~~ Dumbledore and the Epic Problem of the Hero's Choice

[reenka]

What it comes down to is that as a reader, I'm not interested in subverting the text, whether or not I personally agree with its paradigms. So even if I thought Slytherins are JKR's misunderstood ickle babies, for instance, I wouldn't really care-- my bias is always going to be character-driven rather than environmental. If I can identify a personal 'archetype' or driving force behind a character-- and feel like I really understand it-- then that character becomes 'sympathetic' and not really in need of subversion so much as development (and being a fanfic writer more than a reader of the books as a main 'role', the development doesn't have to be JKR's). These two words are rather different, 'cause one implies judgment (of 'the Author' by 'the Reader').

So, admission of bias: I just plain don't care what The Author (in this case, JKR) is saying in a larger ethical context as seen from an outside pov-- my context is always going to be 'as seen from the inside'. By 'inside', I mean 'the world as seen from the pov of one of its characters', because I use empathy as my main tool for understanding. So the most important things for me to ask a character are 'who do you think you are?' and 'what do other characters think you are?' rather than 'who do -I- think you are?'. The 'I' of me-as-reader is just... irrelevant, since I understand any character through identifying with them.

In a way, I think this approach that stresses 'equal personal validity' among all the characters doesn't make sense as a moral system at all: it only makes sense as a writer's device. Thus, I'm usually reading/thinking about the books -as- a writer within them. It's almost like I'm riding on JKR's coattails, metaphorically speaking-- I'm trying to understand the books from the inside out, only asking the question 'what are they saying?' to see the -precedent- so that I could use it to write in that context.

Anyway, to get to my point (finally): Dumbledore.

I think the way one sees Dumbledore kind of determines how one perceives a large portion of the character dynamics within HP, if anything because he holds the most power (apparently) and thus controls the game to a certain extent, rather like a DM in an RPG. He discloses or doesn't disclose information at will, he has an agenda you pretty much -have- to choose to follow in order to 'win' the game, and he stands back and allows most events to happen without interference, thus letting a number of possibly fatal mistakes occur. He's almost literally 'larger than life' while remaining human (and thus fallible), so that any mistake he makes has a hundred times greater repercussions than that of a player. His motives are often clouded and you either accept he means well or you're out of luck, it seems.
    Even so, he gives the impression of a person who -cares- and understands the nature of people/situations better than one would initially guess from the eccentric-soft-headed-old-man demeanor which may or may not be an act. (Statement of bias: I don't think it is, or I would at least call it 'habit', and I do like him, 'nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak' & all.)
~~

So, here comes the major question: is Dumbledore 'evil'-- i.e., a 'Dark' wizard who's been corrupted by his longtime contact with that which he sought to subdue and the means he's used?
    I think no matter what your knee-jerk response, the question is too complex to answer with a yes or no, though after some disclaimers, I'd have to say 'no'. However, that is not the most important question.


1. Compassion, or The Ultimate Goal

Speaking outside the specific context of ongoing war and larger-than-life epic battles between magicians who could both destroy the world-- compassion clearly seems the top contender as 'the ultimate good', with the concept of 'justice' being dependent on a level of objectivity (or 'blindness to bias') that not really humanly possible. Compassion relies on a person's ability to empathize-- to put themselves in another's shoes-- while any notion of justice relies on a sort of (unrealistic) transcendence of ego. However, as far as an ideal, compassion serves as a form of 'Love' (perhaps 'love is blind' may be significant here), and is therefore as close as one could -get- to 'Good'.

If so, does that condemn Dumbledore (on 'humanitarian' terms)? Clearly, he makes sacrifices that have repercussions in real, human terms. By choosing compassion with one person, he can't help neglecting another. In the very set-up of conflict within Hogwarts (if not the Wizarding World), by choosing to favor one (Gryffindor), he automatically disfavors another (Slytherin). There can be no true fairness, so there must be something else instead he would hope to achieve.
    This question of the nature of the Ultimate Goal puts his function as Headmaster & Voldemort's Opponent in conflict, I think, especially in his role towards the Slytherins. And here one would separate wartime goals from peacetime goals, I imagine; also, it becomes important whether Dumbledore really believed Voldemort was gone when he lost his body (I think the prophecy implies otherwise).

What can be the Ultimate Good in a situation where choice becomes a matter of choosing -between- (often two undesirables)? What becomes the 'right choice' (and thus the Ultimate Good) when you can't save everyone? Is it actually possible to 'win', within this context...? In other words, can Dumbledore win and save everyone while retaining any sort of moral high ground?
    My answer, in the end, has to be 'no', but that's not Dumbledore's function to start with.

Dumbledore seems to have a wide network of informants and sources; ever since he questioned Tom about the Chamber of Secrets, he's probably been on his guard. Whether or not he's a Diviner seems... unimportant almost. Regardless, he's one of the most informed people and has the most potential conflicts of conscience.

He has to manipulate power and calculate all possible consequences like a chess-master or a DM, so he cannot be 'good' all the time to all the players, trying to be 'right' in the endgame. The process of predictive calculation implies sacrifice of some players for winning against the Black King (trying to predict the likelihood of outcomes means sometimes you overlook random factors and sometimes you don't have enough information). However, the costs do appear to grieve him & weigh on him heavily (judging from the tears at the end of OoTP if nothing else), and I do believe he doesn't want all this responsibility but feels it's his duty (especially given his attachment to Harry & relish of the creature comforts in life like socks & candy & tea).

Maybe in part, this approaches the concept that wisdom isn't equivalent to 'good'...? Sometimes knowledge is a burden, especially where there is no 'clean' solution.
    So often enough, Dumbledore has to be prepared to sacrifice his own ethics/wishes, as well as others'. In particular, this relates him telling Harry and Hermione how to rescue Buckbeak in PoA. They're forced to accept the fact that they have to go against a huge tradition/law like the one against time-tampering-- which may as well be a law of nature. It's obviously a loss of innocence, and I don't believe Dumbledore was happy about it.

This is the dilemma: once you realize the insolvability of some real ethical conflicts, what would be the ethical solution---? If the ethics of black-and-white absolutism aren't a complete method of solving real-world problems, then what is, and who decides...? And how does one justify deciding merely because one has been put into a position of power, where such decisions are -possible-?

Perhaps that's why he tried to make sure Harry's innocence was protected as much as possible, to shield him from the paradoxes and the frequent futility of 'good intentions'?
~~

2. The paradox of the White Hat: Kirk & Dumbledore.

I would say that he's not a White wizard the way that Voldemort is a Dark wizard (if anything, 'cause Dumbledore's a more complex character than Voldemort at this point, and we've seen more of him). I think it's interesting that Albus' first name comes from the Latin for 'white' according to the HP Lexicon, and one of the meanings of his last name is 'White Hat'. I think the problem is that there can -be- no 'pure' Black or White hats (for the duality itself is false if it implies there is no Grey), not in the complexity of human motivation. And Dumbledore is very human/fallible where the one thing Voldemort resists is any admission of his fallibility. However, I think perhaps the focus of one's orientation in the context of this archetypical duality would be whether one's ideals emphasize love/liberty/self-realization even if one's actions fall short.

As per pandarus' post, the difference between Dumbledore & Voldemort (the 'hero' & the 'villain'-- though Dumbledore isn't the Hero and doesn't entirely play by those rules) comes down to intent, and not being motivated by selfishness.

    Also, it seems significant that in this arc, it's Harry who's on the journey to become the opposite of Voldemort, not Dumbledore, who's already had his Fool's Journey. Dumbledore's and Voldemort's 'sides' have to be assumed to a certain extent for the story to commence-- it is Harry's heart that is in the balance. And here's where I get into archetypal mumbo-jumbo, meaning: I realize that if one tried to translate the story into reality, things would shift meaning, sometimes drastically.
~~

When I first started thinking about this (and now you're going to laugh), I was comparing Dumbledore to Jim Kirk & Spock to Snape (all right, fine, I know it's silly). Still, I think it's significant that Star Trek isn't a standard heroic quest-- much more so than the HP books, which follow the traditional progression of the Hero's Quest archetypes in a lot of ways. In the original Star Trek universe, there's more of a multiply circular model of individual Will, where the 'heroes' (the Fleet) has an overarching quest, but the individuals almost never act with that Ultimate Authority (thus being a circle within a circle), and the main hero actually constantly subverts the supposed Ultimate Goal and does whatever the hell he likes. (In this way Jim's more like Harry, because Dumbledore has already gone through his Quest with Grindelwald).

Jim Kirk & Dumbledore are both rogues but Jim is always the hero; he orders others but they just follow him, he doesn't delegate on ethical issues-- he asks for advice but his course is always personal. There is often a separation between the freedom of individual choice and 'fairness' or the Greater Good (and its connection to leadership of those who don't have the inclination to choose semi-blindly by those who do). I think a large part of what makes a Hero separate from a Mentor is that basic unawareness of the repercussions of his personal choice/initiative on the actions of the morally undecided population. Thus, he generally leads by example and personal charisma rather than by calculation and thus awareness of his effect on others. The Mentor archetype (Dumbledore, Yoda, etc) knows you can never really 'win' an 'epic' war without also losing (meaning, without compromising oneself to some extent), but if the Hero knew that, it would cripple him.

The questing Hero has to believe he can make his own destiny in order for the wild power of his Will to be fully effective-- which is why it makes story-arc sense for Dumbledore to have withheld the knowledge of his entrapment from Harry until the last possible moment. He told Harry he had no -Choice-, no Will, and that is the worst blow to a boy-- as well as someone's who's meant to be a Hero. That is, ultimately, the worst blow of becoming a 'grown-up'-- that no one person can fully control their own future, or make sure their actions are fully 'right' or 'free'.
~~

3. Snape's role as balance.

This is what it comes down to, after one realizes the futility of the individual's own desires, as told by Spock to Jim in `Wrath of Khan': 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one'. Spock was trapped, and made the only 'logical' choice, which yielded the most benefit in the greatest number of directions-- but would Jim (a Hero in his own right) have made the same choice? And finally, which is the 'right' decision, and for who? What are the individual's needs worth compared those of society they're a part of?

    There's no correct answer to that conundrum, so Dumbledore has to come up with his best guess. Snape, though, seems pretty convinced there is a fully correct answer, whether driven by logic or his own unshakable (and hard-won) beliefs. Voldemort thinks there's a single correct answer too: the scenario where he wins at any cost. Snape apparently follows the ethics of a harsh (non-compassionate) form of logic, which affects his more 'public' actions but not his personal judgments, which remain heavily biased.

It seems a bit ridiculous: Snape, trying to be fair? But even though he's unfair, he thinks he is-- or at least, he gives his students the opportunity to follow his 'rules' (however Draconian) and succeed on their own merits. In the context of the Hogwarts House system, clearly he tries to balance things and does show favoritism to the Slytherins to pull them up in a sort of affirmative action, but there are clearly lines he won't cross in terms of recognition of good work . He probably feels that the Gryffindors cheat within the ideal system of logical meritocracy and he merely compensates.

Snape's 'good intentions' shine through in his selflessness & self-sacrifice (being a spy, teaching distasteful Potions, serving Gryffindors, protecting Potter). However, it appears to be rationally rather than emotionally derived (which makes sense for a Slytherin). In this supreme rationality of choice, with his emotions kept forcibly separate (so that they don't lead him to some sort of violence, probably), his responsibilities/motivations might be seen as much simpler than Dumbledore's. Indeed, one could make a case that Snape's ethics are very pure. He was wrong once and he overcame his pride enough to learn to admit he was wrong and change tactics, which means he has the capacity to listen to a 'higher' judgment and give 'the enemy' his respect. This is a very rare (and rationally-centered) trait, especially since he still -resents- the enemy.

    Whatever the case, Snape seems to be trying to do the right thing now (especially with Quirrel & Harry in PoA and OoTP to varying extents) without any particular need for recognition-- thus the reward must be personal and most likely ethical.
~~

Dumbledore, on the other hand, wants to win at the minimal cost, but he realizes there will be a cost, and thus he has to deal with incomplete solutions most of the time.

He has to calculate the minimal cost... so many variables, so many possible solutions. He also has to worry about others' humanity being more protected than his own, especially if these are key players whose roles must be assured. So he manipulates his mind more than anyone else's (probably using the Pensieve to 'put away' memories which he can't deal with at the moment), trying to fail-safe himself more than anyone else. He seems to try to allow people freedom as well as trying to utilize them & maximize their potential.

The extent to which succeeds at his well-intentioned attempts at guidance-without-dominance and the full price he's going to pay, of course, remains to be seen.
~~

4. Harry's choice & the failure of Ultimate Good.

Is Harry a 'White Hat'? I think his motivations are too chaotic and self-centered (saving those he loves, punishing those he dislikes) to be 'heroic' at this point, but clearly he cannot 'win' while continuing in this style. As of OoTP, Harry is rather egotistical-- but I think he tries not to be (like with Ron's being a Prefect, for instance). He grew up away from true bonding experiences, and his whole Hogwarts experience has been a process of overcoming his early ego traumas, I think.
    One could definitely draw a parallel between becoming a White Hat wizard & becoming truly human & aware of both one's failings and entrapments as well as of one's responsibilities. Harry has to learn compassion. Thus, there is a contrast to Tom Riddle here, who had to go through inhuman trials to make him inhuman....

Maybe pure 'White Hat' wizards aren't as useful (would be corrupted) outside of battle, in reality--? One has to be able to recognize and defuse the dangers of the Dark Arts-- that is, if one has no working understanding of what one is up against, one cannot defeat it, as it would take one by surprise; however, such understanding requires a flexible/mature morality to incorporate into one's thinking.

Pure Goodness can really only function as a single, brilliant point rather than a plane that humans can sustain existence on. Meaning: 'mundane' reality cannot keep functioning in the absolute terms of Ideal. Therefore, one can achieve it, but not sustain it indefinitely in the multiplicity of the larger society, with everyone's needs being impossible to satisfy...?
    Lily seems to have had that one point of selfless compassionate 'Good' too, while during her adolescence she was more focused on some (easily corruptible) idea of `justice' & fairness. So maybe that one moment of incorruptibility then becomes the ultimate possible expression of Good?

Correspondingly, Voldemort wants to beat Death, willing to achieve it at the expense of everything-- so that would be the point of "incorruptible" evil (utter destruction)-- which by this reasoning, Voldemort hasn't quite achieved yet. It would be selfishness brought to its ultimate expression, one might say. Comparatively, "incorruptible" Good would be a form of healing-- a Seal of the rift this drive for self-preservation & selfishness creates. It's a more group-oriented dynamic-- thus combining the virtues of loyalty (vs. obedience), leadership (vs. dominance) and bravery (vs. fear, which is what would lead to obedience).
    Since Voldemort is approaching the point of ultimate Evil (were he to succeed), Dumbledore (the Grey) has to find and train (if necessary) the prophecied Hero/counterpart to Voldemort who would be up to being truly Good at the time of the rift, in order to balance it, because Dumbledore himself has already lost his 'edge'. During that final test of the Hero, he'd have to confront the Ultimate Adversary-- and after that high point (as with Dumbledore & Grindelwald), they'd come down into the Grey...?

Dumbledore has been trying to mold & protect Harry (from knowing certain things), with a future point always in mind. I don't think this implies that Harry's merely Dumbledore's tool, only that he's a student and Dumbledore is performing the role of a Mentor, who has to make that awfully difficult judgment call of what will serve Harry and what will harm him 'too much' and is 'unacceptable'. It is perfectly natural for Harry to become a teenager and resent this meddling-- who wouldn't? This very resentment and rebellion is a sign that he's growing up. He'd probably have done it whether or not he discovered Dumbledore had kept the Prophecy from him (among other things, I'm sure).

I would thus claim that -Dumbledore- is a tool of -Harry-, as much as if not more than the other way.
    In everyday reality (outside that Single Epic Point that changes 'destiny'), of course, there is a constant continuous flux of shades of Grey. Everyone's roles on the Continuum are then dependent on the given individual's pov. I think that explains how fallible & human & pathetic the Death Eaters are outside of the Ultimate Confrontation (which is all about the Hero and his Adversary rather than the minions, anyway).

Finally, it seems rather important to mention that Dumbledore isn't the Hero as one would be classically defined, though he was one in the past. The harsh judgment and extreme expectations placed on heroes would be a whole 'nother post, and pandarus had a great discussion of that recently.
    Harry is the Hero of this arc, and the real weight of eventual Choice (and the resistance of destiny) rests upon him-- though not alone, since learning to let others help (and accept some opposition) is part of a Hero's Journey. Regardless, being 'Good' & being a 'Hero' aren't necessarily the same thing in mythic/archetypical terms.

Another parallel I could draw is to Buffy & Giles. Giles is the mentor, and his moral failings are much more static (and necessary to 'free' Buffy, as when he had to kill Ben in season 5), it seems to me, compared to Buffy's process of growth & self-discovery. That is the main difference: that very cyclical process of a Hero's ascention to true 'Goodness', followed by a gradual corruption by knowledge, which is often in the service of training the next Hero.
~~~~~

5. Benevolence & necessity.

Put in context, I was startled and yet somewhat enlightened by seeing a comparison of Dumbledore to X-Men's Xavier and Superman(!) in a comment on mimesere's Honorable Stoics post. It really does come down to a distrust of 'benevolent' authority figures with a personal Code that's not readily apparent. I think the comparison to Xavier is really apt, btw. (And well, just so it's clear, I love Professor Xavier and just like Dumbledore, personally, but then Xavier is much more developed as a character in that we know more of his personal history.)

There's something to be said for people identifying/forgiving rogues/vigilantes or people who're obviously ethically much more questionable than whatever 'righteous' authority figure-- because I suppose they wear their flaws on their sleeves. Perhaps we expect our authority figures to live up to some almost inhuman standard of Good Fatherhood, and if they don't we tear them down. I'm also fascinated by this comment because of the mention of Star Trek authority figures-- Janeway, Picard, etc-- as being different (more liked) because the benignness is uber-exaggerated, but also there's no one else to root for. Like, if you don't go with Picard, who do you go with?

That reminds me of one's attitude towards wartime leaders, where people who'd decry their methods in peacetime suddenly rally behind them. And it does seem like Picard's ship is a hotspot of constant conflict in a Federation that's generally more at peace in his time.

There's something to be said for viewing Dumbledore as a necessary wartime leader-- and in fact, that seems to be the Ministry's problem with him, isn't it? He's stirring things up; he's making their status quo difficult. Then again, Voldemort really is back, and whoever really believes they want him as their leader (instead of Dumbledore), I think, is underestimating him. I mean, okay, some people think they'd like living in a regime, but. The thing about evil regimes is that eventually, even the favored minion's head is at the cutting block (or their hand, as the case may be).

Okay, what I'm saying is: both Dumbledore & Voldemort are 'The Man' in their own little way. But some er... men are better than some other men, even if the margin is basically 'they mean well'. And don't start tellin' me that Voldemort means well & that everyone means well, 'cause some people only mean well for themselves and everyone else can go do unmentionable things to goats (...that would be Voldemort). And it's not so much a 'lesser of two evils' argument... except yeah, okay, it is. But it's also a 'power is inherently greying' argument, where you couldn't really have a much better choice in the situation at hand, as far as I could see.

There are the bureaucrats (the Ministry); there is the apathetic and possibly vaguely resentful majority who stay away from the conflict until they're shoved in; there is the radical terrorist fringe (the Death Eaters) with Voldemort as the mafia leader. And then there is Dumbledore, who's something of a populist Reformer type (who at least polices himself too). It's not exactly grass-roots resistance by any means, since they're working with all the various power-cells including the Ministry, but it's as independent as it can afford, I think (to the point of indiscretion, I think, with Dumbledore turning down power at the Ministry).

Clearly, Dumbledore's policy is somewhat exclusive of Slytherin/radical concerns, but not entirely, because we have Snape, and it's also somewhat exclusive of the current system (which the Death Eaters are against). Snape is willing to be reasonable, where I think most of the others are (whoever they are-- what's another adult-- Lucius??!) And the kids are-- kids.

I think the Death Eaters' rallying cry of 'Down With The (Muggle-fancying) Man' is too easy and misleading. It's destructive and conservative rather than constructive or progressive in nature. The Death Eaters want to 'get back, get back' to where they once belonged, while I think Dumbledore wants to compromise and of course he'll wind up pleasing only some people some of the time and he'll make some people very very pissed off a lot of the time.

I guess people want things to be simple and easy-- morally clear, anyway-- where in reality they almost never are. No one's 'right', and everyone thinks they're just defending their rights or turn or whatever, so it all comes down to 'the larger picture', which no one can really agree on. It's pretty obvious 'something should be done', but who's going to do it? I think the key here is to get beyond one's constituency representation concerns (especially as Dumbledore is still Headmaster first and foremost) and be willing to compromise.

'You win some, you lose some' can be a very dangerous philosophy in the wrong hands, of course. And perhaps there's no such thing as the 'right' hands to wield a certain amount of power over people, but the fact is, that power sits there, and it's going to get wielded (in this scenario, at least).

As a wartime leader, Dumbledore can be trusted to do everything possible to attain peace with the least possible civilian casualties, so to speak. As a peacetime Headmaster, Dumbledore has a prudent (and sometimes overly zealous!) hands-off policy that keeps his dangerous powers to himself as much as possible and delegates most administrative functions to the Heads of Houses. It could be much worse, as far as someone else trying to do the job (and who else can?)
~~~~~~~

(The post also known as: man, I'm never writing any essays ever again. I think I broke my head.)

Comments

I think you broke my head too . . .

[ladyrelaynie.livejournal.com]

*clapclapclap* Possibly the most cohesive explanation of power structure in HP that I've read, congrats.

Favorite part: "The Death Eaters want to "get back, get back, get back" to where they once belonged."

I'll be singing that all day, yay.

~Relaynie

(PS. I think Dumbledore is not evil . . . evil is total investment in power (IMHO), and Dumbly doesn't want power as such(as his refusal to take over at the Ministry shows). He only wants to protect the majority of people against power hungry genocidists. I agree though . . . there's never an easy answer, is there?)

heh

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Thanks! :D Yeah, um... I didn't really spend time refuting the 'why he's not evil' idea, but then I got bored with the question soon after asking it :))

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

So the most important things for me to ask a character are 'who do you think you are?' and 'what do other characters think you are?' rather than 'who do -I- think you are?'. The 'I' of me-as-reader is just... irrelevant, since I understand any character through identifying with them.

Interesting and very well-put. I would claim I do exactly the same thing (because honestly, how can you ever expect to understand a character if you don't identify with them at all? I mean authors who try that tend to describe the character "from the outside" rather than "the inside", and in the end that usually makes for a flat and boring text.) But what I think, is that the two questions are really expressing the same thing. I mean, you ask the character "Who do you think you are?" and "who do others think you are?", the character can never answer that, in the end it's always you who end up answering that question. And by doing so, I think you also answer the question "who do I think you are?", even though you haven't posed it.

Is Harry a 'White Hat'? I think his motivations are too chaotic and self-centered (saving those he loves, punishing those he dislikes) to be 'heroic' at this point, but clearly he cannot 'win' while continuing in this style.

YES! This is absolutely my hope for the future development of the story. He has yet to learn compassion and to see a bit of himself even in his enemies.

Sorry, I can't really add anything to your Dumbledore-thoughts... Yes, it's true it could be worse. But I think one important reason for why Dumbledore and other Power-figures on the "good side" in fantasy-books, so often get criticised, is because, many times, we don't really get insight to the their "big plans". Sacrifices they make, for instance, may therefore seem unnecessary, because we don't know what "the light wizard" in question meant to achieve by them. It gets frustrating when you don't know why something has to be done a certain way, if it means victimising someone, if you don't know exactly for what they had to be victimised, if that makes any sense. Of course, us not knowing is usually necessary for the dramatic structure of mystery, but it still feels frustrating.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Is Harry a 'White Hat'? I think his motivations are too chaotic and self-centered (saving those he loves, punishing those he dislikes) to be 'heroic' at this point, but clearly he cannot 'win' while continuing in this style.

YES! This is absolutely my hope for the future development of the story. He has yet to learn compassion and to see a bit of himself even in his enemies.

But then, isn't this "our" thought as well? I mean, how do we know that Harry can't go on saving those he loves and punishing those he dislikes and not win? To me it seems obvious this is true, and it seems like the book is set up to show exactly this, but maybe everyone doesn't see this as obvious or even necessary.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

I very sadly foresee the same ending, but I've got to the point where (as I think Reena was expressing above) I don't much care about future developements. This is an universe shared, isn't? So, to me, my thoughts counts more than the Author's, no matter the capital A. I don't think subversion is an action (or a reading in this case) that has value per se; it's defined as a reaction, it's defined by the "establishment" it's trying to bring down.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there's always some amount of projection going on, however one perceives a piece of writing-- it's always going to be filtered through one's own biases & abilities & history. Definitely, there are some characters I just don't instinctively -get-, and generally that means I'm disinterested in them until a fanfic shows me a side of them I can latch onto, and suddenly, Eureka! A light-bulb switches on. I'm like that with Hermione-- I don't get her unless something pushes me, and then I'm like, ohhhhhhh. Heh. I think with her it's a question of me resisting those qualities that she has in abundance in myself a lot of times (bossiness, intellectual over-compensation, that particular form of arrogance, pedantry, hyper-rationality, etc).

I do think we see signs of compassion in Harry, which is why I think he'll arrive at that point. There's his rescuing of people who don't necessarily mean much to him (Fleur's sister), his protection of Dudley, his inability to fully go through the torture of Bellatrix, who he certainly hated. It's like... he's definitely learning, it's just he's pretty stunted & hasn't had much love stored up in him to -give-, early on-- he just soaked it up. Wah. Sorry, am eensy weensy tiny bit biased ;)))

Yeah you're right about the frustration one could feel with Dumbledore-- I think Harry feels it too, really, so it's obviously a natural response. That's why I was saying that about not seeing him or most characters from the outside-- yeah, from the outside, he's got to be extremely suspicious since he keeps things close to his chest for goor or iffy reasons, but from the inside he's just trying to play the game as best he can without compromising himself too much. I actually don't know how much he's succeeded. It's entirely possible he hasn't, but even so, it's not up to him to succeed anyway, it's up to Harry :)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I feel like I'm in a weird place in the HP fandom because I honestly don't feel like I'm giving a subversive reading...that is, if I wasn't in fandom and didn't hear other people's opinions and JKR's opinions I'd think the stuff I'm told is subversive was the whole point.

So I don't really feel like I'm subverting what the text is saying so much as trying to figure out exactly what it's saying. And it's a weird text that way because it's not like it says one clear thing and then I say, "But let's look at it this way!" On the contrary, it seems like the text contradicts itself all the time. What characters say is often very different from what they do or the way things happen.

Like, compassion exists, but many things trump it, and having too much of it is highly distrusted. (Fandom gives it more weight --Fanon!Harry is very often distinguished by a defining compassion completely different from Canon!Harry's defining sense of justice, with the difference sometimes unnoticed.) Maybe that's why whenever Dumbledore gives Harry a lecture about moral values, particularly THIS value, they always sound so much like...something else. Another move in the chess game. He's making a point, but not that point.

There are many things in this universe that one just does not even consider being okay, and if you do you're a bad guy. I really want to know what those are. It's not usually what characters *say* they are, since they often *do* the thing too. There's some constant here, I'm just honestly not sure what it is. I am trying to understand the characters on their own terms, I just have to describe them in ways that seem accurate.

Like, often the non-subversive reading is very vague. Something is done in canon by the good guys and it was a good thing because X, Y and Z. Only that those reasons often seem very fake to me. Maybe it's what the author wants me to think but that doesn't make it true. So I feel like I want to know what the text is really saying. It does think this is right, but why? Why really?

Sometimes it seems like a lot of the story depends on the audience feeling the same way about a lot of issues and if you don't have those same reactions you're automatically reading a different story. Not because you're necessarily trying to do a subversive reading but because the author hasn't really given you any reason not to feel that way, because it was just assumed you'd react to this character the way she does. And sometimes if you do naturally react that way you don't really examine why. You go more by how you feel and don't want to break down exactly why--but to me that's what's so interesting about it to begin with. So, like, I'm fine with Dumbledore as the "good" general, I just don't always describe what he's doing the way he does.

I think this post is probably a very accurate description of how the text sees itself and that's valuable-just as I obviously think it's valuable to see how the bad side sees themselves. But I don't think either side is always truthful about what they really feel or what they're doing. I don't think Dumbledore's a dark wizard like Voldemort, but perhaps because the bad side is so inept and we rarely see them, for me it's the creeping danger of the good side that seems to be the thing to fight against in this universe. Voldemort doesn't seem like a matched foe for Harry or Dumbledore. Actually, he's a lot like Draco to me in that he's not dangerous for anything he's able to do but for the way he so easily leads Harry and Dumbledore down their own dark path with the understanding that--just as you say--it could be much worse. That's a big blank check: it could be worse.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

I think this post is probably a very accurate description of how the text sees itself

I agree! I am sure JKR means for a reader to get this from her books - but the problem is that this reader gets quite the opposite vibe. Sort of like the whole "Lily is Love" subtext.

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

That's a big blank check: it could be worse.

Yes, now that I think about it, that's actually an expression that you can always use to justify whatever bad behaviour, and trivialize anyone's suffering, no matter on which scale it is, because the thing is it can always be worse. So it's not really a good argument for being pro-something or someone.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I wasn't meaning it as an argument 'pro' Dumbledore, exactly. I wasn't trying to really -justify- Dumbledore, either-- I'm not sure what I'd be justifying him from, and why, if I did. I meant that in context, and now I do realize (even more than I did when I wrote it) that it's just a very sloppy statement. Meh.

I meant, you could do worse for a leader of the Resistance, not worse in general. He's the best choice available, and clearly he's fallible & way too inscrutable at this point, but he does the job, and how much better would someone else do? That's sort of more what I meant.

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, that makes sense. Not really sure I agree, though, because of the things I said in the previous comment about us not knowing everything about his plans and such. Also, I have to wonder, who do we really have to compare him with? Voldemort? Fudge? Because both of them are pretty extreme cases, how can we know that no one else, besides these three would have handled it better than Dumbledore when we haven't seen it? We don't really have anything to compare to...

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

It's that issue of comparison that I was trying to address with my constant mentions of other fandoms-- well, mostly Star Trek. I realize my readers wouldn't necessarily be familiar & thus it may pass most people by, but..... Heh. I really do think it's most relevant. I do think that Professor Xavier & Picard & Jim Kirk to some extent are good comparisons, and Spock & Snape are good contrasts-- and that's why I said Snape was 'the balance', because, well, imagine -him- as the Headmaster/leader of the Resistance. He'd be rather... uh... more unyielding than Dumbledore, if anything, I imagine, 'cause he's got pretty strict ideas about himself being right and everyone else needing to... perhaps not do unmentionable things to goats... perhaps just... 'go away', ahahahah. Um. Hopefully there's some pain involved, probably :>

Anyway, Xavier is prolly the best comparison, though it doesn't work if you're not familiar with The X-Men. *sigh*

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

Well, I was thinking more about someone in HP-verse to compare him to, but you're right, I've barely watched an episode of Star Trek and X-men... well I've seen the movies, but never read them (and wasn't impressed enough by the movies to keep track of all characters, but I'm guessing Xavier is the guy who seemed to be Headmaster for that school.)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Man... I don't have any right to talk about not being subversive, 'cause when I think about motivation/characterization, I don't exactly go back to read the original text, y'know. And everyone knows how (not very) much I pay attention to people-who-are-not-Harry. So this is all post-factum theorizing rather than a direct response to the textual statement/action, anyway. I sort of remember the general things that Dumbledore does & I can extrapolate on an intuitive level, but I don't really think in terms of 'what does this statement really mean' vs. 'what does this action imply'. It's all kind of a gestalt, half-inferred and half-projected, probably-- and partly just taken from how Dumbledore's 'type' (the Mentor) behaves in other texts entirely! In fact, more than half this essay was more a comparison with other sources than a direct commentary, anyway. So basically, I think I cheated.

So to me, it doesn't really matter what lectures Dumbledore gives-- I don't even remember what he said precisely, besides the most recent (OoTP) one. He rambles on & uses misdirection & only says what he thinks Harry 'needs' to hear most of the time. He's such a teacher/Mentor that I don't think you can trust those conversations as 'raw data' by any means. I see them as very much directed -at- Harry and being for his 'benefit'. We don't really know what Dumbledore is like when he's not putting on a show, and he always does seem to be doing that (though I don't think it's 'acting' so much as... like a hat he wears).

Like, this was all more about Dumbledore the -man- (the Mentor, the former Hero, the blah-blah-opponent-of-evil-blah), rather than The Text. While Dumbledore controls action within the text to some extent, he's still not really a -representative- of the text-- i.e., you can't just equate him with it. I wouldn't even try to bother figuring out what the text is saying before the end of book 7-- but that's my personal laziness and/or bias. Like... to me, every 'good guy' is different & has different motivations. They may band together, but they're not all... y'know... one being :D

I think it's a given that people aren't always going to be right about themselves-- that's just human fallibility. Dumbledore makes mistakes, obviously, but so does everyone. I mean, he sees a lot, has a lot of information other characters don't, but he's still going to have to make choices which may or may not be 'right', whatever -that- means. And he can't even always tell the truth all the time if he wants things to go 'well'. He didn't look Harry in the eye most of book 5 without any explanation, for instance-- that was a pretty big deal to him, it seems, and he just-- went ahead and did it.

Like, I don't want to peg Dumbledore as the 'Good Guy'-- I hope I didn't actually do that. I was trying to say you can't be truly Good except in flashes, and all the rest of the time people are grey. I think Voldemort isn't a real equal to anyone 'cause he hadn't come into his full power & such. Supposedly, they are (nearly) equal-- that seems to be the premise, though we haven't seen the evidence yet, yeah. Then again, the books depend on mystery & misdirection a lot in terms of huge plot-points a lot of times. Though the point about leading Harry & Dumbledore down their dark path is very valid, I think-- though I dunno about Dumbledore-- I think he's already 'fixed'-- i.e., as grey as he's gonna get.

As far as the 'could be worse' thing, that was sloppy wording/thinking on my part, sorry about that; I was tired. :>

sorry

[malafede.livejournal.com]

I've read it now:

So often enough, Dumbledore has to be prepared to sacrifice his own ethics/wishes, as well as others'

I really don't know where you make this leap...? I mean, that he ever cared about Tom/Barty Crouch Junior/random black hat...? I agree that sometimes you've got to make sacrifices, but in D's mind sacrifices seem to = sacrifice of good people fighting on my side.

If the ethics of black-and-white absolutism aren't a complete method of solving real-world problems, then what is, and who decides...?

You don't think Dumbledore's politics (and what he stands for and what he says about this universe) are an example of b/w morals? I completely don't get this. Either he is compassionate and working for (all) the people and being transparent about his manouvres either he is a Machiavellian grey leader. And who says democracy is impossible just because he wasn't able to pull it (yet)?

There's something to be said for people identifying/forgiving rogues/vigilantes or people who're obviously ethically much more questionable than whatever 'righteous' authority figure because I suppose they wear their flaws on their sleeves. Perhaps we expect our authority figures to live up to some almost inhuman standard of Good Fatherhood, and if they don't we tear them down.

Okay, first this gets muddled when talking HP because the vigilantes here are the "good guys", second at least in my case it's not a question of expecting too much. I never expect a lot from human beings. They're human, therefore they suck, therefore they fail. The judgments leveled on Dumbledore are tied to his operating as a leader simply because he does that, and practically nothing else. And the comparison with Voldemort is an extreme straw-man... who'd want to live under Voldemort? I realise you're approaching the HPverse from a realistic politic POV, but I guess when one declares to like Voldemort more (or that they'd rather take Voldemort, which is a hyperbole meant to stress how much D sucks, tho I am not one that uses it) it means they like him more as a villain, not as a leader. It's not a comment thought as a commentary on a realistical political context. I mean, honestly, do you really think people are dreaming about regime and racial discrimination? Of course not. But because I am happy I am not living in Stalinian Russia it doesn't mean I think Berlusconi's great guy.

Okay, what I'm saying is: both Dumbledore & Voldemort are 'The Man' in their own little way.

Not at all. Voldemort is not the Man. He's the lead of a terrorist subversive group. He doesn't have an ounce of power. Conversely, D does, and:

populist

this is the problem. (Both with him as a leader and the books, which are ethically so shaped by his presence.) Honestly, I don't even think he is the Man, I think he's the Big Brother.

And, I won't start telling you that Voldemort means well since you asked not to, though that's too "easy" as well.

(I've read THM and it made me cry, you twat. I'd comment more but this is not locked, right? Have you gotten Faithful? I sent by email.)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

It is a leap, yah, but it's sort of part of my outline of him based on the archetype/idea he represents rather than a direct translation inferred from the text (which I had last read last year, so it's getting fuzzy). I kept comparing Dumbledore to people & talking about archetypes & general ideals -because- I was using that to make the leap rather than the text itself. I don't generally canon-thump. At all. To the point of being like, whuh--? Canon--? Leap? Whuh--? Clearly, my essay-writing skillz need work.

Anyway, things that are sacrifices to Dumbledore (like, the things he does to Harry-- not telling him about the Prophecy, letting the children mess with time, not looking Harry/talking to Harry during OoTP, etc) may or may not seem like 'real' sacrifices, depending on what you think about what his emotions are. One makes the connection of him loving Harry because of the mentor-student bond and because of the favoritism he clearly shows. So basically... yeah, he doesn't seem to care about 'random Black Hat', though I don't think he'd refuse said Black Hat (i.e., Snape) if he came to him for protection or what have you. That's probably an interesting/important aspect of things we'll see explored in books 6/7. I never said Dumbledore was pure & compassionate-- only that he (probably) does things he finds wrong/distasteful/would rather not do-- that's what I meant was the sacrifice, that betrayal of himself rather than Black -or- White Hats.

I think Dumbledore's pretty grey (that is, not b/w), because he's got enough information & knowledge of people's actions/motivations to know better, and because he makes the hard choices personally, whether or not an outside would condone or even understand them. He has an 'Ideal' he's striving for, but he's not unbendable-- he's got that Gryffindor-type rebelliousness/roguishness which is not b/w because it's willing to bend the means to achieve certain ends. I wouldn't call it Machiavellian, precisely, because the context/goal is different. That's why I was going on and on about the Ultimate Goal.

I addressed the issue of compassion in the beginning-- and I don't think for Dumbledore, working for all the people means the same thing it would in a 'normal' situation, because a number of these people are his actual enemies who will not come quietly. This is in context of an epic battle and times of war. The precept is that he's working for 'all people' but his compassion is not necessarily immediately manifest. It doesn't seem to be a binary choice in this case-- at least, Dumbledore seems to operate more on a rational/wisdom basis than an emotional/compassion basis. You could claim wisdom is always compassionate, but I would imagine it's not always going to be kind. Meh. Brain hurts again. :>
....But yes, Grey (as I said, 'Dumbledore the Grey'-- I was really thinking of Gandalf but I don't know enough about the books, only having seen the movies, thusly I used Xavier & Picard & Kirk).

Well, in most superhero-type tales, the vigilante (say, Batman), is also 'the good guy'. It comes down to the issue of questionable methods in extreme circumstances, which I don't know how to resolve, precisely, but then, who's 'right' in wartime?

i should start to spell check *before* posting

[malafede.livejournal.com]

I think it really comes down to visceral reactions to what one considers good or acceptable as a ruling figure to submit. Dumbledore for me is not. And I completely realise I'm biased, because it chills me when I realise that behind all my eye-rolling and hissing there's this perception I can't shake of him as Big Brother. It's irrational, because D does mean well whereas the Big Brother doesn't for his own (O Brien's) admission, he means anihilation which grants him sheer power (which is clearly more of V's ambition). But the methods are so so close, practically the same. The whole insistence on LOVE, like he's trying to steal and use the word as some sort of preaching emotional-blackmail, the whole crying and BENEVOLENCE especially, which he or JKR seem to use as an excuse for his secret manipulations according to the same old populist (yeah, that's the word) philosophy that as long as you mean well...

I think there are alternatives. I realise you were connecting to other universes showing the same archetype, but that's difficult for me to see especially because I'm unconvinced of the perfection of this parallel (I am unsure of his greater end) and don't see him as being genuinely at the Other's service in his pursuing. He's fighting an enemy, all right. He's not fighting corruption, he doesn't much care. (WTF is he doing with the Slytherins in his SCHOOL?).

He's not rational and he doesn't even educate. He's benevolent and he bribes. He's never harsh. He's never severe. He offers sweets. It's like he's afraid to lose his disciples if he yells at them. How demagogic is that? Draco could be set as a parallel for the immature brat of a thousand of narratives and from that one could infer he's got a good heart (........................) after all and he'll be "redeemed" in the end, but I see how untrue that parallel is. Precisely because you've got Dumbledore, and he is the voice off JKR's political/ethical views, and none of these views include concepts like compassion and the final acceptance that our enemies are men the same way we are.

Inside this narrative you've got only flashes of what "might have been" which I think have to stand flashes because not even JKR (and her seeming obsession with cleansing violence) recognizes them as efficient (unifying) fighting forces. Laugh at me all you like (not being sarcastic!) because I know my bias is so transparent it's like it's holding up a "INSERT MOCKING HERE" arrow, but Susan Bones's aunt? She seems rational but really devoted to the people, not syrupy but practical. And the Hufflepuffs, aren't they there to "take them all"? What is the message of the Hufflepuffs? Why are they there and dismissed (ignored) so easily? "Took them all" means took all the Muggle-born, full stop? That's ludicrous. And yet.

I'm sorry to come across as so angry, but I guess, yeah. That's how Dumbledore and any benevolent populist figure makes me. I'm a slave of my own knee-jerk reactions and paranoia, but if I have to be honest, I don't think any of it is irrational. Because Big Brother sucks and is chilling and terrifying and that book just makes my stomach twist in agony because it's so true.

(I LOVED it. Even with the topping. Because you know, when the writing is really good, I don't care about it that much. It's when I go for kink and then I am "OH GGGGOD WHERE IS MY KINK" that I do. ;P Nott! <3 And the last scene. I really don't get the whole "OMG DRACO WOULD NEVER CRY" movement.)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I think the benevolent populism thing (which I did mention myself) can be taken too far, though, 'cause he's like-- he -did- refuse the Ministry position, and he's hands-off at Hogwarts probably because he's distrustful of himself at some level.... He's not really a Leader of the People in the direct sense-- he's leader of the Resistance during wartime. I mean, he delegates a lot of the day-to=-day duties to McGonnagal and Snape and the other Heads, and that seems to work. He's -old-, too.

As far as the preachiness and speech-making & 'bribing'... I dunno if his sweets & things are things people really fall into his lap for. I doubt he -uses- it, y'know? Like, as in a conscious cunning attempt at manipulation-- it just seems OOC for his 'type', the way Remus wouldn't give Harry chocolate and Hagrid wouldn't make Harry tea to 'sway' him. It seems like if you're a nice person (in this context), you're a bit quaint/wacky & 'kindly' but in a simple-minded way (sort of like Mrs Weasley). If he was a grandma instead of a grandpa, it might make more sense....?

The speech-making & platitudes... yeah. Seem hypocritical to some extent, but he's a figurehead & knows it. He's got too much power, it seems (greatest wizard of his age!) so he's careful in what he does, and tries not to actually do much. Though admittedly, benevolence of any sort doesn't really creep me out unless it's a put-on (like Umbridge, though she was rather transparent). If you're a good person on some level-- or mean to be-- I'm like, 'okay, fine'. I suppose I don't judge people very harshly. I only have a few buttons, and conscious emotional manipulativeness is one of them-- but I think Tom Riddle's more the type to try to get people to always like him, moreso than Dumbledore....

I thought the crying at the end of OoTP was 'eh' & overdone, but it showed Dumbledore as just a weak, soft-hearted old man... I think he over-rationalizes his emotions & has learned to second and triple-guess himself, but he's still able to feel hurt even though to an extent, he'd brought it on himself.....

I think Dumbledore's compassionate/kind if he considers you salvageable, but he's also a warrior as well as a 'wise old man'. He's not a Messianic figure, and I know you always want anyone in authority you respect to exhibit those qualities, but just because he doesn't, doesn't mean he doesn't make sense in his context.....

I have my buttons too, though. Sadism/emotional control drive me mad when they're part of an attempt at domination of Will. That's my big button. And everyone tries to influence people somehow, but persuasion (even bribery) isn't the hot button that outright coercion is-- for me. *sigh*

(Heeee! Man. I'm still adding scenes, though not past the final one. ^^;;;;; IT WILL NEVER END. Also, eeee, you liked Nott!! Am strangely enamoured with Nott. Never written obscure character before. Am so pleased with self.)

Re: sorry

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know the comparison to Voldemort is a straw man, which is why I didn't spend that much time with it, I think.... It's more useful to compare Dumbledore to other Mentor/aged Hero figures, I think, and put him in the context of others 'like' himself-- there are trends & connections to other fictional figures, and I think his contrast with Snape is really interesting too (especially once I started thinking of Snape as Spock). But no one really dug that little analogy, it seems :> Meh. It was my favorite part of the post-- why I wrote it, even. Heh. Snape as Spock, man :> :>

I wasn't really saying, 'well, at least he's not Voldemort'-- I was just trying to put him in his own context; I mean... he does the best he can, but I wasn't defending so much as defining. (Or, trying to... not that well I guess. Or at least, if you don't buy into the whole idea structure behind it all.)

I meant that Voldemort is 'The Man' within his own context, to other Death Eaters, and also in his ambitions. It's all in the spin, man, though I see what you mean with Big Brother, 'cause that goes into the Mentor/Teacher thing, and that's mostly what he is-- someone who knows too much, can do too much & does not enough & probably hates it but is trapped by various things and blah-blah-I-don't-know-enough-to-say-blah.

Wah. I haven't gotten to responding to `Faithful', but I got it. Also, heh. So (as for THM), it's better now, then?? Even with the Harry-topping scene ;)))

Re: sorry

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know the comparison to Voldemort is a straw man, which is why I didn't spend that much time with it, I think.... It's more useful to compare Dumbledore to other Mentor/aged Hero figures, I think, and put him in the context of others 'like' himself-- there are trends & connections to other fictional figures

Actually, one of the things that seems to stand out to me about Dumbledore when I think of other Mentor figures is exactly the type of things you're talking about with regards to Harry. Usually Mentors are, in my experience, much harsher. It seems like they spend more time kicking their student in the butt than making them happy at all. I can't imagine Dumbledore setting Harry to wax that car like in the Karate Kid, you know?

Re: sorry

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it does seem like Dumbledore's approach is rather hands-off... in that, the harshest he gets is when he allows Harry to make mistakes or to do things which end up having rather severe consequences-- it's like, he prods him (like, 'don't hang around the Mirror, Harry') without -making sure-, it seems, a lot of the time. He seems to have a philosophy of 'he'll learn' that other mentors don't, actually... like, it's more common for them to orchestrate or stage lessons & then judge the student's performance & use it to set up the next lesson. Also, generally Mentor-types -help- in times of crisis, with, y'know, actions more than 'words of wisdom'.

There is probably extenuating circumstances we're not aware of, but it's exactly Dumbledore's dependence on messing with words in ways that seem to -hurt- rather than help Harry that upset him at the end of OoTP. It's like, he mostly sticks to using information/knowledge to help, whether through judicious presentation or withholding it altogether. The Karate Kid approach is more hands on-- I mean, the whole philosophy of karate is 'learn by doing, and do by example'. Dumbledore's like, 'learn by doing, and do by trial and error'.

Perhaps he's consciously trying to actually make it harder for Harry so that he's 'hardened'...? Since it's more of a moral battle or whatever, rather than morality being an aspect of the physical like with karate or even the Jedi training. Like, with Luke's Jedi training, he had 'exercises' he had to do, which taught him basic things about the Force, like 'let go', and 'trust your instincts' and 'release fear' and so on. These exercises could be learned in miniature, so to speak, whereas what kind of miniature exercises would Harry have with what he's supposed to learn? It's almost like Dumbledore's there for clean-up, a lot of times.

Then again, though Dumbledore could be said to be 'Mentor', fact is, Harry, Ron & Hermione are a pretty independent unit, and that seems to be important to protect Harry's 'purity' in some way-- since he's operating on his own, he has less chances to be corrupted, even if by Dumbledore....? Plus there might be the idea that you can't teach some things, you can only experience them & grow into them. And y'know, this whole hands-off thing could be seen as harshest, if you liked.

Re: sorry

[dphearson.livejournal.com]

Perhaps he's consciously trying to actually make it harder for Harry so that he's 'hardened'...?
Well, at the end of OOTP, he says that he placed Harry with his aunt so that he could have the blood protection and not be a target for any of Voldy's agents. HE could not had foreseen the neglect and lack of love a woman would display to her won sister child. Even when Harry got to school, Dumbledore tried to protect Harry from teh worse of teh what could happen to him, so that harry could have some happiness and normality.

Re: sorry

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Oh, but I didn't just mean that one instance... every year, it seems, Harry winds up having to do things with the help of Ron and Hermione rather than Dumbledore; in OoTP, Dumbledore actively held information back from him, making things harder on Harry. He doesn't so much help as hint at things vaguely sometimes. Naturally he didn't mean the stay with the Dursleys to be any kind of 'lesson' in toughness-- that would make no more sense than sending someone off to Durmstrang just so they'd learn how -not- to be a Dark Wizard :>

erk

[amber-the-fool.livejournal.com]

*reads post*

*reads all comments*

*head explodes*

Whatever the case, Snape seems to be trying to do the right thing now (especially with Quirrel & Harry in PoA and OoTP to varying extents) without any particular need for recognition-- thus the reward must be personal and most likely ethical.

very true, i believe. it is practically the standard for someone, usually Ron, to suspect Snape quite early on in the book, and then be proved wrong as Snape is really on their side after all. Ron continues to suspect him even though Snape has repeatedly shown that he is working against Voldemort, , so recognition for his work is definitely not something he's getting.

or maybe Ron just does that 'cos he's stupid...

amber x

[mona1347.livejournal.com]

Yes! You've managed to articulate in a much more clear and elegant manner than I ever could how I feel about Dumbledore and why. He's a GENERAL. The man who needs to make the excruciating decisions that no one else can make. I especially like/appreciate the comparisons to Giles and Yoda. Well done!

Thank you!

[ptyx.livejournal.com]

I tend to agree with sistermagpie and malafede, in the sense that I find JKR's ethics so nebulous and bewildering and perhaps even warped that I feel lost in her world. Anyway, a very interesting post, and I'm plugging it on my lj.

[dphearson.livejournal.com]

Damn.

I remember writing stuff like this every few days. Well done.And yes, thank you for pointing out that this is Harry's journey, an dthat his maturity lies i his becoming truly a man- with ethics and compassion for all- even those he wwould think would be his enemies.

One small quibble about the juxatopsition of Picard and Dumbledore: Dumbledore is righteous, he can do everything, he is super powerful and mor ethan a match for moldy voldy.HE was super smart in his youth, and has since done nothing but good. All that he has lost is his reputation ( and that is for a little while).
Picard was also super smart and able in his youth. But he was also arrogant and stupid, and starts a fight in bar. He is stabbed in the heart, and very nearly dies. When he is made captain, in his 4th year of Captainship, he is metaphorically ( if you get down to it, literally) raped by forces who want nothing more than to consume him.And lastly, he loses his family in horrifying freak accident. If a viewer/reader would root more for Picard than for Dumbledore, then it is because we see and understand that Picard has suffered deeply, and does not make decisions lightly. Picard had to nearly lose his heart to in order to become a well rounded commander and captain, and understands how losing one's humanity ( or sense of self) can destroy a person.
One gets the feeling that Dumbledore does not seem to sense this at all, and so seems to some readers as a poor guide for Harry.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, I think that Dumbledore's much more truly 'inscrutable' than a lot of other, more fleshed-out characters whose failings and motivations and history are more clear. I doubt Dumbledore is really quite so impenetrable, but fact remains, we know more history for -any- of the figures I'd mentioned (Xavier, Kirk, Giles, Picard, even Yoda). Everyone has their formative experiences, and well... Dumbledore is 150+ years old, so this is definitely not his story. However, I did find it curious, the connection between one of Dumbledore's names (Wulfric) to Beowulf and Grindelwald (the original Monster) to Grendel. He had to have had his Hero's Journey-- that's sort of a given in my mind. We have no proof outside of archetypical structure, of course.