Skip to main content

harry potter - Why didn't the resurrection stone 'work'?


It's been a while since I read the books, but as I recall the working assumption was that the story of the Deathly Hallows was essentially true. That being the case, all three would have been created by Death himself (herself?), which makes it plausible that they could bypass otherwise immutable rules of magic. This seems supported by the fact that the invisibility cloak and wand work as advertised, with a power that was never since reproduced. So given that the other two hallows appear to work as Death agreed, why didn't the resurrection stone?



The elder wand had a nasty side effect of getting one killed in a duel, but it was the most powerful wand in existence exactly as requested. The cloak would be the one that Death would have the most reason to sabotage, and yet it allowed one brother to escape Death until a time of his own choosing. The resurrection stone should have been the one most easily within Death's power to reproduce, given that he 'owned' or 'claimed' (as I believe the text said) the souls that would be returned by it. So why was the resurrection stone flawed? If Death was able to choose to deny one of the requests then one would think he would fail to provide a working cloak that allowed a mortal to essentially 'defeat' him.


I don't think is a duplicate because I'm not asking if the stone works, as it clearly doesn't, or how the stone works, as has been explained elsewhere. I'm asking why it doesn't work, as it seems logically inconsistent with the other information that we have. If memory serves, the evidence implies that Death had no choice but to honor his offer and craft whatever items the brothers requested, also implies that he had the capability to create items beyond the capability of a mortal wizard, and he by definition has at least some power over the souls of the dead.



Answer



It does.



Then the second brother, who was an arrogant man, decided that he wanted to humiliate Death still further, and asked for the power to recall others from Death. So Death picked up a stone from the riverbank and gave it to the second brother, and told him that the stone would have the power to bring back the dead.


Emphasis mine: as quoted from the Deathly Hallows



Death, that trickster, never said how far from Death they would be recalled, or , more importantly in what form they would be recalled. Technically, they were recalled, exactly as the brother asked.


If you don't buy that solution, let's go back to the old standby: Magic can't bring back the dead. You said in your answer:




been created by Death himself (herself?), which makes it plausible that they could bypass otherwise immutable rules of magic. This seems supported by the fact that the invisibility cloak and wand work as advertised



I am negating that: the wand and the Cloak are precedented magic, they're jsut powerful. Making them is like a very smart human being being born--they can exist, just they are rare and powerful. On the other hand, no magic can bring back the dead fully. Making the ressurection stone is like a Vulcan being born to humans. Bringing the dead back as shadow-thingies is precedented by the Priori Incantatem spell, the Ressurection stone is just more powerful.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

languages - Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

In Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs): I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the Star Wars films we see written English instead? (This sort of spun off from a discussion in How do people understand astromech droids? .) Answer At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films. Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed. I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons but I haven't got around to reading those yet.

Was the "pure soul" of Harry's what had really hurt Voldemort?

In the Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort possesses Harry, and it hurts. Greatly. I think that Dumbledore explained that it was because Voldemort's rotten soul was incapable of assimilating Harry's pure soul, that Voldemort didn't understand the love and friendship etc that Harry has in his heart. But, I think it was a lie. Remember that in Deathly Hallows, while looking for information regarding Horcruxes, it is discovered that it is in fact possible to merge a soul fragment back, but that the process was extremely painful. Now then, if Voldemort tried to possess Harry, and Harry had a fragment of Voldemort's soul, I think that it could have been the true cause of Voldemort's pain: the fact of having his soul so close of another fragment. I think that Dumbledore knew that fact, but had to lie to Harry because it was inappropriate to let him know that he had one of Voldemort's soul fragments at the moment. Is that right? Or was it truly the pure soul of Harry's...

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...