Skip to main content

harry potter - Was Ariana Dumbledore an Obscurus?


Obscuri (Obscuruses?) are described in the wiki as



the repressed energy of a child, known as an Obscurial, who is forced to repress their magical talent through physical or psychological abuse.




Usually this becomes a large black blob which kills the Obscurial and people near him/her. My question is--is this what happened with Ariana Dumbledore? She was obviously magical in some way, but her power was suppressed--everyone thought she was a Squib.


Aunt Muriel says of Kendra



Kendra died before Ariana — of what, nobody ever seemed sure



and Aberforth says this of Ariana:



“It destroyed her, what they did: She was never right again. She wouldn’t use magic, but she couldn’t get rid of it; it turned inward and drove her mad, it exploded out of her when she couldn’t control it, and at times she was strange and dangerous. But mostly she was sweet and scared and harmless."




It seems to me that what happened was that for some reason, Ariana became an Obscurial, and this power killed Kendra and later, herself. It maybe that this was why



Grindelwald was so interested in the Obscurus in the first place, since he witnessed her death.




Answer



We have never come across the word Obscurial/Obscurus in Harry Potter. But here's what is said about Ariana.



"It destroyed her, what they did: She was never right again," Aberforth said. "She wouldn’t use magic, but she couldn’t get rid of it; it turned inward and drove her mad, it exploded out of her when she couldn’t control it, and at times she was strange and dangerous. But mostly she was sweet and scared and harmless."


"[If] the Ministry had known what Ariana had become, she’d have been locked up in St. Mungo’s for good. They’d have seen her as a serious threat to the International Statute of Secrecy, unbalanced like she was, with magic exploding out of her at moments when she couldn’t keep it in any longer."




Unless we hear it from the horses mouth (JKR), we cant be 100% sure, but here are some points about Ariana that resonate with the description of an Obscurus:



  • the repressed energy of a child? Yes

  • forced to repress their magical talent through physical or psychological abuse? Yes. She forcefully stopped herself from using magic

  • it turned inward and drove her mad

  • it exploded out of her

  • [she] couldn’t control it

  • if the Ministry had known what Ariana had become, she’d have been locked up in St. Mungo’s

  • serious threat to the International Statute of Secrecy

  • with magic exploding out of her



If you look at all of these points, she looks like a classic example of an Obscurus, from what we know about Credence or the little girl from Sudan. It looks very much like Ariana was an Obscurus.


On a side note, I feel this is what drove Grindelwald towards Dumbledore apart from the Hallows.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

story identification - Animation: floating island, flying pests

At least 20 years ago I watched a short animated film which stuck in my mind. The whole thing was wordless, possibly European, and I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine it... It featured a flying island which was inhabited by some creatures who (in my memory) reminded me of the Moomins. The island was frequently bothered by large winged animals who swooped around, although I don't think they did any actual damage. At the end one of the moomin creatures suddenly gets a weird feeling, feels forced to climb to the top of the island and then plunges down a shaft right through the centre - only to emerge at the bottom as one of the flyers. Answer Skywhales from 1983. The story begins with a man warning the tribe of approaching skywhales. The drummers then warn everybody of the hunt as everyone get prepared to set "sail". Except one man is found in his home sleeping as the noise wake him up. He then gets ready and is about to take his weapon as he hesitates then decides ...

harry potter - Did Dolores Umbridge Have Any Association with Voldemort (or Death Eaters) before His Return?

I noticed that Dolores Umbridge was born during the first Wizarding War, so it's very likely she wasn't a Death Eater then (but she is pretty evil -- who knows?). After that Voldemort was not around in a way that could affect many people, and most wouldn't know he was planning to rise again. During that time, and up through Voldemort's return (in Goblet of Fire ), did Umbridge have any connection with the Death Eaters or with Voldemort? Was she doing what she did on her own, or was it because of an association with Voldemort or his allies? Answer Dolores Umbridge was definitely not a good person. However, as Sirius points out, "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters". Remember that he also says that he doesn't believe Umbridge to be a Death Eater, but that she's evil enough (or something like that). I think there are two strong reasons to believe that: Umbridge was proud to do everything according to the law, except when she trie...

tolkiens legendarium - Did Gandalf wear his Ring of Power throughout the trilogy?

After Gandalf discovered that Sauron was back and sent Frodo on his quest to Rivendell, did he continue to wear Narya (one of the Three Rings)? It seems like a huge risk to continue to wear it after the Nazgûl (Ringwraiths) started to try and reclaim the One Ring; if they managed to get the ring to Sauron, couldn't he be corrupted by his power? Whatever powers Narya bestows upon him couldn't possibly be worth the huge risk, could it? Answer When Sauron forged the one ring and put it on his finger, the other ring bearers were immediately aware of him and his intentions and removed their own rings. There is no reason why they couldn't merely do so again. As soon as Sauron set the One Ring upon his finger they were aware of him; and they knew him, and preceived that he would be master of them, and of all they wrought. Then in anger and fear they took off their rings. "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age," Silmarillion