Dumbledore's notes

While I'm sure that all there's plenty in thread discussion about Dumbledore's notes, I'm going to create this thread to talk about them specifically.


After each Beedle's Tales, Dumbledore's notes and ideas are given to us. For me anyway, points of Canon have been cleared up like

What exactly is a Warlock - I'm now assuming Perkins is fearsome looking as opposed to being rewarded for great magical prowess!
Nearly Headless Nick's history
Dumbledore's real feeling about Lucius Malfoy
The Malfoys were always on the pureblood side of things!


Most of all Dumbledore's notes I think made me miss the Potterverse hugely.

I'd love to know what everyone else thinks!

It made me want that encyclopedia a whole lot more, thats for sure

It made me want that encyclopedia a whole lot more, thats for sure

Me too. :sigh: I was quite interested in what had been told about Sir Nicholas. His death always seemed interesting from the first time he mentioned it. ;)

I would have thought that Dumbledore could have better notes on the passage of the Elder Wand, perhaps up to the wizard Gregorovitch took it from. They could be rated from "historical fact", "common knowledge", "hypothetical" to "pure speculation."

Since we know from GoF that the Ministry couldn't tell who used Harry's wand last, then perhaps it is too much to suppose that Dumbledore would have knowledge of the past owners.

I would have thought that Dumbledore could have better notes on the passage of the Elder Wand, perhaps up to the wizard Gregorovitch took it from. They could be rated from "historical fact", "common knowledge", "hypothetical" to "pure speculation."

Since we know from GoF that the Ministry couldn't tell who used Harry's wand last, then perhaps it is too much to suppose that Dumbledore would have knowledge of the past owners.
JKR says, "Whether this commentary was written for his own satisfaction or for future publication, we shall never know." However, it is clear to me that these he wrote these thoughts on Beedle's tales with the idea of publication. If they were for his own synopses, I think they would be much more extensive.

I believe Dumbledore probably had extensive notes on the history of the Elder Wand, and the other Hallows, being a Quester himself. However, as I read it, he wrote his commentary on the Tale of the Three Brothers as if hiding the fact he was one of those believing in the three objects (though his knowledge on them is slightly contradictory). Thus, I hypothesize he did not divulge too much more history on the Elder Wand because it would have condemned him as a Quester.

I did find his note about the Invisibility Cloak interesting, as well: "Nobody has ever claimed to have found Death's Cloak." Since these were written eighteen months before his death, I find this deception earlier. We know he did discover Death's Cloak. The only aspect that makes his statement truthful is he never "claimed," to others, about it. This then brings us to what JKR said in the introduction, "The reason for any omission lies, perhaps, in what Dumbledore said about truth, many years ago..."

You know, it says that the notes were written some 18 months before Dumbledore died on the Tower, and in Deathly Hallows he says he that following Harry's escape from the cemetery he was sure that Voldemort would go after the Elder Wand. By the time of his death he already knew that Ollivander had been taken.

Knowing what he did, he may have written those notes with the foresight that if/when he died Hogwarts might fall under Voldemort's control and any of Dumbledore's writings on the subject could be used to help track the wand.

No better place to hide than in plain site.

I greatly enjoyed Dumbledore's notes, they brought back one of my favourite characters : Dumbledore as he was in the first three books, not the rather sad and strained Dumbledore of the later books.

Knowing what he did, he may have written those notes with the foresight that if/when he died Hogwarts might fall under Voldemort's control and any of Dumbledore's writings on the subject could be used to help track the wand. That’s a very good point, though IMO JKR’s reason to let Dumbledore keep his silence was not to spoil DH for those who will read the Tales before reading HP

I loved Dumbledore's notes. They gave quite a bit of insight to Potterverse while still not giving away too much. It was great to see Dumbledore as his wise but witty self

We learned a little more about the Malfoy family, that's for sure. I liked learning about Nearly Headless Nick's death, too.

Well, the info on Nick fit well with the poem that JK has on her site. So "Sir" Nick was a member of the Royal Court in his lifetime. A wizard actually obtained knighthood in muggle society and lived amongst muggles. Did they know he was a wizard, as the poem does seem to imply?

It was a mistake any wizard could make
Who was tired and caught on the hop
One piffling error, and then, to my terror,
I found myself facing the chop.
Alas for the eve when I met Lady Grieve
A-strolling the park in the dusk!
She was of the belief I could straighten her teeth
Next moment she'd sprouted a tusk.
I cried through the night that I'd soon put her right
But the process of justice was lax;
They'd brought out the block, though they'd mislaid the rock
Where they usually sharpened the axe.

Why would Lady Grieve believe a knight could "straighten" her teeth if she was unaware he was a wizard? And why would muggles allow a full-fledged wizard to live amongst them, especially considering the church and royal court's stance on magic and those who perpetrate it? And how would they know that stripping him of his wand would in effect make him unable to perform the simplest magic?

I think the detail and any of DUmbledore's notes shows just how much background information JK Rowling actually has - I agree with everyone saying that it makes them want the encyclopaedia/Scottish book :p even more!

I think the detail and any of DUmbledore's notes shows just how much background information JK Rowling actually has - I agree with everyone saying that it makes them want the encyclopaedia/Scottish book even more!I never got as excited for it as much as now after reading the Tales of Beedle the Bard. There were some information I majorly enjoyed, also the way they were added. To get Nearless Nick's story really was neat!

Why would Lady Grieve believe a knight could "straighten" her teeth if she was unaware he was a wizard? The conclusion is: People knew he was a wizard.
And why would muggles allow a full-fledged wizard to live amongst them, especially considering the church and royal court's stance on magic and those who perpetrate it? In Rabbitty Babbitty a court-wizard is employed while all other magic folk is persecuted. The one is useful to the king (or so the king thinks :lol: ) so he can stay.
When you look at it historically, Nick’s lifetime, the fourteen hundreds, are marked by war. First the end of the hundred years war (which ended after Jean d’Arc, who was burned as a witch ;), won Charles’ VII the French throne), than the war of the roses. To have a wizard on your side, would be an asset that can make the difference in a (civil) war. And while all is fair in love and war, Sir Nicholas may have become a bit of a liability for Henry Tudor after he became king in 1485 and restored peace. So Henry VII may have looked for an excuse to get rid of him, making his court more respectable.
And how would they know that stripping him of his wand would in effect make him unable to perform the simplest magic? If Nick was openly performing magic people would know he used a wand. The importance of wands in wizardry is common knowledge in today’s Muggle world, I don’t see why the people in 1492, before the introduction of the statute of secrecy, should not have known about it.

Also, did anyone note that one of the footnotes was credited to a "Granger"?

Also, did anyone note that one of the footnotes was credited to a "Granger"?

Yeah I can't rmemeber which one but something like Hector ____ Granger right? Slughorn mentioned him too in HBP.

Also, did anyone note that one of the footnotes was credited to a "Granger"? Hector Dagworth Granger was mentioned in HBP. Slughorn said to Hermione:'Granger? Granger? Can you possibly be related to Hector Dagworth-Granger who founded the Most Extraordinary Society of Potioneers?'
'No, I don't think so,sir. I'm Muggle-born, you see.'

I think the detail and any of DUmbledore's notes shows just how much background information JK Rowling actually has - I agree with everyone saying that it makes them want the encyclopaedia/Scottish book :p even more!

Definitely! In her story, she's not just another character with their own story, she like plays "God" and she really knows everything there is to know without having to make it up as she goes along. I can't wait for the encyclopedia

It's rather a shame that Dumbledore's private notes on his own wand aren't a little more detailed. I was a little surprised about the "Favorite Death Eater" line, particularly since these notes were supposedly jotted down the winter after Dumbledore retrieved the Stone.

I liked the notes on Lucius complaining about children's stories, though. I also liked the nods to Brutus. On the synopses--they do seem rather like his comments prepared for Muggle publication of Whisp's work and Scamander's classic. Maybe this was a last project designed to soften the blow for Harry and to provide him with some information before he set off on his final task. Too bad Hermione won't release Albus' private notes.

well, apparently his goal came true ;)

I was a little surprised about the "Favorite Death Eater" line, particularly since these notes were supposedly jotted down the winter after Dumbledore retrieved the Stone. I think you got the time line wrong As far as we can tell, the notes were completed aroung eighteen months before the tragic events that took place at the top of Hogwarts' Astornomy Tower That would be the winter before he retrieved the Resurrection Stone. During OotP, when Lucius was successfully using all his influence (and gold) to controll Fudge and the Ministry and publicly defame Albus.

I wonder why Lucius was Voldemort's favorite death eater though. There are other pure blood families in the Death Eaters, I would've thought that Voldemort was very mad about Lucius losing his horcrux anyways

I wonder why Lucius was Voldemort's favorite death eater though. There are other pure blood families in the Death Eaters, I would've thought that Voldemort was very mad about Lucius losing his horcrux anyways

I don't think Voldemort realy cared about that much about blood status, as long as it wasn't mudblood. Lucius was his most useful tool at the time, the Lestranges were still in prison, so he at least claimed to be Voldy's favourite.
The loss of the Horcrux must of course have delt his popularity a blow, but I seem to remember that he didn't tell Voldemort what he had done with it at once. I don't know when, but I remember Dumbledore saying something like: 'When Voldemort finally found out what Lucius had done with the Horcrux he had entrusted to him...' in HBP (maybe someone can supply the quote).
It's also possible that Dumbledore wrote that bit about Lucius much earlier, e.g. during CoS, the introduction only says the notes were probably completed during OotP, there is nothing on when Dumbledore started.

Definitely! In her story, she's not just another character with their own story, she like plays "God" and she really knows everything there is to know without having to make it up as she goes along. I can't wait for the encyclopedia

Exactly, which is one of the many reasons why she's such a great writer! :drool: I can't wait for that either. Any news on that, btw? :hmm:

I really enjoyed Dumbledore's notes, especially the clearing up of what a Warlock actually is, and this:

Although it has never been proven that Lisette was an Animagus who managed to squeeze through the bars of her cell window, a large white rabbit was subsequently seen crossing the English Channel in a cauldron with a sail fitted to it, and a similiar rabbit later became a trusted advisor at the court of King Henry VI.

:rotfl:

I wouldn't have enjoyed the book half as much without them.

The strange thing is that Dumbledore's notes made me like the guy an awful lot more than I actually like him in the books.

:)

And the correspondence between him and Lucius Malfoy is priceless. :rotfl:

But, really, Dumbledore's commentary is what makes Beedle what it is. The tales are lovely in their own right :) but it's Dumbledore's notes that really make the whole thing come alive. And they add a lot of depth to him as a character. He'll never be my favourite, but I've warmed to him more because of them.

I like the bit about reading the history of the elder wand, that it was mentioned in Magick Most Evile. Same place where Voldemort read about the Horcruxes. Oh and the Malfoy letters.

Dumbledore's description of human-animal transfiguration (incl. Animagi) bothers me.

He says, that the human would lose his identity being truly transformed into an animal, and would need someone to transfigure him back to normal. Yet the fake Moody changed Draco into a ferret, who clearly retained human awareness while being bounced about.

Likewise, Slughorn transfigured himself into an armchair. Had Albus left without discovering him, I'm sure he'd be able to transfigure himself back, since he had his wand.

My theory was that Animagi have learned human-animal transfiguration so well that they can do it without a wand, as Wormtail showed during his escape in book 3. I really don't think Wormtail was stuck in rat-form all those years he'd been hiding. If he had Voldemort's wand on him then, he likely would have used it to flee from the Shrieking Shack.

So in Draco's ferret case, his wand and clothes had temporarily disappeared while he was transformed. I'm sure an experienced fully-trained wizard could have transfigured themselves back. Likewise If the Minister really was being changed into a sea creature by Percy, and not just hexed, I think he must have restored himself rather than a Death Eater coming to his rescue.

I like the bit about reading the history of the elder wand, that it was mentioned in Magick Most Evile. Same place where Voldemort read about the Horcruxes. Oh and the Malfoy letters.
I liked those parts, too. Those are my favorite parts of Dumbledore's commentary. I liked all of it actually. It was very entertaining to read. I felt like I was actually getting a lesson in Wizarding history at some parts, but then I came back to reality and remembered that there is no magic. :sigh:

Dumbledore's description of human-animal transfiguration (incl. Animagi) bothers me.

He says, that the human would lose his identity being truly transformed into an animal, and would need someone to transfigure him back to normal. Yet the fake Moody changed Draco into a ferret, who clearly retained human awareness while being bounced about. Darco was transfigured so he did not retain human awarness while being bounced about. That's what Jo says and nothing in GoF shows he did.
I think that when he was refigured (or untransfigured) by McGonagall he did remember what had been done to him while he was a ferret, but we don't know that either. Harry is never transfigured so we don't get an inside view what it is like and no one ever tells him (or us) how it is.
Likewise, Slughorn transfigured himself into an armchair. Had Albus left without discovering him, I'm sure he'd be able to transfigure himself back, since he had his wand. We don't know what kind of magic Slughorn used, as far as I remember no Human/Inanimate object Transfiguration is ever mentioned or taught at Hogwarts. Maybe that was a strong Illusionment Charm or Slughorn used a potion, anyway the comment in BtB was only about Human/Animal Transfiguration. What ever it was I agree it was something Slughorn could have undone without help when ever he wanted, in fact he did undo it when he realized Dumbledore had discovered the disguise.
My theory was that Animagi have learned human-animal transfiguration so well that they can do it without a wand, as Wormtail showed during his escape in book 3. But Jo now squashed that theory. Transformation is not a form of Transfiguration, it's a different kind of magic which doesn't require a wand, or Sirius couln't have used it while in Azkaban (I'm sure they didn't leave him his wand) and Wormtail, as you say, couldn't have used it at the end of PoA.
I really don't think Wormtail was stuck in rat-form all those years he'd been hiding. If he had Voldemort's wand on him then, he likely would have used it to flee from the Shrieking Shack. I'm sure he had a wand on him, but wasn't fool enough to fight Sirius and Remus. And I never saw anyone saying he was transfigured and stuck.
So in Draco's ferret case, his wand and clothes had temporarily disappeared while he was transformed. I'm sure an experienced fully-trained wizard could have transfigured themselves back. Likewise If the Minister really was being changed into a sea creature by Percy, and not just hexed, I think he must have restored himself rather than a Death Eater coming to his rescue. Draco was not transformed (that's the Animagus magic ;) ), he was transfigured and Jo said that no wizard could have transfigured himself back once he was an animal, as far as we know the clothes and anything in the pockets are included in both changes (Transfiguration and (Animagus-)Transformation) and it doesn't matter if that includes a wand since the Animagus can turn back without it and the transfigured animal isn't able to use the wand.

Dumbledore's description of human-animal transfiguration (incl. Animagi) bothers me.

He says, that the human would lose his identity being truly transformed into an animal, and would need someone to transfigure him back to normal. Yet the fake Moody changed Draco into a ferret, who clearly retained human awareness while being bounced about.
It bothers me too, because my previous idea was that when a human is transfigured into an animal, they are vaguely aware and will remember things, but not well, like how you see things in dreams.

Likewise, Slughorn transfigured himself into an armchair. Had Albus left without discovering him, I'm sure he'd be able to transfigure himself back, since he had his wand.
It could have been a charm that only made him look like an armchair while he was human, kind of like disillusionment charms change how your body looks

It could have been a charm that only made him look like an armchair while he was human, kind of like disillusionment charms change how your body looks

That was how I read that scene :agree:

I had to think twice about the transfiguration/human transformation comment too.

One thing that made me smile was the commentary about Beatrix Bloxom's revisions of the Tales. I wonder if the criticism of those other well-known books featuring Albus Dumbledore had anything to do with it. :whistle:

I think it was a guise charm like the Disillusionment charm--maybe there's a class of transformational charms called Illusions (or the equivalent) and it was one of those. As for the timeline--I did have it wrong. The comments were supposedly written just around the time Arthur Weasley was attacked by Nagini and before the first mass breakout from Azkaban.

I liked those parts, too. Those are my favorite parts of Dumbledore's commentary. I liked all of it actually. It was very entertaining to read. I felt like I was actually getting a lesson in Wizarding history at some parts, but then I came back to reality and remembered that there is no magic. :sigh:

:lol: I appreciated that part - given I had just started rereading PS and I'd to go the point where Hermionie mentions that she didn't have to bother learning about Eldric the Evil I think. I thought the tie ins with what we know already were wonderful.

I liked most of Dumbledore's notes, but there were a couple times it bothered me; like the whole "especially clever wizards (like myself)" comments. It seemed overly boastful of him. He said things like that in private, but I can't see him taking note of it in a book. My daughter said it sounded more like Gilderoy Lockhart, and I had to agree.

I liked most of Dumbledore's notes, but there were a couple times it bothered me; like the whole "especially clever wizards (like myself)" comments. It seemed overly boastful of him. He said things like that in private, but I can't see him taking note of it in a book. My daughter said it sounded more like Gilderoy Lockhart, and I had to agree. I agree it's unusual particularly in a childrens book and maybe a bit overdone.
But I liked that he wasn't very modest in the later books of the series, he was quite aware of his extraordinary power and brillance of mind and said so more than once ['blessed as I am with unusual brain power...']. What bothered me in ToBtB was that it was somewhat unnecessary to point it out, but I still like it better than have him being 'modest' belitteling himself and thereby fishing for compliments.

Well we saw some not-so-wholesome sides to Dumbledore in HBP and DH. In HBP he was quick to point out his superiority to others. In DH, it was his young obsession with being invincible and conquering the world for wizard domination.

Dumbledore was, I think, a very arrogant person with a big ego. He'd suppress it when necessary, and maybe old age had taught him enough wisdom not to flaunt it too much. But I think sometimes he couldn't really help himself, like when he is especially pleased with his achievements, or is feeling impatient at another person's sluggishness (ie. Harry's).

And Dumbledore is boasting (if you want to use that term) about qualities he really has, and of things I agree to be more of a reason to be proud of than winning the Most Charming Smile Award. These two point's make him very different from Lockhart :D

I liked most of Dumbledore's notes, but there were a couple times it bothered me; like the whole "especially clever wizards (like myself)" comments. It seemed overly boastful of him. He said things like that in private, but I can't see him taking note of it in a book. My daughter said it sounded more like Gilderoy Lockhart, and I had to agree.
We must also remember he wrote these notes privately. The introduction tells us Dumbledore's intentions with his journals are unknown (though I think it quite obvious they were meant to be publicized), but since they are personal notes, I think his comments are justified. As you say, "he said things like that in private," and these journals were written "in private."

Amongst other aspects, I love Dumbledore's notes on The Warlock's Hairy Heart, especially on the expression "to have a hairy heart." The book The Hairy Heart: A Guide to Wizards Who Won't Commit was an amusing inclusion and a nice counter to Ron's Twelve Fail-Safe Ways to Charm Witches.

I thought they were very interesting and cleared up a few things. It was especially nice reading about the Malfoy fmaily a bit. They really were always on the pureblood side...

I liked most of Dumbledore's notes, but there were a couple times it bothered me; like the whole "especially clever wizards (like myself)" comments. It seemed overly boastful of him. He said things like that in private, but I can't see him taking note of it in a book. My daughter said it sounded more like Gilderoy Lockhart, and I had to agree.

Although I understand where you're coming from, I think that Dumbledore was not being arrogant as much as stating a fact. The fact is, Albus Dumbledore had been the most brilliant wizard in the world for years, admired by the entire magical community, with accolades and awards in droves, and acknowledged even by dark wizards as a force to be feared and avoided lest he defeat/destroy them. To pretend to be anything other than a magical genius and super-wizard would, in fact, be false modesty. I think that Dumbledore wasn't trying to boast as much as he was acknowledging that his reader would likely count Dumbledore as one of those especially clever wizards.

I finally read them. They are cute stories written in a classic style: they are to the standards what Oasis is to the Beatles! ;-)

What I found truly amusing was how Rowling used Dumbledore exactly as she uses him in the series. In each of the first five books, Dumbledore gives a little speech at the end, which basically says: "Just in case you missed it, you just read a story about X." In Prince, he gives the speech about 2/3rds of the way through, and in Hallows he gives it right before the finale.

So, what does Rowling do here? She provides a short essay by Dumbledore that tells us, among other things, exactly what the story is! Moreover, Dumbledore even goes into the themes. What is sort of cool and instructive is that we see how just small tweakings of the tale result in the same story but with radically different themes. That is to say, what to do about "evil" remains unchanged: but what "evil" is certainly is different!

All in all, a very esoteric and abstract bit of humor here. I always liked Dumbledore: greatness should always be appreciated, whether real or fictional. This made me chuckle all the more.

Kudos! :tu:

Ok, I LOVED these notes ..... everything about them. :tu:

I just got this book yesterday, and I must say Dumbledore's notes were the best part of the book. I loved reading everything that was in them.

I have noticed, like people have said, that JK Rowling writes these as if she is the "God" in the Harry Potter world. But she also gives credits to her characters and makes you believe that they were the ones who helped with the book. That was just really cool.

Over all, really, it reminded me of the other books JK Rowling wrote for charity. The two school books. The Book of Monsters was mentioned in Dumbledore's notes more than once, and he is basically telling you to read that book to understand more of what he has said.

Over all, really, it reminded me of the other books JK Rowling wrote for charity. The two school books. The Book of Monsters was mentioned in Dumbledore's notes more than once, and he is basically telling you to read that book to understand more of what he has said.

I am so happy that I have Fantastic Beasts (I don't have Quidditch Through the Ages) - I could flick through that when needed for deeper understanding :lol:

Did anyone else think that Dumbledore didn't quite sound like himself in Beedle?
I mean, every character has their own way of speaking, and phrasing, their very own vocabulary; JKR excels at this. In HP, Dumbledore was always a very strong and unique character in this regard. I just thought he didn't quite sound like himself in Beedle. The commentary was a great idea, though.

My favorite commentary was the discription of the pantomime attempt. I had wondered why there was a Charms Club but no drama...and I was glad to learn of WADA, it means I have a place within the Wizarding World. The Dumbeldore-Malfoy correspondence I also enjoyed. Although, as the good Professor said, Lucius' responses had little relevance to the tales, I could have done with more of that.

Humor aside, I greatly enjoyed the snippets of wizarding history...although I think it's time for a bit more than snippets, JK! Maybe I should write historical fanfiction. Is this a sign of obsession, do you think?


Why would Lady Grieve believe a knight could "straighten" her teeth if she was unaware he was a wizard? And why would muggles allow a full-fledged wizard to live amongst them, especially considering the church and royal court's stance on magic and those who perpetrate it? And how would they know that stripping him of his wand would in effect make him unable to perform the simplest magic?

Contrary to what you might think, many European rulers (despite their religious beliefs) employed astrologers and magic-makers (so-called) of many kinds in official positions in their courts, where they acted as advisors (Elizabeth I being a notable example, but then she was rumored to be a witch herself. Still, it was a common practice in all but the most strictly religous courts.) Plus, witch-hunting was still in its infancy in England in 1492. Witch-hunting didn't start to be a European enthusiasm until the early 1400s and it spread slowly. England didn't really get going on it until the 1500s, and the English didn't hunt witches with as much enthusiasm as other nationalities. Which, I suppose, would be one reason that Lisette de Lapin fled from France to England. And then made everyone think that Henry VI was insane. But maybe he didn't know that she wasn't really a talking white rabbit. He was, after all, unusually pious...

This is why I love JKR's writing: it's so rich and contains so many in-jokes that I can babble on and read far too much into her work. The Potterverse is a good place to be.

Did anyone else think that Dumbledore didn't quite sound like himself in Beedle?
I mean, every character has their own way of speaking, and phrasing, their very own vocabulary; JKR excels at this. In HP, Dumbledore was always a very strong and unique character in this regard. I just thought he didn't quite sound like himself in Beedle. The commentary was a great idea, though.

I think that there were parts of the commentary that were a little too self congratulatory from the Dumbledore that we know from the series. Even in private moments and in a book of private notes that he thought would not be seen I have trouble accepting Dumbledore is how he's presented in parts.

All in all though, I just take it as it is, I thought they were a wonderful touch and it made the book for me.

I really loved Dumbledore's commentaries. In general, they were great at illuminating some things that readers may not have known before, such as the definition of "warlock". I loved his correspondences with Lucius Malfoy, as well as his interpretations of what Beedle was trying to say in each tale. The story of the Christmas pantomime of The Fountain of Fair Fortune was excellent, as was the insight into Professor Kettleburn. It was funny to see how reckless he was, and that Dumbledore thought he had mellowed out only because he didn't have very many limbs left and was forced to take things slowly. :lol:I think that there were parts of the commentary that were a little too self congratulatory from the Dumbledore that we know from the series.Yeah, I kind of felt that way too at some parts, even though he was stating the truth. And he is pretty self-depreciating at the end of his commentary of The Tale of the Three Brothers.

I liked most of Dumbledore's notes, but there were a couple times it bothered me; like the whole "especially clever wizards (like myself)" comments. It seemed overly boastful of him. He said things like that in private, but I can't see him taking note of it in a book. My daughter said it sounded more like Gilderoy Lockhart, and I had to agree.

I thought it was very in character of Dumbledore, though. He makes arrogant remarks about himself in HBP and OotP, saying things like that wizards of great intelligence are prone to make even larger mistakes. At heart I think he was disgusted with who he was, but he prided himself in his intelligence, which is shown in the series and in Beedle.

liked most of Dumbledore's notes, but there were a couple times it bothered me; like the whole "especially clever wizards (like myself)" comments. It seemed overly boastful of him. He said things like that in private, but I can't see him taking note of it in a book. My daughter said it sounded more like Gilderoy Lockhart, and I had to agree.

I took that as Dumbledore being tongue-in-cheek. While yes, Dumbledore is intelligent and I'm sure he knows that I think he was just having a bit of fun there.

Dumbledore's notes made the book for me. While the tales themselves are interesting, I wouldn't have bought them if they didn't have Dumbledore's insights on them.

It made me want that encyclopedia a whole lot more, thats for sure

ME TOO!

I did find several very interesting things in the commentary and footnotes:

- Where the Malfoy's hate for muggles really started.
- Another wizarding school does exist! (besides Hogwarts, Beauxbatons, and Durmstrang) (W.A.D.A. Wizarding Academy of Dramatic Arts)
- Hector Dagworth-Granger! Maybe Hermione isn't totally descended from Muggles after all!
- The true meaning of Warlock.
- What Necromacy and Inferi means (though, I had a general idea).
- The wood of your wand determines your compatibility level with another.
- Also, In Dumbledore's commentary, he mentions Aberforth's favorite Beedle story was "Grumble the Grubby Goat". Why isn't that story in the book?

- Hector Dagworth-Granger! Maybe Hermione isn't totally descended from Muggles after all!

Athough in HBP, Slughorn asks Hermione about that, and she replies she's muggle born, so she doesn't think so. Knowing Hermione, she probably researched it.:lol:

- Also, In Dumbledore's commentary, he mentions Aberforth's favorite Beedle story was "Grumble the Grubby Goat". Why isn't that story in the book?

Did he actually say that it was a Beedle story? I just thought that Dumbledore said that Aberforth always wanted his parents to read "Grumble the Grubby Goat". I don't think that he said that it was a Beedle story, though.

Darco was transfigured so he did not retain human awarness while being bounced about. That's what Jo says and nothing in GoF shows he did.
I think that when he was refigured (or untransfigured) by McGonagall he did remember what had been done to him while he was a ferret, but we don't know that either. Harry is never transfigured so we don't get an inside view what it is like and no one ever tells him (or us) how it is.
We don't know what kind of magic Slughorn used, as far as I remember no Human/Inanimate object Transfiguration is ever mentioned or taught at Hogwarts. Maybe that was a strong Illusionment Charm or Slughorn used a potion, anyway the comment in BtB was only about Human/Animal Transfiguration. What ever it was I agree it was something Slughorn could have undone without help when ever he wanted, in fact he did undo it when he realized Dumbledore had discovered the disguise.
But Jo now squashed that theory. Transformation is not a form of Transfiguration, it's a different kind of magic which doesn't require a wand, or Sirius couln't have used it while in Azkaban (I'm sure they didn't leave him his wand) and Wormtail, as you say, couldn't have used it at the end of PoA.
I'm sure he had a wand on him, but wasn't fool enough to fight Sirius and Remus. And I never saw anyone saying he was transfigured and stuck.
Draco was not transformed (that's the Animagus magic ;) ), he was transfigured and Jo said that no wizard could have transfigured himself back once he was an animal, as far as we know the clothes and anything in the pockets are included in both changes (Transfiguration and (Animagus-)Transformation) and it doesn't matter if that includes a wand since the Animagus can turn back without it and the transfigured animal isn't able to use the wand.

I agree. You've made some very good points here. Even without Dumbledore's commentary in Beedle, that was how I saw it based on how it was described in the books.

This was discussed in GOF to some extent when Harry was preparing for the tournament and commented on Moody turning Malfoy into a ferret. Human transfiguration was divided into two distinctly different types in the books. The first being spells you could do on yourself and then undo. This is what we see with Slughorn transfiguring himself into a chair and it also applies to the animagus transformation. The second being spells that others did to you, which you could not undo. Essentially, this is no different than any other curse. Harry could not free himself from the body bind that Malfoy placed on him in HBP - Tonks showed up and did the countercurse for him. Malfoy could not change himself back to human form when Moody transfigured him into a ferret - McGonagall came along and did the countercurse for him. The basic tenent would appear to be what you do to yourself you can then undo - what others do to you must be undone by someone else.

The animagus transformation was classified as an element of transfiguration, but it was distinct in that they did not need a wand to accomplish it - which would also go towards why it was such a complicated and difficult area of magic to master. But that also makes some sense when you consider that you are channeling your magic into yourself rather than channeling it through your wand to someone or something else. Since the magic comes from inside you to begin with, it makes sense that you would not need a wand to do this type of spell on yourself.

And we see that with Sirius and Pettigrew. Sirius did not have a wand all those years he was in Azkaban - or when he first escaped - but he was able to transform into a dog so the dementors didn't effect him as badly. Pettigrew did not have a wand in POA when they forced him to reveal himself. I'd have to double check the books to see if it's mentioned, but it seems most likely that he left his wand in that alley along with the bit of finger he cut off as "proof" that he had died. But we know he didn't have one that night in POA - he grabbed Lupin's wand to attack Ron and left it there after he transformed. He did apparently have Voldemort's wand hidden somewhere and he used that until Voldemort returned to his own body, but Ollivander revealed that he had been forced to make a new wand for Pettigrew when he was captured. So, from the time he faked his death up until HBP, Pettigrew did not have a wand of his own.

Athough in HBP, Slughorn asks Hermione about that, and she replies she's muggle born, so she doesn't think so. Knowing Hermione, she probably researched it.:lol:

That does raise some interesting questions though. According to Jo, all muggleborns would have a witch or wizard somewhere in their family tree. So it's quite possible that Hermione was related to Hector Dagworth-Granger and simply wasn't aware of it.

Did he actually say that it was a Beedle story? I just thought that Dumbledore said that Aberforth always wanted his parents to read "Grumble the Grubby Goat". I don't think that he said that it was a Beedle story, though.

I'm pretty sure he didn't include that as a story written by Beedle. It was probably written by someone else.

Dumbledore's notes are my favourite part of the book, they also make me miss the book hugely and also really, really, really, really hope she does make the encyclopedia. Can you imagine all the interesting information J.K will include in that.

Dumbledore's notes are my favourite part of the book, they also make me miss the book hugely and also really, really, really, really hope she does make the encyclopedia. Can you imagine all the interesting information J.K will include in that.

I agree - I only just read the tales recently and they made me miss the books so much, and reading Dumbledores notes made me miss him even more!!

I really hope JKR does the Encyclopedia as well, it would be so fascinating!

I agree - I only just read the tales recently and they made me miss the books so much, and reading Dumbledores notes made me miss him even more!!

I really hope JKR does the Encyclopedia as well, it would be so fascinating!

I know, some people think i'm a nutter when i want to know more about a fictional world :lol: but it would be so interesting and would keep the series alive with more knowledge for people to discuss and debate about.

I know, some people think i'm a nutter when i want to know more about a fictional world :lol: but it would be so interesting and would keep the series alive with more knowledge for people to discuss and debate about.

Exactly!! We should do a petition :)

Exactly!! We should do a petition :)

Hell yeah, great idea. Although maybe J.K deserves some time off from writing. :cool:

I think that there were parts of the commentary that were a little too self congratulatory from the Dumbledore that we know from the series. Even in private moments and in a book of private notes that he thought would not be seen I have trouble accepting Dumbledore is how he's presented in parts.

All in all though, I just take it as it is, I thought they were a wonderful touch and it made the book for me.

I agree with this. I was not just a little taken aback when I finished the first story The Wizard and the Hopping Pot and then turned to Dumbledore's notes and the first thing I read was this.

A simple and heart-warming fable, one might think - in which case, one would reveal oneself to be an innocent nincompoop.

I blinked. A lot. :lol:

But though the commentary seems a bit different from the Dumbledore we knew from the first six books, after DH he seemed more human with all his flaws and correspondingly greater for all of them, and I think I can see him writing as he did in this book, with all the "Such as myself"s. :)

The tales were all the more enjoyable for his notes, and I missed him terribly.

#52 Lysandersgirl,where is the mention of couple compatibility mentioned,I must have missed that.I love the mention of the WADA.I really really want to know more about it.Was it a castle? What were the lessons? Were certain classes the same as Hogwarts,such as Divination and Potions:love: etc.?
I like the saying to have a hairy heart and Nick's history. I really like the idea of wizarding philosophers too,how does a witch or wizard get in to that I wonder? Is that what's done at the DoM? That'd be cool to work there at some point.:D

#52 Lysandersgirl,where is the mention of couple compatibility mentioned,I must have missed that.
This is in Dumbledore's notes on The Tale of the Three Brothers:
Certain wands (and therefore their owners) are supposed to be incompatible:

When his wand's oak and hers is holly,
Then to marry would be folly.

or to denote flaws in the owner's character:

Rowan gossips, chestnut drones,
ash is stubborn, hazel moans.

And sure enough, within this category of unproven sayings we find:

Wand of elder, never prosper.
I love the mention of the WADA.I really really want to know more about it.Was it a castle? What were the lessons? Were certain classes the same as Hogwarts,such as Divination and Potions:love: etc.?
I think they may have had these core classes, but there would be a concentration in magical theatre, pantomimes, music, etc. I like to think that the Wizarding Academy of Dramatic Arts taught the "magic" art of music (as Dumbledore mentions in his first speech in SS/PS).
I really like the idea of wizarding philosophers too,how does a witch or wizard get in to that I wonder? Is that what's done at the DoM? That'd be cool to work there at some point.:D
I think you could call Unspeakables "philosophers," in a sense (though I see them more as scientists). I would think there are many aspects of magic that would promote philosophy, so I do not think it would be difficult to make a career of it.

Thanks for that.I remember it now,looking at it.I liked it when reading it because of the rhymes,I like the beat of it:) Perhaps Unspeakables are scientists then.It still seems cool.Writing would always be good,or something-Potions related:) It gives me an idea to start a thread based on the other career aspects mentioned in the notes.

I loved Dumbledore's notes! They were funny, but they also helped you understand the stories more! Plus, I liked picturing him writing them :)

I also liked Dumbledore's notes. I also remember from DH that Hermione recognized extra drawings that Dumbledore put in the book for her to see. LIke the snake ( could that mean Nagini is a horcrux hint to her?) and the crown that was on another heading. MMM We just aren't told a lot of what he obviously left for Hermione to figure out on her own.

I agree with this. I was not just a little taken aback when I finished the first story The Wizard and the Hopping Pot and then turned to Dumbledore's notes and the first thing I read was this.

A simple and heart-warming fable, one might think - in which case, one would reveal oneself to be an innocent nincompoop.

I blinked. A lot. :lol:

I love that line - it makes me laugh so much.

I think that Dumbledore's notes are great, especially his anecdotes about the Hogwarts production of The Fountain of Fair Fortune and his reference to the letters with Lucius Malfoy:

My response prompted several further letters from Mr Malfoy, but as they consisted mainly of opprobrious remarks on my sanity, parentage and hygiene, their relevance to this commentary is remote.

:rotfl: :rotfl:

I think it's clear that, in most cases, the commentary isn't supposed to be taken too seriously.

^I agree, the commentary wasn't meant to be taken too seriously. But it was genius, nonetheless.

Dumbledore's commentary was light-hearted, well thought-out, and very "Dumbledore", in a manner of speaking. I borrowed the book from the library yesterday, and I would turn to the commentry after each story. Wizarding tales are much better than the ones our Muggle ones.

^I agree, the commentary wasn't meant to be taken too seriously. But it was genius, nonetheless.

My sentiments, exactly.

I loved Dumbledore's notes. I loved the self deprecating jokes about him being the most brilliant wizard to live and it gave us a little bit more of JKR's writing (which I had sorely missed!!). I loved the back story it gave us about the Malfoys too, it cleared up a lot of questions I had about their heritage and the origin of some of their attitudes.

I thought Dumbledore's notes were more entertaining than the actual stories themselves.

OMG I just loved Dumbledore's commentary! It was like Luna commenting during that Quidditch match in HBP! Like someone above me has said: It was genius and very much Dumbledore-ish.

Okay, I am on story number 2 (re-reading) The Fountain of Fair Fortune and Dumbledore's notes after the story about the sad case of the Hogwarts' pantomime and Proff. Kettleburn is hilarious.

Did anyone else think of the whole 'Hermione-Ron-Lavender' mess in HBP when they read about the disastrous attempt at an adaptation of the story?

I cracked up quite a bit when I read about

Little did he know that the students playing "Amata" and "Sir Luckless" had been boyfriend and girlfriend until one hour before the curtain rose, at which point "Sir Luckless" transferred his affections to "Asha".

While the enormous fiery eggs it had laid at the foot of my Hill ignited the floorboards, "Amata" and "Asha" turned upon each other, dueling so fiercely that Professor Beery was caught in the cross fire---

Ron as "Sir Luckless"
*cracks up*

Wonder what Hermione thought about when she read about this particular note of Dumbledore's :P

I love his notes. It gave me a whole new perspective on his personality. The whole Kettleburn incident in the great hall was hilarious but sad in the same time. :). I also loved his quarrel with Lucius. I always saw Dumbledore as too diplomatic but his great response gave him more of a "fire" personality.

Aw, Dumbledore's notes were just hilarious, and are a great way to tie these stories into the Harry Potter world we all know and love.

I also love how (in some cases) they gave a little bit more insight into the back-story of certain characters, and a little bit more information of events that occured in the HP past.

I enjoyed reading Dumbledore's notes and one part that really made me smile was finding out that Professor Mcgonagall ended up staying on as Headmistress :D.

As for the notes, at times I laughed and at times I saw that he could be slightly egotistical at times. But overall, he was human and it showed. Both for good and for bad.

As for the notes, at times I laughed and at times I saw that he could be slightly egotistical at times. But overall, he was human and it showed. Both for good and for bad.
I thought Dumbledore's comments in Beedle showed a much more bluntly egotistical side of him than did the seven books. Given that here we saw his personal commentary it does not surprise me, but I think JKR opened up Dumbledore's true character to us in those notes. While we do see a bit of arrogance in the books, the commentary highlights it, and I think it is an important collection to consider in Dumbledore's character analysis.