Fawkes and other Phoenixes

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Fawkes and other Phoenixes

Post  Potteraholic on Wed Jun 29, 2011 8:53 pm

This topic serves as an archive of a thread from the Harry Potter Lexicon Forum as hosted on World Crossing, which ceased operation on April 15, 2011. It was copied/saved by Lady Arabella and reformatted/reposted by Potteraholic. ~Potteraholic



night41 - Oct 11, 2003 10:31 pm
Edited by Kip Carter Nov 17, 2005 2:18 pm

I thought I would start a discussion on our Headmaster's favorite pet. Is Harry connected to Fawkes like DD is magical connected to Fawkes. Can Fawkes act as a magical shield and is Fawkes immortal?




  INDEX

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Potteraholic on Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:49 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________
"Plenty of courage, I see. Not a bad mind either. There's talent - and a nice thirst to prove yourself ..." (PS/SS)
avatar
Potteraholic
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 4240
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Fawkes and other Phoenixes (posts #1 - #50)

Post  Potteraholic on Wed Jun 29, 2011 8:57 pm

Lumos* - Oct 11, 2003 9:47 pm (#1 of 428)

Someone said (I think it was MissLuvaLuva98) that JKR is reading a book called Bless Me Ultima. There are links that can be made with Harry Potter. For one, Dumbledore's spirit could be present in Fawkes and the only way to destroy him would be to destroy Fawkes.

<|:O)




night41 - Oct 12, 2003 6:17 am (#2 of 428)

But is seems like you cannot destroy Fawkes.




J-D - Oct 12, 2003 6:29 am (#3 of 428)

Yeah, I mean Fawkes swallowed Voldie’s AK curse in the MOM battle. If that couldn't kill him then I have no idea what could.




Sinister Kittens - Oct 12, 2003 9:02 am (#4 of 428)

If Fawkes is always re-born from his ashes, what would happen if you separated the ashes before he came back?




virgoddess1313 - Oct 12, 2003 9:06 am (#5 of 428)

It seemed to me that you wouldn't really get the chance to separate the ashes. After he caught fire, didn't he reappear almost immediately?




Sinister Kittens - Oct 12, 2003 9:07 am (#6 of 428)

Ahhh, good point virgoddess1313.




Joost! - Oct 12, 2003 9:32 am (#7 of 428)

But what if he dies on a windy day?




Lumos* - Oct 12, 2003 5:38 pm (#8 of 428)

Joost! - lol.

<|Surprised)




Professor Nikatus - Oct 12, 2003 7:11 pm (#9 of 428)

I want JKR to let Fawkes have a major role in the plot of the story. JKR should make Fawkes more important to the plot. Because Fawkes is a phoenix and after all phoenixes are really cool creatures.




Wendelin the Weird - Oct 13, 2003 12:12 am (#10 of 428)

Somehow Fawkes plays a key role in the story already. The whole idea that both Harry and Tom Riddle have feathers of his in their wands is extremely important and sooner or later she’s going to explain exactly why this is, I think. I think somehow it’s related to why Voldemort only fears one person - Dumbledore. The keeper of the phoenix who provided the core of his wand.




shepherdess - Oct 13, 2003 2:03 am (#11 of 428)

I never made that connection between the one he fears most and the owner of his wand core! Duh! Good point!

I also like Fawkes and would like to hear more about him. I wouldn't want anything to happen to him; but could you kill him by pouring water on him when he bursts into flame, or on his ashes before he can rise again?




popkin - Oct 13, 2003 5:00 am (#12 of 428)
Edited by Oct 13, 2003 6:04 am

I just did a search on the web about phoenixes, and it looks like there was no way to kill the phoenix in ancient mythology. The phoenix was a symbol of immortality - so it makes sense that you can't kill it.

The phoenix also appears in more modern literature. Of course, I could not research every instance in which it appears. Perhaps some classic English author has written a book in which a Phoenix has been killed? If so, it could hint at what happens to Fawkes.

Also, in Dungeons and Dragons, and in other fantasy and computer games, the Phoenix can be killed. I suppose it makes for a more interesting game. But, I don't think it indicates that our phoenix, Fawkes, can be killed.

It is interesting to note that in myth, and at least in some literature, only one phoenix can exist at a time. When it comes time for the single phoenix to die (whether after 500 years, 12 1/2 years (a cosmological cycle), each year, 100 years, or each day) the phoenix builds itself a funeral pyre. The pyre is lit in a number of different ways, and the baby bird which rises is the child of the dead phoenix - not the same bird. The child is responsible to taking the parent's ashes to a place of burial.

If you want my links, I can post them. But it’s time to quit the Lexicon for today.




Sinister Kittens - Oct 13, 2003 6:06 am (#13 of 428)

popkin - I love your links... post them, post them, then we can all reap the benefits of your research (and save us from doing it).




shepherdess - Oct 13, 2003 6:17 am (#14 of 428)
Edited Oct 13, 2003 7:19 am

Well, I'm glad he can't die! Now if JKR would just tell us more about him!

We know he carries messages, people, and sorting hats with swords in them. Does he do anything besides haul things around and heal wounds? Does he only heal physical wounds, or can he heal emotional wounds (those "deeper scars") too? Is this part of the reason DD has lived so long?




Joost! - Oct 13, 2003 6:24 am (#15 of 428)
Edited Oct 13, 2003 7:26 am

Don't forget, he likes to sing...

By the way, I can come up with these links:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] not very reliable information, but interesting.

and: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]




Mare - Oct 13, 2003 8:05 am (#16 of 428)

I think somehow it’s related to why Voldemort only fears one person - Dumbledore. The keeper of the phoenix who provided the core of his wand.

It is also interesting to notice that Dumbledore is the keeper of the creature that has the only thing that Voldemort wants: immortality.

That Voldemort, who wants to be immortal above everything else, has a feather of a (that) phoenix in his wand.

PS I think it is likely that there are multiple phoenixes (??) in Harry's world, or else it wouldn't be so strange that he has a feather in the core off his wand, that comes from the same phoenix as the one in Voldie’s wand.




Professor Nikatus - Oct 13, 2003 8:54 am (#17 of 428)

In ‘Bless me Ultima’ Ultima can’t be killed unless you kill her Black Owl (speaking about the rumor of JKR and ‘Bless me Ulitma’) maybe DD has a connection like that with our fellow Fawkes and that is why DD has live so much. Keeping in mind that Fawkes is a phoenix and phoenixes do not die. Maybe that is why He Who Must Not be Named wants it so much.

I believe that there is more than one phoenix in the WW, but I believe there are not that many phoenixes in the WW that is why they are so precious to the wizards.

And also popkin you should post the links . . . please.




zelmia - Oct 13, 2003 12:29 pm (#18 of 428)

Not that I want anything to happen to Fawkes, but there must be a way to kill a phoenix. Everything has antithesis. What if you killed the baby phoenix? It would never reach the regeneration stage. Maybe that's why Dumbledore so carefully attended to the new/re-born Fawkes in the Ministry, placing him in his pocket before coming back to Hogwarts.




Wendelin the Weird - Oct 13, 2003 8:06 pm (#19 of 428)

Hmm... well, on the carrying on of power theory here, I've always thought Dumbledore’s immense power has to do with his link to Fawkes. Is it possible that Harry's coming of age as a wizard will coincide with Dumbledore’s death and the final battle will be between Harry & Tom/Voldie to claim the power of Fawkes as their own? I've always wondered if Dumbledore didn’t go through something similar to what Harry is... like in his battle to defeat Grindelwald back in the 40's.

Perhaps there are 2 sides to every coin... for every great good wizard there is an evil wizard of equal stature vying to take power... its a constant battle between the two and eventually one must overcome the other. Then eventually another is reborn and the battle ensues between the next generations... That’s an idea I've always toyed with in regards to the phoenix connection, but as to whether its true or not, I couldn’t say. Just thought I’d share that with you all.




popkin - Oct 13, 2003 8:06 pm (#20 of 428)
Edited by Oct 13, 2003 9:11 pm

I used Google, and I think I searched for:

"to kill a phoenix"

"killing a phoenix"

"killing the phoenix"

"kill a phoenix" myth

"kill a phoenix" literature

phoenix myth

phoenix literature

Obviously, there were tons of links, but the three below were the ones I copied into my own notes.

I think this one was about Dungeons and Dragons and how to kill a Phoenix: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This one is about the myth of the phoenix. I read several articles and they all said basically the same stuff that this one does: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This link quotes three authors who write about the phoenix (Hans Christian Anderson, William Shakespeare and Arthur Christopher Benson). I'm sure that the phoenix has been a subject for many more classic authors: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]




Susurro Notities - Oct 13, 2003 8:44 pm (#21 of 428)

popkin, you are a peach. I have learned so much from your research. Thank You.




Fawkesy Lady - Oct 14, 2003 6:11 am (#22 of 428)

I never thought about this idea that Mare put in her post, "It is also interesting to notice that Dumbledore is the keeper of the creature that has the only thing that Voldemort wants: immortality. That Voldemort, who wants to be immortal above everything else, has a feather of a (that) phoenix in his wand."

I wonder if Voldy ever thought about that! Perhaps he will. I mean he goes after the SS for immortality.

Interesting to note that the SS was red and so is Fawkes and so is the color of Gryffindor.




Joost! - Oct 14, 2003 6:25 am (#23 of 428)

Fawkes is actually red and gold, like the Gryffindor colours...




Madame Librarian - Oct 14, 2003 6:43 am (#24 of 428)

And, did you catch that reference to Assyria in the second link? Isn't that where Neville's uncle found the plant he sent him? Thin association, I admit, but still a little curious, n'est-ce pas?

Thanks, popkin. You are a reliable researcher for us, and keep us honest in our conclusions. No easy task sometimes.

Ciao. Barb




zixyer - Oct 14, 2003 12:19 pm (#25 of 428)

How about looking up Phoenixes in Fantastic Beasts to answer this question?

The Phoenix lives to an immense age as it can regenerate, bursting into flames when its body begins to fail and rising again as a chick.




Fawkes8U - Oct 19, 2003 11:56 am (#26 of 428)

If anyone has looked up Phoenix websites, you'll find reference to an Indian phoenix called Garuda based on a Hindu myth. The Garuda hates Nagas/serpents and kills them. Remember Fawkes attacking the basilisk? I have a feeling that Nagini's days are numbered. Also in GOF during the duel with Voldemort at the end, Harry gets his strength from Phoenix song and Voldemort becomes more terrified. Harry having Fawkes's song in his ears gave him the strength to push that light bead back into Voldie's wand. The fact that Voldie has the same core as Harry makes me wonder when or if Voldie has investigated his own wand more thoroughly, or, does Voldemort know that Phoenix core is the most powerful core and refuses to change wands?




Haggis and Irn Bru - Oct 20, 2003 8:26 am (#27 of 428)

I don’t think that Voldy could just pop into Ollivander’s and ask for a new wand. I think a certain amount of arrogance will stop him changing his wand i.e. I am the most powerful wizard ever.




Blast - Oct 21, 2003 1:14 pm (#28 of 428)

I do not think that Voldemort realizes that his wand core is from Fawkes. In the chamber Tom Riddle underestimates the power of Fawkes and the Sorting Hat. Being as arrogant, Voldemort underestimates a lot of things. I feel this is his week link and this is how Harry will be able to defeat him.




A-is-for-Amy - Oct 21, 2003 3:48 pm (#29 of 428)

Do you think that Voldemort actually knows WHY the Priori Incantatem took place? Does he know that his and Harry's wand share a core, or does he think that it was caused by one of the protective spells put on Harry?




Susurro Notities - Oct 22, 2003 4:25 pm (#30 of 428)

There has been a bit of a discussion on the Neville Longbottom thread about Fawkes dropping feathers in OotP. How many feathers were dropped, how many were tail feathers, who would get a Fawkes feather wand if some are to be made are among the issues being discussed. It would seem that this tread would be an appropriate place to continue this discussion.

I have an additional question I would like to pose. In OotP Fawkes is said to have "dropped" feathers, in SS Fawkes is said to have "donated" feathers. Is there a difference?




A-is-for-Amy - Oct 22, 2003 7:52 pm (#31 of 428)

I don't think it makes a great deal of difference whether a wand core is donated or taken (Ollivander said the Unicorn almost gored him or something like that when he got Cedric's wand core).

I was wondering... could Fawkes be a relatively young Phoenix, or is his(?) name just coincidentally the same as Guy Fawkes who is burned in effigy each year?




Fawkes8U - Oct 23, 2003 6:20 am (#32 of 428)

Dumbledore seems to be pretty faithful in collecting Fawkes' feathers. Maybe Dumbledore, by use of some of his office equipment, was able to see the rise of Voldemort and Harry? Maybe he wanted to stack the odds in Harry's favor with the Fawkes’ feathers? Fawkes seems to be extremely loyal to DD and Harry. Harry and most likely DD get added strength from Phoenix song. Fawkes doesn't like snakes/Voldemort. That could get complicated for Voldie & Nagini.




Madame Librarian - Oct 24, 2003 5:12 pm (#33 of 428)
Edited Oct 24, 2003 6:15 pm

I'm just now listening to OoP (read it twice already) -- the US version with Jim Dale, and today hit the two bits where Fawkes loses feathers.

The first is in ch. 22. DD has sent Fawkes to be a lookout for Umbridge. A few minutes later when it's been confirmed that Arthur Weasley is at St. M's, we read:

There was a flash of flame in the very middle of the office, leaving behind a single golden feather that floated gently to the floor.

"It is Fawkes's warning," said Dumbledore, catching the feather as it fell. "She must know you're out of your beds...."

The second is also ch. 22 at the end. The kids are with Sirius in the kitchen of 12 GP waiting for word from Mrs. Weasley. Harry is mulling over what had happened in the dream and earlier when he felt like attacking DD. He's drinking a bottle of butterbeer:

He put the bottle down on the table a little harder than he meant to, so that it slopped over onto the table. No one took any notice. Then a burst of fire in midair illuminated the dirty plates in front of them and as they gave cries of shock, a scroll of parchment fell with a thud onto the table, accompanied by a single golden phoenix feather.

In the first instance, JKR states very clearly that DD catches the feather; in the second nobody notices the feather because they're all focused on the scroll carrying news from Molly. Now, does DD save the feather for a reason, or is he just being neat? Does Fawkes lose a feather every time he Apparates or whatever it is he's doing that causes fiery flashes in midair and scrolls suddenly appearing?

Any thoughts, folks?

Ciao. Barb




Susurro Notities - Oct 24, 2003 5:51 pm (#34 of 428)

On the Neville thread Haggis and Irn Bru wrote: "I think in GOF that Mr. Ollivander talks about almost being gored by the unicorn hair that formed the core of Cedric's wand. I am sure that shed hair would not be used."

Is Haggis and Irn Bru on to something? Would shed feathers be used? Does Dumbledore collect the feathers because they could be used for a wand and he wants to control how many wands have a Fawkes feather? Or must feathers, unlike unicorn hairs, be given? I believe in SS it says that Fawkes "gave" two feathers.




Madame Librarian - Oct 24, 2003 6:10 pm (#35 of 428)

Well, I suppose you could argue that in the two cases cited above, Fawkes is on missions for DD and the Order and willingly let the feathers go. Being a highly magical creature, I suspect that if he didn't want to leave a feather, he wouldn't. So, it could be argued that he "gave" feathers in these instances.

I'm probably just splitting hairs (um...feathers) here.

Ciao. Barb




timrew - Oct 24, 2003 9:56 pm (#36 of 428)

Let's hope Fawkes doesn't have to leave too many feathers, or he may end up looking like a plucked chicken!




Pinky - Oct 25, 2003 9:43 am (#37 of 428)

My guess is that they are different types of feathers. The feathers used for the wand cores could be the all important, long, tail feathers. The feathers left for authentication of his messages, may be smaller, less important feathers such as the small downy ones from the body area.




popkin - Oct 25, 2003 6:20 pm (#38 of 428)

In Madame Librarian's post (#33), what do you suppose the second single golden phoenix feather is a warning of?




Fawkes8U - Oct 25, 2003 6:31 pm (#39 of 428)

Well, here's a thought. Dumbledore seems to be keen on collecting Fawkes' feathers for maybe many reasons. A couple I can think of are 1) He doesn't want to alert Umbridge or anyone else that Fawkes is his warning bird and that dropping feathers is a sign, and 2) maybe he's collecting these feathers for something really big. I mean if one feather in a wand is powerful, imagine what a crate load would do. If Ollivander made a new wand for Harry out of pile of Fawkes' feathers, GEEZ. Voldemort doesn't have enough tricks up his sleeve to counteract that kind of power. Just a fun thought, even if it's not the case, isn't it?




schoff - Oct 25, 2003 9:32 pm (#40 of 428)
Edited by Oct 25, 2003 10:39 pm

popkin: I don't think the second feather was a warning. I think it was the means to "Apparate" Molly's letter to the kids. Kinda like an owl, but much faster.

I just wanted to add, that here in the States, if an endangered captive eagle loses a feather, it must be collected, no matter what feather it loses. When trainers give presentations involving these birds (whether it be to children or in a show), if the bird loses a feather, the trainers must collect it and make sure no one takes it home for a souvenir. You must have government permission in order to have one, and that includes a stuffed bird. I substituted for a teacher who had a stuffed Bald Eagle and she was required to post her Letter of Consent next to it.




Susurro Notities - Oct 26, 2003 5:30 am (#41 of 428)

A new wand for Harry with a "pile of Fawkes' feathers" is an interesting idea but might not have the connection the current wand has with Voldemort's wand. Harry and Voldemort's wands apparently have feathers from the same incarnation of Fawkes is that necessary to maintain the connection? Is the connection between the wands desirable?




popkin - Oct 26, 2003 10:22 am (#42 of 428)

The connection was certainly desirable in GOF. It seems like it could go either way in the future.




A-is-for-Amy - Oct 27, 2003 9:49 am (#43 of 428)

Madam Librarian - "He put the bottle down on the table a little harder than he meant to, so that it slopped over onto the table. No one took any notice. Then a burst of fire in midair illuminated the dirty plates in front of them and as they gave cries of shock, a scroll of parchment fell with a thud onto the table, accompanied by a single golden phoenix feather."

Not to be picky, but this came from the recorded version? My British version of OoP (written version) says that it was a single tail feather.

That being said, I agree with shed hair not being used, but I've been reading that Dumbledore has been meticulous in collecting Fawkes's feathers. Is that being based on the one he caught in his office just after Arthur was injured, or are there other instances that I missed?




timrew - Oct 27, 2003 11:09 am (#44 of 428)

"....but I've been reading that Dumbledore has been meticulous in collecting Fawkes's feathers."

Maybe DD's on a nice little earner selling the feathers to Ollivander's.




Choices - Oct 27, 2003 6:29 pm (#45 of 428)

Speaking of Fawkes, in my numerous re-readings of OotP, I began to wonder why Dumbledore didn't send Fawkes to St. Mungo's when Arthur Weasley was attacked and was in mortal danger. Arthur was having trouble with bleeding and we all know that tears from a Phoenix have great healing powers. He healed Harry after the bite of the basilisk in CoS and surely his tears could have healed Arthur's wounds and saved him having to endure "Muggle stitches". I also wonder why St. Mungo's doesn't keep some Phoenixes around for healing purposes. Alas, perhaps Phoenixes are too rare for this... they may be able to regenerate, but not reproduce. Anyone have thoughts on this????




schoff - Oct 27, 2003 8:08 pm (#46 of 428)
Edited by Oct 27, 2003 8:09 pm

Well, it would have blown Arthur's (and Harry's) cover if it was found out DD knew about the attack before anyone else did. Technically, the MoM found Arthur, sent him to St. Mungo's, then notified Molly. They probably then thought Molly notified DD in order to tell the kids.

We know in reality that isn't the order in which it happened, and DD definitely would have tipped his hand by showing he knew about the attack before the proper time it would have taken Molly to notify him. Plus, it would have cemented Fudge's suspicions that Arthur was in cahoots with DD, putting Arthur on thin ice when he returned to work.




Catherine - Oct 28, 2003 5:20 am (#47 of 428)

Choices brings up an interesting point. We have seen Fawkes cure two creature-induced injuries so far. I went back to the entry on Phoenixes in Fantastic Beasts to help me think Choice's point through.

The footnote at the bottom of the page explains the Phoenix's XXXX rating: "The phoenix gains a XXXX rating not because it is aggressive, but because very few wizards have ever succeeded in domesticating it" (p32).

Fawkes seems to do what Dumbledore asks, but I am assuming that he has his own intelligence and will. I think that Fawkes cured Harry's wounds from the basilisk and the acromantula because Fawkes wanted to. It was Harry's extreme loyalty to Dumbledore that summoned Fawkes, who is a "highly faithful pet" (CoS). I'm not sure that Dumbledore can MAKE Fawkes cry over wounds. Certainly in other situations, Dumbledore has explained the limits of his own powers. Perhaps there is something special about Harry that causes Fawkes to help him. I've always wondered if there is a bond between Fawkes and Harry because Harry has seen him burst into flames and be reborn twice now.




Joost! - Oct 28, 2003 7:06 am (#48 of 428)

I thought a lot about the amount of Phoenixes (or is it Phoenices?) in the Potterverse. The Phoenix is an important creature in the books but the only one we see is Fawkes. This leads me to believe that Phoenixes are indeed quite rare. Also there’s the fact that Tom Riddle forgot about the powers of the phoenix in CoS. In Phoenixes are common, it would be quite dumb to forget something like that, it would be similar to this:

Riddle: ‘Haha, you’re dying of thirst and there’s nobody to save you except this cow!’

Harry: *milks cow*

Riddle: ‘O yeah, forgot about that.’

The fact that a brilliant 5th year doesn’t know about the very strong and useful powers of a phoenix make me think these birds are very rare.

But then there’s Ollivander who says he makes wands with Unicorn hair, dragon's heartstring and Phoenix feathers. We know Fawkes has only given two feathers. So either he’s very precise in his words or he knows about more Phoenixes in Britain.

Is there anything in FB about how common Phoenixes are?




Madame Librarian - Oct 28, 2003 7:36 am (#49 of 428)

Further back on this thread, someone who had looked up the lore on phoenixes found that there can only be one in existence at any given time. It wasn't all that far back on this thread, so a search might bring it up fairly quickly. It is not clear from canon if JKR is following this ancient limitation, but if so, that would explain why healers don't have a ready supply.

Also, DD and others in the past may have carefully harvested the feathers as they fall or are given, and provided them to wandmakers when needed for certain wands (destined to certain wizards, no doubt).

Ciao. Barb




popkin - Oct 28, 2003 8:25 am (#50 of 428)
Edited by Oct 28, 2003 8:33 am

Madame Librarian, I was the one who had posted that in mythology only one phoenix existed at a time (the phoenix that rose from the ashes in mythology was the child of the one who had just perished in flame - whereas Fawkes remains the same - regenerated - bird). But, I don't have a copy of Fantastic Beasts, and would like to know the same thing that Joost asks. What does JKR say about the phoenixes in her world? Can more than one be in existence at a time?

Since Ollivander has, apparently, made wands with phoenix feather cores besides the two he made for Harry and LV, there must be other phoenixes. If there aren't, we can stop speculating about Fawkes being Godric Gryffindor's bird, because I don't think Ollivander has been around long enough to receive feathers from a phoenix that would have existed over 1000 years ago.

Unless....Ollivander has taken the other phoenix feathers from Fawkes (as opposed to being given them).

  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Potteraholic on Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:22 pm; edited 2 times in total
avatar
Potteraholic
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 4240
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Fawkes and other Phoenixes (posts #51 - #100)

Post  Potteraholic on Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:03 pm

Madame Librarian - Oct 28, 2003 8:49 am (#51 of 428)

popkin, why does the fact that Ollivander made other wands with phoenix feathers automatically mean that the feathers are not from Fawkes? Is it not possible that Fawkes has been around a long, long time. Maybe other powerful (good) wizards owned him before Dumbledore. The essay on the Lexicon site, even proposes that Fawkes was originally Godric's phoenix. Over that many years, Fawkes was bound to have given or even had taken quite a few feathers.

Ciao. Barb




Fawkesy Lady - Oct 28, 2003 9:28 am (#52 of 428)

Doesn't Ollivander say when Harry gets his wand that the phoenix, whose feather resides in your(Harry's) wand, gave just one other feather. Its not an exact quote, but the ideas is there.




Catherine - Oct 28, 2003 9:35 am (#53 of 428)

Yes, Ollivander tells Harry that the "phoenix whose tail feather is in your wand, gave another feather--just one other" (SS, p. 85 hardback). I am inferring from Fantastic Beasts that because the Phoenix is found on mountain peaks in Egypt, India, and China, that there is more than one. That's a lot of territory for only one phoenix! Especially if the only phoenix is living in Albus Dumbledore's office! It makes more sense if there are more of them residing in each of the places.




popkin - Oct 28, 2003 10:23 am (#54 of 428)
Edited by Oct 28, 2003 10:26 am

Catherine Allen, that's exactly the kind of evidence we were looking for. For those of us who don't have the book, could you please type in the exact quote from "Fantastic Beasts".




Catherine - Oct 28, 2003 10:36 am (#55 of 428)

Sorry I didn't do that in the beginning. I was trying to make a post on the run!

From page 32 of Fantastic Beasts:

Phoenix M.O.M. Classification: XXXX (the footnote: The Phoenix gains a XXXX rating not because it is aggressive, but because very few wizards have ever succeeded in domesticating it)

The phoenix is a magnificent, swan-sized, scarlet bird with a long golden tail, beak, and talons. It nests on mountain peaks and is found in Egypt, India, and China. The phoenix lives to an immense age as it can regenerate, bursting into flames when its body begins to fail and rising again from the ashes as a chick. The phoenix is a gentle creature that has never been known to kill and eats only herbs. Like the Diricawl, it can disappear and reappear at will. Phoenix song is magical; it is reputed to increase the courage of the pure of heart and to strike fear into the hearts of the impure. Phoenix tears have powerful healing properties.




popkin - Oct 28, 2003 10:46 am (#56 of 428)

Thank you, Catherine. It's interesting that the phoenix is described as gentle, yet Fawkes pecked out the Basilisk's eyes. Maybe Fawkes is an unusually brave and loyal phoenix.




J-D - Oct 28, 2003 12:52 pm (#57 of 428)

Going back to the earlier discussion about the feathers Fawkes dropped when delivering the messages to 12GP and DD, DD clearly takes the feather but what happened to the other one? Is it possible that Kreacher got a hold of it and gave it to the DE's? What damage could happen if Kreacher picked the feather up and gave it away along w/ info. to the DE's.




popkin - Oct 28, 2003 2:30 pm (#58 of 428)

Since the phoenix strikes fear into the hearts of the impure, I don't know what good it would do the DEs - unless they could use it in some sort of potion.




Choices - Oct 28, 2003 5:10 pm (#59 of 428)

Is there any information concerning the elapsed time between being born again from the ashes and bursting into flames - how long a life span does each incarnation of Fawkes have?




Catherine - Oct 28, 2003 5:27 pm (#60 of 428)

Here's the info I have "off the cuff:"

I typed, at request, the entire information given to us in "Fantastic Beasts." The lore and mythology concerning phoenixes usually involves 1000 years. Poets like W. B. Yeats (an Irish poet) use that timeline. Also, the phoenix can be considered a Christ symbol--hence the millennium timeline (you know, date of birth being 0 B.C., etc...reborn from death....need I go on...)

In the Potter universe, if one has read the books, Fawkes dies in CoS and is reborn in Harry's presence. Fawkes swallows what appears to be an Avada Kedavra curse and bursts into flame once again and is a phoenix chick. So if I do my math correctly, Fawkes is 3-4 years old when he is reborn in OotP.

I really don't know what else to tell you. Different cultures seem to have different phoenix myths. I encourage you to explore them, as they are fascinating!

Happy reading.

Catherine




timrew - Oct 28, 2003 5:31 pm (#61 of 428)

If a phoenix is reborn every 1,000 years, then Harry was really lucky to see Fawkes on a "burning day".

I think JKR has changed the rules for the Potterverse.




Ladybug220 - Oct 28, 2003 6:07 pm (#62 of 428)
Edited by Oct 28, 2003 6:07 pm

I agree with Tim that JKR changed the rules for the Potterverse. Dumbledore makes the comment to Harry (when he was waiting for him in the office) that Fawkes has been looking dreadful for days and that Fawkes needed to go ahead with burning day. I don't have my book with me so I can't give the quote.




Catherine - Oct 28, 2003 6:26 pm (#63 of 428)

Ladybug 220 (btw, this is off topic in the extreme, I love that name, we collect ladybugs in our house!)

You are so right about what Dumbledore says that Fawkes had been looking dreadful for days and that he says "I've been telling him to get a move on" (p. 207, hardback, American).

However, I wonder if Dumbledore, in his infinite wisdom, engineered Harry seeing Fawkes on a burning day?

We know that McGonagall summoned Harry to Dumbledore's office after the latest petrifying attack, saying, "This is out of my hands, Potter," after which says the password into Dumbledore's office.

Dumbledore DOES know, after all, that Harry has Fawkes' feather in his wand. Dumbledore's knowledge of ancient and arcane magic should not be underestimated.

I don't, at least. If I can't trust Dumbledore, then who?

Cheers, Catherine




zixyer - Oct 28, 2003 9:02 pm (#64 of 428)

Trust dramatic convenience.

Unless Dumbledore is the one who was attacking the students, he couldn't have engineered Harry seeing Fawkes on a burning day.




Susurro Notities - Oct 28, 2003 10:19 pm (#65 of 428)

I like the idea of Fawkes having a special relationship with Harry after all Dumbledore never commands Fawkes to cry on Harry even when Harry is sitting wounded in his office. Fawkes tears may very well be beyond Dumbledore's control. Is it the Godric Gryffindor connection? Was Fawkes his bird and is Harry his heir?

Catherine Allen, Do you collect ladybugs in your home intentionally - if not do you live in Michigan? I have at least 200 ladybugs in my wood room - uninvited - I like them but not sure I want to share my home with them.




Catherine - Oct 29, 2003 4:09 am (#66 of 428)

Actually, I meant decorative vs. real ladybugs. My older daughter was a ladybug for Halloween a few years ago. It is gross, though, when plague of them invades...

Back on topic... uh, phoenixes, I'm not sure I have anything to add besides that Dumbledore didn't have to invite Harry to his office that day--he knew that Harry wasn't attacking anyone. Dumbledore could've gone down, etc. But, yes, dramatic convenience is the best explanation.




Fawkes8U - Oct 29, 2003 6:48 am (#67 of 428)

Popkin, Catherine Allen, have either of you researched the Garuda/Phoenix old Hindu Myth? We lived in Indonesia for years and the Garuda is everywhere. In a nutshell, it says that the Garuda-Phoenix represents good, hates and despises the Nagas/Snakes which represent evil. The Garuda kills them. It's not hard to make the Fawkes/DD/Harry/Good side connection with Voldemort/Nagini/Evil side. You guys may have posted this already and we are just not aware of it. But it is kind of fun to think about.




Ladybug220 - Oct 29, 2003 7:18 am (#68 of 428)

Catherine, I collect decorative ladybugs too and that is how I picked my user name.

Back to the topic - my sister-in-law is Vietnamese and (anyone, please correct me if I am wrong) in Asian culture, the phoenix represents the female and the dragon represents the male in weddings. Her sister just got married and she wore a beautiful gold necklace with a phoenix on it and her mother had a special white dress with a gold phoenix embroidered on one side. I don't remember what else the phoenix represents in Asian cultures so I will try to do some research (i.e., email my sis-in-law).




Catherine - Oct 29, 2003 12:11 pm (#69 of 428)

Thanks Fawkes8U, I didn't know about that particular phoenix story. Fascinating creatures, phoenixes...




A-is-for-Amy - Nov 8, 2003 12:11 pm (#70 of 428)

I just had thought... Perhaps the reason that Fawkes seems to be attracted to Harry (other than the wand thing and loyalty to Dumbledore)is because Harry was the most recent to see him die and reborn in CoS... He was basically the first person Fawkes saw when he was reborn from the ashes.




Joost! - Nov 10, 2003 4:56 am (#71 of 428)

What does that mean? That Fawkes thinks Harry is his mother? It works that way with ducks and geese...




Fawkes Forever - Nov 10, 2003 8:55 am (#72 of 428)

I'd say there is a certain bond between Harry & Fawkes because of his [Harry’s'] presence when Fawkes was reborn. I would imagine this would be a pretty vulnerable time for a Phoenix, so only certain people would be allowed to witness this.... I .e., people whom Dumbledore trusts!

On the topic of Phoenixes..... Is there not another type of Phoenix native to Britain & Ireland.... the Augurey? Oh found it in the Bestiary in the Lexicon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ... you can always count on the lexicon !

Interestingly, it says that Augurey feathers repel ink, so I don't think they would make a very good quill, so then, what would become of their feathers? Perhaps this is the type of phoenix feather used in Ollivander’s Wands?




Killian - Nov 11, 2003 11:08 am (#73 of 428)

I looked for a while and couldn't find a way to kill a phoenix (that sounds so grim) but I remembered something while I did it. See, I'm a fan of Japanese animation, and a lot of them mention the four legendary gods: Suzaku, Seiryu, Genbu, and Byakku. Suzaku is the phoenix, Genbu is a turtle/snake that is generally associated with the earth, Byakku is a white tiger, and Seiryu is a dragon. Now, I doubt that this will come into play at all, but I just figured I would mention it for anyone who was curious.

And I also heard that a lot of people were thinking about J. K. Rowling and that whole Ultima story. If that is what she meant, and if it does mean that Fawkes is carrying a portion of Dumbledore's spirit or something like that, then isn't it possible that the wands are also carrying a part of his spirit? I mean, if that were the case, then maybe the wand won't always work against Dumbledore. Obviously it did in OotP, but would it the rest of the time? Just a thought.




Choices - Nov 21, 2003 10:39 am (#74 of 428)

In CoS when Harry goes back 50 years with Tom Riddle, he comments when in the headmaster's office that there is no Fawkes there. I think this shows that Fawkes belongs to Dumbledore and came with him when he became headmaster and didn't just come with the office. Also, I think the reason that Fawkes likes Harry so much and helps him, is that there is a connection between Dumbledore and Fawkes - perhaps there is an essence of Dumbledore residing in Fawkes that causes Fawkes to have the same love for someone that Dumbledore has.




popkin - Nov 22, 2003 1:51 am (#75 of 428)

I think that when Dumbledore dies Fawkes will come into Harry's possession. The only other living character we know of besides Dumbledore or Harry who has any connection with Fawkes is Riddle - because Fawkes' tail feather resides in his wand. Since Fawkes' song strikes terror into LV's heart, I don't think he'd want to own him. So, that leaves Harry to inherit him.




Fawkes8U - Nov 28, 2003 7:05 pm (#76 of 428)

Hey, has anyone already discussed the fact that in order for Harry to "inherit" Fawkes, something would have to happen to Hedwig? Or is Fawkes the spirit of Godric Gryffindor and Hedwig the spirit of Helga Hufflepuff? And could they both lend Harry a major hand in the final standoff?




A-is-for-Amy - Nov 29, 2003 9:36 am (#77 of 428)

Why would something have to happen to Hedwig for Harry to inherit Fawkes? Hedwig is a pet, yes, but he also has a practical use (delivering mail). Even if Harry gets Fawkes (which I think he will), I can't see him using him for commonplace chores like mail delivery.




Anastasia Gilbreath - Nov 29, 2003 1:57 pm (#78 of 428)

Wow, Hedwig would be mad mad mad though.

That is one jealous owl.




Peregrine - Dec 1, 2003 8:32 am (#79 of 428)

This thread got me thinking about phoenixes so over the holiday I scoured the library and checked out a bunch of mythology books on beasts (although, I swear someone else was doing the same thing because all of the best books were already taken). Anyway, I found a good one called The Book of Fabulous Beasts by Joseph Nigg. It’s a ‘treasury of ancient writings from ancient times to the past’ so it has loads of old Greek and Egyptian references to phoenixes. I jotted down all of the main information if anyone is interested (and no, I didn’t see any reference on how to kill a phoenix):

Hesiod (c. 700 B.C.) - Interpreted by R. Van Den Broek Myth of the Phoenix

--A crow outlives nine generations of men, a stag’s life is four times the crow’s, a raven outlives three stags, and the phoenix outlives nine ravens --If I did the math right (?), this phoenix lives approximately 68,000 years

Herodotus (5th Century B.C.) The History

--Arabian phoenix appears in Egypt every 500 years --No fire yet --Herodotus only heard stories from Egyptians - never saw actual bird --Description: plumage is partly red, partly golden and it’s the size of an eagle

Ovid (43 B.C. - A.D. 17) The Metamorphoses

--Phoenix carried remains of parent to Egypt every 500 years --Builds nest of spices in palm tree --Drinks the juice of sweet-burning herbs

Pliny the Elder (A.D. 23/24-79) Natural History

--Description: gold around neck, all the rest purple, tail is blue and rose-colored and it’s the size of an eagle --Lives 540 years --Builds nest of cinnamon and frankincense and dies (no fire yet) --Regenerates into a maggot, then a chicken-sized bird, then into the full grown phoenix

Tacitus (c. A.D. 55-120) The Annals

--Lives either 500 years or 1,461 years --Not yet considered a fabulous beast: ‘There is no question that the bird is occasionally seen in Egypt.’

Aelian (c. A.D. 170-235) On Animals

--Lives 500 years --Unlike man, the phoenix doesn’t need to count the 500 years, he instinctively knows by reading the signs

Lactantius (c. A.D. 260-340)

--First major description of rebirth through fire --Phoenix is female (all the other writers said it was male) --Lives 1000 years

Claudian (c. A.D. 370-404) The Phoenix

--Has a sweet voice

Horapollo (4th Century A.D.?) The Hieroglyphics (Studies of Egyptian Hieroglyphics)

--Depicts a soul delaying here for a long time (because it’s the longest living thing in the universe) --Depicts traveler who returned from a long journey --Depicts long-enduring restoration

Baruch (2nd Century A.D.?) The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch

--It’s a guardian of the earth --Flies alongside the sun and receives its rays then distributes the rays around the earth --Preserves life on earth --Eats manna of heaven and dew of earth

St. Clement (1st Century A.D.) Epistle to the Corinthians

--One of the earliest writings interpreting phoenix as a symbol of the resurrection --Clement says it does exist - it’s not a myth --Lives 500 years --When it dies (without fire) the flesh decays, a worm is born, it’s nourished by the moisture of the dead parent, and grows wings

St. Ambrose (4th-11th Centuries A.D.) The Latin Physiologus

--States matter-of-factly the phoenix exists --It’s reborn through fire --Be birth lasts three days after burning: First day - worm, Second days - birdling, Third day - eagle-sized phoenix --Lives 500 years

The Old English Phoenix (c. 10th Century) The Exeter Book

--Phoenix bursts into flames, becomes a worm, then a chick, then a young bird, then a mature eagle-sized phoenix

Albertus Magnus (c. 1200-1280) De Animalibus

--It has a solitary life --Lives 340 years

George Caspard Kirchmayer (1635-1700) Six Zoological Disputations (Kirchmayer was a skeptic)

--The phoenix has only been seen in pictures: ‘No man has ever seen it in true reality’ --The idea that only one phoenix exists at a time isn’t true because scripture says God created male and female, not to mention two of each animal were taken on Noah’s ark

E. Nesbit (1858-1924) The Phoenix and the Carpet (A children’s story revolving around Edwardian siblings who dabble in magic)

--This phoenix hatches from an ancient egg --It talks

D.H. Lawrence (1885-1930) Phoenix (Lawrence wanted man to ‘destroy our false, inorganic connections...and re-establish the living organic connections, with the cosmos, the sun and earth...’. He used the phoenix as his own emblem.)

--Represents regeneration




Joost! - Dec 2, 2003 12:47 am (#80 of 428)

Wow, excellent research, Peregrine!

Two things stand out to me; the fact that a Phoenix turns into a worm or maggot according to most sources and not in the Potterverse and the fact that nobody mentions the healing power of Phoenix tears. Did JKR invent this?




Peregrine - Dec 2, 2003 8:34 am (#81 of 428)

I was wondering that too. So far the other books I got haven’t been nearly as complete as the one I posted from, but nothing has mentioned healing powers (or the fact that they can appear out of thin air). I think it may just be something JKR needed to move the story along; an addition to the myth that I quite like actually.

One thing that is pretty constant (and that JKR doesn’t mention one way or another, does she?) is that they live for a couple hundred years at least. I think this does bring credence to the theory that it was significant for Harry to see Fawkes on a burning day. If in the Potterverse they really live a few hundred years, Dumbledore might not have witnessed a true burning day himself (Maybe just a burning like when Fawkes swallowed the AK).




Orchal Fireb - Dec 2, 2003 11:41 am (#82 of 428)

Good point. That would be really cool if DD had never seen a burning day, but somehow I doubt that.




I Am Used Vlad - Dec 2, 2003 12:58 pm (#83 of 428)

The phoenix lives an extremely long time because of its ability to regenerate. If the life span of the phoenix is a few hundred years, that doesn't mean it's a few hundred years between burning days, but a few hundred years from its birth until it actually dies. There would be many burning days throughout its life.




Orchal Fireb - Dec 2, 2003 1:08 pm (#84 of 428)

Traditionally in mythology the phoenix lives hundreds or thousands of years before it is reborn in its nest of oak branches which is high in palm tree, then it carries its nest to Heliopolis in Egypt where it leaves its nest at the temple of the sun, I think Rowling just changed that to better fit the story




A-is-for-Amy - Dec 2, 2003 1:57 pm (#85 of 428)

Perhaps as a Phoenix come to the close of it's "natural" life - meaning it won't rise from the ashes anymore- it's burning days get closer and closer together? Until finally, one day, it just bursts into flame and remains just ashes. Does that make sense?




Orchal Fireb - Dec 2, 2003 2:15 pm (#86 of 428)

Yeah but that’s is saying Phoenix's die, which traditionally they don’t but that is a good thought.




I Am Used Vlad - Dec 2, 2003 2:37 pm (#87 of 428)

I think they do die in this case. ‘Fantastic Beasts & Where To Find Them’ says they live "to an immense age," which implies that they do eventually die. If they didn't, the book would call them immortal.




Peregrine - Dec 3, 2003 8:57 am (#88 of 428)

Huh, it never occurred to me that saying they live for 500 years was the actual span of their entire life and could include several burning days. I guess it depends on which lore you believe. Some of the tales (usually the ones without a mention of fire) say that when the phoenix dies, a new one is born and carries its parent away. This phoenix seems to have one, 500 yearlong life and then its child would live for another 500 years. But the phoenixes that burn regenerate themselves, which I guess could happen as often as once a year for 500 years (or something like that). And seeing as how Fawkes is a burst-into-flames kind of bird, the second one seems to apply the best.

I think JKR was very careful in not stating how long the phoenix actually lives. Most of the accounts I found say 500 years (give or take a few hundred). If Fawkes only lives for +/- 500 years, he can’t be Gryffindor’s bird. So she may have been purposely vague in its life span to leave the possibility open. It seems strange that every other detail was specific in describing the phoenix except its life span.




fidelio - Dec 4, 2003 3:26 pm (#89 of 428)

Peregrine posted this:

Herodotus (5th Century B.C.) The History

--Arabian phoenix appears in Egypt every 500 years --No fire yet --Herodotus only heard stories from Egyptians - never saw actual bird --Description: plumage is partly red, partly golden and it’s the size of an eagle

Pliny the Elder (A.D. 23/24-79) Natural History

--Description: gold around neck, all the rest purple, tail is blue and rose-colored and it’s the size of an eagle

Just for the record, when Greek and Roman writers talk about red and purple, they may be talking about the same thing, depending on the words used. In Greek "phoenix/phoenicis" refers to the bird, the Phoenician people, and a color, which comes from the Murex dye [a Phoenician product]. The color, like the dye, ranged in shades from what we think of as red, through shades of red-violet, to a purplish tone, into a dark shade of purple-red verging on black. The Latin word 'purpureus' [the origin of our word purple] refers to the same dye and the resulting range of colors. It's possible that Herodotus used the term "phoenicis' and Pliny used "purpureus", and their translators chose to use red in one case and purple in the other, even though the two writers had the same sort of color in mind.

OK, was that a trivial detail or what?




Hem Hem - Dec 4, 2003 7:55 pm (#90 of 428)

I always appreciate your trivia, Fidelio!




Joost! - Dec 5, 2003 1:58 am (#91 of 428)

Hmmm... that would explain why Greek soldiers often shed purple blood, I always thought there was something wrong with them...




shepherdess - Dec 5, 2003 10:40 pm (#92 of 428)

Further information, from a website someone on the forum posted a link to a long time ago (I copied the info, but didn't get the site):

Ovid also said: "It does not live on fruit or flowers, but on frankincense and odoriferous gums". And after it has built it's nest and died: "From the body of the parent bird, a young Phoenix issues forth, destined to live as long a life as its predecessor (500 years). When this has grown up and gained sufficient strength, it lifts its nest from the tree (its own cradle and its parent's sepulcher), and carries it to the city of Heliopolis in Egypt, and deposits it in the temple of the sun."

Heroditus described it as: "for the most part very much like an eagle in outline and bulk" and "a large eagle like or heron like bird".

The author of the page says: "One possible explanation for the phoenix myth: some large birds spread their wings over fires so that the smoke kills parasites."

In reference to the Chinese equivalent of the phoenix (feng-huang): "They have the head and comb of a pheasant and the feathers of a peacock. The plumage blends the five colours and the song of the bird is the harmony of the five notes."




A-is-for-Amy - Dec 6, 2003 7:18 am (#93 of 428)

It carries its nest? Yikes! No wonder they have to have immense strength! Have you ever seen an eagles nest? The American Bald Eagle's nest is... well the closest comparison I can give you is that it is about the same size as the nest of Big Bird on Sesame Street. Absolutely huge!

It is interesting that there are so many different theories concerning the lifespan and whether or not the bird that rises from the ashes is the same bird, or rather it's offspring. I think it's pretty clear, though, that in JKR's world, it is the same bird.




Jenny M. - Dec 12, 2003 2:46 am (#94 of 428)

OK, I have a theory about the connection between Harry and Fawkes:

Fawkes originally gave one feather for a wand: the wand which was bought by Tom Riddle. Fawkes and Dumbledore were mortified to see this wand put to such horrible use. Fawkes felt guilty that his feather was providing the magical core for such terror. When baby Harry was confirmed as the subject of the prophecy, Fawkes chose to give one more feather for a wand, because Harry would be able to defeat Voldemort more easily if his wand was the brother of Voldy's. In this way Fawkes could "atone" for the deaths his first feather's wand caused (though of course it wasn't really his fault). This is why Fawkes is helping Harry - because it is only through Harry's use of his feather that Fawkes' guilt will be eased.




Joost! - Dec 12, 2003 2:58 am (#95 of 428)

I like your theory, Jenny. But I'm not really sure if a phoenix is intelligent enough to feel guilty. I could also see Dumbledore feeling guilty about giving away one of Fawkes' feathers and "asking" Fawkes to help Harry.




Nimbus Amongus - Dec 12, 2003 9:42 am (#96 of 428)

Good points about Fawkes not necessarily giving both feathers at the same time.

Though, if the 'wand chooses the wizard' as Ollivander says, it is interesting that Fawkes' feathered wand would 'choose' the Dark Lord.




Peregrine - Dec 12, 2003 10:14 am (#97 of 428)

Maybe Fawkes really belonged to Slytherin and not Gryffindor like we’ve been guessing.




boop - Jan 3, 2004 2:04 pm (#98 of 428)

Maybe this has already been debated: Fawkes survived when his beak gorged out the eyes of the basilisk. Why was he not killed? Is it, because of the special powers that Fawkes has? Fawkes would have to see where the basilisk eyes were to attack them. I was just wondering about it.




A-is-for-Amy - Jan 3, 2004 6:15 pm (#99 of 428)

Maybe he had his eyes closed? That's actually a very good question!




Denise P. - Jan 3, 2004 6:23 pm (#100 of 428)

I always thought the basilisk had to make eye contact in order to petrify. Fawkes could have avoided eye contact and still managed to gouge out an eye.

  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Potteraholic on Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:22 pm; edited 2 times in total
avatar
Potteraholic
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 4240
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Fawkes and other Phoenixes (posts #101 - #150)

Post  Potteraholic on Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:09 pm

Pinky - Jan 4, 2004 7:49 am (#101 of 428)

Try poking someone in the eye without making direct eye contact. Then we'll know for sure!




Wendelin the Weird - Jan 6, 2004 1:32 am (#102 of 428)

Ummm... was thinking on some posts a few pages back about Dumbledore’s spirit inhabiting Fawkes in some way and it once again brought me back to cats.... CATS?! Yeah, I know, it sounds crazy. But my point is think of the lore of a witch and her "familiar" that is so popular - usually being a cat. In North American native cultures some believe owls to be familiars or in cahoots with sorcerers and witches as well. It seems that Wizard/Witches pets are magical in some sense we cant put our finger on, having a connection beyond normal with their owners. We also hear of two squibs with amazing cats whose office/homes smell like cabbage. I’m getting the impression that we will learn more about "familiars" soon, and why they are so important. Voldemort/Nagini; Dumbledore/Fawkes; Harry/Hedwig; etc...

{BTW I tend to think the cabbage smell is some form of potion which allows a squib or Muggle to have the same connection with an animal as wizards are able to do naturally through their own magic. Just a thought. That would somehow mean that although Fawkes may not necessarily house DD's spirit, he is connected with his essence and vision in some way much as Filch & Mrs. Norris are. And also we do hear often of DD seeming to be places and see things although he doesn’t appear to be present - perhaps he has some of this ability to go unseen without an invisibility cloak much like Fawkes does...}




Pinky - Jan 7, 2004 5:21 am (#103 of 428)

Interesting theory, Wendelin. The cabbage thing does seem to be mentioned quite a bit considering that it hasn't meant anything to the story. This may be one of her notes on background stuff that doesn't actually make it into the books.




Choices - Jan 10, 2004 6:29 pm (#104 of 428)

I was rereading GoF last night and I noticed that during the duel between Harry and Voldemort - when their wands are locked in combat - Harry hears the song of the phoenix and it seems to strengthen him and give him greater determination to persevere and not let Voldemort beat him. To me, this was Dumbledore letting Harry know that he was with him - that he (Harry) was not alone in his fight. I don't mean Dumbledore was actually there, but it was like, through Fawkes, he was saying to Harry, "Remember what you've learned, be strong, don't give in." It reinforced my conviction that there is some "essence" of Dumbledore residing in Fawkes. Fawkes is very useful to Dumbledore and is sort of an extension of Dumbledore in certain instances.




A-is-for-Amy - Jan 10, 2004 9:50 pm (#105 of 428)

If you read Fantastic Beasts and where to find them, or look up Phoenixes at the Lexicon, you'll find that Phoenix song is supposed to bolster the good and strike fear in the wicked (not exact phrasing). Both Harry and Voldemort have Phoenix tail feathers in their wands, which is where I assumed the song came from.




freshwater - Jan 11, 2004 7:41 am (#106 of 428)

Isn't it interesting then--given that phoenix song enheartens the good and intimidates the bad--that Tom Riddle/LV was "chosen" by a wand containing a phoenix feather? Perhaps, not being completely evil at the age of 11, he still had the opportunity to make some choices which would make him more fitted to own a phoenix-core wand. What do you think?




Devika - Jan 11, 2004 8:34 am (#107 of 428)

Well... I don't know freshwater... the wand must have failed in it's purpose then! But if the wand can't really do much in deciding what a person's leanings might be then I wonder if Tom Riddle ever thought of his wand as having some significance in terms of hope and good, and then decided to ignore it and turn bad.




freshwater - Jan 11, 2004 12:11 pm (#108 of 428)

(slaps hand to forehead and rolls eyes) This JUST occurred to me....how could I have missed this for soooo long?!?!

Phoenix: bird that never really dies, but always rises again from its own ashes.

Tom Riddle: a kid with evil tendencies and a desire for immortality.

Maybe that's why Tom's phoenix feather wand chose him...I know the Avada Kedavra curse is supposed to be unblockable, but what if a phoenix-core wand (like Harry's) can block the AK even though other "less immortal" wands can't? Just brainstorming here.....




Jenny M. - Jan 11, 2004 5:04 pm (#109 of 428)

Do you mean, block an Avada Kedavra that the wand's bearer was about to cast? If so, then why are James and Lily dead? Or do you mean block one that the wand's bearer was the recipient of?




freshwater - Jan 11, 2004 5:38 pm (#110 of 428)

Sorry I wasn't clear, Jenny M. I was thinking that perhaps Harry's phoenix-core wand might be able to block the AK curse thrown at him from someone else (and their wand). It's a bit of a far-fetched idea, but I just wondered if the "immortality" aspect of the phoenix feather might counteract the death curse.




Devika - Jan 12, 2004 2:03 am (#111 of 428)

That's an interesting idea freshwater... but then I guess the same wand core will also save Voldemort from a curse that has the potential to kill him (this is assuming that AK isn't the only way to kill). Well then... that leaves us with a lot of possibilities about how he'll be conquered... oops I think I'm off-topic now!




Hem Hem - Jan 15, 2004 6:03 pm (#112 of 428)

Do we know of any other HP characters (besides Harry and Voldielocks) who have phoenix-core wands at all? I never got the impression before that a phoenix wand was rare, but maybe they are.

That, or Fawkes is an exceptional phoenix. We really haven't met enough other phoenixes in the story with which to compare....




Devika - Jan 16, 2004 7:43 am (#113 of 428)

I think it is mentioned somewhere that Fawkes gave only two feathers. Of course that is nothing to suggest that some other phoenix(es) would not have given other wand-cores. I guess the key factor is that Harry and Voldemort have a common core and not that it is a phoenix feather. But then again... why would it even be mentioned otherwise that it was Fawkes who gave those feathers...? Oho... I think I'm going in circles.




Choices - Jan 16, 2004 10:25 am (#114 of 428)

I would think that having Fawkes' feather as your wand's core would be an advantage for Harry, but having a feather from the bird who is loyal to your enemy as your wand's core, would be disadvantage for Voldemort.




Julia. - Jan 16, 2004 10:39 am (#115 of 428)

Ok, Devika, slow down, and take a deep breath. You are not going in circles. You are correct in saying that it is mentioned somewhere that Fawkes gave only two feathers. "It just so happens that the phoenix whose tail feather is in your wand, gave another feather--just one other." (PS/SS ch.5, pg. 85 American.) I think you may have something with your "common core" being something other than the phoenix feather core. The wand chooses the wizard, remember. So the wands must have seen something special in both Harry and Tom Riddle for them to both be chosen by wands with Fawkes' tail feathers as their core.

"'Harry's wand and Voldemort's wand share cores. Each of them contains a feather from the tail of the same phoenix. This phoenix, in fact,' he (Dumbledore) added...'My wand's feather came from Fawkes?' Harry said, amazed. (GoF ch. 36, pg. 605 UK) The fact that we are being told that Harry's and Voldemort's wands share a core of Fawkes feathers must mean something, I'm just not sure what. I've decided that it has to have something to do with Dumbledore, and, if Fawkes did indeed belong to him, Godric Gryffindor himself. I'm now getting very confused, so I leave it to my fellow Forumers to help me out here.

EDIT: Choices, you must have posted while I was looking for a smilie. I agree with you on that point. Having a wand core of a phoenix who's loyal to your enemy would be a definite bad thing for Voldemort. Nicely spotted. Why didn't I think of that?




Hem Hem - Jan 16, 2004 3:41 pm (#116 of 428)

And since we know that Phoenix are loyal to the brave and righteous of heart, it would basically be a disadvantage to any Dark Wizard to have a phoenix wand! All domestic Phoenixes must be in the hands of Dumbledore types.

Then again, FB said that most Phoenixes aren't domestic.




Jenny M. - Jan 16, 2004 11:32 pm (#117 of 428)

freshwater, about your post 110 (Harry's phoenix-feather wand blocking an Avada Kedavra thrown at him), of course, you're right. That's exactly what happened in Harry's battle with Voldy in GoF!




Devika - Jan 17, 2004 2:03 am (#118 of 428)

Choices, I like your idea, but then if his wand core would be a disadvantage to Voldemort, how did he become the most powerful wizard??




Pinky - Jan 17, 2004 3:55 pm (#119 of 428)

Madame Librarian, I deleted your post after I confirmed that you had been able to move it to the "Wands" thread. To Choices and Devika, you may want to read the "Wands" thread (it's a little below this thread). There are some great posts about why Voldemort's wand may have a phoenix feather core.




Dragonesss - Jan 21, 2004 1:49 am (#120 of 428)
Edited by Jan 21, 2004 1:52 am

I've just read all 119 posts and here are my two knuts...

1. Before buying Fawkes feather wand Harry tried another phoenix wand.

"Maple and phoenix feather. Seven inches. Quite whippy. Try --" Harry tried -- but he had hardly raised the wand when it, too, was snatched back by Mr. Ollivander."(SS, Ch. 5, DIAGON ALLEY)

2. Phoenix-feather wand does not choose between good and evil, it chooses between powerful and weak. Here are more from Mr. Ollivander:

"I'm sorry to say I sold the wand that did it," he said softly. "Thirteen-and-a-half inches. Yew. Powerful wand, very powerful, and in the wrong hands... well, if I'd known what that wand was going out into the world to do...."

"Yes, thirteen-and-a-half inches. Yew. Curious indeed how these things happen. The wand chooses the wizard, remember.... I think we must expect great things from you, Mr. Potter.... After all, He- Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things -- terrible, yes, but great."

So, maybe phoenix feather, when separated from phoenix still have some of its magical powers, but not phoenix's good nature?

3. Message feathers. Maybe, they are not real feathers? Maybe, Fawkes can create them as the signature, authentication of his messages and they will disappear later like leprechaun's gold?

4. Fawkes #45 - Choices Oct 27, 2003 06:29 pm "Speaking of Fawkes, in my numerous re-readings of OotP, I began to wonder why Dumbledore didn't send Fawkes to St. Mungo's when Arthur Weasley was attacked and was in mortal danger."

Well, why Dumbledore didn't send Fawkes to MoM?! There was nobody near Arthur and nobody knew he was there, besides the Order. Why don't cure him on the spot and continue the "guard duty"? Why all the troubles with old headmaster running through portraits, looking for the "right people", thinking of explanations, staying at St. Mungo's etc.?

Ether Fawkes cannot get into MoM (I doubt it) or he didn't want to? Maybe, Dumbledore cannot just "send" Fawkes to do some thing, but has to ask for a favor? Does Fawkes really belong to Dumbledore, or Phoenixes choose their people and are free to go if they feel like it?




Choices - Jan 21, 2004 10:07 am (#121 of 428)

I didn't suggest that Fawkes go to the MOM, but to St. Mungo's to help Arthur. Fawkes has always gone and done what Dumbledore has asked of him, why would he refuse in this instance? I think he would have gone, but obviously for the sake of the plot, JKR didn't want Arthur cured in this manner. She certainly knows best - I was just suggesting that this was a possible way for Arthur to survive the attack and be healed quickly.




Nymphadora - Jan 29, 2004 5:19 pm (#122 of 428)

Oh, I think that Nagini has a very special venom... it was used to revive Voldemort, and now some of it resides with Arthur too... kind of reverse Harry-Voldemort blood sharing. I'm not so sure Dumbledore wanted Fawkes to heal that wound!




Killian - Jan 29, 2004 6:30 pm (#123 of 428)

I'm know that I'm going way back now, but a while ago people were wondering about a way to possibly kill a phoenix. It seems that while there are some myths that eventually believe that they just kind of die out somehow, there's nothing saying that you can kill one before it's time, so to speak. However, the way that the phoenix rises is by bursting into flame and then rising from its own ashes, so I couldn't help but wonder: what would happen if you drowned it? It really couldn't burst into flames in the water, could it?

Or, another possibility could be what if you spread the ashes apart before the phoenix could reform? I was reading a weird book in which a vampire could be resurrected if you had all of its ashes from when it was dusted, but if too much was missing then it just didn't work. So does a phoenix need to have all of its ashes in single spot in order to be reborn from them? I know that they kind of come back instantly, but there is that infinitesimal moment before it does reform, isn't there? So, if what some people were suggesting about Dumbledore's life depending on Fawkes' existence, then if what I suggested is possible wouldn't that mean that it's very possible that Dumbledore could be killed since Fawkes could be as well? That Voldemort could, in those few precious seconds, scatter the ashes before Fawkes could be reborn, thus making it possible to kill Dumbledore? Just a thought.




Jenny M. - Jan 30, 2004 6:15 pm (#124 of 428)

I doubt Fawkes would burn if he believed himself to be potentially in danger. Anyway, doesn't he have many more years before he'll need to burn again?




Killian - Jan 31, 2004 4:21 pm (#125 of 428)

But he might not have a choice but to burn. When Fawkes dies, he burns. We know that from the time that Voldemort used the AK curse on him at the Ministry in book 5.




Jenny M. - Jan 31, 2004 8:09 pm (#126 of 428)

oh, thanks Killian, I'd forgotten that Fawkes gets Avada Kedavra'ed in that book...I'm away at college so haven't got my copies of the books with me.




Chris. - Feb 28, 2004 8:09 pm (#127 of 428)

What I want to know is, where did Dumbledore get Fawkes?

Supposedly it’s hard to domesticate them, so I would find it unlikely that he 'bought' him. Was it an 'inheritance' when he became the Headmaster of Hogwarts or has their friendship went back since Albus was a boy?

I remember something on the Lexicon about a witch owning 3 magical birds with immense healing powers. Anyone have any details on this?




Hogs Head - Mar 6, 2004 3:12 pm (#128 of 428)

I suspect that Fawkes is the Magical Creature side of an Animagus. But, if that is a good guess, who is the human counterpart? Dumbledore (he'd have to use a time-turner with great skill and planning, since they've been in numerous scenes together)? Nicholas Flamel? Some great mentor of Dumbledore's? I'll be looking forward to Books 6&7 to find out if this theory has any merit.




Chris. - Mar 6, 2004 3:20 pm (#129 of 428)

I was thinking Godric Gryffindor. This leads onto the 'Harry is the Gryffindor's Heir' which is a good theory. The Lexicon has an essay on Fawkes.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

An interesting read!

At the bottom, I've also found the part about the witch who owned the three birds. I think it's a good possibility.




DJ Evans - Apr 20, 2004 7:14 pm (#130 of 428)
Edited Apr 20, 2004 8:16 pm

I'm not quite sure where I should post this, as it would kinda fit in 3 or 4 different posts--so I thought I would put it here as it won't warrant a big discussion I don't think, but yet it concerns Fawkes, just more like an observation that popped in my head really when I read another thread on a totally different subject earlier.

In the "Flying Motorbike" thread it's been discussed who has Sirius' Flying Motorbike now. And within that thread it's been thrown around, about Hagrid and how he got the Cabin on the Rock to deliver Harry's letter to him from Hogwarts. When Hagrid and Harry take the Dursleys rented rowboat to get back to the mainland, Harry asks Hagrid how he got there and Hagrid explains that he "flew". Several think Hagrid used the Flying Motorbike, but I'm not so sure that he did. My new thought on this is; what about Fawkes? Was Fawkes the way that Hagrid "flew" to the island that night? That would explain why there wasn't anything left behind on the island as there was no mention of the bike the next morning. Fawkes is known for carrying heavy loads.

Later days, Deb




JKR4PM - Apr 20, 2004 10:50 pm (#131 of 428)

Yes Phoenixes can carry heavy loads, however I think a half giant just might herniate poor Fawkes!




Julia. - Apr 21, 2004 3:57 am (#132 of 428)

Oh, I don't know about that JKR4PM. After all, Fawkes is no ordinary bird, and he did carry Harry, Ginny, Ron and Lockhart out of the Chamber of Secrets, so I think he's be able to carry Hagrid no problem.




Choices - Apr 21, 2004 6:02 pm (#133 of 428)

Boy, that is quite a mental image. A red and gold bird flying across the water with a large man holding on to its tail. That just might make you swear off the bottle for a while. LOL




lys potter - Apr 22, 2004 7:22 am (#134 of 428)

Fawkes is a possibility, but I'd always assumed that Hagrid flew on a thestral. I'm not sure why, though...




Choices - Apr 22, 2004 8:49 am (#135 of 428)

Great looking dog Lys! Thestrals, Fawkes, motorbike - all good possibilities. It just occurred to me that may be Dumbledore created a portkey for Hagrid - that would be sort of like flying. Perhaps he just said he "flew" because it would be too difficult to explain travel by portkey to Harry.




lys potter - Apr 22, 2004 9:36 am (#136 of 428)

Thanks, Choices! She's my baby and my pride and joy.

I agree that Hagrid could've said he "flew" just to avoid having to explain some other kind of wild wizard travel to Harry, be it portkey, thestral, or phoenix!

If Hagrid did use Fawkes, I suppose it's possible that Fawkes could have "disappeared" with Hagrid the way he did with Dumbledore from the Headmaster's office in OotP, rather than flying like he did with Harry, Ron, Ginny, and Lockhart in CoS. This form of travel (would you call it Apparition?) might be more comfortable for Hagrid than flying by hanging onto the end of Fawkes' tail.

Speaking of Fawkes and Dumbledore's disappearance in OotP, before we came back to WX, there was a discussion of how that form of travel worked. It might be interesting to see what some new members think about this now. Can Fawkes Apparate and Disapparate from Hogwarts? If it's not apparition, what is it? Because of a phoenix's relationship with fire, can they create their own Floo Network connection? Can Fawkes always take a passenger?

Fire away! I thought it might be fun to get some new perspectives on these thoughts.




Liz - Jun 1, 2004 9:24 pm (#137 of 428)

I just got wind off of this other web site that supposedly JKR read this story as an analogy of what is in the books to come about Dumbledore and his favorite bird. According to the information, once Fawkes is destroyed so is DD and this is to happen in the 6th book isn't that sad.

tear

Beth




S.E. Jones - Jun 1, 2004 11:04 pm (#138 of 428)

I think we finally decided that was a rumor Beth. I'm not sure if the thread is still here or not but apparently the line is taken out of context. She was asked what book she was currently reading and then asked another question or something and someone on some fansite put the two answers together. (It was supposed to be in the Royal Albert Hall interview but there is no mention of Dumbledore being killed if Fawkes is.) Can anyone find the quote from the fan site?




Liz - Jun 2, 2004 6:25 pm (#139 of 428)

Sorry I didn't know. But thanks for filling me in on what's going on.

Beth




S.E. Jones - Jun 2, 2004 7:50 pm (#140 of 428)
Edited Jun 2, 2004 8:51 pm

It never hurts to ask.... Er, unless you're asking one of those biting books, then it might...




Padfoot - Jun 17, 2004 11:52 am (#141 of 428)

I was reading the Mr. Ollivander thread and something popped into my mind. How old is Fawkes? At least one tail feather found it's way into Tom Riddle's wand what, 50 years ago? Does it mention in Fantastic Beasts any information on Fawkes's life span?




Chris. - Jun 17, 2004 12:14 pm (#142 of 428)

It just says that Phoenixes live up to an immense age, not very specific.




Julia. - Jun 17, 2004 2:36 pm (#143 of 428)

It's never stated how old Fawkes is, but it's assumed he's very old, and based on his red and gold plumage, there are theories floating about that he once belonged to Godric Gryffindor himself. I'm not sure about this theory, but I assume he is pretty old. Every time he dies, he's reborn from his own ashes. That's pretty darn cool. The only question is, how many times has he died, and there is absolutely no reference for that.




Chris. - Jun 17, 2004 4:30 pm (#144 of 428)

I think it would be too coincidental for Fawkes to be Gryffindor's.

Yes, Fawkes has red and gold plumage but isn't that a trait of all Phoenixes in mythology?




Julia. - Jun 17, 2004 6:22 pm (#145 of 428)
Edited Jun 17, 2004 7:24 pm

Well, I personally do not think Fawkes was Gryffindor's phoenix. I have no idea about the color of phoenixes in mythology, but according to Fantastic beasts The phoenix is a magnificent, swan-sized, scarlet bird with a long golden tail, beak, and talons. (FB. Pg. 32 US) Based on that, it is entirely unremarkable that Fawkes has red and gold plumage, as all phoenixes do, but that has not stopped people from theorizing, I just don't buy into the theory.




Mellilot Flower. - Jun 18, 2004 4:14 am (#146 of 428)
Edited Jun 18, 2004 5:16 am

Phoenixes of mythology were reddish purple, however more recent references such as the Phoenix and the Carpet state that the bird is gold... I can't find much reference to its size in folklore, but it is compared to a stalk and the Purple Heron. In The Phoenix and the Carpet it is the size of a bantam.

All I have about the bird’s age is that it lives beyond five hundred years.

Not sure what we should take from folklore as far as Fawkes should go though as Fawkes misses the worm stage in the burn cycle. He also doesn't seem to need a pyre of frankincense and myrrh.




Padfoot - Jun 18, 2004 7:39 am (#147 of 428)

Beyond 500 years! Wow, what a life span. Doesn't sound as if JKR has mentioned Fawkes' age yet.

I doubt that Fawkes was Gryffindor's phoenix. Not everything has to be tied back to the original founders of Hogwarts.




Surtseystwin - Jun 18, 2004 12:12 pm (#148 of 428)

Traditional mythology has a phoenix burning no more often than every 500 years, yet in CoS it seems implied that Dumbledore had seen more than one, which would not be possible if he is only 150 years old. In OotP, Fawkes is again incinerated in a spell-induced burn. Also, in mythology, the same bird is not reborn, but a new bird rises from the ashes of the previous one. As JKR isn't strictly following traditional phoenix mythology, she's going to have to spell it all out for us.




Mellilot Flower. - Jun 18, 2004 4:14 pm (#149 of 428)

That isn't strictly true Surtseystwin the sources I have say that it rises again... it doesn't mention that the bird is different. Though I must admit that some sources I've read suggest a trill (star trek) like mentality. And also the impression I get from the book that I have is that the entire lifespan of a phoenix is 500 years or more, not of the individual phoenix (i.e. between burning days)

Also since Dumbledore is so often in need of help from something so much more magical than the normal I can imagine that he has seen Fawkes burn more often than is normal for a phoenix who has not adopted a human. It seems so often that the very centre of Dumbledore’s immense (not all) power is Fawkes, and Fawkes' devotion must be wearing on him, and so his burning days would be more frequent.




Hollywand - Jul 4, 2004 7:36 am (#150 of 428)

Great discussion on the wand core feathers of Fawkes. Just a thought on how the wand fibers may be affected by Fawkes' feathers. Voldemort's Yew wand: Yew crowds out all light, preventing other growth; a soft wood, so would burn readily, correct? Harry's Holly wood wand, a hard, fine grained, straight growing ivory wood. Hard woods are difficult to burn, correct? In a "trial by fire" the Yew wand, though more aggressive, a greater but unlucky length, contains the seeds of its own destruction, in its desire for immortality (the phoenix feather), lacking in true moral fiber? Fawkes, then, is a sort of fate maker in giving the two wand feathers, drawing the Dark Lord to his destruction.

  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Potteraholic on Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Potteraholic
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 4240
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Fawkes and other Phoenixes (posts #151 - #200)

Post  Potteraholic on Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:13 pm

Hollywand - Jul 4, 2004 8:44 am (#151 of 428)

A separate consideration on Fawkes: In the Goblet of Fire, Fawkes functions much like a lightning conduit. The natural phenomenon of lightning, as I understand it, is that a charge descends from the sky, but a charge also arises from the earth. The strike looks like a single charge to our eyes, but is actually positive and negative forces meeting midair, too quickly for us to perceive. As Fawkes envelopes the two wizards, he becomes the force. For me, Harry's thoughts and choices at this juncture are stunning. One can feel the urge to survive, fight back, meet death head on with courage build like a charge rising from the earth. Voldemort is in a superior, floating position, but gets a nasty surprise as his power is drained away. Fawkes in this incarnation brings to mind the Thunderbird, another immortal predatory bird, in charge of lightning. Was Fawkes present when the lightning scar was born, marking and protecting Harry. Is the battle with Fawkes, the draining of power a harbinger of things in the future for the Dark Lord?




viapalfuriana - Jul 20, 2004 12:51 am (#152 of 428)

Ollivander said in PS that Fawkes had only given TWO FEATHERS from his tail: one of them was used for Voldemort's wand and the other one for Harry's.

However, in CoS, JKR mentions in two different chapters there are feathers in Fawkes tail:

Chapter 12 (The Polyjuice Potion). Harry is in Dumbledore's office waiting for him and he sees Fawkes before burning himself. It says that the bird looked very ill and while Harry was watching him, two more feathers fell from his tail.

Chapter 17 (The Heir of Slytherin). At the very end of the chapter, they come back from the Chamber of Secrets with the help of Fawkes. Actually, Harry held Fawkes' tail feathers.

So, there are more than two feathers from Fawkes. Maybe now all them are useful for wands. If it is not so, JKR has made a clear mistake!!!




The giant squid - Jul 21, 2004 12:13 am (#153 of 428)

Fawkes clearly has many feathers in his tail...they are useful for flight, after all. But Ollivander said that Fawkes had only GIVEN two feathers. See what a little difference in emphasis can do?

Now, the question is, how did Fawkes "give" the feathers? Is it just that Ollivander took two feathers from Fawkes (prior to a burning day, perhaps), or was there an actual transaction made? And if so, what did Fawkes get out of the deal.

--Mike




Padfoot - Jul 21, 2004 11:12 am (#154 of 428)

I see DD taking two feathers that Fawkes had dropped and giving them to Ollivander. I see Ollivander asking DD for them in the first place. Maybe Fawkes is something of a celebrity bird?




The Artful Dodger - Jul 24, 2004 5:11 pm (#155 of 428)
Edited Jul 24, 2004 6:34 pm

Hello everyone, this is my first post on this thread. I haven't read everything, so I don't know if anybody has already posted something similar, but I found a little piece of information in a German lexicon that you might find interesting:

"Sometimes, like the griffin or the dragon, the phoenix is regarded as a demonic being; the challenge is to violently take three of his golden feathers and to reveal his secrets." (this is my own translation from German into English, so it's likely to be a bit inaccurate)

That aroused wild wild images in my head of Voldemort taking Fawkes to the dark side (demonic being), or of a third feather in a third wand we don't yet know of... Anyway, what do you think?




thetheatre62442 - Jul 24, 2004 6:55 pm (#156 of 428)

I just had a thought. What if Fawkes's third feather was in the Half Blood Prince's wand?




Padfoot - Jul 26, 2004 9:49 am (#157 of 428)

Then why was Harry told that only two feathers were taken from Fawkes?




DJ Evans - Jul 26, 2004 2:56 pm (#158 of 428)

As per Mr. Ollivander: I remember every wand I've ever sold, Mr. Potter. Every single wand. It so happens that the phoenix whose tail feather is in your wand, gave another feather--just one other. It is very curious indeed that you should be destined for this wand when its brother --- why, its brother gave you that scar." SS, paperback, US, page 85 (Bold mine)

So only two feathers were "given" by the phoenix (Fawkes) --- but wonder if a 3rd could have been "taken"? Though I can't imagine getting a 3rd feather from Fawkes would be a very easy thing to do!!!!

Later, Deb




vball man - Jul 27, 2004 5:13 am (#159 of 428)

I can imagine that Fawkes went to Ollivander and gave him two feathers. Ollivander, surprised at his good fortune, asked for more, but Fawkes just warbled a bit and flew away.

Fawkes may have done this for wand-makers before him, but in his experience, Fawkes only gave the two feathers.




thetheatre62442 - Jul 27, 2004 8:48 am (#160 of 428)

I was just posting something to reply to the person's post before mine. Now I've read that passage in SS/PS, I know I was wrong. I'm off to iron my hands now....




Hollywand - Jul 27, 2004 9:51 am (#161 of 428)

Elanor, if you look at this thread, I posted some thoughts on Fawkes' #116 on the meaning of color thread. Would love to have your input on heraldry colors. :-)




Solitaire - Jul 29, 2004 5:28 pm (#162 of 428)
Edited Jul 29, 2004 6:30 pm

I like the suggestion of a third feather somewhere in the past. I realize that I have nothing to support it and that Ollivander has said that Fawkes only gave two feathers. But consider this ...

While we know that Ollivander's has been making wands since 382 B.C., the current Mr. Ollivander surely has not been alive since then--unless he has a secret stash of Elixir of Life. Right? Unless meticulous records have been kept since Ollivander's originally opened for business--and yes, I will concede that it is possible--how could he know if Fawkes had contributed any feathers for wands made before his lifetime?

I've always had a hunch that Fawkes was Godric Gryffindor's Phoenix before he belonged to DD or anyone else--one reason for Gryffindor's gold and scarlet house colors. Now, if I were GG, I would want Fawkes's feather(s) in MY wand, wouldn't you? He obviously comprehends the special power of Fawkes. If such a wand exists, who might have it? Dumbledore has the Sorting Hat and the Sword of GG ... but where is his wand?

Consider the events in the CoS. It was Tom Riddle who had Harry's wand down in the Chamber. He picked it up when Harry tossed it aside to help Ginny. Harry didn't even have his own wand with Fawkes's feather in it ... Voldemort did. Yet to whose aide did Fawkes soar with the Sorting hat? Harry. It was Harry whom Fawkes helped by blinding the Basilisk. Was it possibly Fawkes who caused the sword to fall out of the hat when Harry asked for help? Then Fawkes healed the wound Harry had sustained in battle with the Basilisk. And it was Fawkes who dropped the diary into Harry's lap and, I think, planted the idea of using the fang to pierce the diary.

Fast-forward to the graveyard scene in GoF. When the Priori Incantatem began, it was Phoenix song that gave Harry the burst of will to continue when he had pretty much thought it was all over. Harry felt the music inside him. It was "as though a friend were speaking into his ear ... Don't break the connection." And the narrative tells us that Harry answered the music.

I think Fawkes definitely "plays favorites" with Harry ... although I believe it goes deeper than this. The Phoenix is said to give hope to the pure in heart and strike fear into the evil of heart. Fawkes knows the difference. All of the incidents make me wonder whether Fawkes might be inhabited by the spirit of Godric Gryffindor ... and whether Harry might not be the heir of Gryffindor. I will even go so far as to say that I believe Fawkes will someday "belong" to Harry. I realize this means that DD will probably have to die ... but it's what I believe will happen.

All of these postulations make me wonder if Gryffindor's wand isn't somewhere at Hogwarts (the wand room, perhaps?) ... and whether it may be the wand that is needed to vanquish Voldemort once and for all. I realize these are wild ideas, but, hey ... this is the place for them, right? And I'm NOT going to iron MY hands, even if I am wrong! Smile

Solitaire




TwinklingBlueEyes - Jul 29, 2004 10:23 pm (#163 of 428)

Ever wonder what's in DD's wand?




vball man - Jul 30, 2004 6:26 am (#164 of 428)

Excellent post, Solitaire. I've wondered about a lot of that. Esp., about Fawkes being passed on to Harry. I feel like Fawkes may lay an egg for a new Phoenix. Except, Fawkes is a "he." So Maybe not...




Solitaire - Jul 30, 2004 10:10 am (#165 of 428)

Thanks, vball man. Can you tell I've spent more than a few minutes "hatching" this idea? I've made equally lengthy posts on a few of the threads since joining a few days ago. What a fun place ... and no one laughs at me for being obsessed!

TwinklingBlueEyes ... Yes, I have wondered very frequently! Correct me if I am wrong--because I could be--but I do not remember DD shooting any attacking curses at anyone in the MoM battle ... really just shield or protection charms against those shot at him and the binding curses on DEs he rounded up. I have often wondered about that. I just started rereading OotP, so perhaps I'll find I was wrong.

But just suppose that DD's wand has Fawkes's feathers, too ... or Fawkes's tears or some of his ashes from a burning? Or maybe it has hair or something from Godric Gryffindor ... or possibly Unicorn blood or Elixir of Life ... Then again, maybe it has a lemon drop in it! The possibilities are too numerous for me to make a good guess right now.

Solitaire




TwinklingBlueEyes - Jul 30, 2004 1:10 pm (#166 of 428)
Edited Jul 30, 2004 2:11 pm

Solitaire, you are quite right..."but I do not remember DD shooting any attacking curses at anyone in the MoM battle ..." All his spells were to contain or trap, not to hurt...remember, he's too "noble" to use dark magic, or so it has been said and implied.




Mad-Eye Rocks - Aug 2, 2004 4:02 pm (#167 of 428)

I would like to bring up a little thing that I noticed right away when reading the books. I didn't notice this above, so forgive me if I am repeating someone's post.

Magical creatures, like Fawkes and Dobby, have the ability to magically transport into Hogwarts. Hermione mentions often that Dark Wizards or anyone else cannot magically appear into the castle, but this isn't true. The protections do not stop creatures from it. If an evil wizard decides to get a Phoenix, they can easily sneak in and out of the castle.




Hollywand - Aug 2, 2004 5:08 pm (#168 of 428)

Hello, and welcome to the Lexicon! There is some discussion of the magic transportation issue on the Wandless Magic thread, and I think the Apparating Thread.

On your note about the phoenix, Rowling has written that the phoenix is a very difficult creature to domesticate, the description is listed in the Lex under magical creatures. Apparently, like wands, the phoenix chooses its master.




Solitaire - Aug 2, 2004 5:22 pm (#169 of 428)
Edited Aug 2, 2004 6:26 pm

Mad-eye, I was just reading something about Phoenixes, and I noticed that it said they can disappear and reappear at will (I'm not sure if this is quite the same as Disapparating and Apparating). Dumbledore seems to have this same ability. When he and Fawkes disappear after hexing Umbridge, Dawlish, Fudge, and Kingsley, I didn't get the idea that they were necessarily leaving the premises.

At that time, Harry asked DD if he was going to 12 GP and he said he was not leaving to go into hiding. Umbridge says he can't have Disapparated--although I have wondered if that might not be a privilege granted to "official" headmasters and headmistresses. However, I do not really think DD left Hogwarts just then.

Remember that later, when Umbridge tried to get into his office, it had sealed itself against her. I think perhaps DD is able to render himself invisible--perhaps due to some special connection with Fawkes--and hide "in plain sight." Maybe that's how he came back and sealed his office. Just a thought ...

Solitaire

This may belong on a different thread, since so much of it is about Dumbledore. If so, I suppose it will be moved to the appropriate place.




riddikulus - Aug 4, 2004 6:54 pm (#170 of 428)
Edited by Aug 4, 2004 7:57 pm

Perhaps Fawkes is the discovery in Chamber that Harry makes. It's too coincidental that both Harry and Voldy should just happen to have their wands, filled with Fawkes feathers, choose them. Then there's the Order of the Phoenix. Perhaps not just a beloved pet of DD's. Perhaps a significant reason for that particular named anti-Voldy group.

I wrote that earlier and Solitaire... you just gave me something to thing about and add....

DD says in SS "I don't need an invisibility cloak to become invisible" Perhaps you're right. And maybe the relationship to Fawkes is deeper than we realize.




Solitaire - Aug 5, 2004 12:07 am (#171 of 428)

Then there's the Order of the Phoenix. Perhaps not just a beloved pet of DD's. Perhaps a significant reason for that particular named anti-Voldy group.

Good call, Riddikulus ...




riddikulus - Aug 6, 2004 1:25 pm (#172 of 428)

Thanks Solitaire. As I said on the other post... It's too coincidental that both Harry and Voldy should just happen to have their wands, filled with Fawkes feathers, choose them. Not the two of them... they're connected, after all. I mean, wands filled specifically with Fawkes' feathers. Maybe the "Riddle" is not what, but who, we're supposed to be figuring out. Fawkes and Voldy seem to be reborn... a couple times. This being DD’s bird... why should it be so intertwined with them? Makes me think DD is a bigger part of this, then we think.




Solitaire - Aug 6, 2004 3:22 pm (#173 of 428)

Riddikulus, did you read the whole section on the Chamber thread starting here and continuing down through about post 600, where the thread segues into the Mirror of Erised? It's long, but there is a lot of interesting stuff about Fawkes hidden in that section of the thread. I think some of it touches on your comments.

Solitaire




LooneyLuna - Aug 18, 2004 10:59 am (#174 of 428)

Even though Riddle's and Harry's wands share the same cores, it was Harry's loyalty to Dumbledore that called Fawkes down to the Chamber of Secrets. Dumbledore said as much.

As for the rebirthing/phoenix aspect, I feel Harry will be in for a rebirth before the end of book 7.




riddikulus - Aug 24, 2004 2:36 pm (#175 of 428)
Edited by Aug 24, 2004 3:36 pm

Right Looney... it was Harry’s loyalty to DD. Perhaps DD is the core/the connection, between Harry and Voldy. Fawkes or the Phoenix might core their wands and the scar might core the two of them, but may be DD is the core to it all.




Fawkes Egg - Aug 27, 2004 12:02 pm (#176 of 428)

Excellent point, Riddikulus! I think DD made sure that Harry ended up with that wand...or he knew it would be just right for Harry because of LV having transferred something of himself to Harry.

My first post on this thread, which is shocking when you consider my chosen handle!




Gerald Costales - Sep 20, 2004 4:38 am (#177 of 428)

Just posted this question in the Dumbledore thread, I thought it could fit here also.

With Harry and Voldemort sharing Brother Wands, how would that final confrontation occur? We already know what happened last time with the Brother Wands locking and releasing the shadows of Voldemort’s recent victims in the graveyard. Wouldn't a second confrontation be another repeat of the first confrontation with the wands locking yet again?

Maybe Fawkes, because of the Feather core, or even the "Half-Blood Prince" will be the tiebreaker, to allow Voldemort to be defeated. ;-) GC




Chris. - Sep 20, 2004 4:42 am (#178 of 428)

Gerard, there's no need to post on several threads. There is a definite chance that someone will read it.




shepherdess - Sep 20, 2004 1:46 pm (#179 of 428)

"Maybe Fawkes, because of the Feather core, or even the "Half-Blood Prince" will be the tie breaker, to allow Voldemort to be defeated."-Gerald Costales

Didn't this already happen? In the graveyard scene in GF, (when Harry and Lord Thingy were under the golden cage, with their wands locked together) didn't they hear the phoenix song? And didn't it strengthen Harry, and scare Voldemort? Are you picturing something different for the final confrontation?




Phoenix song - Sep 20, 2004 9:29 pm (#180 of 428)

Fawkes will definitely become an important factor in the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. Despite the two wands sharing Fawkes' feather as cores, we have already seen that Fawkes has seemingly chosen Harry's side in the battle. (Perhaps because of Harry's loyalty to DD in the CoS?) Phoenix song brings courage to the pure of heart and strikes fear in the hearts of evil ones.

Barbie




Gerald Costales - Sep 21, 2004 6:07 am (#181 of 428)
Edited Sep 21, 2004 7:08 am

shepherdess (re: post #179)

That's exactly my point. If the wands locked once, there is still that slight chance they will lock again.

The last confrontation was with Voldemort and Harry in the Graveyard. The Final confrontation will be in Book 7 when the Prophecy is completed.

Voldemort will be planning to do something different in that Final confrontation to avoid that wand-locking situation to happen again.

Posted some additional ideas on the "Wands" thread post #127. ;-) GC

PS post #127 also has a reference to a feather from Fawkes, but I'm going to avoid posting it here per Prongs suggestion. Prongs you're right, but some posts can fit into several threads. I'll be more selective next time. ;-) GC




shepherdess - Sep 21, 2004 1:57 pm (#182 of 428)

I don't know, Gerald, seems to me that:

1)since that happened the last time they tried to dual, they would both be hesitant to try that again, and may choose to use different methods for the next battle

2)it would be sort of a let down if JKR made the climax of the entire series (the final battle) nothing more than a repeat of something that already happened half-way through the books.

However, I do agree that Fawkes might have some effect on the final battle. He has always been there for Harry when he was most needed. Yes, Harry may be the only one capable of defeating Lord Thingy, and it seems like a showdown between the two of them. But this is really a battle between Voldemort and his forces, and the entire WW. And since the future of the WW is at stake, I see no reason why Harry shouldn't have with him, at that time, any and all resources available in the WW, including Fawkes and his powers. And I believe Fawkes has considerable powers.




Magical Llama - Sep 26, 2004 7:00 pm (#183 of 428)
Edited Sep 26, 2004 8:03 pm

How did Fawkes know about the extraordinary powers of the sorting hat?




vball man - Sep 26, 2004 8:29 pm (#184 of 428)

Good point, Magical Llama. Seems like the hat was intended for more than just sorting. Those intentions could have been carried through the ages by Fawkes.




Solitaire - Sep 26, 2004 10:20 pm (#185 of 428)

Well, as Nearly Headless Nick says, the Hat lives in Dumbledore's office, as does Fawkes, and I'm willing to bet the Hat occasionally has a few things to say to Dumbledore. LOL If the Hat picks up stuff, so does Fawkes.

Besides, if Fawkes was really Gryffindor's Phoenix--I believe he was--he would know about the Hat concealing Gryffindor's sword, wouldn't he? Then again, perhaps Fawkes put the sword INTO the Hat! He has already seen Harry put on the Hat and ask it a question in Dumbledore's office, so perhaps he figures it is a pretty good bet he might try it again under the stress in the Chamber. It's a thought ...

Solitaire




Gerald Costales - Sep 29, 2004 4:06 am (#186 of 428)

Solitaire

"the Hat lives in Dumbledore's office"

Is this a quote from the Book? I know the Hat talks but is it alive. I remember Ron or Harry talking about how boring it must be for the Hat waiting a whole year to write and sing its song at the Sorting ceremonies.

"if Fawkes was really Gryffindor's Phoenix--I believe he was"

I agree that Fawkes was Gryffindor's Phoenix. I just haven't seen anyone else post it though. I also believe Gryffindor left his Hat, his sword, and Fawkes to counter the fact that Slytherin built the Chamber of Secrets. Those three items were Gryffindor's legacy to Hogwarts. ;-)




LooneyLuna - Sep 29, 2004 8:09 am (#187 of 428)

In OotP after the Sorting Hat gives its warning, Nearly Headless Nick makes a comment about the hat living in Dumbledore's office, so it must pick up on things.

I'm sure Fawkes keeps his ears open too.




Gerald Costales - Oct 1, 2004 3:49 am (#188 of 428)
Edited Oct 1, 2004 4:50 am

I believe Fawkes may sometimes work independently and not always on the commands of Dumbledore. Fawkes helped Harry twice once in the CoS and his phoenix song was heard at the Graveyard. Also, Fawkes absorbed a curse and was reduced to a fledging during the Battle at the Ministry of Magic.

Fawkes has more to offer than feathers for wand cores. ;-) GC

PS I also believe Fawkes was at one time Godric Gryffindor's pet.




Solitaire - Oct 3, 2004 10:27 pm (#189 of 428)

Fawkes has more to offer than feathers for wand cores. ;-) GC I agree wholeheartedly, Gerald. Fawkes is a wonderful creature just for his own beautiful, intelligent, glorious, loyal self.

About the Sorting Hat "living" in Dumbledore's office, here is the reference (OotP, page 209, US ed.): Ron gave an enormous swallow and said, "How can it know if the school's in danger if it's a hat?"

"I have no idea," said Nearly Headless Nick. "Of course, it lives in Dumbledore's office, so I daresay it picks things up there."

This is just a page or two after the Sorting Hat's new song in OotP.




Ann - Nov 18, 2004 7:49 pm (#190 of 428)

I just had an interesting idea that I don't think has been mentioned on this thread yet, and I thought perhaps I'd throw it out there before the thread gets mulched: It concerns the Dumbledore is Ron theory, which is the one nutty theory that, when you've read it all the way through, becomes far less nutty and in fact quite convincing.

The title of the thread has it backwards, of course. Ron is not Dumbledore in the books we're reading, but (the theory goes) something terrible will happen to Ron, probably in book seven, and he will come/came back as Dumbledore, born into an earlier time. So Dumbledore is a reborn Ron, which is one reason he knows so much. (The theory explains many other things, such as Dumbledore's fondness for candy, socks, and Muggles, his red hair in CoS, etc. Check out the link at the start of the thread. The chess game is amazing, if true, but the other evidence is even stronger, I think.)

Anyway, I've used the search function, and as far as I can tell no one has yet brought up on this thread the connection of Fawkes with this theory. Fawkes is not only Dumbledore's pet but, according to JKR at her Edinburgh chat, he's Dumbledore's patronus. Could this be because Dumbledore, too, has passed through flames and been reborn? (It might even be significant that, in SS/PS, Ron and Hermione pass through flames in the course of their quest, but Ron never does--not yet.)




Gerald Costales - Nov 25, 2004 7:43 am (#191 of 428)

"Fawkes is not only Dumbledore's pet but, according to JKR at her Edinburgh chat, he's Dumbledore's patronus." Ann

Does anyone have the quote or source of this information? I thought patronuses were temporary. I can't imagine a patronus maintaining a solid form for any long periods of time.

Now, I would believe that Dumbledore's patronus is a Phoenix but not necessarily Fawkes. ;-) GC




Eponine - Nov 25, 2004 9:37 am (#192 of 428)

What form does Dumbledore’s Patronus take?

Good question. Can anyone guess? You have had a clue. There was a little whisper there. It is a phoenix, which is very representative of Dumbledore for reasons that I am sure you can guess.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

His patronus is the form of a phoenix, not an actual phoenix.




wolfgrl - Dec 17, 2004 7:32 am (#193 of 428)

I wanted to make a comment on Fawkes being Godric's Phoenix. IMOP he was not. My reasoning for this is in COS when Harry goes back in time in the diary, he is in the Head Master's office and he say's Fawkes is not there. If Fawkes was Godric's he did not pass from Head Master to Head Master.




Solitaire - Dec 17, 2004 11:00 pm (#194 of 428)

Fawkes could still be GG's Phoenix and not necessarily "be passed" from Head to Head. In fact, I think it highly unlikely that Fawkes was ever "passed" to anyone.

First, as Phoenixes are said to be extremely difficult to domesticate, they strike me as beings who choose their masters--rather like wands choose wizards. I'm not even sure "master" is the correct term. I think Fawkes certainly makes his own choices about whom he will serve or be with.

Perhaps Fawkes went to others in the interim between GG's death and Dumbledore's arrival on the scene. Not every Head would necessarily be a Phoenix man or woman. For instance, I cannot see Phineas Nigellus as having the disposition or temperament to handle a bird who periodically bursts into flames. He just doesn't seem the type.

An essay on Fawkes here on the Lexicon suggests that Fawkes may have been with the Druidess Cliodna for a time. I do not see that other Heads NOT having Fawkes has any bearing on whether or not he was GG's bird.

Solitaire




Gerald Costales - Dec 28, 2004 8:03 am (#195 of 428)

"I do not see that other Heads NOT having Fawkes has any bearing on whether or not he was GG's bird." Solitaire

Just like wands, I think Phoenix's pick their Masters. So, Fawkes has as much say so in the owner/pet relationship as Dumbledore. It is hard to domesticate a Phoenix. And not any Wizard or Witch even a Hogwarts' Headmaster or Headmistress could simply own a Phoenix.

I agree with Solitaire, Fawkes was Godric's pet and is now Dumbledore's pet. There is no support in canon, but it just feels right that both Godric and Dumbledore share the same pet. ;-) GC




Solitaire - Dec 28, 2004 9:27 am (#196 of 428)

There is no support in canon, but it just feels right that both Godric and Dumbledore share the same pet.

I agree, Gerald. It feels right. I do look at evidence when I make important decisions; but I tend to go a lot on "gut feelings," which is probably why I keep getting sorted as a Gryffindor ... even though I am the biggest chicken in the world! LOL

Solitaire




Gerald Costales - Dec 29, 2004 6:31 am (#197 of 428)

Just posted this on HBP thread (post# 2221) and thought it also fits in the Fawkes thread. Enjoy. Happy New Year, Solitaire and Everyone else as well.

"Through the chamber of secrets, Slytherin has helped his "heir" to put his ideas forward. Gryffindor, through his hat (the Sorting Hat) has already given his sword to Harry when needed. He may have left something else for helping his "heirs" (spiritual or real) in a war he knew was to come one day. This legacy, whatever it is (knowledge, magic item...) could well be what DD's side, and especially Harry, will discover and use in the HBP." Elanor

The Chamber contained the Basilisk and it was in part defeated by Fawkes. Fawkes pecked out the Basilisk's eyes so Harry could kill the Basilisk with Gryffindor's sword.

I believe part of Gryffindor's legacy is Fawkes. I believe Fawkes was Godric's pet Phoenix and now is Dumbledore's pet. Back to the Chamber, Fawkes' tears is an antidote to the Basilisk's poison. And Fawkes' Phoenix song inspired Harry in the Graveyard, etc. And finally, the core of Harry's wand is a tail feather from Fawkes.

Fawkes' feather is also the core of Voldemort’s wand. But why Voldemort and Harry both share that core and have Brother wands is still a mystery. Voldemort received his wand when he was Tom Riddle and before the Chamber was opened. Voldemort used his wand on the infant Harry. That initial use of Voldemort’s wand on Harry resulted in a rebounded spell and left Harry's "lightning bolt" scar. The second time Voldemort’s wand was used on Harry, both Voldemort’s and Harry's wands locked because of that shared wand core.

Methinks there is more to Fawkes then meets the eye, whether Fawkes' was previously owned by Godric or not. ;-) GC




Elanor - Dec 29, 2004 9:53 am (#198 of 428)

I do agree Gerald! Even Fawkes' colours are Gryffindor's! The more we progress in the story, the more Fawkes' role becomes important and it will certainly increase again. If GG left something else behind him, it is very possible that Fawkes will lead Harry to it.




Ludicrous Patents Office - Dec 29, 2004 1:05 pm (#199 of 428)

The fact that one of the books is titled Order of the Phoenix and it is the primary defense against LV & Co. tells me Phoenixes are very important. Fawkes is the only Phoenix character we have. I agree Elanor and GC there is a lot more to Fawkes than we know. He connects many different threads. LPO




Gerald Costales - Jan 15, 2005 6:10 am (#200 of 428)

In two Dark moments Fawkes is present or his birdsong is in the background. The first instance was when Harry faced Tom Riddle and the Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets. And the second instance was when Harry was trapped in the Graveyard surrounded by Death Eaters and facing Voldemort.

Also, Fawkes is indirectly present in that Graveyard battle because his tail feather is in both Harry's and Tom Riddle's wands. (Voldemort should have received his wand as Tom Riddle not as Voldemort.) What came first Fawkes or the Yew wand (Tom's wand) or the Holly wand (Harry's wand)? FAWKES

Fawkes even predates the Prophecy. Could Fawkes' magical presence be the hidden force driving the story and not necessarily the Prophecy?

‘The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches . . .
Born to those who have thrice defied him,
born as the seventh month dies . . .
and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal,
but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not . . .
and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives . . .
The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh dies . . .’

I've assumed that Fawkes was owned by Godric Gryffindor. But what if Slytherin owned Fawkes.

"and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, . . ."

Couldn't it have been Slytherin who marked Harry by giving Harry his Holly wand with Fawkes' tail feather as its core? There are three Dark Wizards that we know of - Salazar Slytherin, Grindelwald, and Lord Voldemort. The Prophecy may be talking about two Dark Wizards a past one Slytherin and the present one Lord Voldemort.

"and the Dark Lord (Slytherin) will mark him as his equal,
but he (Harry) will have power the Dark Lord (Voldemort) knows not . . ."

Just another monkey wrench in the interpretation of the Prophecy. ;-) GC

  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Potteraholic on Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Potteraholic
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 4240
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Fawkes and other Phoenixes (posts #201 - #250)

Post  Potteraholic on Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:17 pm

Steve Newton - Jan 18, 2005 12:49 pm (#201 of 428)

Gerald, I also think that Fawkes was Gryffindor's. I also think that the basilisk was Slytherin's. I think that they were old 'friends' and were carrying on a feud of a thousand years. I also suspect that when we find out the story of the founders that we find that in the fight between the pair, that Gryffindor killed Slytherin. Now, all I have to do is find some evidence.




Ludicrous Patents Office - Jan 20, 2005 7:07 pm (#202 of 428)

GC I like your thought about Fawkes driving the story more than the prophecy. I think he is connected to Godric though because of the hat and sword he brought to Harry. Steve I think your idea of Fawkes and the Basilisk were carrying on a very old feud. I don't know about Gryffindor killing Slytherin. Good luck on your hunt for evidence! LPO




Brianna Wing - Feb 2, 2005 12:44 pm (#203 of 428)

Maybe we should look at Fawkes as more of an analogy. My city has been burned down in almost every war (we're on the coast) and every time we have 'risen out of the ashes' and therefore my city is nicknamed City of the Phoenix. Now I know that most likely JKR has never been to Portland, Maine but it is a good idea. No matter how many times you 'burn' the Order they will 'rise' again.

Hey I'm new and this is my first post but I've been reading posts for a while and thought it was time to contribute my own thoughts.

"Pain is just weakness leaving the body."

Brianna Wing




Eponine - Feb 2, 2005 1:20 pm (#204 of 428)

That's a nice thought, Brianna. The Order will continue to be reborn through the years.

Welcome to the forum!




vball man - Feb 2, 2005 3:54 pm (#205 of 428)

Yeah, welcome. My wife is from Maine.

Interesting idea about Fawkes being an analogy for a city. Or, generally, for people being cities. That would be interesting. I think that would be a good thread. Especially in the next several months. Leading up to HBP, we'll need new areas to cover.




Brianna Wing - Feb 2, 2005 5:01 pm (#206 of 428)

Thanks for the welcome you guys. I'm glad to be here! Smile

"Pain is weakness leaving the body."

Brianna Wing




Solitaire - Feb 20, 2005 6:09 pm (#207 of 428)

I posted what I consider some interesting questions on another thread, but perhaps they are appropriate here:

1) Just exactly when were Harry's and Voldemort's wands made?

2) Were they made at the same time or some years apart? In other words, was the "brother wand" that chose Harry made only after it was determined that the first wand belonged to an evil Wizard, or was it made at the same time as Voldemort's wand?

3) Were the core feathers from the same "incarnation" of Fawkes or different incarnations?

4) Who authorized the two wands and gave the feathers--Dumbledore, GG, or someone else entirely?

Does anyone have any canon information to answer these questions?

Solitaire




Gerald Costales - Feb 21, 2005 8:18 am (#208 of 428)

I responded to these questions in the Albus Dumbledore thread in my post #1407. Here are some selected excerpts. ;-) GC

‘ . . . Solitaire, I like your question 3. If the wand core feathers came from different incarnations of Fawkes, then most likely the ‘Yew Wand’ could have been made as early as approximately 500 years previous. (Phoenixes are reborn about every 500 years.) Which would mean that Godric Gryffindor (or someone else entirely) has some hand in the mix of forces that have produced the Series events.’

‘But, this may be the most important question. And it applies to both Wands -

. . . . II. Were both Wands preordained to go to Tom and Harry?

The Graveyard battle between Voldemort and Harry seems to answer that question. No ‘Brother Wands’ then Voldemort wins and the Series ends. So, what is more important to the Series the Prophecy or the Wands? . . .

. . . ‘Ahab is for ever Ahab, man. This whole act's immutably decreed. 'Twas rehearsed by thee and me a billion years before this ocean rolled. Fool! I am the Fates' lieutenant; I act under orders.’

Moby-Dick, or, The Whale

The existence of a ‘Prophecy’ implies ‘Predestination’ and the Wands are part of the overall mix that has produced the Series’ predestinated events. . . .’

‘ . . . If you think the Prophecy is more important then the Series should be subtitled -

‘The Prophecy: The Rise and Fall of Lord Voldemort’.

If the Wands are more important then the Series should be subtitled -

‘A Tale of Two Wands’.

Only time will tell. ;-) GC

PS Then again the subtitle should be ‘A Fawkes Tail’. Isn’t it all about Fawkes! ;-) GC’




Ludicrous Patents Office - Feb 23, 2005 7:01 pm (#209 of 428)

LOL GC "A Fawkes Tail" My guess is in books 6 and 7 we will find the answers to Solitaire's and Gerald's wonderful questions. LPO




ruthlesspenguin - Feb 26, 2005 4:59 pm (#210 of 428)

To add to the questions:

5) Why doesn't Dumbledore have a Fawkes' feather wand? Dumbledore is the character most closely associated with Fawkes; he is Fawkes' 'owner' and he has a phoenix patronus, which JKR believes is representative of his character,(Edinburgh book festival) so why no wand core? Personally I think if we could answer this one, we could answer quite a few others.

<(')




vball man - Feb 26, 2005 6:17 pm (#211 of 428)

Good question, ruthlesspenguin. I think that Dumbledore does have a feather from a phoenix, but not Fawkes.

I think I'll post the reasons on Recurring Boy who Lived thread.




Choices - Feb 26, 2005 6:18 pm (#212 of 428)

I just finished reading in OotP about Harry at his hearing - as Dumbledore enters the courtroom, Harry experiences a feeling of well-being and warmth like when he hears phoenix song. I had not noticed that before, but it really reinforces the connection of Dumbledore with the phoenix (Fawkes).

Solitaire[/b] - Feb 26, 2005 11:41 pm (#213 of 428)

Yes, and the connection is mentioned in the graveyard. When Harry heard the Phoenix-song, It was the sound of hope to Harry ... the most beautiful and welcome thing he had ever heard in his life ... He felt as though the song were inside him instead of just around him ... It was the sound he connected with Dumbledore, and it was almost as though a friend were speaking in his ear ...

Did Fawkes--the actual Phoenix--sense that Harry needed him? Did he feel the Priori Incantatem? Did Dumbledore feel it?

Solitaire




Choices - Feb 27, 2005 10:29 am (#214 of 428)

I have also wondered whether Fawkes goes to Harry on his own, or does Dumbledore send him? I tend to think Fawkes senses the need and goes on his own because of Dumbledore telling Harry about his loyalty to Dumbledore down in the Chamber and how "only that could have called Fawkes to you". Of course, there is such a connection between Dumbledore and Fawkes that it is had to tell how independently they work. They seem to be of the same mind.




vball man - Feb 27, 2005 11:21 am (#215 of 428)

Hmmm...The part you mention, in the graveyard - how do you think that Fawkes was involved?

Was it just that Fawkes's feather was there in the wands, and that automatically made Fawkes's song heard and gave hope/fear to Harry/Vol?

Or was it that the feathers signalled Fawkes and he intervened with song?

I had the feeling that Dumbledore was in the dark about what happened to Harry after he touched to cup. He actually gets an "arrested look" on his face when Harry describes the weird wand behavior.




Choices - Feb 27, 2005 1:49 pm (#216 of 428)

vball man - "The part you mention, in the graveyard - how do you think that Fawkes was involved?"

It's hard to say - it says the sound (of the phoenix song) seemed to come from every fiber of the golden "cage" that surrounded Harry and Voldemort. I'm guessing, but since the fibers came out of the connected wands to form the cage, perhaps it was the phoenix feathers in the wands that generated the sound. However the song was generated, it had the desired effect on both Harry and Voldemort. We did not actually see Fawkes like we did in the Chamber of Secrets, so I don't think Fawkes was not there in physical form.

Do you think that Voldemort is aware of what his wand's core is and the implications of having his wand's core contain the feather of a bird that belongs to his worst enemy?




vball man - Feb 27, 2005 3:47 pm (#217 of 428)

Yeah, I agree, it was probably the feathers, not actually Fawkes doing it.

Choices - Do you think that Voldemort is aware of what his wand's core is and the implications of having his wand's core contain the feather of a bird that belongs to his worst enemy?

Interesting question. I would think that if he did, he would get rid of it and get Ollivander to make him another wand. But if he believes that Ollivander is right that a wizard doesn't get such good results from someone else's wand, I'd think that he would want to keep it. Hmmm....




Solitaire - Feb 27, 2005 4:00 pm (#218 of 428)

I don't know, vball man. I personally believe there is some sort of connection between Harry and Fawkes, as well. I have since the incidents in CoS, and that belief was further strengthened in GoF.

Regarding Voldemort ... it would be interesting to know whether that wand chose the wizard or whether he chose it himself ... and when. Is it his first wand, or did he purchase it after he left Hogwarts?

Ollivander mentions Harry's mother buying "her first wand," making me think she had more than one in her lifetime. Do all wizards have more than one wand? Do they only replace damaged wands (Did Petunia break Lily's first wand? LOL), or do they have different wands for different kinds of things? Sorry to go off on a tangent there ...

Back to Voldemort ... is it even possible that--following his exit from Hogwarts--he could have requested a Phoenix feather wand, because of its association with immortality? And does he know that his wand contains Fawkes's feather ... or just "a Phoenix feather"? Just wondering ...

Solitaire




Gerald Costales - Mar 6, 2005 10:09 am (#219 of 428)

Hair is death. That's why when your hair is cut you don't experience any pain. I believe feathers are also death. So, the cutting or lost of a bird’s feather should be also painless (unless the feather is plucked.) So, all the Wand cores with the exception of the Dragon heartstring were never living. Thus, a Wand must then be more complicated then just sticking a feather or other material into a hollow Wand shaft. Because these dead and inert materials that serve as Wand cores must be infused with some Magical property or how could they channel the Magical energy of spells, hexes, curses, etc.?

Now, I have donated blood and plasma. And I don’t experience any feeling or even know when that blood or plasma is used. All that being said, I don’t believe that it is Fawkes’ feather that connects Harry to Fawkes. There is some mystical bond between Harry and Fawkes that cannot just be simply explained by the possession or presence of a Wand or Feather core. Remember in the Chamber, Tom had Harry’s ‘Holly Wand’ and Harry had nothing. But, fortunately Fawkes arrived with the Sorting Hat and Godric’s Sword.

Most of us believe that the Hat is Godric’s. (I’m unsure when or if this is stated in the Books specifically.) I believe all three items - the Hat, the Sword, and Fawkes belonged to Godric. These three items countered the presence of Salazar’s Basilisk and Heir (Tom) in Salazar’s Chamber. (Whether Harry is Godric’s Heir is a topic for another thread.)

"Back to Voldemort ... is it even possible that--following his exit from Hogwarts--he could have requested a Phoenix feather wand, because of its association with immortality? And does he know that his wand contains Fawkes's feather ... or just "a Phoenix feather"? Just wondering ..." Solitaire

The ‘Yew Wand’ is in my thinking an Ollivander Wand. Or else would did Mr. Ollivander know that Tom’s and Harry’s Wands were Brother Wands?

One of the few facts we know is that Tom left Hogwarts near the end of WWII. And with the fact that Grindelwald was ‘defeated’ by Dumbledore in 1945, there has been some speculation of a Tom Riddle and Grindelwald connection (which I believe). Tom wanted to become a ‘Dark Wizard’ and Grindelwald was a ‘Dark Wizard’. That being said - Could it be Grindelwald who gave Tom his ‘Yew Wand’? And not just the request by Tom for a Fawkes’ Feather core Wand. (Wands are broken and replaced, Ron has had his Wand replaced and Neville should arrive to his 6th year with a replacement Wand.)

And whether Tom requested his ‘Yew Wand’ after Hogwarts still doesn’t answer this important question. If the Wand chooses the Wizard, then - Was the ‘Yew Wand’ destined to be owned by Tom or Voldemort? ;-) GC




Mellilot Flower. - Mar 6, 2005 10:36 am (#220 of 428)

Hair and feathers still grow, so they were alive at some point, and feathers remain alive longer than hair, if you cut a feather at a certain point, the bird is hurt. And besides, the feather of a magical creature like Fawkes would be magical itself, like the powdered horn of a crumple horned snorkel, otherwise why would hair and feather products be used in potions? Sure, Fawkes may not have known what was going on in the cemetery, but the essential phoenixes of the feather is what I believe produced the song and golden light... and the feathers would of course retain some vestige of personality otherwise the brother wand thing wouldn't be a problem.




Choices - Mar 6, 2005 10:55 am (#221 of 428)

Gerald - "There is some mystical bond between Harry and Fawkes that cannot just be simply explained by the possession or presence of a Wand"

I think it is Harry's loyalty to Dumbledore (not to mention the possibility that Harry is the heir of Gryffindor) that creates the bond between him and Fawkes. Dumbledore told him that he (Harry) must have shown great loyalty to him down in the chamber and that was what caused Fawkes to come to his aid.




vball man - Mar 6, 2005 8:04 pm (#222 of 428)

Harry has had multiple "good choices."

Fawkes actually watched one of them. It was Harry's reaction to the sorting hat saying that Harry would have done well in Slytherin. Harry said, "You're wrong." Immediately after Harry says that, Fawkes gags, and catches fire. Maybe Fawkes was waiting there for one last second to see what Harry would say to the hat.




demiguise - May 12, 2005 4:53 pm (#223 of 428)

I read something on another site, somewhere in theleakycauldron.org or something like that. But it was about how somebody thought that Fawkes may have belonged to Godric Gryffindor. I have a theory against that, if Fawkes belonged to Gryffindor, then why isn't the phoenix the Gryffindor house symbol? I just thought I might bring that up, I know it doesn't have anything to do with the discussion, but I want to know if my theory makes sense.




Choices - May 12, 2005 5:13 pm (#224 of 428)

I think the Gryffindor House symbol is a lion because their outstanding characteristic is bravery, not immortality/resurrection like a phoenix symbolizes.




Solitaire - May 14, 2005 9:50 am (#225 of 428)

Gryffindor House's colors--scarlet and gold--are certainly those of Fawkes.




demiguise - May 20, 2005 7:27 pm (#226 of 428)

Choices, Fawkes is brave, I mean, it must hurt to be killed and then reborn from the ashes. especially when he does it on his own. Notice how in CoS Dumbly says, I keep telling him to get a move on.




CatherineHermiona - Jun 3, 2005 2:59 am (#227 of 428)

Phoenixes sure have feather that is magical itself because then wouldn't be used for wands.

If one of the reasons of Harry's attachment to Fawkes and Fawkes' attachment to Harry is feather in wands, why then Fawkes doesn't have at least a little bit attachment to Voldemort? Why did a wand that has feather of the biggest Voldemort's enemy's pet choose exactly Voldemort? Where is logic in here?

And that scarlet and gold colors of Gryffindor’s house is may be because Gryffindors have three characteristics that can't be united in only one animal so they took lion to be the symbol of bravery and phoenix' colors of feather as the symbol of immortality and resurrection.




demiguise - Jun 3, 2005 9:27 am (#228 of 428)

Good point, but Fawkes has all the characteristics needed. if he doesn't name one.




Netherlandic - Jun 3, 2005 11:47 pm (#229 of 428)

I think Fawkes likes Harry because Dumbledore likes Harry, not because Harry's wand is partially made of Fawkes feather. Furthermore, the wand chooses the wizard and as Voldemort is a very strong wizard he was chosen by a strong wand, as was Harry.




Choices - Jun 4, 2005 8:50 am (#230 of 428)
Edited Jun 4, 2005 9:52 am

Netherlandic - "I think Fawkes likes Harry because Dumbledore likes Harry"

I agree. I think Fawkes is loyal to Dumbledore and therefore, anyone who is loyal to Dumbledore is OK with Fawkes. Dumbledore did tell Harry that he must have shown great loyalty to him (Dumbledore) down in the chamber, because only that could have called Fawkes to him (Harry). I also think Fawkes and Dumbledore are somewhat inseparable, and because of that, Fawkes has a very deep sense of the love that Dumbledore has for Harry.




Solitaire - Jun 4, 2005 12:41 pm (#231 of 428)
Edited Jun 4, 2005 1:41 pm

why then Fawkes doesn't have at least a little bit attachment to Voldemort? Why did a wand that has feather of the biggest Voldemort's enemy's pet choose exactly Voldemort? Where is logic in here?

The Lexicon says the following: "phoenix song is magical; it is reputed to increase the courage of the pure of heart and to strike fear into the hearts of the impure." We know that in GoF--in the graveyard scene--the song brought hope to Harry, yet it seemed to unnerve Voldemort. This is not surprising, given the "hearts" of our two Wizards.

As for the Fawkes-feather wand choosing Voldemort ... did it? We know that the wand is supposed to choose the wizard--and Ollivander has not told us of any instances where this does not happen--but do we know for certain that this was the case with Voldemort? What if it was not? What implications might this have for the future? I'm just putting this out there as something to consider while we wait ... for HBP.

Solitaire




Gerald Costales - Jun 4, 2005 12:56 pm (#232 of 428)

"As for the Fawkes-feather wand choosing Voldemort ... did it?" Solitaire

You’re right, the Fawkes-feather Wand chose Tom Riddle. ;-)

Well, I don't think I've seen that question posted before. ;-) GC




lemonbalm&bees - Jun 4, 2005 1:01 pm (#233 of 428)

Also, consider this. (I just came from the post debating whether Malfoy is "evil" or not) The earliest we've seen Tom Riddle is his later years in Hogwarts. We have little to no idea of what he was like as an eleven-year-old. I'm sure he was a bitter little child at that point, but I doubt at the time he received his wand he was fully developed into an evil killer. Keeping in mind the posts that have been going round about Anakin Skywalker, it would be interesting to see scenes of T. Riddle in his formative years. When did evil set in.

Anyway, the point is: we don't want a supposedly "good" wand to choose a bad wizard. At least that's what it sounds like to me. What I'm saying is most wizards are paired with a wand at the age of eleven. For someone to become truly evil within the life span of eleven years is quite a feat. But if anyone could to it, it would be baby-Voldy.

This post would probably do better in the Voldemort thread, but it was the wands that made me think of it...




Choices - Jun 4, 2005 5:41 pm (#234 of 428)

I believe the possibility exists that Dumbledore, perhaps with Ollivander's assistance, engineered the wands "choosing" who they did.




lemonbalm&bees - Jun 4, 2005 6:47 pm (#235 of 428)

Choices, do you mean that after Dumbledore heard the prophecy, he arranged for a brother wand to be made, knowing that "the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord" would be sure to receive that wand. I could see that as a possibility and a very Dumbledore-esque thing to do. He would anticipate the usefulness of a Priori Incantatum effect. Hmmm... wonder if we'll ever find out...




Netherlandic - Jun 5, 2005 12:02 pm (#236 of 428)

Now that's an interesting idea, L&B, but Harry could have been chosen by a different wand.




Choices - Jun 5, 2005 6:12 pm (#237 of 428)

It is rather suspicious (at least to me) that it is only with Harry that we hear of "the wand choosing the wizard". No one else has ever commented about being chosen by their wand. It seems rather common to have kids using a hand me down wand - Ron and Neville, and wizards using wands belonging to others - Sirius and Peter. Maybe Narcissa did pick out Draco's wand for him? Could it be that Ollivander just told Harry that to ensure that the wand with Fawkes' feather in it - the brother to Voldemort's wand - got into Harry's possession?




Miriam Huber - Jun 6, 2005 12:09 am (#238 of 428)

Mr. Ollivander talks about "great things" concerning the two Fawkes wands, "terrible, yes, but great things" (concerning V).

I imagine that perhaps the wands with Fawkes¥ feather chose exceptionally powerful wizards, but that the wands can’t or don’t distinguish between good and evil. The wizard is (more or less) "gifted" with magical ability and the wand refers to that, but how he uses this gift is not up to his wand but entirely to his - choices.

(By the way, we don’t know if Voldemort was chosen by his phoenix wand at the age of eleven. Does Ollivander even know that Voldemort was Tom Riddle?)




lemonbalm&bees - Jun 6, 2005 5:23 am (#239 of 428)

anyone able to connect Voldemort's past with his later self, as Ollivander is, surely must know that he was Tom Riddle. He refers to the receiver of the wand as he-who-must-not-be-named. I'm sure the eleven-year-old Tom was not going by that name yet, so Ollivander must know his real name.




Ponine - Jun 15, 2005 4:51 pm (#240 of 428)

Well, regardless of wee Tom Riddle being rotten to the core at the age of eleven or not - does such a thing as a good or an evil wand exist? I tend to think that they are neutral, but can be used, much like most magic, both to perform kind as well as cruel deeds.

Additionally, I suppose I could see the wand containing Fawkes' feather perhaps function as an equalizer or a brake somehow? Maybe there was only one wand, until someone (Dumbledore?) realized who got the wand and what it was used for, and that it would be wise to at least create one more. Heck - why not equip the entire order with Fawkes' wands?!




Solitaire - Jun 15, 2005 6:10 pm (#241 of 428)

What if Fawkes-feather wands didn't choose other Order members? They need the wands that choose them, wouldn't you say?




TwinklingBlueEyes - Jun 15, 2005 8:09 pm (#242 of 428)
Edited Jun 15, 2005 9:10 pm

"Heck - why not equip the entire order with Fawkes' wands?!"

Hmmm, choose what's easy? Or what's right? Choose... I make an A-bomb, you make a bigger one? Or make the right choice and solve the problem before it becomes a problem?

Ahh choices...what an interesting word...




Ponine - Jun 29, 2005 6:17 pm (#243 of 428)

But then my question becomes why would a Fawkes-feathered wand choose Tom Riddle and not Order members? Come to think of it, why would Fawkes, who is so strongly tied to Gryffindor, initially only give a feather to one wand, who goes to the last true Slytherin? Coincidence? I think not...




TwinklingBlueEyes - Jun 29, 2005 10:28 pm (#244 of 428)

It would be a dull story without that slight little detail, eh?




John Bumbledore - Jun 30, 2005 3:40 am (#245 of 428)
Edited Jun 30, 2005 4:40 am

Has anyone counted just how many feathers Fawkes has dropped in the series? At least in OP, it seems like he should be, well, nearly fully plucked by the end of the book.

An then note that Dumbledore is always noted to pick up the dropped feathers. Maybe he is just studiously trying to avoid burning down Hogwarts?

Sorry, just fluffing out some ideas.




Steve Newton - Jun 30, 2005 5:56 am (#246 of 428)

John, Fawkes has shed quite a few and I don't think that they are countable. He, of course, gives one in OOTP but just before he bursts into flames in COS he is also shedding feathers. I can't remember what happens when he is hit with the AK in OOTP.




Snuffles - Jun 30, 2005 6:08 am (#247 of 428)

I’m just re-reading OOTP at the moment. It says on p719 Uk edition. 'Fawkes swooped down in front of Dumbledore, opened his beak wide and swallowed the jet of green light whole: he burst into flame and fell to the floor, small, wrinkled and flightless.'

Further down the page it says that baby phoenix Fawkes was croaking feebly on the floor.

So I don't think he sheds any feathers as such, he is just re-born again.




Steve Newton - Jun 30, 2005 7:58 am (#248 of 428)

Thanks for checking.




Solitaire - Jun 30, 2005 2:30 pm (#249 of 428)
Edited Jun 30, 2005 3:31 pm

I always worry about that one feather he dropped in Sirius's kitchen--the night the kids were awaiting word on Mr. Weasley's condition--which was not picked up by Dumbledore. Are all of Fawkes's feathers magical--even those dropped simply as a "calling card"? If so, who has that one ... Kreacher? And what might he have done with it? This is very worrisome to me!

Solitaire




Miriam Huber - Jun 30, 2005 10:40 pm (#250 of 428)

But, Solitaire, even if this is a thing to worry about, Kreacher had left the house some time before and wasn’t back until after Christmas. Can you imagine Mrs. Weasley letting a Phoenix feather lying around in the kitchen over Christmas, with all the cooking and bustle?

  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Potteraholic on Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Potteraholic
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 4240
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Fawkes and Other Phoenixes (posts #251 - #300)

Post  Potteraholic on Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:20 pm

Solitaire - Jul 1, 2005 1:42 pm (#251 of 428)
Edited Jul 1, 2005 3:17 pm

Are you sure Kreacher was not there at that time? He was in the house when Harry and the Weasley kids arrived ... so he could have had time to snatch that feather, unobserved, before he split for the holidays.

Solitaire




Miriam Huber - Jul 2, 2005 9:57 am (#252 of 428)

But at precisely that moment when they arrived, he made an ugly comment and Sirius shouted "out!". I suppose Kreacher took that opportunity at once without waiting or Sirius might have said something that contradicted Kreacher’s interpretation of that "out". And it was the perfect moment to disappear quietly, everybody was confused. I think Harry heard Kreacher stop in the hall to listen when he told the story, but afterwards wasn’t seen again. The feather only appeared some time later.

But of course, we don’t know for sure.




Solitaire - Jul 2, 2005 11:39 am (#253 of 428)

I still think that feather is going to be important somehow ... just a hunch.




demiguise - Jul 4, 2005 3:29 pm (#254 of 428)
Edited Jul 4, 2005 4:30 pm

Solitaire-"I still think that feather is going to be important somehow ... just a hunch."

I agree. Maybe the DE will use it to research Fawkes and find out more that Voldy needs to know. Maybe they will find out a way to kill Harry even without the prophecy.

"Miriam Huber-"Kreacher had left the house some time before and wasn’t back until after Christmas. Can you imagine Mrs. Weasley letting a Phoenix feather lying around in the kitchen over Christmas, with all the cooking and bustle?"

but remember house elves have their own magical powers, he wouldn't have to grab it. we don't really know what powers they have, but I would imagine retrieving would be one.

demiguise




Magical Llama - Jul 17, 2005 11:47 am (#255 of 428)

I finished the book and I am crushed. Where were you Fawkes Sad




constant vigilance - Aug 2, 2005 6:06 am (#256 of 428)

Where were you Fawkes? My sentiments exactly.

Why didn't Fawkes' tears heal Dumbledore's hand? Why wasn't Fawkes present at the end? I missed his comforting presence. =<




Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 2, 2005 7:02 am (#257 of 428)

Dumbledore's hand was injured by a curse. Snape had to help him not Madame Pomfrey. I'm not sure Fawkes' could have helped him. Fawkes can heal normal injuries, cuts, bruises etc. I do wonder where he was at the end. Fawkes Lament tells me Dumbledore is really dead. I don't think you can fool a Phoenix. LPO




vball man - Aug 2, 2005 9:30 am (#258 of 428)

The basilisk venom wasn't a normal injury. I think it was just "time to go" for Dumbledore.

Low long now until Fawkes attaches himself to Harry? Will this change Harry's patronus to a phoenix?




Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 2, 2005 7:10 pm (#259 of 428)

It was venom, not a curse. I think there is a difference. However I've been wrong many times before. It probably was Dumbledore's "time to go." I really hope Fawkes attaches himself to Harry. It would not surprise me if Harry's patronus changes to a phoenix. He was a lot closer to Dumbledore than James. LPO




Choices - Aug 3, 2005 9:16 am (#260 of 428)
Edited Aug 3, 2005 10:17 am

I found it interesting, when Snape came into the bathroom after Harry did the Sectumsempra spell on Draco, that Snape muttered an incantation over Draco's wounds that "sounded like a song". This so reminded me of Fawkes. Could Fawkes' lament be simply his expression of sorrow at what had happened to Dumbledore, but also a "healing" song. Just hearing it caused Harry to feel better - did it also provide "healing" for Dumbledore?




Ponine - Aug 3, 2005 1:56 pm (#261 of 428)

YES Choices!! That is what I think/hope/wonder about...




Ag Hart - Aug 4, 2005 1:39 pm (#262 of 428)

LPO--If Harry's Patronus does change that won't argue well for Dumbledore's survival, as the Patronus is peculiar to the wizard.

Choices-- Nice connection, although I see its significance differently. The Phoenix's lament expresses Harry's inner feelings, giving voice to his grief, putting his feelings not into words, but song. "It was his own grief turned magically to song that echoed across the grounds and through the castle windows." The song does, at least, have a "healing" effect on Harry and the other listeners as it serves " to ease their pain a little to listen to the sound of their mourning...." (Scholastic, 615). Fawkes's sorrowful song works similarly to his tears, except in this instance, the healing is spiritual, rather than physical. The Phoenix's song is always described as being inside of Harry; it always seems to be what he needs most at the time. We know that Fawkes serves as a link between Harry and DD, and there seems to be a type of empathetic connection between Fawkes and Harry. I think Fawkes provides the emotional connection between Harry and Dumbledore and, to me, represents DD's love for Harry. I hope that DD's love will again express itself through Fawkes and somehow help Harry to destroy Voldemort's evil.




Nathan Zimmermann - Aug 4, 2005 7:11 pm (#263 of 428)

Ag Hart that is not necessarily that case because, Tonks patronus altered itself if I remember correctly when she was confronted outside the RoR.




Ag Hart - Aug 4, 2005 8:30 pm (#264 of 428)

Nathan--I know Tonks' Patronus changed; we saw it the night she escorted Harry from the train to school. I believe it changed, because she had changed. Her Patronus would still be unlike any other--unique to her. In answer to the last poll question, JKR commented: " Each Patronus is unique and distinctive, so that there is never any doubt which Order member has sent it; nobody else can conjure another person's Patronus..." If indeed each Patronus is one of a kind that suggests that at the very least no two living wizards share it. Therefore, the only chance Harry would have for a Phoenix- Patronus would be if DD is truly dead. I suppose there could be wiggle room in that there might be minor differences, but when dealing with fast-moving bright shapes of light, that would create confusion and result in a less than reliable form of communication. (Harry even confused Tonks' Patronus with that of a large dog.) I doubt we would see more than one phoenix anyway because of its legendary nature. Now, if we ever do glimpse a Phoenix-Patronus, we might conclude that it is a sign to the Order (or Harry) from Dumbledore. That would make a lot of people very happy!

It does seem to be a stretch that each wizard has a totally different Patronus, but I suppose that there are different breeds, etc. , and, I believe, not every wizard is capable of creating one. In any case, I try not to get hung up on the mathematical logic because as we know Jo's mind doesn't work that way.

Given Tonks' new Patronus, I'd asked before if we knew what Lupin's was. I don't think it was ever mentioned in the series. Any ideas?




youkifriend - Aug 5, 2005 12:20 am (#265 of 428)
Edited Aug 5, 2005 1:25 am

Well...I guess everybody agrees that Fawkes seems to be important to the plot but I think that there is more to Fawkes than that. Look at what Hans Christian Andersen says about the phoenix in his poem: "When a mother sits by her infant's cradle, he stands on the pillow, and, with his wings, forms a glory around the infant's head. He flies through the chamber of content, and brings sunshine into it, and the violets on the humble table smell doubly sweet." I don't know what to make out of this but it may mean that Fawkes represents some kind of protection from Lily and DD too. It seems a little bit weird, I know...but the fact that Fawkes seems to protect and encourage Harry (with her song) every time he really needs just like a mother would got me thinking. Ah...and it may be part of the ancient magic that DD performed to protect Harry because I can't think that DD knowing the contents of the prophecy and knowing that Voldemort would be after Harry because I think that he knew that The Dark Lord would choose Harry would have left him with only the protection of the Fidelius Charm and that of his mother and father. It seems silly.




septentrion - Aug 5, 2005 1:26 am (#266 of 428)

Fawkes often appears at critical moments : in the chamber of secrets, in the duel in the graveyard, in the ministry and in HBP. He didn't appear when DD died but when people were mourning him. For me, it means it was more important for people to go on without DD (who probably thought himself expandable) than to dwell on their sorrow. The critical moment was when people have to learn to live without a person they thought omniscient and omnipotent. In a way, the phoenix lament teaches wizards to grow up, to gain self-confidence and to act more by themselves (must be influenced by the alchemy thread here )




vball man - Aug 5, 2005 11:28 am (#267 of 428)

I just re-read HBP. At the end, when the gang is in the hospital wing, Fawkes cries. Then he stops and Harry knows that he's gone for good. Then, at the funeral, Harry sees Fawkes fly away.

Did Fawkes do with Dumbledore? Will Harry get a different phoenix?




Ag Hart - Aug 5, 2005 12:27 pm (#268 of 428)
Edited Aug 5, 2005 1:28 pm

vball man-- I think the phoenix we saw at the funeral was Dumbledore's Patronus, his spirit guardian, but whatever it was, it was joyful and that is comforting. Although the last line of "The Phoenix Lament" states that DD had left the world, it only says that Fawkes "had left Hogwarts for good" and that should give us a little wiggle room to hope that we may see him again.




demiguise - Aug 6, 2005 8:50 am (#269 of 428)
Edited Aug 6, 2005 9:51 am

Who says Harry will have a phoenix anyway. I mean it would be cool, but you guys are talking like you know for sure it will happen. I mean, it is kinda likely that he won't to. demiguise




Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 6, 2005 1:46 pm (#270 of 428)

Ag Hart I do believe Dumbledore is dead. I hope Fawkes returns to help Harry at some point. LPO




Ag Hart - Aug 6, 2005 3:26 pm (#271 of 428)
Edited Aug 6, 2005 4:36 pm

LPO--As long as the Order of the Phoenix exists, I think JKR will work in the phoenix, one way or another. Fawkes seems so closely tied to Dumbledore's spirit and love for Harry, it would be one way to show DD is not truly gone as long as there are those loyal to him. There is even a stronger probability that Harry will hear the Phoenix Song again as he did in the graveyard, because that scene shows us that Fawkes, Harry's bridge to Dumbledore, doesn't need to be physically present to be felt. JKR has taken pains to suggest that the song is within Harry and part of him, and therefore, Dumbledore will remain a part of Harry. The feather core of Harry's wand strengthens that connection and will help to call forth that song once again. I know that Voldemort has the same core (I'm very eager to know the story behind that), but the very song that empowers Harry frightens Voldemort. If we see that song as one of love and hope, then it is easy to see why. In my opinion, Harry won the duel with the connected wands; his strengthened will overpowered Voldemort. He was able to do so, because he has the capacity for love; he is able to take love in and be filled with it. Harry is receptive to the song because he is receptive to love. Fawkes's song was Voldemort's undoing that day in the graveyard and may very well be again.

I would also like to see Dumbledore's Patronus once again-- a message that all is well.




The Sword and the Lion - Aug 6, 2005 3:38 pm (#272 of 428)
Edited Aug 6, 2005 5:27 pm

Isn't it possible that Dumbledore will return as the phoenix? Perhaps Fawkes was Dumbledore's mentor who returned to aid Dumbledore with Grindlewald. Regardless, someone obviously did a great job of teaching Dumbledore.




Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 6, 2005 8:29 pm (#273 of 428)

Ag Hart, very well written. With the power of Fawkes, Dumbledore, love and hope Harry can defeat Voldemort. When Harry told Dumbledore that he was "Dumbledore's man" Fawkes responded with a musical cry (HBP p. 357 USA). The Phoenix Song gives courage to the pure of heart. I agree, Harry will probably hear the Phoenix Song again. LPO




Ag Hart - Aug 6, 2005 8:51 pm (#274 of 428)
Edited Aug 6, 2005 10:03 pm

The Sword and the Lion-- Many have suggested that Dumbledore is an Animagus, and if his Animagus form is a phoenix, it is possible. The AK curse could have destroyed DD's human bodily functions, and therefore, Dumbledore the man is dead. However, his Animagus form may be able to regenerate. This would be a distinct characteristic of DD's Animagus, the form of which is "unique" to the wizard. I know prior to this book, I had considered the fact that DD's life and spirit are so interwoven with the phoenix that perhaps he couldn't die. Sometimes, especially in PS/SS, I thought I detected a wistfulness, an almost romantic inclination toward death. I thought perhaps he couldn't die, and he somewhat regretted it. (There is a precedent in fantasy literature for wizards NOT dying; Merlin doesn't technically die.) If DD were a phoenix-Animagus, that would explain it. I have written in several posts how DD's energy radiates from him whenever he is expressing or repressing his power, most frequently when he is angry. That power may well be the source of the funeral flames that obscure the table where the body is laid, perhaps releasing the reborn Dumbledore in Animagus form-- immortal yes, but a man no more. We never see the body after that because when the smoke clears there is only the white tomb. We do not know if the body is in the tomb or not. Although the body does not seem to be consumed by the flames, the intense heat may be all that is necessary, as JKR likes to put her own spin on legends. DD may also be able to return as a phoenix if one accepts that he did not die in the first place and transfigured himself, as I believe Ponine once suggested, but the resurrected phoenix Animagus offers an alternative for those who believe that Dumbledore actually died in the first place. My personal belief remains that his immense pent-up energy releases his spirit guardian, his Patronus, to return to the Order when needed. However, I thought I'd join in the speculation and offer a bit of hope. After all, it is a pretty, if unlikely thought.

Thanks, LPO, and your excellent observation of Fawkes's affirmation gives us additional hope. Fawkes is indeed the link between the two.




The Sword and the Lion - Aug 8, 2005 1:11 pm (#275 of 428)
Edited Aug 8, 2005 2:17 pm

That is an interesting idea, Ag Hart. I was under the impression that a witch or wizard in Animagus form always took the shape of an animal, but I suppose Rita Skeeter did turn herself into a ladybug in the GoF.

When I read the White Tomb chapter in the HBP, I thought that the Phoenix that Harry noticed flying into the blue was Dumbledore heading off for the "next great adventure". Either way, J.K.R has been mum about her reaction to Dumbledore's death which leads me to believe that he is still alive in Phoenix form (I could be wrong, obviously). After all, Snape is still alive -- he apparently killed Dumbledore properly because Snape has not dropped dead from the Unbreakable Vow.




S.E. Jones - Aug 8, 2005 5:37 pm (#276 of 428)

I think JKR was mum about Dumbledore's death so we'd all have something to speculate about.

I've been wondering, however, how a phoenix is created. Are they born from other phoenix, or are they somehow created by magic? Is it possible that Dumbledore, being as good and powerful as he was, was 'reborn' as a phoenix, or that his death somehow spurred the creation of a new phoenix, even if it has nothing to do with him specifically?

It says in Fantastic Beasts that phoenix nest on mountain peaks, but 'nest' doesn't always mean 'a nest', it can also be akin to 'a den, refuge, or hideaway'.

So, could it be possible that a phoenix could be born from the death of someone of 'pure heart' and great magical power?

Slightly off-topic:

--If indeed each Patronus is one of a kind that suggests that at the very least no two living wizards share it.--

I just wanted to add that I think two wizards can have the same type of Animagus (say they each have a phoenix), but the Animagi forms would vary enough between each person to make them unique.




The Sword and the Lion - Aug 8, 2005 6:40 pm (#277 of 428)
Edited Aug 8, 2005 8:04 pm

S.E Jones wrote:

"So, could it be possible that a phoenix could be born from the death of someone of 'pure heart' and great magical power?"

Yes, I totally agree S.E Jones. One value I would add to the sentence above is an intact soul (no murders). =)

I have a hard time believing that an Animagus could take the form of a magical-creature. Animal, insect, marine life -- yes. Giant, Phoenix, Basilisk, etc. ... unlikely, but still remotely possible I suppose.

Just my two knuts.




Ag Hart - Aug 8, 2005 9:20 pm (#278 of 428)
Edited Aug 8, 2005 10:51 pm

The Sword and the Lion-- I think the phoenix would be considered an animal, even if it is a mystical one. I don't know why a mystical beast couldn't be an Animagus, especially for truly exceptional wizards. (Sounds as if this might be a question for Jo.) Also, insects are animals; I don't think the animal has to be a mammal. Regarding Snape and the UV: I think he would be perfectly safe if DD were reborn as a phoenix, because Snape would have adhered to the letter of the law. DD would have died; he just might not have stayed dead, or more to the point, DD the man was killed, only his non-human form continues.

My first thought too was that Dumbledore's spirit soared into the great next adventure. Since we don't know what that next great adventure is, anything is possible. The phoenix, so closely, associated with Dumbledore, fuels a wealth of interpretations. Some of these theories are complementary, and one theory does not necessarily exclude the other. (I have shared some of my thoughts in the two threads related to DD's death.) We know that the Patronus is a "spirit guardian." It also seems that Fawkes is somehow mystically connected with Dumbledore, and that the phoenix song encompasses his spirit. I know that JKR mentioned in a 2000 interview that the Animagus reflects the personality of the wizard, and if DD is an Animagus, and if the Animagus is the same as his Patronus, we are faced with what I see as THE question: Just what aspects of DD's personality does the phoenix suggest? The possible answers are intriguing!

At present, I think the phoenix seen at the funeral was DD's Patronus, leading him, as you suggest, into the next great adventure--one which may very well include aiding those loyal to DD on earth. However, I think the Animagus -phoenix idea is plausible, especially when we remember that DD was the Transfiguration teacher at one time and perhaps the greatest wizard of all in JKR's world.

S.E. Jones-- In previously discussing the idea of a Patronus being unique to the wizard, I left open the possibility that there could be some differences in the same animal form; however, I thought that might present a problem with using the Patronus as a communication device. Since they are silver, bright, shiny, and frequently fast moving, I'm not certain variations could be seen, so I'm leaning to the idea that they must be different animals or at least different breeds. Since the phoenix is unique in and of itself, I doubt that in its case especially, there would be more than one Phoenix-Patronus existing at the same time. Wizards as great as DD are rare, so I think the Phoenix-Patronus would be equally rare, not just in the present, but throughout Wizarding history.

I too have been wondering whether a great wizard, who has a Phoenix- Animagus (other than DD) could be reborn in his Animagus form. I have even entertained the thought that Fawkes may once have been a wizard--possibly Godric, but other than the fact that Fawkes seems to be connected strongly with the Gryffindor house, I haven't come up with much. However, if he were, and if DD were the last in the Gryffindor bloodline, that might explain both his lament and his flight from Hogwarts. (Just brainstorming here.) I wouldn't be overly concerned with whether your theory about phoenix creation is consistent with legend, because we know that JKR, as she has acknowledged, takes liberties to enhance her story.

I do like your idea that a wizard must be "pure of heart" to be reborn as a phoenix. Voldemort certainly couldn't become a phoenix, since a prerequisite of rebirth is death, the very thing to which V is opposed. :-) If wizards who fear death become ghosts, shades of their former selves, might not wizards who are brave (Gryffindors) and see death as the next great adventure become the eternal bird --the phoenix? Wouldn't that be ironic?




S.E. Jones - Aug 8, 2005 10:33 pm (#279 of 428)
Edited Aug 8, 2005 11:36 pm

I saw your comment about the different breeds, Ag Hart, but I still think that there could be two like patroni that look different. One might be bigger with a very long tail (like a phoenix in its prime), one might be smaller with a shorter, thinner tail (more like a young phoenix). See what I mean? I mean, if a group of people sat down and, without looking at what each other were doing, drew what they thought a phoenix looked like (even if they were all given the same description), their pictures would all look different. And, as for them being fast moving, that's only when they are moving with some intent. Harry's patronus has stood still, so they can definitely move slowly. I wonder how you actually get a message out of a patronus.... Alas that's for a different thread....

I still have some problems with a wizard being reborn as their Animagi self, since the Animagi self is simply them characterized as an animal. I was thinking of the phoenix's creation being more separate from Dumbledore, but still spurred into being by his death. Sort of like how a poltergeist is supposed to be created from storages of anger, frustration, and angst.




Ag Hart - Aug 9, 2005 12:34 am (#280 of 428)

S. E. Jones-- I understand your point regarding the differences, and that was why I allowed it was possible. I thought it was rather improbable mainly because they are the same silver color and so bright. Harry didn't seem to be able to distinguish between a dog and a wolf, and he even thought his own Patronus was a unicorn at first. I understand that a Patronus is sometimes at rest and that is why I used the word "frequently." I thought at times a message might be just a flash, and therefore, would need to be easily identified. However, once again, I agree that it might be possible, although in the case of the phoenix, I doubt there would be two wizards worthy of them existing at the same time.

I haven't really bought into the reborn Phoenix - Animagus myself. I just thought it might be an idea worth exploring. I will give some thought to your idea, however.




Choices - Aug 9, 2005 9:22 am (#281 of 428)

Someone had the theory that each of Lockhart's books represents one of the 7 HP books. Book 6 was represented by Wandering with Werewolves and book 7 will be Year with the Yeti. Now phoenixes come from high mountainous areas like Nepal and so do Yeti, so it is likely (according to this theory) that we will see more of phoenixes and possibly a Yeti in book 7......assuming we buy into this theory. So far it has been pretty accurate. You can find the list of Lockhart's books in the beginning of book 2 when the kids get their list of supplies and books needed for second year.




The Sword and the Lion - Aug 12, 2005 8:28 pm (#282 of 428)
Edited Aug 12, 2005 9:37 pm

Do you guys believe that a Phoenix can cry at will in order to heal wounds, or does the phoenix have to be moved emotionally by an act of love to heal?




M A Grimmett - Aug 13, 2005 11:04 am (#283 of 428)

I felt that the phoenix at the funeral was DD going off to the next adventure. I think that Fawkes and DD had a special bond; when that was broken by DD's death, it seemed reasonable that Fawkes would take off for some emotional healing. When I read that Harry was feeling abandoned by Fawkes' disappearance, I felt sure that Fawkes' absence was just temporary. Harry does have a tendency to see abandonments in disappearances--not surprising, given his history, but usually wrong. I wouldn't be surprised to see Fawkes return to Harry after he has had some time to absorb the loss of DD. Fawkes knows that Harry was DD's man, through and through--he's rewarded Harry's loyalty before and I am confident that he will do so again.




Paulus Maximus - Aug 13, 2005 7:36 pm (#284 of 428)
Edited Aug 13, 2005 8:37 pm

"Do you guys believe that a Phoenix can cry at will in order to heal wounds, or does the phoenix have to be moved emotionally by an act of love to heal?"

I'd like to believe that just as humans cannot force tears, neither can phoenixes...

...but on the other hand, phoenixes are not humans...

Oh, and if anyone CAN shed tears without being sad or tired or bored, then I stand corrected...




Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 17, 2005 8:18 pm (#285 of 428)

The Sword and the Lion I've wondered that before. I think Phoenix tears are precious and are carefully bestowed on certain people. Fawkes must know through his connection with Dumbledore that Harry is very special to Dumbledore.

Well said, M A Grimmett. I think Fawkes will reward Harry's loyalty. They need each other. LPO




septentrion - Aug 17, 2005 10:23 pm (#286 of 428)
Edited Aug 17, 2005 11:23 pm

In the books, Fawkes heals only physical injuries (basilisk’s poison, broken leg) and never magical injuries. At least, we don't see him doing it. That may explain why Fawkes didn't heal DD's hand if that injury is from magical origin.




Troels Forchhammer - Aug 18, 2005 12:11 am (#287 of 428)

Septentrion, you may wish to count an effect on emotional 'injury' (the grief after Dumbledore's death), though of course that was accomplished by the Phoenix song rather than the tears.

With respect to the tears, they did cure the poisoning by the Basilisk, which, it being a magical beast, is arguably of a magical origin ó the injuries Mr. Weasley sustained from the sneak-snake attack in OotP were certainly magical.

However, there is no foolproof magic in Potterverse, and that must obviously also include the healing qualities of Phoenix Tears: there must be ways to injure a person that cannot be healed in that way. Possibly Dumbledore's hand injury (and Mr. Weasley's injuries?) would fall under that category.

But I'd like to add another possible way of distinguishing, which is related to the emphasis I believe to detect in the Potter books. Whenever Harry has been healed by Fawkes' tears, he has been in a state where he needed compassion ó he was, in other words, in some way 'pitiable’. I think it is possible that the Phoenix reacts as much to the emotional state of the victim (including the relation to the Phoenix's owner if it has one) as to the presence of injury. I could well believe that Dumbledore never was in an emotional state that would encourage Fawkes to cry for him (not over the hand-injury, anyway, but with respect to his desperate loneliness he has possibly often taken comfort in Fawkes' singing).

Regards,

Troels




constant vigilance - Aug 20, 2005 5:54 pm (#288 of 428)
Edited Aug 20, 2005 6:55 pm

Something just occurred to me. Fawkes has never been shown to heal Dumbledore, or any other character, with his tears. However, on several occasions Fawkes has willingly healed, comforted and saved Harry. So, What if Fawkes only does this with Harry? Perhaps it is a special connection between the two of them, that even Dumbledore has not shared. This would also explain why Fawkes was unable to cure Dumbledore's hand or rescue him from the poison at the end of HBP.

The special connection Harry shares with Fawkes might be a combination of a few things: 1. Harry poses in great quantities the power of Love, which allows Phoenix song to bring comfort and strength to him. 2. Harry's wand made of holy wood with Fawkes feather as a core. The Holy is a traditional symbol of resurrection, and it grants protection against "from poison, lightning, and witchcraft."(see Lexicon) 3. Harry is absolutely loyal to Dumbledore, and this loyalty is what calls Fawkes to come to Harry's aid.

Eh... my mind is melting like a sundae in the sun. Maybe someone can decipher this rambling mess.




Ag Hart - Aug 20, 2005 10:14 pm (#289 of 428)
Edited Aug 20, 2005 11:18 pm

constant vigilance-- I agree that Harry shares a special connection with Fawkes. However, as I see it, Fawkes encompasses the spirit of Dumbledore and is a link to Dumbledore himself. I believe as you do that Harry's ability to love and the feather-core of Harry's wand are important aspects of that connection (See posts 262& 271 of this thread for further explanation.) I am still eager to find out LV's connection with Fawkes--why he has Fawkes's other feather, and why Ollivander may have been abducted. (I suspect for more or less the same reason LV attempted to steal the prophecy. I guess I need to check out Ollie's thread.)

We have only seen Fawkes heal Harry, but since we've seen all but four scenes from Harry's point of view, our view has been limited, and we don't know if Fawkes has healed others. You could be right, but I do suspect that he has healed DD once or twice before. Phoenix tears hold incredible healing powers, but perhaps there are limitations. I'm probably wrong about this, but I had the impression that the injury to DD's hand may not have been permanent. When DD helped Harry to Apparate, he mentioned that his wand hand was " 'a little fragile at the moment'" (Scholastic, 58). He may simply have been making light of his injury, but the words "at the moment" caught my attention and made me think that his arm had not yet healed, but possibly could be healed in the future. There seemed to me something left unsaid about DD's injury.




Adam Elliott - Aug 21, 2005 5:35 am (#290 of 428)

I'm new to this thread, so please just ignore me if I missed this part of the discussion somewhere, but has anyone given any thought to whether or not Fawkes will come into Harry's ownership since the death of Dumbledore? I have to think that since Harry has shown such loyalty to Dumbledore, and has continued to do so since his death (Dumbledore's man, through and through) that Fawkes would be drawn to that.

On a separate note, I really wanted Fawkes to come in when they were all gathered around Bill's hospital bed and heal his wounds. I guess it makes Bill more interesting without them being magically healed.




Ana Cis - Aug 28, 2005 2:18 pm (#291 of 428)
Edited by Aug 28, 2005 3:24 pm

I think the passage below provides the connection between DD, Fawkes, and Harry. DD and Harry’s ability to love and their untarnished soul connect them, and is the reason that Fawkes felt such affection and connection with Harry. Fawkes could sense it Harry's deep love and loyalty towards DD.

HBP 23: ‘You are protected, in short, by your ability to love!’ Love is the’...only protection that can possibly work against the lure of power like Voldemort’s!....I do not think he understands why, Harry, but then, he was in such a hurry to mutilate his own soul, he never paused to understand the incomparable power of a soul that is untarnished and whole.’

My ‘pet’ theory is this: Harry will get a phoenix as a pet, but it won’t be Fawkes. It belonged to DD, and when DD died Fawkes left also, ref HBP29, ‘And Harry knew, without know how he knew it, that the phoenix had gone, had left Hogwarts for good, just as Dumbledore had left the school, had left the world...had left Harry.’

In an interview, JKR said that favorite pet would be a Phoenix and that Harry would be getting another pet. At the time I thought it was Buckbeak, but now I believe it’s going to be a phoenix to help in the fight against the Serpent.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Harry will get a meet a new phoenix, which he (and I believe only he) saw it born, ref: HBP30, ‘Bright, white flames had erupted around Dumbledore’s body and the table upon which he lay: Higher and higher they rose, obscuring the body. White smoke spiraled into the air and made strange shapes: Harry thought, for one heart-stopping moment, that he saw a phoenix fly joyfully into the blue, but the next second the fire had vanished.’ And the following statement shows that he's still connected to DD even though he previously thought that DD had left him. ‘He [DD] will only be gone from the school when none here are loyal to him,’ said Harry, smiling in spite of himself.’




DM Havox - Sep 8, 2005 11:04 pm (#292 of 428)

Ana Cis, Love the theory about DD becoming a phoenix. It fits right, his pet, and patronus being a phoenix and the phoenix flying in the air during the funeral. DD is brilliant enough to maybe find a way to become a phoenix? How are phoenixes born?




Ana Cis - Sep 10, 2005 9:54 am (#293 of 428)
Edited by Sep 10, 2005 10:57 am

Here are some links that gave me information about phoenix legends; they're quite interesting. The scene where Harry believes he sees a phoenix fly out reminded me of the way a phoenix come back to life and how new ones are can be born/created and came to the conclusion that JKR would used it in her books and apply it in her own manner as she has done w/other themes and names.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]




Ludicrous Patents Office - Sep 11, 2005 7:17 pm (#294 of 428)

Ana I really like your theory. Dumbledore reborn as a Phoenix is wonderful. I thought Fawkes might become Harry's pet. But I like your idea better. I am sure Fawkes can only be one person's pet. LPO




Choices - Sep 12, 2005 9:26 am (#295 of 428)

I just can't wrap my mind around the idea of Harry getting a phoenix for a pet. It was ideal for Dumbledore who had an office and more or less stayed in one spot, but surely in book 7 Harry is going to be quite busy and moving around a good bit. I just can't picture him being followed by a big bird wherever he goes. Even Hedwig seems a bit of a burden for him - cage cleaning, owl treats, etc. At least she can go to the Owlery and hang out. Where would a phoenix go? There may be a phoenix in book 7, but I just don't see it as Harry's "pet".




Ana Cis - Sep 12, 2005 10:05 am (#296 of 428)

I can see Harry w/a phoenix, not as a pet, but more as a companion.

Harry will have to find a place to live, even if he's on the go. He can't go carrying his trunk and everything he owns everywhere he goes. He's accumulated quire a bit, and will probably inherit Sirius flying motorbike on his birthday. There's no reason that the phoenix can't stay w/Hagrid if need be.

As far as Dumbledore, yes, he had an apartment at the school. Still, he was always on the go, sometimes for weeks...even traveling outside the country. He didn't stick around the headmaster office that often from reading the Series. Fawkes could have foraged for food while DD was travelling, just like Hedwig hunts for its food.

I wouldn't compare a phoenix to an owl. A phoenix is considered to be a supernatural creature. It has a choice on who's its master. It can Apparate Disapparate whenever it chooses to, as it did in CS and OotP. And I get the impression that it can even make itself invisible. Hedwig can't do those things. Fawkes in many ways was a mystery; we don't have that much information about all it could do magically. Remember that Fawkes helped Harry fight the basilisk. He may need the same kind of help against Nagini...though the hippogriff may have that role.




haymoni - Sep 12, 2005 12:26 pm (#297 of 428)

I think Hedwig would be terribly jealous.




Choices - Sep 12, 2005 5:30 pm (#298 of 428)

Yes, I think she would be too. She is quite possessive when it comes to Harry and her feelings are easily hurt.




vball man - Sep 12, 2005 7:51 pm (#299 of 428)

I don't like the idea that DD's next great adventure is being Harry's phoenix.

I much prefer the idea of Hedwig being transformed into a phoenix. Has that been posted?




Ana Cis - Sep 13, 2005 6:28 pm (#300 of 428)
Edited by Sep 13, 2005 7:29 pm

In my theory, I don't see DD coming back as phoenix. But both Fawkes and DD's deaths together cause the creation of new unique phoenix. As far as Hedwig being jealous... nah. Hedwig may be a little upset in the beginning, but the phoenix's song will soon affect Hedwig the same it does Harry. She'll enjoy the Phoenix's croon. The two will get along fine, especially when she realizes that the phoenix will help save Harry's life.

  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Potteraholic
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 4240
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Fawkes and Other Phoenixes (posts #301 - #350)

Post  Potteraholic on Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:30 pm

T Vrana - Sep 13, 2005 6:37 pm (#301 of 428)

Fawkes died?!?




Ana Cis - Sep 13, 2005 6:59 pm (#302 of 428)

I believe so T Vrana, HBP29, "And he [Harry] knew, without knowing how he knew it, that the phoenix had gone, had left Hogwarts for good, just as Dumbledore had left the school, had left the world...had left Harry."

When it comes to his sensing things, he's yet to be wrong. However, where he says "had left Harry," I believe that's his interpretation based on his grief. There he might be wrong--the reason being that Dumbledore told him that those whom he loves never leave him.




T Vrana - Sep 13, 2005 7:41 pm (#303 of 428)

Yes, Fawkes left Hogwarts, but I see no reason to believe he died. Well, actually he can't die, he's a phoenix, they can't die. Can they?

Interesting that the quote says the phoenix left the school, not Fawkes...DD...phoenix... Animagus...not dead...oh, wrong thread...

:-)




Ana Cis - Sep 13, 2005 7:55 pm (#304 of 428)
Edited by Sep 13, 2005 8:59 pm

Yes, they can die (per the legends). However, they do live very long time. The rumor, from hp-lexicon.org essay on Fawkes, is that he was Gryffindor's Phoenix and has lived for thousands of years. However, you don't have to agree w/my theory. I do hope Fawkes sticks around; I really enjoyed reading about him and his relationship w/Harry. Here are some links about phoenix legends if you're interested

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]




T Vrana - Sep 13, 2005 7:58 pm (#305 of 428)
Edited Sep 13, 2005 8:58 pm

Thanks, will take a look, but it still says left Hogwarts, not died!




haymoni - Sep 14, 2005 4:06 am (#306 of 428)

Lose Dumbledore AND Fawkes? Oh, that's even worse!




Ana Cis - Sep 14, 2005 7:17 am (#307 of 428)
Edited by Sep 14, 2005 8:19 am

T Vrana, It also says "left the world". But, hey... I really hope you're all correct and I'm wrong. I'll be posting "I WAS WRONG! I WAS WRONG! I'm still hoping Dumbledore's death is a hoax! DD's my favorite character. I just don't deal with it too much because I don't want to have to grieve for him again.




T Vrana - Sep 14, 2005 7:26 am (#308 of 428)

Ana Cis- I thought it said he knew the phoenix left Hogwarts, like DD left Hogwarts, Harry, the World (paraphrasing). Thought the phoenix only referred to Hogwarts, DD left Hogwarts, Harry, the world (not that last one in my opinion).




Ana Cis - Sep 14, 2005 7:36 am (#309 of 428)

T Vrana, Good point! I misread it. So Fawkes may still be around!




Ana Cis - Sep 15, 2005 7:02 pm (#310 of 428)
Edited by Sep 15, 2005 8:02 pm

T Vrana, Haymoni:

I WAS WRONG ABOUT FAWKES!!! He'll be back in book 7!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Peter Humphreys for BBC Newsround.

- Who did Fawkes previously belong to and will he play a vital role in the next book?

JK Rowling: I am not going to answer about the role in the next books, which probably gives you a big clue, and he has never been owned by anyone but Dumbledore. You will notice that when Harry goes back in the Pensieve in this book, Fawkes is never there, and ¨¨no, I am sorry, not in this book, I take that back. When Harry has previously seen the study with a different headmaster he saw it with Dippet and Fawkes was not there then. Fawkes is Dumbledore's possession, not a Hogwarts possession.




T Vrana - Sep 17, 2005 6:40 am (#311 of 428)

Ana Cis- good find

Fawkes is DD's and it looks like Fawkes will be back...




I luv ron 33 - Oct 8, 2005 1:23 pm (#312 of 428)

Well, I'm pretty sure that Fawkes is immortal.... Another thing I'd like to talk about:

We all know that Fawkes and Dumbledore are very close and in some way might be connected. Like a part of Dumbledore could be in Fawkes or somehow they can communicate. Well that might take part in what happens in the next book. Fawkes, I'm guessing is definitely going to have to do with Dumbledore and him coming back if he does. Fawkes really is such a great character (pet bird thing haha). I was crying when in the chapter the Phoenix Lament... When he sings the song... It's just so sad... Sad




Ana Cis - Oct 8, 2005 7:14 pm (#313 of 428)

You certainly were not the only one!

You know, I should have made sure to buy shares of stocks from Kleenex just before a Harry Potter Book came out. I bet you their profits spiked for several months. I'll need to remember that.




me and my shadow 813 - Oct 25, 2005 8:11 am (#314 of 428)

I know this is a silly theory but I just had to post it somewhere.

Could Snape be an Animagus, and he turns into Fawkes? I just finished rereading CS and Fawkes is described as having 'long sharp golden beak and beady black eye'. Snape's black eyes are mentioned many times in each book, as well as his hooknose. Also, Snape sings to Draco to heal his wounds from Sectumsempra, which I found very surprising. And I don't know if we ever see Snape in the same room as Fawkes.

Obviously, one of the flaws in this theory is Snape's loathing of Harry and Fawkes's affection towards Harry. But it's fun to think about that being a revelation in book 7.




demiguise - Oct 31, 2005 6:35 pm (#315 of 428)

Well, it's likely that Fawkes was either at the meetings in Grimmauld place, or that he sent messages. Snape was at those, and that important one, Fawkes was likely to have done something. besides, he probably had to transport some people into the meeting so that they could attend.

Another slight problem, Snape was found exiting Dumbledore’s office when Harry needed Dumbledore after crouch appeared in the forest. That brings up another problem; Fawkes is almost always in Dumbledore’s office, so how could Snape be in two places at once? I mean, how many times would he have to use a time turner, and I don't think it would be possible to make a living replica of yourself, even if you were the half blood prince, or expert at potions.

I'm just pointing out some reasons why that wouldn't work, I'm not totally against the idea, and I have to admit that that was one thing I never would have noticed.




RoseMorninStar - Oct 31, 2005 10:46 pm (#316 of 428)

I don't know about Snape being Fawkes, but you have brought up an interesting point. Because all of the Animagi that we know of so far are regular animals. They eat what the regular animal of that type eats and so forth. But a Phoenix is a magical animal. It has healing tears. It bursts into flame and is reborn. If a person was an Animagus... could they do that? I am not thinking so much of Snape as I am of Dumbledore. I think Dumbledore's patronus is definitely a Phoenix...but I don't think he is an Animagus... or?




me and my shadow 813 - Nov 3, 2005 11:16 am (#317 of 428)

demiguise - regarding Snape coming out of DD's office in scene you are referring... no, Fawkes is not always in DD's office. As you pointed out, Fawkes has many jobs for the Order. Snape was hardly depicted as always at Order Headquarters. To the contrary, I believe it was pointed out that he was gone a lot.

In the scene you mention, it could be if Harry had walked past Snape and gotten into DD's office, Fawkes wouldn't have been on his perch. Snape might have come into DD's office through the window, transformed and was leaving DD's office via stairwell.

And the fact that Snape sang to heal Draco...well, that's what got me started on this to begin with...

I agree with you in that it's a far-fetched theory, but the more I mull it around, the more I like it. I've searched for text in which Snape and Fawkes are in the same room and cannot find one. Perhaps I haven't searched OoP thoroughly enough. If you know of any I'd like to know either way.

I dunno, it seems out there yet, after all, the phoenix is the quintessential symbol for redemption -- death and rebirth. And JKR has virtually admitted that Snape is the redemptive figure in this tale...

Edit: Rose MorninStar - I don't believe DD is Fawkes/Animagus but I believe the reason his patronus is a phoenix is because it's what he values/loves most -- second chances, in other words rebirth.




me and my shadow 813 - Nov 3, 2005 8:02 pm (#318 of 428)

I forgot to add this -- regarding my above post...

In HBP Seer Overheard chapter, Harry just found out about Snape being the eavesdropper on the prophecy. DD asks him what's upsetting him.

'"Snape!" he said, very loudly, and Fawkes gave a soft squawk behind him.'

That struck me as significant.

I also wanted to add to above that DD's patronus being a phoenix because not only does he value second chances/rebirth but also loyal/faithful and in CS he tells Harry that phoenixes make good pets because they are faithful.

Regarding Fawkes, second chances and faithfulness sound to me like Snape.




wynnleaf - Nov 4, 2005 12:53 pm (#319 of 428)

me and my shadow 813,

I almost hesitate to admit this, but after your post awhile back when you first mentioned this theory, I had this funny compulsion to go check through all the books. I couldn't find a single reference to Severus and Fawkes being in the same place at the same time. The closest thing is the one mentioned a few posts back. And I really think it's too much of a stretch to think that in that case the two could be the same.

However, it is possible that you may still be on to something with a connection between Fawkes and Severus Snape.

Have you noticed that some of the primary Fawkes scenes, Severus is nowhere in sight? At the end of COS, we don't see him when Fawkes brings Harry, Ron, Ginny and Lockhart back and Harry spends a lot of time with DD, McGonagall and others explaining. Although Minerva is there, Severus is not in the office when DD has to escape from Fudge and the Aurors, and Severus isn't at the MoM when Fawkes takes the AK for DD. And in the final scenes of HBP, when Fawkes is singing, Severus has left Hogwarts. Your theory also would explain why Fawkes didn't come to the tower.

Still, the example of Severus leaving the office does make the whole theory quite a stretch...

Have you looked on the Severus Snape thread lately and the discussion about his patronus? I read through the last couple of days pretty quickly and forgot if you had posted there or not. Somebody speculated that Fawkes might go to Severus now that DD's gone. Others, including me, think the phoenix might be his patronus. But all the explanations are on that thread.




me and my shadow 813 - Nov 4, 2005 1:12 pm (#320 of 428)

Thanks wynnleaf. I always appreciate a nod as my theories are often quite "imaginative"...

I, too, cannot find any scene with both Severus and Fawkes. And yes, in Phoenix Lament chapter it seems to fit that Fawkes sings/mourns and then flies off after Snape has done what he so hated to do. And I don't think, other than school song, that a person has been mentioned to be singing other than Snape in Sectumsempra chapter. But I could be wrong there.

Regarding CoS scene mentioned above, I find it easy to fathom that Snape entered DD's office as Fawkes via window and left as Snape via stairs. Fawkes is a busy bird and isn't always on the perch. I don't see what the big deal is. Maybe I'm missing something?

Regarding patronus, JKR has said that DD's patronus is a phoenix, which we've seen in text. I highly doubt Snape's would be, too. We've not heard of duplicates and there's just too many creatures for me to think it is so.

Edit: I'm looking at Snape thread and my first impression is that he would have begun study to become an Animagus after joining with DD. It would take years, as we know, and could have been part of Snape's redemption "contract" with DD. Like service to the "right side". Perhaps, as there is only one phoenix that is continually reborn, when Snape dies then another person will begin study to become a phoenix Animagus. It would be the highest achievement I'd think.




Ana Cis - Nov 4, 2005 9:04 pm (#321 of 428)

Intriguing as this line of thought is, I can't accept it for the simple reason that it goes against JKR's cannon. She states that Snape is not a nice person. She emphasizes it and states that he's more culpable than Voldemort because he has known love. Making statements such as these and then having Snape as an Animagus that changes into Fawkes (the symbol of what is good and alchemical gold for being pure in spirit), I would consider it to be very misleading. She wouldn't do that.




me and my shadow 813 - Nov 4, 2005 10:26 pm (#322 of 428)

Ana Cis - I totally agree with everything except that JKR wouldn't do that. I believe one of her "moral of the stories" is that nothing is what it seems. I know she said he's not a nice person and all that but she also has practically admitted Snape is our redemptive character. Those characters are generally not nice, not likeable, act nasty and evil, etc. etc. There's no redemption needed for good guys.

So my theory is that Snape went into Animagus training to become Fawkes precisely because he needed to prove to DD that he could be worthy of a phoenix being his Animagus. And the fact that he has known love makes him more culpable but also more capable of knowing/wanting it again. I'd venture to say that Snape loves DD and he wouldn't throw that away for anything.

But again, I totally agree with you. I'm not saying I'm right here. My problem with this theory is that JKR said Fawkes is DD's possession. I do not believe DD would want to "own" any human being. But perhaps that's how DE redemption contracts work. Like a parole officer or something.




T Vrana - Nov 5, 2005 7:28 am (#323 of 428)

I do not get the sense that Snape's redemption is contract like. DD trusts Snape based on something he feels and sees in Snape, I think, not because Snape is at all bound by DD in any way. He does say he trusts him, that implies choices and free will, not a contract, I think. If he had a 'contract' I would think he would say he knows Snape is on the right side, not that he trusts him.

Just a thought...




me and my shadow 813 - Nov 5, 2005 1:47 pm (#324 of 428)

T Vrana - I agree, contract is implying something that I didn't necessarily mean. However, I envision a past scenario where Snape approached DD after prophecy fiasco. He is willing to do anything to make right on the "greatest regret of his life". So DD had to formulate some type of guidelines or steps Snape would need to take in order to prove himself worthy of DD's trust. This was 15 years ago, so after many years Snape has earned DD's trust completely.

We can assume that Snape wouldn't have been hired had DD not been given concrete evidence that Snape would stay on the "right" path. A man in DD's position would be an outright fool not to have a set of boundaries and even tests/initiations to be sure Snape is living up to his second chance. Otherwise he'd be endangering the life of all the students bringing a DE into the school simply because he said Gee, I'm sorry. So at the very least 15 years ago or whatever, Snape must have been under quite a bit of scrutiny to get where he is now.

I'll say rather than contract, then apprenticeship?




me and my shadow 813 - Nov 18, 2005 10:48 pm (#325 of 428)

I saw GoF today and noticed something regarding Snape=Fawkes...

Seemed to me that we are in DD's office twice in the film. Now I know films are not canon, but nobody has found canon with Snape and Fawkes in the same room yet.

So in the film, the first time we're in DD's office, Snape is there and not Fawkes. The second time, Fawkes is there and not Snape.

Just checking off my pro and con list...




RoseMorninStar - Nov 18, 2005 11:31 pm (#326 of 428)

One thing I would find quite odd if Fawkes were Snape in Animagus form is that Fawkes is tender toward Harry, and well, Snape is not.

When was the first time Snape is in the office and Fawkes is not? Do you remember?




me and my shadow 813 - Nov 19, 2005 4:07 pm (#327 of 428)

Rose MorninStar, the first time is just after the champions are selected and the distraught DD, McGonagall, Moody and Snape are in his office. We see DD remove a memory and put it into the pensieve for the first time, and he asks Moody to look after Harry. No Fawkes that I could tell.

My thinking of Snape not being nice to Harry is that, yes it's true. Yet, time and time again, he helps Harry. It was never addressed by either of them that Snape helped Harry with the "rogue Blunder" curse in PS. Other times as well. Of course, neither one of them can deal with it face to face. But it doesn't mean that Snape didn't do it. I could see Snape being able to assist Harry in times of need without "losing face" in Fawkes form.

Also, as we know, DD has stated that getting close to Harry was the big flaw in his plan. If Snape wanted to "make right" his wrong with prophecy, he couldn't let that happen. I think he'd know that from the start. And it's not in his personality to be social with anyone anyway. He is not a "nice" guy to anyone. So...

That leaves us with, of course there's the James factor (guilt and hate) and Lily factor (guilt and the L word?)




RoseMorninStar - Nov 19, 2005 5:11 pm (#328 of 428)

Me and My Shadow... thanks. In the book that scene does not take place in Dumbledore's office but in a room off of the great hall. So, I wonder... if that was on purpose in the movie... or if they just used the office set because it was already made/convenient/appropriate.

I don't know if it was so much 'wrong' for Dumbledore to get close to Harry as it was 'wrong' for him to make decisions that went against his better judgment because he loved Harry (and perhaps wanted to over-protect him).




me and my shadow 813 - Nov 19, 2005 8:56 pm (#329 of 428)

Rose MorninStar, thanks for the book/film difference. I don't recall the book scene perfectly, but it did seem to be DD's office in film, sans Fawkes. I wonder if JKR has certain things she will & won't have in scenes due to future plot.

Regarding DD, yes that's basically what I meant. His feelings for Harry prevented him from telling sooner about the prophecy, etc. I don't think Snape would ever fall into that "problem" but I still think he is committed to helping Harry and his quest.

PS - I meant to say Snape helped Harry with Quirrell curse in PS, not rogue Bludger.




Matthew B - Dec 31, 2005 5:20 pm (#330 of 428)

I like the idea of Snape being Fawkes very much. At first it all seemed a little far-fetched, and didn't seem to fit but the more I think about it the more it seems to fit. The fact that Snape and Fawkes never appear together (or as far as we can tell they don't) indicates that there definitely could be something to this idea. After reading the posts to this point I still thought it was farfetched but then somebody raised the point of Dumbledore's 'death' (I still don't believe Dumbledore is dead). Everything seems to fit- Fawkes not coming to Dumbledore in the tower-Somebody said that this was probably because Fawkes knew it was 'Dumbledore’s Time'. Even if Fawkes knew it was time for Dumbledore to leave us I still think that, being extremely loyal to Dumbledore and Harry, he would have come to Dumbledore. Also it has been pointed out that if Fawkes is indeed Snape, in Animagus form, he could not have come to Dumbledore in the tower because of the role Snape 'the man' must play. I thought Fawkes behaviour at the end of HBP was strange and not at all what I expected. Fawkes was definitely less involved then I expected. If indeed Fawkes is Snape this behaviour could be explained by Snape’s disgust at what he has had to do.

I’m not very good at explaining things so sorry if what I have said is a bit all over the place. But I definitely thing this theory has potential even though it does have many flaws.




me and my shadow 813 - Jan 1, 2006 12:30 pm (#331 of 428)

Thanks, Matthew B. I agree with everything you said, flaws mostly being the contrast between Snape's behavior toward Harry and Fawkes's.

However, the more I think about what's in store for book 7, the more I believe we'll be shown just how complex Snape's feelings are. It may be that he is incapable of showing Harry any "positive" feelings as Snape-the-man out of pride/shame (due to a combination of hate towards James, affection for Lily, and guilt towards aiding their deaths).

But deep down if he is committed to prevailing over Vold, combined with a possible connection to his affection for Lily, his feeling for Harry must be somewhat positive albeit well hidden. This to me reinforces his using the Fawkes form to do that which he won't allow himself to do as Snape - help Harry.

In my mind it would tie in very well regarding a twist ending with finding out why DD trusts Snape so irrevocably.




vball man - Jan 1, 2006 4:04 pm (#332 of 428)

10 years separate the memories in "Chapter 20: Lord Voldemort's Request." Those memories are the one with Hepsibah Smith and the one in which Tom returns to ask Dumbledore for a teaching post.

The first was probably only a year or so after Tom graduated so at least by 1948. This puts the second memory prior to 1958.

Fawkes was there in that 1958 memory.

Snape was born in 1959 or 60.




Solitaire - Jan 1, 2006 4:54 pm (#333 of 428)

How I hope you are correct, Vball Man. I do not like Snape, and I do not want him to be Fawkes! Sorry to put it so bluntly, but there you are!

Solitaire




Choices - Jan 1, 2006 5:41 pm (#334 of 428)

Oh, I totally agree Solitaire. Snape could never be Fawkes in my mind. I might possibly believe that Fawkes was Dumbledore's horcrux....if Dumbledore had one - there is definitely a strong connection between Fawkes and Dumbledore - but I would never believe that Fawkes is actually Snape. Snape is too busy being a spy and a teacher to sit around on a perch all day in Dumbledore's office. LOL




Solitaire - Jan 1, 2006 6:02 pm (#335 of 428)

LOL




me and my shadow 813 - Jan 2, 2006 2:21 pm (#336 of 428)

vball man, in earlier posts on this thread I gave my opinion on why an immortal bird --always was and always will be alive-- could be an Animagus. Basically I see it as the most difficult and most honored accomplishment to become a phoenix Animagus. In my imagination, I see it as a progression of wizards who have been Fawkes. When one wizard dies, another is selected to take his or her place in the study of becoming an Animagus in phoenix form. It would be a huge responsibility and, of course, would create an amazing bond of trust and loyalty between the wizard Animagus and DD.

So, in this view, another wizard would have been Fawkes before Snape. Regarding other posts on Fawkes sitting on his perch all day, I don't agree. We have had scenes in DD's office with no mention of Fawkes being there, and we know that Fawkes goes on many missions for DD in order to protect people and things, deliver messages, etc.

However, another thing that points to debunk this theory (and I've mentioned it in earlier posts as well) is that JKR said Fawkes is DD's "possession". I do not think DD would think to "own" another person.




Choices - Jan 2, 2006 6:16 pm (#337 of 428)

In the movies, there have been scenes in Dumbledore's office where Fawkes simply sat in the background and was never mentioned or alluded to. I think the same thing happened in the books - conversations took place, visitors came to the office and Fawkes sat there watching, but was not mentioned because he had no role in what was going on. I'm sure JKR was too busy with the action going on to mention...."Oh, by the way, Fawkes was sitting there quietly, watching what was happening." It just wasn't necessary to say that Fawkes was there each time we were taken into Dumbledore's office.




Solitaire - Jan 2, 2006 8:02 pm (#338 of 428)

How long has Dumbledore had Fawkes? It seems he has been around at least as long as Voldemort has had his wand. If that wand is his original wand--and the way Ollivander talked, Riddle must have bought it before he became Voldemort--then Fawkes was around before Snape was born.

Solitaire




me and my shadow 813 - Jan 3, 2006 9:03 am (#339 of 428)

Choices and Solitaire, I understand your points and I've already responded to them to my satisfaction in earlier posts. Obviously, you both do not like Snape, as you've said, so I don't expect you to agree. Thanks for your opinions, but you haven't convinced me.

Choices, I think it's just as easy to assume Fawkes is Not sitting on his perch when he isn't mentioned, as it is to assume he Is there. Solitaire, if you read my post from yesterday and earlier you'd see I gave my opinion on why Fawkes is older than Snape. It may not be to your satisfaction, that's okay. I'm still looking to other ways in which JKR will weave in a bird/human form. There has to be one, either Animagus or otherwise. If Fawkes is not Snape then Fawkes is someone else... there is so much Celtic folklore in HP and I know JKR wouldn't leave out the bird/swan turning into human and vise versa story. We'll see...




Choices - Jan 3, 2006 10:49 am (#340 of 428)

Me and My Shadow - "Obviously, you both do not like Snape,"

Actually (tries to keep from laughing) I adore Snape. I am obsessed with Snape - he is my favorite character. (My apologies to Gina, but I must speak the truth) If JKR does nothing else in book 7, I implore her to reveal everything about Snape. So far in canon, no wizard has had a magical creature as his Animagus form. I just do not think that Snape would be Fawkes. He has so much other stuff going on in his life that I see no rhyme or reason for him also being Fawkes. I can think of nothing in the books that even (to my mind) hints of this. Snape is a Slytherin and Fawkes is Gryffindor all the way - red and gold colors and all. I respect your right to think as you do, but for me it just isn't a logical assumption.




Solitaire - Jan 4, 2006 1:03 am (#341 of 428)

I am having a difficult time understanding how Snape, who was born many years after Fawkes came into existence, could simply become Fawkes. Sorry! My Muggle brain has read and reread your post ... but I simply cannot grasp the logic of it. But that's okay ... Time Turners make my head hurt, too.

And no, I do not like Snape. If you've read my posts over the past year and a half, you already understand that there are many complex personal and ethical issues which have shaped my opinion ... so I won't elaborate further.

Solitaire




Ana Cis - Jan 12, 2006 6:20 pm (#342 of 428)
Edited by Jan 12, 2006 6:21 pm

I've been so busy I haven't had time to really check out this thread. The idea of Snape being Fawkes is very interesting. However, from an alchemical and symbolic viewpoint, I would find it to be contradictory. Fawkes, as a phoenix, symbolizes the epitome of Harmony - the Philosopher Stone. Snape is not even close. His hate for Harry and his father keeps Snape from transforming into a better person. If the answer is that Snape was playing a role, then I would feel duped. JKR stated that Snape was not a nice man. She would be going against her own point if she makes Snape a Phoenix Animagus. I wish I could agree with you on this one Me and My Shadow, but I find the assertion to be invalid.




Solitaire - Jan 13, 2006 7:07 am (#343 of 428)

Fawkes, as a phoenix, symbolizes the epitome of Harmony - the Philosopher Stone. Snape is not even close. His hate for Harry and his father keeps Snape from transforming into a better person.

I really do have to agree.

Solitaire




demiguise - Jan 29, 2006 1:46 pm (#344 of 428)

think I remember a time in one of the books when Snape came storming out of Dumbledore’s office when Harry was about to enter. if I remember right then Fawkes was in the room when Harry entered. that wouldn't give Snape a lot of time to cool off and even pretend to be loving towards Dumbledore and Harry.




demiguise - Jan 29, 2006 1:52 pm (#345 of 428)

how many times has Harry gone to Dumbledore’s office during classtime. I know he did at least once but I don't remember when. I so know however that Fawkes was there. so wouldn't Snape be teaching a class.




demiguise - Jan 29, 2006 9:43 pm (#346 of 428)

oh yeah, I am reading sorcerers stone, and it occurred to me that if Snape was Fawkes then he would have easily been able to heal his leg after he got bitten by fluffy. (the three headed dog) you know because he could have just transformed and cried on himself or something instead of going to filch.




Solitaire - Feb 15, 2006 7:18 pm (#347 of 428)

It has been so long, I can't remember if we have discussed this. Does anyone else wonder where Fawkes was when Dumbledore was injured while destroying the ring Horcrux?

Solitaire




Choices - Feb 16, 2006 10:45 am (#348 of 428)

I thought of that too Solitaire, but decided that perhaps some wounds are beyond what Fawkes can heal, just as there are some poisons that have no antidotes.




Solitaire - Feb 16, 2006 11:32 pm (#349 of 428)

One would think that if Fawkes can heal a Basilisk wound, he could certainly heal just about anything else. Perhaps the fact that Fawkes could not heal Dumbledore's injuries (assuming he tried) is a testament to how truly evil Voldemort is.

Solitaire




Catherine - Feb 17, 2006 2:12 pm (#350 of 428)

One would think that if Fawkes can heal a Basilisk wound, he could certainly heal just about anything else. Perhaps the fact that Fawkes could not heal Dumbledore's injuries (assuming he tried) is a testament to how truly evil Voldemort is. --Solitaire

Perhaps Fawkes can heal creature-induced injuries (like venomous bites) more so than Dark Magic-induced injuries (such as Dumbledore's hand).

  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Last edited by Potteraholic on Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Potteraholic
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 4240
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Fawkes and Other Phoenixes (posts #351 - #400)

Post  Potteraholic on Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:32 pm

Gerald Costales - Feb 22, 2006 8:14 pm (#351 of 428)

There are two things I want for Book 7. Firstly Hogwarts open. And Secondly Fawkes back. Next to the death of Dumbledore, Fawkes leaving seemed to me extremely sad. Fawkes' departure gave me a sense of lost hope. Fawkes, I believe was owned by Godric Gryffindor. And Fawkes' departure it seemed to me a double lost Dumbledore's pet and possibly Gryffindor's pet.

Certainly Fawkes and his song the "Phoenix song" will return. Harry needs every bit of help to defeat Voldemort. The question to me isn't where Fawkes was when Dumbledore needed him but when will Fawkes return. Some things *cough* Prophecy *cough* are unchangeable, I don't thing Fawkes could or should have healed Dumbledore. It was Dumbledore's time. GC




Solitaire - Feb 23, 2006 1:52 am (#352 of 428)

Is it possible that Fawkes's Phoenix Song maybe heard again, if Harry and Voldemort are required to do battle with their brother wands? I hope that is not the only way it is heard ...

Solitaire




Caius Iulius - Feb 27, 2006 12:59 pm (#353 of 428)

I am sure we will see or hear Fawkes again, just not at Hogwarts.




Choices - Feb 27, 2006 1:34 pm (#354 of 428)

I really don't think we are going to see the "brother wands" thing again - it's too been there, done that already. I do think we will see or hear Fawkes though, and I think he will stay close to wherever Dumbledore is. It seems very symbolic that we saw Fawkes eat an AK at the MOM and be reborn. Dumbledore took an AK squarely to the chest - will he be "reborn"??




demiguise - Mar 4, 2006 4:07 pm (#355 of 428)

you know that he can't be reborn without a horcrux. it just isn't possible, and you know that Dumbledore wouldn't do that. I think that we will see Fawkes again, either that, or one of his kids. he's bound to mate and lay eggs sometime. I hope that Harry returns to Hogwarts for at least a short time. then he can learn some things about recognizing dark magic. I also hope that he will go back to Hogwarts so that he can talk to Dumbledore. if you search the end of the sixth book, it says somewhere that a new golden frame had appeared on the wall, this one containing Dumbledore. I bet Dumbledore still remembers everything and will help Harry, and may be even continue directing the order of the phoenix. so in a way, I guess your right, except he has already been reborn in a sense. he will continue to live unless his picture is for some reason destroyed.




Choices - Mar 4, 2006 5:58 pm (#356 of 428)

If HE can mate and lay eggs, then by golly, Dumbledore can come back. I have renewed hope. LOL




Gerald Costales - Mar 19, 2006 5:43 pm (#357 of 428)

I always assumed that Fawkes was male. ;-) GC

Besides aren't Phoenixes reborn from their ashes. Fawkes had a "Burning Day" not a "Birthday" or "Hatch Day". And when Fawkes swallowed that AK at the Ministry of Magic, Fawkes burst into flames and had a premature "Burning Day". ;-) GC




Choices - Mar 19, 2006 5:50 pm (#358 of 428)

I guess this calls up the old question....which came first, the phoenix or the egg? They do die in the flames and are reborn from the ashes, but surely it had to hatch from an egg originally. It didn't just burst forth out of thin air.....or did it? Hmmmmm?




ex-FAHgeek - Mar 21, 2006 9:47 am (#359 of 428)

Maybe they're animated bits of magic released during the big bang that have assumed an organic form?




Choices - Mar 21, 2006 10:52 am (#360 of 428)

LOL @ ex-FAHgeek - Now there's a possibility!!




demiguise - Jun 13, 2006 1:29 pm (#361 of 428)

possibly, but then again, JK Rowling seems to follow reason and history. not always but mostly ya. I just see her making up a bird that came from thin air. besides. who says a phoenix can't have a burning day and a birthday. hmmm. just hope JK Rowling has something planned out to surprise us all.




Solitaire - Jun 13, 2006 5:52 pm (#362 of 428)

I've read more than one Phoenix myth, each of which is slightly different from the others. Some seem to indicate that the Phoenix is pretty much immortal and is reborn from its ashes each time it burns. I've seen other versions that say a Phoenix eventually does die, but a new Phoenix issues from the dying bird, and it begins the cycle again, for a period of 500 or so years. One said that the new Phoenix bears the parent bird to a sun temple in Egypt, I believe. There are probably other twists on the myth, and it is quite likely that Jo has given her Phoenix her own original twist, as well.

Solitaire




demiguise - Jun 16, 2006 3:31 pm (#363 of 428)

solitaire-"I've seen other versions that say a Phoenix eventually does die, but a new Phoenix issues from the dying bird, and it begins the cycle again, for a period of 500 or so years"

how would they know if it was a new phoenix or not?




Choices - Jun 16, 2006 5:23 pm (#364 of 428)
Edited Jun 16, 2006 6:26 pm

LOL That's one of those trick questions....like "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Maybe you just call it by name and if it looks at you blankly, then it's new, but if it answers, it's still your old bird.




Solitaire - Jun 16, 2006 9:37 pm (#365 of 428)

I have no idea, demiguise. It isn't my myth. I'm just reporting what I read.




cindysuewho45 - Jul 10, 2006 10:42 am (#366 of 428)

Hi all, I have thought that when JKR talked about Harry getting another pet. That it could end up being Ginny as a cat. But it could also be Fawkes, that shows up to help Harry and be his new pet.




Choices - Jul 10, 2006 11:30 am (#367 of 428)
Edited Jul 10, 2006 12:31 pm

I don't see Ginny as a cat Animagus - we have one of those already, McGonagall.

Nor do I think phoenixes can be considered pets - especially Fawkes. Fawkes is a unique magical creature who has willingly committed his loyalty and devotion to Dumbledore. Now if Fawkes chose to go to Harry that would be different. I can see Fawkes possibly helping Harry or showing up when Harry is in need, but not sitting around on a perch beside Harry.....Harry will be moving around too much for that.




haymoni - Jul 10, 2006 12:01 pm (#368 of 428)

I thought Harry's other pet was Buckbeak.




TheSaint - Jul 10, 2006 2:14 pm (#369 of 428)

Seems we had this same discussion 100 posts ago...LOL!




Choices - Jul 10, 2006 5:21 pm (#370 of 428)

What goes around comes around - sort of like the ouroborus. LOL




Solitaire - Jul 10, 2006 6:53 pm (#371 of 428)

Whether Ginny turns out to be a cat Animagus or not, I can't see her wanting to be a pet--Harry's or anyone else's. She is no Wormtail!

Solitaire




Laura W - Jul 11, 2006 11:46 pm (#372 of 428) Edited Jul 12, 2006 12:54 am

"Seems we had this same discussion 100 posts ago...LOL!"

Good memory, Saint. Actually, it was on the "Dumbledore's Will" thread. If anybody is interested in what was said - and would possibly like to add their thoughts here -, it starts with Magic Words' Apr. 17 (#6) post. The ones specifically dealing with Harry getting another pet are numbers 22, 23 and 32 (between TheSaint and myself, as it happens).

(There is no such thing as over-analyzing every single detail of the Harry Potter books. -- Laura W.)




cindysuewho45 - Jul 12, 2006 6:53 am (#373 of 428)
Edited Jul 12, 2006 8:04 am

Hi all, Well Choices, I have always felt that my pet dog was loyal and showed devotion to my Grandpa. When he saved his life!!! The dog could have left at anytime, he sleep outside. But his choice was to stay, because he was loyal and devoted, he was our pet. Fawkes is great and magical, but let us not forget that he did set on a perch in DD's old office. So I feel that Fawkes is a loving, loyal, devoted, magical pet. Who can make up his own mind who he wants to stay with. And I am quite sure that Fawkes would be able to fly around from place to place, or set on a perch. Just some thoughts. Now I would agree if we were talking about Centaur's, they will never be any ones pets.




Choices - Jul 12, 2006 9:18 am (#374 of 428)

Cindy, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I respect that. I just happen to disagree. :-)




Solitaire - Jul 12, 2006 4:43 pm (#375 of 428)

Everything I've read about Phoenixes seems to indicate that they choose their masters rather than the other way around. Given that they are magical creatures, I can't believe they can be domesticated in the way that dogs, cats, toads, or rats can be. I do not think Dumbledore considered Fawkes a pet ... not really. He almost seemed to be more of a partner.

Solitaire




Choices - Jul 12, 2006 5:22 pm (#376 of 428)

Well said, Solitaire. I agree. It is almost as if they shared a "spirit" or essence.




Solitaire - Jul 12, 2006 10:21 pm (#377 of 428)

That's an even better way of putting it, Choices. I almost used "alter-ego," but that wasn't right. I like the idea of the shared spirit.

Solitaire




Laura W - Jul 13, 2006 1:53 am (#378 of 428)
Edited Jul 13, 2006 2:54 am

So you guys do not consider phoenixes to be "pets" eh? Well, Dumbledore (Jo?) apparently did/does. Even uses that specific word. From CoS, Chapter 12, p.155 (Cdn version) --

DD: "Fascinating creatures, phoenixes. They can carry immensely heavy loads, their tears have healing powers and they make highly faithful pets."

Laura




haymoni - Jul 13, 2006 3:04 am (#379 of 428)

I think Fawkes is a pet in that Dumbledore likes the companionship and he probably talks to him.

"How's my little Fawkesey Wawkesey today???"

But there seems to be something more to Fawkes than just being a parakeet or something.

Phoenixes must outlive their human counterparts, so they seem to be a bit independent.

They seem to have that "tolerance" for humans that cats have.




Laura W - Jul 13, 2006 3:30 am (#380 of 428)
Edited Jul 13, 2006 4:31 am

A parakeet? You mean like Bungy the budgie? Thanks for the laugh, haymoni! (still chuckling)

Of course you are right, though. As we know in the Muggle world, there are pets and there are pets. Some animals we own and some own us and some allow us to be their owners. I think Fawkes falls into the latter category.

Laura




Solitaire - Jul 13, 2006 10:06 pm (#381 of 428)
Edited Jul 13, 2006 11:07 pm

Laura, I am just going by this quote in an essay on Fawkes and Gryffindor here on the Lexicon:

In FB, Newt Scamander (J. K. Rowling's pseudonym) indicates that the "phoenix gains a XXXX rating not because it is aggressive, but because very few wizards have ever succeeded in domesticating it" (p. 32). Both Gryffindor and Dumbledore are described as uniquely powerful wizards, so it would stand to reason that if Dumbledore is one of the few wizards able to domesticate a phoenix, Gryffindor was likely to be another.

Mugglenet's list of pets says this about Phoenixes: The only known phoenix kept as a pet is Dumbledore's Fawkes.

I believe Harry is on his way to becoming a powerful Wizard. Perhaps he will eventually be powerful enough to keep a Phoenix. I wonder, though ... is Fawkes is still alive? Not all legends say Phoenixes are immortal, and I do not know which one Jo is following. I hope he is ... I love Fawkes.

Solitaire




Laura W - Jul 14, 2006 12:11 am (#382 of 428)
Edited Jul 14, 2006 1:13 am

Ok then, there's the answer. Newt Scamander is canon. Phoenixes are generally *not* domesticatable (i.e. - pets), but there are a very few wizards who are able to keep them as pets. Dumbledore is one of them; ergo, Fawkes is/was one of the few phoenixes to be kept as a pet.

I like Fawkes too, Solitaire. He came to Harry's rescue in CoS and in GoF, so he's got my thumbs up.

By the way, if Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them states that only very powerful wizards can domesticate the birds (does it say that?), then we know of a very powerful dark wizard - the most powerful of all - who could theoretically own a phoenix. I would also think he would want one; we know from canon that Tom Riddle has an obsession about collecting valuable things. But maybe the few wizards FB says could domesticate phoenixes have to be both powerful and good (because the noble birds would never serve the dark side).

Laura




Solitaire - Jul 14, 2006 7:59 am (#383 of 428)

It's more than just his rescue of Harry, though. There is something majestic and spiritual about Fawkes. I can't explain it, but I'm sure you understand what I mean.

As to Fawkes being a pet--of GG (possibly) and Dumbledore, perhaps. If he comes to Harry, though, I suspect it will be his decision, not Harry's ... if that makes any sense.

Solitaire




haymoni - Jul 14, 2006 8:08 am (#384 of 428)

Yes - that was my impression. Fawkes selected Dumbledore, not the other way around.

I could see Fawkes allowing Dumbledore to THINK he was domesticated!




Soul Search - Jul 14, 2006 9:39 am (#385 of 428)

I was very disappointed when Fawkes flew off and Harry said he knew Fawkes would never return to Hogwarts. Seemed so final. I had been sure Harry would inherit Fawkes, even as early as the end of OotP. Especially with JKR's "new pet" comment. (I never thought of Buckbeak as Harry's.)

But, maybe all is not lost.

I was wondering if a phoenix, and specifically Fawkes, prefers living with a wizard, over some wild existence. After all, he stayed with Dumbledore for a time.

And, Fawkes went to Harry in CoS and, quite on his own initiative, flew to his knee and succored his wounds in GoF. Fawkes likes Harry.

So, what's to say Fawkes doesn't come to help Harry (when Harry is not at Hogwarts) and then decides to stay around for a while.




Choices - Jul 14, 2006 10:08 am (#386 of 428)

I still have a problem with the use of the word "pet" in connection to Fawkes. To me, a pet is something you choose, purchase, bring home and care for until it dies or you find another home for it. I believe Fawkes, on the other hand, chose to be with Dumbledore and Dumbledore doesn't "own" Fawkes - they are together by mutual consent. They share a spiritual bond and Fawkes does Dumbledore's bidding because he is loyal and respects him. I think Fawkes could leave Dumbledore at any time, if he so desired. Therefore, I can never think of Fawkes as a "pet".




haymoni - Jul 14, 2006 10:11 am (#387 of 428)

That's how I feel, Choices. I mean I know what "Newt" says, but there is more to it.

Our dog stays around because we feed her and I think she is afraid we would yell at her if she left the yard.

Our cat stays around, but I don't think she gives a hoot about what we think or what we would do if she left.

Fawkes may just like hanging around Dumbledore because the guy has lived so long.




Choices - Jul 14, 2006 10:14 am (#388 of 428)

Haymoni - "Fawkes may just like hanging around Dumbledore because the guy has lived so long."

LOL Yeah, they do have that "long lived" thing in common, don't they.




Solitaire - Jul 14, 2006 10:08 pm (#389 of 428)

I think there is more to the Dumbledore-Fawkes connection than meets the eye. It is as if Fawkes is a part of Dumbledore ... or vice versa. It's hard to explain and I have no canon for what I feel about this ... I just feel it.

Solitaire




TwinklingBlueEyes - Jul 14, 2006 10:39 pm (#390 of 428)

I agree Soli, especially when you consider Dumbledore's patronus is also a phoenix.




cindysuewho45 - Jul 15, 2006 2:45 am (#391 of 428)

Hi all, I feel that Fawkes loved DD, liked how he lived etc.. Harry feels that Fawkes will not come back to Hogwarts, like Harry said he never wants to go back to number 12 GP, because of how he feels about Sirius etc.. I think that Fawkes could see into Harry's soul, and knew how he felt about things. This is why he came to help Harry the times that he did. And if he cared that much about him then, why not turn up now, when Harry will still be in need of help? Fawkes may or may not live forever, but I don't see him dyeing just because DD did.




nthdavid - Jul 15, 2006 5:21 am (#392 of 428)

In HBP(A Sluggish Memory) Harry tells DD that he told Scrimgeour that he was DD's man, and Fawkes let out a long, soft musical, cry.

Then at the end of the chapter after Harry leaves and Phineas' portrait expresses his doubts about Harry's ability to get Slughorn's memory and DD indicates his faith in Harry, Fawkes gave another low, musical cry.




Solitaire - Jul 15, 2006 5:49 am (#393 of 428)

Those could be signs of empathy or love for Harry, I suppose, nthdavid. Could they also be expressions of mourning or sadness? What if Fawkes sensed Dumbledore's days were numbered?

Solitaire




demiguise - Sep 24, 2006 6:40 pm (#394 of 428)

that's true. a whole lot of it anyway. well, I just had an idea. what if in some weird way Fawkes created Dumbledore as a companion and person. no idea how, but maybe. because they have both lived for a loooooooooong time. and as many of you have said, they seem to have some strange connection. and in the end of #6, some phoenix like shape rose from the grave and flew away with song. so maybe. just maybe.

not to be Miss Smart-aleck or anything but....

solitaire-Those could be signs of empathy or love for Harry, I suppose, nthdavid. Could they also be expressions of mourning or sadness? What if Fawkes sensed Dumbledore's days were numbered?

how could he sense that Malfoy was about to complete some trap, and Snape would kill him. that's one of those sliiiiiightly in predictable things don't ya think?

demiguise.




demiguise - Sep 24, 2006 6:44 pm (#395 of 428)

sorry I forgot this part.

we know from book five, I think, that the one person who tested Dumbledore said he had magical powers beyond anyone he had ever met. so may be Fawkes gave those to him "IF" he did create him in some way. '

but then again, change the whole created thing, but somehow did something to him at, right after, or before birth, because I just remembered, Dumbledore has a brother.




demiguise - Sep 24, 2006 6:48 pm (#396 of 428)

my friend wants to post something. I think that phoenix has a connection with Dumbledore and is with him by choice.




Laura W - Sep 25, 2006 4:53 am (#397 of 428)
Edited Sep 25, 2006 5:53 am

demiguise ... I hope you don't mind my mentioning it, but it really would be a lot easier to read your posts if you used capitals.

Thank you

Laura




Gerald Costales - Sep 26, 2006 7:29 am (#398 of 428)
Edited Sep 26, 2006 9:23 am

(Re post: #395)

we know from book five, I think, that the one person who tested Dumbledore said he had magical powers beyond anyone he had ever met. so maybe Fawkes gave those to him "IF" he did create him in some way. ' demiguise

demiguise, I believe this is the quote you are searching for . . .

(Professor Marchbanks) ‘No idea where he is I suppose?’

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘None at, all,’ said Umbridge, shooting a malevolent look at Harry

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ron, and Hermione, who were now dawdling around the foot of

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the stairs as Ron pretended to do up his shoelace. ‘But I daresay the

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ministry of Magic will track him down soon enough . . . .’

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .’I doubt it,’ shouted tiny Professor Marchbanks, ‘not if Dumbledore doesn’t want to be found! I should know . . . . Examined him

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . personally in Transfiguration and Charms when he did N.E.W.T.s . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Did things with a wand I’d never seen before . . .’ page 711, OotP, American edition)

(Re post: #394)

well, I just had an idea. what if in some weird way Fawkes created Dumbledore as a companion and person. no idea how, but may be. because they have both lived for a loooooooooong time. and as many of you have said, they seem to have some strange connection. and in the end of #6, some phoenix like shape rose from the grave and flew away with song. so may be. just maybe. demiguise

I think the weird connection is the possibility that Fawkes was owned by Godric Gryffindor. Yes, there was a strong connection between Fawkes and Dumbledore. And I think there is just as strong connection between Fawkes and Harry.

If Salazar left the Chamber of Secrets and the Basilisk for his Heir; couldn’t Godric have left some things for his Heir. (Remember, Salazar artifacts were also revealed in Book 6, his Signet Ring (Gaunt’s Ring) and Heavy Locket (the Locket taken by R.A.B.) We know Godric left the Sorting Hat and his Sword. So, why not Fawkes?

It is no coincidence that Gryffindor’s House colors are Scarlet and Gold; the colors of Fawkes. (And should we assume all Phoenixes are Scarlet and Gold by the way?) And in the Chamber of Secrets, wasn’t it Fawkes that brought the Sorting Hat and Godric’s Sword. (If all that was truly needed by Harry was the Sword to slay the Basilisk; why bring the Sword in the Sorting Hat?)

The presence of Gryffindor was in the Salazar’s Chamber of Secrets to counter Slytherin’s presence and Slytherin’s Heir. (Only a true Gryffindor could have used that Sword.) I believe Fawkes is possibly Godric’s pet Phoenix!!!!! And not to be mean, I doubt it was Dumbledore who created Fawkes. ;-) GC

PS Weird coincidence - Why do both Tom Riddle’s Yew Wand and Harry’s Holly Wand contain a tail feather from Fawkes?

PPS It’s not the Scar, it’s not the Prophecy, it’s FAWKES!!!!! Hasn't it always been about Fawkes!!!!! (Or Gryffindor) ;-) GC




Choices - Sep 26, 2006 11:05 am (#399 of 428)

Gerald - "... the one person who tested Dumbledore said he had magical powers beyond anyone he had ever met."

Actually she (Professor Marchbanks) said she had examined Dumbledore personally in Charms and Transfiguration (N.E.W.T.'s) and he...."Did things with a wand I'd never seen before."




S.E. Jones - Sep 26, 2006 11:53 am (#400 of 428)
Edited Sep 26, 2006 12:53 pm

Gerald, JKR said in an interview that Fawkes had never belonged to anyone other than Dumbledore.

Edinburgh "cub reporter" press conference, ITV, 16 July 2005:

Peter Humphreys for BBC Newsround. - Who did Fawkes previously belong to and will he play a vital role in the next book?

JKR: I'm not going to answer about the role in the next books, which probably gives you a big clue, and he has never been owned by anyone but Dumbledore. You will notice that when Harry goes back in the Pensieve in this book, Fawkes is never there, and no, I am sorry, not in this book, I take that back. When Harry has previously seen the study with a different headmaster he saw it with Dippet and Fawkes was not there then. Fawkes is Dumbledore's possession, not a Hogwarts possession.

So, it doesn't look like Fawkes ever belonged to Godric, but it does look like he might become important in the next book somehow.

  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Potteraholic
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 4240
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Fawkes and Other Phoenixes (posts #401 - #428)

Post  Potteraholic on Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:36 pm

Gerald Costales - Sep 26, 2006 3:47 pm (#401 of 428)
Edited Sep 26, 2006 4:53 pm

S.E. Jones - Another theory shoot-down.

I think some might argue the use of the word ‘possession’ by JKR. But, some of my questions about Fawkes still are valid such as . . .

Weird coincidence - Why do both Tom Riddle’s Yew Wand and Harry’s Holly Wand contain a tail feather from Fawkes? ;-) GC

(Now for another question. But, first an excerpt.)

‘I remember every wand I’ve ever sold, Mr. Potter. Every single wand. It so happens that the phoenix whose tail feather is in your wand, gave another feather --- just one other. It is very curious indeed that you should be destined for this wand when its brother --- why, its brother gave you that scar.’ (page 85, SS, American edition)

How does a Phoenix give a feather?

1. Are Tom’s Wand and Harry’s Wand somehow exceptional?

(That is are Tom’s Yew Wand and Harry’s Holly Wand more powerful, stronger, and potent than an average Wand? Example: I can say I brought a car, but a car can range from a Smart Car to a Hummer. So, wouldn’t Wands range in power and ability? So, shouldn’t the Wands destined for Neville and Luna differ from Wands destined for Harry and Hermione in power and ability?)

‘Ah, now this one is one of mine, isn’t it?’ said Ollivander, with much more enthusiasm, as Cedric handed over his wand. ‘Yes, I remember it well. Containing a single hair from the tail of a particularly fine male unicorn . . . must have been seventeen hands; nearly gored me with his horn after I plucked his tail.’ (page 309, GoF, American edition)

2. If these Wands (Tom’s and Harry’s) are exceptional, is it because both Wands contain a Feather from Fawkes?

(Do Better materials make Better Wands?)

“I think we must expect great things from you, Mr. Potter… After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things --- terrible, yes, but great.’ (page 85, SS, American edition)

3. When Mr. Ollivander either built and/or sold the Yew and Holly Wands, did Mr. Ollivander know that both Tom and Harry would be Great Wizards?

4. Are the Wands connected to the ‘Prophecy’?

‘but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not’

is this a reference to Harry’s Wand? Didn’t Harry’s Wand save him at the Graveyard? Voldemort didn’t expect that to happen. Will the Wand have a similar impact in Book 7. ;-) GC

PS Questions 1 thru 4 are from my post in the Mr. Ollivander Thread post #391.

PPS Isn’t it all really about Fawkes?

PPPS Harry only survived the Graveyard fight with Voldemort because of Harry’s Holly Wand (and Fawkes’ feather). ;-) GC




Choices - Sep 26, 2006 4:01 pm (#402 of 428)

Gerald - "Weird coincidence - Why do both Tom Riddle’s Yew Wand and Harry’s Holly Wand contain a tail feather from Fawkes?"

Coincidence? I think not. My guess is that Dumbledore had something to do with it.

Gerald - "If these Wands (Tom’s and Harry’s) are exceptional, is it because both Wands contain a Feather from Fawkes?"

I think partly the feather is responsible, also the wood from which they are made, also the way they are made (Ollivander), and the way they are wielded and by whom - the power and ability of the wizard to whom they belong.

Gerald - "When Mr. Ollivander either built and/or sold the Yew and Holly Wands, did Mr. Ollivander know that both Tom and Harry would be Great Wizards?"

It is my belief that Dumbledore commissioned Ollivander to make the wands, and yes, I believe Dumbledore had at least some idea to whom the wands would eventually belong.

Gerald - ‘but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not’

The power Harry has that Voldemort knows not, is LOVE.




Gerald Costales - Sep 27, 2006 6:50 am (#403 of 428)
Edited Sep 27, 2006 8:40 am

Gerald - "Weird coincidence - Why do both Tom Riddle’s Yew Wand and Harry’s Holly Wand contain a tail feather from Fawkes?"

Choices - ‘Coincidence? I think not. My guess is that Dumbledore had something to do with it.’

My point also. It is no coincidence that both these Wands were destined to first Tom than Harry. But, did Dumbledore need to pull a Barty Crouch Jr.? Was it necessary to use special Magic to ensure these Wands went to the right/wrong Wizards?

Gerald - "When Mr. Ollivander either built and/or sold the Yew and Holly Wands, did Mr. Ollivander know that both Tom and Harry would be Great Wizards?"

Choices - It is my belief that Dumbledore commissioned Ollivander to make the wands, and yes, I believe Dumbledore had at least some idea to whom the wands would eventually belong.

At first, I felt that Dumbledore was unaware of Tom Riddle’s evil tendencies until after the CoS was opened. In brief, Moaning Myrtle was killed by the Basilisk. Hagrid and Aragog were framed by Riddle and Riddle appeared to be a Hero. Dumbledore would help the expelled and orphaned Hagrid (with Hagrid eventually becoming Gamekeeper and Keeper of the Keys and Grounds at Hogwarts). And Dippet, the Headmaster, and everyone else at Hogwarts with the exception of Dumbledore, were duped into believing Tom Riddle’s innocence. And it was at this point that, I used to believe that Dumbledore first began keeping an eye on Riddle. But, events in the HBP proved otherwise. In the HBP we learn that Dumbledore personally delivered the Hogwarts’ Letter for Tom Riddle.

(If one assumption from the first five Books has changed; what other widely accepted assumptions need to be reexamined because of new information brought to light in the HBP.) (From my intro to my post # 391 on the Mr. Ollivander thread.)

If Dumbledore knew Tom Riddle had evil tendencies - Why commission a Wand that would be as potentially dangerous as the Yew Wand? ( Isn’t the Yew Wand an extremely lethal weapon - Would you have given a loaded gun (the Yew Wand) to a young Tom Riddle knowing what Riddle had done to his fellow orphans?)

But of course - WANDS don’t KILL, AK’s do?

Also, this could be the reason the Death Eaters took Ollivander or forced Ollivander into hiding. Royal Honey makes Queen Bees. Fawkes feather cored Wands makes Great Wizards?

Gerald - ‘but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not’

Choices - The power Harry has that Voldemort knows not, is LOVE.

I don’t really believe the Holly Wand is the power the Dark Lord knows not . But then again I believed Harry talking to Snakes was normal and innocent. Which is to say you never know which way JKR will lead us with a tidbit of detail.

The power of LOVE is probably right. But did Dumbledore’s sacrifice place some Ancient Magical protection again around Harry? (You know Grandfather, Dumbledore, sacrificing himself for his Grandson, Harry.)

Personally, I'm leaning that the power is possibly Wandless Magic or Unspoken Magic. ;-) GC




TheSaint - Oct 17, 2006 6:10 am (#404 of 428)

'When Harry has previously seen the study with a different headmaster he saw it with Dippet and Fawkes was not there then. Fawkes is Dumbledore's possession, not a Hogwarts possession. '

Ummm...just a question. Was the Gryffindor Sword in any of the previous headmaster's offices? Is it DD's too?

Jo shoots down another beautifully thought out theory. That woman!!! LOL Back to the drawing board.




Soul Search - Oct 17, 2006 11:55 am (#405 of 428)
Edited Oct 17, 2006 12:57 pm

TheSaint,

The first time the sword is seen is when Harry pulls it out of the hat in CoS. It is not in any of the earlier scenes nor in any of the pensive scenes. Nor is the "case" which doesn't appear until, I think, GoF.

It appears that the Sword came to Harry. It might have always been in the hat.

Given that, the sword seems to belong to Harry, not Dumbledore nor Hogwarts.

Strange, though, that Dumbledore doesn't mention it to Harry.




Gerald Costales - Oct 18, 2006 6:05 pm (#406 of 428)
Edited Oct 18, 2006 7:25 pm

Not only does Fawkes bring Gryffindor’s Sword to Harry. But just read the following -

..He looked into Harry’s face. ‘But it makes no difference. In fact I prefer it this way. Just you and me, Harry Potter . . . you and me . . .’

..He raised the wand ---

..Then, in a rush of wings, Fawkes had soared back overhead and something fell into Harry’s lap --- the diary.

..For a split second, both Harry and Riddle, wand still raised, stared at it. Then, without thinking, without considering, as though he had meant to do it all along, Harry seized the basilisk fang on the floor next to him and plunged it straight into the heart of the book.

..There was a long, dreadful, piercing scream. Ink spurted out of the diary in torrents, streaming over Harry’s hands, flooding the floor. Riddle was writhing and twisting, screaming and flailing and then ---

..He had gone. Harry’s wand fell to the floor with a clatter and there was silence. (page 322, CoS, American edition)

Fawkes just drops Tom’s Diary in Harry’s lap. ;-) GC

I’d bet that we should expect Fawkes returning and helping Harry in Book 7.

PS Hasn’t it always been about Fawkes!!! No Fawkes, No Yew Wand or No Holly Wand. No Brother Wands. And Voldemort is Victorious in the Graveyard!!! ;-) GC




[b]Solitaire - Nov 5, 2006 1:18 pm (#407 of 428)

It is my belief that Dumbledore commissioned Ollivander to make the wands, and yes, I believe Dumbledore had at least some idea to whom the wands would eventually belong.

I think the following scenario is also possible ... Dumbledore simply gave a feather to Ollivander--perhaps at Ollivander's request--to make the original wand, without an idea of who would eventually purchase it. Ollivander would certainly have told Dumbledore that it was Riddle who had purchased the Fawkes-feather wand.

Eventually, it would have become clear to Dumbledore that Riddle (now Voldemort) was using the wand to do evil. Perhaps he gave Ollivander another feather to make another wand that could be used against Voldemort at some point. Or maybe Dumbledore gave the second feather only after the Potters were murdered ... with Harry in mind for the wand (since he knew the prophecy). It will be interesting to find this out. I do hope Jo tells us!

Solitaire




Gerald Costales - Nov 5, 2006 2:11 pm (#408 of 428)

I think the following scenario is also possible ... Dumbledore simply gave a feather to Ollivander--perhaps at Ollivander's request--to make the original wand, without an idea of who would eventually purchase it. Ollivander would certainly have told Dumbledore that it was Riddle who had purchased the Fawkes-feather wand. Solitaire

If all Wands are created equal, then I would agree with your scenario. But, I don’t think all Wands are created equal because not all Witches and Wizards are born with equal skills, abilities, or potential.

(Nothing against Neville or Luna) But, in a tight, difficult, or dangerous situation - Who would you pick - Neville and Luna or Harry and Hermione? Especially if they had to help you without there Wands and only had to rely on their skills, abilities, or potential.

Why commission a Wand that could be as potentially dangerous as the Yew Wand? Dumbledore must have had some inkling of what a Fawkes feather core in a Wand might produce. Maybe the difference between building a BB Gun or an Assault Rifle Isn’t the Yew Wand an extremely lethal weapon? Or is it the combination of Fawkes’ phoenix feather and the Yew wood? Then why would Mr. Ollivander combine those two materials to produce another typical and average Wand?

And why would Mr. Ollivander need to contact Dumbledore? If all Wands are created equal, then there wouldn’t be any need to contact Dumbledore. Unless you believe you had given a loaded gun (the Yew Wand) to a young Tom Riddle. Especially knowing what Riddle had done to his fellow orphans.

But of course - WANDS don’t KILL, AK’s do?

Also, this could be the reason the Death Eaters took Ollivander or forced Ollivander into hiding. Royal Honey makes Queen Bees. Fawkes feather cored Wands makes Great Wizards?

PS Some of this post is based on some things in my #403 of this thread. ;-) GC




Solitaire - Nov 5, 2006 7:11 pm (#409 of 428)

Why would Ollivander contact Dumbledore? Because he knew Dumbledore had a Phoenix! My point is that Ollivander may not have realized that this particular wand was being purchased by a boy with evil tendencies. It doesn't sound as if he does, from his initial comments to Harry. He may just have wanted a Phoenix feather to place in a wand he was making (which could have been purchased by anyone). Or are you suggesting that Riddle/Voldemort commissioned this wand?

If Riddle commissioned this particular wand after doing research on wand materials--and Dumbledore was fully aware of it when he provided both feathers--that is a different story entirely. Oddly, I think Dumbledore would have been more suspicious (and reluctant?) about providing a feather for a wand he knew young Riddle was having made, given his early wariness of the boy.

At the moment (I could change my mind again), I am leaning toward the idea that the wand had been made before Riddle ever came to the shop, and he happened to choose it (or it chose him). When Ollivander casually told Dumbledore that one of his students had chosen the wand containing the feather from Fawkes, I think Dumbledore may have provided a second feather for the wand that would eventually become Harry's wand ... just in case.

One other speculation ... What if the wand didn't choose Riddle, but he insisted on having it anyway? Ollivander's comment to Harry, regarding selling it to Riddle--"If I'd known what that wand was going out in the world to do"--make me believe that he would not have sold it to Riddle if he'd known who he was. And just maybe the wand didn't choose Riddle ... maybe he chose it! Of course, this is all JM2K ...

Solitaire




Gerald Costales - Nov 6, 2006 6:27 am (#410 of 428)

(Solitaire - I think the tone of my post #408 may have been a little too harsh and critical. I didn't mean for it to come across that way. GC)

"I am leaning toward the idea that the wand had been made before Riddle ever came to the shop, and he happened to choose it (or it chose him)." Solitaire

I think the "Yew Wand" was probably crafted before at least Riddle entered Hogwarts. And I am leaning to the idea that neither Dumbledore nor Mr. Ollivander would have wanted the "Yew Wand" to belong to Tom Riddle.

I am not sure as to why either Dumbledore would have given or Mr. Ollivander would have requested a tail feather from Fawkes. I can’t picture a circumstance when either Dumbledore would have simply given or Mr. Ollivander would have simply requested Fawkes’ tail feather or feathers. It certainly wouldn't have be a topic of casual conversation.

Dumbledore - ‘By the way here’s a Phoenix tail feather from my pet Fawkes. Mr. Ollivander I can’t bear to see it go to waste.’ Or

Mr. Ollivander - ‘Prof. Dumbledore I’m running low on my stock of Phoenix tail feathers. I’m wondering if your pet Phoenix might spare one feather or two at this time?’

The point that I wanted to make is that "All Wands are not made Equal’ because ‘Not all Witches or Wizards are born Equal". Mr. Ollivander is/was not Henry Ford mass-producing some type of "One Size Fits All Wand or a Wand for All-occasions" product.

The reason or circumstance of why the "Yew Wand" was crafted is just unexplainable to me at this time. Another question that I hope is resolved when ever Book 7 is finally released. ;-) GC

PS The Rise of Lord Voldemort and then the "Prophecy" certainly changed everything. But, I am still not certain as to when the "Holly Wand" would have been crafted either. ;-) GC




Gerald Costales - Nov 6, 2006 8:22 pm (#411 of 428)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - This a link to my post #140 from the Mr. Ollivander Thread. I believe it relates to the current discussion in this Thread. Enjoy. ;-) GC




S.E. Jones - Nov 7, 2006 1:24 am (#412 of 428)

Solitaire --Or maybe Dumbledore gave the second feather only after the Potters were murdered ... with Harry in mind for the wand (since he knew the prophecy). It will be interesting to find this out. I do hope Jo tells us!--

I just want to say, I really like this idea! I'm rather doubtful it's true, but I still find it fascinating.

Gerald, I really don't see where you're going with the whole "all wands aren't created equal" thing. We know they aren't all created equal. Ollivander comments that Lily's wand was especially good for Charms, that James's wand had a bit more power and was good for Transfiguration, and that Hagrid's wand was a very powerful wand... these are clearly three very different wands with three very different intended power levels and three very different natural tendencies (Charms, Transfiguration, etc). We know this, so why would it be weird for Ollivander to create a wand, or two, that were meant for very powerful wizards such as Dumbledore or another member of the Wizengamot (they could very well need replacement wands someday, after all, Ollivander does seem to sell to more than just first-years). It seems that Ollivander has made more wands with phoenix tail-feather cores (why would he list feathers when listing cores to Harry if he'd only ever used two or three, thus they must be used nearly as often as unicorn hair and dragon heart-strings) and more wands out of yew. I doubt that's even the first time he's combined the two. I really don't see how Solitaire's suggestion contradicts the things we already know about wands. I could see Ollivander requesting the feather as phoenixes are rare creatures (which is probably why he asked for two), and I could see him combining the yew wood and feather (rather randomly or on purpose) as he knows powerful wizards needs wands as well as those who are below average in magical power. I don't think Ollivander contacted Dumbledore after Tom bought his wand because, while possibly being a unique combination (not the only, but one of the few), the yew wand Voldemort bought wasn't special until after he bought it and used it to do terrible but great things. I could see Ollivander contacting Dumbledore, though, after the wand's brother had been bought by the very person the wand had tried to kill (I mean, the Harry Potter buying the brother wand of the Lord Voldemort would be a pretty big thing). Again, Solitaire's idea doesn't contradict anything we know about wands being used for different purposes or power levels, but it would suggest the feathers weren't given at the same time and that Dumbledore gave the feather after seeing the Prophecy start to take effect (Harry's been "marked", Voldemort has been thrown out of his body, etc). Again, I'm not sure the idea will turn out to be true, but it is an interesting one.




TheSaint - Nov 7, 2006 2:03 am (#413 of 428)

Suggested long ago that both wands were placed by DD as sort of a 'sword in the stone.' Since only these two wands contain Fawkes feathers, it seems to me DD may have been searching for someone or something. Someone talented enough to pass along his own skills to and then someone to counter the horrible thing the first one became. If Voldie had not been the horrible man he was, he could have been another DD.

Both placements would require Ollivander to inform him as to whom the wands choose.




Gerald Costales - Nov 7, 2006 7:57 am (#414 of 428)

"Suggested long ago that both wands were placed by DD as sort of a 'sword in the stone.' Since only these two wands contain Fawkes feathers, it seems to me DD may have been searching for someone or something." The Saint

The Saint - Great idea!!! But, isn't that suggesting a bit of conceit on Dumbledore's part. ‘I’m so Great that I need to find another Great Wizard to train and eventually replace me.’

Of course, that could be what happened to Dumbledore. Dumbledore could have had a Mentor that helped Dumbledore develop his abilities and powers. Dumbledore did work with Nicholas Flamel.

. . . ‘so why would it be weird for Ollivander to create a wand, or two, that were meant for very powerful wizards such as Dumbledore or another member of the Wizengamot (they could very well need replacement wands someday. . .’ S.E. Jones

S.E.J. - I agree. And could possibly be a good reason for Mr. Ollivander to go into hiding or being kidnapped.

PS Or maybe it’s all about Fawkes!

PPS No Brother Wands, the Yew Wand and Holly Wand. And Harry is death in the Graveyard. And wasn’t Fawkes’ Phoenix Song heard at the Graveyard.

In the CoS, Fawkes brought Harry ‘Gryffindor’s Sword and then conveniently just dropped ‘The Diary’ into Harry’s lap.

PPS Take a look at the Wand Tread for my additional thoughts on Wands. ;-) GC




T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 9:36 am (#415 of 428)

Didn't Jo say DD was largely self-taught, but also had great teachers at Hogwarts?

Not conceit on DD's part, but reality, he's great and he knows it.

I had ventured on various DD not dead threads that The Chosen One actually refers to DD choosing Harry to replace him, and that defeating LV is just step one, after which Harry will need to decide if he is DD's replacement, or wants a quiet life with Ginny. The thought being that DD is looking at the big picture, not just defeating LV, but finding a replacement to carry on when he dies. In this scenario, DD's not dead.




Solitaire - Nov 10, 2006 8:02 pm (#416 of 428)

About the idea of Ollivander contacting Dumbledore after Riddle bought the first Fawkes-feather wand ... I doubt he would have done it immediately, as he did with Harry. But I could see it occurring in a casual conversation, if he happened to run into Dumbledore somewhere. "By the way, Dumbledore, did I tell you that one of your students bought one of the wands containing Fawkes's tail-feather? ... Yeah, Tom Riddle. Say, didn't he win an award for services to the school?"

Gerald, I didn't think you were too harsh. You were just expressing a difference of opinion. I can handle it.

Solitaire




demiguise - Dec 16, 2006 8:19 pm (#417 of 428)

think many good ideas are posted here. But there are also many things looked over in the books.

Fawkes gave a feather. not given by Dumbledore. Every one seems to be posting about how there is a yew wand and a holly wand. am I the only one who thinks of Christmas when holly is mentioned. Maybe Santa Clause comes in the next book. (Just a crazy idea) and I can’t remember the thing about yew. but it probably has something to do with something too. the different woods in wands are supposed to affect what kind of magic they are best at. Maybe yew is best for bad things like killing and possessing. If I remember right holly was good for charms. if I remember right. I haven't read the books in a while.

Kinda like the idea of Fawkes creating Dumbledore, but it could only be done through a human, because Dumbledore has a brother. plus. I know for a fact that Harry could easily talk to Dumbledore again. he still has a picture in the Headmasters office. and the last book made specific mention of his picture having a golden frame. So I think Harry will most likely come back. whether he realizes this at the time or not.

but then again. how can we possibly think ahead of JKR. she just sometimes has the craziest ideas. but aren't crazy and genius linked? demiguise




Gerald Costales - Jan 1, 2007 10:07 pm (#418 of 428)

‘am I the only one who thinks of Christmas when holly is mentioned. Maybe Santa Clause comes in the next book.’ demiguise

demiguise - 1. Go to JKR’s Official website - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

. . 2. Click on the hairbrush.

. . 3. You’ll go, to the Extra Stuff section of JKR’s website.

. . 4. Click on the Miscellaneous tag.

. . 5. Scroll down to WANDS, then click on WANDS.

When you read this section, you’ll learn that the choice of ‘Holly’ for Harry’s Wand was based on various trees that the Celts assigned to different parts of the year

‘July 8 - August 4 = Holly (Tinne)’.

While the choice of ‘Yew’ was based on European Traditions,

‘while yew can symbolise both death and resurrection, the sap is also poisonous.’

I’m also not clear on the Why?, When?, and How? of Fawkes’ tail feather getting to Mr. Ollivander for the ‘Yew Wand’ and the ‘Holly Wand’. But the fact that Harry and Voldemort had ‘Brother Wands’ did save Harry in the ‘Graveyard’. And the fact that Harry and Voldemort share ‘Brother Wands’ may possibly come into play in Book 7.

PS Now that we have a title for Book 7. All we need is the release date for Book 7. ;-) GC




demiguise - Jan 2, 2007 7:23 am (#419 of 428)

I'm sorry. I didn't know. demiguise. ps. please ignore that part of my post. everyone.




demiguise - Jan 2, 2007 7:37 am (#420 of 428)

ps. I looked up the yew tree and its stories in Europe. it is known as a graveyard tree that lives forever. everything about the tree is poisonous. except the berries. which have a poisonous seed inside. even the name suggests poison. Taxus baccata. the English yew. Taxus, referring to the Greek bow. like bow and arrows. Baccata referring to the poison they put on the arrowheads. the site I found this at is

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

in case someone wanted to see it for themselves. there is one yew tree that is estimated to be between 3000 and 5000 years old. this is probably why. demiguise




Gerald Costales - Jan 2, 2007 10:07 am (#421 of 428)

I think Fawkes' role is not finished. And that Fawkes will be returning in Book 7. Here are some thoughts about Fawkes that I had posted in another thread -

. . .In these examples I chose from the Series, is Fawkes a tool of Destiny or a literally symbol of Destiny and/or Hope.

Not only does Fawkes bring Gryffindor’s Sword to Harry. But just read the following -

. .He looked into Harry’s face. ‘But it makes no difference. In fact I prefer it this way. Just you and me, Harry Potter . . . you and me . . .’

. . He raised the wand ---

. . Then, in a rush of wings, Fawkes had soared back overhead and something fell into Harry’s lap --- the diary.

. . For a split second, both Harry and Riddle, wand still raised, stared at it. Then, without thinking, without considering, as though he had meant to do it all along, Harry seized the basilisk fang on the floor next to him and plunged it straight into the heart of the book.

. . There was a long, dreadful, piercing scream. Ink spurted out of the diary in torrents, streaming over Harry’s hands, flooding the floor. Riddle was writhing and twisting, screaming and flailing and then ---

. . He had gone. Harry’s wand fell to the floor with a clatter and there was silence.
(page 322, CoS, American edition)

In the Graveyard, Harry heard Fawkes’ Phoenix song and of course Fawkes’ Tail Feather is the core for both Tom’s ‘Yew Wand’ and Harry’s ‘Holly Wand’ -

. .And then an unearthly and beautiful sound filled the air . . . It was coming from every thread of the light-spun web vibrating around Harry and Voldemort. It was a sound Harry recognized, though he had heard it only once before in his life: phoenix song.

. . It was the sound of hope to Harry . . . the most beautiful and welcome thing he had ever heard . . .(page 664, GoF, American edition)

And finally in the Battle at the Ministry of Magic, Fawkes swallows an AK only to be reduced to a hatchling -

. .’Look out!’ Harry yelled.

. . But even as he shouted, one more jet of green light had flown at Dumbledore from Voldemort’s wand the snake had struck ---

. . Fawkes swooped down in front of Dumbledore, opened his beak wide, and swallowed the jet of green light whole. He burst into flame and fell to the floor, small wrinkled, and flightless. (page 815, OotP, American edition)

Certainly Harry and others have made their Choices, but there is a flowing current of Destiny and Fate that carries Harry to that Final Confrontation with Voldemort. ;-) GC

(Click on the following link to see the original post from the + Choice Vs Destiny in the Harry Potter Universe -Gerald Costales, "+ Choice Vs Destiny in the Harry Potter Universe" #81, 28 Dec 2006 10:32 am)

There is certainly a unique relationship between the "Yew Wand", the "Holly Wand", Voldemort, Harry, and Fawkes. And I strongly feel that Fawkes will be returning to aid Harry in Book 7.

demiguise - You certainly have some interesting ideas, thoughts, and theories concerning Fawkes. And with time, I believe we will all have a better understanding of Fawkes' role in the Series by the conclusion of Book 7.

PS Fawkes delivered Gryffindor's Sword and Tom's Diary to Harry in the Chamber of Secrets. And Fawkes is present during two critical situations in the Series - Harry's Escape from the Graveyard and the Battle at the Ministry of Magic.

I don't think this was merely a co-incidence. FATE? Maybe!!! But without Fawkes’ aid or inspiration, Harry most certainly would have been killed in the Chamber of Secrets and at the Graveyard. And possibly Dumbledore would have been killed by Voldemort at the Ministry of Magic. ;-) GC




azi - Jan 2, 2007 11:49 am (#422 of 428)

Demiguise - I remember playing in a yew tree in our village graveyard when I was younger. My mum was always scared I'd poison myself! The berries are very strange if I remember correctly - they looked like red beads. The living forever but being poisonous is quite interesting - maybe this links to Voldemort in some way? He wants eternal life, but is a poison in the world and surrounded by death?

Anyway, I think Fawkes must appear in the future. Plus, I'd like him to.




demiguise - Jan 3, 2007 4:33 pm (#423 of 428)

id like him to too azi. he's a very important character. and a huge help.

Costales, sorry, I don't really believe in fate. so I'm not sure I can follow your theory.

like your idea azi. I never really thought of that. but it makes perfect sense.

demiguise




wynnleaf - Jan 6, 2007 7:50 am (#424 of 428)

Gerald Costales,

This is just my opinion, but I tend to think that when JKR has Harry think something will never, ever happen, it's a little literary device where she sort of sets Harry up to be wrong

In OOTP, Harry thinks that whatever else happens, he will never to anything to lure Sirius out of Grimmauld Place. And of course, he does.

Later in OOTP, Harry thinks that no matter what, he will never forgive Snape. I think that JKR writes this phrase in such a way that almost begs to be proven wrong.

And similarly, near the end of HBP, Harry believes that Fawkes, like Dumbledore, is gone forever from Hogwarts. To me, that feels like another of those little phrases where the writer makes the protagonist assume something will never, ever happen, and then will prove him wrong later. So I, too, expect Harry will see Fawkes again.




Gerald Costales - Jan 8, 2007 8:06 pm (#425 of 428)

‘Costales, sorry, I don't really believe in fate. so I'm not sure I can follow your theory.’ demiguise

demiguise - I don’t have any personal experience with what some people call Fate. But, I do believe that in some instances Fate can occur in a person’s life. No one has total control of their life.

There are times when some force, some may call Fate, seems to intervene. There are forces and events beyond our control. Maybe the following anecdote may demonstrate what I consider is Fate occurring in a person’s life.

New Abode

One day during World War I, Winston Churchill visited France as a volunteer to observe the fighting first hand. In his sandbagged shelter at the front line, he was brought a message from a visiting general, a former acquaintance, who wanted to see him. Churchill was instructed to walk to a crossroads some three miles away, where a car would meet him. After waiting at the crossroads for nearly an hour, however, he was joined by one of the general's officers. The car had been sent to the wrong crossroads, the man explained, and it was now too late for any meeting to take place. Churchill, understandably peeved, began the long haul back to the trenches in the dark; then, as rain began to fall, he produced a stream of silent invective describing the thoughtless general.

When he finally reached his camp, Churchill was astonished to find that his shelter had apparently disappeared. Five minutes after his departure, he learned, a shell had come through the roof, obliterating the structure and killing the man inside.

"Suddenly I felt my irritation against General X pass completely from my mind," he later recalled. "All sense of grievance departed in a flash. As I walked to my new abode, I reflected how thoughtful it had been of him to wish to see me again, and to show courtesy to a subordinate when he had so much responsibility on his shoulders."

Churchill, Winston Leonard Spenser (1874-1965) British politician and writer, First Lord of the Admiralty (1911-15, 1939-), prime minister (from 1940), Nobel Prize recipient (Literature, 1953) [noted for his remarkable eloquence and leadership ability; for his memoirs and letters; and for such works as The Second World War, The Great Republic : A History of America and My Early Life]

[Sources: Little, Brown Book of Anecdotes]

(Source - anecdotage.com - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] )

(re: post #424)

‘ . . .I, too, expect Harry will see Fawkes again.’ wynnleaf

wynnleaf - Interesting observations. I also expect Harry will see Fawkes again. ;-) GC




demiguise - Jan 10, 2007 2:46 pm (#426 of 428)

Costales, ok ok ok. I’ll try to follow the fate thingymagiger. And I didn't mean it like just events beyond control. I meant more like it leaving us with only one choice that is our, FATE. That's the kind I meant. Like it is our fate to die at the hands of something, or to destroy the dragon. That's the kind I meant.

and one thing I've noticed about this discussion. everyone keeps repeating that they think we will see Fawkes again. am I the only one who noticed that. or did I just read the same ones over again. again. sorry. demiguise




wynnleaf - Jan 10, 2007 4:47 pm (#427 of 428)

One thing I’ve noticed about this discussion. Everyone keeps repeating that they think we will see Fawkes again. Am I the only one who noticed that. Or did I just read the same ones over again. Again. Sorry. - demiguise

LOL, demiguise, I think you can see us repeating things all over the forum!




Choices - Jan 10, 2007 6:08 pm (#428 of 428)

I hate to repeat, but since there are many on this forum who do not speak English as a first language, correct English usage and capitalization are appreciated.

  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
Potteraholic
Ravenclaw Prefect
Ravenclaw Prefect

Posts : 4240
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: Fawkes and other Phoenixes

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum