I is for Invisibility Cloak

Harry's Cloak of Invisibility is unlike any other - it is Death's own Cloak of Invisibility, according to "The Tale of the Three Brothers."  Ron is the first to realize that the Cloak is unique: "I've heard stuff about charms wearing off cloaks when they get old, or them being ripped apart by spells so they've got holes in.  Harry's was owned by his dad, so it's not exactly new, is it, but it's just...perfect!" (416-7).  Dumbledore later confirms this pronouncement, "It was a Cloak the likes of which I had never seen, immensely old, perfect in every respect..." (715).

For being a powerful magical artifact, Death's Cloak of Invisibility sure does have a lot of catches and rules.

Xenophilius Lovegood describes it as 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" (411).

Yet, this statement is a little misleading and confusing.  It means simply that the Cloak itself cannot be damaged by spells, not that the wears are immune as well.

We see the Cloak unaffected by magic when a Death Eater attempts to summon it when Harry, Ron, and Hermione are hidden underneath it in Hogsmeade. "Harry seized its folds, but it made no attempt to escape:  The Summoning Charm had not worked on it" (555).


However, there are multiple instances where Harry is frozen while invisible underneath the Cloak.  First, Draco's spell, then later Dumbledore's.

Perhaps most importantly though, Harry acknowledges hiding underneath it could not have saved his family: "The Cloak couldn't have made them curse-proof" (715).
__________
Tune in tomorrow for J is for J.K. Rowling!

D is for Deathly Hallows

 For my last two years at Grand Valley State University, I worked at the Writing Center along with a lot of Harry Potter and book loving people.  One day we got into a discussion about how even the best books can be critiqued.  (I think Katie, from The Fiction Diaries might have been part of this discussion as well and if not, you should still check out her blog anyway, because she's great!)

The critique we discussed of the Harry Potter series was the Deathly Hallows.  Harry is already out hunting for seven horcruxes, and then J.K. Rowling adds in three Deathly Hallows to search for as well.  I definitely enjoyed the Deathly Hallows as a part of the series, but they don't really add much.  From the Elder Wand, we learn more about Dumbledore and Grindelwald and from the Cloak of Invisibility we learn more about Harry's famous lineage...But the objects themselves as super-power magical articles do not add depth.

Xenophilius Lovegood explains, "'the ancient story refers to three objects, or Hallows, which, if united, will make the possessor master of Death'" (410).  It was never clear to me whether or not the Hallows played a role in Harry's encounter with Voldemort at the end of The Deathly Hallows.  It would make sense that they would, as Harry was the master of Death (though he did not ever have all three Hallows at once), but the book doesn't explicitly say that the Hallows had anything to do with his survival.

Much as I like the Deathly Hallows, if I had to critique the Harry Potter series, it would be with the voice of my former colleagues in saying that the Deathly Hallows are superfluous.

What is something in the Harry Potter series that you would critique if you had to come up with something?

Here's a special treat about waiting for the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows!  Though it was written by Hank Green before the book came out, many of the "what ifs" were actually pretty prophetic! Enjoy!

Tomorrow, the Harry Potter fun continues with E is for Epilogue.