![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Having moved into my Spinner's End room too late to divert my pre-ordered copy of Beedle from Little Whingeing, I trudged a couple miles up the slushy tow-path to get one from the local independent bookshop, then sat in a cafe with a pot of tea and read it through.
Non-Spoilery bit
It's a beautifully produced little hardback book, and, as I said before, I like the artwork on the UK edition; it feels like a book of classic fairy tales, especially with the illustrations inside and the floral embellishments in the header and footer.
As![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
_lady_narcissa_ has noted, LJ has not exactly exploded with excitement over this release. For myself, I've been quietly looking forward to it, and as I walked towards my copy this afternoon, knowing that there were mentions of Lucius, I felt the same anticipation as I do on a repeat viewing of one of the Lucius-rich movies. A private pleasure to be savoured...
Of course it's not as exciting as the canon books were, when we were all wondering which of our favourite characters would die, and which bits of our personal fanon were going to be Reductoed. And, thanks to Amazon, we already knew the stories. And new background information is interesting, rather than exciting, now that it's not going to offer clues to a future plot.
In a way, although the reason I wanted to read it today was for the new canon, I think it's a pity that 'Dumbledore's' notes are included, as those parts only make sense if you've read the Harry Potter books. I could see the book working as a stand-alone book of fairy stories, and I hope they produce one, one day, without the spoilers and aimed at younger children. It would be wonderful to be able to read the Harry Potter books knowing that bit of wizarding culture, and perhaps gradually wondering about Harry's Cloak.
As to the contents...
Spoilery Bit
Beedle and his :( tales
Bah - Beedle is a bloke after all. So much for my cosplay plans. :( Though at least I live in the right part of the country now!
Talking of embodying Beedle, though, I was pleasantly surprised by the style of the first four stories. I wanted to learn 'The Tale of the Three Brothers' (the fifth) and work out a harp accompaniment, but I had to re-write it somewhat to give it any drama (and a logical progression). I had wondered if the lack of direct speech in it resulted from it being introduced in DH - perhaps it felt odd to JKR to have Hermione read out characters' lines, especially in that context. Happily, the other stories have a lot more 'showing', and hence look much more 'tellable'.
And one could speculate that the different style of the TofTB meant that it was written at a different time, or was perhaps a retelling by Beedle of an earlier tale (though I really would have thought he'd have livened it up a bit, if that had been the case), which would fit its 'coded message' status.
If Beedle was writing as late as the fifteenth century, why on earth was he using runes? (Perhaps some of the historians on my flist can shed light on the plausibility of that?)
Malfoys
As I'd speculated before, the Malfoys only get used as examples of pure-blood supremacism. But the existence of an 'influential' pure-blooded Malfoy in the fifteenth century should skewer the 'new money' argument.
So yay! Nothing in here contradicts my conception of Lucius' background! Phew!
Brutus' argument that 'Muggle lovers' are magically weak because they need to be around those weaker than them isn't that illogical, though it does reveal his assumption that self-worth comes with feeling powerful. Evidently a family credo!
Dumbledore claims that his correspondence with Lucius about removing the story featuring mixed marriage was the beginning of a long campaign to have me removed from my post as Headmaster of Hogwarts, and of mine to have him removed from his position as Lord Voldemort's Favourite Death Eater. Two trains of thought follow from this.
Firstly, that Dumbledore identifies Lucius as LV's favourite Death Eater. We know that Dumbledore had inside knowledge, via Snape, so - while this could just be Snape's interpretation - it backs up the theory (initially based on Voldemort's mode of address to Lucius at the end of GoF) that Lucius did have a special relationship with Voldemort.
Secondly, I was wondering about the timing of this exchange. My guess is that it happened between the birth of Draco and the death of Harry's parents. On second thoughts, I guess it could have happened before Draco was born, if wizards can detect the gender of a foetus, or even before he was conceived - Lucius is arrogant enough to assume he'll have a son. But basically we're looking at the late seventies (at least a couple of years after Lucius leaves Hogwarts in 1973) through to mid-1981. The patronising tone of Dumbledore's initial response (as if to a recent pupil?), the alleged immaturity of Lucius' follow-ups, Dumbledore's description of Lucius' campaign to removal him as 'long' and Dumbledore's description of him as Voldemort's favourite Death Eater (which implies Voldemort is still around) back this up.
Though actually, Snape didn't become a spy until after Voldemort concluded the prophecy referred to the Potters. So if Dumbledore was basing his opinion of Lucius on Snape's reports, the correspondence must have taken place after winter 1979-1980 (assuming the Lexicon's assumptions about the date of Trelawny's job interview are correct). By which time Draco would have been conceived.
Other bits
The Nearly-Headless Nick tidbit (executed for being awitch(!) wizard) was interesting, but I'd been hoping for more.
I loved Dumbledore's unhumble footnotes. Someone who can write 'such as myself' to a mention of 'the world's most brilliant wizards' is not the same Dumbledore we saw in early canon. Though actually, it does fit with his self-assurance in the face of Delores and the Aurors, which took place shortly before these notes were written. I suppose it's only natural that he'd want to bolster himself in the face of all the Ministry persecution, but I wouldn't have expected him to be so unsecure.
I also loved some of the little details about the magical world, which I really hope will spark some fic:
-the existence of the Wizarding Academy of Dramatic Arts
-the difference between the terms 'warlock' and 'wizard'. (Which, incidentally, makes Brutus' Warlock at War fit perfectly into Lucius' history lesson in Invictus *is happy*)
-that the Unforgiveables only became such in 1717 (which also fits into my version of wizarding history *is more happy*)
-the difference between portraits and photographs (the former talk, the latter don't), which is evident from canon but which I'd never picked up on.
Finally, I'm amused by JKR's very pointed description of Beatrix Bloxam's attempt to shield children from the dark in stories. Though I wish her name and age didn't recall so readily Beatrix Potter (who has some pretty dark moments, if my 30-year-old memories correctly recall).
Right, off to search out other responses!
ETA: I've just noticed that the drawing of the Fountain of Fair Fortune has the Deathly Hallows symbol on it. I wonder what the significance of that is?
Non-Spoilery bit
It's a beautifully produced little hardback book, and, as I said before, I like the artwork on the UK edition; it feels like a book of classic fairy tales, especially with the illustrations inside and the floral embellishments in the header and footer.
As
_lady_narcissa_ has noted, LJ has not exactly exploded with excitement over this release. For myself, I've been quietly looking forward to it, and as I walked towards my copy this afternoon, knowing that there were mentions of Lucius, I felt the same anticipation as I do on a repeat viewing of one of the Lucius-rich movies. A private pleasure to be savoured...Of course it's not as exciting as the canon books were, when we were all wondering which of our favourite characters would die, and which bits of our personal fanon were going to be Reductoed. And, thanks to Amazon, we already knew the stories. And new background information is interesting, rather than exciting, now that it's not going to offer clues to a future plot.
In a way, although the reason I wanted to read it today was for the new canon, I think it's a pity that 'Dumbledore's' notes are included, as those parts only make sense if you've read the Harry Potter books. I could see the book working as a stand-alone book of fairy stories, and I hope they produce one, one day, without the spoilers and aimed at younger children. It would be wonderful to be able to read the Harry Potter books knowing that bit of wizarding culture, and perhaps gradually wondering about Harry's Cloak.
As to the contents...
Spoilery Bit
Beedle and his :( tales
Bah - Beedle is a bloke after all. So much for my cosplay plans. :( Though at least I live in the right part of the country now!
Talking of embodying Beedle, though, I was pleasantly surprised by the style of the first four stories. I wanted to learn 'The Tale of the Three Brothers' (the fifth) and work out a harp accompaniment, but I had to re-write it somewhat to give it any drama (and a logical progression). I had wondered if the lack of direct speech in it resulted from it being introduced in DH - perhaps it felt odd to JKR to have Hermione read out characters' lines, especially in that context. Happily, the other stories have a lot more 'showing', and hence look much more 'tellable'.
And one could speculate that the different style of the TofTB meant that it was written at a different time, or was perhaps a retelling by Beedle of an earlier tale (though I really would have thought he'd have livened it up a bit, if that had been the case), which would fit its 'coded message' status.
If Beedle was writing as late as the fifteenth century, why on earth was he using runes? (Perhaps some of the historians on my flist can shed light on the plausibility of that?)
Malfoys
As I'd speculated before, the Malfoys only get used as examples of pure-blood supremacism. But the existence of an 'influential' pure-blooded Malfoy in the fifteenth century should skewer the 'new money' argument.
So yay! Nothing in here contradicts my conception of Lucius' background! Phew!
Brutus' argument that 'Muggle lovers' are magically weak because they need to be around those weaker than them isn't that illogical, though it does reveal his assumption that self-worth comes with feeling powerful. Evidently a family credo!
Dumbledore claims that his correspondence with Lucius about removing the story featuring mixed marriage was the beginning of a long campaign to have me removed from my post as Headmaster of Hogwarts, and of mine to have him removed from his position as Lord Voldemort's Favourite Death Eater. Two trains of thought follow from this.
Firstly, that Dumbledore identifies Lucius as LV's favourite Death Eater. We know that Dumbledore had inside knowledge, via Snape, so - while this could just be Snape's interpretation - it backs up the theory (initially based on Voldemort's mode of address to Lucius at the end of GoF) that Lucius did have a special relationship with Voldemort.
Secondly, I was wondering about the timing of this exchange. My guess is that it happened between the birth of Draco and the death of Harry's parents. On second thoughts, I guess it could have happened before Draco was born, if wizards can detect the gender of a foetus, or even before he was conceived - Lucius is arrogant enough to assume he'll have a son. But basically we're looking at the late seventies (at least a couple of years after Lucius leaves Hogwarts in 1973) through to mid-1981. The patronising tone of Dumbledore's initial response (as if to a recent pupil?), the alleged immaturity of Lucius' follow-ups, Dumbledore's description of Lucius' campaign to removal him as 'long' and Dumbledore's description of him as Voldemort's favourite Death Eater (which implies Voldemort is still around) back this up.
Though actually, Snape didn't become a spy until after Voldemort concluded the prophecy referred to the Potters. So if Dumbledore was basing his opinion of Lucius on Snape's reports, the correspondence must have taken place after winter 1979-1980 (assuming the Lexicon's assumptions about the date of Trelawny's job interview are correct). By which time Draco would have been conceived.
Other bits
The Nearly-Headless Nick tidbit (executed for being a
I loved Dumbledore's unhumble footnotes. Someone who can write 'such as myself' to a mention of 'the world's most brilliant wizards' is not the same Dumbledore we saw in early canon. Though actually, it does fit with his self-assurance in the face of Delores and the Aurors, which took place shortly before these notes were written. I suppose it's only natural that he'd want to bolster himself in the face of all the Ministry persecution, but I wouldn't have expected him to be so unsecure.
I also loved some of the little details about the magical world, which I really hope will spark some fic:
-the existence of the Wizarding Academy of Dramatic Arts
-the difference between the terms 'warlock' and 'wizard'. (Which, incidentally, makes Brutus' Warlock at War fit perfectly into Lucius' history lesson in Invictus *is happy*)
-that the Unforgiveables only became such in 1717 (which also fits into my version of wizarding history *is more happy*)
-the difference between portraits and photographs (the former talk, the latter don't), which is evident from canon but which I'd never picked up on.
Finally, I'm amused by JKR's very pointed description of Beatrix Bloxam's attempt to shield children from the dark in stories. Though I wish her name and age didn't recall so readily Beatrix Potter (who has some pretty dark moments, if my 30-year-old memories correctly recall).
Right, off to search out other responses!
ETA: I've just noticed that the drawing of the Fountain of Fair Fortune has the Deathly Hallows symbol on it. I wonder what the significance of that is?
