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

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.

( So what judging Dumbledore comes down to is the question of compassion and the Grey Path. )

~~~~~~~

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