Home
Latest images
Register
Log inThe Cloak of Invisibility - Deathly Hallow #3
Page 1 of 1
The Cloak of Invisibility - Deathly Hallow #3
Potteraholic Sun Jul 17, 2011 12:37 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
Kip Carter - Jul 23, 2007 1:29 am
Edited Sep 26, 2007 3:58 am
This thread is to discuss The Cloak of Invisibility - Deathly Hallow #3. I narrowed a suggestion zelmia for a thread on The Deathly Hallows by creating a thread for each Deathly Hallow.
Last edited by Potteraholic on Sun Jul 17, 2011 1:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
Potteraholic- Ravenclaw Prefect
- Posts : 4241
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA
The Cloak of Invisibility - Deathly Hallow #3 (posts #1 to #35)
Potteraholic Sun Jul 17, 2011 12:40 pm
TomProffitt - Jul 23, 2007 5:40 pm (#1 of 64)
To me the Cloak of Invisibility is the most powerful of the three, because it symbolizes Wisdom. You do not conquer Death by winning many battles, you conquer it by avoiding needless battles and meeting Death on your own terms.
freshwater - Jul 23, 2007 6:18 pm (#2 of 64)
Hmmmmm....maybe. I don't think that wisdom usually allows one to meet death on their own terms....often we have no choice at all.
But, I may have to rethink my initial impressions of that.
Anyway, wasn't the original use of the cloak --in the fairy tale-- to hide the wearer from Death? As in when Death comes for you, you can cover yourself and he will pass by without seeing you? That's different --in a sort of Voldermortish way-- than avoiding a foolish conflict or picking a fight. That original use seems to me to be more of a ruse to escape an inevitability.
Which brings to mind....has anyone ever created a cloak that will shield you from taxes? **grin**
zelmia - Jul 23, 2007 11:00 pm (#3 of 64)
I thought it was to hide you from your enemies, not from Death itself.
TomProffitt - Jul 24, 2007 4:36 am (#4 of 64)
It's kind of a Buddhist thing. It physically hides you from your mortal enemies, but what it symbolizes is wisdom.
While the Resurrection Stone was represented by the Souls of Loved Ones walking with Harry to meet Death, his acceptance of Death is symbolized by wearing the Cloak and ignoring all things earthly.
It is the wisdom to accept the inevitability of Death whenever it comes for you, not the ability to hide from it as long as you would choose.
Jenniffler - Jul 24, 2007 5:39 am (#5 of 64)
I think the three brothers represent Dumbledore, Snape, and Potter. Dumbledore could only effectively use the wand. Snape personifies the ring, as he had kept the memory of the dead(Lily) with him always. Harry Potter is an actual descendant of the third brother, Ignotus. Death kept searching for Harry but Harry eluded it many times. It will take a few re-reads before I clearly see all the hints of how the Invisibility Cloak helped Harry gain wisdom and avoid disaster but the examples are there in the books. I think it is significant that Harry saw the murders of Dumbledore and Snape while under the Invisibility Cloak.
Remi - Jul 24, 2007 6:55 am (#6 of 64)
Oh, I can't find it in the book, but I think it is also significant that Harry, Ron & Hermione each select a different Hallow as being the best: Hermione, the Cloak; Harry the stone, and Ron the wand. (unless I'm not remembering correctly)
That does tie in with the cloak symbolizing wisdom, the ring compassion/love (and the wand power?)
wynnleaf - Jul 24, 2007 11:19 am (#7 of 64)
Edited Jul 24, 2007 12:55 pm
Interesting contradiction - this could be a continuity error or Dumbledore being misleading. Dumbledore said that he only had the cloak for a few days, but Lily's letter must have been written not too long after Harry's birthday and before they went into Fidelius, and she talks about Dumbledore still having the cloak. It sounds like in her letter that Dumbledore had the cloak some weeks without giving it back.
Given the cloak's properties, it would have helped the Potters, perhaps protecting Lily and Harry, if they had the cloak at Godric’s Hollow at the time of the attack. And the reason they didn't have the cloak seems to have been Dumbledore's personal fascination with it as one of the Deathly Hallows.
Dumbledore knew the cloak had those properties, yet he kept it at a time when he knew the Potter's lives were in grave danger.
I have really loved Albus over the years, but he is seeming more and more flawed to me in DH.
Mudblood and Proud - Jul 24, 2007 6:10 pm (#8 of 64)
Someone will have to explain to me the significance of obtaining all three Hallows and becoming the Master of Death. I still don't understand it fully.
Madam Pince - Jul 24, 2007 8:36 pm (#9 of 64)
Me neither. I kept waiting and waiting for that to enter into the plot somewhere, but it never did. In particular I thought it might've had something to do with the epitaph on Lily and James' headstone "The last enemy to be conquered is death" or something, or perhaps that Snape wouldn't really be dead. (wishful thinking there...)
legolas returns - Jul 25, 2007 12:00 am (#10 of 64)
The hallows were used by 2 brothers to try and escape death because they feared it. They got burned by what they asked for and death caught them right away. The third brother did not fear death and when it was his time to die he went willingly.
Harry had all three hallows (although he did not know about ownership of the wand) and he used them to ease his "passing". Dumbledore said that he was master because he did not use the Hallows for his overall gain e.g. to escape death. He used the ring/cloak to help him go to his death. Once he fought Voldemort he was free to have a proper and natural death.
Luna Logic - Jul 25, 2007 12:15 am (#11 of 64)
Wynnleaf: Dumbledore knew the cloak had those properties, yet he kept it at a time when he knew the Potter's lives were in grave danger.
I have really loved Albus over the years, but he is seeming more and more flawed to me in DH.
Yes, and 15 years later he does the same error again with the ring, trying to use it, thus, not preserving himself for the fight against Voldemort.
popkin - Jul 26, 2007 9:46 am (#12 of 64)
Edited Jul 26, 2007 10:47 am
It bothers me that Moody's magic eye, cats, Dumbledore and possibly Nagini can all see through the invisibility cloak. I don't think JKR had fully planned out the cloak at the beginning of the series, and if she had it to do over again she would not have had other invisibility cloaks (Moody's) and would not have made it possible for anyone to see through it.
For me, the invisibility cloak is just one of many items/characters that don't quite add up properly at the end of the series.
Joanne Reid - Jul 26, 2007 10:19 am (#13 of 64)
Hi,
I thought that the significance of truly owning all three Hallows was the capacity to be the most powerful of all wizards. The three together provide immunity, wisdom and strength to control people and events. By so doing, the true owner could rule the world for as long as they wished.
As an analogy, I think of Galadriel refusing the Ring of Power. She finally understood that should she take it, she would indeed vanquish Sauron. Yet, by doing so, she would become him, ruling differently yet accomplishing the same ends.
Harry had learned this most important lesson from his flawed mentor, Dumbledore. Even at his young age, Harry knew that to have this power was to become Grindel-Mort ... far more powerful than either, and thereby far more evil. Knowing this, he eschewed them. He conveniently lost the Ring in the woods. He stored away the Elder Wand, which only he could command. In his wisdom, he kept his Cloak. I have no doubt that it will guide him throughout his life.
Soul Search - Jul 26, 2007 11:06 am (#14 of 64)
I have been wondering of the full power of the cloak.
Harry started wearing the cloak after Christmas, his first year at Hogwarts. While he was only modestly adept in his magical studies, he seemed to do the right thing when under pressure and to escape from the most harrowing situations unscathed. Ron and Hermione wore the cloak too, and also escaped from some sticky situations. It was almost like they each took a little bit of Felix Felicis.
So, what I am wondering, did the cloak grant the wearer some level protection, or "luck," or something?
legolas returns - Jul 26, 2007 11:12 am (#15 of 64)
I am sure that Mrs Norris/Nagini could smell Harry. Each time Dumbledore has "spotted" Harry or Harry and chums under the coat there has been sounds that somebody is there. Harry makes a lot of noise because he tried to get to the mirror as quick as possible. In Hagrid’s hut I think a noise in the corner would indicate somebody is there. Dumbledores knowledge of the relationship that Harry and Hagrid have would probably lead him to the conclusion that Harry was there. Didn’t Dumbledore say that James got away with a lot of wrong doing at school because of the cloak. I am sure there would have been occasions when he would have passed the marauders under the cloak so I don’t think he can see through it. Mad eye seeing through the cloak is the only one that is not explained but then the eye can see through anything.
Mrs Brisbee - Jul 26, 2007 11:36 am (#16 of 64)
Those under the Invisibility Cloak also showed up on the Marauders Map.
Luna Logic - Jul 26, 2007 11:45 am (#17 of 64)
Legolas return : Didn’t Dumbledore say that James got away with a lot of wrong doing at school because of the cloak. I am sure there would have been occasions when he would have passed the marauders under the cloak so I don’t think he can see through it. I don't understand how Dumbledore could "discover" the Cloak a few days before Godric’s Hollow, if he had experienced the fact that the marauders had used such a Cloak in their school years?
Veritaserum - Jul 26, 2007 12:36 pm (#18 of 64)
I'm thinking maybe James only told him about the cloak after they had left school and Dumbledore chuckling "that makes sense" or "i should've known."
It seems that perhaps the Deathly Hallows are not as invincible as legend claims them to be. The resurrection stone does not fully bring someone back to life. The Elder Wand apparently *can* be defeated (i.e. Dumbledore-Grindelwald), and so maybe somebody with a magical eye can see through the Invisibility Cloak. And maybe, since now Dumbledore knew about it and had studied it for a while, he was able to recognize Harry going around in it whereas he had missed James before.
legolas returns - Jul 26, 2007 2:00 pm (#19 of 64)
Didn’t Ron pass comment about Fudge being his Dads boss while under the cloak. He then got an elbow in the ribs.
Chemyst - Jul 28, 2007 7:13 pm (#20 of 64)
since now Dumbledore knew about it and had studied it for a while, he was able to recognize...
I'm glad you added that; If DD had to learn to sense its presence then that would avoid continuity errors.
Mediwitch - Jul 30, 2007 5:58 pm (#21 of 64)
Jo answered the question about Dumbledore "seeing" through the cloak on her webchat:
Angela Morrissey: Why is it that Albus Dumbledore can see harry under his invisibility cloak at certain moments? (during the series is the cloak only infallible to those who do not own a deathly hallow).
J.K. Rowling: Dumbledore, who could perform magic without needing to say the incantation aloud, was using "homenum revelio" -
J.K. Rowling: ñ the human-presence-revealing spell Hermione makes use of in Deathly Hallows.
megfox* - Jul 30, 2007 6:08 pm (#22 of 64)
I too like you idea, Veritaserum. This is one of those things that, while Jo is allowed to use whatever explanation she wants, I think that I like "our" explanation better.
legolas returns - Jul 31, 2007 10:12 am (#23 of 64)
Why would Dumbledore want to use the spell when he was down at Hagrid’s hut anyway. Just out of blind curiosity or because he expected Harry to be there or he heard a noise and thought that it would be a good thing to do?
Potteraholic - Aug 2, 2007 1:00 pm (#24 of 64)
Edited Aug 2, 2007 2:04 pm
Soul Search [post #14]: "I have been wondering of the full power of the cloak.
Harry started wearing the cloak after Christmas, his first year at Hogwarts. While he was only modestly adept in his magical studies, he seemed to do the right thing when under pressure and to escape from the most harrowing situations unscathed. Ron and Hermione wore the cloak too, and also escaped from some sticky situations. It was almost like they each took a little bit of Felix Felicis.
So, what I am wondering, did the cloak grant the wearer some level protection, or "luck," or something?"?
One instance when wearing the cloak did not help Harry that much was in HBP, on the Hogwarts Express when he was hiding in Malfoy's compartment, trying to find out what he was up to. After finding Harry, Malfoy immobilized him and kicked his face, breaking his nose. But I guess it was lucky that Tonks found him, in the end, even under the cloak.
So even though Harry was not invincible under the cloak, he did manage to get out of this scrape somehow, thanks to Tonks (and luck).
Edited to correct cited post number.
zelmia - Aug 4, 2007 11:42 am (#25 of 64)
Why would Dumbledore want to use the spell when he was down at Hagrid’s hut anyway. Just out of blind curiosity or because he expected Harry to be there or he heard a noise and thought that it would be a good thing to do? - Didn't Hagrid kind of take a bit of a long time to open the door? Dumbledore surely would have been able to put two and two together.
tandaradei - Aug 17, 2007 12:11 pm (#26 of 64)
Upon reading Deathly Hallows' 3 Bros and Hallows chapters (21-22), I developed the idea that JKR was applying the old children’s game of Rock/Scissors/Paper for plot. The point with the Rock/Scissors/Paper game is that after each round, one item has power to trump another but can also be trumped by a remaining item: paper, for example, can trump rock but can also be cut by scissors. To possess all three items ñ Rock, Scissors and Paper altogether (which I interpret in this story as possessing Stone/Wand/Cloak) ñ would mean to trump all possibilities; thusly, the last thing you would conquer (trump) is Death.
What is dangerous about these Hallows?
It appears to me that one's eventual downfall from using the stone or wand comes from a kind of hubris or misplaced pride ñ the using of a borrowed power that was unearned in natural ways; for some kind of self-aggrandizement. The problem there is keeping one's humility in check.
The cloak, or not wanting to be seen, displays the converse in personal preferences: instead of self-aggrandizement it rather speaks to self-effacement and hiding. The problem here, with being nobody IMO, is that once you're removed from the stream of human interactions, you're not a part of normal living. Like a ghost or even Nicholas Flamel, you are simply on the outside looking in, and cannot go on the "next great adventure" by dying.
zelmia - Aug 17, 2007 1:05 pm (#27 of 64)
Edited Aug 17, 2007 2:06 pm
The problem there is keeping one's humility in check. - It is interesting to me that you should say this, Tandaradei, because agree. In fact, I believe that "the power the Dark Lord knows not" is not Love, but actually Humility.
I posted elsewhere:
Actually, I think "the power the Dark Lord knows not" is humility. Harry never once believed that he was powerful enough to defeat Voldemort on his own. He has always been gratefully reliant on his friends and loved ones. This episode [DH] was no exception.
Or perhaps "the power to pay attention to small details". Harry, with the help of his friends, has always been able to piece together all of the information (at least, of what was available) that could possibly help him before the final confrontation. Voldemort only asks questions after his plans fail.
Voldemort's true downfall was his own arrogance.
tandaradei - Aug 17, 2007 2:35 pm (#28 of 64)
I've been reading a book lately where the author argues, off St Augustine, that the path to evil starts with pride and the path to restoration starts with humility. Love is too complicated for me to want to tackle!
Maybe Voldemort's pride was best shown by his insistence on not being called Tom, an "ordinary" name. Since humility seems to work in completely the opposite direction of Voldemort's every effort, maybe the requirement for him acquire (humiliating) remorse would be an unbelievably painful experience -- basically because it might mean denying everything he has ever stood for.
Believe it or not, I don’t think Voldemort was even capable of really listening to purpose in the final fight with Harry. I think he was so far gone, especially in terms of soul bits (erm), that all he could really do by then was carry on through.
I like the idea of humility too, mainly because everything seems so symmetrical that way.
Chemyst - Aug 19, 2007 6:08 am (#29 of 64)
Edited Aug 19, 2007 7:13 am
tandaradei: Love is too complicated for me to want to tackle!
I often think of humility as being a subset of love, as are patience, and un-jealousy. It has been in part because of posting on this forum that I have decided the English language does not have a really good antonym for jealousy. I looked up the antonym for jealousy and it gave "trusting." (It's probably no coincidence that DD was accused of trusting too much.) But jealousy is also envy, bitterness, suspicion, and demands of exclusive allegiance. So it seems the antithesis is also too complicated for me to want to tackle!
As for St Augustine's teaching that the path to evil starts with pride, one of several bases for that is the parallel between the historical King Nebuchadnezzar and Lucifer, both of whom said things to the effect, "I will get the empire of the whole world. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God." And it does fit the ascension of Lord Voldemort: Unlike the Potterverse version of Nicholas and Perinelle Flamel, who enjoyed life without the need to take over the world, LV, (like King Nebuchadnezzar,) demanded exclusive allegiance; he definitely had that God-complex thing going on.
The Cloak of Invisibility as the third Deathly Hallow is a bit of a paradox. Invisibility would be useful to an evil person only for carrying out deceit. In the end, an evil person won't want to be invisible at all; they will want everyone to see and worship them.
Narcissa's Nemesis - Aug 23, 2007 1:23 am (#30 of 64)
In DH ch21 pg 333 (British version)Xenophilius Lovegood describes a true invisibility cloak as being "a cloak that really and truly renders the wearer completely invisible, and endures eternally, giving constant and impenetrable concealment, no matter what spells are cast at it". If Harry's invisibility cloak is therefore a true invisibility cloak, impenetrable to all spells cast at it, then how come Draco Malfoy was able to get Harry with Petrificus Totalus when he was hiding under the cloak in the luggage rack of Malfoy's compartment on the Hogwarts Express in HBP?
Luna Logic - Aug 23, 2007 1:42 am (#31 of 64)
In chapter 21, Xenophilius Lovegood is speaking of a legend.
Later, in chapter 3(, Dumbledore says to Harry that he thinks the brothers Peverell were the makers of the three Hallows :
"I think it more likely that the Peverell brothers were simply gifted, dangerous wizards who succeeded in creating those powerful objects."(p. 572 Bloomsbury).
A moment later Harry and Dumbledore agree, the Cloak is not curse-proof. (p. 572-573).
But I agree, it could be interesting to trace the scenes with the Cloak all around the books and to see what exactly the Cloak did permit. (To hide, I think).
Narcissa's Nemesis - Aug 23, 2007 5:03 am (#32 of 64)
Thanks Luna that will go some way to helping my view in what was becoming a very heated discussion with a friend as to whether the cloak was spell proof or not. I said it wasn't but my friend insists it was because of Xenophilius' comment.
zelmia - Aug 23, 2007 5:06 am (#33 of 64)
I agree with Luna. Legends have a way of aggrandizing the facts a bit. Obviously the Cloak was not literally impenetrable since Dumbledore could use the Homenum revelio charm to see Harry under it; and Draco could cast his spell at Harry. Still, when the Death Eaters try to "Accio" the Cloak in Hogsmeade, nothing happens. So that's something of the legend maybe.
Narcissa's Nemesis - Aug 23, 2007 5:44 am (#34 of 64)
That was part of my friend's argument - that the death eaters 'Accio cloak' summoning spell failed to take the cloak from Harry. My reasoning is that when casting spells it seems that you have to be fairly specific (as a rough example see Ron v Hermione's pronunciations of Wingardium Leviosa in PS)therefore if the death eater had said 'Accio invisibility cloak' the spell may have worked.
tandaradei - Aug 23, 2007 7:31 am (#35 of 64)
Edited Aug 23, 2007 8:37 am
I agree, but perhaps from a different perspective.
I can't remember where exactly, but JKR uses a sometimes dangerous word to describe Harry's cloak -- "perfect." This implies the cloak has reached the absolute zenith of its possibilities; it does not mean that avenues for overcoming it are not there, if such were not built within the makeup of this cloak; but it does mean that in all the attributes intended for this cloak at its beginning, it was "perfect."
That would imply absolute imperviousness to other, more "imperfect" attempts to reveal/unmask/access it, should such attempts be contrary to the cloak's intended attributes. I would thus think that any spells or curses PRIOR to the cloak's making would be ineffective. However, this "perfect" cloak was finished at some specific time in history. Spells developed AFTER the cloak's making might indeed be effective against it, then; inasmuch as nothing can be made to work against future, unforeseen developments.
I argue this way because of JKR's using this word "perfect." Granted, the word comes out of the mouths of fallible characters; but JKR does use the word nonetheless, which I take to be a sign.
One argument that the cloak might still be effective against "future" and possibly even "imperfect" but nonetheless unexpected spells ... might be that since the cloak doesn't wear out over time it might "learn," in the manner of the Sorting Hat, to combat future new spells and curses? Don't know how to chew on that idea.
However, for consistency I'd argue that the cloak must be viewed as perfectly invisible to all attempts to reveal it, as were known at the time of its making. It's just how things progress after that moment of the making that brings up IMO legitimate questions of doubt.
To me the Cloak of Invisibility is the most powerful of the three, because it symbolizes Wisdom. You do not conquer Death by winning many battles, you conquer it by avoiding needless battles and meeting Death on your own terms.
freshwater - Jul 23, 2007 6:18 pm (#2 of 64)
Hmmmmm....maybe. I don't think that wisdom usually allows one to meet death on their own terms....often we have no choice at all.
But, I may have to rethink my initial impressions of that.
Anyway, wasn't the original use of the cloak --in the fairy tale-- to hide the wearer from Death? As in when Death comes for you, you can cover yourself and he will pass by without seeing you? That's different --in a sort of Voldermortish way-- than avoiding a foolish conflict or picking a fight. That original use seems to me to be more of a ruse to escape an inevitability.
Which brings to mind....has anyone ever created a cloak that will shield you from taxes? **grin**
zelmia - Jul 23, 2007 11:00 pm (#3 of 64)
I thought it was to hide you from your enemies, not from Death itself.
TomProffitt - Jul 24, 2007 4:36 am (#4 of 64)
It's kind of a Buddhist thing. It physically hides you from your mortal enemies, but what it symbolizes is wisdom.
While the Resurrection Stone was represented by the Souls of Loved Ones walking with Harry to meet Death, his acceptance of Death is symbolized by wearing the Cloak and ignoring all things earthly.
It is the wisdom to accept the inevitability of Death whenever it comes for you, not the ability to hide from it as long as you would choose.
Jenniffler - Jul 24, 2007 5:39 am (#5 of 64)
I think the three brothers represent Dumbledore, Snape, and Potter. Dumbledore could only effectively use the wand. Snape personifies the ring, as he had kept the memory of the dead(Lily) with him always. Harry Potter is an actual descendant of the third brother, Ignotus. Death kept searching for Harry but Harry eluded it many times. It will take a few re-reads before I clearly see all the hints of how the Invisibility Cloak helped Harry gain wisdom and avoid disaster but the examples are there in the books. I think it is significant that Harry saw the murders of Dumbledore and Snape while under the Invisibility Cloak.
Remi - Jul 24, 2007 6:55 am (#6 of 64)
Oh, I can't find it in the book, but I think it is also significant that Harry, Ron & Hermione each select a different Hallow as being the best: Hermione, the Cloak; Harry the stone, and Ron the wand. (unless I'm not remembering correctly)
That does tie in with the cloak symbolizing wisdom, the ring compassion/love (and the wand power?)
wynnleaf - Jul 24, 2007 11:19 am (#7 of 64)
Edited Jul 24, 2007 12:55 pm
Interesting contradiction - this could be a continuity error or Dumbledore being misleading. Dumbledore said that he only had the cloak for a few days, but Lily's letter must have been written not too long after Harry's birthday and before they went into Fidelius, and she talks about Dumbledore still having the cloak. It sounds like in her letter that Dumbledore had the cloak some weeks without giving it back.
Given the cloak's properties, it would have helped the Potters, perhaps protecting Lily and Harry, if they had the cloak at Godric’s Hollow at the time of the attack. And the reason they didn't have the cloak seems to have been Dumbledore's personal fascination with it as one of the Deathly Hallows.
Dumbledore knew the cloak had those properties, yet he kept it at a time when he knew the Potter's lives were in grave danger.
I have really loved Albus over the years, but he is seeming more and more flawed to me in DH.
Mudblood and Proud - Jul 24, 2007 6:10 pm (#8 of 64)
Someone will have to explain to me the significance of obtaining all three Hallows and becoming the Master of Death. I still don't understand it fully.
Madam Pince - Jul 24, 2007 8:36 pm (#9 of 64)
Me neither. I kept waiting and waiting for that to enter into the plot somewhere, but it never did. In particular I thought it might've had something to do with the epitaph on Lily and James' headstone "The last enemy to be conquered is death" or something, or perhaps that Snape wouldn't really be dead. (wishful thinking there...)
legolas returns - Jul 25, 2007 12:00 am (#10 of 64)
The hallows were used by 2 brothers to try and escape death because they feared it. They got burned by what they asked for and death caught them right away. The third brother did not fear death and when it was his time to die he went willingly.
Harry had all three hallows (although he did not know about ownership of the wand) and he used them to ease his "passing". Dumbledore said that he was master because he did not use the Hallows for his overall gain e.g. to escape death. He used the ring/cloak to help him go to his death. Once he fought Voldemort he was free to have a proper and natural death.
Luna Logic - Jul 25, 2007 12:15 am (#11 of 64)
Wynnleaf: Dumbledore knew the cloak had those properties, yet he kept it at a time when he knew the Potter's lives were in grave danger.
I have really loved Albus over the years, but he is seeming more and more flawed to me in DH.
Yes, and 15 years later he does the same error again with the ring, trying to use it, thus, not preserving himself for the fight against Voldemort.
popkin - Jul 26, 2007 9:46 am (#12 of 64)
Edited Jul 26, 2007 10:47 am
It bothers me that Moody's magic eye, cats, Dumbledore and possibly Nagini can all see through the invisibility cloak. I don't think JKR had fully planned out the cloak at the beginning of the series, and if she had it to do over again she would not have had other invisibility cloaks (Moody's) and would not have made it possible for anyone to see through it.
For me, the invisibility cloak is just one of many items/characters that don't quite add up properly at the end of the series.
Joanne Reid - Jul 26, 2007 10:19 am (#13 of 64)
Hi,
I thought that the significance of truly owning all three Hallows was the capacity to be the most powerful of all wizards. The three together provide immunity, wisdom and strength to control people and events. By so doing, the true owner could rule the world for as long as they wished.
As an analogy, I think of Galadriel refusing the Ring of Power. She finally understood that should she take it, she would indeed vanquish Sauron. Yet, by doing so, she would become him, ruling differently yet accomplishing the same ends.
Harry had learned this most important lesson from his flawed mentor, Dumbledore. Even at his young age, Harry knew that to have this power was to become Grindel-Mort ... far more powerful than either, and thereby far more evil. Knowing this, he eschewed them. He conveniently lost the Ring in the woods. He stored away the Elder Wand, which only he could command. In his wisdom, he kept his Cloak. I have no doubt that it will guide him throughout his life.
Soul Search - Jul 26, 2007 11:06 am (#14 of 64)
I have been wondering of the full power of the cloak.
Harry started wearing the cloak after Christmas, his first year at Hogwarts. While he was only modestly adept in his magical studies, he seemed to do the right thing when under pressure and to escape from the most harrowing situations unscathed. Ron and Hermione wore the cloak too, and also escaped from some sticky situations. It was almost like they each took a little bit of Felix Felicis.
So, what I am wondering, did the cloak grant the wearer some level protection, or "luck," or something?
legolas returns - Jul 26, 2007 11:12 am (#15 of 64)
I am sure that Mrs Norris/Nagini could smell Harry. Each time Dumbledore has "spotted" Harry or Harry and chums under the coat there has been sounds that somebody is there. Harry makes a lot of noise because he tried to get to the mirror as quick as possible. In Hagrid’s hut I think a noise in the corner would indicate somebody is there. Dumbledores knowledge of the relationship that Harry and Hagrid have would probably lead him to the conclusion that Harry was there. Didn’t Dumbledore say that James got away with a lot of wrong doing at school because of the cloak. I am sure there would have been occasions when he would have passed the marauders under the cloak so I don’t think he can see through it. Mad eye seeing through the cloak is the only one that is not explained but then the eye can see through anything.
Mrs Brisbee - Jul 26, 2007 11:36 am (#16 of 64)
Those under the Invisibility Cloak also showed up on the Marauders Map.
Luna Logic - Jul 26, 2007 11:45 am (#17 of 64)
Legolas return : Didn’t Dumbledore say that James got away with a lot of wrong doing at school because of the cloak. I am sure there would have been occasions when he would have passed the marauders under the cloak so I don’t think he can see through it. I don't understand how Dumbledore could "discover" the Cloak a few days before Godric’s Hollow, if he had experienced the fact that the marauders had used such a Cloak in their school years?
Veritaserum - Jul 26, 2007 12:36 pm (#18 of 64)
I'm thinking maybe James only told him about the cloak after they had left school and Dumbledore chuckling "that makes sense" or "i should've known."
It seems that perhaps the Deathly Hallows are not as invincible as legend claims them to be. The resurrection stone does not fully bring someone back to life. The Elder Wand apparently *can* be defeated (i.e. Dumbledore-Grindelwald), and so maybe somebody with a magical eye can see through the Invisibility Cloak. And maybe, since now Dumbledore knew about it and had studied it for a while, he was able to recognize Harry going around in it whereas he had missed James before.
legolas returns - Jul 26, 2007 2:00 pm (#19 of 64)
Didn’t Ron pass comment about Fudge being his Dads boss while under the cloak. He then got an elbow in the ribs.
Chemyst - Jul 28, 2007 7:13 pm (#20 of 64)
since now Dumbledore knew about it and had studied it for a while, he was able to recognize...
I'm glad you added that; If DD had to learn to sense its presence then that would avoid continuity errors.
Mediwitch - Jul 30, 2007 5:58 pm (#21 of 64)
Jo answered the question about Dumbledore "seeing" through the cloak on her webchat:
Angela Morrissey: Why is it that Albus Dumbledore can see harry under his invisibility cloak at certain moments? (during the series is the cloak only infallible to those who do not own a deathly hallow).
J.K. Rowling: Dumbledore, who could perform magic without needing to say the incantation aloud, was using "homenum revelio" -
J.K. Rowling: ñ the human-presence-revealing spell Hermione makes use of in Deathly Hallows.
megfox* - Jul 30, 2007 6:08 pm (#22 of 64)
I too like you idea, Veritaserum. This is one of those things that, while Jo is allowed to use whatever explanation she wants, I think that I like "our" explanation better.
legolas returns - Jul 31, 2007 10:12 am (#23 of 64)
Why would Dumbledore want to use the spell when he was down at Hagrid’s hut anyway. Just out of blind curiosity or because he expected Harry to be there or he heard a noise and thought that it would be a good thing to do?
Potteraholic - Aug 2, 2007 1:00 pm (#24 of 64)
Edited Aug 2, 2007 2:04 pm
Soul Search [post #14]: "I have been wondering of the full power of the cloak.
Harry started wearing the cloak after Christmas, his first year at Hogwarts. While he was only modestly adept in his magical studies, he seemed to do the right thing when under pressure and to escape from the most harrowing situations unscathed. Ron and Hermione wore the cloak too, and also escaped from some sticky situations. It was almost like they each took a little bit of Felix Felicis.
So, what I am wondering, did the cloak grant the wearer some level protection, or "luck," or something?"?
One instance when wearing the cloak did not help Harry that much was in HBP, on the Hogwarts Express when he was hiding in Malfoy's compartment, trying to find out what he was up to. After finding Harry, Malfoy immobilized him and kicked his face, breaking his nose. But I guess it was lucky that Tonks found him, in the end, even under the cloak.
So even though Harry was not invincible under the cloak, he did manage to get out of this scrape somehow, thanks to Tonks (and luck).
Edited to correct cited post number.
zelmia - Aug 4, 2007 11:42 am (#25 of 64)
Why would Dumbledore want to use the spell when he was down at Hagrid’s hut anyway. Just out of blind curiosity or because he expected Harry to be there or he heard a noise and thought that it would be a good thing to do? - Didn't Hagrid kind of take a bit of a long time to open the door? Dumbledore surely would have been able to put two and two together.
tandaradei - Aug 17, 2007 12:11 pm (#26 of 64)
Upon reading Deathly Hallows' 3 Bros and Hallows chapters (21-22), I developed the idea that JKR was applying the old children’s game of Rock/Scissors/Paper for plot. The point with the Rock/Scissors/Paper game is that after each round, one item has power to trump another but can also be trumped by a remaining item: paper, for example, can trump rock but can also be cut by scissors. To possess all three items ñ Rock, Scissors and Paper altogether (which I interpret in this story as possessing Stone/Wand/Cloak) ñ would mean to trump all possibilities; thusly, the last thing you would conquer (trump) is Death.
What is dangerous about these Hallows?
It appears to me that one's eventual downfall from using the stone or wand comes from a kind of hubris or misplaced pride ñ the using of a borrowed power that was unearned in natural ways; for some kind of self-aggrandizement. The problem there is keeping one's humility in check.
The cloak, or not wanting to be seen, displays the converse in personal preferences: instead of self-aggrandizement it rather speaks to self-effacement and hiding. The problem here, with being nobody IMO, is that once you're removed from the stream of human interactions, you're not a part of normal living. Like a ghost or even Nicholas Flamel, you are simply on the outside looking in, and cannot go on the "next great adventure" by dying.
zelmia - Aug 17, 2007 1:05 pm (#27 of 64)
Edited Aug 17, 2007 2:06 pm
The problem there is keeping one's humility in check. - It is interesting to me that you should say this, Tandaradei, because agree. In fact, I believe that "the power the Dark Lord knows not" is not Love, but actually Humility.
I posted elsewhere:
Actually, I think "the power the Dark Lord knows not" is humility. Harry never once believed that he was powerful enough to defeat Voldemort on his own. He has always been gratefully reliant on his friends and loved ones. This episode [DH] was no exception.
Or perhaps "the power to pay attention to small details". Harry, with the help of his friends, has always been able to piece together all of the information (at least, of what was available) that could possibly help him before the final confrontation. Voldemort only asks questions after his plans fail.
Voldemort's true downfall was his own arrogance.
tandaradei - Aug 17, 2007 2:35 pm (#28 of 64)
I've been reading a book lately where the author argues, off St Augustine, that the path to evil starts with pride and the path to restoration starts with humility. Love is too complicated for me to want to tackle!
Maybe Voldemort's pride was best shown by his insistence on not being called Tom, an "ordinary" name. Since humility seems to work in completely the opposite direction of Voldemort's every effort, maybe the requirement for him acquire (humiliating) remorse would be an unbelievably painful experience -- basically because it might mean denying everything he has ever stood for.
Believe it or not, I don’t think Voldemort was even capable of really listening to purpose in the final fight with Harry. I think he was so far gone, especially in terms of soul bits (erm), that all he could really do by then was carry on through.
I like the idea of humility too, mainly because everything seems so symmetrical that way.
Chemyst - Aug 19, 2007 6:08 am (#29 of 64)
Edited Aug 19, 2007 7:13 am
tandaradei: Love is too complicated for me to want to tackle!
I often think of humility as being a subset of love, as are patience, and un-jealousy. It has been in part because of posting on this forum that I have decided the English language does not have a really good antonym for jealousy. I looked up the antonym for jealousy and it gave "trusting." (It's probably no coincidence that DD was accused of trusting too much.) But jealousy is also envy, bitterness, suspicion, and demands of exclusive allegiance. So it seems the antithesis is also too complicated for me to want to tackle!
As for St Augustine's teaching that the path to evil starts with pride, one of several bases for that is the parallel between the historical King Nebuchadnezzar and Lucifer, both of whom said things to the effect, "I will get the empire of the whole world. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God." And it does fit the ascension of Lord Voldemort: Unlike the Potterverse version of Nicholas and Perinelle Flamel, who enjoyed life without the need to take over the world, LV, (like King Nebuchadnezzar,) demanded exclusive allegiance; he definitely had that God-complex thing going on.
The Cloak of Invisibility as the third Deathly Hallow is a bit of a paradox. Invisibility would be useful to an evil person only for carrying out deceit. In the end, an evil person won't want to be invisible at all; they will want everyone to see and worship them.
Narcissa's Nemesis - Aug 23, 2007 1:23 am (#30 of 64)
In DH ch21 pg 333 (British version)Xenophilius Lovegood describes a true invisibility cloak as being "a cloak that really and truly renders the wearer completely invisible, and endures eternally, giving constant and impenetrable concealment, no matter what spells are cast at it". If Harry's invisibility cloak is therefore a true invisibility cloak, impenetrable to all spells cast at it, then how come Draco Malfoy was able to get Harry with Petrificus Totalus when he was hiding under the cloak in the luggage rack of Malfoy's compartment on the Hogwarts Express in HBP?
Luna Logic - Aug 23, 2007 1:42 am (#31 of 64)
In chapter 21, Xenophilius Lovegood is speaking of a legend.
Later, in chapter 3(, Dumbledore says to Harry that he thinks the brothers Peverell were the makers of the three Hallows :
"I think it more likely that the Peverell brothers were simply gifted, dangerous wizards who succeeded in creating those powerful objects."(p. 572 Bloomsbury).
A moment later Harry and Dumbledore agree, the Cloak is not curse-proof. (p. 572-573).
But I agree, it could be interesting to trace the scenes with the Cloak all around the books and to see what exactly the Cloak did permit. (To hide, I think).
Narcissa's Nemesis - Aug 23, 2007 5:03 am (#32 of 64)
Thanks Luna that will go some way to helping my view in what was becoming a very heated discussion with a friend as to whether the cloak was spell proof or not. I said it wasn't but my friend insists it was because of Xenophilius' comment.
zelmia - Aug 23, 2007 5:06 am (#33 of 64)
I agree with Luna. Legends have a way of aggrandizing the facts a bit. Obviously the Cloak was not literally impenetrable since Dumbledore could use the Homenum revelio charm to see Harry under it; and Draco could cast his spell at Harry. Still, when the Death Eaters try to "Accio" the Cloak in Hogsmeade, nothing happens. So that's something of the legend maybe.
Narcissa's Nemesis - Aug 23, 2007 5:44 am (#34 of 64)
That was part of my friend's argument - that the death eaters 'Accio cloak' summoning spell failed to take the cloak from Harry. My reasoning is that when casting spells it seems that you have to be fairly specific (as a rough example see Ron v Hermione's pronunciations of Wingardium Leviosa in PS)therefore if the death eater had said 'Accio invisibility cloak' the spell may have worked.
tandaradei - Aug 23, 2007 7:31 am (#35 of 64)
Edited Aug 23, 2007 8:37 am
I agree, but perhaps from a different perspective.
I can't remember where exactly, but JKR uses a sometimes dangerous word to describe Harry's cloak -- "perfect." This implies the cloak has reached the absolute zenith of its possibilities; it does not mean that avenues for overcoming it are not there, if such were not built within the makeup of this cloak; but it does mean that in all the attributes intended for this cloak at its beginning, it was "perfect."
That would imply absolute imperviousness to other, more "imperfect" attempts to reveal/unmask/access it, should such attempts be contrary to the cloak's intended attributes. I would thus think that any spells or curses PRIOR to the cloak's making would be ineffective. However, this "perfect" cloak was finished at some specific time in history. Spells developed AFTER the cloak's making might indeed be effective against it, then; inasmuch as nothing can be made to work against future, unforeseen developments.
I argue this way because of JKR's using this word "perfect." Granted, the word comes out of the mouths of fallible characters; but JKR does use the word nonetheless, which I take to be a sign.
One argument that the cloak might still be effective against "future" and possibly even "imperfect" but nonetheless unexpected spells ... might be that since the cloak doesn't wear out over time it might "learn," in the manner of the Sorting Hat, to combat future new spells and curses? Don't know how to chew on that idea.
However, for consistency I'd argue that the cloak must be viewed as perfectly invisible to all attempts to reveal it, as were known at the time of its making. It's just how things progress after that moment of the making that brings up IMO legitimate questions of doubt.
Potteraholic- Ravenclaw Prefect
- Posts : 4241
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA
The Cloak of Invisibility - Deathly Hallow #3 (posts #36 to #64)
Potteraholic Sun Jul 17, 2011 12:48 pm
Chemyst - Aug 23, 2007 7:37 am (#36 of 64)
Edited Aug 23, 2007 8:43 am
I think you also need to take Xeno's comment more literally, he said, "constant and impenetrable concealment." He never said it could not be penetrated by other jinxes, spells, curses, etc. He said the invisible camouflage always worked and nothing could affect the working of the concealment. Harry was petrified under it on the Tower when he witnessed Dumbledore's death. BUT the invisibility part was not penetrated. Harry was continually concealed whenever he was physically cloaked. There is a difference between knowing a cloak is in use, as DD and Mad-Eye did, and having the cloak cease to work as it was made to.
megfox* - Aug 23, 2007 9:58 am (#37 of 64)
We also don't know exactly how the "human reveal" spell works (sorry, I can't remember exactly how to spell it). All that we know is that it reveals whether or not there are humans there. If Dumbledore is able to cast it non-verbally, maybe the "response" would also be non-verbal. Maybe the reason that nothing happened when Hermione cast it at 12GP is because the spell only lets you know the human presences in the general area. Since all three already knew each of the other two were there, it wasn't letting them know anything new, so..."nothing happened". Obviously, this is all speculation, but I think that not knowing how the spell works would also be a factor in not knowing how it is able to overcome the invisibility of someone wearing Harry's cloak.
vball man - Aug 23, 2007 7:38 pm (#38 of 64)
I always thought that Dumbledore's "seeing" through the cloak was really just his constant perception of the thoughts of others. Like Legilimency had become so easy and natural that he would always know when people were thinking around him. And the hut was small enough that he just guessed where they were.
Luna Logic - Aug 23, 2007 10:27 pm (#39 of 64)
I agree, vball man. Just as Snape is "smelling" human presence in the corridors of Hogwarts.
Die Zimtzicke - Sep 1, 2007 10:07 pm (#40 of 64)
If the cloak was a Hallows, does anyone know how the fake Moody saw Harry through it in PoA?
Chemyst - Sep 2, 2007 3:28 am (#41 of 64)
Edited Sep 2, 2007 4:33 am
If the cloak was a Hallows, does anyone know how the fake Moody saw Harry through it in PoA?
No, I don't. And if we had ever been told, I think someone on the forum would have pointed it out by now. But still, since I like it when the little pieces fit, I have been telling myself that the magic eye was made at an equal magical power-level. I think it could see at the "same value" as the cloak could hide. Perhaps there is another children's story in Hermione's book that tells of its formation?
zelmia - Sep 2, 2007 9:24 am (#42 of 64)
Junior could have simply used the non-verbal " Homenum revelio" (or whatever it's called) like Dumbledore did and Harry could have just assumed it was because of the Eye. But I do think the Eye had some pretty powerful functions. It could definitely see through the back of Moody's head and through the ceiling in 12GP into the desk where the Boggart was hiding. I don't think it's much of a stretch that the Eye could see through Harry's Cloak, even if it was a Hallows.
Choices - Sep 2, 2007 9:44 am (#43 of 64)
Good explanation, Zelmia - I agree with you. I think human eyes cannot see through the cloak, but Moody had a magical eye - that made the difference.
Die Zimtzicke - Sep 2, 2007 8:28 pm (#44 of 64)
I'd agree if the Deathly Hallows were not supposed to be so all fired super special and powerful. Too much of the plot was driven by the unique powers of the Hallows for me to think it was that simple.
Steve Newton - Sep 3, 2007 5:21 am (#45 of 64)
I think that all of the Hallows' powers were flawed. None seemed to have the power of legend. I can't remember who gave the Peverells the Hallows, Death?, but whoever he was he seemed to have a quirky sense of humor since none of them seemed to do exactly what the requester wanted.
PeskyPixie - Sep 25, 2007 6:46 pm (#46 of 64)
In King's Cross Dumbledore tells Harry that the Peverell brothers created the three Hallows and the whole 'created by Death' story was part of the fairy tale.
Madam Pince - Oct 2, 2007 8:41 am (#47 of 64)
Edited Oct 2, 2007 9:41 am
Dumbledore said "The story of them being Death's own Hallows seems to me the sort of legend that might have sprung up around such creations." (emphasis mine) So it's Dumbledore's speculation, not verified fact, but of course we know that Dumbledore's guesses are rather better than the average person's.
Mrs Brisbee - Oct 2, 2007 10:04 am (#48 of 64)
Well, Dumbledore is in a position where he can ask around and find out for certain!
PeskyPixie - Oct 2, 2007 2:01 pm (#49 of 64)
I had faith in Dumbledore's trust in Snape, and I continue to have faith in his assumptions! And as Mrs. Brisbee says, he is now 'in a position where he can ask around and find out for certain!'; I am even more likely to believe anything he says.
PeskyPixie - Oct 25, 2007 7:28 am (#50 of 64)
Forgive me if I'm being thick, but why is the Invisibility Cloak more 'special' than Disillusionment Charms?
Mrs Brisbee - Oct 25, 2007 9:00 am (#51 of 64)
"If I die a natural death like Ignotus, its power will be broken, won't it?..."-- (DH, "The Flaw in the Plan")
Harry says this about the Elder Wand, but Ignotus was the brother who had the Cloak. Perhaps this implies that the Cloak lost any extraordinary powers it had when Ignotus died, and now it is just a regular old invisibility cloak, although very finely made.
PeskyPixie - Oct 25, 2007 9:06 am (#52 of 64)
"If I die a natural death like Ignotus, its power will be broken, won't it?..."-- (DH, "The Flaw in the Plan")
I think this line refers to the fact that Ignotus is the only Peverell brother who dies a natural death. As Harry is now the master of all three Deathly Hallows, the powers of the first Hallow (i.e. the Elder wand) will die with him if he too dies a natural death.
I'd still like some thoughts on my question though!
Mrs Brisbee - Oct 25, 2007 9:11 am (#53 of 64)
I think this line refers to the fact that Ignotus is the only Peverell brother who dies a natural death. As Harry is now the master of all three Deathly Hallows, the powers of the first Hallow (i.e. the Elder wand) will die with him if he too dies a natural death.
Right, but the sentence really only makes sense if Ignotus' death somehow caused the Cloak to lose its special powers. Why else would Harry cite him when talking about the Wand losing power?
PeskyPixie - Oct 27, 2007 1:25 pm (#54 of 64)
Once again, forgive me if I'm being thick, but why is the Invisibility Cloak more 'special' than Disillusionment Charms?
Chemyst - Oct 30, 2007 5:14 pm (#55 of 64)
. . . why is the Invisibility Cloak more 'special' than Disillusionment Charms?
Because it works even for first-years who can't do advanced magic.
. . . and for dragons.
PeskyPixie - Oct 30, 2007 5:17 pm (#56 of 64)
Right, Chemyst. But what makes it more 'special' than a Disillusionment Charm? From the way the Cloak is described by Xeno Lovegood I'm surprised Moody's magical eye can see through it.
Luna Logic - Nov 3, 2007 7:59 am (#57 of 64)
PeskyPixie : But what makes it more 'special' than a Disillusionment Charm? From the way the Cloak is described by Xeno Lovegood I'm surprised Moody's magical eye can see through it.
But Moody's magical eye is also a unique magical device!
PeskyPixie - Nov 3, 2007 8:06 am (#58 of 64)
But I thought the 'Hallows' were supposed to be unbelievably unique.
PeskyPixie - Nov 6, 2007 12:17 pm (#59 of 64)
Guys, I'm still confused about this Cloak. Could someone try to explain why it's so 'special'? I'm sorry for being a bit thick but the current explanations just aren't making any sense for me.
Anna L. Black - Nov 8, 2007 8:23 am (#60 of 64)
I think it's not that special. It is better than ordinary cloaks, because it never loses it ability to hide, doesn't fade or anything. Somebody (Dumbledore, maybe?) said that its great power, and the thing that makes it unique, is the fact that it can hide not only its owner. But if that isn't enough (I didn't really satisfy me), you can always say that the Legend was just over-exaggerated - none of the Hallows was that special, they were only a bit stronger than similar objects.
Victoire Weasley - Nov 8, 2007 8:41 am (#61 of 64)
Xeno Lovegood seems to think it's special, maybe because he's never seen one. When Harry first gets the cloak, Ron says that they're really rare, but he doesn't mention the Tale Of The Three Brothers at that point. Dumbledore thought it was special too, remember, he had taken it from James to examine it. He knew, or thought he did, right away that it was not an ordinary cloak and that he had, in his possession, the second Hallow.
PeskyPixie - Nov 19, 2007 4:17 pm (#62 of 64)
When Harry first gets the cloak, Ron says that they're really rare, but he doesn't mention the Tale Of The Three Brothers at that point. -Victoire Weasley
I assumed Ron means that even regular Invisibility cloaks (i.e.: ones like Moody's invisibility cloak) are rare.
PeskyPixie - Aug 12, 2008 9:16 am (#63 of 64)
Well, I still don't understand why this particular Invisibility Cloak is special enough to be a Hallow, but I just read that Muggle scientists are close to developing some sort of substance which could make things appear invisible. It said 'invisibility cloaks' may indeed be possible in the future.
rassannassar - Aug 15, 2008 11:55 am (#64 of 64)
Well I think it also had some properties that a regular Cloak wouldn't have. Remember when Harry, Ron, and Hermione Apparated into Hogsmeade and the Death Eaters came running into the streets? One of them tried to summon the cloak but the summoning charm had no affect. I think that's part of its magic and the summoning charm would have worked on a regular invisibility cloak.
Edited Aug 23, 2007 8:43 am
I think you also need to take Xeno's comment more literally, he said, "constant and impenetrable concealment." He never said it could not be penetrated by other jinxes, spells, curses, etc. He said the invisible camouflage always worked and nothing could affect the working of the concealment. Harry was petrified under it on the Tower when he witnessed Dumbledore's death. BUT the invisibility part was not penetrated. Harry was continually concealed whenever he was physically cloaked. There is a difference between knowing a cloak is in use, as DD and Mad-Eye did, and having the cloak cease to work as it was made to.
megfox* - Aug 23, 2007 9:58 am (#37 of 64)
We also don't know exactly how the "human reveal" spell works (sorry, I can't remember exactly how to spell it). All that we know is that it reveals whether or not there are humans there. If Dumbledore is able to cast it non-verbally, maybe the "response" would also be non-verbal. Maybe the reason that nothing happened when Hermione cast it at 12GP is because the spell only lets you know the human presences in the general area. Since all three already knew each of the other two were there, it wasn't letting them know anything new, so..."nothing happened". Obviously, this is all speculation, but I think that not knowing how the spell works would also be a factor in not knowing how it is able to overcome the invisibility of someone wearing Harry's cloak.
vball man - Aug 23, 2007 7:38 pm (#38 of 64)
I always thought that Dumbledore's "seeing" through the cloak was really just his constant perception of the thoughts of others. Like Legilimency had become so easy and natural that he would always know when people were thinking around him. And the hut was small enough that he just guessed where they were.
Luna Logic - Aug 23, 2007 10:27 pm (#39 of 64)
I agree, vball man. Just as Snape is "smelling" human presence in the corridors of Hogwarts.
Die Zimtzicke - Sep 1, 2007 10:07 pm (#40 of 64)
If the cloak was a Hallows, does anyone know how the fake Moody saw Harry through it in PoA?
Chemyst - Sep 2, 2007 3:28 am (#41 of 64)
Edited Sep 2, 2007 4:33 am
If the cloak was a Hallows, does anyone know how the fake Moody saw Harry through it in PoA?
No, I don't. And if we had ever been told, I think someone on the forum would have pointed it out by now. But still, since I like it when the little pieces fit, I have been telling myself that the magic eye was made at an equal magical power-level. I think it could see at the "same value" as the cloak could hide. Perhaps there is another children's story in Hermione's book that tells of its formation?
zelmia - Sep 2, 2007 9:24 am (#42 of 64)
Junior could have simply used the non-verbal " Homenum revelio" (or whatever it's called) like Dumbledore did and Harry could have just assumed it was because of the Eye. But I do think the Eye had some pretty powerful functions. It could definitely see through the back of Moody's head and through the ceiling in 12GP into the desk where the Boggart was hiding. I don't think it's much of a stretch that the Eye could see through Harry's Cloak, even if it was a Hallows.
Choices - Sep 2, 2007 9:44 am (#43 of 64)
Good explanation, Zelmia - I agree with you. I think human eyes cannot see through the cloak, but Moody had a magical eye - that made the difference.
Die Zimtzicke - Sep 2, 2007 8:28 pm (#44 of 64)
I'd agree if the Deathly Hallows were not supposed to be so all fired super special and powerful. Too much of the plot was driven by the unique powers of the Hallows for me to think it was that simple.
Steve Newton - Sep 3, 2007 5:21 am (#45 of 64)
I think that all of the Hallows' powers were flawed. None seemed to have the power of legend. I can't remember who gave the Peverells the Hallows, Death?, but whoever he was he seemed to have a quirky sense of humor since none of them seemed to do exactly what the requester wanted.
PeskyPixie - Sep 25, 2007 6:46 pm (#46 of 64)
In King's Cross Dumbledore tells Harry that the Peverell brothers created the three Hallows and the whole 'created by Death' story was part of the fairy tale.
Madam Pince - Oct 2, 2007 8:41 am (#47 of 64)
Edited Oct 2, 2007 9:41 am
Dumbledore said "The story of them being Death's own Hallows seems to me the sort of legend that might have sprung up around such creations." (emphasis mine) So it's Dumbledore's speculation, not verified fact, but of course we know that Dumbledore's guesses are rather better than the average person's.
Mrs Brisbee - Oct 2, 2007 10:04 am (#48 of 64)
Well, Dumbledore is in a position where he can ask around and find out for certain!
PeskyPixie - Oct 2, 2007 2:01 pm (#49 of 64)
I had faith in Dumbledore's trust in Snape, and I continue to have faith in his assumptions! And as Mrs. Brisbee says, he is now 'in a position where he can ask around and find out for certain!'; I am even more likely to believe anything he says.
PeskyPixie - Oct 25, 2007 7:28 am (#50 of 64)
Forgive me if I'm being thick, but why is the Invisibility Cloak more 'special' than Disillusionment Charms?
Mrs Brisbee - Oct 25, 2007 9:00 am (#51 of 64)
"If I die a natural death like Ignotus, its power will be broken, won't it?..."-- (DH, "The Flaw in the Plan")
Harry says this about the Elder Wand, but Ignotus was the brother who had the Cloak. Perhaps this implies that the Cloak lost any extraordinary powers it had when Ignotus died, and now it is just a regular old invisibility cloak, although very finely made.
PeskyPixie - Oct 25, 2007 9:06 am (#52 of 64)
"If I die a natural death like Ignotus, its power will be broken, won't it?..."-- (DH, "The Flaw in the Plan")
I think this line refers to the fact that Ignotus is the only Peverell brother who dies a natural death. As Harry is now the master of all three Deathly Hallows, the powers of the first Hallow (i.e. the Elder wand) will die with him if he too dies a natural death.
I'd still like some thoughts on my question though!
Mrs Brisbee - Oct 25, 2007 9:11 am (#53 of 64)
I think this line refers to the fact that Ignotus is the only Peverell brother who dies a natural death. As Harry is now the master of all three Deathly Hallows, the powers of the first Hallow (i.e. the Elder wand) will die with him if he too dies a natural death.
Right, but the sentence really only makes sense if Ignotus' death somehow caused the Cloak to lose its special powers. Why else would Harry cite him when talking about the Wand losing power?
PeskyPixie - Oct 27, 2007 1:25 pm (#54 of 64)
Once again, forgive me if I'm being thick, but why is the Invisibility Cloak more 'special' than Disillusionment Charms?
Chemyst - Oct 30, 2007 5:14 pm (#55 of 64)
. . . why is the Invisibility Cloak more 'special' than Disillusionment Charms?
Because it works even for first-years who can't do advanced magic.
. . . and for dragons.
PeskyPixie - Oct 30, 2007 5:17 pm (#56 of 64)
Right, Chemyst. But what makes it more 'special' than a Disillusionment Charm? From the way the Cloak is described by Xeno Lovegood I'm surprised Moody's magical eye can see through it.
Luna Logic - Nov 3, 2007 7:59 am (#57 of 64)
PeskyPixie : But what makes it more 'special' than a Disillusionment Charm? From the way the Cloak is described by Xeno Lovegood I'm surprised Moody's magical eye can see through it.
But Moody's magical eye is also a unique magical device!
PeskyPixie - Nov 3, 2007 8:06 am (#58 of 64)
But I thought the 'Hallows' were supposed to be unbelievably unique.
PeskyPixie - Nov 6, 2007 12:17 pm (#59 of 64)
Guys, I'm still confused about this Cloak. Could someone try to explain why it's so 'special'? I'm sorry for being a bit thick but the current explanations just aren't making any sense for me.
Anna L. Black - Nov 8, 2007 8:23 am (#60 of 64)
I think it's not that special. It is better than ordinary cloaks, because it never loses it ability to hide, doesn't fade or anything. Somebody (Dumbledore, maybe?) said that its great power, and the thing that makes it unique, is the fact that it can hide not only its owner. But if that isn't enough (I didn't really satisfy me), you can always say that the Legend was just over-exaggerated - none of the Hallows was that special, they were only a bit stronger than similar objects.
Victoire Weasley - Nov 8, 2007 8:41 am (#61 of 64)
Xeno Lovegood seems to think it's special, maybe because he's never seen one. When Harry first gets the cloak, Ron says that they're really rare, but he doesn't mention the Tale Of The Three Brothers at that point. Dumbledore thought it was special too, remember, he had taken it from James to examine it. He knew, or thought he did, right away that it was not an ordinary cloak and that he had, in his possession, the second Hallow.
PeskyPixie - Nov 19, 2007 4:17 pm (#62 of 64)
When Harry first gets the cloak, Ron says that they're really rare, but he doesn't mention the Tale Of The Three Brothers at that point. -Victoire Weasley
I assumed Ron means that even regular Invisibility cloaks (i.e.: ones like Moody's invisibility cloak) are rare.
PeskyPixie - Aug 12, 2008 9:16 am (#63 of 64)
Well, I still don't understand why this particular Invisibility Cloak is special enough to be a Hallow, but I just read that Muggle scientists are close to developing some sort of substance which could make things appear invisible. It said 'invisibility cloaks' may indeed be possible in the future.
rassannassar - Aug 15, 2008 11:55 am (#64 of 64)
Well I think it also had some properties that a regular Cloak wouldn't have. Remember when Harry, Ron, and Hermione Apparated into Hogsmeade and the Death Eaters came running into the streets? One of them tried to summon the cloak but the summoning charm had no affect. I think that's part of its magic and the summoning charm would have worked on a regular invisibility cloak.
Potteraholic- Ravenclaw Prefect
- Posts : 4241
Join date : 2011-02-18
Location : USA
Similar topics» The Resurrection Stone - Deathly Hallow #2
» The Elder Wand - Deathly Hallow #1
» Re-read of Deathly Hallow pre-DH movie, part 1
» Kreacher and Deathly Hallows
» Harry Potter Book Read Along Thread - Deathly Hallows
» The Elder Wand - Deathly Hallow #1
» Re-read of Deathly Hallow pre-DH movie, part 1
» Kreacher and Deathly Hallows
» Harry Potter Book Read Along Thread - Deathly Hallows
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|