically. Something that would be quite reassuring and extremely sought by an orphan . . . not to mention one marching stolidly to his own death.

Please, anyone, correct any part of this that I've gotten wrong or mixed up.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#12
That's how I understood it also.
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#13
Nicely said RobRoy. Another thing I have been thinking about is the way Dumbledore appeared to Harry in that limbo between life and death. I tend too believe that it refers to the poem at the begging of the book. Friends live forever within us.
Reply
#14
The issue of "the ring" and "the stone" can seem confusing, when one reads rapidly.

The second Deathly Hallow was the Resurrection Stone. The brother who asked for it wanted the power to bring the Dead back to this world, which the Stone did; but, it returned the Dead to this world in only one sense, and did not return them to Life. Being Dead, they do not belong in this world; they have gone "on", and are at peace, and do not desire to return. And they return only as "shades" of their former selves, and are not "restored to life".

The Gaunt Ring was a ring made with the Resurrection Stone set into it. The Gaunts' were descended from the Peverell's, through some female ancestor {and thus, do not have the name "Peverell", which would have been carried only on a male line in direct descent}. Probably these are not direct descendants of the second Brother, who initially got the Resurrection Stone from death {or, who created it, if that is its origin}. That brother was reported to have been lonely, and used the stone to "bring back" a girl he had once hoped to marry; finding her unhappy in this world, he eventually killed himself to truly join her. It would seem such a man would leave no direct descendants {if he never married the girl, and had no children; though, of course, he may have married another person and had children ....... but then, why would he be lonely for his lost love?}.

Anyway, the Gaunt family knew they were descended from the ancient Wizarding family of Peverell, no matter through what line; and they had inhertied the Resurrection Stone, with it's Deathly Hallows symbol etched into the Stone's surface. But they seemingly had no idea what the Stone itself was, calling the Deathly Hallows symbol "the Peverell family crest". And so Tom Riddle, who was a Peverell family descendant himself, used this old family heirloon as a Horcrux, wholly unknowing that it was the second of the Deathly Hallows {the one most desired by Dumbledore, and the one that eluded him ........}.

That this second "Deathly Hallow" is refered to as both "a ring" and "a stone" is a bit confusing; it is two names for the same object; the stone having been set, at some point, into a ring, with the Deathly Hallows symbol scratched onto it's surface.

Another aspect which lends to confusion is that there were two lockets; the real Horcrux Locket, which was also a Gaunt family heirloom, handed down in their family, which also descended from Slythern; and the other locket, subsitituted for the real Horcrux by Regulus Black. It was this second locket that Harry and Dumbledore recovered from the lake/cave hiding place, and which Harry eventually gave to Kreacher. That locket was neither a Horcrox, nor one of the Deathly Hallows; it was just a substitute for the real Slythern Locket Horcrux, and used {I guess} only to contain a message for LV, though he never read it {Harry did}.
Reply
#15
Thank you for the summary and explanation. It helps.
Reply
#16
I began reading HBP today and came across something I don't think has been mentioned. When Dumbledore came to pick up Harry and then hire Slugghorn, He was wearing the Resurrection stone. The question is, does the stone work on the ring? I think it does, even though Gaunt wore the ring without realizing what it was, it must be the same reason Voldemort didn't know what it was, no one to bring back. Surely Marvolo would, at some point, have touched the stone. Dumbledore, it appears, used the stone.
Reply
#17
deleted because of error
Reply
#18
Darq Ali Wrote:The Gaunt Ring was a ring made with the Resurrection Stone set into it. The Gaunts' were descended from the Peverell's, through some female ancestor {and thus, do not have the name "Peverell", which would have been carried only on a male line in direct descent}. Probably these are not direct descendants of the second Brother, who initially got the Resurrection Stone from death {or, who created it, if that is its origin}. That brother was reported to have been lonely, and used the stone to "bring back" a girl he had once hoped to marry; finding her unhappy in this world, he eventually killed himself to truly join her. It would seem such a man would leave no direct descendants {if he never married the girl, and had no children; though, of course, he may have married another person and had children ....... but then, why would he be lonely for his lost love?}.


unless he had an illegitimate child which would also explain why it didn't have his surname, but would have been entitled to the inheritance nevertheless.

If he didn't have a child himself the ring would have been inherited by his younger brother (who lived to a ripe old age) and hence the ring would have ended in the same family as the cloak and hence been passed to Harry.
Reply
#19
In the book, they explain how the wand and cloak work only as they are passed down, or won. I don't remember reading anything saying how Harry became the owner of the stone. I was under the impression it had to be passed directly, or that the real power of the stone had already died out and it was more powerful when the Peveril brother used it to bring back the woman. People were still able to use the elder wand, it just didn't give them any extraordinary power. Perhaps the stone was able to bring people back only to the wearer. If the brother lived with the woman for some time, I doubt he would hold the stone that entire time. These are just my impressoins and thoughts (wich are usually wrong) please correct me if I am mistaken.
Reply
#20
One must be able to "have" the stone, but not "use" it, after all.

The method of "using" the stone was to turn it over three times ......... three is one of those universally magically powerful numbers, in many places; one of the most powerful numbers in the Christian faith, one may note ......... and, I presume, thinking of those one wishes to 'bring back', at the same time; unless the stone 'reads' the person turning it, and brings back for them the important people who live only in their memory ......... for there must be some process which 'selects' which among the Dead are called to Return.

Marvalo Gaunt wore the ring, but no one came back, for he didn't "call" anyone to him by turning the ring three times. It seems clear that he connected the Ring, with its etched stone, with his family lineage, but that he also had no idea whatsoever what the Stone portion of that heirloom actually was. No more than did Tom Riddle, who stole the ring only because it was a piece of his own family's history; that he could so easily obtain the one Deathly Hallow most deisred by Dumbledore ....... and the one that had so long eluded Dumbledore ........ yet all unknowing, is one of this tale's many ironic twists.

Note: As to how Marvalo's family line came to have the ring, we are of course not told; only that it wasn't through a line called "Peverell". Well, there were three brothers in the story; but they may have had sisters, after all. When the second brother {who had the stone} died, his effects may have gone to that sister, if he had no other heirs. Or, he may have had offspring, illegitimate or with a wife the story does not record, as well. And the Stone may have gone to the third Ignotus, as well; with its inheritance going to a different line that that which got the Cloak ....... I mean, Ignotus gave his cloak to his son, the story says, but if he had a daughter too, she may have got the ring, and thus, each Hallows item was handed on to the Peverell descendants, but through different lines. The Eldar Wand, we know, left the Peverell family almost at once, since the first brother was murdered for it, and the wand stolen by a stranger. Note: Ron says the story of the Three Brothers is supposed to be a Teaching Tale, and "you're supposed to say, The Cloak, as which is the best Hallow to have". The Cloak went to the most modest and wise of the brothers, and it is from him that Harry surely descends .... the wise and "worthy" brother.

The Ring was cursed only after LV made it into a Horcrux. The method by which it inflicted its deadly curse upon the possessor isn't at all clear. We know the other Horcruxes were harmless to those who handled the objects, both unknowing and knowing what they were. The Diary was handled by Lucius Malfoy and passed off to Ginny with no harm to either, in the sense of exercizing a Deadly Curse; yes, the soul-bit within did eventually possess Ginny, but the book itself did nothing to her, even when she attempted to flush it down Moaning Myrtle's toilet {another bit of irony .......... Myrtle being Tom Riddle's first murder victim}.

So why did the Ring Horcrux damage Dumbledore, to the death? The Diary was handled, written in, and flushed with no curse appearing. Harry picked up the Tiara and used it as a marker for his Potions book's hiding place, with no curse appearing. The Hufflepuff cup, once freed from Gringott's, was safe to handle. Kreacher did every bit of magic he knew to destroy the Locket Horcrux, and all the people cleaning at Hogwarts attempted to prise it open, with no curse activated ...... the curse concerning the Locket was within its guardian Potion ...........

My guess is, that the Ring curse was activated when Dumbledore attempted to use the thing. Unless, that particular Horcrux had a curse upon it, that would 'strike dead' anyone who put it on; because it was a ring, which begged any finder to do just that {put it on}. If someone exploring the old ruin of the Gaunt House happened upon the thing, they might fancy the ugly old thing because it was an old thing found by chance in exploration; and if they were struck dead attempting to wear it, they couldn't 'get away with' it, and carry it off.

Which makes little sense, actually, because the Locket is also jewelry which would beg a finder to put on, and as we know, once it was removed from its enchanted hiding place, anyone could wear it with no deadly curse being activated {though, not without some effect, to be sure}.

Arghhhh. My guesses are not entirely consistant with the text, nor entirely logical. One more stab at it.
Horcrux items that were hidden in the world at large needed to be magically protected in some way. Not the Diary {which was entrusted to a person, Lucius Malfoy} nor the snake {which lived with LV himself}, nor the Hufflepuff cup {whose protection was the magic of the goblins of Gringotts}, nor the Tiara {whose magical protection was that of the very magical Room of Requirement of Hogwarts, which Tom Riddle was so smugly certain only he had ever found, just as only he had found and opened the Chamber of Secrets. [Harry doesn't count, because he wasn't known to be a Horcrux.]

All in all, we must observe that each Horcrux's magical protection was somewhat different. The locket was protected by many enchantments which hid its location from all but magical people, and the last protection, the Potion, was fatal.

The Ring was easier to access in the ruin of the Gaunt house. Thus, its magical protection was different, in the form of the curse which struck Dumbledore when he put it on, or, when he attempted to use it ..... though the last makes no sense, for Tom Riddle didn't know the thing had a magical use, so far as we know ..........

So, Dumbledore did something unwise when he discovered the thing, disregarding his danger from magical protective curses, because, though he knew it was a Horcrux, he recognized it as the Deathly Hallows Resurrection Stone when he looked at the symbol etched upon its face, and he made a deadly mistake .......... It was the only Horcrux object which carried that particular curse, since each one was differently protected.

BTW, LV was right in that he entrusted two Horcruxes to people: The Diary and the Cup. Both protections failed him in the end. But then, so did all the others .........
Reply

MYCode Guide

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Secrets of Dumbledore - My Initial Thoughts Michael 3 320 September 2nd, 2022, 04:41 PM
Last Post: ZehnWaters
  Video: Trailer 2 for "Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore" Michael 0 271 March 2nd, 2022, 12:52 AM
Last Post: Michael
  New (ish) book [No spoilers please] Irene 4 777 October 7th, 2016, 08:38 AM
Last Post: Irene
  Dumbledore is gay? badlands 2 620 October 4th, 2015, 04:29 PM
Last Post: Michael
  Video: Fan film, "The Greater Good: Dumbledore & Grindelwald" FilmGuy 0 684 January 24th, 2014, 10:59 PM
Last Post: FilmGuy
  Ciaran Hinds to play Aberforth Dumbledore in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" Michael 2 1,088 January 11th, 2011, 02:36 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Video: Dumbledore's will from "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" Michael 0 617 November 15th, 2010, 01:49 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Harry and Dumbledore in 'Harry Potter and the half blood prince' one sheets Luthien_001 0 793 February 11th, 2009, 05:34 PM
Last Post: Luthien_001
  Potterverse, Names (spoilers from end of Deathly Hallows) Darq Ali 21 2,783 September 25th, 2007, 11:12 AM
Last Post: RobRoy
  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Michael's Take (Spoilers) Michael 198 21,552 September 5th, 2007, 04:17 PM
Last Post: Michael

Forum Jump: