Skip to main content

Does personified Death really exist in Harry Potter?


I went through the last book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, yesterday and a question popped in my mind: Does Death, the supposed creator of the Deathly Hallows, really exist in the Harry Potter universe? Dumbledore thought otherwise and I am with the same school of thought. By the way who created the deathly Hallows actually?


Update:


1) Why were the brothers so sure that the hooded figure was death(couldn't it be a more powerful wizard playing with them)


2) Couldn't, Beedle and the brothers create this story?



Answer



There is no proof whatsoever that Death exists in Harry Potter as a character.





  1. The only time Death is mentioned is in a folk fable, collected with OTHER made-up fables into a fiction book called "Tales of Beedles the Bard".


    To assume that Death existed in Potterverse merely because of that is equivalent to assuming Snow White or Seven Dwarves existed in our universe based on reading Brothers Grimm book.


    Or, for a Potter in-universe example, look at Lockhart's books.


    Granted, there's no proof Death doesn't exist; but Occam's Razor says that option should be rejected in favor of a more rational one.




  2. The artifacts which are attributed to be "made" by death are not a good proof either:





    • Albus Dumbledore, the most noted, wise and learned wizard in-Universe, explicitly states that this is unlikely.



      “So it’s true?” asked Harry. “All of it? The Peverell brothers—”
      “—were the three brothers of the tale,” said Dumbledore, nodding.
      “Oh yes, I think so. Whether they met Death on a lonely road . . . I think it more likely that the Peverell brothers were simply gifted, dangerous wizards who succeeded in creating those powerful objects. The story of them being Death’s own Hallows seems to me the sort of legend that might have sprung up around such creations.





    • The artifacts themselves can clearly be explained as "feasible" according to in-universe rules:





      • Invisibility cloak: it's not really "more perfect" than other cloaks. Yes, it doesn't get damaged with time - but neither do many other magical objects, like Hogwarts itself. Yes, it conceals other people aside from the owner, but it's not really THAT much of a "magical" leap from hiding only the owner.


        It doesn't have any other differences from "normal" invisibility cloaks, and there's zero in-universe evidence that it hides the owner from "Death" (the only reason Harry survived wasn't the cloak - which he wasn't wearing anyway - it was the fact that Voldemort took Harry's blood into his body).




      • The Elder Wand isn't shown to exhibit any supernatural abilities outside the fable. The only known time its owner dueled using the wand where the wand mattered, the owner LOST (Gellert Grindewald vs Dumbledore).



        What must strike any intelligent witch or wizard on studying the so-called history of the Elder Wand is that every man who claims to have owned it has insisted that it is “unbeatable”, when the known facts of its passage through many owners’ hands demonstrate that not only has it been beaten hundreds of times, but that it also attracts trouble as Grumble the Grubby Goat attracted flies. (Albus Dumbledore's comments in his copy of Tales of Beadle the Bard)




        The only "special" ability of the wand was to repair Harry Potter's wand that Olliewander pronounced unfixable. Hardly something worth assuming that the object was made by Death.




      • "Resurrection" stone. Its effects are similar to Priori Incantatum, and thus again don't require any supernatural "Death" magic as explanation.









Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.
Post a Comment
Read more

aliens - Interstellar Zoo story

I vaguely remember this story from my childhood: it was about an interstellar zoo that came to Earth with lots of bizarre and unusual species, and humans would file through and gape at all the crazy looking creatures from other planets. The twist came at the end when the perspective shifted to the other side of the bars and we discovered that the "creatures" were traveling through space on a kind of safari. They thought they were the visitors and we were the animals. Neither side knew that the other side thought they were the zoo creatures. Answer Got it. Zoo, by Edward D. Hoch. Published in 1958. Link to Publication History Link to PDF
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

harry potter - What is the difference between Diffindo and Sectumsempra?

In the Harry Potter books, Diffindo is called the 'Severing Charm' and it’s most commonly used to cut ropes and the like. However, in the last book Hermione uses it on Ron but misses, creating a 'slash in his jeans' and his knee gets cut, causing him to 'roar in pain'. We've only seen Sectumsempra used once on screen when Harry directly uses it on Malfoy in the sixth book, but there it's mentioned that he is 'waving his wand wildly'. Wouldn't Diffindo, if used in such a fashion also cause a similar effect? Similarly, if it was able to cut Ron, it would also be able to, say, chop off an ear (George's)? In that case, how are these two spells different, except for Sectumsempra seemingly used exclusively to hurt humans? Answer While Diffindo and Sectumsempra both can be countered by other spells, Diffindo is far more easily countered. Reparo, a relatively common spell, can completely reverse its effect when used once. “He pulled the old cop...
Post a Comment
Read more