Albus Dumbledore

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Albus Dumbledore

Post  Mona on Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:32 am

+ Albus Dumbledore
Kip Carter - Jul 5, 2006 1:08 pm
Edited by megfox* Oct 22, 2007 6:42 pm


This is a continuation of the original thread established by Haggis and Irn Bru on August 29, 2003.

If you care to review the messages on the old thread, you can start at the top by clicking here or review the last ten messages on the old thread by clicking here.
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 1 to 50

Post  Mona on Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:49 am

TwinklingBlueEyes - Jul 5, 2006 1:16 pm (#1 of 2055)
Iwonder how much background information on Albus will be shown in book 7?



Choices - Jul 5, 2006 1:18 pm (#2 of 2055)
There'll be as much as JKR feels we need to know, but it won't be nearly enough. What we need is a whole book on the life of Albus Dumbledore.



TwinklingBlueEyes - Jul 5, 2006 1:22 pm (#3 of 2055)
I'll second that!



Ludicrous Patents Office - Jul 5, 2006 2:12 pm (#4 of 2055)
I'm really going to miss Albus in book 7. Who will explain it all to us? Maybe that is where we can get some more background on him. LPO



Solitaire - Jul 5, 2006 2:22 pm (#5 of 2055)
Oh, I love the idea of a book on Dumbledore! Even though she does not want to do any more Harrys, I think it would be great to have Hogwarts: A History and The Life and Times of Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore ... don't you? I'm dying to know more about the Dumbledore family!

Solitaire



haymoni - Jul 5, 2006 3:51 pm (#6 of 2055)
Oh, Ludicrous!! Don't tell me that this book will be Hermione droning on and on about how she read this or that in some book!! Ugh!!



HungarianHorntail11 - Jul 5, 2006 5:13 pm (#7 of 2055)
LOL haymoni!

Ludicrous, I never thought about that. I am figuring there will be enough of a presence to offset it. After all, JKR didn't cry when she killed him off. Wonder why. . .



Magic Words - Jul 5, 2006 5:18 pm (#8 of 2055)
She didn't? I thought she did.

Edit: Found what I was looking for on the Quick Quotes Quill site. JK Rowling: I was a bit teary with Sirius, but I was seriously upset at the end of this book.



Choices - Jul 5, 2006 5:45 pm (#9 of 2055)
Thank you, Magic Words - I just couldn't believe that JKR could be that heartless. Dumbledore is like her child, she created him and I couldn't believe she didn't even cry when he died. Did I say that??? I mean, if he died. LOL



Solitaire - Jul 5, 2006 6:48 pm (#10 of 2055)
Would she be seriously upset if he wasn't really dead? Just asking ... I guess she could be seriously upset about Snape and Malfoy.

Solitaire



Ludicrous Patents Office - Jul 5, 2006 6:54 pm (#11 of 2055)
LOL Haymoni. I certainly hope not!

I always got the impression Dumbledore was one of Jo's favorites. I sure hope she was upset! Misery loves company. LPO



Magic Words - Jul 5, 2006 8:30 pm (#12 of 2055)
I'm with you, Solitaire. This indicates that he's dead. If he weren't, she wouldn't have had a reason to be upset about Snape; he won't have done anything wrong. And I don't know why she'd be upset with Malfoy at this point. Maybe not happy with him, but I don't see anything that could incite emotions worse than "a bit teary."



TwinklingBlueEyes - Jul 5, 2006 9:59 pm (#13 of 2055)
"Would she be seriously upset if he wasn't really dead?"

I'd say it's entirely possible. If you just sit and think about someone close to you dying it would make most people teary, even if you know it to be not true. Having to write about one of your characters dying, either real or fake would invoke the same emotions. More so when you have to write about the emotions of your other characters. I'd think even knowing Dumbledore will be back it would be a tremendously emotional experience to write the tower and funeral scenes of a character that has been so much of your life for so long.

Hope that made sense.

...toddles off muttering "Dumbledore is not dead"...



Saracene - Jul 6, 2006 2:56 am (#14 of 2055)
Personally, what often makes me emotional in books and films is not the actual death of a character, but the reaction and grief of the other characters. I've seen Lord of the Rings films over and over and even knowing that Gandalf would be back in the second film the scene in FoTR where Frodo and the rest of the Fellowship mourn Gandalf's death still gets to me.

Similarly, what got to me about Sirius' death in OotP was not the death itself, but the way it devastated Harry.



wynnleaf - Jul 6, 2006 8:39 am (#15 of 2055)
Here's the quotes:

Interviewer I was wondering, I heard you cried when you killed off Sirius, did you cry at the end of this book.

JK Rowling: I was a bit teary with Sirius, but I was seriously upset at the end of this book.

If you read the interview, they were not discussing character deaths, but JKR's intentions in various books. The interviewer had not brought up Dumbledore at that point in the discussion, but was certainly referring to the circumstances at the end of the book and asking if JKR cried.

I thought JKR's answer was interesting. With Sirius she specifically talked about her feelings at having to kill him, his death. Very specific words about death and killing him. Similarly, in her recent interview, she very specifically talks about killing off characters. She does not say, above, what made her seriously upset about the end of Book 6. In her earlier comments with Melissa and Emerson, she doesn't sound as though the events surrounding DD were particularly stressful to write, and she still never refers to that as DD's "death."

Basically, what I'm saying is that JKR knows that the interviewer is asking her if she cried over DD's death the same way she cried over Sirius' death. But JKR doesn't answer in direct reference to DD's death, or even mention him. She says she was seriously upset at the end of the book.

She of course knew that she'd be asked that kind of question at some point and I'm sure her somewhat ambiguous answer was intentional. DD has learned a thing or two from JKR about misdirection. Wink



Madame Pomfrey - Jul 6, 2006 9:09 am (#16 of 2055)
I agree,Saracene. I was not as fond of Sirius as I am other characters,but what his death did to Harry is what made me cry.I felt for him(Harry.) I agree with what Wynnleaf said about the interview. I feel JKR was much too vague and emotionless for having just killed off a favored character.



Choices - Jul 6, 2006 6:50 pm (#17 of 2055)
I agree with TBE - just the idea of someone you love dying is enough to make you cry. I love Dumbledore and the very thought of him being gone is enough to make me reach for the Kleenex.



constant vigilance - Jul 7, 2006 7:35 am (#18 of 2055)
I have a feeling JKR was vague in her response to the end of Book 6 because she did not want to ruin the ending for those who had not read it yet. Her website has had the Dark Mark over things that reveal the end of book 6 as well.



Mrs. D. - Jul 8, 2006 7:35 pm (#19 of 2055)
I just came across a line I had written down from Albus Dumbledore 2 years ago. It was "Scars can come in handy." This got me to thinking of DD's scarred hand and left me wondering if this has something to do with possibly faking his death. I think it was from the first book, but can't be sure. My books have been in storage forever. It was just that line written at the top of a page in a notebook followed by A.D. So funny to have found it. Maybe my subconcious was telling me something.



Nathan Zimmermann - Jul 8, 2006 11:52 pm (#20 of 2055)
Edited Jul 9, 2006 12:44 am
I have been considering this passage from HBP chapter ten in my mind of late:

"And so I did," said Dumbledore placidly. "I told you everything I know. "I told you everything I know. From this point forth, we shall be leaving the firm foundation of fact and journeying together through the murky marshes into the the thickets of wildest guess work. From here on in I may be as woefully wrong as Humphrey Belcher who believed the time was ripe for a cheese cauldron." "But, you think you are right?" said Harry. "Naturally, I do but, as I have already proven to you, I make mistakes like the next man. In fact, being - forgive me - rather cleverer than most men my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger." (HBP Large Print Edition page 257)

This passage reminded me of a speech given by Learned Hand in 1944 called The Spirit of Liberty.

Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie within the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow. What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirt of spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirt of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded . . . .

I would assert that Dumbledore in this chapter personifies and serves as metaphor in a sense for the spirit of liberty, and the freedom from the tyranny and oppression offered by Voldemort. This is illustrated by the fact that he serves as the focal point of the resistance that actively opposes Voldemort and the Death Eaters until his death. He also serves as the inspirational sage and guide that directs the efforts of the those whom he leads and others that are arrayed with him.

I would contend that perhaps Dumbledore's death had a good consequences in that it brought together diverse groups of people and above all else it inspired the genesis of an evolution in Harry and his friends.

Conversely, I would argue that the freedom of the Wizarding world is endangered and oppressed by Voldemort and his savage Death Eaters and that have constrained the freedom of the population because of their acts of terror. Voldemort and his followers seek to dominate others while destroying the freedom and liberty that exists in the Wizarding World.



Ludicrous Patents Office - Jul 9, 2006 8:51 am (#21 of 2055)
Nathan good post. I think Dumbledore representing Liberty is an excellent catch. With his death others have to follow his example instead of relying on him to lead the way. His life and actions can be guide posts.

I have viewed his death as very negative for the Wizarding world. Your post demonstrates how good can come of it. Dumbledore is the Spirit of Liberty. LPO



Choices - Jul 9, 2006 9:42 am (#22 of 2055)
LPO - "Dumbledore is the Spirit of Liberty".

How interesting that in the initials R.A.B. - the "B" in runes is Bercano which stands for Liberation, new beginnings or birth. That would go along with the theory that R.A.B. is Dumbledore - the "Spirit of Liberty".



Ludicrous Patents Office - Jul 9, 2006 11:55 am (#23 of 2055)
Wow Choices. Interesting idea. LPO



vball man - Jul 9, 2006 1:28 pm (#24 of 2055)
I'm not sure where to post it, but I have a theory regarding the green horcrux guarding potion. You guys just talked about it so...

I wonder if the potion isn't guilt. So, "scelero conscientia" or something.

The reason is that Dumbledore feels horrible when he drinks. But, if Voldemort wants his horcrux, then he'll need to go drink the potion. Certainly Voldemort stopped feeling guilt a long time ago - if he ever could - and so he could gulp it down like lime kool-aid. Thus, the poison would be most "poisonous" to a good guy.



HungarianHorntail11 - Jul 9, 2006 2:10 pm (#25 of 2055)
Nathan, the fact that so many diverse groups were in fact brought together was what stood out to me in my readings of HBP. I am glad you pointed that out.

vball man, that is a good direction to point us in - Big V's defenses do seem to follow a pattern of pitting one's compassion against himself (or herself).



Ludicrous Patents Office - Jul 9, 2006 3:20 pm (#26 of 2055)
One thing I found interesting is the Merepeople. Was it Fawkes' Lament that told them of Dumbledore's death? Who else can speak Mermish.? I was very pleased to see the Centaurs honoring Dumbledore. LPO



Choices - Jul 9, 2006 5:15 pm (#27 of 2055)
Dumbledore is/was a unique individual. I think even if you sometimes disagreed with him, you had to admit he was a very great and powerful wizard and you came and honored him for that.



Nathan Zimmermann - Jul 9, 2006 8:45 pm (#28 of 2055)
Dumbledore's character intrigues me because he has seen battle, war and death close at hand, he was able to remain possessed of a noble spirit and a self effacing personality while, being tested as he was after drinking the potion in the Cave in HBP and during the duel with Voldemort in ways that would make lesser men afraid and cause them to abandon their cause as hopeless.

I also would argue that Dumbledore wisdom is in a sense derived unadulterated truth, in that the truths which Dumbledore adheres to have not been compromised or adulterated in any form because, unlike Voldemort Dumbledore's heart, spirit, and soul were not contaminated by hatred, malice, jealousy, envy, and other forms of evil as Voldemort's have been over the years.



Vulture - Jul 11, 2006 4:36 pm (#29 of 2055)
Or putting it another way, he's a combination of an Old Testament prophet, Santa Claus, and John F. Kennedy.



Vulture - Jul 11, 2006 6:08 pm (#30 of 2055)
the decoy locket theory is----- That Dumbledore had the real Slytherin Locket around his neck. That Dumbledore put on the locket the moment Harry looked away at the Dark Mark. Harry did not see this because he was distracted by looking at the Dark Mark. Dumbledore is clutching his chest when Harry looks at Dumbledore again.

When Severus arrives, he hits Dumbledore in the chest with the Avada Kedavra, but what Snape is doing is destroying the real Slytherin Locket around Dumbledore's neck, not murdering Dumbledore. Dumbledore, if he is dead, which I believe he is, has died from consuming the green potion in the cave. The Slytherin Locket remains around Dumbledore's neck, and is completely destroyed on Dumbledore's burning day.

When Harry arrives to find Dumbledore's body, he finds a locket that has fallen from Dumbledore's robes. This the the RAB locket. I am suggesting that it is a decoy created by Dumbledore, in case he needed to replace the real Horcrux with a dummy. I am suggesting the RAB note could have also been written by Snape, but it's also likely Dumbledore.

I am suggesting that Dumbledore did not make a mistake in the cave; he retrieved the real Slytherin Locket, and placed it around his neck. If Dumbledore wore the Peverell ring, and destroying it with Snape permanently blackened his hand and killed it, the pattern suggests that Dumbledore put on the real Slyterin Locket around his neck, and Snape destroyed it again.

It is not Dumbledore or Snape who is mistaken, it is Harry. Harry has the RAB locket, but it is a decoy. That's the idea. (Hollywand [/b]- Jul 3, 2006 8:56 pm (#2943, "Albus Dumbledore (29 Aug 03 - 5 Jul 06)" thread))

Hi, Hollywand: I may not have thought this through properly, but anyway, my problems with this theory are:

(a) You say "Dumbledore put on the locket the moment Harry looked away at the Dark Mark." _ did he do this deliberately, or is it just by accident that Harry didn't notice ? If the former, why is Dumbledore keeping Harry in the dark about things ? If the latter, why didn't Dumbledore draw Harry's attention to it ?

(b) the nature of the Avada Kedavra itself _ see the introduction to my thread "Avada Kedavra and The Morality Of Killing";

(c) If "what Snape is doing is destroying the real Slytherin Locket around Dumbledore's neck, not murdering Dumbledore", then what is Dumbledore pleading about ? Assuming that Snape is on the good side, he surely needs no pleading to get him to destroy the Locket _ unless he can't do that without destroying its wearer.

(d) You say that "Dumbledore, if he is dead, which I believe he is, has died from consuming the green potion in the cave.", but isn't it a bit too much of a coincidence that he dies from the potion at the very moment that Snape destroys the Locket ? We know he's alive just before Snape does the Avada Kedavra (thanks to that pleading that's driving us all nuts).

(e) Following on from (d) _ given that Dumbledore is alive just before the Avada Kedavra, if Snape's target is the Locket and not Dumbledore, he certainly didn't improve the latter's survival prospects by blasting him off the Tower.

(f) You say "If Dumbledore wore the Peverell ring, and destroying it with Snape permanently blackened his hand and killed it, the pattern suggests that Dumbledore put on the real Slyterin Locket around his neck, and Snape destroyed it again.". But I'm not convinced that Dumbledore did wear the Peverell ring before it was made harmless, or that he had to wear it to remove it from the Gaunts' house. All we're told is that it had a terrible curse on it which would infect any finder, and that it took both his and Snape's skill to make it harmless. I know he wears it to Slughorn's, but that doesn't really prove anything.

Besides, if there is such a pattern, why did Dumbledore keep quiet about it to Harry ?

(g) If the R.A.B. locket "is a decoy created by Dumbledore, in case he needed to replace the real Horcrux with a dummy", why didn't he replace it with the dummy ? Who is the decoy intended to fool, if not placed to fool Voldemort ? Harry ? _ why ?

(h) Finally, doesn't this theory depend _ at least partly _ on (i) the belief that Dumbledore planned his own death, and (ii) the belief that Dumbledore knew exactly what the Dark Mark on the Tower was about, and knew what to expect when he got there ?

But in fact, my whole impression is that Dumbledore knew no such thing _ he spends half the book hammering into our heads how valuable and special Harry is, yet we're now supposed to believe that, as part of some cunning plan, he gets Harry into a situation where they're both boxed into a confined space and then has to freeze him (and hope that no-one trips over him or notices the second broom _ which, luckily, only Malfoy does) before all the enemies whom this cunning plan doubtless anticipated crowd onto the Tower.

No, the Tower part of this theory doesn't wash. Dumbledore knew roughly what Malfoy was up to, but (in my opinion) when he charged up to the Tower, taking only The Chosen One with him, without considering a possible ambush, it was because he expected to find a body near the Dark Mark.



Choices - Jul 11, 2006 6:33 pm (#31 of 2055)
Vulture - "If "what Snape is doing is destroying the real Slytherin Locket around Dumbledore's neck, not murdering Dumbledore", then what is Dumbledore pleading about ?"

Do you think it is in Dumbledore's character to plead for his life? I don't, so when he said "Severus, please", I knew it had to mean something else. Dumbledore was not afraid to die, so he was asking something else of Severus or he was telling him something. I think he was telling him to hurry because he was on the brink of death or about to fall asleep - depends on which theory you believe - dead or DoLD. Dumbledore was asking Severus to hurry and do whatever it was he had made him promise to do - whether it was kill him or appear to kill him or destroy the Horcrux....whatever. In my opinion, he definitely was not pleading with Severus to spare his life.



Vulture - Jul 11, 2006 8:48 pm (#32 of 2055)
Do you think it is in Dumbledore's character to plead for his life? (Choices [/b]- Jul 11, 2006 6:33 pm (#31))

Well no, I certainly don't, and I've written about it in various places. (Mind you, the more I read that Tower scene, the more I have this horrible feeling that JKR is going to shatter our wishful thinking on this.) But anyway, my point was really that I can't see the role of pleading about a plan they had both agreed.

My own feeling is that the pleading is for Snape's own soul, as he realises with horror just what Snape is about to do to it.



Vulture - Jul 11, 2006 8:49 pm (#33 of 2055)
It's All Dumbledore's Fault:

After reading HBP and then re-reading the other books it became clear that Dumbledore was at the root of not only the storyline for each novel but the overall series story as well. Bad judgement and inaction by Dumbledore caused the problems Harry has been left to solve. (Soul Search - Apr 20, 2006 8:39 am (#2602))

Amusing points, and I won't say that after book 6 I didn't share the frustration. (You should make this a new thread !!) Still, I feel compelled to defend the old clown (although it seems to have been done well or better by others) _

Tom Riddle/Lord Voldemort -- After his visit to the orphanage, Dumbledore had plenty of evidence that Tom Riddle was seriously maladjusted and capable of evil. Yet, he not only let him attend Hogwarts but didn't warn any of the staff. He "watched" Riddle, but did nothing. By the time Riddle left Hogwarts, as Lord Voldemort, he had collected followers, opened the Chamber of Secrets and killed Myrtle, killed his father and grandparents, and inquired about horcruxes. Dumbledore knew all this, yet took no action. _ Dumbledore was not Head at the time and did not have the authority to stop Tom from attending Hogwarts. (Indeed, my impression is that all wizard children are entitled to attend.) Do we know for a fact that he didn't warn any of the staff ? What we do know is that Dumbledore was in a minority (possibly of one), in not liking Riddle as much as the other teachers did. What he saw at the orphanage was disturbing, yes, but was it much worse than one would expect from other Slytherins ? Particularly if those Slytherins were (a) orphans, and (b) unaware of the wizard world, or what magic was ?

As for what Riddle did at Hogwarts, Dumbledore did not know about him killing his relatives till later. He did not know about Riddle's Horcrux inquiries till later. He had suspicions about the Chamber and Myrtle's murder, but had no proof _ my impression is that the best he could do was prevent the framed innocent person (Hagrid) from going to Azkaban. In short, Dumbledore was the only one who didn't believe Riddle's story.

Harry Potter -- Dumbledore, somehow, was responsible for baby Harry, yet just dumped him on the Dursleys, with only a letter to Petunia. He never met the Dursleys, and never visited Harry. Even his "watching" was indirect, through Mrs. Figg and others. In Book 5, Dumbledore explains that he knew that sending Harry to the Dursleys was not ideal, but was necessary to complete the charm of Lily's blood. He mentions how Petunia took Harry "unwillingly, bitterly", etc. If he and other wizards had intervened too directly, it could have provoked the Dursleys into getting rid of Harry, thus exposing him to surviving Death Eaters.

He knew Harry would be important to the wizarding world, yet did little to direct his upbringing. Even after Harry came to Hogwarts, he had few one-on-one discussions with Harry. His "special training" sessions with Harry in HBP were mostly Dumbledore showing Harry pensive memories; useful, yes, but not exactly "special training." In Book 1, Dumbledore strongly asserted the necessity of not turning Harry's head with his fame too early and too much. One cannot say that he was wrong _ on his very first train trip to Hogwarts, Harry is offered a choice (when Malfoy offers his hand): the chance to lord it up as the Famous Boy Who Lived, or the chance of a very ordinary friendship. Perhaps Harry would have made the right choice anyway, but his down-to-earth background made it automatic.

As for after Harry arrived at Hogwarts, how much do we know about Dumbledore's "direction" ? We can, for example, assume that Dumbledore does a lot through McGonagall. It is probably best for Harry to feel as ordinary as possible for as long as possible _ when his two closest friends, in Book 5, start re-counting all the events, year by year, that have proved him to be not ordinary, Harry doesn't like it at all.

Sorcerer's Stone -- Dumbledore removes the Stone from Gringotts, just in time, and sets up protections that three eleven-year-olds can break. Lame. And he was conned into leaving Hogwarts just when he would be needed. Not too bright. At the end of Book 1, Harry says thoughtfully "He's a funny (i.e. strange) man, Dumbledore. I think he knew we were going to try, and gave us just enough to help". Remember the Mirror Of Erised ? _ first, Harry is given his Invisibility Cloak on Christmas Day (is there a surer way to get any self-respecting eleven-year-old charging around wearing it after hours ?!!) and then Snape, in hot pursuit, walks past an open door without checking a room which just happens to contain both Dumbledore (his words make clear he was there for all three nights) and the Mirror. It seems that Dumbledore intervenes just when he needs to _ when Harry wins his second match, Dumbledore quietly affirms his approval that Harry obeyed him about the Mirror.

Chamber of Secrets -- Harry figures out where the Chamber was and how to enter it, but Dumbledore, in fifty years, couldn't. Dumbledore knew that Riddle was a Parslemouth, and he knew, first hand, all the clues Harry found. Not much of a "greatest wizard" there. The Chamber could not be found unless and until it was opened by the Heir. Dumbledore had realised, from what happened in Riddle's time (see above) that Voldemort was the Heir Of Slytherin, and when the Chamber opened again, he knew it was Voldemort, but (as stated to McGonagall) did not know how Voldemort was operating, as Voldemort was supposed to be in Albania. He didn't really have "all the clues Harry found", as a lot of them were the result of several attacks.

Prisoner of Azkaban -- Sirius was sent to Azkaban, without trial, yet Dumbledore "gave testimony" that Sirius was the Potters' secret keeper. All Dumbledore had to do was visit Azkaban and verify that Sirius had, indeed, been secret keeper to reveal everything. Dumbledore had wanted to be the Potters' Secret Keeper, but James insisted that it had to be Sirius. It would never have occurred to anyone that, having turned down Dumbledore, James would go for Pettigrew _ which is exactly why Sirius (Lord help us) thought it was such a brilliant idea. Then Sirius was found with twenty dead Muggles, Pettigrew's finger, a blown-up street, and laughing his head off. Muggle witnesses (before memory modification) confirmed the tearful-Pettigrew-attacking-murdering-Sirius story. Clearly an innocent man.

As for sending him off without trial, this was due to a combination of (1) Crouch Sr. running things, (2) rage among wizards over the Potters' deaths, and (3) sickened horror that they had been betrayed by James's best friend. Why would anyone listen to Sirius ?

Goblet of Fire -- Voldemort's plan to get Harry was rather well done and Barty Junior portrayed Moody exceptionally well. Still, Dumbledore should have done whatever it took to keep Harry from competing, even if it meant cancelling the competition. No offence meant, but the part about "cancelling the competition" sounds more like the film than the book. In the book, there's no such option _ it's a binding magical contract. Once Harry's name came out of the Goblet, he was stuck with it. Unless you're saying that Dumbledore should have figured out fake Moody before the names went in the Goblet, all that Dumbledore could do was what he did _ keep trying to figure out where the blow would fall.

(Continued in next post ...)



Vulture - Jul 11, 2006 8:58 pm (#34 of 2055)
(... Continued from last post)

Order of the Phoenix -- All Dumbledore had to do was tell Harry the "everything" he told him at the end, and Sirius would not have died. Lots of other mistakes, too. Mmmmm. Not so simple. In the first place, thanks to Fudge, Dumbledore was being driven from all his various posts and his position as Head was being undermined. It's possible that he did not want to burden Harry with his destiny till he had got the Ministry thinking straight about Voldemort and got rid of Umbridge. Also, I know it sounds mundane, but Harry was facing crucial exams on top of Voldemort visiting his head. Given Umbridge's take-over, Dumbledore would have thought twice about telling Harry just how much Voldemort wanted him dead _ remember, he witheld the Prefect badge from him for the same reason.

As for Sirius dying, there's a whole sub-plot about how Sirius is beseiged on several levels by dark forces _ his death becomes a victory over them. Although Dumbledore says "It is my fault that Sirius died", this is largely to make Harry feel better _ it's no more definite than it being Harry's fault. There is nothing to say that Harry would not have been lured into danger anyway, and that Sirius would not have followed to rescue him.

Half-Blood Prince -- If Dumbledore had paid more attention to Harry's accusations of Draco, the death eaters couldn't have gotten into Hogwarts, Trelawney wouldn't have been kidnapped, and Snape wouldn't have found it necessary to kill Dumbledore. It was only through the actions of a few that many Hogwarts staff and students weren't killed. True, there would have been other consequences, but Dumbledore might have had better control of events had he taken some action. Well, I'm not Book 6's biggest fan, but Dumbledore did keep tabs on Draco. I think the person to blame for Book 6 is JKR, not Dumbledore !! When was Trelawney kidnapped ? _ I don't remember that. As for Snape, he would have had to kill Dumbledore once it became clear that Draco would fail (as stated in the Vow), and we know that that was going to be clear sooner or later. I suppose you could say that Draco should have been nicked earlier, but that would have forced Snape to fulfil the Vow earlier.

Maybe it is best that Dumbledore is gone from Harry's life; Harry has done a better job fighting Voldemort than Dumbledore ever did. At least, Harry does something, instead of just standing around "watching." Guess who you sound like ?!! _ "Talking and doing nothing, nothing !! I don' know why the Dark Lord's botherin' to kill yeh !!" :-)



wynnleaf - Jul 11, 2006 10:19 pm (#35 of 2055)
Hey Vulture,

You know, I'll never agree with you on the "Severus please..." lines and what they meant, but...

That was a great defense of DD. Sure DD could have done some things differently. But if all those points of the story had gone differently, guess what? No Story! Argh! I'd rather have DD's decisions, such as they were. So overall the last two posts I agree with completely.



Angie - Jul 12, 2006 1:54 am (#36 of 2055)
Vulture I agree wholeheartedly with your suumation of DD's actions. Many of his decisions may have been flawed but isn't that the whole point that JKR is trying to make - he is only human and he does what he believes is best.

I would also like to address an earlier point about DD taking a decoy locket to the cave - I was under the impression that DD did not know which Horcrux they were likely to find "i'm not sure which it is" (HBP h/back pg511 English Edition), so he would have been unable to take a dummy locket. Now he could have conjured a fake locket once he had seen it at the bottom of the basin but re reading the cave chapter there does not appear to be an opportunity to do so.



HungarianHorntail11 - Jul 12, 2006 6:15 am (#37 of 2055)
Edited Jul 12, 2006 6:50 am
When Severus arrives, he hits Dumbledore in the chest with the Avada Kedavra, but what Snape is doing is destroying the real Slytherin Locket around Dumbledore's neck,. . .The Slytherin Locket remains around Dumbledore's neck, and is completely destroyed on Dumbledore's burning day.

I am wondering, then, why Harry did not see the destroyed horcrux locket around DD's neck immediately after he fell from the tower?

EDIT: Just wanted to say that I added a thought on the Trelawney thread if anyone is interested.



wynnleaf - Jul 12, 2006 7:00 am (#38 of 2055)
Angie,

That is a very, very good point. I'm trying to find that line in the American edition. At what point does DD say that?

Another problem would be why he wouldn't tell Harry that he was bringing back the real horcrux to destroy it. Why, when Harry has other horcruxes to find, allow him to think he had to find this one, too?

Vulture and Soul Search,

I was looking back at this quote of Soul Search:

After reading HBP and then re-reading the other books it became clear that Dumbledore was at the root of not only the storyline for each novel but the overall series story as well. Bad judgement and inaction by Dumbledore caused the problems Harry has been left to solve.

I find that my post #35 is basically in agreement with Soul Search's first sentence. I do agree that DD's actions or lack thereof drive the plot. But I don't fault him on most of his decisions.



Soul Search - Jul 12, 2006 7:22 am (#39 of 2055)
Good response, Vulture.

Actually, I started the post you referenced as a new thread entitled "It's all Dumbledore's Fault" but it got moved to the Dumbledore thread. I, too, thought it could deserve a focused attention.

My purpose with the post was more literary/storyline analysis, rather than a critic of Dumbledore as a character. Point being, that the storyline of the first six books were all a result of Dumbledore's planning and actions (and mistakes,) but book seven should be all Harry's planning and actions, without Dumbledore. Dumbledore had to die to make room for Harry taking over as undisputed hero.



Angie - Jul 14, 2006 2:22 am (#40 of 2055)
Wynleaf DD makes the comment to Harry regarding which horcrux may be in the cave in his office when he tells Harry that he has located a Horcrux and that Harry may accompany him. Harry has just met with Prof Trelawney who tells him that it was Snape listening at the door when the Prophecy was made etc..



Vulture - Jul 15, 2006 9:47 am (#41 of 2055)
You know, I'll never agree with you on the "Severus please..." lines and what they meant, but... (wynnleaf - Jul 11, 2006 10:19 pm (#35))

Remind me ? If I recall, your view is that Dumbledore is urging a reluctant good-side Snape to kill him ? Well, it's a point of view, and it may be right. Then again _ awful though it would be _ there is the possibility we've all rejected: that Dumbledore is simply begging for mercy. I myself like the idea that he's pleading with Snape not to commit such an immoral act, for Snape's sake _ for his soul and his moral welfare. I like it because (a) it takes us back to deep stuff about Snape's character raised in Book 5, and (b) because it means Snape could still have been on the good side _ until cornered on the Tower by his Vow (hence his facial expressions).

=========================================================================================================

During my defence of Dumbledore, nobody picked up on my point about "Snape, in hot pursuit, walks past an open door without checking a room which just happens to contain both Dumbledore (his words make clear he was there for all three nights) and the Mirror" (of Erised). Or maybe no-one thought it worth a remark. It just seemed to me a curious lapse for Snape to make, so I had a hunch that he was under orders and knew Dumbledore was there. (Whether he knew the full details about Harry running around is another thing.)



Choices - Jul 15, 2006 11:39 am (#42 of 2055)
.....or maybe Dumbledore put a charm on the room that caused Snape to ignore it.

About the "Severus, please...." line. At first read I certainly thought Dumbledore was pleading with Snape not to kill him, but then it occured to me that is exactly what JKR wants us to believe. That's when I knew (my opinion) that Dumbledore was doing just the opposite - begging Snape to hurry up and do what Dumbledore had asked him to do. (Now, just what that was I won't get into because we have hashed it over enough.)



Steve Newton - Jul 15, 2006 11:52 am (#43 of 2055)
Just for a very minority opinion. I have wondered if there is a connection between Snape and Dumbledore and Dumbledore is saying "Sever us." A long shot.



Choices - Jul 15, 2006 12:34 pm (#44 of 2055)
If I only heard the line spoken, I might think he said "Sever us, please", but since I have clearly seen it written in the book as "Severus, please", I tend to think he means the name Severus and not just a request to sever us.



Veritaserum - Jul 16, 2006 10:13 am (#45 of 2055)
That would be interesting, though.



TheSaint - Jul 16, 2006 12:20 pm (#46 of 2055)
Technically, what you saw was what Harry heard. I am not saying I think it is 'sever us', but it could be.



Steve Newton - Jul 16, 2006 1:04 pm (#47 of 2055)
The Saint, that is exactly how I look at it.



wynnleaf - Jul 16, 2006 7:52 pm (#48 of 2055)
Vulture, yes I think that DD was urging Snape to complete a plan which included exactly whatever it was that Snape actually did (real AK? fake AK? who knows?). I'm more on the "DD's probably not dead" theory, so it doesn't bother me much that DD is pleading with Snape to get on with it.

During my defence of Dumbledore, nobody picked up on my point about "Snape, in hot pursuit, walks past an open door without checking a room which just happens to contain both Dumbledore (his words make clear he was there for all three nights) and the Mirror" (of Erised). Or maybe no-one thought it worth a remark. It just seemed to me a curious lapse for Snape to make, so I had a hunch that he was under orders and knew Dumbledore was there. (Whether he knew the full details about Harry running around is another thing.)

This is very interesting. I need to go back and look and think about the implications. Or could this just be something that JKR didn't really notice as she was doing the plotting?



Michael Franz - Jul 25, 2006 7:38 pm (#49 of 2055)
In the movie Total Recall, there's a scene where the bad guy is talking to his head minion. He says:

You thought? I don't pay you to think! I don't give you enough information to think! You do what you're told; that's what you do!

Even though Dumbledore would never think of it this way, and even though he'd say it a lot more politely, I think that, at least subconsciously, that's the way he thinks of the Order members.

Remember in Book 6, when Harry says "Sir, don't you understand?" and Dumbledore says something like, "Yes, Harry, blessed as I am with extraordinary brainpower, I do understand; in fact, I understand a lot more than you." Sounds a lot like "I don't give you enough information to think" to me. In fact, Dumbledore doesn't give Harry enough information to think, which is exactly why Harry keeps getting himself into trouble.

Dumbledore is not just a wizard, he's a magician. He uses misdirection and sleight of hand to cultivate a reputation for eccentricity and infallibility. But, over the years, he's played the role for so long that he's begun to believe his own hype. He keeps information from people because he honestly believes that only he is smart enough to see the big picture and that if he lets his Order members think, they'll just screw it up. I mean, what are they doing asking him why he trusts Snape anyway? Dumbledore trusts Snape, and Dumbledore is always right; end of discussion!

Of course, in Book 6, he admits he can make mistakes, since it was spectacularly proven in Book 5. But, even then, he emphasizes that his mistake was spectacular, thus turning humility into ego.

In Book 6, Snape has a fight with Dumbledore in which he says Dumbledore takes too much for granted. Perhaps Snape has finally had enough of "I don't pay you to think"?



Choices - Jul 26, 2006 10:21 am (#50 of 2055)
Michael - "Dumbledore is not just a wizard, he's a magician. He uses misdirection and sleight of hand to cultivate a reputation for eccentricity and infallibility."

LOL I think Dumbledore is every bit as good as we are told he is. He is the greatest wizard in the world - he doesn't need to cultivate a reputation. Like any other great person, myths and legends grow up around them unsolicited.
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 51 to 100

Post  Mona on Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:55 am

Potter Ace - Jul 26, 2006 10:22 am (#51 of 2055)
Michael,

I agree to a point on your assessment of DD, much like LV, he believes that his path to the end is the correct one and that he is the only one to "hold all the cards". Many famous Generals, Patton, Rommel and others have (to their detriment) had these same thoughts.

Although in his defense, we really haven't been shown (other than LV) another wizard that even approaches his level, so with no equal to share thoughts and ideas with, he is left with no other choice but to operate in this manner. Open the plan to too many people would be disastrous and would lead to exposure of his plan and finally to defeat.



journeymom - Jul 26, 2006 4:06 pm (#52 of 2055)
"with no equal to share thoughts and ideas with"

That's exactly how Jo describes Dumbledore herself. He has no equal in the wizarding world, and he has no confidant.

This confirms for me that he shared his over-all plan with no one else. Snape knows quite a bit, since his cooperation was required (seemingly, anyway). And Harry knows quite a bit more than he used to know. McGonagall, surprisingly, doesn't seem to know anything about the horcruxes. Maybe Arthur knows some, but not the -whole- picture.



Honour - Jul 26, 2006 4:22 pm (#53 of 2055)
"with no equal to share thoughts and ideas with" - journeymom

Immediately after reading this journeymom, it reminded me of Voldermort. Each not having someone in their lives, in Voldermorts case he doesn't need the companionship/love? and in Dumbledores? Dumbledore has always struck me as being "detached", not cold, but almost tuned into another wave length. I am always saddened to think that his life has been spent being the Magical World's Sentinel. Maybe a long time ago this was the "right choice" not necessarily the easiest, but the right choice (sacrifice) that Dumbledore made.

Would this be the type of life Harry will be facing in the future?



Solitaire - Jul 26, 2006 5:28 pm (#54 of 2055)
I agree with you, Honour, that Dumbledore leads what I would consider a lonely existence. Perhaps he is not bothered by solitude. Maybe he had a family when he was younger ... so perhaps he devoted his older years to keeping Harry alive and readying him for the task that lies ahead. I do not see why Harry would have to live a life of solitude unless he chose to do so ... assuming he survives.

Perhaps Harry will find out more about his mother specifically and his parents' marriage in general. I suspect they must have loved each other deeply, and I can't believe that the knowledge of this would not affect Harry's life choices once he is older and out of the shadow of Voldemort. JM2K ...

Solitaire



Choices - Jul 26, 2006 5:51 pm (#55 of 2055)
We have been denied a look into the private life of Dumbledore. We know nothing of his family or where he lived or lives outside of Hogwarts. We do know he had a friendship/partnership with Flamel and that they were at least in touch in book one. We are not even privy to when Flamel and his wife die, for surely they did so at some point after the stone was destroyed. I hope we find out more about Dumbledore and his history.



Ludicrous Patents Office - Jul 26, 2006 5:54 pm (#56 of 2055)
Harry and Dumbledore have different talents. Harry is not as intellectually blessed as Dumbledore. I don't see Harry living a life of solitude like Dumbledore. LPO



Choices - Jul 26, 2006 6:02 pm (#57 of 2055)
"Harry is not as intellectually blessed...."

He may be, but simply hasn't had the time or inclination to develop it. After all, Dumbledore has had 150 years to gather his wits about him and sort out his priorities. LOL In time, Harry may come to a greater appreciation of intellectual pursuits.



TheSaint - Jul 26, 2006 8:26 pm (#58 of 2055)
It would be interesting in DD, being the puppet master in this tale, had actually caused Lily to fall for James (as Harry's thought when he sees his parent's in Snape's Memory). Add to that the orchestration of October 31 (the something more that was going on that night, as Hagrid says) and Harry could be in for quite a shocker! What does the hero do when his mentor ends up not being what he thought he was? (Just another bit of my brain entertainment)



darien - Jul 27, 2006 1:22 am (#59 of 2055)
I see what you mean with Dumbledore being the pupeteer, he seems to be behind absolutely everything that happens in the books, He brings Tom Riddle to Hogwarts, he keeps Hagrid etc... all the way to saving Sirius and holding the Triwizard tournament; which may be why we are all thinking he is also behind his own death



Lina - Jul 27, 2006 4:00 am (#60 of 2055)
I don't know exactly in which interview, but Jo said once that the wizards in general live longer than muggles, but that DD lives longer than an ordinary wizard. I'm just wondering if that has a significance, if we are going to get an explanation about his longer than average life...



darien - Jul 27, 2006 11:59 am (#61 of 2055)
That would explain why he is so lonely, all his friends from childhood are long dead... anyway there is older than him: Madam Marchbanks, i think she is called, the OWL examiner who said she examined Dumbledore at his NEWTS.



Solitaire - Aug 2, 2006 11:11 am (#62 of 2055)
Once again, in my reread, I notice that Dumbledore always sidesteps Harry's question about how he injured his hand. This bothers me ...

Solitaire



Fawkes Egg - Aug 2, 2006 2:49 pm (#63 of 2055)
He doesn't really sidestep it - eventually he explains that it was due to destroying the ring Horcrux when he describes returning to Hogwarts gravely injured, and Snape having to help him out there. He's just not terribly explicit about that; but Harry, and hence the reader, have it figured out already by that point.

I think Dumbledore has maybe left Harry - and us! - enough clues as to his past life for the task at hand, but I like the fact that DD as a person is so mysterious. The glimpses we do get are all the more intriguing for that.



Solitaire - Aug 2, 2006 3:04 pm (#64 of 2055)
Dumbledore tells Harry "It is a thrilling tale, I wish to do it justice." While I think Harry figured out that Dumbledore had injured his hand destroying the ring Horcrux, I am still bothered that he did not give Harry the particulars. I think they may turn out to be important in how to handle the Horcruxes.

Solitaire



Choices - Aug 2, 2006 6:46 pm (#65 of 2055)
I agree, Solitaire. I think there is a lot more to that story.



Pamzter - Aug 2, 2006 9:30 pm (#66 of 2055)
Per tonight's news -- Rest in peace, Dumbledore. *sigh*

(Now Snape has to turn out to be good or I'm going to be really depressed.)



Ponine - Aug 2, 2006 9:35 pm (#67 of 2055)
I have to admit, I am pretty crushed right now. I thought I had accept either outcome, but judging from how sad I am, I never truly believed him to be gone... ::swallowing hard:: I hope you are enjoying your next adventure, Albus.



HungarianHorntail11 - Aug 2, 2006 9:51 pm (#68 of 2055)
But if JKR referred to Gandalf, doesn't that mean we'll see him to help Harry in some form?

Is this a form of denial???



Solitaire - Aug 2, 2006 10:04 pm (#69 of 2055)
From the time Harry and the others heard Phoenix song when they were in the hospital wing, I believed Dumbledore was gone. This Phoenix song was described somewhat differently by Harry, and it sounded as though Fawkes was singing a lament. But I do think Harry will see--or perhaps hear--Fawkes again. I hope so.

As to Dumbledore being truly gone ... remember his comment to Harry at the end of PoA: "You think the dead we loved ever truly leave us? You think that we don't recall them more clearly than ever in times of great trouble?

Remember how the shadows of Harry's parents helped him in the graveyard. I think Dumbledore's spirit will guide Harry in his quest for the Horcruxes and his final battle with Voldemort. Perhaps it will happen in the form of Fawkes ...

Solitaire



TheSaint - Aug 3, 2006 4:01 am (#70 of 2055)
Or the form of a Pensieve.



Wizadora - Aug 3, 2006 6:33 am (#71 of 2055)
Reading the report from Mugglenet in regards to Salman Rushdie's theory, "He spoke of how Severus Snape had always been unlikable, but still one of the good guys. However, now, he seems bad although we don’t really want to believe it, because Snape’s wickedness would indicate that Dumbledore is dead. Finally the question ended in: is Snape good or bad?

If she has confirmed that DD is dead does this mean she also confirmed Snape's wickedness? As this is the condition that he placed on it,



wynnleaf - Aug 3, 2006 7:36 am (#72 of 2055)
I read that report, too, and have commented on it in the Snape thread, where this probably belongs.

If Rushdie was saying that "Snape's wickedness would indicate that Dumbledore is dead," JKR could answer "your opinion is correct" to that statement and it wouldn't matter one way or the other about Snape's loyalties. In other words, Snape can be loyal and DD be dead, but if Snape is evil, then DD is definitely dead. And that's pretty obvious anyway, and always has been -- if Snape is evil, he definitely killed DD. So JKR can answer "your opinion is correct," to that kind of statement, without revealing anything.

But we don't know until we get the transcript and even then we won't know. The reason we won't know is because so far every observer has been somewhat uncertain exactly what Rushdie said or meant. That being the case, we can't ever be sure that JKR was sure what he meant either.



Pamzter - Aug 3, 2006 5:43 pm (#73 of 2055)
Now that DD is dead I'm having to re-think alot of things. So now I'm starting to think that Trelawney is going to play a bigger part. But who is going to protect her? DD seemed to be the only one who seemed concerned for her.

I'm going to post this on her thread too.



darien - Aug 4, 2006 11:44 am (#74 of 2055)
Harry will automatically protect her. He showed himself pretty protective towards her before leaving for the cave and Harry has the "saving thing" even if she is annoying she is important Harry will take care of her, especially as he does not want her to fall into the Legilimentic hands of Voldemort



journeymom - Aug 4, 2006 1:30 pm (#75 of 2055)
"Legilimentic hands of Voldemort " Love it!



Solitaire - Aug 4, 2006 5:18 pm (#76 of 2055)
Hopefully, Harry will remember the events that were transpiring before he and Dumbledore left the castle and go back and try to talk to Trelawney ... assuming she is still there. Sometimes, though, Harry forgets things. After all, his attention has been riveted by some rather dramatic events.

Solitaire



Ice Princess - Aug 4, 2006 9:26 pm (#77 of 2055)
Back to wether Snape is good or bad... I'm going to say that Snape is officially bad since DD is officially dead. I always had a feeling Snape had to be bad..no matter what DD or anyone else had thought. He had always oppossed Harry...and you could tell it wasn't just because of Snape's past with James Potter. Snape killing DD, who is definantly dead should confirm Snape's wickedness.



Ice Princess - Aug 4, 2006 9:35 pm (#78 of 2055)
Another thought I had was, doesn't it seem as though DD gave his life on the behalf of Draco Malfoy? As DD had said, he had suspected Draco all along but had not mentioned it, fearing that if he did, L.V would kill Draco. It seems sort of pitiful that Draco had disarmed DD and DD actually began to plead to Snape to spare him. It almosts seems as though one of DDs main concerns before he was killed was the well-being of Draco and his life, not his own.



Soul Search - Aug 5, 2006 6:11 am (#79 of 2055)
Ice Princess,

I agree, Dumbledore was concerned for the "well-being of Draco." Question is, will Draco figure that out and recognize Dumbledore's sacrifice for what it was?



rambkowalczyk - Aug 5, 2006 6:15 am (#80 of 2055)
When I previously suggested that Dumbledore died for Draco, that idea got shot down because most people think he died for Harry. My reasoning is basically the same as yours.

Dumbledore never confronts Draco about the two attempted murders fearing that Voldemort will do Legilimancy on Draco and kill him if he suspects that Dumbledore knows of his plans. He allows Draco to disarm him and gives Draco the opportunity to see that he is not a killer. This is a big risk for Dumbledore because he could have misread Draco entirely.

As it was Dumbledore was defenseless against three or four death eaters in addition to Draco. Although any one of them could have killed Dumbledore, they were under orders to do nothing so that Draco could do the killing. Nitpicking my own arguments it was Snape that sacrificed himself by splitting his own soul rather than letting Draco do that. But it was Dumbledore's choice to remain defenseless in giving Draco the chance to see what he was made of contributed to his death.

It could also be argued that Dumbledore died for Snape but here we can get into some ethical quandary s.

Was Dumbledore pleading with Snape to kill him? One can say that if Snape pulled a Dumbledore (think of the scene in book 5 when Dumbledore escapes arrest from Fudge and the Aurors) and escaped with Draco, Snape would not live long because he just broke the Unbreakable Vow. Draco's life would still be in danger and now he would have no one to help him. But was the price worth it or was this one of Dumbledore's huge mistakes? Snape's soul has been split or at least torn badly as a result of this murder.

JKR has now confirmed that Dumbledore is dead and that we should be at the anger stage of grieving. The question is who should we be angry at, Snape for killing Dumbledore or at Dumbledore for ordering Snape to do it. In this instance we have Dumbledore acting in a very Slytherin manner by using this type of means to defeat Voldemort.



Pamzter - Aug 5, 2006 7:34 am (#81 of 2055)
I'm still not convinced that:

the unbreakable vow had anything to do with killing DD
Snape is evil



[/b]Solitaire [/b]- Aug 5, 2006 12:58 pm (#82 of 2055)
The Unbreakable Vow that Snape made with Narcissa seems to have had quite a bit to do with his AKing Dumbledore. Since Draco was not able to do it, if Snape had not fulfilled the Vow, he would have died. Maybe that was a deliberate, willful murder, and maybe it wasn't. We will have to wait for Book 7 to know for certain.

Solitaire



Ice Princess - Aug 5, 2006 7:46 pm (#83 of 2055)
Solitaire, I'm going to agree with you and say that Snape only took the vow to protect Draco, as the murder did seem unwillful. He probablly also took it to prove himself to Narcissa & Bella & L.V. I was thinking before that Snape was definantly bad but now I'm not so sure looking at it from this view. At this point I've switched over to undecided.



wynnleaf - Aug 6, 2006 11:39 am (#84 of 2055)
Given the alternatives, I don't think that Snape's AKing DD is in any way a "proof" of his being evil. After all, if he had not AK'd DD, there are strong possibilities that 1. Snape could have died from the Vow, leaving the tower scene as though he'd never been there -- that is, unable to help anyone. 2. Snape might not have died right away, but that would still have left only Snape to get into some sort of magical fight with 4 DE's, while Harry was invisible, frozen and likely in the line of fire.

That's just the beginning of course.

There's also Draco, who without his task completed, would have had LV after him, as well as LV having threatened to kill his parents.

Hm, and then there's the DE's, after they probably take down Snape (and presumably DD, since this whole scenario assumes DD can't help himself), would then be free to keep attacking others in the castle.

Remember that Snape's AKing DD against DD's will assumes that DD was unable to defend himself -- which means DD would have been unable to do anything to the DE's or to otherwise help the situation. Of course, I don't believe that for a minute, but that's where "evil Snape murdered DD" leaves us.

So since the "evil Snape murdered DD" scenario means DD was too weak to defend himself, then Snape gets taken down by the DE's and then they kill DD. Which leaves the Order still without its leader, Hogwarts still under attack from the DE's, and Draco and his parents still under threat by LV. In other words, if Snape had not AK'd DD, things would have simply gone from bad to worse -- even worse then they turned out.



Soul Search - Aug 6, 2006 12:17 pm (#85 of 2055)
Good analysis, wynnleaf. In all the discussions of the tower scene I have read, I don't think I have seen a similar consideration of alternatives. After reading your post, I realized that I had been totally focusing on Dumbledore, Snape, and Draco and haven't been fully recognizing the significance of the other death eaters on the tower.

I think your conclusion that all the alternatives to Snape killing Dumbledore were worse explains some things:

Dumbledore didn't "plan" to die nor did he sacrifice himself. He only chose his manner of dying.

It also explains why Snape made sure Dumbledore's body went over the tower. The death eaters could not, then, take Dumbledore's body or discrace it in any way. (My read of them is that they would have done something.)

It also makes the "Snape is Dumbledore's man" a sure thing. If Snape had been on Voldemort's side, he would, at the least, have left the body on the tower for the death eaters to take back to Voldemort, or something. He may have even encouraged the other death eaters to participate in Dumbledore's death.

Good job, wynnleaf!



Solitaire - Aug 6, 2006 1:54 pm (#86 of 2055)
DD was too weak to defend himself ... if Snape had not AK'd DD, things would have simply gone from bad to worse

Well, Dumbledore was weak and he didn't have a wand ... not a good combination of circumstances. He was strong enough to bind Harry to the wall, and I suspect that he could have stopped Draco, if he'd had his wand. Had this happened, things might not necessarily have to go from bad to worse. That is something we cannot know for certain, since we didn't have the chance to see it play out.

Solitaire



Ponine - Aug 6, 2006 2:29 pm (#87 of 2055)
I liked your analysis, too, Wynn, but it seems to me that one of your main premises are incorrect:

"Remember that Snape's AKing DD against DD's will assumes that DD was unable to defend himself"

I disagree. I have a hard time seeing Dumbledore as really being too weak to for instance Accio his wand, after he assessed the situation and immoblized Harry in the matter of seconds. I also think Dumbledore could easily have immobilize Draco in the same manner. This brings me to what I consider the main flaw in your argument, which is that it lacks room for Dumbledore CHOOSING not to defend himself from Draco, Snape, or anyone else. It seems to me that by neglecting to consider that option in your analysis, a whole range of potentially ensuing scenarios are either nixed or significantly altered. Ponine the Ponderer



wynnleaf - Aug 6, 2006 6:25 pm (#88 of 2055)
Ponine,

Are you suggesting that DD could have a reason for choosing to let an evil Snape murder him? I agree that it's technically within the realm of being possible. But I can conceive of no scenario where DD would want to allow an evil Snape to kill him, leaving Harry defenseless on the top of the tower.

After all, if DD knew Snape was evil, there was really nothing to stop Snape from killing Harry -- as we saw in the Flight of the Prince. One can conceive of an evil Snape who wouldn't kill Harry because he was to be left for LV, but DD would certainly not want to count on that if he knew Snape to be evil.



Mrs Brisbee - Sep 8, 2007 6:17 pm (#89 of 2055)
I don't see that Dumbledore could have Accioed his wand, without his wand to do so and in his weakened condition. However, he did have a choice about whether to freeze Harry or Draco, and chose Harry, thereby allowing himself to be disarmed by Draco. Harry's belief that Dumbledore did it to protect him is rather lame, because a frozen Draco would have been no threat. Snape wasn't anywhere near the Tower at that point, so I don't think it could have had anything to do with Dumbledore wanting Snape to murder him. It only lead to the opportunity for Draco to do so.



wynnleaf - Aug 6, 2006 7:11 pm (#90 of 2055)
We do have examples in the books of some of the adult wizards doing wandless magic. For instance, Snape does the counter curse on the broom in SS/PS as wandless magic. And Quirrel also seems to be doing wandless magic in casting the curse in the first place. Therefore, wandless magic is possible. If it's possible, I'd think DD would at the very least be able to accio his wand.

By the way, when Harry was on the train, petrified by Draco and wishing he could get his wand, he thinks of DD and feels sure that DD would have been able to accio his own wand, even petrified. At the very least, this shows us that Harry knew that some wizards could do wandless magic, and he thought DD could do enough wandless magic to get his wand.

What fascinates me about Harry's thought on the train is that JKR was certainly well aware at the time of writing it that DD was going to end up wandless on the tower later in the book. She has Harry, early in the book, convinced that DD can accio his own wand, but has Harry on the tower completely forget that notion. Of course, it's completely believable because Harry's in a crisis situation and he forgets about that. But JKR didn't forget.



Ponine - Aug 6, 2006 8:19 pm (#91 of 2055)
Wynn said: By the way, when Harry was on the train, petrified by Draco and wishing he could get his wand, he thinks of DD and feels sure that DD would have been able to accio his own wand, even petrified. At the very least, this shows us that Harry knew that some wizards could do wandless magic, and he thought DD could do enough wandless magic to get his wand.

VERY nice catch Wynnleaf!! I like that a lot, and it completely supports my notion that Dumbledore knew/planned/assumed the main events on the tower were likely to occur.

And, to answer your question, personally, I am convinced that Snape, while perhaps not being 'good' per se, is on the good side -- If Dumbledore trusts (I can't bring myself to say trusted) him, so do I. Thus, that sort of answers your question in itself, I suppose. However, even in the event that Snape is 'evil,' I see it as much more likely that Dumbledore even allowed himself to be killed by an evil Severus (having seriously weighed the possible outcomes and scenarios) rather than simply being murdered. As you have pointed out earlier, there are soo many details and factors surrounding Dumbledore's situation that I'm convinced there is much more to that scene that we are not aware of.

IF (many, many ifs here -- I do not, as I said, believe Snape is evil at all)Dumbledore allowed himself to die at the hand of a Snape was evil at that particular point in time, then I believe there are a number of very symbolic sacrifices being made, either to ensure Harry's welfare, Draco's welfare, or perhaps interestingly so, Snape's redemption somehow, whether pertaining to ancient blood magic, the power of **ahem** love, life debts, or some sort of ultimate insight on Snape's part.

Once again, thanks for bringing Harry's thought on the train to myh attention, I completely forgot about that -- no wonder I've been so convinced DD could have Accioed his wand... At least I'm in good company



Solitaire - Aug 6, 2006 8:53 pm (#92 of 2055)
feels sure that DD would have been able to accio his own wand, even petrified

As I have been told repeatedly on this forum--*cough!*--just because Harry believes something doesn't necessarily mean it is true. Even if a healthy Dumbldore could have retrieved his own wand through wordless, wandless magic, Dumbledore was sufficiently weakened that he might not have been able to do this up on the tower.

Solitaire



Mrs Brisbee - Aug 6, 2006 9:16 pm (#93 of 2055)
I don't think Dumbledore was faking his weakness. Harry had to Apparated them both back to Hogsmeade, and Harry was the one who Accioed the brooms from Rosmerta's tavern. I seriously doubt Dumbledore could have Accioed his wand back under the circumstances.

Of course, he didn't need to lose it in the first place, either. That's the part which baffles me.

The only thing I can think of is that Dumbledore wanted to give Draco the opportunity to murder him at that time.



Mrs Brisbee - Aug 6, 2006 10:16 pm (#94 of 2055)
Hmm, it also occurs to me that Dumbledore left Snape out of the loop that night.

Dumbledore tries to send Harry to "wake" Snape, implying he expects Snape to be found in his room. Earlier that night Harry had warned Dumbledore that Draco was up to something in the RoR, but Snape isn't spying on Draco. Earlier in the year we had Draco complaining that Snape was trying to horn in on his glory, and Snape is the one who shows up in the girl's bathroom at the Sectumsempra incident, so we know Snape has been taking an interest in what Draco gets up to. And when the Order wants Snape because Death Eaters are in the castle he is to be found in his office way down in the dungeons.

I've complained about Dumbledore leaving McGonagall out of the loop before. Looks like Snape sometimes gets the same treatment (assuming, of course, that Dumbledore himself knew something was up).



Solitaire - Aug 7, 2006 12:01 am (#95 of 2055)
The only thing I can think of is that Dumbledore wanted to give Draco the opportunity to murder him at that time.

Or maybe he wanted to teach Draco a lesson ... to help him realize that it isn't as easy to kill as he thought it would be.

I do believe, Mrs. B, that Dumbledore was expecting something to happen, although he may not have known exactly what. Why else would he bring the Order members inside the castle to patrol the corridors? Weren't they generally outside the perimeter of the grounds? I know Draco had been practicing Occlumency, but Dumbledore was pretty good at Legilimency, wasn't he? Maybe he picked up some things from Draco. Perhaps he expected that an attempt to breach Hogwarts security might be attempted while he was away.

Solitaire



Mrs Brisbee - Aug 7, 2006 7:46 am (#96 of 2055)
Or maybe he wanted to teach Draco a lesson ... to help him realize that it isn't as easy to kill as he thought it would be.

That's also possible. Dumbledore didn't seem to realize a bunch of Death Eaters were loose in the castle when he allowed Draco to disarm him.



Solitaire - Aug 7, 2006 10:36 am (#97 of 2055)
I suspect the Dark Mark was a tip-off that something more than Draco was afoot ...



Die Zimtzicke - Aug 7, 2006 2:21 pm (#98 of 2055)
I agree with Solitaire that just because Harry believes something is no reason we should automatically believe it, too. It's not like he's never been wrong before, and his own prejudices, especially about Snape and Draco, and how Dumbledore sees them, affect his judgement. Harry's beliefs are certainly capable of misdirecting the reader toward a conclusion which is incorrect and based on false facts. A lot of debates are based on the idea that it's mostly all Harry's point of view, so we should see everyone the way he sees them. I disagree with that.

But I also agree totally with Mrs. Brisbee that Dumbledore was NOT faking his weakness. He wanted Snape as soon as he got back for a reason.



wynnleaf - Aug 7, 2006 2:35 pm (#99 of 2055)
Solitaire

You said: I do believe, Mrs. B, that Dumbledore was expecting something to happen, although he may not have known exactly what. Why else would he bring the Order members inside the castle to patrol the corridors?

Very good catch. You know, I never really thought about that before -- that is, that the Order members were inside the castle. That does seem to mean DD was thinking that there could be an attack in which DE's got into the castle. But then, he'd have to be expecting the DE's to arrive within the castle; not get in from some outside the walls. Otherwise, he'd have the Order members stationed around the outside of the castle.

I wanted to explain what I meant by bringing up the topic below:

By the way, when Harry was on the train, petrified by Draco and wishing he could get his wand, he thinks of DD and feels sure that DD would have been able to accio his own wand, even petrified. At the very least, this shows us that Harry knew that some wizards could do wandless magic, and he thought DD could do enough wandless magic to get his wand.

What fascinates me about Harry's thought on the train is that JKR was certainly well aware at the time of writing it that DD was going to end up wandless on the tower later in the book. She has Harry, early in the book, convinced that DD can accio his own wand, but has Harry on the tower completely forget that notion. Of course, it's completely believable because Harry's in a crisis situation and he forgets about that. But JKR didn't forget.

I realize that Harry is often wrong about what he thinks. I found this interesting not because Harry's assumptions prove anything (other than that a 6th year student thought that some wizards can do wandless magic, which is reflected in some other examples we've got in canon). But it certainly doesn't prove anything about whether or not DD could accio his own wand.

The reason I thought it was interesting is because JKR put it there. It wasn't really a "red herring," in the sense that it's so buried I doubt if any more than an extremely tiny percent of readers would remember this by the time they got to the tower event. This strikes me more as those little cues that an author planning surprise twists at the end has to include, so that later, in a re-read, the reader feels that there were indeed little hints of the surprise revelations at the end of the book (in this case, the end of book 7 - since 6 & 7 are like one book), and that they weren't "cheated."

You know, it's like in the other books, where even though we're surprised at the twist revelations at the end, we can look back through the book and think, "yeah, there were hints and foreshadowings there all along."

The reader isn't generally expected to figure out those hints or cues beforehand. They are not, after all, proofs, or even necessarily strong evidence. But the author has to include them, or the surprise ending seems utterly out of the blue and a sort like cheating. Anyway, we know that JKR would have been well aware when writing the train scene, that Harry would see DD without his wand later in the book, but not expecting DD to accio the wand. So why is she put this here? It makes me think that we'll find out eventually that DD could have accioed (sp?). And when we do re-reads later, we'll think "hey, even Harry once realized DD could do this, but forgot about it."



Solitaire - Aug 7, 2006 2:37 pm (#100 of 2055)
Well, we are supposed to see things from Harry's perspective ... but whether or not we agree with that perspective is--as you know from reading many different posters' opinions--something else entirely.

Solitaire
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 101 to 150

Post  Mona on Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:02 am

wynnleaf - Aug 7, 2006 2:51 pm (#101 of 2055)
Solitaire,

I'm sorry. I was editing my post as you were posting, so mine has changed a bit.

I'm not sure what you mean. I do think we're reading from Harry's perspective mostly. I just meant that we can also try to analyze what the author is up to when she puts something like this early in the book.



Solitaire - Aug 7, 2006 3:20 pm (#102 of 2055)
Wynnleaf, I was responding to Die Zimtzicke's statement here:

Harry's beliefs are certainly capable of misdirecting the reader toward a conclusion which is incorrect and based on false facts. A lot of debates are based on the idea that it's mostly all Harry's point of view, so we should see everyone the way he sees them. I disagree with that.

Since this is Harry's story, I was saying that I believe we are meant to see things from his perspective. I think that is Jo's original intent. However, one need only read the various debates on this forum to know that not everyone does buy into Harry's interpretations of things, as you yourself illustrate right here: I realize that Harry is often wrong about what he thinks. That's all ...

I'm not saying that you are wrong, either. Harry has already seen that he has misinterpreted the facts in more than one instance. One tiny instance in HBP was his assumption that the changes in Tonks's appearance and her Patronus were connected with her grief over having been in love with and losing Sirius. He realizes in the hospital--following Dumbledore's death and the attack on Bill--that he has misread the situation, and it is Remus with whom she is in love. Another instance was his assumption in PS that Snape was after the stone. Does that clarify things?

Solitaire



Pamzter - Aug 7, 2006 6:45 pm (#103 of 2055)
New question. In HBP DD says to Harry, "When Voldemort discovered that the diary had been mutilated and robbed of all its powers, I am told that his anger was terrible to behold."

Was Snape back in Voldy's fold by then, or is this evidence of another good guy spy in the Death Eaters?



Ponine - Aug 7, 2006 8:22 pm (#104 of 2055)
Wynnleaf said: Harry would see DD without his wand later in the book, but not expecting DD to accio the wand. So why is she put this here? It makes me think that we'll find out eventually that DD could have accioed (sp?).

The latter part of this statement is precisely what I thought, too. I don't necessarily think it's relevant to Harry and whether he is wrong or right -- he has (most of) the limitations any teenaged boy has, it seems. The fact that JKR put included this quite random thought in that scene when it so clearly becomes a crucial question later in the book, makes me think that it will be addressed later that Dumbledore could indeed have Accioed his wand. I don't believe he feigned his weakness at all, but I do think that in desperate situations, we all have powers beyond reason, and that for instance, had he felt Harry was threatened on the tower, he would have had his wand back, and he would have taken on the ensuing battle.

Also, I wonder -- if he suspected something to happen at Hogwarts so strongly that he placed additional protection within the castle -- why would he purposefully undertake this mission that particular night, knowing full well how weak and vulnerable he'd be? It seems to me that Dumbledore knew the outcome of this night before he asked Harry to join him.

As far as the another good guy spy -- I honestly don't think so, I don't know who that would be, and more importantly, I don't think JKR would use that particular plot twist twice, as it already is such a major part of Snape's character.

JM2K, P.



Die Zimtzicke - Aug 8, 2006 8:07 am (#105 of 2055)
I think Snape would have gotten a great deal of enjoyment at seeing Voldemort so hacked off at Lucius. That is something he could have reported back to Dumbledore without a qualm. Snape cares, in my opinion, about Draco and Narcissa, but not about Lucius. (Maybe Lucius knew he wasn't really a pureblood and held it over his head?) But I definitely think it was Snape who took that piece of information back to Dumbledore.



haymoni - Aug 8, 2006 8:18 am (#106 of 2055)
I thought that was all part of what Snape's job was for the Order.

He is the only one in position to tell Dumbledore ANYTHING about what Voldy is doing.

"What" Snape's doing isn't in question - it's the "why" that's at issue.



Ice Princess - Aug 15, 2006 4:33 pm (#107 of 2055)
But did Snape know that the diary was a Horcrux? Maybe somebody has proof that he or he didn't, but for right now I don't know. Just as thought Pamzter, maybe L.V wanted the diary to be business strictly between himself and Lucius, and Snape had only been told to check up on certain things....yet not told the actual situation. Maybe L.V's anger was for Lucius or for himself, for not thinking through were he should have put the Horcrux carefully enough, or maybe it was for Snape....for not taking orders carefully enough - therefore causing the accident.



TheSaint - Aug 15, 2006 6:52 pm (#108 of 2055)
I tend to think Lucius took the diary from Bella. Thus the comment during 'Spinners End.'

She probably had it under her pillow, something fan-like, and while she was in Azkaban Lucius either found it or knew she had it and took it.



haymoni - Aug 16, 2006 10:43 am (#109 of 2055)
LOL, Saint!

I can just picture that!

I'm sure Cissy told Lucius all about it!



Choices - Aug 16, 2006 10:46 am (#110 of 2055)
I think there is canon evidence that Voldemort himself gave the diary to Lucius......

Harry - "But I thought he meant Lucius Malfoy to smuggle it into Hogwarts?"

Dumbledore - "Yes, he did, years ago, when he was sure he would be able to create more Horcruxes, but still Lucius was supposed to wait for Voldemort's say-so, and he never received it, for Voldemort vanished shortly after giving him the diary." HBP - Ch. Horcruxes



haymoni - Aug 16, 2006 11:13 am (#111 of 2055)
I like the Diary-Teddy-Bear option better!!

Back to Dumbledore...



TheSaint - Aug 16, 2006 6:14 pm (#112 of 2055)
Ohhh...thanks Choices. Totally missed that one. Still...it does seem that bella has something from Volde, that Lucius somehow messed up. Wonder what it could be? We really don't know much about her, do we?

I am wondering if book 7 is going to reveal just how far DD would go to win?



Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 16, 2006 8:11 pm (#113 of 2055)
I just hope we see how DD's death had some meaning. I think he gave his life to win. LPO



Potter Ace - Aug 21, 2006 9:21 am (#114 of 2055)
I sure hope that there is something to his death. To have sacrificed his life for a students in admirable but to have it been for nothing would a little too much to take. Surely there is a ray of hope or guidance to be taken from his death.



Ag Hart - Aug 24, 2006 6:21 pm (#115 of 2055)
Not having read everything on this thread, I'm not sure if this question has been posed. If murder rips the soul, what does self-sacrifice do for one's soul? What might the sacrifice have done for Dumbledore, especially in light of the fact that he saved the life of his enemy (Draco) as well as his friend (Harry)? Voldemort used murder in an attempt to achieve immortality, what might Dumbledore have achieved? Was he empowered in some way? Or Harry? Or even Draco? What new magic may have been released? Love, especially sacrificial love, as a powerful form of magic has been a recurrent theme. Is this form of magic again significant?



Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 24, 2006 8:13 pm (#116 of 2055)
Ag Hart those are good questions. We know with Lily it saved her child. I believe the sacrifice Dumbledore made will somehow relate to "...magic at it deepest, its most impenetrable." PoA 427 Scholastic Hardback. Dumbledore says this to Harry in regards to the life debt Peter owes Harry. LPO



Ag Hart - Aug 24, 2006 9:35 pm (#117 of 2055)
As you seem to understand, I am proposing that self-sacrificing love may create strong magic in a literal form, not just in a symbolic sense. Lily's sacrifice protected Harry until LV's rebirth. It was magic in a concrete, not just metaphorical, sense. Perhaps DD's death will protect Harry now by providing him with some new power. I believe Dumbledore, like Lily, willingly accepted death. That choice, as JKR, has suggested is what made Lily's sacrifice, as opposed to James', so special. It created the magic that prevented evil (LV) from touching Harry. DD's sacrifice also saved Harry as well as his (DD's) enemy, Draco, which conceivably resulted in even greater magic. To willingly save a loved one is one thing; to save someone who hates you is quite another and may be even a greater sacrifice.

I am primarily wondering what it might do for Dumbledore, indeed, what it already has done for him. (I believe we may already have received some hints.) Voldemort murdered and thereby ripped his soul apart to create horcruxes. He used the power of hate to achieve immortality. Is there a corresponding Light magic created when one willingly chooses death for the sake of many? ( I suspect DD saved more than just the two boys that night.) Can one gain immortality by other means, perhaps in a different form? What happened to DD's soul, and how might his empowered soul aid Harry and Hogwarts?

Some readers scoff at the idea that love may be the force that defeats Voldemort, considering it trite, but I suspect Jo will provide a new treatment of the theme, one with surprising twists. The concrete magic created by sacrificial love may be part of that treatment.



journeymom - Aug 25, 2006 10:34 am (#118 of 2055)
Almost reminiscent of the sacrifice that Aslan made for Edmund in "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe". The Witch was so sure she'd won that battle, but she didn't know about the even older, more powerful magic that was invoked when Aslan willing sacrificed himself.



Magic Words - Aug 25, 2006 10:56 am (#119 of 2055)
Lovely. I hope there is something. But I'm trying to think in literal terms, and the best I can come up with is an Obi-Wan type reappearance, which is not quite as huge as a Gandalf reappearance but was something I thought JKR had ruled out. It's just... whenever I remember all the phoenix symbolism I feel like he has to come back in some literal sense, beyond the "dead never truly leave us" type thing we get with James, Lily, and Sirius. Maybe JKR's comment about readers being too influenced by Star Wars was only to throw us off track. I can't remember the exact words.



journeymom - Aug 25, 2006 11:03 am (#120 of 2055)
Oh, I hope she sticks to her guns! She's said that Dumbledore is dead, she's said that even in the wizarding world the dead never come back. There's Dd's portrait, and there's the possibility that Fawkes could come back and help Harry. She'll think of something!

My point is that I didn't mean to imply that I think Dd will come back, but that his sacrifice, willingly made, will be especially useful, in some way that Lord Voldemort won't expect. But perhaps that trick was played out with Lily's sacrifice.



Magic Words - Aug 25, 2006 11:12 am (#121 of 2055)
Obi-Wan didn't come back, though. His ghost appeared at crucial moments to support Luke. But surely Dumbledore isn't a ghost, so... I'm just torn and confused. Ignore me.

Edit: It was kind of like a Patronus deal in a way--a protector. I wonder... could Patroni actually be some kind of apparition from beyond the veil? Maybe Harry is so talented with a Patronus precisely because he has parents on the other side who want to look out for him, and this is James' way of being there? Yeah, I'm out on a limb, but if this is so then Dumbledore could come back as somebody's Patronus change (phoenix) and it would in a sense really be him, not just evidence that this person thinks he would protect them best.



Ag Hart - Aug 25, 2006 12:24 pm (#122 of 2055)
There are all types of possibilities that would allow Jo to play fair and allow DD to be really dead. The fact that the immortal phoenix is so closely associated with him (even a spirit one at his funeral ) may ultimately have significance. JKR has two types of clues for us--1)Those that are there for the characters to pursue and us along with them and 2) those that are clues for the readers. For example, JKR's use of name symbolism, foreshadowings, etc. (Lupin's name was such a clue.)

Right now I am focusing on whether or not there is an opposite reaction for saving lives to LV's actions--a tangible magical benefit. I'm recalling Harry's question as to why Voldemort's splitting of his soul into the mystical seven pieces wouldn't make LV stronger. DD says something to the effect that yes, Voldemort would think that. It seemed a bit of a sidestep; he didn't really answer the question, leaving me to infer that perhaps LV not only got it wrong, but that there may be even stronger magic of which he was unaware. LV had once forgotten Lily's "old" magic. It's just an impression I had and may be totally without merit.

Yes, it is possible that DD could return in another form, especially if he is an animagus and his animagus is the immortal phoenix. I'm not ruling that out, but I'm thinking in other terms also. Question: If murder splits the soul, what if self-sacrificing death allows the soul to expand, to diffuse as it were? Could DD's soul permeate those followers who are loyal to him, imbuing them with his awesome power? Could Dumbledore's sacrifice, a humble and ignomious death, have activated not only his power, but those of all the Griffindors who have gone before, thereby aiding Harry and others in some great final epic battle? This possibility is further enhanced if either Dumbledore or Harry is the Heir of Griffindor. Wouldn't such an ending be just grand?



vball man - Aug 25, 2006 4:59 pm (#123 of 2055)
Perhaps self-sacrificing death can heal the soul that has been split. Unless the broken pieces have been removed from the body and placed into horcruxes.

That would make Voldemort the only non-redeemable character. Others have killed - but only he has rid himself of some of the broken pieces of his soul. The others would have to have their broken souls mended in order to be redeemed.



TheSaint - Aug 26, 2006 6:05 am (#124 of 2055)
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends....

Love is the key after all.



Ag Hart - Aug 26, 2006 2:02 pm (#125 of 2055)
.......or for his enemies.



Die Zimtzicke - Aug 26, 2006 8:03 pm (#126 of 2055)
Agreed. It is easy to love those who love us. Loving one's enemy is harder, yet many believe we are called to do just that.



Ag Hart - Aug 27, 2006 8:29 am (#127 of 2055)
Therefore, the result is an even more powerful magic.



Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 27, 2006 8:25 pm (#128 of 2055)
Could Dumbledore's sacrifice, a humble and ignomious death, have activated not only his power, but those of all the Gryffindors who have gone before, thereby aiding Harry and others in some great final epic battle? Ag Hart

What a wonderful idea. I agree that something very powerful will come of DDs death. I think Harry's patronus will change to a Phoenix now. I also think DD left enough clues and help for Harry. I don't think he will come back from the death though. LPO



Ag Hart - Aug 27, 2006 11:15 pm (#129 of 2055)
Perhaps the powers of Godric Griffindor's heirs will settle on the new heir when needed as a result of the self-sacrifice of Dumbledore who may have been Godric's greatest heir. The greatness of DD coupled with the greatness of his sacrifice would produce very powerful magic and would be in keeping with mythic concepts.

I think it would be a great idea for Harry's Patronus to change into the phoenix. That would be a wonderful way to suggest Harry's loyalty to DD-- that he is indeed DD's man. The only caveat I have is that this may make Harry feel disloyal to James. Perhaps at some crucial moment when Harry most needs help, not Prongs, but the phoenix will spring from his wand to take on Voldemort and/or his legions. Can't you just see LV's expression? Or Harry's? If the form a Patronus takes is indicative of its power, that would be superb. Also, LV would realize that he is up against more than just Harry.

If this happens, I hope I won't need to change my nic. Wink ... Ag Hart



Potter Ace - Aug 28, 2006 9:20 am (#130 of 2055)
Ag Hart.

Very interesting thought. I think that you are on to something, surely there is an equal but opposite force to your soul splitting. It will be fun to watch it unfold. My hope is that some how DD's powers (Knowledge, abilities, etc) somehow get transferred to Harry, that way not only is LV fighting Harry but Harry with the powers of the greatest wizard of all time, a potent combination I think.



rambkowalczyk - Aug 28, 2006 9:26 am (#131 of 2055)
Voldemort used murder in an attempt to achieve immortality, what might Dumbledore have achieved? Was he empowered in some way? ...What new magic may have been released? Love, especially sacrificial love, as a powerful form of magic has been a recurrent theme. Is this form of magic again significant? ...Could DD's soul permeate those followers who are loyal to him, imbuing them with his awesome power? Ag Hart

Perhaps self-sacrificing death can heal the soul that has been split. Unless the broken pieces have been removed from the body and placed into horcruxes. Vball man

After reading these ideas I wonder if the person Dumbledore meant to heal was Snape. I do not mean to say that Dumbledore ordered Snape to kill him so that his sacrificial death could do something. That is too manipulating. But I am assuming that Snape at that moment in time feared Voldemort more than doing right and therefore killed Dumbledore.



Potter Ace - Aug 28, 2006 9:46 am (#132 of 2055)
rambkowalczyk - great point - never thought that the person that DD would "heal" or help would be Snape. very interesting plot twist



Ag Hart - Aug 28, 2006 10:26 am (#133 of 2055)
rambkowalczyk--I have a somewhat different thought regarding Snape, but I agree DD may have saved him also. Here's my take. I think DD may have saved Snape from breaking the vow and whatever the consequences are from that. Much has been made of the instant, silent mental "do it" message that may have sprung from DD's mind to Snape's prior to the "murder" and the possibility that the "overheard argument" between DD and Snape may have been over DD's request to carry out the terms of his order, if and when the moment arrives. Snape may have saved Draco's soul from being ripped, or, at least certainly, he saved him from LV's wrath. If what Snape did is not really murder (another subject for debate), DD has given Snape the opportunity to make up for past sins and rise to greatness. In any case, DD may have saved the house of Malfoy as well as Snape from the wrath of LV (by protecting his cover), AND set into motion a true reconciliation of the Slytherins with the other houses. (The Malfoys are instrumental in setting the direction of Slytherin house toward good or evil.) Dumbledore's death may bring about the reunification of the four houses that he has sought-- the very act necessary for defeating the forces assembled against Hogwarts and the Wizarding world. That would indeed be a strong thematic consequence of Dumbledore's sacrifice.

Potter Ace-- In attempting to kill Harry, LV transferred some of his power to him, thereby rendering Harry a Parselmouth. It is this same type of thing I am suggesting regarding DD's sacrifice-- a tangible magical consequence. Thank you for the "equal but opposite force" phrase, as it expresses well what I am trying to say. I do hope that it will be something better than equal, however. Wink Ag



painting sheila - Aug 28, 2006 11:09 am (#134 of 2055)
Ag Hart - you are brilliant! That is what I have had rumbling around in my head but haven't been able to get into words.

My theory is that Snape and Dumbledore had a Unbreakable Vow from the very beginning - that is why Dumbledore trusts Snape so much.

The hesitation by Snape in creating an Unbreakable Vow with Narcissi was Snape trying to figure out how to keep both vows.

Snape told Dumbledore about the vow he had made with Narcissi and Dumbledore's "Do it" was his way of helping Snape keep both vows and carry on the spying. It was his way of saying that he (Dumbledore) was okay with the step Snape was forced to do and by saying "do it" absolved Snape of the murder.

Does that make sense?



Ag Hart - Aug 28, 2006 12:07 pm (#135 of 2055)
LPO--I forgot to mention another reason why I like your idea of a change in Harry's Patronus-- the word symbolism involved. DD has been Harry's PATRON all along. It is fitting that his PATRONus symbolically reflect that Dumbledore's protection of Harry continues, that Harry is DD's man, and that (Very Important) he has stepped up to assume the leadership position. Also, JKR very cleverly exposed the possibility and rationale for such a change in HBP. JKR is big on foreshadowing. The more I think about it, the more I like your idea.

painting shelia--Thank you, and I would like to return the compliment. I hadn't thought about a Snape-DD Unbreakable Vow, but it would explain a lot. It certainly would provide an explanation for DD's trust in Snape. The idea of the UV in HBP would then serve two purposes-- explain why Snape kills DD in HBP and explain why DD believes in Snape's loyalty. One would set up the other's revelation in Book 7. Except for the S-DD Unbreakable Vow, the rest of your thoughts are my own as well.

I would like to emphasize that I can see DD's sacrifice as a healing also, a healing of old wounds. I see healing Snape and Draco as a means to a desired end. DD's sacrificial death may unify the houses together in a way not present since their founding. (The hat's warning would have been heeded.) This would be the greatest consequence of DD's death. Literally speaking, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the 4 founders make their presence known at the some point and in some way.



haymoni - Aug 28, 2006 12:12 pm (#136 of 2055)
I wonder how Harry would feel about seeing his Patronus change.

I'm sure he would realize the implication - he has truly been affected by the loss of Dumbledore - but I think he would be disappointed at losing the connection with his father.



Ag Hart - Aug 28, 2006 12:50 pm (#137 of 2055)
haymoni--That was my one caveat. (See post #129.) I could see the stag remaining as Harry's Patronus until the climactic final battle. A change would emphasize Harry's new leadership position. He is indeed DD's man. In many ways, Harry is DD's heir.

It would also reinforce the importance of choice as a theme. Harry may be James' son by blood, but he is DD's "son" and heir by choice.



Magic Words - Aug 28, 2006 9:22 pm (#138 of 2055)
Could be. There's that about Harry being Dumbledore's "heir" in terms of defeating the evil wizard of his time... but he already has a perfectly good Patronus. See, I still like my solution better. Harry keeps his stag and Snape gets the phoenix. But if it does end up being Harry, I guess I won't be too disappointed. So long as it happens to somebody.



wynnleaf - Aug 29, 2006 6:28 am (#139 of 2055)
I always thought of the Patronus in terms of the word "patron." A patron is "One that supports, protects, or champions someone or something, such as an institution, event, or cause; a sponsor or benefactor." Dumbledore has been that for Harry to an extent, but not, I think, quite as clearly to Harry or nearly as long as he has been this to Snape. For that reason, it wouldn't surprise me if the phoenix is Snape's patronus -- and it would fit the fact that JKR has said his patronus gives away something about him (at least to the reader). And I agree that Harry will probably keep his stag patronus, as a connection to his father. I don't really see a plot point that would make a change in Harry's patronus useful.



Ag Hart - Aug 29, 2006 2:08 pm (#140 of 2055)
LOL. Snape would surely be dead meat, if the phoenix were to leap from his wand in front of LV!!! It certainly would convince Harry, however, of Snape's allegiance to DD.

I still think's LPO's idea has merit for the reasons already mentioned. Yes, Harry has a perfectly good Patronus, but a phoenix-Patronus would be a good way to keep the phoenix symbolism and DD's connection to Harry alive. I also believe the phoenix is just as closely associated with Harry as DD. It has provided a link between the two throughout the series.

Although DD has served as a protector of many, he has very specifically "mentored" Harry, preparing him for the role he must play--champion of the Wizarding world. Throughout the series, to that end, DD has provided a "hidden curriculum" for Harry.

No matter who is right about the Patronus-change idea, I think that there is a good chance that it will occur. I am thinking of this in terms of the writer's "craft." One of the reasons JKR gives for the length of her books is that she needs to plant clues and give info that will allow her to play fair with her readers. This is certainly one of the reasons for her creation of subplots, since they allow her a subtle pretext for planting clues. I think this is probably one reason for the Tonks-Lupin subplot.



Magic Words - Aug 29, 2006 5:30 pm (#141 of 2055)
Snape would surely be dead meat, if the phoenix were to leap from his wand in front of LV!!!

Yes indeed. Then again, maybe that's why Snape apparently teaches his DADA class a different way of fighting dementors.



Ag Hart - Aug 29, 2006 8:41 pm (#142 of 2055)
Magic Words-- Very clever of Snape!! By the way, do we know if the Patronus can be used against other forces?



Meoshimo - Aug 29, 2006 11:46 pm (#143 of 2055)
I always understood Patronuses (Patroni?) to be a powerful positive force that just so happens to be very effective against dementors. I would assume that they could be used to protect the caster and others he/she wills it to from other dark forces.



Die Zimtzicke - Aug 30, 2006 11:36 am (#144 of 2055)
Now Snape could say to the DE that since he defeated Dumbledore, the phoenix symbol was his spoils of war, so to speak.



Magic Words - Aug 30, 2006 2:32 pm (#145 of 2055)
He could say that, but if they knew anything about patroni, they wouldn't believe it. A patronus is your guardian. A vanquished enemy does not make a very good guardian.



Ag Hart - Aug 30, 2006 4:16 pm (#146 of 2055)
Not to mention, one's Patronus does not seem to be a conscious choice. That's one reason a phoenix-patronus for Harry could have such thematic significance.



vball man - Aug 30, 2006 6:39 pm (#147 of 2055)
"Expecto" literally means "I am looking for" or "I am expecting."

Patronum means (approx) "a protector, defender, patron, or father."

"Expecto" appears in the Nicene Creed, "Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum" = "And I am looking for the resurrection of the dead."



Ludicrous Patents Office - Aug 30, 2006 7:59 pm (#148 of 2055)
Harry is coming of age. In the next book he will be a man. It would be symbolic if his Patronus became a Phoenix. The Stag protected him as a youth. Dumbledore gave him the tools to become a full grown Wizard. Harry will miss Dumbledore in a way he could never miss his father. Fawkes has also been very important to Harry. Out of the ashes of Dumbledore's death a new Phoenix has risen: Harry.

The idea of Snape's patronus becoming a Phoenix is very interesting. I agree, he better be careful if Voldy sees it! LPO



Ag Hart - Aug 30, 2006 8:21 pm (#149 of 2055)
LPO-- Another possibility, one that would enable Harry to keep his own Patronus, but also allow DD's phoenix to come into play, would be if DD's Patronus joined forces with Harry's at some critical point--a great example of wandless magic from a great wizard far away.

I had asked before, if it had ever been established that the Patronus protected against something other than just dementors. Obviously, I wasn't thinking clearly, because if it is used for sending messages, it is probably useful in other ways. I suspect that we have only scratched the surface of its abilities.



Magic Words - Aug 31, 2006 7:20 am (#150 of 2055)
Patroni are effective against levifolds, aren't they? There was something in Magical Beasts and Where to Find Them.
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 151 to 200

Post  Mona on Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:05 am


Meoshimo - Aug 31, 2006 6:36 pm (#151 of 2055)
When the Phoenix song ended in Half-Blood Prince, it says something about Harry knowing that the Fawkes had left for good. He knew it in his heart. I think that is where the story and Fawkes part ways.



Ag Hart - Aug 31, 2006 6:57 pm (#152 of 2055)
Harry sees the spirit-phoenix at Dumbledore's funeral after Fawkes has gone, so the phoenix can continue on in other ways. Personally, I expect the phoenix song to remain an integral part of the story, since it seems to be so much a part of Harry.

Also, if the Order of the Phoenix continues, then the phoenix will continue to play some role or other. At the very least, Fawkes's feather, Harry's wand core, ties Harry to Fawkes. Of course, I'm not forgetting LV. I am still very interested if the wand chose that particular wizard, and if so, when and why.



TwinklingBlueEyes - Aug 31, 2006 8:08 pm (#153 of 2055)
Like Choices, I was and still am camped out with the Dumbledore is not dead campers. And he's not, the dead never really leave us do they? One of the things that has always bothered me about the Tower and death scene was the absence of Fawkes, where was he? The pattern changed.

Any ideas?

...toddles off elsewhere...



Die Zimtzicke - Sep 1, 2006 6:37 am (#154 of 2055)
How's this...Fawkes knew what was going to happen had to happen. And he knew it was Dumbledore's choice to do what he did, and that his master was not afraid to die. If you are immortal, you have to get used to people you love moving on. Even a phoenix can't save everyone forever. It's not natural. It's what is wrong with Voldemort. He's afraid to die and is doing unnatural things to prevent it.



Soul Search - Sep 1, 2006 6:50 am (#155 of 2055)
Another way of looking at Dumbledore, Fawkes, and the Order of the Pheonix.

We have commented that the storyline required Dumbledore to die so Harry could clearly become the hero and save the wizarding world.

Fawkes and the Order of the Pheonix are extensions or representations of Dumbledore. Each has helped Harry, protected Harry, even saved him.

So, they, too, must be removed from the storyline.

We have seen this storyline pattern develop over the six books:

In SS, the trio goes after the stone, but Harry faces Voldemort alone. Dumbledore saves him.

In CoS, Harry and Ron set out to save Ginny, Harry faces Tom Riddle alone, Fawkes saves him.

In PoA, all is lost until Dumbledore makes the time-turner suggestion, which leads Harry (and Hermione) to save Buckbeak and Sirius.

In GoF, Pheonix song inspires Harry so he can hold out and escape Voldemort.

In OotP, the Order of the Pheonix comes to Harry's rescue, then Dumbledore and Fawkes protect him from Voldemort.

In HBP Dumbledore protects Harry by hiding him under the cloak so Draco and the Death Eaters don't know he is on the tower.
Harry will face Voldemort utterly alone.



wynnleaf - Sep 1, 2006 8:23 am (#156 of 2055)
Actually, I don't think Harry will face LV utterly alone, or at least no more alone than he has been in the past. JKR has always had others help Harry through the process. There have been two instances where he's faced LV alone to a certain extent, although he'd received help before and after those events. He faced LV/Quirrel at the end of PS/SS and LV toward the end of GOF. Fawkes didn't have to be "gone for good," in order for Harry to face LV alone.

My read on Harry's "knowing" that Fawkes is gone for good, just like Dumbledore had gone for good is that this is similar to at least two other instances where Harry determines that he knows something that will never happen. He thought he "knew" that he'd never lure Sirius out of Grimmauld Place, and he knows that he will "never" forgive Snape. The first was proved wrong and the second will likely be proved wrong. I think that this is another instance where JKR has Harry go against the old adage of "never say never," and have him and the reader discover later that he said (or thought) "never" too quickly. There's more on that (too much, really) in the recent posts on the "Is the Major Death in HBP real?" thread.

I also think that the phoenix rising over the tomb is an indicator of the future.



rambkowalczyk - Sep 1, 2006 9:43 am (#157 of 2055)
On the Lupin thread we are discussing how JKR uses "like he was reading his mind" as proof of Legilimency. I'm wondering if Dumbledore has used Legilimency on Harry.

(reprint from Lupin)

The other thing I want to note is when Snape does Legilimency Harry feels him sifting through his memories. Harry definately felt this way when Snape asked Harry where he learned Sectumsempera and Harry distinctly thought of his potions book.

There has been no reference to Harry feeling this way when Lupin looks at him. In fact there is no reference to Harry feeling this way when Dumbledore looks at him. One can legitimately ask "had Dumbledore done Legilimency on Harry?" We know that Dumbledore can but has he? (end reprint)



wynnleaf - Sep 1, 2006 11:09 am (#158 of 2055)
The other thing I want to note is when Snape does Legilimency Harry feels him sifting through his memories. Harry definitely felt this way when Snape asked Harry where he learned Sectumsempera and Harry distinctly thought of his potions book.

There are several instances prior to Harry's (and the reader's) hearing about legilimency/occlumency in OOTP, where Snape appears to be using legilimency. In each case he is looking very intently into the eyes of Harry (usually) while trying to find out about the truth of something. Often, Snape seems to know the truth, but without proof, can do nothing about it.

Could Snape possibly know they'd found out about the Sorcerer's Stone? Harry didn't see how he could - yet he sometimes had the horrible feeling that Snape could read minds. From PS/SS (This is one very similar to the Lupin instances.)

An example in POA from Snape's Grudge is where Snape is questioning Harry about Draco having seen Harry's head in Hogsmeade:

Snape's eyes were boring into Harry's. It was exactly like trying to stare down a hippogriff. Harry tried hard not to blink.

The impression that even Harry has is that Snape knows what happened, but has no real evidence. Moments later, when questioning Harry about the Marauders Map, he continues to keep his eyes on Harry, even as he holds the map.

From PS/SS "What on earth were you thinking of?" said Professor McGonagall... Why aren't you in your dormitory?" Snape gave Harry a swift, piercing look. Harry looked at the floor.

There are several more, by the way, involving direct eye contact with Snape at moments when Snape is trying to ascertain Harry's guilt over something.

Here's a Dumbledore one from COS Dumbledore was giving Harry a searching look. His twinkling lightblue gaze made Harry feel as though he were being X-rayed.

There are times when Dumbledore looks at Harry and seems to know something of what he's thinking. Snape looks into Harry's eyes when he's trying to find out if he's lying, or get him to reveal something.

Sure this could just be turns of phrase for two people who are good at reading the expressions of others (is Snape good at that???). But given that we know that both of these characters can do legilimency, and since both do seem to know what Harry's been doing quite often, it sounds more like hints of legilimency to me.

The examples of LV using legilimency do not seem to indicate that the other person involved knew he was doing it. Here's one.

From PS/SS "Now...why don't you give me that Stone in your pocket?"

The Lexicon speculates the use of legilimency may be controlled, in the same way and for the same reasons that veritaserum is controlled. After all, it allows the user to enter the other person's mind without necessarily their permission. If that's the case, one wouldn't expect Snape to want his students to know that he was using it -- and it's a lot less useful if people do know. Further, it would make the "evidence" gained through legilimency useless as any proof of wrongdoing, because one can't prove what one saw, although it would obviously be very helpful for Snape or Dumbledore to know what Harry and others were thinking.



Choices - Sep 1, 2006 11:28 am (#159 of 2055)
Die Z - post #164 - I like what you said and totally agree. Fawkes was always there when Dumbledore (and Harry) needed him, but when the events on the tower transpired, he knew it had to happen so he distanced himself from the action.



rambkowalczyk - Sep 1, 2006 3:34 pm (#160 of 2055)
In the examples that you give above, eye contact is emphasized and the two people are relatively close so I can concede in these instances that Legilimency is probable. But this raises a different question? Does the fact that Harry didn't experience the rifling of his memories show competence in Dumbledore as well as Snape? (here I'm talking about Snape doing it before book 5). Does the rifling of the memories indicate power of the person doing Legilimency. If so it would show that Snape is powerful as a Legilimens. I don't mean to imply that Dumbledore is less powerful but that he doesn't need to go to full power to determine that Harry is telling the truth. Does this last part make any sense?



wynnleaf - Sep 1, 2006 4:09 pm (#161 of 2055)
I always thought DD was probably the best at it, both the actual use of the magic -- in that no one realizes he's doing it -- and also what he says about it, in that he doesn't give away what he's done.

LV doesn't care if Harry knows he's just read his mind -- he openly says in PS/SS that Harry's lying, and moments later that the stone is in his pocket. Harry had no indicator that LV was in his head, but LV got very specific information quite quickly.

Snape isn't supposedly as good a legimilens as an occlumens -- which makes sense from his temperament. He seems to often be attempting to get information, but either not being successful, or not being certain of what he's seeing.

Of course, in occlumency lessons, Snape can openly perform the spell and go through Harry's mind without bothering about secrecy, so it's not surprising that Snape would see more at those times then the times when he's interrogating Harry in the hallway or classroom.

As regards DD being the best at it, I always assumed he was using legilimency some of the times when he'd work to retrieve memories about LV. Didn't he get some of those memories from people that were not completely mentally competent anymore?

DD is probably better than LV. But that's just a guess. LV is probably too ruthless to get all the nuances.



Meoshimo - Sep 1, 2006 5:02 pm (#162 of 2055)
Is there any info anywhere on Grindelwald and Dumbledore's victory over him?



Choices - Sep 1, 2006 5:59 pm (#163 of 2055)
All the information available is on the back of Dumbledore's Chocolate Frog wizard card that Harry gets on his first train ride to Hogwarts. It simply says that Dumbledore is particularly famous for his defeat of the Dark Wizard Grindelwald in 1945.



Meoshimo - Sep 1, 2006 6:44 pm (#164 of 2055)
Thought so. I really wish she would give us something on the subject!



Pamzter - Sep 1, 2006 10:39 pm (#165 of 2055)
I can't completely recall and am terrible at searching, but it is my recollection that JK said that Dumbledore's tattoo/scar/whatever that is like a map of London's tube system will come into play. I'm wondering how it fits in, especially now that he's gone. Is there a duplicate of it somewhere? Is it a key to the location of something?



vball man - Sep 2, 2006 9:59 am (#166 of 2055)
Edinburgh Book Festival: How did Dumbledore get his scar in the London Underground?
JKR:"You may find out one day. I am very fond of that scar."

What are all the reasons that JKR could be fond of that scar?



Die Zimtzicke - Sep 2, 2006 8:00 pm (#167 of 2055)
Maybe she's fond of it simply because she thought it was a witty remark or a clever idea.

It's possible to be too literal, you know. Think of the man who was walking down the street when he was approached by an unfamiliar woman. She asked him what his name was, and he asked her, "Do I know you? She replied, "Not really, but I think you're the father of one of my kids." The man was shocked, and cried, "Oh, no! Were you the stripper at my bachelor party? Her answer was, "No, I'm your son's math teacher."

A lot of times Jo may just be the "math teacher" when our first assumption is to make her something more exciting.

Hope that was not too risque for the Lexicon.



Ag Hart - Sep 3, 2006 11:49 am (#168 of 2055)
Die Zimtzicke-- I agree that the remark may be more related to something other than the plot. It could be related to character development; it tells us a lot about Dumbledore--his sense of humor and his quirks. One of the things that first attracted me to the books was JKR's use of humor, and I see that humor especially reflected in many of DD's remarks.

vball man--I hope you won't be too disappointed if JKR doesn't get around to explaining the significance of this. In NY, she seemed to be backing away from her earlier comment of planning to tie everything together with a nice bow. Maybe she'll provide a question and answer book for us. I'm still foolishly hoping that one day she will write a novel about DD. Actually, I'd settle for a screenplay for a movie or a miniseries on his life. Smile



Solitaire - Sep 3, 2006 3:18 pm (#169 of 2055)
I'm not forgetting LV. I am still very interested if the wand chose that particular wizard

What if the wand didn't choose that particular wizard? What if the Wizard chose the wand instead, in this particular case? Do you suppose it is possible? I've read and reread this section, and I almost get the feeling that maybe Riddle chose his own wand. Ollivander seems to indicate that he would not have sold the wand to Riddle had he known how it would be used. He does say that the wand chooses the Wizard, but is it possible that in Riddle's case, that is not what happened?

As for Fawkes ... the text doesn't say he's gone for good. It says Harry knew Fawkes had left Hogwarts for good. That's different ... it gives hope that he is still out there, somewhere, perhaps ready to help Harry when the time is right. I believe there is a connection between Harry and Fawkes somehow--perhaps because of Harry's wand core--and I believe it will come into play once again.

Were you the stripper at my bachelor party? Her answer was, "No, I'm your son's math teacher."

ROTFL!!! I'm still giggling!

As far as legilimency goes, Snape seems to be able to detect the things that are closest to the surface in Harry's thoughts. We do not really know how deeply into buried memories he is able to go. Dumbledore is probably able to probe more deeply and selectively, because I would imagine he exercises his "gift" more gently than Snape or Voldemort. Being more patient, he would probably be more willing to "hang around" longer in someone's thoughts and memories than most people.

Solitaire



Ag Hart - Sep 3, 2006 3:44 pm (#170 of 2055)
LV's wand does raise some interesting questions. If the wand chose LV, then the question is to what end? Do you recall when LV received the wand? Has it been mentioned? That might give us a clue as to why the wand chose him. If he chose the wand, did he choose it because of its feather core? Does choosing the eternal phoenix's feather have something to with LV's quest for immortality? Of course, if the wand didn't choose him, it wouldn't work as well and might limit his power. LV should know that, but then of course, it wouldn't be the first time he has forgotten something significant. Ollivander may not have wished LV to have it, but if the wand does the choosing, Ollivander may not have had much choice in the decision. Does any of this have to do with Ollivander's disappearance? Might LV be intent on fashioning a new wand for the final battle? No answers; just more questions.



Madame Pomfrey - Sep 3, 2006 7:45 pm (#171 of 2055)
He very well may have chose his own wand.He didn't want help from anybody..That fits in with his arrogance.



Solitaire - Sep 3, 2006 9:27 pm (#172 of 2055)
That's what I mean, Madame P. Dumbledore has told Harry of Voldemort's fascination with powerful magical objects. That fascination with powerful things would certainly lead him to choose such a wand. Consider Ollivander's description of it--"Thirteen-and-a-half inches. Yew. Powerful wand, very powerful, and in the wrong hands ... well, if I'd known what that wand was going out into the world to do ..."

I can just see him ignoring Ollivander's suggestion and making his own decision. He was, after all, just arrogant enough to believe he deserved such a wand, don't you think? Didn't he even go to Diagon Alley on his own to get his first things for Hogwarts? Maybe he didn't want anyone else telling him what to do or reporting back on his choices. Of course, this is JM2K, and I am probably all wet.

Solitaire



Mrs Brisbee - Sep 4, 2006 6:10 am (#173 of 2055)
That makes a lot of sense, Solitaire. I've always been bothered by that whole wand thing, but the idea that Tom Riddle picked his wand-- rather than the other way around-- is brilliant. I can imagine him being attracted to the phoenix feather because it comes from a bird that is instantly reborn when it dies.



Soul Search - Sep 4, 2006 7:31 am (#174 of 2055)
We don't know that Voldemort knows anything about his wand. In particular, does he know that the core of his wand came from his most hated enemy's pheonix?

It is also unlikely that Voldemort knows about the "brother wand" effect. It did seem to be somewhat obscure. Since Fawkes only gave feathers for two wands, Voldemort would not have encountered the effect before the GoF graveyard scene.

We do know that Voldemort's wand has let him down whenever Harry was the target. In Godric's Hollow, he tried to AK Harry and it backfired. (Yes, he found out about Lily's ancient magic, but still, his wand didn't do what he wanted it to do.)

Again, in the GoF graveyard scene, Voldemort tried to AK Harry and his wand didn't do what he wanted.

In the Ministry in OotP Voldemort again tried to AK Harry, but Harry dodged the curses. Then Dumbledore showed up.

Voldemort is very disappointed with his wand. Could Dumbledore have, somehow, hexed his wand? Did Dumbledore have Ollivander give him a bad wand?

In HBP, we see that Ollivanders has been cleaned out and Ollivander is gone. Perhaps, more importantly, the wand in Ollivander's window is gone too.

Ollivander was warned that Voldemort was looking for him and wanted a new wand. Olivander went into hiding, taking all his wands with him. Including that mystery wand on the purple cushion in his window. After all, "Ollivanders was the best." Looks like Voldemort will have to "make do" with another maker's wand.

As an aside, I wonder what happened to Dumbledore's wand. It went over the tower, but hasn't been mentioned since. The "Odo" verse Hagrid and Slughorn were singing suggests that a wand is broken and buried with its wizard. Is this what happened to it? I think not.



vball man - Sep 4, 2006 8:01 am (#175 of 2055)
Die Zimtzicke - ... She asked him what his name was, and he asked her, "Do I know you? She replied, "Not really, but I think you're the father of one of my kids." ...

That was funny.

I'm not sure your story is properly analogous. The words "one of my kids" has a normal meaning (one to whom I am mother) and a second meaning (one to whom I am teacher).

What JKR said was, "You may find out one day. I am very fond of that scar."

I will indeed be disappointed and surprised if we do not "find out one day."

But what do you propose is the alternate meaning of "I am very fond of that scar"? I assume that she is fond of it in terms of the part it plays in the books. Is there another way that she could have been fond of it? There may be, but I can't think of it.



Solitaire - Sep 4, 2006 9:40 am (#176 of 2055)
It is also unlikely that Voldemort knows about the "brother wand" effect.

I find it hard to believe that a Wizard of Voldemort's caliber would not know about the Priori Incantatem effect. What I DO believe is that he did not know Harry's wand was the brother wand of his own ... although he probably knows it now.

Ollivander was warned that Voldemort was looking for him and wanted a new wand. Olivander went into hiding, taking all his wands with him. Including that mystery wand on the purple cushion in his window.

I don't remember reading this, but perhaps I slid by it. I just remember reading that his shop was empty and there was no sign of a struggle. What chapter, please?

Also ... Voldemort is very disappointed with his wand. Is this just speculation, or have I missed something again? **making a note to read more carefully**

Solitaire



Magic Words - Sep 4, 2006 9:54 am (#177 of 2055)
"You may find out one day. I am very fond of that scar."

The question wasn't what part the scar would play in the books, just how he got it. JKR may have come up with a story behind the scar, one she's fond of because it's humorous or because it gives insight into Dumbledore's character, but that doesn't mean the scar will play any part in the books. "You MAY find out" says to me that if she finds a place in the last book to include it, she will, but it is by no means guaranteed.



Choices - Sep 4, 2006 1:40 pm (#178 of 2055)
We have to remember that Tom Riddle had only just found out he was a wizard when he went alone to buy his school supplies. He did not want Dumbledore to help him or go with him. Who would have told him about the different types of wands and how would he have known anything about yew or a phoenix? He was raised as a Muggle and knew virtually nothing about magic except that he was a wizard and the strange things he had been doing were emotional magic. Remember how uninformed Harry was when he went to buy his supplies? I fully expect that the wand chose him because Tom would not have known enough to make an informed choice. I think Ollivander just meant that he would not have allowed Tom to buy that powerful wand had he known how Tom was going to use it.



Ag Hart - Sep 4, 2006 2:44 pm (#179 of 2055)
So we do know for certain that this was Riddle's original wand? Perhaps the wand chose him because he was not yet the evil person he would later become, or perhaps the wand's choice has nothing to do with the morality of its owner, only the owner's potential power and greatness.

On the other hand, I do think that the fact Riddle seeks immortality ties in nicely with the wand's core phoenix feather, and I can definitely see him choosing this wand, if he knew that the feather was tied to Fawkes and by extension Dumbledore. Of course, that is only if Fawkes and DD had already joined forces by the time Riddle arrived at Hogwarts.



Magic Words - Sep 4, 2006 3:22 pm (#180 of 2055)
Even Muggles know that phoenixes, if they existed, would be immortal. You can't say the same for a dragon or unicorn. Tom may have struck up a conversation with Ollivander, too.



Die Zimtzicke - Sep 4, 2006 4:09 pm (#181 of 2055)
How do we know anyone can tell a powerful wand from a not so powerful wand simply by looking at it? Ollivander does not seem to wax lyrically about the power of the wands as he shows them to prospective clients.

I am very disappointed that Dumbledore didn't keep a close eye on Riddle from the moment he knew he had that wand, instead of waiting for Hagrid to get framed to do so. I suspect Fawkes must have been Dumbledore's pet even before he became headmaster.



Choices - Sep 4, 2006 4:25 pm (#182 of 2055)
Ag Hart - "I can definitely see him choosing this wand, if he knew that the feather was tied to Fawkes and by extension Dumbledore."

How in the world could 11 year old Tom Riddle, who just found out he is a wizard and knows nothing about the magical world, know about Fawkes who lives at Hogwarts (a place Tom has never been) with a man (Dumbledore) Tom has only met briefly one time? Only Dumbledore and Ollivander know about the two feathers/wands, and Dumbledore didn't even tell Harry until over 50 years later. I seriously doubt he shared that knowledge with the future Voldemort. I don't think his bird was part of their conversation.



Solitaire - Sep 4, 2006 8:51 pm (#183 of 2055)
Just because Riddle didn't know the feather was from Fawkes--or even who Fawkes was--doesn't mean he didn't ask about which wood and core would be the most powerful. Actually, I'd never thought that it might not have been Riddle's first wand. What if this was not Riddle's first wand? What if this one was comissioned, and what if he knew the feather came from Fawkes? Can't you just see him taking one of Fawkes's feathers and keeping it until he could get it made into a wand? Maybe that's why Dumbledore is so careful to pick up any feathers Fawkes loses ...

Solitaire



darien - Sep 5, 2006 3:39 am (#184 of 2055)
Also the feather could have fallen off Dubmledore's pocket or robes when he visited the orphanage to tell Tom he was a wizard. Tom picked it up and took it to Ollivanders



Die Zimtzicke - Sep 5, 2006 10:13 am (#185 of 2055)
I hate to point this out, but that's my job as a crotchety old woman.

LOL!

There's no canon evidence that Voldemort at age eleven asked which wands were most powerful, or that Ollivander told him, and certainly no evidence that Dumbledore was walking around with feathers on his suit, and it was suit he wore to see Tom, not robes.

Those are interesting theories, but there's nothing in the books that I can recall, to back them up.



Magic Words - Sep 5, 2006 10:38 am (#186 of 2055)
I haven't heard anyone saying there's evidence, Die Zimtzicke. We're just wondering about possible explanations for Tom ending up with a wand with Fawkes' feather, which seems like quite a coincidence.



painting sheila - Sep 5, 2006 10:41 am (#187 of 2055)
Maybe Tom getting the first wand was just a powerful wand picking a powerful wizard and the second wand - Harry's - was more deliberate on the part of the wand.

The brother wand "knew" what sort of wizard it would need to fix the damage by it's brother wand. That is why it picked Harry.

Does that make sense?



haymoni - Sep 5, 2006 10:49 am (#188 of 2055)
I think it sensed the presence of Voldy (whether it be a Horcrux or merely transferred talents) in Harry and selected him based on that.



journeymom - Sep 5, 2006 11:33 am (#189 of 2055)
painting sheila and haymoni, I like your thoughts.

Die Zim, you just go on being a stickler for canon evidence. *thumbs up*



Ag Hart - Sep 5, 2006 12:33 pm (#190 of 2055)
Edited Sep 5, 2006 1:10 pm
Solitaire-- Exactly, I've reread the scene in SS, and I don't see any clear indication that Riddle bought that wand when he first entered Hogwarts. I don't remember if it was stated elsewhere.

Choices--Riddle's knowledge of the wand's core wouldn't necessarily have to come from DD. I suspect that Riddle, the future LV, had his own way of learning things. Forbidden knowledge is, after all, his specialty. Certainly, Riddle or LV would want to learn everything about his wand. He would not want to leave anything to chance. At this point, I still lean toward the idea that the wand chose Riddle, especially if it were indeed his first wand. Your observation strengthens that leaning.

If Riddle didn't know that he bought a one-of-a-kind wand, I believe DD did and was keenly interested. Ollivander may have alerted DD when the purchase was made as he did after Harry's purchase of the brother wand. I also wonder if LV's deeds prompted Fawkes to donate a second feather. Was that wand commissioned for a set purpose--to directly counter the evil perpetrated by LV? The second wand's creation would make an interesting side story.

Die Zimtzicke-- I don't know if you were replying to me, but when I stated that the "wand's choice" might depend on the intended "owner's potential power and greatness," rather than his morality, I meant that the wand did the choosing. Consequently, it was the "wand's choice," not the potential buyer's choice of a wand. It was the same point later clarified by painting shelia.



Phelim Mcintyre - Sep 6, 2006 5:30 am (#191 of 2055)
Ollivander says two things - one is that Fawkes only gave two feathers. This does not point to the possibility of Riddle picking up a stary feather. The other is that he sold the wand to Riddle (and Ollivander is aware that Riddle and Voldemort are the same person). Ollivander emphasised the wand choosing the wizard. We don't know why but ideas concerning stray feathers or Riddle taking a feather some how is not supported by Ollivander or Dumbledore when he is explaining Prior Incantati.



legolas returns - Sep 6, 2006 12:12 pm (#192 of 2055)
Tom Riddle was already showing nasty tendancies in the orphanage and had achieved a good deal of control over his magic.

The wand was a very powerful one according to Olivander-Voldemort is a powerful wizard. Olivander says that the wand chooses the wizard. This would suggest

I cant see Voldemort going back to get a different wand. The wand would be the first real symbol of his magicness (is that a word?) and as such would be of much importance and would be revered regardless of the cores origin.

If the wand has such significance and cant be cast aside then he may not have considered it as a possible Horcrux as he did the diary. This may have been at a time when he did not have any relics of the 4 houses.



Ag Hart - Sep 6, 2006 1:01 pm (#193 of 2055)
Phelim-- Confused. Are some suggesting that LV picked up a stray feather? Are posters debating that possibility on another thread?

legolas-- At this point, I believe that this is LV's original wand, and the wand "saw" the same potential for greatness in Tom that its brother wand saw in Harry. The only reasons I can see for a change of wand are if LV's first wand were broken like Ron's or a temporary second-hand one to be traded in later. However, at present he might be attempting to secure a new one to be used in the final battle, considering his wand does not work properly against Harry's.



Ludicrous Patents Office - Sep 6, 2006 7:41 pm (#194 of 2055)
Harry hears the Phoenix song when he is battling Voldemort in GoF. It gives strength to those pure of heart and strikes fear in evil. It connects Harry to Dumbledore. I would not be surprised if Voldemort is trying have his wand modified. LPO



Ag Hart - Sep 6, 2006 8:23 pm (#195 of 2055)
Exactly, LPO. As I first argued last year on the Fawkes's thread, the phoenix's song not only connects Harry with DD, but the song fills him with love, and that love was what frightened LV in the duel. JKR goes to great pains to suggest that the song is within Harry. LV was horrified by the sound, because he is so filled with hate. Love is poison to him. Harry was able to force back the beads of light, and that is why I think he actually won the duel. This is one example of the tangible consequences of love that I asked about when I wondered what magical benefit DD's sacrificial act might hold? LV attempted to gain immortality through murder, ripping his soul. What is the magical consequence of giving one's life for others? What might Dumbledore have gained for himself, and what are the benefits to Harry and Hogwarts? Most importantly, how will this be manifested?



shepherdess - Sep 6, 2006 10:02 pm (#196 of 2055)
Ag Hart, in post 184 of this thread, Darien says:

"Also the feather could have fallen off Dubmledore's pocket or robes when he visited the orphanage to tell Tom he was a wizard. Tom picked it up and took it to Ollivanders"

I think that's where that debate started.



Phelim Mcintyre - Sep 7, 2006 3:10 am (#197 of 2055)
Ag - Darien/darren suggested the idea earlier. Others on this thread have also looked into whether Voldemort got hold of Fawkes' feather in someway and took it to Ollivander.



Choices - Sep 7, 2006 10:35 am (#198 of 2055)
Voldemort knew that he felt fear when he battled Harry in the graveyard. It was particularly strong when the shades were emerging from his wand. I doubt he associated his fearfulness with the feather in his wand, but more likely with the ghosts of those he had murdered in the past.



legolas returns - Sep 7, 2006 1:04 pm (#199 of 2055)
His past had come to haunt him Back to Dumbledore though. Did olivander not say that he contacted Dumbledore when the second wand was sold? I wonder if he told him that the original one had been sold. He did say that Fawkes gave only 2 feathers. If not why tell him that the second had been sold. Does this suggest something about the relationship between Dumbledore and Ollivander?



Ag Hart - Sep 7, 2006 1:12 pm (#200 of 2055)
Thanks, Phelim and shepherdess. I obviously didn't search back far enough.

Choices-- I don't think that LV associated his fear with the feather core either. I do think his fear is related to the phoenix's song symbolically and thematically. That there is also a tangible element, something more directly related to plot, is plausible.

The love that Harry felt from the song encouraged and strengthened him, and the power that flowed through Harry, allowing him to force back the beads of light, disconcerted LV. Even if LV didn't understand the nature and source of Harry's power, he reacted to it. Even BEFORE the shades emerged, LV seemed to show signs of fear when the tide of beads turned in Harry's favor. As Voldemort's wand began to shake and the beads moved toward him, LV "looked astonished, and almost fearful" (Scholastic,665). This was certainly no time for LV to analyze the why. That is left to us. Wink

As others have suggested, it is quite possible that LV might now seek a new wand, one that would work properly in a duel with Harry.(Unless he plans to steal Harry's, and there is no evidence of that.) That, however, does not solve the possible continued role of the phoenix's song in empowering and sustaining Harry.

Strictly, my personal interpretation, but I believe that the phoenix's song represents DD's love for Harry, a love that I do not believe was severed by Dumbledore's death. Harry "hears" and responds to the phoenix's song, because his heart is a fitting receptacle for that love. LV, inspite of his wand's core, does not respond because of his inhuman capacity for hate. The phoenix (Fawkes) bound the two great wizards (LV and Harry) together, and it is a connection that remains unbroken.
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 201 to 250

Post  Mona on Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:10 am

Ag Hart - Sep 7, 2006 1:21 pm (#201 of 2055)
legolas returns-- Place me in the "yes" column. I've often wondered if DD had some type of knowledge of a "final struggle" and, thus, prepared for this eventuality by having the brother wands crafted. This is purely speculation on my part as to why Fawkes provided these two, and only these two, feathers.



legolas returns - Sep 7, 2006 1:39 pm (#202 of 2055)
There is nothing to suggest in the books that Fawkes gave the feathers at the same time. I could imagine the scenario where Dumbledore got Fawkes to give another feather after the prophosy was made to give the "choosen one" the best chance of success.



Soul Search - Sep 7, 2006 2:44 pm (#203 of 2055)
How does "Fawkes giving a feather" work. Did Fawkes flash into Ollivander's and drop a feather on the counter? More likely, Dumbledore took one of Fawkes feathers to Ollivander.

So, the wand made from Fawkes feather chooses Tom Riddle, the student Dumbledore is worried about.

Then Tom Riddle uses that wand do do horrible things.

Does Dumbledore feel guilty?

I do like legolas returns's suggestion that Dumbledore gave Ollivander another feather after the prophecy. Perhaps, in an attempt to make up for what the first feather had been made to do. Might also be why Dumbledore took Harry under his wing, so to speak. Guilt.



Ag Hart - Sep 7, 2006 6:27 pm (#204 of 2055)
legolas-- I've considered both possibilities. I think providing a second feather later would work, if mitigating the power of the first was what DD had in mind. When Fawkes's first feather was used for evil that might have encouraged DD and Fawkes to provide the second. That possibility reminded me of the Sleeping Beauty tale where one godmother held back her gift to the infant until the evil fairy had cursed the baby with death on her sixteenth birthday. The godmother could not totally undo the curse, but she was able to mitigate it so that the princess would only sleep for 100 years and then be awakened with a kiss. You know the rest.



Ludicrous Patents Office - Sep 7, 2006 7:33 pm (#205 of 2055)
Dumbledore is the only person we know who has a Phoenix pet. Ollivander must have asked for feathers. It would be alot easier than searching some out.

I really like the idea that the second wand was created after the first. One of my favorite parts in the series is in CoS when Dumbledore thanks Harry for his loyalty. "You must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber. Nothing but that could have called Fawkes to you." LPO



Honour - Sep 7, 2006 10:29 pm (#206 of 2055)
Hi there guys, just finished a re-read of Order of the Phoenix, and in "The Lost Prophecy" chapter Dumbledore says the following ...

"I care about you too much, ...I care more for your happiness than your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed. In other words, I acted exactly as Voldermort expects we fools who love to act."

I thought that love was all powerful and the reason that Harry survived the first time he faced Voldermort? Why is it now a weakness? If Dumbledore really cared more for Harry's life than his plan why didn't he really take Harry under his wing, really teach Harry about the magical world, about how to defend himself? No he sat back and watched Harry muddle through. I found this part of Dumbledore's great explanation speech disappointing and quite a cop out.

Then he bumbles on, about how he shoulda, coulda, woulda, but didn't, he rattles on a bit more about the prophecy, the Power in the room at the MOM ...

"That power also saved you from possession by Voldermort, because he could not bear to reside in a body so full of the force he detests. In the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you."

So now it is love? that will save him just not Dumbledore's love but the love Harry feels for others?

The worst cop out of all was the second to last paragraph in this chapter ...

"I feel I owe you another explanation, Harry,...You may, perhaps, have wondered why I never chose you as a prefect? I must confess ... that I rather thought ... you had enough responsibility to be going on with"

I thought "what a whole lot of hooey!" If Dumbledore really intended for Harry to be a prefect and then changed his mind and chose not to make him one, showed DD had no faith in Harry, it also showed me that JKR was trying to line up parrallels in Harry's life with James, and maybe Ron with Remus.

I know alot of posters including myself, do have a great affection for Dumbledore, but I always get the feeling that he has manipulated this whole story himself from the beginning. Did he purposely put certain things in motion for this outcome? Did he originally see himself / his successor in Tom Riddle, but this didn't pan out, so he settled on Harry? For a man who in book 6 says he doesn't hold much in store as far as prophecies go, he takes a lot of time angsting over whether to tell Harry about this one?

One more thing which has always left me feeling uneasy about Dumbledore, how did he know where, when to send Hagrid to Godricks hollow to collect Harry? It must have been fairly close after Lily was killed, because Sirius had already collected him out of the ruins. One more thing (and I'll have to check which book this came from) but why did Hagrid lie and say that it was he and not Sirius that pulled Harry out of the ruins?

Hack it all that was a bit of a rant! Feel a bit light headed! OK I feel better now I've got that lot off my chest Smile y'all have a nice evening! Hon.



Laura W - Sep 8, 2006 1:53 am (#207 of 2055)

"One more thing (and I'll have to check which book this came from) but why did Hagrid lie and say that it was he and not Sirius that pulled Harry out of the ruins?"


In PS, p.16 (Cdn. edition), (Hagrid to Dumbledore): " ... - house was almost destroyed but I got him out all right before the Muggles started swarmin' around."

From PoA, p.153 (Cdn. edition), (Hagrid); "It was me what rescued Harry from Lily an' James' house after they was killed! Jus' got him outta the ruins, ... an Sirius Black turns up, ..."

Sirius actually rescued the baby Harry? Could you please give me the canon reference for this, Honour?

Laura



wynnleaf - Sep 8, 2006 8:37 am (#208 of 2055)
Honour,

I agree with you in that I get the feeling Dumbledore manipulated a great deal of the story from the moment he heard the prophecy onward.

But I felt what he was saying at the end of OOTP was that he had basically neglected his own plans (and manipulations) to an extent, by not telling Harry earlier about the prophecy, not training him to fulfill the prophecy, etc. All because he couldn't bring himself, because of his love for Harry, to tell him the truth and put that weight on him. In the end, of course, that turned out to hurt Harry. So it would have been more loving to tell him the truth earlier on.

But that's a very common problem between people that love -- out of love and concern for another, holding back unpalatable truths which ultimately harms more than it helps.

On the question about DD and Godrics Hollow, I think there's a good deal more there that we have yet to learn. In addition to the questions you ask, there's also the question of how DD knew that LV gave Lily a choice to live? How did DD know that LV killed her and then attempted an AK on Harry?

Some people suggest various tools like a portrait (in the nursery??), or a communication mirror, but I think if one of those were the answer we'd have already learned it. There's nothing revealing in those tools being used and I think that the answers to how DD knew about events at GH have been kept from us because they are a revelation of sorts. In other words, there's a reason why this info can't be told until Book 7, and I can't see what's particularly revealing about learning there was a portrait around or a communication mirror.

And there's also the problem of what happened to LV's wand and why it ended up back in LV's possession rather than the Order's possession.

My guess is that there was some person(s) at Godrics Hollow in addition to LV and the Potters.

I used to think it was one person -- possibly Snape -- who would be considered LV's man and therefore come along to help in the attack, but really be DD's man and contact DD about the events, telling him what occurred, etc. But as I considered the problem of LV's wand, I wondered if there were more than one additional person. If LV brought some DE's with him, among them perhaps Snape who was a spy, then after LV's destruction there would be a person to tell DD all about it, an explanation for why the spy couldn't personally remove Harry from the scene, and at least one truly loyal DE to take LV's wand away.



Potter Ace - Sep 8, 2006 9:37 am (#209 of 2055)
I have always thought that there is a perception with DD of "been there, done that" meaning the events that have just unfolded for Harry (and us the reader)he had already seen once. I can't seem to quite shake the feeling that DD took a time turner and after the last battle (LV vs. the chosen one) spun it to "rewind" the whole thing so that he could change the outcome, perhaps even to have a different "chosen" one picked, there was another possibility after all. There are too many places where this scenario plays out with LV for there not to be something to it.



Choices - Sep 8, 2006 12:47 pm (#210 of 2055)
Wynnleaf - "I agree with you in that I get the feeling Dumbledore manipulated a great deal of the story from the moment he heard the prophecy onward."

Of course he did - he (along with Hermione) is the voice of JKR and he does exactly what she wants him to do and directs what happens in the story, just as she wants.



Die Zimtzicke - Sep 8, 2006 4:57 pm (#211 of 2055)
My main problem with Dumbledore, and it probably always will be, is that he says he watched Harry closer than he knows, but Dumbledore let the situation at the Dursleys go on and on when he could have gotten Harry some direction of some sort. Harry was using wandless magic as a child. I think it could have been traced if one were trying hard enough. So it wasn't just keeping Harry hidden that stopped him in my opinion. Even if he had just given him some hope at some point would have been great. Ten years of nothing is ten LONG years of nothing.



Steve Newton - Sep 8, 2006 10:58 pm (#212 of 2055)
Well, I have been thinking lately, I know a problem, but I keep coming back to Dumbledore is Ron and that is how Dumbledore watched Harry closer than he knows. Yes, I know that JKR sort of denied this but there is something there.



legolas returns - Sep 9, 2006 5:38 am (#213 of 2055)
Dumbledore said that he sent he wanted Harry to grow up with the Dursleys so he would not be a pampered prince and grow up knowing he was famous for something that he could not remember.

I think that he did it partly for protection and partly to teach Harry about the world both wizarding/non wizarding and how horrible people could be. When Harry joined the wizarding world he found that the same type of people and worse exist. Unfortunately people use magic against others as well as being cruel. Jo said the following about Snape teaching at Hogwarts..

JKR: "Dumbledore believes there are all sorts of lessons in life .."

I think he knew it would be hard on Harry but not quite how hard.

I think his methods were very harsh. How could he predict that Harry would turn out a good guy/not totally disturbed. I thought that he kept a very close eye on Harry at school but am not sure how close an eye he kept on him before Hogwarts. Yes he had Mrs Figg to keep an eye on Harry and the occasional friendly wizard waving/saying hello and then dissapering. Dumbledore says in HBP-"its a long time since I last visited". So this suggests that if he was watching him it must have been from Afar.



HungarianHorntail11 - Sep 10, 2006 2:08 pm (#214 of 2055)
How could he predict that Harry would turn out a good guy/not totally disturbed. Well, I suppose you could start by looking at the parents. Not always foolproof, I know, but in this case, it works.

Steve, now you're confusing me. I thought DD was the giant squid.



Steve Newton - Sep 10, 2006 6:23 pm (#215 of 2055)
What have I done?



Die Zimtzicke - Sep 11, 2006 7:27 am (#216 of 2055)
I'm also surprised Dumbledore didn't get back a more messed up kid, considering how Harry had no friends and was a second class citizen at the Dursleys. That's a lot of years to go without any support and concern, no matter who your parents were.

Especially when someone says they were watching you closer than you knew.



haymoni - Sep 11, 2006 7:33 am (#217 of 2055)
I think Harry is messed up.

It's just that his new life is so much better than his old one, it has made up for an awful lot.

They say that every orphan thinks there is more to their story that what they are told - their real parents are out there somewhere looking for them or that there was some sort of mistake.

In Harry's case, there was a whole other world interested in him. The Dursleys did beat him down - he doesn't think he is special in any way - he is often surprised at the attention he gets and is uncomfortable with it. He could have easily become "Big Head Boy" upon arriving at Hogwarts, but his experiences with the Dursleys have made him cautious.



wynnleaf - Sep 11, 2006 9:55 am (#218 of 2055)
haymoni,

I think that part of what DD was talking about when he was amazed at Harry's capacity to love is that with his background, you wouldn't expect him to be able to love normally. Harry doesn't really love more than many normal people. But given Harry's background it is amazing that he would have such an ability to care about and empathize with other people.

Think about the children known to have been raised in some highly understaffed orphanages in eastern Europe that were adopted after the Soviet block countries became independent. Many of those children were raised with almost no nurturing and developed severe attachment disorders. They literally could not empathize with other people, because they'd never been "taught" to empathize through the normal give and take of nurturing a baby and toddler.

Of course, Harry did have his parents for his first 15 months, so that would have helped a great deal. Still, the Dursleys gave him no nurturing whatsoever.

But I also agree with you haymoni that Harry is pretty messed up. You can especially see it in his inability to trust adults, or have any confidence that adults in authority will really listen to him or help him with problems.

This particular issue of Harry's sort of backfired on Dumbledore, since Harry rarely tells him about his suspicions or his true feelings or fears. It isn't until HBP that Harry starts opening up more to Dumbledore. But he still does not trust other adults much, and doesn't tend to reach out to them in times of crisis. Mostly, he goes to his friends.



haymoni - Sep 11, 2006 10:10 am (#219 of 2055)
Yes - the people that have proven their trustworthiness to him.



legolas returns - Sep 11, 2006 12:13 pm (#220 of 2055)
I was not meaning that Harry was totally problems free. I meant that he is able to interact with people socially, form friendships etc. Voldemort had a love free childhood and look how he turned out. Harry reached out to Ron and vice versa on the train and formed his first friendship on the train. He knew how to form friendships when nobody had shown him any interest in the past. Yes he tends to depend on himself and not ask questions/help but he seems to be improving this ability as he gets older. In general it seems it is Ron/Hermione that fall out with each other.

I think Dumbledore took a big risk leaving Harry so alone as a child.



haymoni - Sep 11, 2006 7:21 pm (#221 of 2055)
I think the conversation that Harry overheard between the kids & Molly let him know that someone understood how he felt. He was comfortable with Ron & knew he had Draco pegged correctly from the start.

Dumbledore knew he took a risk and he was darn lucky Harry turned out as he did.



legolas returns - Sep 11, 2006 10:55 pm (#222 of 2055)
Could you imagine Dumbledore after he had left Harry at the Dursleys going over the prophosy "the power Voldemort knows not...ahh that means love(inside his head, said in his best drinking tea voice)"? I'll be okay to leave Harry at his aunt and uncles because he will have the ability to love. Yes he added other protections but why did he not feel guiltier?



Laura W - Sep 12, 2006 2:05 am (#223 of 2055)
Re your last question, legolas returns: Didn't Dumbledore (Jo) sort of answer that in his speech to Harry (us) in OoP? --

"Five years ago you arrived at Hogwarts, Harry, safe and whole, as I had planned and intended. Well - not quite whole. You had suffered. I knew you would when I left you on your aunt and uncle's doorstep. I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years. ... You might ask - and with good reason - why it had to be so. ... My answer is that my priority was to keep you alive. ... And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which he knows, which he despises, and which he has always, therefore, underestimated ... I put my trust, therefore, in your mother's blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative." (p.736, Raincoast)

Dumbledore was between a rock and a hard place, as I see it. Put baby Harry in an unhappy home where he would stay alive, or place him with a loving wizard family where there was a good chance Voldemort would find him and kill him. DD made his choice and hoped the experience wouldn't mess the boy up beyond repair.

Laura



haymoni - Sep 12, 2006 7:21 am (#224 of 2055)
Yep - he got lucky.



Die Zimtzicke - Sep 12, 2006 7:32 am (#225 of 2055)
The thing that I always wonder is why he couldn't have put Harry with the Dursley, but just kept in closer contact with them. Or with Mrs. Figg, who was in contact with them, and would probably have seen how Harry was poorly dressed, undernourished, left out of family activities, etc.



wynnleaf - Sep 12, 2006 7:36 am (#226 of 2055)
I think that JKR wants to say that Dumbledore really had no other choice other than to leave him with the Dursleys if he wanted to physically protect Harry's life. Within the internal parameters of the plot, it's hard to accept that, because it's not so hard for the reader to come up with other ideas that should have protected Harry just as well -- or at least it seems like that to me. However, I think JKR was trying to say, through Dumbledore, that those other options really were not options and Dumbledore had to put Harry at Privet Dr.

Now as to why Dumbledore didn't make sure the Dursleys treated him at least a little better, well, I think we're supposed to believe that DD didn't really know how badly they were treating him. I think DD expected them to resent Harry's being there, but I don't think he expected them to act quite as horribly as they did.

We aren't shown any kind of surveillance that DD had over Harry other than Mrs. Figg who couldn't really see much of anything other than was mentioned earlier -- poorly dressed and so forth. So DD probably didn't know much about how Harry was treated in the home, at least not knowledge of real abuse, just that he wasn't cared for like their son.

As for the letter to Harry, addressed to the cupboard under the stairs, I think that may have been the first real indicator to DD as to what Harry's life was like. But the Dursleys immediately moved him into a bedroom, and shortly thereafter Hagrid made contact with Harry and could report that Harry seemed fairly normal, healthy, etc.

Once Harry got to Hogwarts, he never complained to any adult about the treatment he received at the Dursleys. DD noticed that Harry was not as well-fed as he should have been, but other than that, there really weren't a lot of indicators that DD would see of how Harry had lived at Privet Dr.

DD may have known in the early books, and definitely did know later, that Harry didn't really like going back in the summers, but Harry never actually told any adult that there was any more reason to not want to go home other than just general dislike of his relatives.

In COS, the Weasley adults may have told DD about their sons rescuing Harry from a locked room with a barred window. But we don't know that they did. Or does DD ever mention it? I'm not sure.

After that, I don't think DD would have gotten any more information about Harry's life until OOTP. At that point, Snape did get more pictures of Harry's life at Privet Dr. While Snape appears to not have the slightest bit of sympathy for Harry's life, it's really hard to tell with Snape, since his actions are often different from his words and demeanor. Anyway, Harry finds himself at the end of OOTP and suddenly DD seems to have a more clear understanding of the life Harry had with the Dursleys.

When DD visited Privet Dr. in HBP, he was clearly angry at the Dursleys for their treatment of Harry. But he may not have known very much about that other than Harry's sleeping in the cupboard, until he possibly heard reports from Snape's occlumency lessons in OOTP. We do know that Snape told DD a great deal of what he saw in Harry's head -- at least as it pertained to LV, the corridor, etc. It's just as possible that Snape also told DD about some of the other memories Harry had about the Dursleys.



Die Zimtzicke - Sep 12, 2006 7:45 am (#227 of 2055)
I disagree. Mrs. Figg did see quite a bit. The Dursleys used to dump Harry off on her when they didn't want him around. She babysat him whenever they went out without him, remember? At the least, as I just said, she should have seen he had ill-fitting clothing and was undernourished and small for his age. She might have been able to see bruises, from Dudleys punching him, and his broken glasses would have been very obvious. She could have carefully and/or casually asked him questions while they were together and reported to Dumbledore.

Dumbledore left Harry to be treated like a servant and never did a thing about it, even though he put someone in a position to watch Harry.



wynnleaf - Sep 12, 2006 9:06 am (#228 of 2055)
Well, we don't actually know what Mrs. Figg saw other than those things that were there all the time -- ill-fitting clothes for instance. Who knows what excuse the Dursleys gave for leaving Harry with her. Did she know that they never took him along on family outings? Or for all she knew, he stayed with her on those occasions where he simply couldn't go. For all she knew, there were times when Dudley stayed with friends and didn't go along, but Harry did.

As for Harry's size. Okay, he was small for his age, but did she know it was because he was underfed? Or just smallish because that was his physical makeup to be that way?

We don't know how long Harry's glasses were broken. Were they broken for months and years on end so that Mrs. Figg would notice that they weren't repaired? Or did she perhaps only see that once, or even never?

My point is that there are some things we can be sure she saw, but we don't know that she saw enough suspicious things to be concerned about abuse. She probably knew just from talking to the Dursleys that they didn't like Harry, but that doesn't necessarily translate to abuse.

And it's quite doubtful that she knew anything about Harry being used like a servant. Harry certainly doesn't seem to ever complain about it, so he probably didn't tell Mrs. Figg. How else would she, or Dumbledore, know?



legolas returns - Sep 12, 2006 9:19 am (#229 of 2055)
I think she would have got the picture quite clearly. If he was skinny, in clothes that were obviously hand me downs and broken glasses-when Vernon had a good job. Never got taken out on outings while his cousin did and never included with family stuff. Was critised every two minutes his Uncle spoke to him. Was hit by his cousin. Somehow I dont think Dudley would be subtle about that and do it only in private. His Aunt and Uncle would have never sent him to her if they knew that Harry liked going. In OOP she apologises to Harry for being nasty to him. I think Mrs Figg would have to be incredibly "short sighted" to know that he wasnt been mistreated/abused. If she knew so did Dumbledore.

I know that Dumbledore had to place him with his family but a little reminder to the Dursleys would not have gone amiss.



wynnleaf - Sep 12, 2006 9:30 am (#230 of 2055)
legolas returns,

I'm going to comment on each thing you said seperately/

I think she would have got the picture quite clearly. If he was skinny,

Lots of kids are skinny that aren't abused.

in clothes that were obviously hand me downs

Yes, this she would probably realize.

and broken glasses-when Vernon had a good job.

We don't know that she ever saw him in broken glasses. If she only saw that once, it wouldn't be something that would scream "abuse!!"

Never got taken out on outings while his cousin did

Just because he stayed with her occasionally wouldn't mean that she'd know he never went along on outings. Only that he sometimes didn't go along.

and never included with family stuff.

How would she know that, beyond some of the outings that he would miss?

Was critised every two minutes his Uncle spoke to him.

We have no information that she saw him with Vernon.

Was hit by his cousin. Somehow I dont think Dudley would be subtle about that and do it only in private.

Sure Dudley hit Harry and may have done so in public. On the other hand, lots of syblings fight. Do we know that Mrs. Figg saw bruises that were clearly from a fight? And clearly reflective of Dudley beating up on Harry without the Dursley's stopping it? No. We don't even know that she ever saw bruises on Harry.

All we know for sure is that Mrs. Figg would have seen that the Dursleys didn't talk about Harry with any affection - more like dislike; that he was dressed in hand-me-down too-large clothing; and that he sometimes didn't go on outings with the Dursleys. That's not nice and it's not loving -- but it is not abuse.

Yes, Mrs. Figg knew the Dursleys were awful and mean and didn't like Harry. I'm sure she passed that along to Dumbledore. But she did not necessarily know of the more abusive things they did, therefore we can't assume that Dumbledore knew those things.



haymoni - Sep 12, 2006 9:30 am (#231 of 2055)
She knew that she had to be awful to him or they would never send him to her. She knew something.

I think Dumbledore knew what was going on but unless Harry was physically injured, I don't think he was going to step in.



Potter Ace - Sep 12, 2006 9:45 am (#232 of 2055)
I think we are all missing the point. The preservation of Harry was paramount, meaning his protection was the most important. Whether he was abused, beaten, mistreated or other things, I did not matter, only that he survive. DD's goal was to given sanctuary to Harry that hid him from the WW. Could have DD paid more attention, sure but don't you think that if he did, the abuse would have increased? He couldn't even say the work magic without punishment. The Dursley's were hell bent on stamping out the "freak" in him, any enjoyment was denied in the hopes that he would be made normal.



haymoni - Sep 12, 2006 9:59 am (#233 of 2055)
I think an owl to Pet letting her know that he was unsatisfied with her care of Harry could have been sent. He could have told her that he would notify the Muggle authorities - how embarrassing would that have been!



Soul Search - Sep 12, 2006 10:23 am (#234 of 2055)
Edited Sep 12, 2006 11:23 am
While I agree that Dumbledore was remiss in Harry's care, I don't think we are looking at all the possibilities.

The absolute, most important part, was that Harry stay at Privet Drive. With Petunia. The protections were only effective at Privet Drive, and remained in effect only as long as Harry "could call it home" and returned there once a year.

In PoA, Marge says:

"It's damn good of Vernon and Petunia to keep you. Wouldn't have done it myself. You'd have gone straight to an orphanage if you'd been dumped on my doorstep."

What if this wasn't just a recent idea? The wording suggests that sending Harry to an orphanage was considered previously, perhaps even when he was found on the doorstep.

Throughout the six books, it is Vernon that torments Harry. Not Petunia. So, when baby Harry is found on their doorstep Vernon wants to send him to an orphanage. Petunia prevails, however, and Harry is allowed to stay. But, she has to walk a tight line all the time so Vernon doesn't end up sending Harry to an orphanage anyway.

Vernon telling Harry to "leave and never return" in OotP supports the idea that Vernon really never wanted Harry around, and it was only because of Petunia that he was allowed to stay.

Dumbledore is watching Harry closely. He knows the situation. Any interference, any hint that the wizarding world is watching Privet Drive, would push Vernon over the edge and Harry gets sent to an orphanage. (Look how upset Vernon was over the Hogwart's letter that was addressed to "the smallest bedroom.") We also have Mrs. Figg's statement that she had to treat Harry poorly or the Dursleys (read Vernon) would have been upset.

Dumbledore HAD to allow the situation at Privet Drive to continue, or risk Harry being sent away from his protections.



journeymom - Sep 12, 2006 11:10 am (#235 of 2055)
Heh. There's a bit of a parallel between Pet and Snape there. He's protected Harry a few times in spite of his mean, nasty attitude. Same with Petunia. She loaths Harry but has done what was required of her.



haymoni - Sep 12, 2006 11:14 am (#236 of 2055)
Barely. She could have slipped the kid a peanut butter & jelly sandwich when Vernon wasn't around!



legolas returns - Sep 12, 2006 11:54 am (#237 of 2055)
I find it suprising that the wizarding world has only commented on the way that Harry has been treated now that Voldemort is back e.g at the end of book 5 and the begining of book 6. I guess they think dont give him a hard time in the Holidays because he has got enough on his plate now that Voldemort is back/his god father has died. They know how he has been treated all the way through-well at least Molly and Arthur do. Ron even tells his mum that Harry wasnt expecting anything at Christmas in book 1. I am sure that Hagrid knows pretty well too. Lupin got the idea at the begining of OOP. Dumbledore finally points out the failing in HBP but does the "frosties" rather than shout. He keeps his tone mild.

Wynnleaf-I know that you can break down each of my comments but as an overall pattern things are just not right-I am sure that Harry going to Mrs Figg each year while his cousin goes on a birthday trip would have been commented on. Mistreatment/abuse-I guess its a difference in the way people define the word.

I know that Dumbledores only thought was to protect Harry and staying at Privit Drive with Petunia.

I think you might have put your finger on it about Vernon not wanting Harry around. Petunia is just as much at fault for letting the mistreatment happen even if she was treading a very find line.

stamps feet in huff* I am going to stop going on about it now. My long drawn out rant is done.

Suprisingly enough although I think Dumbledore has a great many faults I do love him though as a character an if he was real I would like to chat to him for hours.



Hoot Owl - Sep 12, 2006 5:55 pm (#238 of 2055)
I think the WW had the same attitude as Fudge. Chp 3 page 44 POA; "They are your family, after all, and I'm sure you are fond of each other -er- very deep down." Maybe they just couldn't believe anyone would be that rotten to their own nephew. I know it happens all to often in the real world, but this is not the real world. Realistic, yes, but not real.

I noticed no one confronted the Dursleys about Harry until after Snape had seen his memories for himself.



Meoshimo - Sep 12, 2006 10:59 pm (#239 of 2055)
I don't think that Dumbledore was relying solely on the blood connection to protect Harry. The put-outer that Dumbledore uses to steal the light from the streetlights before he enters the house must be some sort of protection against magical people from going there. If i remember correctly, no wizard or witch has entered the house by walking up the front drive without turning the streetlights off. The same thing is used when Harry is for the first time taken to 12 Grummauld Place.

P.S. It's late and I'm very tired, so that might not have been worded in the best way.



Laura W - Sep 13, 2006 7:20 am (#240 of 2055)

"Barely. She could have slipped the kid a peanut butter & jelly sandwich when Vernon wasn't around!" (haymoni)

Quite. Remember The Worst Birthday chapter in CoS. After trying to hit 12-year-old Harry's head with a frying pan, Petunia made him clean the windows, wash the car, mow the lawn, trim the flowerbed, prune and water the roses, and repaint the garden bench. All this in the blazing sun, and while being able to see Dudley sitting eating ice cream. Then, after all that work, she gave this growing boy a supper that consisted of just "two slices of bread and a lump of cheese." (p.13) All of this done without Uncle Vernon being present. So the treatment of Harry in this instance - and on his birthday, besides! - was all Petunia's doing.

No, I think she is just as guilty as her husband when it comes to hating all that her sister's child represents and showing it in her treatment of him. There is no question in my mind that, were it not for that letter Dumbledore left with her, she would have been just as eager to take the 15-month-old to the nearest orphanage as Vernon would have.

(I sure hope we find out exactly what that letter said in the next book. It would be most enlightening I think.)

Laura



legolas returns - Sep 13, 2006 11:23 am (#241 of 2055)
Wizards have entered through Harrys bedroom window . I always wondered how Dumbledore knew where to send Harrys letter or have it sent to in COS? I got the feeling that the letter was addressed to to Harry at the Burrow. How did he know so quickly?



haymoni - Sep 13, 2006 11:34 am (#242 of 2055)
He's Dumbledore!!

and there's that whole magic thing again!



Meoshimo - Sep 13, 2006 8:37 pm (#243 of 2055)
Oh, yea. Forgot about the Weasleys. Hmm. I still feel there's something odd with the street lights and the put-outer. I couldn't think it would be for the cover of darkness, he wouldn't need to put out the street lights just for that. *sigh*



haymoni - Sep 14, 2006 5:39 am (#244 of 2055)
Especially if he can go invisible.

I'm guessing it was more to hide Hagrid!!



Magic Words - Sep 14, 2006 6:15 am (#245 of 2055)
But why would he need to use a special device? A wand wave wouldn't do it? Magic isn't supposed to be able to mix with electricity anyway.

Or did I just answer my own question?



Meoshimo - Sep 14, 2006 8:33 am (#246 of 2055)
I don't know. Maybe the use of a magical device makes it simpler for him and anyone else who uses it (like Moody in Order of the Phoenix).



Choices - Sep 14, 2006 10:39 am (#247 of 2055)
Edited Sep 14, 2006 11:16 am
I didn't think the street lamps were electric, I always inagined they were gas. But, the book does refer to "balls of light" so maybe they are electric.



haymoni - Sep 14, 2006 11:27 am (#248 of 2055)
I always thought they were electric.

Street lights at my place are electric.

The cute lamps people have in their front yards can be either gas or electric.



Choices - Sep 14, 2006 11:29 am (#249 of 2055)
I guess I am used to places in the South, like Savannah, New Orleans, Mobile, etc. having gas lights.



haymoni - Sep 14, 2006 11:34 am (#250 of 2055)
Where's Liz Mann???
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 251 to 300

Post  Mona on Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:17 am


legolas returns - Sep 14, 2006 2:10 pm (#251 of 2055)
In britain we have not had gas lamps in the street for years. I could not put an actual date on it though. Not in my lifetime anyway (last 30 years).



journeymom - Sep 14, 2006 4:20 pm (#252 of 2055)
4 Privet Drive is in modern day suburbia, isn't it? It's supposed to contrast with the kind of old fashioned wizarding world.



James Greenfield - Sep 18, 2006 3:08 am (#253 of 2055)
If I may, I would like to raise another point about Albus Dumbledore.

In Book 6, when he and Harry are using the Penseive to experience the ministry wizard's encounter with Morfin and Marvolo, at one point DD asks Harry if he can understand what they are saying. Harry replies that he can, then realizes that it is in Parselmouth snake-talk, which Harry understands because he got that ability from Voldemort.

Well, here's my problem: how does Dumbledore know what they are saying? Is he a Parselmouth, too? Then how did he come by the ability?

Comments, please!



journeymom - Sep 18, 2006 9:52 am (#254 of 2055)
"... how does Dumbledore know what they are saying? Is he a Parselmouth, too? "

A couple of ideas:

He doesn't know what they are saying, but being Dumbledore he makes good guesses based upon context and knowledge of what happened in the Gaunts' lives later, i. e., Merope marries Tom Riddle Sr. in the future, so at such and such point Dd can deduce that Morphin is mocking her about peeking through the bushes and spying on Riddle.

Or, being Dumbledore he simply learned enough parseltongue to understand.

Or this is an oversight on JKR's part.



Mrs Brisbee - Sep 18, 2006 10:27 am (#255 of 2055)
Well, here's my problem: how does Dumbledore know what they are saying? Is he a Parselmouth, too?

I once had the same question. Then someone pointed out to me that Dumbledore got the memory from Morphin, who could have simply provided him with a translation at the same time. It seems the most straight forward explanation, so I'm going with that.



Choices - Sep 18, 2006 10:34 am (#256 of 2055)
James, if you were a wizard and came across someone making hissing noises, wouldn't you figure they were speaking in Parseltongue? Hermione and Ron figured it out when they heard Harry hissing at the Dueling Club meeting. Dumbledore is pretty smart (some call him a genius) and he knows what Parseltongue is - even if he isn't a Parselmouth himself, it's pretty certain he can recognize it when he hears it. Even if he doesn't speak Parseltongue, he may can understand it or figure it out from what is going on in the scenario.



painting sheila - Sep 18, 2006 8:56 pm (#257 of 2055)
He knows how to speak Mermish - and a few othr languages. Are you able to "learn" to speak those languages or are they all "gifts"?



Madame Pomfrey - Sep 19, 2006 10:39 am (#258 of 2055)
I think Hermione called it a rare gift or is that movie contamination?



Madame Pomfrey - Sep 20, 2006 7:33 am (#259 of 2055)
I continue to wonder how Dumbledore watched Harry closer than Harry know's.Could Dumbledore have been invisible at such times?There are 2 instances where Hermione says "ouch that was my foot," under the invisibility cloak heading to the forbidden forrest in book 1 and on the train to Hogwarts right before the dementor entered their compartment.The stepping on Hermione's foot is a small thing but was in the movies as well.Could Dumbledore have been there?



haymoni - Sep 20, 2006 8:12 am (#260 of 2055)
I'm guessing it was just Ron & Neville.

Harry had Mrs. Figg, the MOM, Dumbledore's protections, Lily's blood...perhaps there are other magical ways to watch over someone.



Choices - Sep 20, 2006 11:06 am (#261 of 2055)
With Harry, Ron and Hermione under the Invisibility Cloak, I doubt there was room for Dumbledore under that cloak also.

Yep, Mrs. Figg watched Harry at 4 Privet Drive, and at Hogwarts there was Dumbledore, the portraits throughout the castle, the ghosts, the teachers, Hagrid, other students, Ron and Hermione, etc. Plenty of eyes watching our boy.



haymoni - Sep 20, 2006 11:18 am (#262 of 2055)
No - extra protections at #4 - Dumbledore says he was watched more closely - I always assumed he meant before he came to Hogwarts.

At Hogwarts, Harry was watched by EVERYBODY - they certainly weren't secret about it.



Madame Pomfrey - Sep 20, 2006 12:32 pm (#263 of 2055)
Didn't baby Norbert fit under the cloak with Harry and Hermione? Not that I believe Dumbledore was there,it was just a thought concerning that bit being put into the movies.

When Dumbledore says he doesn't need a cloak to become invisible does he mean that he is invisible or does he mean that he can't be undetected(seen)? He is supposed to be great at transfiguration ,but we have yet to see him do any transfiguring.Of course the twins can charm a hat to make their head disappear so I suppose one could make their whole bodies disappear with a charm.Perhaps Dumbledore did such a charm when he was forced from his office by Fudge.



Choices - Sep 20, 2006 12:56 pm (#264 of 2055)
Norbert's crate fit under the cloak along with Harry and Hermione.



Ludicrous Patents Office - Sep 21, 2006 7:36 pm (#265 of 2055)
Dumbledore did what he thought was best for Harry. I think putting him with the Dursleys was his only option. We know several Death Eaters went free. I don't doubt a few of them would have loved to ended the "boy who lived's" life. I also believe Dumbledore sees being spoiled or treated like a Prince to be a greater evil than being neglected. LPO



Die Zimtzicke - Sep 22, 2006 1:17 pm (#266 of 2055)
Couldn't there have been a middle of the road course of action? Dumbledore could have sent him to the Dursleys but monitored their care better.

Someone who knew how to do occlumency could have just known from looking into Petunia's eyes on the street what was going on. And there had to have been other ways. If they could put Kingsley in the Minister's office, they could have put someone in Harry's school. I can think of many ways Dumbledore could have monitored this child. He put Harry into the situation. It was up to him to make sure the situation was liveable.



Meoshimo - Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm (#267 of 2055)
Now that's an interesting thought: a witch or wizard stationed at Harry's grade school!



Mediwitch - Sep 22, 2006 8:02 pm (#268 of 2055)
Um, Die Zimtzicke, maybe this is a bit nit-picky, but I think you mean someone who can do legilimancy, as occlumency is the blocking process and legilimancy is the "reading" process.

However, I do agree with you that Dumbledore should have been able to more closely monitor Harry; of course, that would have changed the story line. Dumbledore took an awful risk though.



constant vigilance - Sep 22, 2006 11:56 pm (#269 of 2055)
"Indifference and neglect often do much more damage than outright dislike..." Dumbledore OotP pg 834 USA

I have always loved that line. Despite quoting this, I do not hold Dumbledore accountable for what happened to Harry. I believe he regretted putting Harry through the abusive upbringing. Dumbledore might have stayed away from Privet Drive to reduce the amount of magical activity. Plus, at that time Dumbledore was quite busy with Death Eater trials, assisting Fudge, and being Headmaster, not to mention trying to figure out what had become of Voldemort. Dumbledore probably hoped, as this is his greatest strength and weakness, that the Dursleys would come to accept Harry. (2nd chances?)

Alas, hindsight tends to show us more of our mistakes than achievements, which is how one does better in the future.

Also, I think JKR needed Harry to experience the same hardship as Voldemort to emphasis the contrast between their emotional characteristics. Neville's situation wasn't that much different or better than Harry's. Yes, Neville had a family, who despite loving and taking proper care of him filled him with doubt---his gran's great expectations which in her eyes he fails to live up to.

Harry is determined, and unafraid to stand up for what he believes even if no one agrees with him, even if he is largely unpopular. The Dursley's, (albeit by default), helped him develop this sense of confidence in himself. The Dursley's disapproved of who and what Harry was, and the kid's at school bullied him. He chose to be strong, and maintain who he is instead of change or mute himself, which was most helpful in OotP, when he stood by his word that Voldemort had returned despite the jeers in the Prophet, Umbridge's Quill, and his former friends (seamus) calling him crazy, or telling him to keep quiet (Hermione & Mcgonnagal). Side note: I think Harry's power of Love is more specific. It is his selfless love for others that is a power that Voldemort will never know or respect. At the age of eleven, Harry knew that going after Voldemort was extremely dangerous, but he was willing to sacrifice himself if that meant protecting the Wizarding World from an immortal Voldemort.

I apologize for any poor writing. If something needs clarification, I would be happy to do so.

Back to Dumbledore.



Die Zimtzicke - Sep 23, 2006 10:14 am (#270 of 2055)
My apologies about the legilimancy. You're absolutely right and it's not being overly picky. That's what we're all about, at any rate. But I'm glad you got the general idea that I was trying to convey.

There was a wide space between keeping an close eye on Harry and leaving him to fend for himself. I don't think it should have been an all or nothing proposition.



Solitaire - Sep 24, 2006 6:04 pm (#271 of 2055)
Phelim:Ollivander says two things - one is that Fawkes only gave two feathers. This does not point to the possibility of Riddle picking up a stary feather. The other is that he sold the wand to Riddle (and Ollivander is aware that Riddle and Voldemort are the same person).

I have the American edition, so perhaps I am missing something, but I do not see where Ollivander ever mentions Riddle. He says, "... After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things--terrible, yes, but great." He does not use Riddle's name, so it is possible that he did not sell the wand to the boy, Riddle, but to the man, Voldemort. He could have sold the wand after Riddle had begun using the name Lord Voldemort but before he had tipped his evil hand.

Ollivander's comment alone about Fawkes giving just one other feather does not point to Riddle having stolen one. Dumbledore's fastidiousness about collecting Fawkes's shed feathers, however, does suggest that he does not want anyone else finding them. I think this opens the possibility that the feathers could fall into "the wrong hands." These two ideas combined suggest to me that the feathers could be used by someone Dumbledore does not want using them in a way he does not want them used. That idea suggests to me that perhaps this has happened before. JM2K, of course ...

My apologies if this has already been addressed. I have 80 messages to work through.

Solitaire



Choices - Sep 25, 2006 1:17 pm (#272 of 2055)
I think Ollivander did not mention Tom Riddle because Harry would have had no idea who he was talking about, but Voldemort or "he-who-must-not-be-named" would be familiar to 11 year old Harry.



vball man - Sep 25, 2006 3:24 pm (#273 of 2055)
I think Ollivander did not mention Tom Riddle because Harry would have had no idea who he was talking about,

And because Harry (and we) can't know that Voldemort = Tom Riddle. It would ruin book 2. :-)



legolas returns - Sep 25, 2006 3:28 pm (#274 of 2055)
I think we were told little by little about the wand delibrately. As Harry gets older and older he proves more and more that he is Dumbledores man. The wand provides another link between the two of them.



wynnleaf - Sep 26, 2006 12:47 pm (#275 of 2055)
Interesting comment by JKR last month.

Unknown (1): Can muggles brew potions if they follow the exact instructions and they have all of the ingredients?

J.K. Rowling: Well, I'd have to say no. Because there is always a magical component in the potion. Not just the ingredients so at some point they will have to use a wand. I've been asked what would happen if a muggle picked up a magic wand in my world and the answer would probably be something accidental and probably quite violent because the wand in my world is merely a vehicle or a vessel of sorts and there is a very close relationship as you know between the wand that each wizard uses and themselves. And you'll find out more about that in book 7 (crowd applauds).

So, in book 7 there will be more about the close relationship between the wand and the wizard. Of course, we don't know if this will be regarding Harry in particular, but it seems likely that it will have something to do with Harry and/or LV and their wands.



painting sheila - Sep 27, 2006 9:25 am (#276 of 2055)
I didn't know where else to put this thought - so here it is . . .

What if Dumbledore has made some sort of "vow" with Petunia? If he is the secret keeper for where HArry lives when he isn't at Hogwarts, would LV know where to look for him? That is why none of the DE's have attacked Harry at the house supposedly out of Dumbledore's reach. Wouldn't it have been so easy to kill a small child before they went to Hogwarts?

I know wizards and such have been to the house, but if they had been told by Dumbledore where he is they would have been able to find him.

Maybe that is why Harry has to stay there until he is 17. Petunia - as much as she hates it - allows it because she is aware it affords her and her family protection also. And, it may have been part of the original contract.

The biggest fly in the ointment for this is Dobby. He talks alot about Harry and what a wonderful person he is. Maybe he had been talking to Dumbledore? Or maybe the house elf magic is more powerful than that . . . .

Thoughts?



shadzar - Sep 27, 2006 9:40 am (#277 of 2055)
Edited Sep 27, 2006 10:58 am
Where does he go when he leaves Hogwarts?

Is it possible that he has a time-tuner and is going back to use future knowledge and "trade places" with his former self?

Could there be an extra Albus out there that is still alive?

Stupid I know and probably said before, but it just hit me. Feel free to subjigate me to detention for being inattentive if so.

EDIT: Dumbldore picture haning sleeping in the headmasters office....motto about "Never tickle a sleeping dragon"....wonder if someone will "tickle" Albus picture to get information from it or at least wake it up?



Thom Matheson - Sep 27, 2006 10:54 am (#278 of 2055)
painting sheila,

Couple of points. I don't think that we can say that a Fidelis charm is tied to age as Harry is covered until 17 or we would not have had James or Lily covered.

Also the M.O.M. knows Harry's address as #4 Privit Dr as the address is covered at his trial. How would they have known about the floating cake in CoS if unplottable?



painting sheila - Sep 27, 2006 11:52 am (#279 of 2055)
Thom - You are right. I should think before I post!

She



Madame Pomfrey - Sep 28, 2006 7:07 am (#280 of 2055)
Shadzar,I don't think that is stupid.I feel something will happen to where Harry is going to have to ask what Dumbledore's favorite jam is. I don't think JKR would put that in unless she intends to use it.We already have the Weasleys(Arthur & Molly)using codes to identify each other,why would we need to know Dumbledore's favorite jam if it's not going to be used?

Does anyone think that Dumbledore knows things before they happen? I mean,is it a coincidence that he hired Lupin the same time Sirius escaped from Azkaban when he used to depend on him to keep both James and Sirius out of trouble? Is it a coincidence that Professor Sprout just happened to be working with mandrakes when the CoS was opened? There are probably other things that seem "coincidental" that makes me wonder if Dumbledore has in fact done some timetravel.



shadzar - Sep 28, 2006 7:57 am (#281 of 2055)
It seems to be either time travel or intense "star-gazing" as the Centaurs do.

"What have you been telling him?" growled Bane. "Remember, Firenze, we are sworn not to set ourselves against the heavens. Have we not read what is to come in the movements of the planets?"
Didn't DD have a large telescope and astrolabes in his office? At least in the movies, but I don't think JKR would just let them put in random things to decorate his office, and I can't find a description of its interior currently.



wynnleaf - Sep 28, 2006 8:12 am (#282 of 2055)
Does anyone think that Dumbledore knows things before they happen?

I think he does. But I'm not sure if JKR will ever give us the full answer on that. Remember how Trelawney kept trying to warn DD in HBP? She really was seeing warning signs. After finishing the book, I felt that DD wasn't ignoring her because she wasn't correct, but because he already knew what was going on.

Whether it's time travel, divination, or something else, I do think DD knows more about what is going to happen than everyone else. But he doesn't know everything and a lot of things catch him by surprise.



Mrs Brisbee - Sep 28, 2006 9:54 am (#283 of 2055)
I don't think Dumbledore has any preternatural knowledge of the future; I just think he is incredibly intelligent, has a finger in every pie, informants everywhere, and an eye on the big picture. Thus he is able to predict what's coming based solely on his extensive knowledge of what's been happening in the past and present.



S.E. Jones - Sep 28, 2006 12:30 pm (#284 of 2055)
Didnt' Sirius say something in either GoF or OP about reading the signs, thus knowing about Voldemort's return to power? We know Sirius couldn't see the future and didn't time-travel, so Mrs. Brisbee may very well be right. We know Dumbledore was not only extremely intelligent, but also very observant as well.



Meoshimo - Sep 28, 2006 12:41 pm (#285 of 2055)
With regards to the jam comment, I feel it was put in there as more of a conversational bit. One things that scene showed to me was that the relationship between Harry and Dumbledore (and Harry himself) is growing up. As Harry gets older, Dumbledore views him more as an adult. They're speaking on more the same level now, instead of adult and child.



journeymom - Sep 28, 2006 3:27 pm (#286 of 2055)
Well put, Mrs B. It's also to his advantage that he was 150 years old.



Vulture - Oct 1, 2006 7:13 am (#287 of 2055)
... there's also the question of how DD knew that LV gave Lily a choice to live? How did DD know that LV killed her and then attempted an AK on Harry? (wynnleaf [/b]- Sep 8, 2006 8:37 am (#208))

I think Dumbledore may simply have realised about Lily's sacrifice from the fact that baby Harry was still alive after Voldemort's fall _ in short, it was the only possible reason. I somehow find all the stuff about spectators hanging around Godric's Hollow, who've never turned up in canon or the recollections of Sirius or Hagrid, pretty mawkish.

In Book 2, Harry, talking to Riddle, makes a distinction between why he survived (i.e. his mother's sacrifice), which he understands, and Voldemort's fall, which he doesn't (at the time). Riddle seems to know at once (and despise) this sacrifice magic, and Voldemort, in Book 4, says "This is old magic ... I had forgotten". If Voldemort knew this (although he forgot) before it happened, we can be sure it was familiar to Dumbledore, too.



Choices - Oct 1, 2006 11:13 am (#288 of 2055)
I agree, Vulture. Dumbledore is wise and knows a tremendous amount about magic. I think he put 2 and 2 together to figure out how Harry survived. Lily's body had to have been found right there in the nursery with Harry.



juliebug - Oct 1, 2006 4:56 pm (#289 of 2055)
I suspect that Dumbledore may have used legilimency on baby Harry before leaving him with the Dursleys.



Choices - Oct 1, 2006 6:22 pm (#290 of 2055)
What sort of information would Dumbledore get from an 18 month old baby? Goo-goo, gah-gah? Goodness, now we know exactly what went on.

Sorry, I'm joking....but seriously, how much can Dumbledore learn from a kid who still can't string words together to form a sentence?



juliebug - Oct 1, 2006 6:37 pm (#291 of 2055)
I brought this up before on another thread. We know from PoA that Harry has always had all the information Dumbledore would ever need about why Voldemort's attack on Harry failed. Even though Harry could not understand or report to someone else what he saw, it was obviously perfectly recorded in his memories. I don't see why Dumbledore wouldn't have been able to extract the info he wanted.



shadzar - Oct 1, 2006 8:55 pm (#292 of 2055)
My thoughts as well juliebug. DD could have taken the memories from baby Harry so he wouldn't have to remember and so DD could study the events, but did he have time? Hagrid brings Harry and they immediately leave him on the doorstep after a short conversation. Where would he have put the memory after extracting it in the middle of Privett Drive?



wynnleaf - Oct 1, 2006 9:07 pm (#293 of 2055)
I think Dumbledore may simply have realised about Lily's sacrifice from the fact that baby Harry was still alive after Voldemort's fall _ in short, it was the only possible reason.

JKR has been very clear that this had never happened before. There was no way DD would have just somehow figured out something for which there was no prior information, no remaining evidence, etc. How could DD possibly reach the conclusion that LV would have done such a peculiar thing as give her a choice to live??? And then there's the rebounding AK. Since an AK, reaching its target, had never rebounded before, there's no way DD could have looked around and known that the scar on Harry's forehead was from an AK, or that the destruction of LV was from a rebounding AK -- because there was no prior example of rebounding AK's to go by for any comparison.

Also, JKR has said that Harry didn't actually see what took place and he didn't see Lily die, because he was in his cot and couldn't see it, so even if DD could do legilimency on a 15 month old, it wouldn't do much good.

I doubt if whoever saw what happened was just "hanging around." I'm sure it will be quite a lot more dramatic than that.



S.E. Jones - Oct 1, 2006 9:54 pm (#294 of 2055)
There is still the possibility, though, that the theory behind a rebounding AK exists, even if had never happened before Harry. Dumbledore might know of such a theory from reading books on the sort ancient magic that Lily's sacrifice provided. There's various theories for, say, fusion, but while we've managed nuclear fusion, but not cold fusion, but there are still theories there. So, maybe there were examples of sacrificial love providing protection and a theory that it could even be used to protect someone from the AK, but no actual example of it until Voldemort tried to AK Harry. Dumbledore could still put 2 and 2 together, even though he'd be guessing at getting 4.

wynnleaf --Also, JKR has said that Harry didn't actually see what took place and he didn't see Lily die, because he was in his cot and couldn't see it, so even if DD could do legilimency on a 15 month old, it wouldn't do much good.--

Exactly, he wouldn't be able to "see" what happened because Harry hadn't seen what happened, and, as we haven't heard anything from our examples of Legilimency, he wouldn't have been able to hear what happened either. However, we do know that memories can apparently be recovered via Legilimency (as we saw from with Morfin in HBP), so maybe Dumbledore could've somehow retrieved Harry's memory, even as an infant, looked it over in a pensieve, put it back, and went off to do what he needed to do in order to keep Harry safe. I'm not personally convinced of this, but I do think we have canon evidence to suggest it could have happened.



journeymom - Oct 2, 2006 9:13 am (#295 of 2055)
Harry does have real memories of the events leading up to his mother's death. He hears her scream whenever the dementors get near him. He heard his dad's voice. He may not have seen what happened but he did hear. There's absolutely no textual evidence that Dd performed legilimency on baby Harry, but from my understanding of how it works, I think it's possible for him to do it. I don't think he did, though.



juliebug - Oct 2, 2006 11:16 am (#296 of 2055)
Dumbledore used legilimency on Morphin Gaunt to find out the truth about what happened to the Riddle family. What he found was not supposed to have been possible to find because Voldemort modified his memory. I don't think it's too big of a stretch to think that Dumbledore could have used legilimency to discover what Harry had heard going on around him.



Die Zimtzicke - Oct 2, 2006 12:30 pm (#297 of 2055)
There was a gap, as far as I can tell, between the time the Potters died and Harry showed up at the Dursleys in Hagrid's arms. I want to know really badly what happened during that day, and if Dumbledore was involved with it.



Vulture - Oct 2, 2006 5:08 pm (#298 of 2055)
JKR has been very clear that this had never happened before. There was no way DD would have just somehow figured out something for which there was no prior information, no remaining evidence, etc. How could DD possibly reach the conclusion that LV would have done such a peculiar thing as give her a choice to live??? (wynnleaf [/b]- Oct 1, 2006 9:07 pm (#293))

Yes, she did say in an interview that this had never happened before, but as with so much of what she says in interviews, there are infuriating inconsistencies with the books. As I said before, both (note-book-)Riddle in Book 2, and Voldemort in Book 4, refer to the "old magic" of a mother sacrificing herself for a child. Indeed, Riddle is disappointed to hear this, because he had thought that Harry had some terrific form of (Dark ?) defence magic.

So, if this was "old magic" known to Voldemort both in his youth and later, I just can't believe that Dumbledore wouldn't know it. In fact, the way he talks about Harry's protection from Quirrell suggests that he's familiar with the idea.

JKR didn't say as much, and this is just my hunch, but I wonder if _ when she said that "this never happened before", what she meant by "this" was the re-bounding AK and Lord V's fall, as opposed to Lily's sacrifice. Throughout the books, there's a lot of comprehensive talk about the mother-sacrifice, etc., but when it comes to the AK, we just get fake Moody's statement that only one person has ever survived an AK.

Also, as regards Legilimency, we know from Book 3 that Harry remembered the sound of his mother pleading for his life. I don't think it's too surprising that Dumbledore would be able to extract that memory.



shadzar - Oct 4, 2006 3:12 pm (#299 of 2055)
I was asked to copy this to this thread from where I had it posted in "Was the death in HBP real" post #1614 there.

DD won't "pull a Gandalf". But we know he possibly killed someone. As we don't know how he defeat Grindelwald, death could be an option.

Would it be wrong to think DD had made a Horcurx after finding out about them. Either to test how it worked to see if they did exist, or as a methoed to give him a second chance to defeat LV?

That would raise the question did Vapormort require drinking unicorn blood if the Horcruxes were keeping him bound to this world?

Is there another possibility in which the soul contained in the original body stays bound to earth? If not then his bodily soul left and there is a small part of DD soul in an object, could that object work like the diary and preserve DD memories such that he can offer help from it. Maybe his Pensieve?

This would allow possibly greater help from DD, other than his sleeping portrait which was made and hung so quickly that night, and his actual real death. And Harry wouldn't even have to return to Hogwarts to get the help from DD.

Would DD soul have been affected in his fight with Grindelwald? How does magic itself define murder? Assuming Myrtle wasn't a murder by accidental death (wrong place wrong time), does killing require maliciousness or could it be construed such as killing in self defense in a duel?

So could DD have made his own Horcrux from the "defeat" of Grindelwald, or does other dark "evil" magic have to be done to incorporate the soul bit into an object that would be beyond DD to do?



Vulture - Oct 4, 2006 3:17 pm (#300 of 2055)
Well done, Shadzar !! I applaud your courage _ I think that the thought of Dumbledore creating a Horcrux will make his fans go absolutely nuts !! But it's all good fun ;-)
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 301 to 330

Post  Mona on Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:20 am

haymoni - Oct 4, 2006 4:31 pm (#301 of 2055)
shadzar - I suggested the very same thing and nearly got my head ripped off!!

My thought was, after the horrible experience of having to deal with Grindelwald, Dumbledore knew that there weren't many wizards up to the task. He creates a Horcrux to make sure that he is around until the next great wizard shows up. He isn't creating the Horcrux so he can live forever - he's killed Grindelwald - he can make something good come of it until he is certain that there will be someone to take his place.

I agree that it is an awful thing to split your soul, but Dumbledore may have thought that he was doing this for a noble cause. There could be "Vapordore" floating around someplace now.

However, I suggested this before JKR said Dumbledore was dead.

I believe her.



journeymom - Oct 4, 2006 4:49 pm (#302 of 2055)
Dead, dead, dead. As a doornail (whatever they are).



Thom Matheson - Oct 4, 2006 4:51 pm (#303 of 2055)
doornail refers to the top of a coffin after it has been nailed shut.



Choices - Oct 4, 2006 6:02 pm (#304 of 2055)
I agree Haymoni - I also think it is not impossible that Dumbledore created a Horcrux. I definitely believe it is not something he would choose to do, but would be willing to do it to ensure the survival of the wizarding world and it's occupants. I definitely think he sacrificed his life there at the end of HBP for some noble reason. If his soul was torn when he killed Grindelwald (if he did kill him), why not make a Horcrux to ensure that he would be around long enough to train the champion who would defeat the next great dark wizard? Perhaps that is why he so values a pure and undamaged soul. He knows the cost of splitting it.



Meoshimo - Oct 4, 2006 6:05 pm (#305 of 2055)
I think I said this on another thread, but I believe that the intent behind the killing is what determines if your sould is split. In short, if you kill Grindelwald or Voldemort for example, that wouldn't split the soul because the killing would be in self-defense or defense of others. If you deliberately killed an innocent, such as the Riddles, then your soul would split.



Die Zimtzicke - Oct 4, 2006 7:51 pm (#306 of 2055)
Regarding doornails, in the not so very ancient past, wakes were held at home. A door in the home could often be taken off its hinges and used as a cooling board for bodies being prepared for viewing. It was easy to clean and the right size. There is a school of thought that "taking out the doornails" had something to do with that custom.

Back to business: In light of Jo's comment about Albus and the invisibility cloak, I want to know where he AND it were that whole day after the Potters died. The wizarding world was celebrating, McGonagall was a cat on the wall, but where was Dumbledore, and where was Harry for that whole day before Hagrid brought him to Privet Drive? Maybe someone used the cloak then, on Dumbledore's orders to do something.



Vulture - Oct 5, 2006 7:55 am (#307 of 2055)
While writing the following post _ Vulture, "+ Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?" #162, 5 Oct 2006 6:31 am _ something occurred to me: in the early books, Harry and his friends largely made their own decisions _ at least, the decisions which pushed those adventures to largely successful conclusions. (Yes, Dumbledore prompted Hermione about the Time-Turner in Book 3, but it was she and Harry who did the work.)

After Book 3, Dumbledore takes more and more of a leading role in the planning, and the Trio operate much more within his framework _ and the success rate against Voldemort goes through the floor. just to demonstrate, a quick check-list:

Book 1: All Trio's own work. Score _ Voldemort defeated, Quirrell dead, Stone saved. Dumbledore does save Harry's life, but apart from that, Snape was the only teacher who suspected the Stone could be stolen.

Book 2: Mostly Trio's own work. Score _ Riddle Horcrux destroyed. Dumbledore ? _ well, he does send Fawkes and the Hat, I suppose.

Book 3: Trio, like rest of Hogwarts, subject to staff protective measures against Sirius Black. Dumbledore and teachers keep Harry in the dark. Result: resolution takes longer than it need have done. In the end, Sirius's life is saved by Harry and Hermione. Score: Sirius free, Pettigrew en route to Voldemort.

Book 4: Trio locked into Harry's Triwizard situation and kept largely in the dark. Dumbledore fails to tell Harry about the prophecy _ as he admits later that he should have done. Harry beats Triwizard tests and escapes Voldemort with no help. Dumbledore ? _ well, he does realize about fake Moody _ just in time. Score: Voldemort re-arisen.

Book 5: Harry kept in the dark by the Order, and even by Ron and Hermione initially. Again, Dumbledore fails to tell Harry the prophecy until Sirius is dead. He and the teachers fail to resist Umbridge _ resistance is largely organised by Hermione, and led by Harry until Weasley Twins' famous flight sets off a general student revolt. Dumbledore avoids Harry like the plague for most of the book without saying why. His handling of the prefect issue is bad for both Harry and Ron. Dumbledore's main positive score is the duel with Voldemort at the end. Score: Ministry join war against Voldemort, largely due to Harry's disastrous rescue mission.

Book 6: As Ron says about Dumbledore's biography of Voldemort, "it's really interesting and everything, but what's the point ?" . Harry kept in the dark by Dumbledore about Draco Malfoy, but _ investigator that he is _ finds out enough for himself that Draco could have been stopped earlier if anyone listened. Most of book's agenda driven by Dumbledore's lectures to Harry. The Trio, as a team, fall on about six swords at once. DA abandoned _ with fatal consequences at book's end. Dumbledore again keeps Harry largely in the dark, and refuses to act on his investigations. Score: Wipe-out win for Voldemort; Dumbledore dead; Harry, Ron and Hermione left with Horcrux task and assassaination of Voldemort to do, and without resources or a clue of how to do them.



Vulture - Oct 5, 2006 7:55 am (#308 of 2055)
While writing the following post _ Vulture, "Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?" thread, #162, 5 Oct 2006 6:31 am _ something occurred to me: in the early books, Harry and his friends largely made their own decisions _ at least, the decisions which pushed those adventures to largely successful conclusions. (Yes, Dumbledore prompted Hermione about the Time-Turner in Book 3, but it was she and Harry who did the work.)

After Book 3, Dumbledore takes more and more of a leading role in the planning, and the Trio operate much more within his framework _ and the success rate against Voldemort goes through the floor. Just to demonstrate, a quick check-list:

Book 1: All Trio's own work. Score _ Voldemort defeated, Quirrell dead, Stone saved. Dumbledore does save Harry's life, but apart from that, Snape was the only teacher who suspected the Stone could be stolen.

Book 2: Mostly Trio's own work. Score _ Riddle Horcrux and Basilisk destroyed (by Harry). Dumbledore ? _ well, he does send Fawkes and the Hat, I suppose.

Book 3: Trio, like rest of Hogwarts, subject to staff protective measures against Sirius Black. Dumbledore and teachers keep Harry in the dark. Result: resolution takes longer than it need have done. In the end, Sirius's life is saved by Harry and Hermione. Score: Sirius free but fugitive, Pettigrew en route to Voldemort. A draw on points.

Book 4: Trio locked into Harry's Triwizard situation and kept largely in the dark. Dumbledore fails to tell Harry about the prophecy _ as he admits in Book 5 that he should have done. Harry beats Triwizard tests and escapes Voldemort with no help. Dumbledore ? _ well, he does realize about fake Moody _ just in time to save Harry. Score: Voldemort re-arisen, but Ministry refuse to join war, and eliminate Crouch Jr.

Book 5: Harry kept in the dark by the Order, and even by Ron and Hermione initially. Again, Dumbledore fails to tell Harry the prophecy until Sirius is dead. He and the teachers fail to resist Umbridge _ resistance is largely organised by Hermione, and led by Harry until Weasley Twins' famous flight sets off a general student revolt. Dumbledore avoids Harry like the plague for most of the book without saying why. His handling of the prefect issue is bad for both Harry and Ron. Dumbledore's main positive score is the duel with Voldemort at the end. Score: Sirius dead. Ministry join war against Voldemort, largely due to Harry's disastrous rescue mission.

Book 6: As Ron says about Dumbledore's biography of Voldemort, "it's really interesting and everything, but what's the point ?" . Harry kept in the dark by Dumbledore about Draco Malfoy, but _ investigator that he is _ finds out enough for himself that Draco could have been stopped earlier if anyone listened. Most of book's agenda driven by Dumbledore's lectures to Harry. The Trio, as a team, fall on about six swords at once. DA abandoned _ with fatal consequences at book's end. Dumbledore again keeps Harry largely in the dark, and refuses to act on his investigations. Score:Wipe-out win for Voldemort; Dumbledore dead; Hogwarts security seriously breached and Dark Mark launched over the school; Harry, Ron and Hermione left with Horcrux task and assassaination of Voldemort to do, and without resources or a clue of how to do them.

Book 7: Hmm. The above would seem to indicate that Dumbledore being gone is a blessing in (a very thin) disguise !! Let's just hope that Harry & Co. don't take orders from anyone !!



wynnleaf - Oct 5, 2006 8:55 am (#309 of 2055)
Well, Vulture, I'm not sure what it would have benefited Harry in GOF to have not been kept in the dark. Or for that matter, in OOTP. If DD had told him the prophecy, Harry would have a little better understanding for why LV was after him in particular, but what would he have done differently in the TriWizard Tournament? Or in OOTP? Do we really think he would have worked harder at occlumency if he'd known about the prophecy? He already thought that LV was after a very important secret weapon. Would knowing about the prophecy somehow have tipped the scales of what's important to Harry so much that he'd have started working harder at occlumency? Even in spite of his terrible relationship with Snape? I don't think so.

Snape had told Harry that LV was trying to get in his mind and make him think things. Maybe DD should have also told Harry, but I never got the impression that Harry actually disbelieved Snape, as that he just didn't take it seriously enough.

So Harry would still have gone through the tournament as he did in the book. He still would have failed to learn occlumency and have fallen for LV's captured-Sirius trick. What would really have been different?

In HBP, you write as though things would have been different if DD had only listened to Harry's suspicions about Draco. But while this would certainly have made Harry feel better, DD didn't really need to listen more to Harry, because he already knew Draco was trying to kill him.

One might think that DD didn't know about the Room of Requirement project Draco had going, and so listening to Harry would have helped. But in fact, the night of the tower events, DD did seem to know that there would likely be an attack within the castle. Unlike other times, Order members were actually on alert within the castle halls, not out on the grounds. Even Lupin had been recalled from his mission to the werewolves, and was on patrol in the castle.

You might think that perhaps the Order members could have been outside the RoR and stopped the DE's right away, thereby thwarting the whole scheme.

But would it? Draco would still have had to try and kill DD. Ultimately, it would still have been a similar scenario -- Draco trying to kill DD, and if he couldn't do it, Snape having to either kill DD or die. DD knew that.

How exactly would telling Harry about everything have made any difference, except that Harry would certainly have rather Snape and/or Draco died than DD? But that was not what DD decided, so it really doesn't matter what Harry would have wanted.

So ultimately, I don't think DD's not telling Harry about various things made a great deal of difference to the outcome.

As to who's "ahead" now, in terms of scoring for LV or the Order's side, I suppose it all depends on what's really going on. JKR did seem to agree with Rushdie that it all depends on Snape's loyalty. Well, if Snape was really loyal, my guess is that the Order is ahead in the score, regardless of how things seem.



journeymom - Oct 5, 2006 10:24 am (#310 of 2055)
"As to who's "ahead" now, in terms of scoring for LV or the Order's side, I suppose it all depends on what's really going on. JKR did seem to agree with Rushdie that it all depends on Snape's loyalty. Well, if Snape was really loyal, my guess is that the Order is ahead in the score, regardless of how things seem. "

I agree. Especially if Dd was dying anyway, either because of his arm or the potion or both. Snape is possibly in a prime position to feed information about LV to Harry now.



Vulture - Oct 5, 2006 10:57 am (#311 of 2055)
He already thought that LV was after a very important secret weapon. Would knowing about the prophecy somehow have tipped the scales of what's important to Harry so much that he'd have started working harder at occlumency? Even in spite of his terrible relationship with Snape? I don't think so. (wynnleaf [/b]- Oct 5, 2006 8:55 am (#309))

He only thought that about a weapon because he didn't know about the prophecy. Terrible relationship with Snape ? _ it didn't stop him passing Potions. The reason he didn't work at Occlumency wasn't just his attitude to Snape _ it was his curiosity. What exactly did all these grown-ups expect, telling a kid over and over to do something without properly telling him why ? If Harry had understood what he was told at the end, he would have had a different approach. Most importantly, if Harry had understood what he was told at the end, Sirius would be alive _ and free, and, by the way, fighting those Death Eaters in Book 6.

From what you say, you seem to want to put responsibility for Sirius's death squarely on Harry. But Dumbledore makes clear that this is just not so, and I agree with him. If Harry had understood the issues involved, he would not have been deceived by Voldemort's fake vision, and would have had more appreciation of the necessity of Occlumency. Whether that would have been enough to make the difference, I don't believe either of us, or anyone, knows for certain. (Of course, without the "secret weapon" spurring his curiosity, he might not have looked at the Pensieve and seen Snape's memory.)

Well, if Snape was really loyal, my guess is that the Order is ahead in the score, regardless of how things seem. (wynnleaf [/b]- Oct 5, 2006 8:55 am (#309))

No offence, but are you serious ? Dumbledore is dead !! You saw how how well the Order did without him (Book 6) and with him (Book 5).



journeymom - Oct 5, 2006 11:06 am (#312 of 2055)
"No offence, but are you serious ? Dumbledore is dead !! You saw how how well the Order did without him (Book 6) and with him (Book 5). "

Well, with that comparison it seems as though the Order is pretty much nothing without Dumbledore, and it always has been. Does the Order even exist, realistically, with Dd gone? Will somebody be the new head of the Order?

To me, this simply emphasizes that Book 7 will feel very different from the rest of the books.



wynnleaf - Oct 5, 2006 1:02 pm (#313 of 2055)
From what you say, you seem to want to put responsibility for Sirius's death squarely on Harry. But Dumbledore makes clear that this is just not so, and I agree with him. If Harry had understood the issues involved, he would not have been deceived by Voldemort's fake vision, and would have had more appreciation of the necessity of Occlumency.

In no way do I put Sirius' death squarely on Harry's shoulders. Obviously, Bella killed Sirius, so of course she gets the lion's share of the blame. Second comes Sirius himself who decided to go -- although I do not call that "blame," because I think Sirius was perfectly justified in going, no less that Lupin or anyone else. It was however, his decision to make. Harry didn't make it for him. Third comes Harry, because Harry had already been told that LV might try to trick him mentally and he had not tried to learn occlumency.

Through Sirius Harry had been given a communication tool so that he could contact Sirius (an Order member) whenever necessary. Yet Harry never even opened up the package to discover what this tool (the mirror) was. Why not? Because Harry had determined that he would never lure Sirius away from Grimmauld Place. But notice, this is often Harry's mistake. He makes a determination about something, and without enough information, decides on a course of action and goes with it. In the heat of the action, he is often correct. But when it's something that takes thoughtful consideration, he is often wrong.

One of Harry's biggest weaknesses is lack of trust in the adults. This is quite understandable of course, given the number of adults in authority positions who have failed him, but it is still a weakness (in other words, not character weakness, just a weakness).

Do I think that knowing about the prophecy would have made him less curious to see what LV was up to in the visions? Well, he wouldn't perhaps be as interested in the corridor, but he was still interested in other "visions," and in any case, he wasn't practicing occlumency in part because he was so angry at Snape and Snape's teaching method was only making that worse.

Well, if Snape was really loyal, my guess is that the Order is ahead in the score, regardless of how things seem. (wynnleaf [/b]- Oct 5, 2006 8:55 am (#309))

No offence, but are you serious ? Dumbledore is dead !! You saw how how well the Order did without him (Book 6) and with him (Book 5).

Vulture, no offence, but are you serious? Do you really think that JKR is going to ultimately show us in Book 7 that DD messed up everything and left Harry and the Order in a terrible position? Do you seriously think the Order and Harry are going to do terribly in book 7? Come now! I'd guess with 99.9% that Harry and Co. (including the Order) will ultimately win in the end and that they won't have to overcome some huge disadvantage of not having DD in order to do it.

I expect that DD has always been quite aware that he'd likely die (hey, he knew that he could die that year, right?), so we will likely find that he has made various and sundry preparations for just such an eventuality.



Choices - Oct 5, 2006 1:10 pm (#314 of 2055)
Wynnleaf - "Obviously, Bella killed Sirius...."

I actually don't think we can say that Bellatrix killed Sirius. She hit him with a spell, he fell backward, and because he was near the veil, he fell through it. I don't think he was dead when he fell through it. Suppose I am standing on the street with someone. I suddenly slap them in the face and it startles them so that they stumble backward into the street and are hit by a car and killed, would you say I killed them? No, the car killed them. In the same way, I don't think we can say that Bellatrix killed Sirius.



journeymom - Oct 5, 2006 1:21 pm (#315 of 2055)
Oh no, if I slap somebody hard enough to shove them into on coming traffic and that person is hit and dies, you can be assured that in the eyes of the law I will be found guilty of homicide. As it should be. That person would not have been in front of the car had I not shoved the person. Cars and Veils to the Great Beyond don't kill unless somebody has a hand in it.

Sirius was pushed. By Bella. She may not have intended to kill him but She did it, no one else.



Choices - Oct 5, 2006 1:36 pm (#316 of 2055)
No, no, no. I did not say I pushed them. I said I slapped them and it startled them so that they (on their own) stumbled and fell backward into the car's path. For all we know, the spell Bellatrix fired at Sirius was not lethal. It hit him and he did have a look of surprise on his face when he fell backwards through the veil. I tend to think it was going through the veil that caused his death, not necessarily the spell. Actually, what I am calling it is an accident. (not that I don't think Bellatrix is capable of murder - she definitely is) I just don't think she meant to kill Sirius. Look at the whole battle - no one was killed, so obviously they were not throwing AK's at each other. Had Sirius not been standing in front of the veil, he probably would still be alive.



wynnleaf - Oct 5, 2006 2:05 pm (#317 of 2055)
So who bears the blame, Choices?

Actually, to me it doesn't make any difference if it was accidental or not.

It boils down to this: the bad guys went to the MOM on an Evil Mission to steal something so that the chief Bad Guy could take over the Wizarding World. Anyone that got killed in the process was their fault, because no one else was there except to thwart their evil intentions.

I don't blame Sirius At All because he had just as much reason as anyone else in the Order to be there.

I do blame Harry for the injuries of his friends. Here's why. He knowingly took his friends along on a mission to save Sirius. In other words, he took fellow students -- kids -- on a very, very risky mission in which he fully expected to meet up with DE's and likely LV also. He risked the lives of himself and four others to save the life of one.

Of course, you could say that it was all their choice to go along. But Harry could also have chosen to stay put, especially once he knew that his going would endanger the lives of 4 other people.

Now -- DD's fault in all of this. If DD had told Harry more about the prophecy, my guess is that Harry would still not have learned occlumency. JKR says in an interview that Harry didn't really have a strong ability to learn it, but even without that, I just don't get in Harry's personality and his relationship with Snape much of a likelihood that Harry would ever have learned occlumency very well. Given LV's particular Trap of making Harry think Sirius was captured, I think that Harry would have still gone to the MOM, because he'd have wanted to save Sirius regardless of the prophecy being at risk. After all, if he was willing to risk the lives of he and his friends for Sirius' sake, wouldn't he have been willing to risk LV getting the prophecy?

So I don't really think any of that was DD's fault, even though he made mistakes in not keeping Harry better informed. Besides, as I've mentioned about the mirror, even giving Harry tools and information doesn't necessarily help in keeping Harry from danger, because Harry often misinterprets things, or makes decisions on partial information. I'd think DD and Harry had reached a point where if DD was going to give Harry more information, he'd have had to tell him almost everything that occurred, which he couldn't do because LV had access to Harry's mind and the possibility existed that LV could learn the prophecy or other info simply through his connection to Harry.



S.E. Jones - Oct 5, 2006 3:50 pm (#318 of 2055)
I have a question about Albus... in the Gaunt memories we see, they're mainly speaking in Parseltongue. Harry understands what's being said, but it takes him a little while to understand why Bob Ogden doesn't. You really have to know what is being said in both Ogden's and Morfin's memories to know what's going on. So, my question is, could Dumbledore understand Parseltongue, or was he simply going off what he saw and what facts he could find out?



Choices - Oct 5, 2006 5:36 pm (#319 of 2055)
Wynnleaf - "So who bears the blame, Choices?"

I guess we can't pin the blame on anyone. It is just one of those sad accidents that sometime happen....."bad thing happening to good person" type of occurance.

I agree Harry should have been more cautious, more willing to check things out before going off half cocked. But his friends did choose (on their own) to go with him - he did try to persuade them not to go. Over on the Marietta thread we have been hard on her for her choice to tell (at least some of us have), so I guess we should be equally hard on Harry for his decision to go to Sirius' aid. The difference is that Harry was trying to help - to save Sirius. Marietta's motive was less noble. I can forgive Harry because he has a "saving people thing" and was trying to do good.



journeymom - Oct 6, 2006 9:56 am (#320 of 2055)
You cannot say that Bellatrix Lestrange is a force of nature. A hurricane did not blow Sirius into the Veil. That would be an example of an accident. If Bella had gone on a drinking binge, got behind the wheel of a car and plowed Sirius Black down, she would still be at fault for killing him. It doesn't matter if she slapped him or shoved him, the result is the same, HER actions caused Sirius Black to fall into the Veil, nobody else's. She is at fault for his death. The fact that she wasn't intending to kill him might mean the difference between Life in Azkaban or the Dementors Kiss, but it doesn't change her culpability.

S.E.Jones, that's a great question that's been asked before, and I don't think anybody has come to a final conclusion.

One possibility, Dd simply made an educated guess about what Morfin was saying, based upon context.

Another, Dd asked Morphin what he was saying.

Another, Dd learned Parselmouth. Though I'm not sure that's possible.



Choices - Oct 6, 2006 10:19 am (#321 of 2055)
I still think Bellatrix's guilt or innocence could be argued in a court of law. Had the veil not been in that room, there would have been no harm done. We do not know what curse she used on Sirius. It could have been something as simple as the "leg-locker curse" and Sirius might have been unable to get up and walk for a few minutes. But, the veil was there and he staggered backward and fell through it. Dead, gone for good. It might have been the other way around if Bellatrix had been standing where Sirius was. I guess we shall have to agree to disagree.



S.E. Jones - Oct 6, 2006 3:35 pm (#322 of 2055)
I don't think there would be any real arugment, courtwise, as he was standing in front of the veil and the prosecution would argue that she should have known that stunning him might result in hsi death. As journeymom pointed out with the drunk driving, the prosecution would still say that Bella chose to drink and drive, even though she probably didn't set out to kill Sirius (in that particular example), and was therefore culpable.



Thom Matheson - Oct 6, 2006 4:44 pm (#323 of 2055)
How about, 1. Assault with a deadly weapon 2. Conspiracy to commit murder 3. Assault with intent to commit murder Simply put if she doesn't shoot he doesn't die. No less then if she threw a rock



Choices - Oct 6, 2006 6:12 pm (#324 of 2055)
I still say with a good lawyer, she could get off. She could always plead "PMS". LOL



Thom Matheson - Oct 6, 2006 7:38 pm (#325 of 2055)
Now that's funny! Bella with PMS, kinda like a day without sunshine



Phelim Mcintyre - Oct 7, 2006 4:35 am (#326 of 2055)
I'm not sure about US law but under British law Bella would probably be guilty of murder. Imagine someone attacking someone else with a knife. No expecting the person to get hurt would be no defence.

IF Bella did not know what the arch was the would be manslaughter. No one else from the Order died, even though Bella hexed both Tonks and Shaklebolt. It could therefore be argued that the hex she used on Sirius was not intended to kill. Even so the spell she used was a direct cause of Sirius's death. Her spell caused him to fall through the arch. Factor in her support of Voldemort and probable hatred of Sirius because he abandoned his "pureblood" heritage, as well as being in the Ministry trying to steel the prophecy would make any verdict of not guilty rely on legal technicalities. As Bella would probably boast of her deeds then I think the only defence would be insanity.

But now back to Dumbledore!



Lina - Oct 7, 2006 10:16 am (#327 of 2055)
Shadzar, I don't think that it was Vapormort who needed the Unicorn blood to remain alive. He said that the beings that would host his spectral existence were not able to live for a long time. So I guess that the Unicorn blood was needed to keep alive Quirrell.

About DD making a Horcrux: If we were talking about some real life and a person that appears to be the good force, moving the world forward, then we could discuss the possibility that that person decided that he were too good to die. But we are talking about the fairy tale. And fairy tales usually have a sort of message for the kids about what is good to be done and what is wrong to do. If DD made a Horcrux, then the message would be that it is OK to kill other people for some greater good. Honestly, if that is the message that JKR is about to send us, then I'd agree with people who want to ban her books. So far, I didn't get that message from the books. Me, myself, I don't believe that any kind of killing would be justified and I hope that Harry will destroy Voldemort without using AK.

About Gaunt memories: I have the feeling that not even DD was sure about all the conclusions that came out from his trip with Harry through the memories. Like when he needed desperately Slughorn's memory. He didn't know how many Horcruxes Voldemort planned to make. He started the speculations on what could the Horcruxes be, only after hearing about the number of them. I really don't know what made him think that he didn't succeed to make the last one or that Voldemort would wait for such a long time to make it. But it is possible that he didn't know what could he expect to find in the Gaunt's memories. Did he bring Harry there so that he could use Legilimency to understand what was said? Or he really wanted Harry to see the way that Tom's mother lived? Is he able to understand any Parseltongue by using Legilimency? I think that those are all possible situations.



shadzar - Oct 7, 2006 11:53 am (#328 of 2055)
I didn't mean that DD killed purposefulyl for the sake of making a Horcrux, by the possibility he killed already exists as we do not know what happend decades ago in his defeat of Grindelwald. Whether he set out to kill Grindelwald or like he trated Draco trying to convert him back to good is unknown, but probably the latter. In either case killing involves malicious intent to end the others life. Even if for the greater goodm killing is murder; which is required to split the soul. Now DD has a part of soul already for decades, so he need not kill another to test the theory of Horcruxes. DD just sems the kind of person that doesn't blindly believe everything he reads, but researches things extinsively. So it ifs possible that he did try to make a Horcrux. Now whether he kept it or returned his soul part to his body is another story. Can that even be done?

So I am not trying to say DD set out to make a Horcrux and killed someone to test if they could, but he may have already had the bit of soul required from events of years long past. Doing so he could have made a choice to accept the consequences that it wouldn't allow his soul to be fully reincorporated later. Sacrificing part of himself to learn how to defeat the Dark Lord and save his school, and its children, and the rest of the wizarding and Muggle worlds.

The existence of Horcruxes is a very powerful weapon against LV. So the question would be what else is involved of putting the soul part into the item to make it a Horcrux? Would DD be able to do that or does it also require something along the lines of evil intent? If so then no I don't think DD would have made one, but we don't know what else it requires.

I also don't believe all entertainment is supposed to have a morale in every action and event in it. JKR said herself she didn't intend writing books for children, but that is what the editor saw it as.

Although her underlying morale is that choices have consequences that you must live with afterwards. DD knew this very well as he states it often. The question then would be about DD's character. Would he feel that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one? Would he have allowed his immortal soul to be "broken" in order to himself, or by helping Harry; save the rest of the world?

That is where I feel DD was VERY well established in his views. He would easily sacrifice himself for those he loved (which is everyone including LV). That is what makes DD so hard to let go even.

So what we have left to decide then is DD's character. Would he have put himself in danger to save others? We have definative proof he would from the tower itself. So it is not impossible for him to want to help others at all costs. His portait could even have the knowledge of the location of any Horcrux he made so that when his task to defeat LV was done Harry could release him from it so he may pass on. Although this does tread on the "pulling a Gandalf", but Gandalf was never really dead, and his body never interred so he could move around freely after his "travels" so he could return to continue his task. But as Horcuxes work DD would have not left to have to return either.

This is only one way DD could further assist Harry, but it is a possibility whether people completely like the idea or not.



wynnleaf - Oct 7, 2006 12:26 pm (#329 of 2055)
In either case killing involves malicious intent to end the others life. Even if for the greater goodm killing is murder; which is required to split the soul. Now DD has a part of soul already for decades, so he need not kill another to test the theory of Horcruxes.

Actually, since we know that the idea that all killing is murder is not one held by everyone, we don't know what JKR's views on this would be.

If JKR believes that all killing is murder, then it follows that anyone who kills someone could be splitting their soul and could therefore create a horcrux. However, if JKR does not think that all killing is murder, it would be more likely that DD killing Grindelwald did not split his soul and therefore he had no chance to make a horcrux.

murder n. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

malice n 1: feeling a need to see others suffer

Obviously, based on the definitions above malice is not needed to kill, nor is killing necessarily considered murder.



journeymom - Oct 7, 2006 12:37 pm (#330 of 2055)
Edited Oct 7, 2006 1:46 pm
First, let me state up front that this is in response to the idea that Dumbledore would make a horcrux at all, not necessarily to any specific statement above.

I cannot, in a hundred years, ever accept that Dumbledore would commit an atrocity and degrade himself by splitting his soul. Because it is not 'for the greater good'. JKR has established that creating a horcrux is the worst of the worst acts. To kill accidentally, in self defence or in defence of another is one thing. But to murder someone in order to anchor your soul and make yourself immortal is another thing entirely. And I am certain that even having recently killed Grindelwald Dumbledore would not turn that event into a horcrux. Making a horcrux is, in itself, dark magic. Dumbledore himself said that Lord Voldemort is a greater wizard than himself in regards to dark magic. Dumbledore would find something else to do to achieve his end, even if it took longer or was harder to do. His is NOT a Machiavellian prince and would not use the darkest magic, even for the greater good.

Dumbledore knew that his soul was more powerful kept in one piece. His real death will have done more to strengthen the effort to defeat Voldemort than anything as degrading as creating a horcrux. And especially before the first rise of Voldemort, I cannot see Dumbledore investigating horcruxes for a personal end. Why would he? There is nothing in the texts to indicate he did and from what we know about him, I just cannot see him doing that.

avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 331 to 360

Post  Mona on Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:28 am


shadzar - Oct 7, 2006 12:51 pm (#331 of 2055)
Who said before LV first rise? Grindelwald was killed years ago, he could have tested the Horcrux making after he learned about them recently.

Again this is just one possibility, and it does requireputting the soul into the item, which we don't know what it involves. It goes without saying htat if evil things are involved in placing the soul into the item that DD would most likely NOT do it. But if it is something simple it might have been doable by DD with his morals intact.

We know Harry dreams of LV form his scar, and possibly LV learned of the prophecy from it. So the diary haunted Ginny and possed her. We don't know what effects the ring really hand on DD, so we don't know if a connection was made with LV only momentarily to the piece of soul within it.

Maybe even the word JKR was recently making could deal with a "good side" type Horcrux. The type of thing that places an imprint of the wizard in Portraits, and the Hogwart's founders into the Sorting Hat. It may require some small part of the soul or soul-like material to infuse the wizard with the object. This soul or soul-like elemnt may come from something other than killing another more than likely cause I don't see all Hogwarts Headmasters killing just to have a portrait.

Just so far we only know about Horcruxes containing a part of the soul, so that is the only explaination i can come up with until we know how portraits and/or the sorting hat were really made. By then we will also know everything so theorizing would be a moot point at that time.

We would need to know exactly why creating a Horcrux is the most evil of evils. The act of killing to split the soul, or something else required in placing the soul into the item, or just in general not having a complete soul.

This is just one theory that could allow DD to further aid in LV's defeat. Even if unrealistic, maybe it can form other theories that may be more relative to how DD can further play an important role in the final book.



Vulture - Oct 7, 2006 2:44 pm (#332 of 2055)
Edited Oct 7, 2006 3:23 pm
Do you really think that JKR is going to ultimately show us in Book 7 that DD messed up everything and left Harry and the Order in a terrible position? Do you seriously think the Order and Harry are going to do terribly in book 7? Come now! I'd guess with 99.9% that Harry and Co. (including the Order) will ultimately win in the end and that they won't have to overcome some huge disadvantage of not having DD in order to do it. (wynnleaf - Oct 5, 2006 1:02 pm (#313))

But surely you agree that not having Dumbledore is a huge disadvantage for them ? As to what JKR will do in Book 7, I sometimes feel that I'm about the only person on the Net who doesn't already know ;-)

I expect that DD has always been quite aware that he'd likely die (hey, he knew that he could die that year, right?) ... (wynnleaf - Oct 5, 2006 1:02 pm (#313))

I don't remember reading any canon about him knowing he was going to die that year. Where is that ?

I do blame Harry for the injuries of his friends. Here's why. He knowingly took his friends along on a mission to save Sirius. In other words, he took fellow students -- kids -- on a very, very risky mission in which he fully expected to meet up with DE's and likely LV also. He risked the lives of himself and four others to save the life of one. (wynnleaf [/b]- Oct 5, 2006 2:05 pm (#317))

Five others, actually. But I don't blame Harry at all. He was adamantly opposed to Luna, Neville, and Ginny coming along. OK, so he didn't try to stop Ron and Hermione, but (a) he wouldn't have succeeded, and (b) if we're going to attack him for taking them on this outing, we might as well denounce what he does in every book. At the end of the day, they acted like friends. Trust me, I could do with people like that !!

Now -- DD's fault in all of this. If DD had told Harry more about the prophecy, my guess is that Harry would still not have learned occlumency. JKR says in an interview that Harry didn't really have a strong ability to learn it, but even without that, I just don't get in Harry's personality and his relationship with Snape much of a likelihood that Harry would ever have learned occlumency very well. Given LV's particular Trap of making Harry think Sirius was captured, I think that Harry would have still gone to the MOM, because he'd have wanted to save Sirius regardless of the prophecy being at risk. After all, if he was willing to risk the lives of he and his friends for Sirius' sake, wouldn't he have been willing to risk LV getting the prophecy?

So I don't really think any of that was DD's fault, even though he made mistakes in not keeping Harry better informed. Besides, as I've mentioned about the mirror, even giving Harry tools and information doesn't necessarily help in keeping Harry from danger, because Harry often misinterprets things, or makes decisions on partial information. I'd think DD and Harry had reached a point where if DD was going to give Harry more information, he'd have had to tell him almost everything that occurred, which he couldn't do because LV had access to Harry's mind and the possibility existed that LV could learn the prophecy or other info simply through his connection to Harry. (wynnleaf - Oct 5, 2006 2:05 pm (#317))

I'm sorry, but this just completely contradicts what Dumbledore himself said _ and if what he says is supposed to be beyond question when it comes to Snape, why isn't it beyond question when it comes to Harry and Sirius ?

Dumbledore clearly stated that if he had told Harry everything earlier, Harry would never have been lured to the Ministry. He clearly stated that it was his fault that Sirius died, and flatly contradicted Harry's feelings of guilt and desire to take the blame. I believe him.

With proper information, Harry would have known that Voldemort wanted the prophecy and would have been ready for anything that looked like an attempt to get him there. None of us can know what would have happened in such-and-such a hypothetical situation, but I can't see how having better information would have made things worse.

Apart from that, the main reason why Harry made what seem to us rash decisions was because the adults' policy of saying nothing meant that, with Harry's talent for digging up information, he found out just enough to be constantly on edge but not enough for perfect solutions. Factor in the fact that, in Book 5, his head was a free-for-all occult battleground, and you have a recipe for mayhem sooner or later.

I've never bought the line about Harry being inherently rubbish at Occlumency, even though JKR has begun to echo it herself. In Book 5, the first-ever (and so far, only) words of something like approval from Snape to Harry are about about his first attempt at Occlumency. Why do things go downhill from there ? _ because Harry, in the dark about the prophecy, keeps trying to spy on Voldemort's thoughts, against the Order's wishes. Snape, if you recall, eventually realises what Harry is up to, but the Pensieve episode prevents any further development of the situation.

Harry didn't need to be given full-blown 100% secrets, about the prophecy or anything else, if there was a risk of Voldemort discovering things through him. (Incidentally, Voldemort never tries this apart from his fake Sirius-vision and his attempt to possess Harry in the Ministry.) What he did need was to be taken into the Order's confidence enough to understand that doing things in just such a way was vital. Remember, from the beginning of Book 5, all he has seen is apparent attempts to keep him in the dark. From the time he arrived in Grimmauld Place, that policy should have been clearly broken with _ but it wasn't, or at least, not clearly. Interestingly, it is Sirius, whom people are always denouncing for immaturity, etc., who best realises the problem: early on, he tries to fill Harry in on things, but is stopped by Mrs. Weasley and others after only giving partial information.

The fact that she (Bellatrix) wasn't intending to kill him (Sirius) ... (journeymom - Oct 6, 2006 9:56 am (#320))

Of course she was intending to kill him. She may not precisely have predicted his falling through the Veil, but it's quite clear that she would happily have massacred the lot of them, given the chance. I didn't hear any vehement denials from her when Snape congratulated her for it in "Spinner's End". When Harry ran after her, she gleefully jeered at him about his feelings for Sirius.

How about, 1. Assault with a deadly weapon 2. Conspiracy to commit murder 3. Assault with intent to commit murder Simply put if she doesn't shoot he doesn't die. No less then if she threw a rock (Thom Matheson - Oct 6, 2006 4:44 pm (#323))

Exactly. Good point, well made.

If DD made a Horcrux, then the message would be that it is OK to kill other people for some greater good. Honestly, if that is the message that JKR is about to send us, then I'd agree with people who want to ban her books. So far, I didn't get that message from the books. (Lina - Oct 7, 2006 10:16 am (#327))

I totally agree _ and I don't think you need worry. Book 6 makes clear that Dumbledore was absolutely fierce in his attitude to Horcruxes, and they were a banned subject at Hogwarts. For him to turn around and start making them _ well, he might as well start teaching Harry some juicy Unforgiveable Curses, or maybe send him on an exchange year to Durmstrang ;-)

========================================================================================

Hi, Shadzar: In my opinion, your post #328 is effectively saying that Dumbledore would take the attitude of "the end justifies the means". I don't believe it does, and I don't believe Dumbledore does, either. He wouldn't be Dumbledore if he did.

(Continued ...)



Vulture - Oct 7, 2006 3:07 pm (#333 of 2055)
... continued:

Actually, since we know that the idea that all killing is murder is not one held by everyone, we don't know what JKR's views on this would be. (wynnleaf [/b]- Oct 7, 2006 12:26 pm (#329))

Agreed. Also, when I set up the thread "Avada Kedavra And The Morality Of Killing" , I was hoping that this question would be gone into in-depth.

I cannot, in a hundred years, ever accept that Dumbledore would commit an atrocity and degrade himself by splitting his soul. (journeymom [/b]- Oct 7, 2006 12:37 pm (#330))

Well said !! Especially after everything he said in Book 6 about the purity of an intact soul.



wynnleaf - Oct 7, 2006 3:14 pm (#334 of 2055)
But surely you agree that not having Dumbledore is a huge disadvantage for them ? As to what JKR will do in Book 7, I sometimes feel that I'm about the only person on the Net who doesn't already know ;-)

Not having DD seems like a big disadvantage and will certainly mean that Harry has to deal with something by alternative methods rather than depending on DD. But that doesn't mean that Harry's going to be worse off than he'd have been if DD was around.

I don't remember reading any canon about him knowing he was going to die that year. Where is that ?

The operative words, Vulture, were "likely" and "could," not "was." Of course DD knew he could die -- there was a plot to kill him, and one of his top Order members had taken a vow to finish the mission or die himself if the plot failed. One would hope that, given such dangers, as a responsible leader DD would have made plans accordingly.

On Harry leading friends into danger... Yes I do think Harry gets some blame for this in several of the books, but especially in OOTP. He knew that he was going not just into danger, but would likely be face-to-face with LV and DE's. He wanted to go to try to save Sirius. But even knowing that going would also put his friends into the exact same danger that he'd be facing, he did it anyway. And remember, he had no way of knowing that the Order would show up. He could easily have walked himself and all of his friends into death, for the sake of saving Sirius. Yes, they all made their own decisions. But their decision was to follow Harry. At 15, Harry was young to consider that responsibility. But being a leader, and having people follow you even into grave danger is a responsibility. You can't just go where you will or do what you want and think of your follower's fate as purely their own fault.

Regarding Harry's responsibility, learning occlumency, etc.

I'm sorry, but this just completely contradicts what Dumbledore himself said _ and if what he says is supposed to be beyond question when it comes to Snape, why isn't it beyond question when it comes to Harry and Sirius ?

Dumbledore clearly stated that if he had told Harry everything earlier, Harry would never have been lured to the Ministry.

I don't consider DD's comments beyond question. My opinions about Snape are based on a lot more than DD's comments. DD has obviously been quite wrong about what Harry would and wouldn't do -- I'm not sure why he should, at that point in the book, be considered an authority on how Harry would have reacted. Certainly, DD felt guilty for not having told Harry more, so it's understandable that he should have said what he did. That doesn't make it true.

I think that even if Harry had known that LV was after the prophecy, he would still have not learned occlumency very well. And without knowing occlumency well, LV would still have sent the vision about Sirius to Harry. Harry's worry about Sirius was so strong, that I think he'd have still gotten really upset about seeing that vision about Sirius. He would still have attempted to find Sirius. He'd have still been told by Kreacher that Sirius wasn't there -- so he'd still believe that Sirius was really captured.

As regards learning occlumency, I agree with you about JKR's comments. I tend to take that with a grain of salt. I'd think Harry had an aptitude, given his ability to resist Imperius. But he and Snape's hatred was so strong, that I don't think he'd have learned it very well anyway.

Waves to Vulture!



shadzar - Oct 7, 2006 3:43 pm (#335 of 2055)
Especially after everything he said in Book 6 about the purity of an intact soul -Vulture

Now therein lies my reasoning. He knows how valueable an intact one is possibly because the events surrounding the Grindelwald "defeat" could have made his own no longer intact in such that it was split if he had to kill Grindelwald other than contain him through less violent means.

He may simply be warning Harry that in deafting LV he should try not to resort to killing him, or any other that should pose as a problem or threat along the way, like saying "Harry do what you must, but avoid at all cost the unforgiveable curses to conclude any fight you have to endure."

So he possibly knows his soul was split and not fully intact fromt he Grindelwald incedent. If his soul is already damaged, then would that "small" part that was already "lost" be better useful doing nothing or helping those he loved so much as Lily gave her life and seemingly DD gave his life for his school and its inhabitants.

I strongly believe that DD is the type to sacrifice even an already lost bit of his soul to further the cause. But we don't know what consequences a split soul has after death no matter if used for Horcrux or not do we? Does a split soul recombine after death? How are ghosts made exactly?

These are the things we must know before we can be sure their was no danger of his soul being tarnished forever, or if it was already to late for that part if he was forced to kill Grindelwald.

By all means, PLEASE; disprove the possibility of him making a Horcrux by showing how else with the clues provided he could further help Harry et all.

I just can't believe his part to play has been played out, and am looking for even the remote possibility of him to have another part to play.

When asked how I felt about failing so many times trying to make I lightbulb, I replied; I didn't fail I just found all those ways to NOT make a lightbulb. =Thomas Alba Edison

Thusly by process of elimination we take every idea to bring DD a role to play in book 7 and remove the most likely and continue narrowing it down until we find the most probable. (Then just find out JKR does it a way we never expected to begin with or not at all! ARGGH!)

I am not saying he did, but it is one possibility. Feel free to disagree. I just don't want people to think it impossible or that I feel it is actually what happened. I also think it is improbable, but still possible. (and everyone else already came up with other ideas so I wanted to through in a new theory.)

OK I am done now. Crucio me is you feel you must.



legolas returns - Oct 7, 2006 4:14 pm (#336 of 2055)
Not having Dumbledore in my opinion will put the order in a difficult position. e.g When the order was in the ministry they were loosing. People were down and it wasnt until Dumbledore came that the balance of power shifted. He also organised everyone in the order. He was the only person that Voldemort was frightend of-now that that barrier has been removed he can go after Harry more effectively. Mind you things were begining to break down since the Ministry of Magic admitted that Voldemort was back-bigger and badder than ever.

On Dumbledore making a Horcrux. He said that "Death was the next big adventure". This attitude does not really fit with wanting to stay alive at all costs. At the end of the battle in the Ministy of Magic he binds the bad guys-he doesnt try and hurt or kill them. He just restrains them. I dont think that he would delibrately set out to murder anyone. Defeating Grindelwade does not mean that he killed him. There are worse things than death-thats what he frequently says to Voldemort. How would he have formed this attitude?

Wynnleaf-I agree with you that Harry would still have gone to the Ministry even if he had known the prophecy. His love for Sirius would have always dragged him away regardless.

I dont think that he could have stopped his friends from coming with him whatever he had said to them. If Sirius was anything to go by his friends would have died before him. Maybe its a Gryffindor trait-loyalty and following friends regardless of danger. In book one once he explains why he has to stop someone else getting the stone e.g Voldemort will come back and try and rule the world his friends support his decision. He tells them to turn back but they dont-they choose to follow him. Dumbledore tells Harry that by not telling his friends something very important (e.g about the Prophecy). I think that Dumbledore would be able to predict that Harrys friends would accompany him regardless of the danger.

I agree that Harry should have gone about it in a more cautious manner-he did his best to contact the members of the order. He did his best and could not be 100% sure that Snape would pass on the message/understand what he said. At the same time its not Harrys way-act now and think later. Harry told his friends that he must go on on his own at the end of HBP but they are still prepared to go with him whatever the consequences. They are both now of age and capable of making there own decisions but prior to this he lead underage children into danger. He should consider his actions first and he could have had a number of dead friends on his hands.

I would say that responsiblity for Sirius death lies with many different people.

Harry-Should have put aside his hatred of Snape and tried harder to learn occulumency. Should not have gone to the Ministy.

Dumbledore-Should have told/taught (occulemency) Harry more. Trying to hard to protect Harry that other people die. Should he have been able to put 2 and 2 together and work out that Voldemort would try and get him to get the prophecy? He would have known about the dreams-should he have considered it the next step. At the same time he could not watch every single move that Harry made.

Snape-taunting Sirius about doing nothing. Suggesting that he stayed behind to tell Dumbledore where everyone had gone. This would have been a further push to Sirius.

Sirius-Would do anything to save Harry. Did not like being confined. Allowed himself to be taunted by Snape.

Bellatrix-I agree with the person that said that she murdered Sirius.



Vulture - Oct 7, 2006 4:15 pm (#337 of 2055)
I don't consider DD's comments beyond question. (wynnleaf [/b]- Oct 7, 2006 3:14 pm (#334))

A H A !!! (In my most Peeves-like screech.) I shall remember this for all future Snape debates !!

My opinions about Snape are based on a lot more than DD's comments. (wynnleaf [/b]- Oct 7, 2006 3:14 pm (#334))

Oh, indeed. But Dumbledore's word is still a huge plank in the Snape defence case _ whenever I see shortlists (like the Lexicon's) of the evidence for and against, every second sentence in the defence begins "Dumbledore ..." !!

So the old clown can be wrong, after all !! A most useful one for future reference :-D

But he and Snape's hatred was so strong, that I don't think he'd have learned it very well anyway. (wynnleaf [/b]- Oct 7, 2006 3:14 pm (#334))

I don't know about that. For starters, if he had been told earlier about everything Dumbledore told him at the end of Book 5, he would have had a far clearer appreciation of the need for Occlumency. Yes, he would have wrangled with Snape, but his dislike of Snape hasn't prevented him from working with him for six years, or passing five years of Potions exams. His dislike of Snape didn't prevent him from trying to get his help in Umbridge's office. It didn't stop him and Snape having a conversation about what Voldemort was up to, in which Snape spoke carefully and precisely, weighing every word. What's more, for me, the fatal factor in his Occlumency lessons was his unsatisfied curiosity about what the hell was going on, which led him, in effect, to work against what the classes were supposed to be doing. If you recall, Snape had a go at him about this. You would think that, after all Dumbledore has seen during 4 to 5 years, he would know that unsatisfied curiosity has about the same effect on Harry as the full moon has on a werewolf.

At the end of Book 5, Dumbledore said that he should have taught Harry Occlumency himself. While, in fact, I can see the case for not doing so in Book 5, I can't for the life of me see why he didn't do so, or try to do so, in Book 6. If he had, we would then have seen clearly whether Harry was as useless at it as everyone (except me !!) says.



S.E. Jones - Oct 7, 2006 5:16 pm (#338 of 2055)
Okay, to all who believe Dumbledore might have made a Horcrux, I would like to ask how this would be more helpful to Harry than a portrait in the Headmaster's office. We know that Dd won't pull "a Gandalf" and I take that to mean that he be go walking around any time soon. As others have pointed out, it seems as though his body has been destroyed (the fire that arose around the white tomb, unless my memory is glitching again), so then the only way he could help Harry is by inhabiting someone else's body. We know from Voldemort that those whose body he inhabited didn't live long, so I don't see Dd risking someone else's life just to communicate with Harry. We don't know that the body Dd inhabited would have his power, so it wouldn't be to do something Harry couldn't. His portrait might contain all the knowledge Harry needs (if it didn't contain Dd's knowledge and way of thinking, how could the past heads help counsel the newest heads?). So, why would Dd creating a Horcrux be better than his portrait in terms of helping Harry?

shadzar --Would he feel that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one? Would he have allowed his immortal soul to be "broken" in order to himself, or by helping Harry; save the rest of the world?--

Isn't it the flaw in Dd's plan, as he explains at the end of OP, that he did allow the needs of the one (Harry) to outweigh the needs of the many? Isn't it because he came to care for Harry that he allowed this flaw to happen? If he gave his life to save Draco and/or Snape, he would be doing that yet again, but again doing so out of love and compassion. It seems to me that JKR has really tried to drive home the importance of Love and sacrificing oneself for those you love. I definitely think Dd would kill to save others, or be killed to save others, but I still don't see him making a Horcrux. To me (just the way I interpreted what I read) the process of creating a Horcrux is black magic and so would require some malevolent intent in some shape or form (we know that bad thoughts or intentions lie behind, at least, the AK and maybe the other Unforgivables and being that Horcruxes are considered so dark they aren't even discussed at Hogwarts probably, to me, means that they require such intent as well) and, given Dd's ability to love, even when it is unadvisable, and his views of death, I just can't see him doing it.



shadzar - Oct 7, 2006 5:30 pm (#339 of 2055)
Portraits are limited in the amount of info they contain. Would one of DD be able to convey to Harry what he needed, as well as further aid any future heads of the school should it rmain open?

We really don't know that much about Horcruxes to know if what LV did was the only means to contain other people. The diary did a good job of telling selective info to Harry. So maybe likewise DD could have used that concept so his portrait can instruct future heads of the school properly, and the item like the diary have more direct knowledge to grant to Harry.

The term "Horcrux" is only being used because we don't know what else is used, and a similar "good based" item may be the new word JKR was Googling for as she created it. We would really need to know ALL about Horcruxes or any good counterpart they have to determine if DD could have used it. Primarily I guess it would boil down to DOES a Horcrux have a good counterpart that could work like the diary, but not grant the creator the immortality effect LV was looking for.



S.E. Jones - Oct 7, 2006 6:05 pm (#340 of 2055)
shadzar --Portraits are limited in the amount of info they contain. Would one of DD be able to convey to Harry what he needed, as well as further aid any future heads of the school should it rmain open?

All the portraits are there to give advice to current heads. If they were all that limited in what they contained, they wouldn't be of any use, would they? So, we know it's possible that a portrait can contain a wizard's knowledge and personality, even if it were limited compared to the actual person. I see what you mean about the diary, but I don't think Dumbledore would've needed to do that, along with leaving a portrait.



shadzar - Oct 7, 2006 8:53 pm (#341 of 2055)
But the portraits don't contain the entire memories of their respective "other halfs". So their has to be a limit. Also they are duty-bound to help the current Headmaster/Headmistress, not the students or drop-outs of the school (should Harry not return to finish his 7th year). (Wonder when Dumbledore will be added to the portraits of previous headmasters section of the Lexicon?)



Meoshimo - Oct 7, 2006 9:07 pm (#342 of 2055)
*sigh* another batch of long posts unread *sigh*



legolas returns - Oct 8, 2006 2:30 am (#343 of 2055)
The portraits of former heads do occasionally speak to students when they are in the Heads room. I think one spoke to Ernie Macmillan. The portraits have spoken to Harry as well. I am sure that JKR said that a ghost would be more useful because they were a "full person".



Vulture - Oct 8, 2006 9:59 am (#344 of 2055)
Two portraits (Phineas Nigellus and the red-nosed wizard) have spoken to Harry when Dumbledore wasn't around. Besides, given that Dumbledore's NEWTS examiner said in Book 5 that he (Dumbledore) "did things with a wand I'd never seen before", it wouldn't surprise me if his portrait could be very helpful to Harry in Book 7 _ if Harry visits the office again.



wynnleaf - Oct 8, 2006 10:13 am (#345 of 2055)
I don't consider DD's comments beyond question. (wynnleaf [/b]- Oct 7, 2006 3:14 pm (#334))

A H A !!! (In my most Peeves-like screech.) I shall remember this for all future Snape debates !!

Since I think my comment may come back to haunt me, I'd better clarify it now -- rather than later Vulture, when you could accuse me of trying to wiggle out of it!

Because JKR has said that she often speaks through Dumbledore, I do trust anything Dumbledore says about magic, the way magic works, etc. I trust his assessments of LV and the horcruxes. And I trust that he is correct when he tells Harry about how Lily's sacrifice protected Harry.

While it is clear that DD does sometimes lie (like about the DA, for instance), I think the only time we've seen him lie is in a "good cause," like to Fudge and Umbridge when they came to Hogwarts in OOTP.

I believe that DD tells the truth to Harry, the Order members, and other "good guys," but I think he leaves out a lot -- so you can't be sure of what the real situation is, especially if it looks like he's leaving parts out.

As regards DD's assessments of other people, their trustworthiness, what they might do, etc.... DD is a pretty wise person, brilliant, appears to be a good judge of character, and is not naive. But I think that DD assumes that all of his assessments of people are correct, regardless of whether some are based on a lot more knowledge of that person than others.

For instance, DD's assessments of Hagrid and Snape are backed up by many years of working together, depending on them for various things, and seeing how they each live up to his expectations. He appears to know their weaknesses, too.

DD's assessments of Voldemort are not quite so personal. They seem to be based on what he knew of Tom Riddle as a student, from his dealings with him as an enemy, and from his own investigations. In other words, most of DD's knowledge of Tom is not first-hand, face-to-face knowledge. Still, I think JKR means us to believe that DD does understand LV's motivations and characteristics enough to predict him to a degree.

But DD also tends to believe the best about people that he doesn't have nearly so much experience with. For instance, when Fudge has Barty, Jr. kissed by dementors, DD acts as though he's seeing the real Fudge for the first time. From what we know in canon, DD knew Fudge as a ministry official, and then gave him advice when he became Minister of Magic. But he did not appear to really know Fudge and the lengths he would go to in responding to his own motivations.

In POA, DD asserts that no one on staff would have been helping Sirius get in. Technically, he is correct, in that no one was actively helping him get in, but Lupin was helping Sirius stay hidden and get about without anyone seeing him by not telling anyone what he knew of Sirius' animagus abilities, his knowledge of the secret passageways, or by sharing the map.

With Harry, DD says that he has watched Harry more closely than he knows. But I'm not sure that DD knew a great deal more about Harry's activities and experiences than we see from the books. If so, DD has a lot to answer for! And we know that as far as personal knowledge of Harry, DD couldn't really have had much prior to HBP, because until that time he and Harry only really had one or two talks per year.

DD has a lot of faith in Harry's overall character, his ability to love, etc, which I think JKR means Harry to justify. But I don't necessarily think we get much evidence that DD really knows enough about Harry to predict how he'll act in various situations. After all, if he had known how Harry would deal with all of the events and situations of OOTP, DD would have made some different decisions.



legolas returns - Oct 8, 2006 12:23 pm (#346 of 2055)
Hasnt Dumbledore allowed Harry to do a lot of things that most wizards would not allow or even condone. In book one he taught him about the Mirror of Erised. He gave him the invisability cloak and told him to use it well. He even returned the cloak to Harry after he had left it at the top of the tower. He was giving him the tools to do whatever was needed.

He knew that Harry was in the Cabin in COS and asked him for help. I am sure that he knew what Slytherins monster was. Hagrid gave him the clue that lead eventually to the conclusion.

In POA after Harry asks Lupin to show him how to deal with Dementors I am sure that Lupin would have told Dumbledore/Dumbledore would have found out what was going on prior to the Quidditch match/worked out at Quidditch what was going on. I am sure that he would have expected Harry et al to be out and about to see Hagrid prior to Buckbeaks excecution. I wonder if Dumbledore thought that it was Harrys right to find out about his heritage regardless of risk?-Lupin was there as an additional protection.

I think he makes sure through the books that Harry has enough information from various sources and then depends on Harrys character to get him through.

I think that Dumbledore knows a lot of what goes on but not everything.

I do think that things started to go wrong in OOTP. I am not sure how he thought that Harry would react after Cedric died. He tried to protect him from getting himself into trouble by having him followed unfortunately he chose someone like Dung to follow him. He made a mistakes by not being honest and keeping him in the dark. Keeping him in the dark made things worse. When loyal teachers started to get taken out by the ministry he could not control the situation. He knows that Harry acts first and thinks later but there was nothing he could do about the Ministry until it had happend.



S.E. Jones - Oct 8, 2006 6:59 pm (#347 of 2055)
I understand the idea behind there being a "good" version of a Horcrux, but I don't think there can be. A Horcrux is created by pulling a piece of your soul out and sticking it in a seperate object. I think the idea of pulling the shard of soul out of the body is in itself dark and so I don't think there would be a "good" version to be found anywhere. I don't think Dumbledore would approve of a Horcrux for that reason, even if he does approve of killing or dieing for a good cause. It was all the bits of soul that Voldemort pulled out that made him less human and so I think Dumbledore would view it in a way that a soul, even if shaddered, is better together than apart.



Meoshimo - Oct 8, 2006 8:42 pm (#348 of 2055)
With all of his talk about them and fates worse than death, I find it inconceivable that Dumbledore would make a horcrux.



Die Zimtzicke - Oct 9, 2006 8:11 am (#349 of 2055)
Dumbledore would NOT make a horcrux. End of story for me. We can't even prove he KILLED Grindlewald anyway. It just says he defeated him, does it not? It doesn't say exactly how he died. There's no canon basis for this speculation, unless I've missed something. If so, redirect me back to it.



juliebug - Oct 9, 2006 8:30 am (#350 of 2055)
There is no canon proof that Dumbledore killed Grindelwald, but on her website, JKR has said that Grindelwald is definately dead. I think most people assume that nobody but Dumbledore could have been powerful enough to take him out.



Die Zimtzicke - Oct 9, 2006 8:36 am (#351 of 2055)
That doesn't prove Dumbledore killed him. He could have been killed by something else that was also powerful due to Dumbledore's tactics, killed himself, or even been imprisoned until he died. It does not prove murder.



Mrs Brisbee - Oct 9, 2006 8:52 am (#352 of 2055)
I think if Grindelwald's death were important, we would be reading about it in the books instead of on Rowling's website.

I do think Dumbledore killed him, simply because of the way Dumbledore speaks about how killing is not easy. I'm equally sure Dumbledore would never make a Horcrux, simply because of the way he speaks about the evils of Horcruxes and the power of an unbroken soul.



juliebug - Oct 9, 2006 9:02 am (#353 of 2055)
I agree with you, Mrs. Brisbee on your entire post. I would also like to add a bit of my own speculation. Is there a distinction (in terms of horcrux making and effects to the human soul, not legal matters) between killing a person and murder? In my mind, there is. I don't think that a premeditated, cold blooded act would have the same effect on a soul as an act committed in self defense or in the defense of others. I think it would take the first act mentioned to create a horcrux. Even if my feelings on the matter are not true, I still don't think Dumbledore would create a horcrux even if he could. His soul was far too precious to him to ever rip out a chunk and hide it away somewhere.



Thom Matheson - Oct 9, 2006 9:14 am (#354 of 2055)
No Horcrux. The only real canon we have, I think, is Slughorn's explanation, and it is plain to me that it requires premeditated murder. Something that Dumbledore would not even entertain let alone perform.

Grindelwald was only defeated. That is all we know. Why and how can anyone interpret that Dumbledore murdered and created a Horcrux? I for one cannot find any basis for this thought.

The concept would certainly sent part 2 of the final book, (I look at it as book 6 is part 1 and book 7 is part 2) into a complete downturn. The idea of a Horcrux is to prolong life by taking a life. If Dumbledore needed more time he could have just made a Unicorn cocktail and said bottoms up. He also could have created another Stone. He was in on it with Flammel after all. But Murder? Absolutely No Way.



haymoni - Oct 9, 2006 9:21 am (#355 of 2055)
I think your soul is split, cut, perforated - whatever - any time you kill anything for any reason. I understand things like self-defense, war, protecting another person and accidentally stepping on an ant, but something is still dead because of you and you have to come to terms with the death you caused. We forgive people for their actions - we empathize and sympathize - society accepts certain kinds of killing, which is fine, but I think death still damages your soul.

If Dumbledore created a Horcrux to save the future - I have no problem with that. If he thinks the whole thing is so horrible that all mention of it should be removed from Hogwarts - I have no problem with that either.

I think the horrible thing about a Horcrux is that your soul is actually severed. There is no going back, no way to fix it. You have taken a deliberate step to lose a piece of yourself.

And then there's that whole "red eye" thing...



journeymom - Oct 9, 2006 10:45 am (#356 of 2055)
"And then there's that whole "red eye" thing... "

I was going to mention that myself, as simple evidence that Dumbledore has NOT made a horcrux. His appearance, as far as we know, never changed.

But then, did Voldemort's appearance change because of the horcruxes or because of the unicorn blood-snake venom cocktail he ingested?



juliebug - Oct 9, 2006 11:00 am (#357 of 2055)
The Voldemort who came to apply for the DADA postition from Dumbledore's memory had a bloody look. His appearance was already changing back then. As he did more bad things, he looked worse.



journeymom - Oct 9, 2006 11:45 am (#358 of 2055)
Ah, yes. Thank you, good point.

So perhaps Dumbledore's unaltered appearance is good evidence that he never created a horcrux. If not rather slim evidence. Aside from the fact that he'd simply never do it. ;-)



Choices - Oct 9, 2006 11:57 am (#359 of 2055)
We even got a hint of Voldemort's "red eyes" when he visited Hepzibah Smith and was working at Borgin and Burkes right after he got out of Hogwarts.



legolas returns - Oct 9, 2006 12:10 pm (#360 of 2055)
Well he had probably made a few horcruxes by then. He preserved his 16 year old self in the diary.

I wonder if the ring horcrux was made later on as the protection surrounding it almost killed Dumbledore.

Dumbledore never told us what protection was around the ring. The fake locket was really well protected.
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 361 to 400

Post  Mona on Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:30 am

Vulture - Oct 9, 2006 2:47 pm (#361 of 2055)
But DD also tends to believe the best about people that he doesn't have nearly so much experience with. For instance, when Fudge has Barty, Jr. kissed by dementors, DD acts as though he's seeing the real Fudge for the first time. From what we know in canon, DD knew Fudge as a ministry official, and then gave him advice when he became Minister of Magic. But he did not appear to really know Fudge and the lengths he would go to in responding to his own motivations. (wynnleaf [/b]- Oct 8, 2006 10:13 am (#345))

I think Book 4 shows that you're right about Dumbledore not really knowing Fudge. But I don't feel that his mistaken assessment of Fudge was unjustified. Before "the parting of the ways", I always got the feeling that Fudge was a sort of bumbling, kindly, bloke with a relatively open character. In short, I think he succeeded in making Dumbledore feel that they were closer than proved to be the case. In fairness, Fudge himself probably didn't realise what he was capable of (or more accurately, incapable of !!) until he was tested by Voldemort's re-appearance. (I also feel that it was something of an error by Dumbledore to let Fudge find out that Harry was a Parselmouth from Rita Skeeter's newspaper articles _ he should have discussed it with Fudge before, and got him "on side" on the issue.)

But I'm not sure that DD knew a great deal more about Harry's activities and experiences than we see from the books. (wynnleaf [/b]- Oct 8, 2006 10:13 am (#345))

Hmm. We do get suggestions that he knows more about Harry than he lets on. Admittedly, that feeling is strongest in Book 1.

In POA, DD asserts that no one on staff would have been helping Sirius get in. Technically, he is correct, in that no one was actively helping him get in, but Lupin was helping Sirius stay hidden and get about without anyone seeing him by not telling anyone what he knew of Sirius' animagus abilities, his knowledge of the secret passageways, or by sharing the map. (wynnleaf [/b]- Oct 8, 2006 10:13 am (#345))

Fair enough. But, given that you've now shown _ let's call them "inadequacies" _ in Dumbledore's assessments of Fudge, Lupin and Harry, isn't it also possible that his assessment of Snape isn't 100% correct ?

I don't think that a premeditated, cold blooded act would have the same effect on a soul as an act committed in self defense or in the defense of others. I think it would take the first act mentioned to create a horcrux. (juliebug [/b]- Oct 9, 2006 9:02 am (#353))

You're quite right, and your words are backed up by Slughorn's definition of Horcruxes _ he clearly uses the word murder. He also says that Dumbledore is particularly fierce on the subject.



Choices - Oct 9, 2006 7:29 pm (#362 of 2055)
I think Dumbledore is someone who wants to believe the best in people. I can relate to that because I always want to give someone the benefit of the doubt. It is a good way to be, but can lead to disappointments. I'm sure he saw Fudge as bumbling and kindly, and I'd bet he saw deeper, but hoped Fudge would prove him wrong. Finally Fudge showed his true colors and Dumbledore saw him for what he was.....not the kindly soul he had hoped Fudge to be.

Sort of reminds me of "Fluffy", the vicious three-headed dog. "Fudge" sounds sweet and good, but.....LOL



Thom Matheson - Oct 9, 2006 7:34 pm (#363 of 2055)
Fudge is a Politician. Kissing babies and screwing up the WW and blaming others. Just another professional politician.



Meoshimo - Oct 9, 2006 9:05 pm (#364 of 2055)
"He also could have created another Stone. He was in on it with Flammel after all." Thom Matheson [/b]- Oct 9, 2006 9:14 am (#354 of 363)

Actually, he wasn't. Flamel was born centuries before Dumbledore. Without drinking unicorn blood or making a horcrux (both of which make you less than human), there is no way he would have lived even to Dumbledore's birth without the stone. Therefore, he made it without Dumbledore. Canon only states that Dumbledore was his alchemy partner.



Thom Matheson - Oct 9, 2006 9:36 pm (#365 of 2055)
Another piece of logic just came up and bit me again. Meoshimo, thatnks for that grim reminder. Detention and 10 points from Matheson for being an idiot.



wynnleaf - Oct 10, 2006 7:14 am (#366 of 2055)
But, given that you've now shown _ let's call them "inadequacies" _ in Dumbledore's assessments of Fudge, Lupin and Harry, isn't it also possible that his assessment of Snape isn't 100% correct ?

DD being somewhat wrong about people he has had a limited experience with doesn't make it a "given" that he could be wrong about someone he has a lot of experience with.

It is possible that DD is sometimes wrong about Snape. For instance, in POA when he said to Fudge that Snape had suffered a severe disappointment -- Snape may have been much more upset than DD thought, or about some things that DD wasn't considering.

Obviously in OOTP, DD misjudged Snape's ability to put aside his feelings regarding the "wounds that are too deep for healing" and teach Harry occlumency.

But the notion that DD is completely wrong about Snape really stretches believability, in my opinion.

Some people say that if Snape can fool LV for years, he can fool DD, too. But it really isn't the same thing. First, Snape spends far more time around DD and it's been consistent, without a 14 year gap. Further, DD actually empathizes with people. We see no indication that LV has any true understanding of others. He seems practically devoid of true empathy. So DD has a lot more likelihood of having a grasp of someone's character, emotions, etc. than LV would. LV must rely almost solely on legilimancy to tell him if someone is lying or to see their thoughts about what they are really doing or thinking. DD can use this, too, but he also understands people as human beings, which LV seems practically incapable of doing.

So even aside from whether DD is better at legilimency than LV, he would still have a much better ability to judge Snape's character than LV.

Further, as far as my above comment about DD's being completely wrong stretching believability, I think that if DD can work closely with an individual as a spy, Order member, teacher, head of house, and confidant (to an extent) for 16 years and still be totally wrong about them, than I'd have to conclude not that DD "makes mistakes," but that he really has very little ability to understand people at all.



Madame Pomfrey - Oct 13, 2006 8:02 pm (#367 of 2055)
Dumbledore says that when he makes a mistake it is huge.What is he referring to? Isn't it possible that he has made a grave error and has used a timeturner to correct it? Maybe that is why he lets things unfold,he knows the outcome and therefore doesn't show surprise at anything that is told to him.



haymoni - Oct 14, 2006 7:12 am (#368 of 2055)
Or is it that he made a mistake about Snape???



Madame Pomfrey - Oct 14, 2006 9:45 am (#369 of 2055)
I'm glad to hear you say it,Haymoni.I'm one of the very few who thinks that Snape is a true DE.He's a very good spy,for sure.He has fooled everyone. Dumbledore may have been pleading with Snape to do what is right in the tower scene.



T Vrana - Oct 14, 2006 3:01 pm (#370 of 2055)
Edited Oct 14, 2006 4:12 pm
If Harry's is DD's man through and through, how is he to proceed if DD was hoodwinked by a false tale of remorse and love (DD said love is the only thing more powerful than the lure of LV's power) by Snape? Is he to do as DD did, trust in love, remorse and redemption? Or is he to become more cynical and believe once a DE always a DE. Trust in love, but not too much? Do not look for the best in people, look for the worst and trust that instead?

If DD was fooled by Snape, if Snape is and always was a DE, the overall message of love and redemption is diminished horribly.



wynnleaf - Oct 14, 2006 3:28 pm (#371 of 2055)
DD is not always 100% correct about Snape. Notice that he thought Snape could work with Harry to teach him occlumency, but did not realize or forgot that some wounds are too deep for healing.

However, it's one thing to be wrong about a few things, and another to be completely wrong about someone's overall character and intentions.

To follow up on T Vrana's point, if DD is wrong about someone who he has worked closely with for 16 years, and can so completely misread someone with whom he has so much experience, then how can Harry (or the reader) believe Dumbledore's opinions about anything?

After all, we and Harry are supposed to believe what Dumbledore tells us about LV. Yet Dumbledore hardly knows LV at all compared to the years that he's spent working with Snape.



S.E. Jones - Oct 14, 2006 11:51 pm (#372 of 2055)
--If DD was fooled by Snape, if Snape is and always was a DE, the overall message of love and redemption is diminished horribly.--

--DD is not always 100% correct about Snape. Notice that he thought Snape could work with Harry to teach him occlumency, but did not realize or forgot that some wounds are too deep for healing.--

I don't think Snape will turn out to be a case of "once a DE always a DE" because, as T Vrana said, it would diminish the overall theme that JKR has been building for six books now. I don't think Dumbledore has been wrong about Snape's character, but I do think his age has gotten in the way more than a few times. As he pointed out in the cave, the older you get, the more you underestimate youth. Dumbledore did this with Harry in not telling him the prophecy when he asked in PS. I think he did this with Snape in expecting him to be able to put his emotions aside and do what was needed from a more objective point of view. Not thinking like a young man is not the same as not understanding what a young man thinks.



Phelim Mcintyre - Oct 15, 2006 5:47 am (#373 of 2055)
Madame Pomfrey - I agree with you that Snape is a DE. I disagree with the idea that if Dumbldore was mistaken about Sanpe and he is still a death eater it diminishes the story of redemption. The issue is choice. Voldemort and Harry are, as we keep being told, as much a result of their choices as they are of their nature. DD chose to trust Snape. If Snape chose to fake his turning from Voldemort then the important factor is that DD gave Snape the opportunity which Snape then chose not to take.



T Vrana - Oct 15, 2006 1:02 pm (#374 of 2055)
Phelim- Agree that choice is key to the series, and I can't disagree with much of your post. Except, DD goes further than giving Snape a chance and a choice, he says he trusts him completely. Given that no one else trusts him at all, not the DEs or the Order (they only trust him based on DD's trust), not LV, why is DD the only one who trusts him in the face of overwhelming skepticism from everyone else in the WW? We know it is based on love and the power of love, which is also a key theme. That DD's faith in the power of love could lead him so far astray, I find distrubing.

Now if DD had said, I have my doubts, too, but I think Severus has genuinely returned to us for good, I need to give him that chance, it is his choice and I think he's made the right one, etc. But his trust was completely unshakable.

I'm still betting (hoping!) DD was right...



S.E. Jones - Oct 15, 2006 4:26 pm (#375 of 2055)
Choice is also a theme, but why uphold one theme by crushing another? I think it will be far more likely that "choice" and Snape will come into play to describe why he left the DEs, why he joined Dumbledore, and how he will aid in Voldemort's downfall. I think those things would uphold both the themes of love and choice that JKR has written into her series.



Potter Ace - Oct 16, 2006 9:58 am (#376 of 2055)
I agree with S.E. Jones. We have already experienced a true traitor (wormtail), what we have not seen is the conversion of an enemy. I believe that when the final chapter is written it will be clear that Snape was on our side all along and the scenes from the Tower were under orders (and duress) to achieve the final goal.



T Vrana - Oct 16, 2006 10:09 am (#377 of 2055)
Potter Ace- I agree. We also already have a really evil powerful wizard Harry must defeat. I don't think we need another one. I will be really disappointed if the Snape character was developed al along just to be evil wizard #2.

Harry now hates Snape as much as LV. I think Harry will need to forgive Snape at some point and recognize the difference between evil (LV) and someone who has made mistakes, but has tried to redeem himself and is not evil.



journeymom - Oct 16, 2006 10:11 am (#378 of 2055)
"he difference between evil (LV) and someone who has made mistakes"

Or, the difference between Evil and just mean, nasty and grumpy. Definitly not the same.



T Vrana - Oct 16, 2006 10:21 am (#379 of 2055)
journeymom- Yes! I agree. The list of words to describe Snape could go on for quite some time, and none of them nice, but I'm unable to add evil.

Guess this really belongs on Snape's thread.

OK, DD wouldn't include evil...



Steve Newton - Oct 16, 2006 11:17 am (#380 of 2055)
"Or, the difference between Evil and just mean, nasty and grumpy."

Aren't these 2 of teh 7 dwarfs?



journeymom - Oct 16, 2006 12:17 pm (#381 of 2055)
Yes, the little known dwarf cousins, Nasty and Mean. The other seven don't like to talk about them. The wicked witch mistakenly went to their house first and they happily corrected her and sent her to the seven dwarves house.

I'm pretty sure muggleborns learn the 'real' stories of the Brothers Grimm when they get to Hogwarts, as I'm certain Professor Dumbledore would have included the stories in the historical literature class.



Madame Pomfrey - Oct 16, 2006 7:05 pm (#382 of 2055)
It's like this for me,

1. If Dumbledore was indeed killed by an AK curse then I believe Snape is truly a DE.

2.If Dumbledore was killed by something other than the AK curse then Snape may be good.

3.If Dumbledore wasn't dead at the end of book 6, but dies soon in book 7 then I believe Snape is good.

There is no way I think Dumbledore asked Snape to use an unforgiveable curse on him nor do I think he was pleading for his life. So,when Dumbledore says "Severus..please.." He must either be pleading with Snape not do this thing and to help Harry or pleading with him to carry on with some sort of plan.



Die Zimtzicke - Oct 16, 2006 9:29 pm (#383 of 2055)
The plan was possibly to kill him if it had to be done to save others, including Draco. I really think this is possible. Dumbledore would rather have died than see any one of the kids killed. He implies that, I think, when he's in the cave. Even when he's not in his right mind, he is willing to suffer for others.



shadzar - Oct 16, 2006 9:44 pm (#384 of 2055)
So the green liquid DD drank was like the Mirror of Erised but backwards. Not showing your hearts deepest desire, but worst fear. Maybe Dementors blood? What he invisioned could have been a possible future where the school was at risk and Lv threatening to kill all the students, of even DD saw the current actions taking place at the school?



wynnleaf - Oct 17, 2006 9:17 am (#385 of 2055)
Madame Pomfrey,

Actually, I agree with you to an extent. I don't think that DD would have asked anyone to kill him outright, even for a "good cause." The other thing I'm really hesitant to believe is that JKR would have a major good character, the epitome of goodness, commit basically an assisted suicide and then have to justify it in Book 7 to everyone including her nine year old readers. I mean, I do think in an adult book one could have such a character do something like that and justify it. But in a book that is written for children? I don't think so.

I am more and more reconsidering the quote that Hagrid overheard of Snape and DD's argument in the forest, when Snape said DD "takes too much for granted." Most readers who believe that Snape is loyal take that to mean something about Snape not wanting to obey DD's command to kill him if need be. But the phrase "too much for granted," just doesn't sound exactly applicable to that circumstance.

Usually, when you say someone takes too much for granted, you mean that they are assuming things will occur that may in fact not occur as they think. Or, sometimes people use that phrase to mean that someone is taking a person for granted. But the way Hagrid quotes the phrase, it doesn't sound like Snape means, "you take me for granted," or that "you take others for granted." It sounds to me more like Snape thought DD was taking something else for granted.

Anyway, as we theorize all sorts of ideas about what went on the night DD was AK'd, I've begun to wonder if Snape's phrase was referring to DD's plans. That is, that DD was developing some complex plans which in Snape's view took too much for granted in order to really work. Certainly, if DD planned much of he and Snape's actions on the night he was AK'd, DD took a lot for granted. For instance, DD takes it for granted that Draco won't really be able to kill him in a face-to-face encounter.



T Vrana - Oct 17, 2006 9:44 am (#386 of 2055)
wynnleaf- interesting thought.

In the 'Snape is good and DD planned for Snape to go underground' scenario, I took it to mean that while he has been spying for DD and helping DD, he was not happy with the prospect of leaving the comforts of Hogwarts to go full time DE and full time fugitive, to further DD's plan. That DD was taking too much for granted in assuming he was wiling to go that far.

The very fact that Snape tells DD he's taking too much for granted, tells me he is not a DE. Otherwise, he'd just do a "yes, headmaster" until the end.

If Snape did kill DD, I think it will have been because he saw DD as failing and decided it was time to jump ship, or that the vow is real and he chose to save himself.

Snape really put himself in a bind when he took the vow to protect Draco, not from DD, of course, but from LV! Can he even take Draco back to LV?



Madame Pomfrey - Oct 17, 2006 10:34 am (#387 of 2055)
At one time,when I first heard the phrase "too much for granted," and before Dumbledore's confirmed death I had thought that Snape was referring to his turning full time DE and is the reason we saw the Hatred etched on his face,but I had thought it was a fake death to get Snape into the DE camp permanently. Now,It may be that Snape was referring to Dumbledore's belief that Draco couldn't carry through with killing him,that there is good in him,which Dumbledore tends to see in others. Either way,it would appear that Snape is good,However if "too much for granted" means that Dumbledore see's too much good in Snape then we may be in for a surprise. Dumbledore says when he makes mistakes they tend to be huge.We have yet to see a huge mistake. I keep thinking a timeturner is involved somehow,I just can't,as of yet,put it in to a convincing idea much less on paper.

Something on my mind..Why do we never hear Snape call Dumbledore Albus? It may be out of respect,but I would think they would be at a more personal level having worked together toward the same goal for years.



T Vrana - Oct 17, 2006 10:41 am (#388 of 2055)
I don't think Snape would call DD Albus. I do think he has a respect for DD as a powerful wizard, regardless of which side it turns out he is on, and he is not so much a friend as Headmaster and leader of OOTP.

I can't recall if anyone calls him Albus?

But, even if Snape would, I don't think we ever see Snape and DD together except around Harry, when I think DD or Headmaster are more appropriate, anyway.



haymoni - Oct 17, 2006 10:42 am (#389 of 2055)
Who calls Dumbledore "Albus"?

Has anyone in the books addressed him like that?



T Vrana - Oct 17, 2006 10:44 am (#390 of 2055)
Does McGonogall in SS? Privet drive?

"Is it true, Albus?" or something like that rings a bell.



Soul Search - Oct 17, 2006 11:32 am (#391 of 2055)
It might be interesting to review how others refer to and address Dumbledore.

I can't recall anyone referring to Dumbledore as anything but "Dumbledore."

Most also address Dumbledore as "Professor" or "Headmaster" when others, particularly students, are present.

Most use Professor or Headmaster when one-on-one, except McGonagall at Privet Drive (Albus) and Slughorn when Dumbledore and Harry went to recruit him.

Hagrid always uses "Professor," even for a reference. (Also "Great man, Dumbledore.")

Trelawney? I think "Headmaster."

Come to think of it, I can't recall any other interactions among Hogwarts' staff.



haymoni - Oct 17, 2006 11:55 am (#392 of 2055)
Movie people call him "Albus" - Karkaroff for example, but I don't have SS/PS with me, so I can't verify if Minerva calls him that when she meets him at the Dursleys.



juliebug - Oct 17, 2006 12:01 pm (#393 of 2055)
I just got my copy of PS/SS out. It's a hard cover, printed in the USA.

on page 12, McGonagal says "Lily and James...I can't believe it...I didn't want to believe...Oh, Albus"



wynnleaf - Oct 17, 2006 12:04 pm (#394 of 2055)
I believe Minerva calls him Albus in the scene where they are carrying in one of the petrified students into the hospital wing and Harry overhears their conversation. (no book available - this is just my recollection). But I know she calls him Albus occasionally.

Does Slughorn also?

It looks like it's the older, senior staff members who call him Albus, in particular staff members who would not have had Dumbledore as a teacher themselves.

Snape is the youngest staff member, and started teaching there only a few years after completing his education under Dumbledore as headmaster. I would expect him to continue to call Dumbledore "headmaster." Besides that, he's extremely dependent on Dumbledore's good will. It's unsurprising that Snape would address him always as a superior.



juliebug - Oct 17, 2006 12:27 pm (#395 of 2055)
McGonagall calls Dumbledore by his first name twice in CoS when Collin Creevy is brought to the hospital wing after being found petrified. Slughorn uses the name Albus twice when Harry and Dumbledore first meet up with him in HBP.



haymoni - Oct 17, 2006 12:47 pm (#396 of 2055)
I see Minerva & Sluggy as peers of Dumbledore - Snape is not.



Die Zimtzicke - Oct 17, 2006 12:49 pm (#397 of 2055)
I do not think the liquid was dementor blood, because I don't know if they have it or how you would get it from them, but I love the theory that it was made from spider venom, like Hagrid's pet spider.

It makes you wonder, though, if that's the case, if Slughorn could be a traitor.



T Vrana - Oct 17, 2006 1:21 pm (#398 of 2055)
Doesn't spider venom work to paralyze their prey?



haymoni - Oct 17, 2006 1:30 pm (#399 of 2055)
I thought that's what Charlotte told Wilbur...



wynnleaf - Oct 17, 2006 1:41 pm (#400 of 2055)
Doesn't spider venom work to paralyze their prey?

yes.
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 401 to 450

Post  Mona on Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:31 am

Nathan Zimmermann - Oct 17, 2006 3:46 pm (#401 of 2055)
Yet, Minerva was also a student of Dumbledore's because she was born according to all the information known about her character on October 4, 1925.

Question: How old is old in the wizarding world, and how old are Professors Dumbledore and McGonagall? J.K. Rowling responds: Dumbledore is a hundred and fifty, and Professor McGonagall is a sprightly seventy. Wizards have a much longer life expectancy than Muggles. (Harry hasn't found out about that yet.) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

JKR said in Sch2 that McGonagall was "a sprightly 70" years old. Using that information, we can determine the year in which she was born by subtracting 70 years. As with Dumbledore's birthyear, the trick, of course, is knowing what year to subtract that 70 years from. If we assume that Rowling was saying that McGonagall was 70 years old at that point in the stories, which was summer of 1995 [Y15], then she was born in Y-55 (Y15 minus 70 years). According to the official timeline, Y-55 is 1925. Interestingly, that would make McGonagall a contemporary of Tom Marvolo Riddle at Hogwarts... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A birthdate of October 4, 1925 would place Minerva's first year at Hogwarts in September 1, 1937.

So she like Tom Riddle would have had Dumbledore as their Transfiguration teacher. Also, Molly Weasley calls Dumbledore, Albus in HBP chapter five.



Madame Pomfrey - Oct 17, 2006 4:01 pm (#402 of 2055)
In HBP (Excess of Phlegm) Molly also calls him Albus. I can't think of anyone else at the moment. The only one Snape calls by first name,that I can recall, are DE and their kids(meaning Draco.)His true friends!

Sorry Nathan,I missed that last bit of your post and noticed it on a reread.



Nathan Zimmermann - Oct 17, 2006 5:04 pm (#403 of 2055)
Edited Oct 17, 2006 5:42 pm
I do not think the fact that Severus only uses first names with DE's and their kids is an indication of his loyalties true or not because when I am substituting for teachers at the junior high school or high school I attended I always address the teachers who were there when I was a student using their surname, I never address them by their first name. I think the same could be said of the way Snape addresses Dumbledore.

Severus I believe finds himself in an in an ethical dilemma the sense that he caught between the horns of a bull. In the sense that, while using or failing to use a name is not necessarily indicative of Snape's true loyalties his loyalties may be subjected to closer examination, if he calls Voldemort the Dark Lord or Lord Voldemort he is afraid he will be suspected of being a loyal Death Eater as Harry demonstrated in OotP. On the other hand if calls Dumbledore, Albus the possibility exists that the Voldemort and the Death Eaters.

There is also another latent element to the fear on the part of Severus I think. Just as Severus fears the mention of Voldemort's name, he I believe also afraid to invoke the Dumbledore's first name because they are in his mind equally powerful and are more powerful than he, and because of this fears incurring their wrath.



T Vrana - Oct 17, 2006 6:11 pm (#404 of 2055)
Snape uses Dark Lord pretty freely, doesn't he?

I'm not sure using DD or Albus would matter when it comes to invoking DD. I think it is more of a recognition that DD is his superior in every way.



Thom Matheson - Oct 17, 2006 8:39 pm (#405 of 2055)
Rosemerta calls him Albus as did Fudge.

Question on your time line. Tom Riddle was at Hogwarts at the same time as Hagrid. Are you saying that Minerva and Hagrid are the same age?



Nathan Zimmermann - Oct 17, 2006 9:34 pm (#406 of 2055)
Thom acording to the master timeline of the Lexicon Hagrid is two years younger than Minvera.

Hagrid was accused of opening the CoS for the second time in course of the 1992-1993 school year, fifty years after he was accused of opening the CoS during his third year, the 1942-1943 school year.

Since Hagrid's third year was the 1942-1943 term that means his first year at Hogwarts was 1940-1941 school year.

Hagrid's birthday is December 6th, this means that Hagrid was born on December 6, 1928 and began his first term at Hogwarts September 1, 1940 shortly before his twelfth birthday.



wynnleaf - Oct 17, 2006 9:48 pm (#407 of 2055)
As far as Snape is concerned, I think he would need to call everyone (on both sides) only what would be "acceptable" to use in LV's presence. In other words, Snape can't afford to slip up and, in front of DE's, call anyone on the Order side anything too familiar or friendly. Nor can he afford to slip around DE's and refer to LV as Voldemort.

So while other characters may have normal social, age, and other reasons for using surnames or first names, Snape has the need of keeping his cover to not get in any habits that he could potentially slip into around LV's or DE's.



wynnleaf - Nov 6, 2006 1:33 pm (#408 of 2055)
On the "Dumbledore's Death -- What Really Happened?" thread, I posted the following comments about DD.

I don't think DD has so far been wrong about anyone's character. He apparently didn't realize that LV was hiding out in the back of Quirrell's head -- at least we think he didn't. He wasn't necessarily mistaken in Quirrell's personal character, but he didn't realize that LV had possessed Quirrell. LV was able to conceal his own presence from DD.

Similarly, DD was not mistaken in Mad Eye Moody's character. The problem was that Barty, Jr. was able to act the part of Moody extremely well, so that DD thought Barty was Moody. The moment Barty did something that DD knew Moody would not have done (remove Harry from his presence after Harry came back from LV), DD knew it wasn't Moody.

DD was surprised at how far Fudge was willing to go to protect his own position (having Barty Jr. kissed by dementors), but he wasn't mistaken in Fudge's overall character.

DD did not know that the Marauders had become animagi, but that doesn't mean he was wrong about their characters.

Unless we find out that Snape is possessed by another character, or is really another character polyjuiced to look like Snape, or something like that, I think DD making a mistake about Snape means that DD was totally mistaken about the character of a person he worked closely with for many years -- and that's just too big of a mistake to then continue to trust DD's assessment of anyone else's character.

I think if we (and Harry) are going to trust DD's opinion of Voldemort and what makes him "tick" we have to trust DD's opinion of other characters as well.

T Vrana pointed out that DD said he had forgotten that some wounds run too deep for healing, when he assigned Snape the task of teaching Harry occlumency. Once again, I'd say that DD was mistaken in what he should or shouldn't have asked of people (like keeping Sirius at 12 Grimmauld Place), but that doesn't mean he was wrong about Snape's character overall.

Anyway, I really trust DD's assessments. JKR uses DD often to give us correct information that the reader can trust. So in looking at other characters lately, I thought it would be instructive to see exactly what DD ways about other characters and how he acts or reacts to other characters. I felt that by doing this, I could perhaps get a better view of how JKR may have viewed the characters.

The readers are alerted to pay particular attention to what DD says about Voldemort or Snape, but we are not necessarily alerted to notice how DD acts and reacts around Snape. We also pay particular attention to what DD says and thinks about Harry, and how he acts and reacts to Harry. But aside from those characters, I don't think the reader is generally alerted to pay attention to DD's interactions with other characters, or his assessments of them, particularly as a way of understanding that character beyond the point of view we're shown through Harry.

I do think it's very interesting to look at what DD says about others, and how he deals with them. And in a few cases, I wonder why we're told practically nothing about what DD thinks of certain characters.

More on this later as I put together some comments on DD and other characters.



T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 1:43 pm (#409 of 2055)
wynnleaf- I think you are correct in that DD will not be completely wrong about Snape, that is, Snape is not secretly really a DE. But as I mentioned and you noted, DD did underestimate Snape's emotional wounds. You also note that DD makes mistakes in assignments. I can't help but wonder if DD underestimated how much he may have hurt Snape by not doing more to protect him from the Marauders, how angry (letdown) Snape may be that DD is weak and vulnerable on the tower, and if the assignment they argued about, put Snape over the edge.



Madame Pomfrey - Nov 6, 2006 8:46 pm (#410 of 2055)
But,is Dumbledore wrong about Harry?

Dumbledore not remembering Snapes emmotional wounds got me to thinking(very strenuous. ) Harry has had simular or actually worse treatment from the Dursley's and Aunt Marge,The Daily Prophets articles, not to mention the cruelty of other students in OOP who believed he was a attention seeking nutter. Snape was treated cruely by a few people,Harry by many,and in spotlight. Harry's capability to love and forgive is amazing compared to that of Snapes. But, will he be able to ever forgive Snape long enough for Snape to actually be able to help him,if Snape is good,that is? Has Dumbledore also forgotten about Harry's wounds reguarding Snape? How Snape has treated him,how he was involved in his parents murder etc.,he hates him. I mean, if there was a plan designed by Dumbledore for Snape to help Harry, will Harry ever forgive Snape and allow his help? Maybe this is what Snape meant by Dumbledore taking too much for granted.Snape having simular issues knows Harry would not be able to look past his hate after witnessing Snape AKing Dumbledore and therefore, Snape would not be able to help him.



T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 9:18 pm (#411 of 2055)
I don't think DD was wrong about Harry. Harry has proven himself to be extraordinary. He wanted desperately to hurt Bella in the MOM, with good reason, but when it came right down to it, he couldn't use an unforgivable successfully, because he really does not have the evil desire to see others suffer, even when he is suffering. Harry will realize before it is too late that Snape is not evil (I think), but he will still be too late to save him. He will forgive him, but I think Snape will sacrifice himself for Harry.



wynnleaf - Nov 6, 2006 9:33 pm (#412 of 2055)
I mean, if there was a plan designed by Dumbledore for Snape to help Harry, will Harry ever forgive Snape and allow his help?

Well, I think that JKR intends Harry to forgive Snape, so I guess if DD's planning on it, he'll be right.

I do think there's a difference between being overall right about a person's character, versus being right or wrong regarding the limits of what a person can deal with (Sirius in Grimmauld, Snape teaching Harry occlumency, Harry in OOTP without information he needs).

I think DD's right about character, even if he sometimes expects more from people than they can really handle. On the other hand, he also expects a lot from people that may be more than they wish to do, but that they can do. For instance, he expected Sirius and Snape to be able to work on the same side in spite of their feelings. They were mostly able to do this with what appeared to be no worse behavior than rudeness and some insults. They almost came to hexing each other once, but considering the degree to which they hated each other, I thought DD had been right to force them to acknowledge that they were on the same side and it was not too much to expect them to work together.

I find DD's comments about Sirius and his actions and mode of relating to Sirius quite interesting. In some ways, DD's real opinion of Sirius is sort of ambiguous.

Back when the Potter's died, DD did not appear to doubt Sirius' guilt or attempt to meet with Sirius, even though Sirius was sent to Azkaban without trial. But in POA, DD accepted Sirius' story about Peter even before talking to Harry and Hermione.

Dumbledore accepts Sirius' authority as Harry's godfather to give permission for Harry to go to Hogsmeade, and for Harry to stay at Grimmauld Place. DD includes Sirius in the private debriefing he has with Harry right after Harry comes back from his confrontation with LV in GOF. But Dumbledore does not appear to have discussed Harry's trial with Sirius, nor did he tell Sirius that he wanted Harry to take occlumency lessons from Snape.

Barely hours after his death -- perhaps not even 2 hours -- DD is willing to frankly discuss Sirius' weaknesses and flaws with his godson Harry. He also comments on Sirius' courage, although it seems more the focus is on Sirius' flaws than his strengths.



Madame Pomfrey - Nov 6, 2006 10:21 pm (#413 of 2055)
Wynnleaf, I agree that Dumbledore is right about character but,he tends to overlook how deeply a person may feel. His mentioning Sirius' flaws to a broken hearted Harry, as you mentioned above, is another example.

T Vrana,I can't think of a bigger tear jerker if Snape sacrifices himself for Harry. I will feel so guilty.



T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 9:04 am (#414 of 2055)
Me either. I am actually starting to 'like' Snape as a character, and think his realization and sacrifice, coupled with Harry's realization, could be rather moving, and a much better ending for Snape than just extra bad guy, or nasty teacher, or ambiguous Order member.

On Snape's thread I compare his death to Javert's. It isn't that Snape is going to turn out to be a nice guy. He can't change, but he'll see Harry for who he is, and realize the only option is to sacrifice himself.



HungarianHorntail11 - Nov 8, 2006 3:32 pm (#415 of 2055)
Snape having similar issues knows Harry would not be able to look past his hate - Madame Pomfrey

That is a great point regarding Snape's perspective.

DD, however, sees the overall picture more objectively (IMHO) and I really feel he has people pegged pretty well. We have never heard about his reasoning behind the Sirius/Azkaban situation, so I hesitate to include that. When it comes to people, I think DD has a better handle on them than it may seem. His big mistakes seem to lie in things that are not in his realm of experience, such as a rebounded AK.



TomProffitt - Nov 25, 2006 5:27 pm (#416 of 2055)
Recently on the Severus Snape thread we have been going into a lot of detail about the final battle in HBP. That discussion caused me to question some things about Albus Dumbledore.

For all Dumbledore talks about trusting people and giving folks second chances why is it that he seems to confide his full plans to no one?

It appears that only Harry knows the significance of the Horcruxes.

It appears that only Harry has heard the prophecies in detail.

It appears that only Snape knows whether or not Dumbledore was murdered or euthanized (for lack of better brief term).

There were other examples that slip my mind right now.

Just how smart is it for Dumbledore to play things so close? How close is the War with Riddle coming to complete failure because Dumbledore did not make necessary information available to his allies?

I think this secrecy is a big error on Dumbledore's part. Why did he make it?



wynnleaf - Nov 25, 2006 6:19 pm (#417 of 2055)
TomProffitt,

I think that "it appears" could also read "it appears to Harry." Harry assumes that no one else knows about the horcruxes, because DD told him not to tell anyone. If DD has discussed the horcruxes with anyone else, he simply didn't tell Harry. I've seen a lot of readers assume that DD didn't tell anyone either, but he never said that he didn't tell anyone else - only that Harry shouldn't tell anyone else.

As regards the prophecy, DD did specifically say that no one, except for himself knew the entire prophecy. And then, of course, he told Harry.

If DD and Snape were working together the night DD died, Harry doesn't know it and the readers are led to believe that the other Order members present are shocked and fully believe that Snape is a triator. But any of those Order members could actually be in on some secret plan with DD and Snape and it is simply being kept from Harry and from we readers.

It's interesting that we find that information regarding James and Lily which -- from what one sees in Harry's time -- one would suppose that DD would have held "close" and not told other Order members, he apparently did tell other Order members. Other Order members knew that a spy was telling DD that a close friend of the Potters was giving secrets to LV. Order members were apparently told that DD had been the one to recommend the Potters use the Fidelius Charm and had offered to be their Secret Keeper.

If DD followed similar patterns in Harry's time, there may well be other Order members who know secret information, but Harry just isn't aware of it.

Just how smart is it for Dumbledore to play things so close?

Good point. I wonder if we'll discover that DD did tell most of the secrets to at least one other Order member. Maybe his brother? And Snape may also know more than we think. And there may be other Order members that we'll learn know secrets that we (and Harry) perhaps assumed no one else knew.



TomProffitt - Nov 25, 2006 6:48 pm (#418 of 2055)
"And there may be other Order members that we'll learn know secrets that we (and Harry) perhaps assumed no one else knew." --- wynnleaf

I would like to think that this will happen. It is confusing to me. I would think that Minerva McGonagall would be one that would have been trusted and she seems to not know much. People that have the opportunity to come clean with Harry, like Lupin & McGonagall, haven't, and surely if they knew the plan they'd know it was time to fill Harry in.



haymoni - Nov 25, 2006 6:54 pm (#419 of 2055)
Dumbledore says that when he makes mistakes....this could be one of them.



Choices - Nov 25, 2006 7:15 pm (#420 of 2055)
I think Dumbledore is guarded with his information because he knows how easily Voldemort can get information out of people.



HungarianHorntail11 - Nov 25, 2006 7:25 pm (#421 of 2055)
There is also the possibility that DD has given a bit of the "puzzle" to different members. When they all work together, everything fits. My concern is Harry confronting Snape in Big V's presence and giving away inconsistencies which would implicate Snape if he is indeed against Big V.



deletedaccount - Nov 26, 2006 12:09 am (#422 of 2055)
Are we ever going to find out what exactly happened to Dumbledore's hand? I spent much of HBP book waiting to find out and then it never said.



Saracene - Nov 26, 2006 1:03 am (#423 of 2055)
Mezuzas,

DD did give an explanation. He said that the Slytherin ring Horcrux he had found in Marvolo's old shack had a terrible old curse on it, and that he only survived thanks to his own skills and Snape's help when DD came back to Hogwarts badly injured. The blackened hand is the result of that curse.

Regarding DD and the information on the Horcruxes: I think there's a good chance that DD -did- confide his thoughts on Horcruxes to someone else. But I also think that there might be a purely literary reason for DD not sharing that knowledge with anyone but Harry. Because Harry is the hero of the story, JKR might wish to make this search for Horcrux a quest that is solely Harry's and his friends', without any interference from the rest of the Order members.



deletedaccount - Nov 26, 2006 1:19 am (#424 of 2055)
Yes, I know Dumbledore said that much; however, he also said he would tell the tale later. He never did.



Puck - Nov 26, 2006 11:48 am (#425 of 2055)
Okay, I'm wondering how much DD knows but doesn't seem to act upon. He was a teacher at Hogwarts when Myrtle died. I'm sure he knew her ghost remained. Wouldn't he -or another staff member- have thought to question the ghost? They wouldn't be able to enter the chamber without parseltongue, but would have known where it was, and figured out what was in there. DD is way too clever not to put all this together. SO, here is the question: Was he just giving Harry room to figure it out for himself? Part of his training for facing LV?



Thom Matheson - Nov 26, 2006 12:14 pm (#426 of 2055)
Puck, though, I don't think that it was a part of Harry's training, I do think that you have discovered a major league oops in Rowlings authorship. I say major because Myrtle has played a key role in several different spots throughout the books with CoS, GoF and the second task, as well as HBP and her tie to Malfoy. She is certainly part of the castle ghost community and Dumbledore would have been aware of her presense for some time.

I can't believe we havn't noticed this before. Well done. Take 100 points for your house as well as a gift card to Honeydukes.



Puck - Nov 26, 2006 1:29 pm (#427 of 2055)
Thanks, Thom! Off to buy some cockroache clusters....or perhaps just some sugar quills.

Actully, I'm shocked it hasn't been mentioned before. Usually whenever I think I have a great new idea, it has already be discussed in great detail here.



Choices - Nov 26, 2006 6:53 pm (#428 of 2055)
I think it has been discussed, but since there is no definitive answer there just isn't much to say about it. Dumbledore may or may not have questioned Myrtle. Maybe he got his information from other sources, maybe he didn't. There are just too many maybe's for us to know anything for sure. Maybe it just a part of the plot for Dumbledore not to know everything. The castle ghosts are probably full of information, but nobody seems interested in picking their ghostly brains to find out. The one time Harry questioned Nick (about Sirius's death) he really came up short.



deletedaccount - Nov 26, 2006 7:39 pm (#429 of 2055)
When did Harry question Nick about Sirius's death?



T Vrana - Nov 26, 2006 7:43 pm (#430 of 2055)
Hmmmmm. I don't have COS handy, every book but, but it seems to me that DD would have questioned Myrtle, but she had little to tell. She heard someone, then she died. Isn't that basically what she told Harry? Harry has more clues to work with when he talks to Myrtle, DD has one dead student, and nothing more. If I recall, he did know the Chamber was opened once before, but only the one death, and nothing else. Harry can hear the basilisk. There are several students petrified, the spiders flee the castle, the roosters are killed etc. Seems to me that Myrtle was killed immediately when the Chamber was opened the first time, and Riddle quickly closed it for fear the school would close (hearing the reaction to Myrtle's death). Not much for DD to work with.

Question, why would anyone believe Aragog killed Myrtle (hence Hagrid's expulsion), her death seemed more like an AK. Alive one minute, dead the next.

Really need to find my copy of CoS.....

Mezusas- At the end of OOTP, when he was hoping Sirius could return as a ghost.



Steve Newton - Nov 26, 2006 7:56 pm (#431 of 2055)
Near the end of OOTP, hoping to speak to Sirius again, Harry asks Nick about becoming a ghost and Nick says that he doesn't know.



TomProffitt - Nov 26, 2006 8:21 pm (#432 of 2055)
"Question, why would anyone believe Aragog killed Myrtle (hence Hagrid's expulsion), her death seemed more like an AK. Alive one minute, dead the next." --- T Vrana

Remember that wizards have the ability to change the evidence and modify memories. I have no idea if they can tamper with a ghost's memory or not, but I imagine that this makes wizards much less willing to trust evidence and testimony than muggles.

It's not that there isn't evidence, it's just there is no way to know if it has been tampered with. Whether or not it's reasonable to think that Myrtle's murderer had time to alter evidence, wizards just don't think of evidence as being reliable in the same way that we (muggles) do.



Puck - Nov 26, 2006 8:45 pm (#433 of 2055)
Myrtle also said there was a pair of big yellow eyes.

Perhaps I should just chalk it up to DD being too polite to enter a girls restroom.



rambkowalczyk - Nov 27, 2006 5:09 am (#434 of 2055)
Dumbledore could have questioned her, but she didn't know who the boy was in the girl's bathroom. All she saw were yellow eyes. I am surprised that he didn't deduce it was a basilisk though. What I wonder is did the other students who were petrified (both in 1942 and 1992) see anything before they were petrified?



Soul Search - Nov 27, 2006 8:03 am (#435 of 2055)
In relating her story to Harry, Myrtle says she first haunted Olive Hornsby, for making fun of her. When Olive complained to the Ministry, they made her quit, so Myrtle came back to Hogwarts. There is a suggestion that Myrtle haunted Olive for quite a while.

So, Myrtle would not have been at Hogwarts right after her death. It may not have even been obvious to Hogwarts staff that she had become a ghost.

By the time Myrtle returned to Hogwarts, everything had quieted down and interest in her death and the Chamber would have passed.



Mrs Brisbee - Nov 27, 2006 9:13 am (#436 of 2055)
Also, Myrtle answered Harry's questions because she liked him. It is quite possible she wasn't as forthcoming with other interrogators.



T Vrana - Nov 27, 2006 10:35 am (#437 of 2055)
I think Myrtle would have told DD.

SS- But wasn't Olive at Hogwarts at the time of the murder?

Rambko- Were there others petrified in the past? I had the impression that Myrtle was the only casualty that time, and talk of closing the school convinced Tom to close the chamber quickly and blame Hagrid. Not sure though..



rambkowalczyk - Nov 30, 2006 5:16 am (#438 of 2055)
Were there others petrified in the past? I had the impression that Myrtle was the only casualty that time, and talk of closing the school convinced Tom to close the chamber quickly and blame Hagrid. Not sure though..

Remember Tom ask Dippitt if he could stay at Hogwart during the summer. Dippitt's answer "but in current circumstances..." "You mean all these attacks, sir?" Tom uses "all", which implies to me more than one. Since there was only one death, I assume the others were petrified.



T Vrana - Nov 30, 2006 7:09 am (#439 of 2055)
Ahh..thank you.



Ludicrous Patents Office - Dec 2, 2006 8:22 pm (#440 of 2055)
Dumbledore knew how to cure the victims who had been petrified. He had full confidence in Hagrid's innocence. I think he knew it was a basilisk but he could not figure out how the chamber was being open again. I don't think it would be good politics to let the WW know your school has a basilisk hidden in a secret chamber.

Tom I agree that Dumbledore may have kept things a little too close to the vest. I shudder to think what would happen to Harry if he had to battle a curse like what took Dumbledore's arm. Harry just does not have the skill or experience. LPO



wynnleaf - Dec 2, 2006 9:07 pm (#441 of 2055)
Tom I agree that Dumbledore may have kept things a little too close to the vest. I shudder to think what would happen to Harry if he had to battle a curse like what took Dumbledore's arm. Harry just does not have the skill or experience. LPO

JKR has said that DD keeps things too close to his chest. Well, she didn't say it like that, but I think she basically meant the same thing. Here it is:

In fact, I would tend to think that being very, very intelligent might create some problems and it has done for Dumbledore, because his wisdom has isolated him, and I think you can see that in the books, because where is his equal, where is his confidante, where is his partner? He has none of those things.

If he has no confidantes, that doesn't of course mean that he never tells anyone anything, or never shares a secret with someone. But it does mean there's no one with whom he shares all his plans and thoughts. And JKR mentions that as a weakness.

As regards Harry's position having to destroy horcruxes, I do hope that DD has someone (Snape?) lined up to help him in destroying them, because Harry alone, or with Hermione and Ron, hasn't got the expertise to deal with that sort of dark magic.



HungarianHorntail11 - Dec 3, 2006 12:08 pm (#442 of 2055)
When JKR makes reference to DD's isolation, she describes it as problematic. Not sure if I would equate that with weakness. Problematic might be more general by way of not having any one person take over in his absence but rather many people with different parts who must come together for it to work in their favor. I think he has been working hard behind the scenes to get this accomplished. Whatever he has told Harry, Hagrid, Snape and the others must all fit together - the problem I see is who will be the ringleader? My guess is it's Harry and we know he is capable of that.



journeymom - Dec 7, 2006 10:24 am (#443 of 2055)
Help! In HBP Dumbledore had a few instances where he used really charming phrases to describe what he and Harry were doing. One went something like, "Step out into the night and join that flighty temptress, adventure." or words to that effect.

The one I'm trying to find is where Dd is explaining to Harry about Tom Riddle's childhood and "leaves the realm of fact and enters into the world of supposition", but I know that it isn't what he said. Does anybody remember this passage and more specifically, where I might find it??

Thank you! You are all worth more than your weight in floating rocks.



T Vrana - Dec 7, 2006 10:29 am (#444 of 2055)
DOn't have the book handy, but I believe it is at his very first 'lesson' with DD.



Madame Pomfrey - Dec 7, 2006 11:44 am (#445 of 2055)
I am still stumped as to why Dumbledore never mentioned Harry's use of Sectumsempra on Draco,where he learned the spell etc. Snape,according to harry,told the whole school about it,so why did not Dumbledore know? If he didn't know then Snape must have not told him. Snape,who is always looking for an excuse to expel Harry,had reason,but didn't.Is there something about that spell and the old potions book that would have alerted Dumbledore about something? Ooh,What if Sempumsempra is how Dumbledore got his scar.I am thinking Snape kept it from him purposefully.Thoughts?



Choices - Dec 7, 2006 11:55 am (#446 of 2055)
Is this it....?

From Ch. 10 The House of Gaunt

Dumbledore: "I told you everything I know. From this point forth, we shall be leaving the firm foundation of fact and journeying together through the murky marshes of memory into thickets of wildest guesswork. From here on in, Harry, I may be as woefully wrong as Humphrey Belcher, who believed the time was ripe for a cheese cauldron."



journeymom - Dec 7, 2006 12:03 pm (#447 of 2055)
That's it! Thank you!



Choices - Dec 7, 2006 12:21 pm (#448 of 2055)
You are very welcome. :-)



Soul Search - Dec 7, 2006 1:22 pm (#449 of 2055)
Since Choices brought it up ...

What is "a cheese cauldron."

A cauldron for making cheeze. That doesn't seem right for the tone of the statement.

A cauldron made OF cheeze. That seems too silly.



Thom Matheson - Dec 7, 2006 1:25 pm (#450 of 2055)
But that's why Humphrey Belcher was wrong, really wrong.
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 451 to 500

Post  Mona on Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:33 am

juliebug - Dec 7, 2006 1:26 pm (#451 of 2055)
A medievel-looking fondue pot?



Thom Matheson - Dec 7, 2006 1:28 pm (#452 of 2055)
Now that's funny.



wynnleaf - Dec 7, 2006 1:48 pm (#453 of 2055)
Madame Pomfrey,

Considering that not only did McGonagall know what occurred, everyone in the entire school would eventually hear about it, because everyone would wonder what caused Harry to get detention that would remove him from Quidditch for the rest of the year.

So Dumbledore had to at least have known that Harry used some spell that sliced up Draco.

Why would Snape want to keep the exact spell from Dumbledore? Dumbledore already knows that Snape was a loyal Death Eater for awhile after he would have created that spell. Even in HBP, Dumbledore affirms Snape's particularly strong knowledge of Dark Arts, and at the end of HBP, McGonagall comments that she expected that Snape, as the DADA expert, would know how to get through the barrier to the astronomy tower -- even over Lupin, a one-time DADA teacher, who was not able to pass through the barrier. Clearly, they both realized he had a very dark past, and that his knowledge and abilities in DADA and Dark Arts were great. So why would it be any shock to learn that Snape created a dark spell in his pre-DE days? Snape himself makes no pretense about it being anything other than Dark Magic.

But I do wonder why Dumbledore never mentions the incident to Harry. And does Dumbledore know of Harry's previous attempt at crucio? Yet he says nothing to Harry.



HungarianHorntail11 - Dec 7, 2006 2:01 pm (#454 of 2055)
Perhaps the very reason why Snape went "easy" on Harry with regard to the Sectumsempra punishment was because of DD. If so, it was probably not a priority for DD to mention it to Harry - the matter had been dealt with.



Madame Pomfrey - Dec 7, 2006 3:34 pm (#455 of 2055)
I can see the book not surprising Dumbledore knowing that Snape has a dark past,but didn't Hermione say that Snape probably didn't want Dumbledore to know about it? Being that Jo sometimes speaks through Hermione I just wondered if there was more to it. I find it odd that Harry's attempts at crucio were never addressed by Dumbledore too.Did Snape tell everyone or did Draco?



Puck - Dec 7, 2006 7:57 pm (#456 of 2055)
DD might have known that Harry wouldn't want to discuss it with him. He looks up to DD, and would feel ashamed. Plus, it would bring up the subject of Draco, which DD tried to avoid with Harry.



wynnleaf - Dec 7, 2006 8:19 pm (#457 of 2055)
but didn't Hermione say that Snape probably didn't want Dumbledore to know about it? Being that Jo sometimes speaks through Hermione I just wondered if there was more to it.

I agree that it's always a good idea to take a second look at Hermione's comments, since you're right, JKR does often speak through her.

But in the case of the HBP, we know that Hermione has been wrong, at least partly. She disregarded the obvious improvements that the then unknown Prince had made to the potions, because she was didn't like Harry using the book. And she thought the notes were written by a woman. While she was correct that Harry should have been more careful about the spells in the notes, she was not correct in being suspicious of the entire book, as many of the potions notes and new spells were simply improvements on the text, or mostly harmless spells.

On the other hand, we know she was partly correct in being concerned about Harry's use of the book, as he bought into the book so much that he didn't check to see what sectumsempra was before using it. So we could possibly find that there is an element of truth to other comments she makes about the book. For instance, it's possible that we'll discover there was also a female influence on the notes (hint, hint,wink, wink, nudge, nudge). There could be some element of truth in her idea that Snape didn't want DD to know something about the book.

But DD knew so much worse things about Snape, it's really hard to see why knowing Snape created sectumsempra would be any big revelation.



Ludicrous Patents Office - Dec 7, 2006 8:24 pm (#458 of 2055)
Why would Dumbledore need to talk to Harry about it? He knew Harry was being punished. No need to beat a dead horse. Dumbledore had more important things to discus with Harry. As Snape said in OoP the Headmaster has the right to delegate the more unpleasant tasks to others. I think the things Harry learned in that book will come in handy sometime. LPO



T Vrana - Dec 7, 2006 8:46 pm (#459 of 2055)
I don't think DD knew because I do think he would have mentioned it to Harry. I don't think hurting Harry's feelings would bother him one bit. He has no problem putting Harry in his place when it is warranted. Warning Harry not be tempted by his anger and hatred to use dark magic would be important, I think. Harry may yet be tempted in book seven, and will need to overcome that temptation, I think. DD has been watching Harry, worried, perhaps, that he may be vulnerable to dark influences due to his connection with LV. And lets face it, the Sorting Hat picked Slytherin first and Harry has tried to use Unforgivables. Don't get me wrong, Harry is DD's man through and through, a true Gryffindor and all that, and he will overcome temptation, but I'm not sure DD thought it was a sure thing from the start, or that, even now, it is a sure thing.



TwinklingBlueEyes - Dec 8, 2006 12:07 am (#460 of 2055)
I do think Dumbledore knew.

"DD might have known that Harry wouldn't want to discuss it with him. He looks up to DD, and would feel ashamed. Plus, it would bring up the subject of Draco, which DD tried to avoid with Harry." I think the Sectumsempra incident was known by Dumbledore, no matter if Snape told him or not and considered it another lesson learned alone. (See below).

Yes, it would have brought up Draco, but it appeared to me that that was one of those lessons Dumbledore chose for Harry to learn for himself. Remember the feeling Harry and we readers both felt through the early books that Dumbledore set up "tests" or lessons? To lazy and too many butterbeers to look up, but Harry's feelings about same subject toward end of CoS. Remember how Harry, according to JKR, almost obcessesd about Draco, therefore failed to see the big picture around himself? Did Dumbledore put on a show of bravado, or was he reasonabably assured of the adventures outcome. Remember the scene of Dumbledore watching the sun going down out the window?

"but I'm not sure DD thought it was a sure thing from the start, or that, even now, it is a sure thing. Interesting thought. I don't think Dumbledore ever considered it, nor anything else a "sure" thing. Please explain why you thought he would have entertained the thought?



Madame Pomfrey - Dec 8, 2006 9:27 am (#461 of 2055)
TBE,what you are saying makes sense.I feel that Dumbledore has tested Harry. How many times have we heard Dumbledore say"You have exceeded my expectations" or something simular? But,I agree with TVarana that Dumbledore would want to council Harry reguarding the use of dark magic or unknown spells. Why did Dumbledore not do this.I think he knew,He knows all. Perhaps he didn't want to discuss the potions book in general because of "hint, hint,wink, wink, nudge, nudge" as Wynnleaf mentioned. When Harry was questioning Dumbledore about why he trusts Snape Harry had the feeling that Dumbledore was about to tell him something,but changed his mind. I think this has to do with" hint, hint,wink, wink, nudge, nudge"and that the potions book fits in to that story. Dumbledore keeps making the same mistake by keeping Harry in the dark.



S.E. Jones - Dec 8, 2006 4:45 pm (#462 of 2055)
I don't think Dd needed to worry about Harry using any more Dark spells after the Suctemsempra. He probably felt that Harry had learned his lesson already. Remember how upset Harry was at seeing Draco lying on the ground in his own blood because of his, Harry's, own actions? I'm torn, though, about whether or not Snape told Dumbledore about the book when he described the incident.



HungarianHorntail11 - Dec 8, 2006 4:47 pm (#463 of 2055)
DD doesn't strike me as a pushy fellow. I think that however Snape may have explained it is how DD would accept it. He's pretty good at putting 2 and 2 together.



T Vrana - Dec 8, 2006 5:54 pm (#464 of 2055)
I don't think Dd needed to worry about Harry using any more Dark spells after the Suctemsempra.

But he did try to use an unforgivable on the fleeing Snape...



Choices - Dec 8, 2006 6:14 pm (#465 of 2055)
Wynnleaf - "And she thought the notes were written by a woman."

We still don't know if Hermione was correct about that or not - some of those notes (if not all) may have been written by Eileen Prince.



T Vrana - Dec 8, 2006 6:26 pm (#466 of 2055)
Or Lily...



Ydnam96 - Dec 8, 2006 7:01 pm (#467 of 2055)
I'm under the impression that DD knew but didn't "know". I think that Snape probably explained the situation and said that he had properly punished Harry...but I think Snape left out the fact that the curse was so "evil" because he was the one who created it and he didn't want DD to know. DD, because he trusts Snape might have considered the case closed since it was being handeled. I mean, there have been a few times where Harry has done something dangerous or wrong and DD hasn't mentioned it to him. I think he still knows about them though. I think he just didn't have anything to add to the situation.

Does that make sense?



wynnleaf - Dec 8, 2006 9:02 pm (#468 of 2055)
Ydnam96 said:

I think Snape left out the fact that the curse was so "evil" because he was the one who created it and he didn't want DD to know.

Why would Snape want to hide this from DD? Do you think DD would be surprised that a couple of years before joining LV, Snape would have created a dark spell?



Ydnam96 - Dec 9, 2006 12:36 am (#469 of 2055)
?? No, probably not. It's just a theory



HungarianHorntail11 - Dec 9, 2006 8:18 am (#470 of 2055)
Mandy, I agree and think DD doesn't feel the need to mention everything. Remember when Harry "inadvertently" blew up Aunt Marge? As far as I can recall, DD never mentioned it. It doesn't mean he didn't know about it.

I just think he's always had his hands full and prioritized accordingly. After all, according to JKR, he has no equal or confidante. Perhaps if he could lump Harry, Snape, McGonagall, etc. all into one person, he would, lol.



T Vrana - Dec 10, 2006 8:26 pm (#471 of 2055)
Twinkling Blue eyes

Interesting thought. I don't think Dumbledore ever considered it, nor anything else a "sure" thing. Please explain why you thought he would have entertained the thought?

The sure thing I was referring to was Harry turning out ok. It seems to me that sometimes we forget that DD does not know he's in a story entitled 'Harry Potter and the....'. We assume Harry is going to end up the hero doing the right thing, but DD doesn't have the luxury of knowing Harry is the hero. DD has watched Harry carefully, concerned, I think, that he could have gone Dark, and could still be tempted that way. Harry using a curse like Sectumsempra on a fellow student is a rather big deal. If Harry is to succeed I think he will need to fight the temptation to lash out with Unforgivables and Dark magic. Afterall, once he starts down that path, when and where does he stop? When does he become what he is fighting? (Not LV, he can't, but 'bad' witches and wizards). While DD seems fairly confident Harry is his man through and through, I fear fro what Jo plans for him in book 7. As we have not yet seen him truly tempted, I think it must be in store.

DD didn't have trouble letting Harry know he already had a detention under his belt. So the embarrassment factor seems out for me. And he certainly has had no problem putting Harry in his place. I do not have as strong position either way if DD knew, but I suspect he did not know the full extent of what happened, or he might have wanted to warn Harry that he needs to use his strengths, ability to love and be loved, and not be tempted by fear and hatred, to use dark magic or unforgivables.



S.E. Jones - Dec 10, 2006 9:14 pm (#472 of 2055)
T Vrana --DD has watched Harry carefully, concerned, I think, that he could have gone Dark, and could still be tempted that way.--

I disagree with the "could still be" part of your statement. While I agree that Dd was concerned while watching Harry grow up from afar, I think he knows now what we know, that Harry will be the hero who will always strive to do the right thing. I don't think he feels the need to worry any more about whether Harry will be tempted. He's watched Harry now, not from afar but from up close, for six years now and has seen him do some very incredible things, things which took a strong sense of right and wrong, bravery, the willingness to sacrifice himself (do what is right, not what is easy). I think any worries he had about Harry being tempted to the dark side have long since flittered away by now. Hearing about how Harry reacted to causing Draco (who Dd well knows Harry despises) harm (remember how shocked Harry was, he even tried to stop the bleeding) would be enough to reasure him of this, in my opinion.



T Vrana - Dec 11, 2006 7:37 am (#473 of 2055)
SE- I should have been more clear. I agree, DD's concerns would have evolved as he saw Harry up close. Did not intend to imply that Harry is capable at this point of turning to the 'dark side', and DD knows that. He is, however, still tempted by his hatred and anger as is shown by his attempted use of Unforgivables. But, I think, if Harry is to triumph, it will be by using his strengths, love and ability to be loved, not succumbing to his darker emotions and impulses. I would hope if DD knew about the sectumsempra and unforgivables, he would have warned Harry of this. Hope that makes more sense. Short on time...

Then again, maybe that would have been too big a giveaway to readers. I think we will be surprised how Harry triumphs...



Regan of Gong - Dec 11, 2006 4:15 pm (#474 of 2055)
Dumbledore knows things that we don't think he's able to know. If he knew Harry used Sectumsempra, it might be a good bet he knew that Harry was unaware of the consequences.



Laura W - Dec 12, 2006 3:15 am (#475 of 2055)

"The sure thing I was referring to was Harry turning out ok. It seems to me that sometimes we forget that DD does not know he's in a story entitled 'Harry Potter and the....'. We assume Harry is going to end up the hero doing the right thing, but DD doesn't have the luxury of knowing Harry is the hero. DD has watched Harry carefully, concerned, I think, that he could have gone Dark," (T. Vrana)


Which brings to mind something Snape said in the Spinner's End chapter of HBP. (I'm just rereading that book, so it's fresh in my mind.) Answering Bellatrix's question as to why Severus hadn't yet killed Harry, he replied: "I should remind you that when Potter first arrived at Hogwarts there were still many stories circulating about him, rumours that he himself was a great Dark wizard, which was how he had survived the Dark Lord's attack. Indeed, many of the Dark Lord's old followers thought Potter might be a standard around which we could all rally once more."

I would say that was a concern of Dumbledore's too. The fact that Harry could have gone either way is hinted at or definitely said in canon several times (eg - Draco offering his friendship to Harry on the train in PS but Harry choosing the blood-traitor Ron Weasley, the Sorting Hat telling him *twice* in PS that he should be in Slytherin house, the 16-year-old Tom Riddle saying that he and Harry are quite alike and Harry vehemently denying this in CoS, etc.).

But by Harry's sixth year (or even before then )- having watched him very closely -, I, too, am convinced that DD made up his mind that Harry will never embrace the Dark Arts. He says so on p.477 with "... and yet, Harry, despite your privileged insight into Voldemort's world (which, incidentally, is a gift any Death Eater would kill to have), you have never been seduced by the Dark Arts, never, even for a second, shown the slightest. desire to become one of Voldemort's followers!"

Laura



T Vrana - Dec 12, 2006 7:47 am (#476 of 2055)
Laura- I agree for the most part. Harry will never be a DE, but how far will he go to defeat LV? I think he may be tempted to use dark magic and unforgivables, but I don't think he can defeat LV this way. Book not handy, which of the Prince's spells did Harry try on Snape in Flight of the Prince?



wynnleaf - Dec 12, 2006 9:17 am (#477 of 2055)
Book not handy, which of the Prince's spells did Harry try on Snape in Flight of the Prince?

He tried Snape's levicorpus which isn't Dark. He tried Crucio, which is the one where Snape said the, "no Dark Magic from you," comment. And he tried Sectumsempra. So that's two spells he knew to be Dark Magic, only one of which was Snape's creation.



Laura W - Dec 12, 2006 10:30 am (#478 of 2055)
He used two spells of the Prince's: Levicorpus and Sectumsempra. Only one of them was dark but the question was, "which of the Prince's spells did Harry try on Snape in Flight of the Prince?" Snape himself acknowledged both of those spells were his when he cried out, "You dare to use my own spells against me, Potter? It was I who invented them - I, the Half-Blood Prince! And you'd turn my inventions on me. ..." Note the use of the plural.

Also, Harry tried Crucio twice, which is very dark magic, but was not invented by the Prince of course.



T Vrana - Dec 12, 2006 10:31 am (#479 of 2055)
Isn't Sectumsempra Snape's? He tried it during 'Flight'?

If yes, this supports my thought. No worries that Harry will become a DE, but he's using dark magic. Not cool, especially if it turns out Snape is on the 'good' side. If he tried sectumsempra after the Draco incident, he learned nothing. There is a reason AKs and dark magic are not used. What if you make a mistake? What if Snape is good? If DD knew Harry used sectumsempra, he should have had a talk with Harry and warned him not to stray from love and goodness, not to give in to hate. First, it is starting down the wrong path, even if it is for 'good' reasons. Second, he could make a mistake and hurt someone.

DD was very black and white when it came to dark magic, and I have to assume he would have wanted the same for Harry.

EDIT- Cross posted with Laura..



Laura W - Dec 12, 2006 10:46 am (#480 of 2055)

Isn't Sectumsempra Snape's?

Yes, it is. And he takes credit for it in the quote I gave above where Severus does not say "use my own spell against me," but "my own spells."

As a matter of fact, Snape used it on Harry during "Flight" in a very minor form just as he had on James. From "Flight": "And he slashed at the air: Harry felt a white-hot, whiplike something hit him across the face."

And per your comment about Harry being tempted to use dark magic and maybe even Unforgiveables to defeat LV, T, I guess he already has. But I agree that is not what he will ultimately use to defeat him. Dumbledore - and Jo - has just made too much of the fact that the weapon Harry has which Tom does not possess, and which will defeat Tom, is love: not Dark Magic.

Rats! Darned cross-posting!

Laura



T Vrana - Dec 12, 2006 10:57 am (#481 of 2055)
Laura- I don't think Snape used Sectumsempra on Harry. It seemed more like a magical backhand. Sectumsempra slashes the skin open, like a sword, as seen on Draco and James. James received a slash on his face. Harry felt something whiplike, as you noted.

On Harry using dark magic, yes he has, and I think if DD knew he would have discussed it with Harry. If he was counting on him learning his lesson on his own in the bathroom, it didn't work. He tried it again. I think DD would find this very troubling. While DD has given Harry lots of room to learn, make mistakes, try to take on LV etc., this is different, IMO. Going down this path is a big mistake, with soul altering consequences. Just as he warned Tom not to thieve at Hogwarts, but did not tell the other teachers, gave Tom a chance to change, I think he would have told Harry not to use Dark Magic and Unforgivables. This is not a lesson Harry should learn on his own.



Choices - Dec 12, 2006 11:28 am (#482 of 2055)
I sort of think Snape did use a scaled-down version of Sectumsempra on Harry. According to the strength the caster chooses for the spell, I think it can actually cut or just sting like fire.



Laura W - Dec 12, 2006 11:32 am (#483 of 2055)
Yeah, I think I agree with you, T. Maybe. When Snape used the spell on James, it cut James' face open. There is nothing in text that says what Snape did to Harry in "Flight" cut his face open. This was probably another spell; one that also slammed Harry to the ground very hard.

And I agree with your second paragraph too, T. Vrana. Harry really has to learn to master his emotions better before going after LV. Ironically, the person most experienced at that - out of necessity, whichever side he is really on - who could teach it to Harry is Snape. "Blocked again, and again, and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed!"

Maybe Moody can help Harry in that regard. He was a top Auror and Dark Wizard hunter in his day. I'm sure he would have some valuable tips to pass on (assuming Harry is willing to listen, that is).

Laura



Die Zimtzicke - Dec 12, 2006 12:23 pm (#484 of 2055)
Does it help Harry to fight Voldemort if Dumbledore has let him see the things he has shown Harry? Did Dumbledore perhaps know that showing Harry how Tom Riddle was born would be a huge thing to use to mess with Voldemort's mind? Voldemort is VERY touchy about his father, for example. If Harry can distract him by throwing that up to him, it might be agood thing for Dumbledore to have shown him. I'll bet nearly anything Voldemort doesn't know Harry knows about Tom Riddle, Sr. and Merope.



TomProffitt - Dec 12, 2006 2:54 pm (#485 of 2055)
"I'll bet nearly anything Voldemort doesn't know Harry knows about Tom Riddle, Sr. and Merope." --- Die Zimtzicke

I guess this really doesn't belong on the Dumbledore thread, but since you brought it up ....

Didn't Dumbledore say much the same thing to Harry early in HBP? Well not exactly, Harry stopped having dreams about Tom Riddle and Dumbledore said that it was because Riddle didn't like Harry having access to Riddle's secrets. This implies that it goes the other way, Riddle doesn't know what Dumbledore has been teaching him. And it conveniently explains why Dumbledore was so insistent that Harry learn Occlumency (and why it became less important in HBP) and why Dumbledore waited to teach Harry about Horcruxes until the 6th book. Can't be teaching Harry how to defeat the Dark Lord with the old bat listening in.



wynnleaf - Dec 12, 2006 3:33 pm (#486 of 2055)
I think the fiery whip-like spell that Snape used on Harry was the same one that DD used in OOTP against LV.

Dumbledore had drawn back his wand and waved it as though brandishing a whip. A long thin flame flew from the tip; it wrapped itself around Voldemort, shield and all. For a moment, it seemed Dumbledore had won, but then the fiery rope became a serpent, which relinquished its hold on Voldemort at once and turned, hissing furiously, to face Dumbledore.

The flamewhip didn't harm LV and Snape's use of it didn't harm Harry. When DD used it, it wrapped around LV. When Snape used it, it seemed to be more to slap Harry with it.



T Vrana - Dec 12, 2006 4:51 pm (#487 of 2055)
I think it is a different spell entirely. No flame, no wrapping around, no drawing back of the wand, but a slash through the air and a furious 'backhand' for the brat Potter.



S.E. Jones - Dec 15, 2006 3:27 pm (#488 of 2055)
Die Zimtzicke --Does it help Harry to fight Voldemort if Dumbledore has let him see the things he has shown Harry?--

With regard to this question, I'm reminded of Dumbleodore's comment to Harry after telling him about Merope's death, "Could you possibly be feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort?". If Harry's power to defeat Voldemort comes out of Love, maybe it's important for him to feel some degree of compassion for LV?



haymoni - Dec 15, 2006 5:24 pm (#489 of 2055)
I thought there was more to that question also.



HungarianHorntail11 - Dec 16, 2006 1:49 pm (#490 of 2055)
I agree, haymoni and S.E. Jones. It seems as though his ability to see what others neglect to will play an important part. And I'm not referring to his "inner Trelawney" but rather, to his "inner Lily".



journeymom - Dec 19, 2006 10:59 am (#491 of 2055)
I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter, but I've been wondering -why- Dd doesn't need a cloak to be invisible. In Philip Pullman's "His Dark Material" there are witches who can become ' invisible', after a fashion. They know how to blend into the surroundings, but also can manipulate people's minds enough to make them simply not notice them. A person might see the witch, but will immediately think, hmm, she's not interesting. The person won't dwell on her and therefore immediately forgets he's even seen her.

Voldemort manipulates people ("Tell me the Truth!") and Voldemort and Dumbledore have been compared a little. In PS McGonagall says to Dumbledore something to the effect of, "Oh, you know as much Dark Magic as he does, you're just too noble to use it!" Maybe Dumbledore has learned to manipulate people a little bit, just enough to befuddle them and make them not notice him, even when he is in plain sight.



Die Zimtzicke - Dec 19, 2006 12:10 pm (#492 of 2055)
Is Dumbledore perhaps very good at disllusionment charms?



journeymom - Dec 19, 2006 4:57 pm (#493 of 2055)
[slaps forehead] D'oh! Yes, that's most logical.

"disillusion" Eng. to lose faith

A charm which hides the true, magical nature of something.

Hippogriffs and winged horses may be kept by wizards as long as they perform a Disillusionment Charm on them regularly so that Muggles won't notice anything strange about them (FB).

Mad-Eye Moody cast a Disillusionment Charm on Harry to protect him during the trip from Privet Drive to Grimmauld Place ("I'm going to Disillusion you..."). To Harry, it felt as though someone had broken an egg on his head, like a flood of cold running down over him. When under the Charm, his body took on the appearance of whatever was behind him. He felt like a human chameleon. When Moody removed the Charm, it felt like trickling of warmth instead of cold (OP3, OP4)



Madame Pomfrey - Dec 20, 2006 1:09 pm (#494 of 2055)
Dumbledore is a master at transfiguration also.I suspect he has turned himself into inanimate objects when he needs to know things.We have yet to "see" him invisable but I suspect he was in the room when Quirrel was sobbing after a punishment from Vapormort.Harry saw an opened door but didn't investigate but suspected Snape who Quirrell denied.Anyway,I can't see Voldemort and Quirrel talking with a door open.So was it Dumbledore that was there,Snape or did I miss something?



legolas returns - Dec 21, 2006 12:33 pm (#495 of 2055)
Just to go back a little

Dumbledore was absent from school for long periods of time. This would mean that the only way that he would know about the Sectumsempra is if someone told him. If he was away he could not watch Harry as much.

Dumbledore would know that Harry must have done something bad but we do not know if he knows the actual details-Snape would be reluctant. If we assume he knew what had happend. I dont know if he left it because he would have known that Harry would have felt really bad about what he had done-a learning experience. We have no clues that Dumbledore tried to use legilemency to find out the details.

I think that the meetings between Dumbledore and Harry were so focussed on the lessons/horcrux and the information that Dumbledore wanted to pass on that nothing would disturb this. Harrys insistance that Snape/Malfoy were up to no good was the only distraction.



HungarianHorntail11 - Dec 21, 2006 8:53 pm (#496 of 2055)
Harrys insistance that Snape/Malfoy were up to no good was the only distraction. legolas returns

It seemed to me as though the walls were caving in all around DD. Trelawney was on him about her warnings, Harry about Draco, Snape about - well whatever the exchange in the forest was about. It only seems natural that something would give.



legolas returns - Dec 22, 2006 12:43 am (#497 of 2055)
I would not like that sort of pressure on me.



DJ Evans - Dec 31, 2006 9:52 am (#498 of 2055)
Please excuse the interruption here, just need to ask a quick question. Something popped in my head late last night & it got me to wondering. Figured it would have been discussed before & someone could tell me what the ending consensus was?

I wondered if DD has 1st hand knowledge of what Harry is going through because he has already lived it in his own past in a similar situation? That prior to when DD defeated the dark wizard Grindelwald in 1945 he experienced some what a lot of things that Harry is having to go through now with LV. Also DD does have a scar above his knee that's never been explained as far as I know. Oh I not thinking DD was a baby when Grindelwald gave him the scar but Grindelwald could have tried to take out DD years earlier with the results being the scar. If that was the case, then DD would have an even better idea on how LV would most likely inter-act with Harry etc...DD then would look back to his own experiences to plot out the best route on teaching Harry how to best LV? As the old saying goes, history does repeat itself? NOTE: This a all 100% pure speculation on my part.

Later, Deb

EDITED: By me for a few corrections.



Steve Newton - Dec 31, 2006 10:17 am (#499 of 2055)
It sounds as if you are hinting at the Recurring Boy Who Lived Theory. There was once an extensive thread on this and I am not sure if it is still around.



MickeyCee3948 - Dec 31, 2006 11:01 am (#500 of 2055)
Yes DD did get the scar in his battle with Grindelwald but we are not told that it was the result of a reverse AK. We are told that no one other than Harry has ever survived an AK. And from DD own comments the only problem he admits to having with his scar is when the weather changes.

Mickey
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 501 to 550

Post  Mona on Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:39 am

Choices - Dec 31, 2006 11:44 am (#501 of 2055)
Mickey, where does your information come from about Dumbledore getting his scar in a battle with Grindelwald? Canon evidence (book one - Ch. one) tells us that Dumbledore's scar is a perfect map of the London Underground and that scars can come in handy....nothing more. Has JKR given more information in an interview or something? I remember nothing about his scar bothering him when the weather changes. Please tell me where to find that.



DJ Evans - Dec 31, 2006 1:18 pm (#502 of 2055)
I know we've been told that no one besides Harry has ever survived an AK, but that is not saying that someone hasn't done so before, right? DD could very well had & DD being DD wouldn't necessarily go boasting about it or I don't think he would personally. I'm just saying I can't see DD being the great wizard he is/was, going through as many battles as he had & yet NO one ever AK'd him. Wouldn't there be some wizard at some point try to take DD out by any ways/means? Such as LV maybe? Could that be the very reason why LV is so scared of DD, he knows that DD had survived an AK at some point?

As far as DD saying that his scar only bothers him when the weather changes (if it is canon), well since Grindelwald is dead now, it wouldn't/shouldn't bother him in that way anymore, right?

Just throwing back out some thoughts from what you said MickeyCee to see if there was something that I've forgotten that would answer those two thoughts. I have been known to forget important facts before...

"Recurring Boy Who Lived Theory"...Steve Newton: I never read that theory, is it about the same boy living over & over or the same story repeating itself? If it is the last then my answer probably would be in the discussions on it. Thanks for the heads up!

Later, Deb



Steve Newton - Dec 31, 2006 1:25 pm (#503 of 2055)
DJ, you should probably check this out:

vball man, "+ Recurring Boy Who Lived Theory (update)" #, 14 Sep 2004 8:53 am

It is called the Recurring Boy Who Lived (Update). I don't know if this means that there was a previous thread that got mulched or what.

Anyway, the RBL theory was that there is always a Boy Who Lived, a Strong Wizard, and an Evil? Wizard. For some reason folks thought that Harry was going to be the last Boy Who Lived and Dumbledore was the previous one. I was never too clear on all of the details but the thread was fun. It is in the Theories Group Section Folder.



DJ Evans - Dec 31, 2006 1:32 pm (#504 of 2055)
Thanks Steve! I'll head over there in a bit & give it a look see. Appreciate the link...

Later, Deb

UPDATE: I just went over (couldn't wait) & read vball's first post & he is thinking (except I can definitely tell he has given it much more thought than what I have) along the lines I was. Again thanks Steve.



Choices - Dec 31, 2006 6:47 pm (#505 of 2055)
DJ Evans - "I know we've been told that no one besides Harry has ever survived an AK, but that is not saying that someone hasn't done so before, right?"

Wrong - that is exactly what it is saying - NO one (except Harry) has ever survived an AK - on one before Harry and no one since.

DJ Evans - "As far as DD saying that his scar only bothers him when the weather changes (if it is canon), well since Grindelwald is dead now, it wouldn't/shouldn't bother him in that way anymore, right?"

I'm not sure I understand the connection between Grindelwald being dead and the weather bothering Dumbledore's scar?



MickeyCee3948 - Dec 31, 2006 11:42 pm (#506 of 2055)
Choices, I guess I was putting 2 and 2 together and came up with 3. Can't find any confirmation as to how DD got the scar. Nothing Hagrid said or anything else. Sorry, Off to slam my hands in the stove door. OOH that hurts.

Mickey



Choices - Jan 1, 2007 11:33 am (#507 of 2055)
Mickey, don't be too hard on yourself. I vaguely remember being wrong once.....or twice ...... OK, I will report for detention with Dolores and write "I will not tell lies" till my hand bleeds. LOL



Robert Dierken - Jan 7, 2007 7:41 pm (#508 of 2055)
Perhaps Albus got the scar when he was overrun by a goat stampede!



MickeyCee3948 - Jan 7, 2007 10:02 pm (#509 of 2055)
Thanks Choices I allow myself to be wrong 3 times a year. At the rate I'm going if I'm perfect hereon, I only need to live to be 325 years old to break even.

Mickey



Choices - Jan 8, 2007 11:32 am (#510 of 2055)
LOL I hope you live that long Mickey and are healthy, happy and still a HP addict. :-)



TomProffitt - Jan 24, 2007 9:11 am (#511 of 2055)
I've noticed something of a trend in reading a wide variety of posts on many different threads.

People (quite a few, but I haven't done the kind of checking to let me say whether it is a few, a lot, or most) seem to think that even though Dumbledore is gone he's going to still be helping Harry out.

Whether it's his portrait in the Headmaster's Office, memories for the pensieve, notes about "this that or the other thing," or "gifting" Fawkes to Harry, there is a recurring idea that Dumbledore will still be guiding Harry along the way in Deathly Hallows.

I disagree. I disagree most completely. Jo explained it herself when being questioned about the "reality" of Dumbledore's death, in this type of story the hero (Harry) has to go on alone. So, for Harry to go on alone there can be no significant help, particularly intentional pre-planned aid, from Dumbledore for Harry.

Dumbledore is gone. No help for Harry in any form that has significance. A trip to a portrait will prove unenlightening and disheartening rather than providing clues and inspiration. No memories for the pensieve remain that Harry has not seen before. Fawkes is unavailable. No note, clues, or helpful hints sit on the Headmaster's desk. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Harry is on his own.

No Dumbledore, until maybe, the denouement.



Mrs Brisbee - Jan 24, 2007 9:18 am (#512 of 2055)
I do think Harry will find useful information left behind by Dumbledore. Dumbledore did know a great many things, and played his cards close to his chest. I think he will have left some way to pass on vital information.

But I don't think Dumbledore is going to be running some pre-arranged plan from beyond the grave, pulling all the strings and manipulating things. He's dead and gone, and the decisions and choices are for the living to make.



Choices - Jan 24, 2007 10:39 am (#513 of 2055)
I agree Dumbledore won't be there pulling strings to help Harry vanquish Voldemort, but I think Dumbledore will always be with Harry. Those that love us never truly leave us, and as such I think Dumbledore will be there giving Harry the strength, knowledge and guidence he gave him in life. Dumbledore will be a very real presence in Harry's quest - his memory will comfort Harry and give him courage. Dumbledore may be dead, but he will never be truly gone as long as there are those at Hogwarts who are loyal to him, and we know Harry is Dumbledore's man, through and through.



Mrs Brisbee - Jan 24, 2007 11:13 am (#514 of 2055)
Well said, Choices.



Soul Search - Jan 24, 2007 11:58 am (#515 of 2055)
I tend to agree with TomProffitt that Harry will go it, mostly, alone, but I don't agree that the transition has occurred yet. Harry will get some final help from Dumbledore. (And, of course, Ron, Hermione, and others will provide some assistance. Snape will probably help too.)

I think we have canon for one more communication from Dumbledore. Dumbledore promised, on a couple of occasions, that Harry would hear the Ring horcrux story. Dumbledore keeps his promises.

I also think that Dumbledore is the only one who can convince Harry that Snape is on his side. I can't see how, but Dumbledore will manage it.

Thanks for a good, provocative, post, TomProffitt.



TomProffitt - Jan 24, 2007 1:35 pm (#516 of 2055)
My post (#511) was really motivated from thoughts about plot construction instead of a deep analysis of Dumbledore.

Of course, Harry will certainly have the aid of his friends and his past associations with Dumbledore, but for Harry to truly be an Epic Hero he has to be on his own for the final round. Just as Harry faced Quirrel, Horcrux Tom, The Dementors, Rebodified-Riddle, (almost Riddle alone again in OP), and Snape alone in the final battle of each of the six books, he really needs to fight that final battle alone. After all its not "Albus Dumbledore and the Deathly Hallows" it's "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows."

Jo needs to move Dumbledore from the mentor of HBP to a memory in DH for the sake of the plot.

(Edit: thanks Soul Search, I do try to write definitive statements)



Soul Search - Jan 24, 2007 3:58 pm (#517 of 2055)
"Dumbledore ... to a memory in DH."

This phrase brought up a vision. Harry, about to defeat Voldemort, with all those who have inspired him looking over his shoulder ... James, Lily, Cedric, Sirius, Dumbledore ... they are all gone, but will remain as Harry's inspiration.



MickeyCee3948 - Jan 24, 2007 7:08 pm (#518 of 2055)
Good One, Soul Search

Mickey



me and my shadow 813 - Jan 24, 2007 9:31 pm (#519 of 2055)
TomProffitt, I agree with your statement. I feel DD's portrait will communicate with McGonagall to convey Severus's innocence (or to confirm his guilt), and/or a pensieve memory will be available for McG. But I do not believe the story will be effective with DD being available for Harry. It just doesn't work that way. We might not even find out that DD was communicating with McG until the end of the book, when Harry has already had the final confrontation with Vold (and with Severus) and already figured things out for himself.



MickeyCee3948 - Jan 24, 2007 10:03 pm (#520 of 2055)
I believe that there will be a pensieve memory that DD made showing the meeting he had with Snape that made DD trust him so much. Whether Harry will find it before the end of the book or not I don't know. May be how Harry finally comes to terms with Snape in the end.

There will also be one that will show the retrival of the ring and what happen to his hand. At the start of the book that one will be more important to Harry.

The portrait will help Harry along the course set out for him IMO. Doubt if it will be able to assist Harry past comments about the direction he is going.

Mickey



Laura W - Jan 25, 2007 4:56 am (#521 of 2055)
"This phrase brought up a vision. Harry, about to defeat Voldemort, with all those who have inspired him looking over his shoulder ... James, Lily, Cedric, Sirius, Dumbledore ... they are all gone, but will remain as Harry's inspiration."

I like that very much, Soul Search.

(And a personal thank you for including Cedric.)

Laura



rambkowalczyk - Jan 25, 2007 5:20 am (#522 of 2055)
I don't think that the portrait will help Harry in any way. If anything Harry will realize that the portrait is only a reminder of Dumbledore and will not have any useful info to give.

I do believe Dumbledore will have a will and the will may give useful infomation. such as stay in school, and some of his unproven theories.

But it won't say anything about Snape.



TomProffitt - Jan 25, 2007 5:56 am (#523 of 2055)
"I believe that there will be a pensieve memory that DD made showing the meeting he had with Snape that made DD trust him so much." --- MickeyCee3948

It would be a much better story if Harry were to discover the secret to Snape's trustworthiness on his own. People make mistakes and now Dumbledore is dead, Harry isn't ready to trust Dumbledore's opinion because he believes that Dumbledore made a mistake that cost him his life.

Both Harry and many readers need something more than Dumbledore's opinion on Snape, they need to make the journey of discovery together.



Luna Logic - Jan 25, 2007 8:01 am (#524 of 2055)
Edited by Jan 25, 2007 7:09 am
So we could keep this part of MickeyCee's proposition ? "there will be a pensieve memory that DD made showing" (...) "the retrival of the ring and what happen to his hand. At the start of the book that one will be more important to Harry."

Because I think there was no other person (or else...) to testify about this scene, and yes, DD promised to Harry to tell him about, and, yes, it will be extremely useful (and more, vital) to Harry (and to us poor readers, it is vital too !) to learn how to destroy an horcrux.

And also it could be a scene in JKR's style, I am seeing the chapter, first Harry has to get access to DD study, then the memory, and then... adventure continues ! (Soon ! Not soon ! it's fun to imagine)



Soul Search - Jan 25, 2007 8:35 am (#525 of 2055)
rambkowalczyk,

"But it won't say anything about Snape."

I, sort of, like the idea of Harry defeating Voldemort without more help from Dumbledore. Harry becomes the undisputed heroic figure. I just can't see how it can happen.

The whole point of Snape's double agent role, from the beginning, has to have been so he could help the prophetic figure ... Harry. How can Snape help if Harry doesn't trust him?

I don't think Harry will come to trust Snape in some blinding epiphany, but will it be incremental. Perhaps, starting with Dumbledore, from the grave, telling Harry he still trusts Severus Snape.



MickeyCee3948 - Jan 25, 2007 10:14 am (#526 of 2055)
Tom Proffitt "It would be a much better story if Harry were to discover the secret to Snape's trustworthiness on his own". I presume Harry has discovered by this time that the pensieve scenes are truthful renditions of actual events. If Harry observes a pensieve scene where Snape is making a disclosure and showing remorse to Dumbledore I believe Harry(as much as he would hate it) could accept this just as he accepted the(James the Bully)pensieve scene.

I also disagree that Harry has to become the "undisputed heroic figure" Soul Search. The books have been all about the choices you make. Harry has chosen to trust and include a small group of confederates in his battles and dealing with Voldemort. I believe for JK to now say no "Harry must now go it alone" and defeat Voldemort by himself would be a contradiction to the previous 6 books. I understand his thinking of going it alone at the end of HBP but as you could see. Hermoine and Ron are having none of it.

The final battle may be Harry and Voldemort but at this time I am thinking that in order for Harry to escape without performing an unforgiveable curse the assistance of his friends(including Snape) will be required.

Mickey



TomProffitt - Jan 25, 2007 10:26 am (#527 of 2055)
"I believe for JK to now say no "Harry must now go it alone" and defeat Voldemort by himself would be a contradiction to the previous 6 books." --- MickeyCee3948

But she already has said it. I'm no genius with quote searching, but she made that statement in response to a question asking about Dumbledore's death.

When I say, "go on alone," I don't mean literally alone, I mean that the story becomes stronger when Harry no longer has a mentor to fall back on. We have seen Jo methodically remove mentor figures from Harry's life; he starts an orphan with unsympathetic guardians, Lupin must leave Hogwarts because of his lycanthropy, the Weasley's cannot adopt because of the magic which protects Harry, Sirius dies, and then Dumbledore dies.

From a writing standpoint it makes Dumbledore's death meaningless if all of the answers Harry needs have been left conveniently waiting for him. This would be quite contradictory to Jo's statement about the death being necessary for the plot.

If book 7 is merely Harry going from portrait to pensieve to note to receive his assignments it lessens the character Harry. Book 7 is where Harry must come into his own for himself rather than as Dumbledore's protoge.



journeymom - Jan 25, 2007 11:36 am (#528 of 2055)
Well put, Tom.



Thom Matheson - Jan 25, 2007 11:38 am (#529 of 2055)
Well put Tom.



Soul Search - Jan 25, 2007 11:38 am (#530 of 2055)
TomProffitt,

I think we are in basic agreement. Harry will have help getting up the hill, maybe even some small help from his departed mentors, but when he gets to the top ... he will stand alone. As prophesized.



MickeyCee3948 - Jan 25, 2007 12:07 pm (#531 of 2055)
I misunderstood your initial post Tom Proffitt by way of your clarification I agree. Harry will make the decisions and fight the final battle. I just meant that he won't be totally alone when he does. The others will be there for him.

Mickey



rambkowalczyk - Jan 25, 2007 1:23 pm (#532 of 2055)
The whole point of Snape's double agent role, from the beginning, has to have been so he could help the prophetic figure ... Harry. How can Snape help if Harry doesn't trust him? Soul Search

At some point in the book most likely the end, Harry will have another confrontation with Snape. Something will happen here that will make things tie together. Snape will fill in the missing pieces. Dumbledore isn't necessary. Whatever memory that Dumbledore has of Snape's worthiness is also going to be in Snape.

Also Snape can help Harry in such a way that Harry won't suspect it's Snape.



haymoni - Jan 25, 2007 1:43 pm (#533 of 2055)
Or Hermione will explain it all to him!



me and my shadow 813 - Jan 25, 2007 4:44 pm (#534 of 2055)
The whole point of Snape's double agent role, from the beginning, has to have been so he could help the prophetic figure ... Harry. How can Snape help if Harry doesn't trust him? - Soul Search

I disagree with the above. To me, the whole point of Severus's double agent role is for 1)suspense, 2)the reader reflecting on good vs. evil, 3)to illustrate to Harry in the end the imperfections of his father, godfather, and humanity in general. Harry doesn't have to trust Severus for him to help Harry from the Vold camp. Severus has an independent role to play, in my opinion.

I agree with TomProffitt completely and (sorry to keep doing this) I'm reminded of LotR when Frodo must be separated from Gandalf, but he still has Sam. Gandalf representing wisdom/mentor, and Sam representing facets of Frodo's own consciousness as a peer.



Die Zimtzicke - Jan 25, 2007 8:22 pm (#535 of 2055)
Back on protraits, some portraits are more useful than others. Mrs. Black...not useful and just sits around spouting the same catchphrases she used in life. Phineas...very articulate and quick thinking. Dumbledore, as the greatest wizard of the time, would undoubtedly be better as a portrait than most. No, I think that portrait will talk to SOMEONE at some point.



rambkowalczyk - Jan 26, 2007 1:09 pm (#536 of 2055)
The portrait may talk and might be useful in determining what is right as opposed to what is easy, but it isn't going to give away any of Dumbledore's secrets.



haymoni - Jan 26, 2007 1:30 pm (#537 of 2055)
I wonder if Phineas Nigellus will be of any use in that regard. He's certainly heard everything that has gone on in Dumbledore's office.

If Harry goes to #12, Phineas could be there sniggering away.



wynnleaf - Jan 28, 2007 8:31 pm (#538 of 2055)
Phineas has had a number of comments that sound like he knew a lot of Dumbledore's secrets. No other portraits were so outspoken (that I recall, anyway). JKR may have just mean him as someone colorful to have in Dumbledore's office. But she may have been setting him up to impart a lot of Dumbledore's information to Harry.

I can't imagine Dumbledore actually instructing Phineas to tell anything to Harry. I'd imagine that anything Phineas would say would be his own idea. On the other hand, don't the portraits have to serve the headmasters? So maybe he couldn't unless Dumbledore did instruct him to pass along information.



MickeyCee3948 - Jan 28, 2007 9:00 pm (#539 of 2055)
If he could pass information to Harry why not Dumbledore himself?

Mickey



Mrs Brisbee - Jan 29, 2007 4:45 am (#540 of 2055)
On the other hand, don't the portraits have to serve the headmasters? So maybe he couldn't unless Dumbledore did instruct him to pass along information.

Then it is possible that McGonagall-- if confirmed as Headmistress-- can instruct the portraits to tell her the information, especially if this information has to do with the wellbeing of Hogwarts. I really don't know how much of their life portraits are "born" knowing, but even if Dumbledore's portrait isn't all that helpful the rest of the portraits have been listening in on his conversations as Headmaster for years.



haymoni - Jan 29, 2007 7:23 am (#541 of 2055)
Mickey - I was just thinking of a way that Harry could get info without going to Hogwarts. He could go to #12 and use Phineas.

I wonder if Dumbledore's portrait will hang anyplace besides Hogwarts. I really can't see Rufus allowing the portrait to hang in the MOM, but perhaps public outcry would overrule him.



MickeyCee3948 - Jan 29, 2007 7:45 am (#542 of 2055)
I don't see where Albus and Rufus were that big of enemies. Rufus made a request and Albus/Harry refused his request. They all want to achieve the same objective. They just believe in different paths to accomplishing the tasks involved.

I can't believe that the ministry will hold it aganist Dumbledore. After all he was possibly the greatest wizard of all time.

Mickey



me and my shadow 813 - Jan 29, 2007 5:28 pm (#543 of 2055)
I wonder if Dumbledore's portrait will hang anyplace besides Hogwarts. - haymoni

I was imagining one with Aberforth in his quarters at the Hog's Head.

I don't see where Albus and Rufus were that big of enemies. - MickeyCee

I agree with you, Mickey. I see Rufus as coming to his senses in book 7. Perhaps even by the end joining with the Order aurors after hours.

If you don't mind me switching gears, I had a mind bending experience with PoA reread. Wondering if anyone else did regarding DD with the time-turning incident. Here's my ponderings:

At the "first" Buckbeak execution, was DD stalling for time by requiring McNair sign the paperwork? Because at the "second" Buckbeak execution (when Harry and Hermione are pulling Buckbeak from Hagrid's yard) Fudge, McNair, Hagrid and DD come out of the cabin and notice Buckbeak is missing. DD says "How extraordinary" and it says there was a "note of amusement" on his face. It is mentioned again a few sentences later how amused he was.

So my mindbending questions are:

- Did DD know at the "first" execution that this was all taking place or took place or about to take place? (perhaps you see how this gets twisted). I know he didn't know all of it at that *time*, otherwise he'd know Sirius was innocent. But can he shift around and figure what needs to be done? Can DD not only make himself invisible with a cloak, can he move through time without a time-turner?

That's exciting stuff. Whew, I need a cup of tea... or a large brandy.



haymoni - Jan 29, 2007 5:41 pm (#544 of 2055)
I could see Dumbledore finding it amusing that an innocent animal got away, whether he is all-knowing or not.



Soul Search - Jan 29, 2007 6:11 pm (#545 of 2055)
I, too, thought Dumbledore was intentionally delaying events and, perhaps, distracting the others from the action. Even the movie seemed to convey this.

My thought was that Dumbledore saw Harry and Hermione in the woods.

That is how he knew to suggest the time turner to Hermione and that two lives could be saved. That seemed a simpler explanation than Dumbledore using a time turner himself.



MickeyCee3948 - Jan 29, 2007 6:27 pm (#546 of 2055)
I wouldn't be surprised if he knew. I just reread SS and came to the conclusion at the end that DD knew everything that was going to happen and more or less let it happen as long as Harry didn't get into to much danger. He was also just around the corner. Seemed to me that he has been training Harry for this last battle since the story began.

Mickey



me and my shadow 813 - Jan 29, 2007 8:27 pm (#547 of 2055)
That seemed a simpler explanation than Dumbledore using a time turner himself. - Soul Search

Sorry, you all hopefully got that I meant to say DD can make himself invisible *without* a cloak... oops. So wondering if DD can time travel. I'm not saying he does it a lot, as Hermione made extremely clear in PoA, it is very very treacherous business. And I'm not suggesting anything about DD going back in time to prevent his own death, etc.. Just wondering, as Mickey said, it does seem DD always knows what's going on, simply says he has friends who tell him things but...?



journeymom - Jan 30, 2007 11:27 am (#548 of 2055)
He's got Fawkes, ghosts, portraits, teachers, a brother in the Hogs Head all at his disposal. And yes, he can make himself invisible.



Thom Matheson - Jan 30, 2007 11:38 am (#549 of 2055)
Way off thread, forgive me. Journeymom, does you pic have 4 feet?



journeymom - Jan 30, 2007 11:59 am (#550 of 2055)
Yes, that I can see! There may be two more around back that we can't see. Otherwise poor old Snapeward is anatomically INcorrect.
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 551 to 600

Post  Mona on Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:42 am

Thom Matheson - Jan 30, 2007 5:31 pm (#551 of 2055)
They do look like happy feet though. With the curled up smiley toes and all.



Robert Dierken - Jan 30, 2007 6:59 pm (#552 of 2055)
I wonder if Dumbledore's portrait will hang anyplace besides Hogwarts. I really can't see Rufus allowing the portrait to hang in the MOM, but perhaps public outcry would overrule him. Haymoni #541
Perhaps the muggle prime minister would like to have a Dumbledore portrait.
He can, of course, contact either the MOM or the OOTP through Kingsley Shacklebolt.



Choices - Jan 31, 2007 12:36 pm (#553 of 2055)
I feel certain that Dumbledore's portrait will hang in the MOM. He is, after all, Chief Warlock of the Wisengamot in addition to being the greatest wizard in the world.

I like the theory that Dumbledore had the locket around his neck. As you can see below, I posted the idea back in October.

+ Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened? #353 - Choices Oct 21, 2006 09:22 am I keep going back to the possibility that Dumbledore had the Horcrux pendant around his neck and Snape actually AK'd that and not Dumbledore. It just settles the question (for me) of Dumbledore not asking Snape to kill him, but to destroy the necklace. Now we know that the Horcruxes have very powerful charms/spells on them to protect them and Dumbledore seems, in his wisdom, to be able to figure out just how to get around these protections or at least deal with them...



MickeyCee3948 - Jan 31, 2007 12:42 pm (#554 of 2055)
I feel certain that if the MOM feels it will bring Harry in for a visit, they will put a lifesize portrait right next to the fountain.

Mickey



Thom Matheson - Feb 2, 2007 5:36 pm (#555 of 2055)
There is a paragraph in OoP, Chp 37 Pg 839 Amer. that has haunted me since reading it.

Dumbledore is talking to Harry after the MoM battle.

"I have watched you more closely then you can have imagined-not to want to save you more pain then you had already suffered.(Here comes the clincher) What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now you were alive, and well, and happy?"

So my question is what or who was Dumbledore willing to sacrifice? Lots of possibilities throughout the 6 books. The Dursleys, the Weasleys, house elves? But my latest thought, was Snape. Could, after what was said here, Dumbledore have basically thrown Snape to the wolves by putting him at such great risk on the tower, in order to save Harry? More importantly, did the great Dumbledore give someone up for Harry?

This is all conjecture so please don't play the canon card. I am merely looking into a possible character flaw in Dumbledore, based on that one statement, and I thought we could explore it.



T Vrana - Feb 2, 2007 6:26 pm (#556 of 2055)
Thom- I think he as refering to the people who might die, if Harry was not properly trained and prepared to take out LV. Which he hadn't been.

As to who he is willing to sacrifice? Just after HBP was released I theorized that he was willing to sacrifice Snape, and Harry. I think his tear as Harry left his office at end of OOTP was for Harry and what DD was about to do, finish his 'plan' that he kept mentioning in this chapter, to prepare the one who could vanquish LV, and leave him. In this theory, DD was not dead. I further speculated that DD saw in Harry the makings of a great wizard like himself, and was not prepared to leave the WW in Harry's hands until Harry had proven he was indeed a great wizard willing to sacrifice everything to save the WW. Do we really know Harry will do this? What if LV offered to spare Ginny if Harry would just walk away?

In this theory DD is looking for his replacement, and Harry vanquishing LV is only step one in his ascension to great wizard. DD, being 150 years old knows evil will come again, and he will not live forever. He needs a successor. He must also wonder if Harry will succeed. He's sixteen, brave, but straying toward revenge and anger, not relying on the love that is is power. He may fail. What then if DD is gone?

I'm not sure I strongly believe this anymore, but there is a more fully fleshed out version of this on the forum somewhere.

Just a thought...



Thom Matheson - Feb 2, 2007 7:11 pm (#557 of 2055)
I have read that quote over and over just as many have. Kind of tarnishes the lovable part of his character. Would he kill, would he stand aside and let others kill or be killed? "What did I care of numbers of faceless people died". Doesn't sound like good old Dumblydore to me. Sounds a bit more like Voldemort actually.



T Vrana - Feb 2, 2007 7:31 pm (#558 of 2055)
I don't think so. He wasn't saying he was actively going to hurt or sacrifice anyone for Harry. He was talking, I think, about a possible future if he didn't tell Harry the truth and prepare him for the end. He always planned to tell him, he just kept delaying it as he had come to care for Harry too much. The MoM proved it when students nearly died, Sirius died, and Harry nearly died. If Harry had died, could anyone else have vanquished LV? How many would die as others struggled to vanquish him? Nothing malicious on DD's part. Just the opposite, he loved Harry too much, and he realized after the MoM that he couldn't wait any longer. He couldn't protect Harry any longer. It was becoming too dangerous for Harry and for others

Nor was he willing to sacrifice Harry without Harry's agreement. That was why it was so important for DD to hear Harry say he understood that the prophesy had no power of him (Harry).



Thom Matheson - Feb 2, 2007 7:35 pm (#559 of 2055)
I guess I read it differently. What did I care, seems a bit cathardic to me.



T Vrana - Feb 2, 2007 7:56 pm (#560 of 2055)
But you are ignoring the 'vague future'. He's not talking about actually sacrificing anyone, just the possibility that others may, and probably will, die in the 'vague future', if Harry isn't prepared. Can you blame him? Remember the preamble to this. He has watched Harry for years, and has grown to care deeply for him. Let's remember that all DD has done is delayed telling a child that he is destined to face the most powerful evil wizard in the world. Why? Because Harry has had a miserable life, and what happiness he has found at Hogwarts should be his for a while.

Wouldn't we all do the same for our children? Delay the moment when we have to share this awful news? Especially if our child's first happiness arrived at age 11?



Thom Matheson - Feb 2, 2007 8:07 pm (#561 of 2055)
So you aren't reading anything else into this?



T Vrana - Feb 2, 2007 8:37 pm (#562 of 2055)
Nope. In the context of all that DD says, it is an admission that his love for Harry got in the way of telling Harry this awful truth and that in doing so, he admittedly put others in danger. But the MoM incident was DD's wakeup call that the time had come to do what he had always known he would do, he had to do.



Thom Matheson - Feb 2, 2007 9:25 pm (#563 of 2055)
That makes sense to me. I appreciate your insight, this time. I can sleep tonight.



Laura W - Feb 3, 2007 2:06 am (#564 of 2055)
You've made me feel better too, T.

(Whew!)

Laura



T Vrana - Feb 3, 2007 3:45 pm (#565 of 2055)
I appreciate your insight, this time. (THOM)

I think that makes two times....

You've made me feel better too, T. (Laura)





Ag Hart - Feb 5, 2007 11:07 pm (#566 of 2055)
I've always thought that quotation humanizes Dumbledore. It illustrates that he is capable of loving someone, not just loving humankind in the abstract sense. He loves Harry as a father or grandfather might. His words show that he is not simply the cold, detached general preparing his troops for the final battle between good and evil. His love for Harry presents an unexpected dilemma for Dumbledore, since the battle has become more than an intellectual feat for him. Now, not only his mind, but his heart, as well, is engaged. He speaks of his temptation to spare Harry, but knows it was never really an option, as he could only delay the inevitable. Ultimately, Dumbledore does what he has to do, but it is a struggle for him. Perhaps for the first time or in a long, long time (JKR has said his intellect had isolated DD), he feels the emotional pain of his choice. Nevertheless, Dumbledore does what is right. His inner struggle with those feelings only makes me love him more.



T Vrana - Feb 6, 2007 7:15 am (#567 of 2055)
Well said, Ag Hart.



Choices - Feb 6, 2007 11:11 am (#568 of 2055)
I agree, Dumbledore is an absolutely wonderful character. I love him!



Ag Hart - Feb 6, 2007 2:32 pm (#569 of 2055)
Thanks, T Vrana. Dumbledore has carried the combined weight of the wizarding and muggle worlds on his shoulders before reluctantly passing it off to Harry. Harry, at least, has Hermione and Ron as confidants and friends to lighten the burden, although Harry too must ultimately go it alone. Dumbledore not only accepted the awesome responsibility for the welfare and happiness of others, rather than seeking his own, but does so with such grace, always maintaining that remarkable sense of humor. No matter how the series ends, I hope Dumbledore finds happiness at last, in whatever form or state of being he finds himself. No one deserves it more.



Laura W - Feb 7, 2007 3:15 am (#570 of 2055)
And I stand with all you guys on Dumbledore.

As a matter of fact, much of my viewpoint on every aspect of these books comes from the premise that him representing the epitome of goodness is true. I accepted it from the first time I read PS and it has been a big factor in how I have seen the events, characters and messages (philosophical, ethical, etc.) of the whole series. This does not mean I think DD is perfect, as he is still a human being and there is no such a thing as a perfect human being.

Still, when PS first came out (in the days when I wouldn't have anything to do with those Harry Potter children's books - hitting myself over the head repeatedly with a heavy lamp ), Jo Rowling was interviewed by Evan Solomon of CBC TV and said then that the character of Albus Dumbledore represented the epitome of goodness. That is how she conceived him and how she chose to draw him.

Call me naive, but I believe her. I believe McGonagall and Binns when they said that DD was more than capable of doing Dark Magic, but wouldn't. Although I was/am horrified at how Snape treated Harry, Neville and other children as young as 11, I have always been willing to see some possible good in him (ie - that he really was working for the good guys although it put him in great danger) because I believe Hermoine, Lupin and Dumbledore himself when they say, "Dumbledore trusts Snape and I trust Dumbledore so I trust Snape" and, of course, "I trust Severus Snape completely."

All of the examples I gave above are totally predicated on my conviction of Dumbledore being the "epitome of goodness." I may be proven wrong on this in Book Seven, of course. I may discover that Jo lied to Evan Solomon (and others) when she made this definitive statement. But DH is not out yet and, to date, I still believe that DD *is* the most powerful, wisest, most talented, most caring, and most loving wizard around - just as I did on my first reading of Book One.

Laura



Steve Newton - Feb 7, 2007 5:24 am (#571 of 2055)
I don't know. There are a couple of hints that Dumbledore's life wasn't always so noble. In SS/PS McGonnagall says that he is too noble to do some spells (I wish I had my book to give the exact quotation). This suggests that he knows them. Another reason that he could be so noble and good and forgiving now is that someone in the past gave him a second chance.



TomProffitt - Feb 7, 2007 5:29 am (#572 of 2055)
"All of the examples I gave above are totally predicated on my conviction of Dumbledore being the 'epitome of goodness.'" --- Laura W

Laura, I think that Dumbledore can be the epitome of goodness and still have made a very big mistake. Should it turn out that Snape was deceiving Dumbledore all along it won't mean that Jo lied to us, it will only mean that Dumbledore wasn't as perfect as people have asked him to be.

On a side note, it looks to me like there's a pretty good chance Snape will turn out to be less evil than it first appeared in HBP, but I won't be surprised no matter how it turns out.



Laura W - Feb 7, 2007 6:47 am (#573 of 2055)
"Laura, I think that Dumbledore can be the epitome of goodness and still have made a very big mistake."

True. As I wrote, "This does not mean I think DD is perfect, as he is still a human being and there is no such a thing as a perfect human being." All I was saying was that, *if* I was willing to give Snape any benefit of the doubt, it was entirely based on DD's say-so. Without that, I would have definitely placed the Potions Master on the bad side. And I *am* willing to give Snape that benefit based on my trust of DD.

When I wrote, "I may be proven wrong on this in Book Seven, of course. I may discover that Jo lied to Evan Solomon (and others) when she made this definitive statement," I wasn't talking about the possibility that Snape has fooled Dumbledore. If that proves to be the case, I do not at all think that would take away from DD's goodness. (Sorry if I gave you that impression.) That would just be an honest mistake on Dumbledore's part. After all, he underestimated the depth of resentment Severus still had for whatever wound - real or imagined - James caused him.

When I wrote what I did about finding out differently in Book Seven and Jo lying about her description of him, I was talking about us finding out that Dumbledore is willfully evil or a bad wizard or some such. Like he's really working for LV and he plans to hand the whole Order over to him to be tortured and killed, or he deliberately set Harry up to be vanquished by Tom Riddle because he has always hated Harry, or he's really more racist than Lucius Malfoy. (I am not expecting any of this, by the way.)

I have no doubt that we will find out about some mistakes Dumbledore made in his past. But before she even wrote her first book, JKR knew that DD had made these mistakes and that her readers would be finding out about them; yet she still called him "the epitome of goodness."

Laura



TomProffitt - Feb 7, 2007 6:58 am (#574 of 2055)
Ah, I understand, Laura, I can't imagine Dumbledore being willfully evil, either. I can't say I'd be surprised if he had some "modern ethical views" though. The kind of thing that sparks controversial debate these day. I'm not expecting it and don't see how it would fit in the story, but that I can see.



Die Zimtzicke - Feb 7, 2007 1:56 pm (#575 of 2055)
Dumbledore is a good person, doing the best he can, but bad things happen to good people, and they are sometimes forced into situations where all of the available choices are difficult ones. That's how I see Dumbledore. If he's ever had to "dance with the devil", so to speak, it would have been because there was no better choice, and some action had to be taken.

That would take nothing away from Jo's earlier statement.



Choices - Feb 7, 2007 6:55 pm (#576 of 2055)
I agree with you, Die. I just have a feeling that there is a dark secret from Dumbledore's past that we will find out about. Sometimes you have to have done some of the "dark arts" in the past to be so against them in the present, and sometimes a torn soul can make you really appreciate and value one that is whole and untarnished. There are probably about a hundred years of Dumbledore's life that we know nothing about and I would bet money that they were not uneventful. Sometimes wisdom comes from having to do things you don't want to do - from having to make difficult choices for the greater good. I think Dumbledore has been in that position.



Luna Logic - Feb 8, 2007 2:56 am (#577 of 2055)
Die Zimtzicke and Choices, you have expressed my thoughts. (very difficult to express for me in the matter of good and evil). Life is experiencing, making choices, trying to act accordingly, and then making mistakes. The good person, in my view, is the one who accepts to look on her mistakes, regardless how terrible they might have been. Some of those may be very painful to accept… And yes, sometimes we have to make choices between options each one leading to some sort of harm. I think Jo will make us know something very important about Dumbledore previous live and past in tome 7. And still Dumbledore will be "the epitome of goodness" as Laura W. and JKR wish him to be!



mona amon - Feb 8, 2007 5:03 am (#578 of 2055)
I think we have already seen examples of DD's bad choices,or 'big mistakes',for instance,his underestimation of Draco in HBP,and his failure to explain things properly to Harry in OOTP,resulting in Sirius's death.

Ofcourse if DD hadn't made these mistakes,there would not have been much of a story to tell.I feel that more than any other character in the books,DD is the victim of plot considerations.JKR has to have her 'epitome of goodness'make these'big mistakes'.

A hundred and fifty years is enough time to make a number of mistakes,but I'm confident it was nothing dark or evil,or he just would not be the sort of person he is now,calm,lighthearted and lovable--unlike Snape,who although he has reformed(I believe)still carries his darkness about him.



Luna Logic - Feb 8, 2007 5:20 am (#579 of 2055)
Edited by Feb 8, 2007 4:22 am
mona amon, may be Dumbledore crossed the barrier between good and evil just once ? Dumbledore has been young, too, and his emotions may be were powerfull in that age, as they are in most youngsters. I'm thinking of Harry with using the sectumsempra spell. And may be Dumbledore step on the dark side was done in the "heat" of protecting someone?

I would add to the present discussion a link to Odin-worship 45. Alecto and Amycto, the DE who where sent to the Tower, were in discussion:

Round Pink Spider :“ I have no doubt that LV had his reasons for sending whom he did, and that those DEs were meant to kill DD if Draco didn't, and if Snape backed down (LV may not have known about Snape's Vow). The reason I'm speculating that they were there to represent Dumbledore's past, is that it would be very bad writing technique to introduce two NEW characters whom the dying hero knows, at the climax of a book, for only one scene, without a very, very good reason. Dumbledore's past is probably important to the course of Deathly Hallows, so the new characters will serve as a bridge, to help us connect to Dumbledore's past.”

I like this idea of “a bridge” to Dumbledore’s past. May be they are other links to that past in the various HP books.



Choices - Feb 8, 2007 11:50 am (#580 of 2055)
Mona Amon - "....but I'm confident it was nothing dark or evil,or he just would not be the sort of person he is now...."

In my previous post (#576) I did not mean to imply that I thought Dumbledore did anything evil, just that perhaps in fighting evil he had to use dark magic to combat dark magic or evil. Perhaps he even had to kill someone to vanquish evil. I sure hope we find out about his past as I think it is important for us to know what went on early in his life. Whatever he did (or had to do), it in no way diminishes my opinion of him. I love Dumbledore and think he is truly a wonderful, loving, brilliant man - kind and forgiving and magically powerful.



T Vrana - Feb 8, 2007 1:45 pm (#581 of 2055)
I am hoping we will find he never compromised and has always found a way to avoid using Dark Magic, while still being the most powerful wizard in the WW. I truly like the idea that he had this wonderful ability and power, even as a boy,(doing things with a wand the examiners had never seen) and was never tempted to abuse it, not even for the 'right' reasons.

EDIT- I wanted to add to above. I think the story of the good wizard tempted to use Dark Magic and ultimately finding it is the wrong path, even for the right reasons, is Harry's story.



Die Zimtzicke - Feb 8, 2007 9:25 pm (#582 of 2055)
I know we can't prove it because it doesn't exactly say so, but what if he had to KILL Grindelwald to defeat him? Would that be good, or evil, since killing is wrong, but Grindlewald himself was evil? Is that why he now refuses to try to kill Tom in the DoM?



Mediwitch - Feb 8, 2007 9:38 pm (#583 of 2055)
I'm reasonably sure Dumbledore didn't try to kill Voldemort in the MoM because he knew about the horcruxes, so there was no point in trying to kill him. I don't think that it had anything to do with Dumbledore killing (or not) anyone else.



Laura W - Feb 9, 2007 2:10 am (#584 of 2055)
I think Dumbledore did not try to kill Tom in the MOM because of the prophecy. He knew Harry was the only one who was destined to do it. By allowing Voldemort to live during the atrium encounter, DD knew he was possibly condemning Harry Potter to death, which must have killed him (DD) inside. But he was doing what was right, not what was easy.

Still, DD has said more than once that Harry has a power that Tom does not (yeah, love), and I think he really believes that will give Potter a great advantage in the final battle. It is not a guarantee of the outcome though. And, if we know this, Dumbledore - who is about a thousand times wiser than we - must know this too. Yet, whether he would choose to or not, he has to let the prophecy play itself out to its conclusion. JM2K

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This whole Grindelwald issue is (purposely?) vague, I'd say. The chocolate frog card does not say DD "killed" the dark wizard Grindelwald, or even that he "vanquished" him. The words used are "defeat of the dark wizard Grindelwald in 1945." It could be defeat by means not including any of the Dark Arts. McGonagall must know Dumbledore's illustrious history - as seems to the whole WW (Mrs. Figg says everyone knows Dumbledore) -, yet she still says, in PS, that he is too "noble" to use the dark powers LV uses.

Still endless unanswered questions. ...



mona amon - Feb 9, 2007 4:21 am (#585 of 2055)
Luna,Choices,T Vrana and Die,it all comes down to the controversial topic of whether it is justifiable or not to kill an evil person,or in terms of the WW,whether it is forgivable to use an 'unforgivable'to get rid of a menace to society.

Personally,I have no problem with DD killing the dark wizard Grindelwald(if he did),and wouldn't consider it an evil act,but a heroic one.Definitely not something that rips the soul.

In the same way I would not have any problem with Harry killing LV with an AK or Sectumsempra or any other means in his power.And if I understood it correctly,DD doesn't have a problem with it either.In the 'Horcruxes' chapter in HBP he and Harry discuss the killing of LV,and Harry even asks

"I've got to try and kill him or-"

"Got to?"said DD,"ofcourse you've got to!..."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Laura,DD doesn't set much store by the Prophecy,and even gets impatient with Harry for doing so.(in the same chapter I quoted above).So,I agree with Mediwitch that it must have been the thought of the horcruxes that held him back.



Laura W - Feb 9, 2007 6:21 am (#586 of 2055)
"And if I understood it correctly,DD doesn't have a problem with it either.In the 'Horcruxes' chapter in HBP he and Harry discuss the killing of LV,and Harry even asks. "I've got to try and kill him or-" "Got to?"said DD,"of course you've got to!..." "

Yes, Dumbledore did say that. No question. Because LV took the prophecy seriously and marked Harry as his equal and has continued to hunt him, he (Tom) has assured that the prophecy must be played out and "neither can live while the other survives." DD has said this in OoP and he has said this in HBP. He fully expects Harry to go after LV and to destroy the Horcruxes and then to destroy Tom Riddle. I know this. Everybody knows this.

But .... do not forget the rest of what Dumbledore said during the talk he had with Harry in the Horcruxes chapter. He - Jo - tells Harry (and us) that Potter has the "uncommon skill and power" of love which is what will kill Voldemort.

(DD): "It will take uncommon skill and power to kill a wizard like Voldemort, even without his Horcruxes."

(Harry): "But I haven't got uncommon skill and power."

(DD): "Yes, you have. You have a power that Voldemort has never had. You can -"

I think Jo is telling us something here. Giving us a hint - however obscure - about how Harry will take LV down (even if Harry goes down with him). And DD is telling us once again that, even in this most extreme case, he does not see Harry needing to use the Dark Magic.

One more quote, from the same chapter. Dumbledore tells Harry emphatically, "In spite of all the temptation you have endured, all the suffering, you remain pure of heart, just as pure as you were at the age of eleven, when you stared into a mirror that reflected your heart's desire, and it showed you only the way to thwart Lord Voldemort..."

Dumbledore wants Harry to defeat LV, of course. He even wants him to kill him. But based on all that I have quoted since the beginning of this post, I cannot believe, I do not believe, DD would want Harry to blemish his pure heart - regardless of whether it tears his soul or not - by removing Voldemort from this world by using an Unforgivable or any other Dark Magic. Nor does DD believe Harry needs to do so in order to accomplish the task before him. Harry hasn't got that message yet, as of the end of HBP, but I have . I just feel SO strongly about it!!

And I think Jo will have Harry get that message - although I have absolutely no idea how - in DH. There is just too much wink-wink, nudge-nudge, hint-hint, hitting us over the head references (from DD) to Harry rejecting the Dark Arts and defeating LV with love; and also to Dumbledore hating Dark Magic and everything else that Voldemort represents (ie - racism against Muggle-borns and non-wizard creatures, winning through threats and intimidation, etc.).

I don't know how Jo is going to pull this off (now, that's an understatement!). But I would bet a hundred Galleons - that's $1,166 Cdn. at current rate - that she will not have Harry Potter use Unforgivables or any other seriously dark spells in his vanquishing of Tom Riddle. That would be besmirching everything that Albus Dumbledore stands for, and it would have been done by the boy Dumbledore has loved above others. I can't believe JKR would do that. It's too cruel!

(i could, of course, be proven wrong on this ... as could any of us on our theories and strong feelings about what will transpire in DH)

Laura



Thom Matheson - Feb 9, 2007 7:26 am (#587 of 2055)
I also think that there will be more to the Grindewald story. That which will give us more on DD.



T Vrana - Feb 9, 2007 7:40 am (#588 of 2055)
But I would bet a hundred Galleons - that's $1,166 Cdn. at current rate - that she will not have Harry Potter use Unforgivables or any other seriously dark spells in his vanquishing of Tom Riddle

I think you are correct, Laura.



Thom Matheson - Feb 9, 2007 7:42 am (#589 of 2055)
Does that mean I can cover the bet with $5.93 US?



wynnleaf - Feb 9, 2007 8:11 am (#590 of 2055)
But I would bet a hundred Galleons - that's $1,166 Cdn. at current rate - that she will not have Harry Potter use Unforgivables or any other seriously dark spells in his vanquishing of Tom Riddle. (Laura)

Yes, I agree.

However, I think as regards Harry's pure heart, it's important to note that he has already used an unforgiveable on more than one occasion. DD of course, didn't know that. But Harry has done it. My guess is that JKR will have Harry work through and past his hatreds before facing LV for the final time.

My feeling about Harry directly killing LV is that within the WW morality, it is okay for Harry to kill LV. I think Dumbledore acknowledges this.

But I think that JKR's themes that she seems to want to address in the books will prevent Harry from being allowed -- by the writer -- to destroy LV by directly killing him with some curse or another, Dark or otherwise. I think JKR has been signaling that Harry's ability to love will somehow end up causing LV's destruction. Not Harry's ability to cast any sort of killing spell.



mona amon - Feb 9, 2007 7:21 pm (#591 of 2055)
He fully expects Harry to go after LV and to destroy the Horcruxes and then to destroy Tom Riddle. I know this. Everybody knows this.-Laura

Ok.The discussion was about whether if DD had to kill someone to vanquish evil in the past,it would still be an evil deed.And I used that quote to illustrate my point that DD did not seem to consider it an evil deed.

I do not believe, DD would want Harry to blemish his pure heart - regardless of whether it tears his soul or not - by removing Voldemort from this world by using an Unforgivable or any other Dark Magic

I suppose I gave the impression that DD did not have any problem with the use of dark magic.I should have worded it more carefully.I meant that he did not have a problem with Harry killing LV.

Anyway,your post set me thinking on a different track.What is the ethical difference,once you have decided to kill someone,whether you do it with an AK,or whether it comes about by some mysterious means involving Harry's ability to love?How does it blemish his pure heart more?And I'm glad DD never suggests that there is some sort of difference here.



Laura W - Feb 10, 2007 6:05 am (#592 of 2055)
"I suppose I gave the impression that DD did not have any problem with the use of dark magic.I should have worded it more carefully.I meant that he did not have a problem with Harry killing LV. "

Thanks for the clarification, mona amon. (smile) Yes, I did think you were saying DD did not have any problem with Harry using dark magic to kill LV. Now that I know that you were saying just that he did not have a problem with Harry killing LV, I fully agree with you.

As a matter of fact, I take his (DD's) words to mean that he *wants* Potter to. Just not using Dark Magic which DD hates, and does not approve of, and won't allow to be taught in his school, and condemns Tom Riddle for studying and mastering during the scene where Tom comes to Hogwarts for the DADA job, and which McGonagall says that DD is too noble to use.

Your last paragraph poses, in my view, an incredible dilemma for JKR. One that she figured out in the years 1990-94 when she was outlining the whole Harry Potter saga, but which I couldn't answer had I a million years (which probably makes it a good thing that *I* was not forced to write DH - smirk - and also why I do not write fanfiction).

And I *do* think DD believes there is an ethical difference in Harry killing LV or anyone else using Dark Magic, or doing it without using Dark Magic. DD is just SO anti-dark arts ("... but he (LV) was in such a hurry to mutilate his own soul, he never paused to understand the incomparable power of a soul that is untarnished and whole." HBP, p.478, Raincoast)! Power of an untarnished soul. A soul that is whole and untarnished - and which shall remain so - more powerful, magically, than one which has been made the way it is by the embracing of and use of Dark Magic. Therefore, better equipped to be the victor. The part of the quote in my previous post (586) which had DD say, "you remain pure of heart, just as pure as you were at the age of eleven, when you stared into a mirror that reflected your heart's desire, and it showed you only the way to thwart Lord Voldemort..." tells me that DD sees Harry defeating (thwarting) Voldemort in a more ethically acceptable way - to the Headmaster - than by using a dark spell or spells. That's my interpretation, anyway.

For example, mona, allowing that Dumbledore wants for Harry to "vanquish" Tom Riddle, I think he would have a very difficult time if Harry did it by casting an AK, but would feel Harry Potter's heart and soul would remain "whole and untarnished" if Harry defeated LV by, say, luring him into the Department of Mysteries, into the Love Room, and all that love floating around killed Voldemort. Everything about Albus Dumbledore - as *I* see him, anyway - tells me so.

Laura

PS - Thom Matheson, I got your joke. I'm just ignoring it. (Huge Grin!) I'd also suggest you check the current exchange rate. You might be very surprised.



Thom Matheson - Feb 10, 2007 8:33 am (#593 of 2055)
Probably best that you did, Laura. I just don't know what comes over my fingers sometimes.



Ag Hart - Feb 10, 2007 10:40 pm (#594 of 2055)
Great to read Dan's comments on his conversation with Jo, regarding Dumbledore on the TLC news page. As we expected, Dumbledore's role in DH is important, at least, important enough to give her problems. It is intriguing that she affirms that he is dead, but "it's more complex." I'm glad to see her confirm that he will remain an integral part of the plot. I'm looking forward to a great read!



Midori - Feb 11, 2007 4:57 am (#595 of 2055)
I think by saying that Jo meant that she had problems with writing part where Dumbledore explains Harry about the plan he had with Snape... concerning Vow and the night when headmaster died at the tower...



Ag Hart - Feb 11, 2007 11:56 am (#596 of 2055)
Midori-- What form do you expect DD to take in order to explain that plan? How will he explain that and the circumstances of his death? Why do you think the explanation was so problematic that Jo needed a break?

We do know that some information about Dumbledore and his family's history is in order and that also may have presented problems for Jo. That might have required a lot of effort to bring that info naturally into the the story. His relationship to Fawkes might also be explored in DH, as she seemed to hint back in 2005, that he (Fawkes) has a role in Book 7.



Die Zimtzicke - Feb 11, 2007 4:55 pm (#597 of 2055)
I think Jo could have referred either to the portrait, the veil, or memories that Dumbleodre left behind, but she could certainly have just been referring to the aftermath of Dumbledore's death when she spoke of those problems she was having.



mona amon - Feb 11, 2007 9:15 pm (#598 of 2055)
As a matter of fact, I take his (DD's) words to mean that he *wants* Potter to. Just not using Dark Magic which DD hates, and does not approve of, and won't allow to be taught in his school, and condemns Tom Riddle for studying and mastering during the scene where Tom comes to Hogwarts for the DADA job, and which McGonagall says that DD is too noble to use.-Laura

Yes,DD hates the Dark Arts,will not have anything to do with them,and will not teach them or allow them to be taught.We certainly do not see him preparing Harry for his task by saying,"ok,this is how you cast an AK."

But on the other hand he no doubt hates killing just as much as he hates the dark arts.Yet here he is in a position where he has to egg Harry on to kill someone.So under the circumstances,I feel it would make DD something of a hypocrite if he were to say to Harry,"you've got to kill LV,but mind you,no dark magic."And that's why I'm glad that DD never suggests to Harry that it would be morally superior to kill LV with'love'rather than an AK.

It is the act of willfully killing that is dark out here,and any method to bring it about will be necessarily dark.

However,this dillema does not seem to bother DD as much as it bothers us.The fact is,there is no way a seventeen year old wizard,who hasn't shown any exceptional talents in any branch of magic,will be able to beat a wizard of LV's calibre,by using the dark arts.

The only way for Harry to defeat LV is to 'play to his strengths',use those qualities of his that LV does not have,his ability to love,the fact that he has friends.

A good example of this is when Harry makes a desperate attempt to get rid of the inferii with sectumsempra.He fails utterly,while DD easily succeeds with a 'light'spell.Harry has to learn to make this connection.

In short,I'm trying to say that destroying darkness with light is very good strategy in this case.So DD is not faced with any difficult choices here.



Nathan Zimmermann - Feb 11, 2007 10:59 pm (#599 of 2055)
I tend to think that as part of Harry's lessons Dumbledore is deliberately attempting engender within Harry a more temperate and thoughtful nature as part of Harry's training a nature that would allow Harry to bring to the fore readily that latent trait of mercy that exist within Harry as demonstrated by this passage from HBP.

In any case, as you are about to see, Merope refused to raise her wand even to save her own life." "She wouldn't even stay alive for her own son?" Dumbledore raised his eyebrows. "Could you possibly be feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort?" "No," said Harry quickly, "but she had a choice, didn't she, not like my mother -" "Your mother had a choice too," said Dumbledore gently. "Yes, Merope Riddle chose death in spite of a son who needed her, but do not judge her too harshly, Harry. She was weakened by long suffering and she never had your mother's courage. (HBP Large Print Edition pages 338-339)

I would argue that Harry demonstrated a lantent mercy without realizing it in this passage from PoA:

"NO!" Harry yelled. He ran forward, placing himself in front of Pettigrew, facing the wands. "You can't kill him," he said breathlessly. "You can't." . . . ."We'll take him up to the castle. . . . We'll hand him over to the dementors. . . . he can go to Azkaban . . . but don't kill him." "Harry!" gasped Pettigrew, and he flung his arms around Harry's knees. "You - thank you - it's more than I deserve - thank you -" (PoA Large Print Edition pages 511-512)

and while, it may have been hard for Harry to show mercy to Wormtail, the man who betrayed them, it would in all likelihood be harder still to show mercy to Voldemort, the man who murdered them.

Dumbledore's question to Harry whether he was feeling sorry for Voldemort reminded of a passage from Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring.

`. . . What a pity Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!' `Pity? It was pity that stayed his hand. Pity and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded Frodo Be sure he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because, he began his ownership of the Ring so. With pity' . . . . Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be to eager to deal out death and judgement For even the very wise cannot see all ends. (J.R.R. Tolkein, Fellowship of the Ring 1994 Edition page 65)

It acknowledged that Harry's ability to love is vital to the conclusion of the series. I wonder though will his ability to show mercy and feel pity also play a role in the defeat of Voldemort and to what extent is Dumbledore atempting to instill these traits in Harry to ensure that he reflects his mother and father in equal measure?



Midori - Feb 12, 2007 12:24 am (#600 of 2055)
Ag Hart,
"What form do you expect DD to take in order to explain that plan?"
Simpliest assumption that comes to mind is headmaster's portrait. I can even paint this amusing scene when Harry bursts into headmaster's office and screams to portrait of Dumbledore with bitterness in his voice-"Professor! How could you trust him, the murderer!" And the headmaster's calm voice in answer- "And I still do, Harry..."

It can be also pensieve memory, written note or whatever. Powerful wizard as Dumbledore can influence the reality even if he is dead, technically.

"How will he explain that and the circumstances of his death?"
I don't know how it can be explained in details- 7th book will be published only in July:)

"Why do you think the explanation was so problematic that Jo needed a break? "

Assuming the theory that Snape and Dumbledore had a plan, including the death of headmaster (I dont know how it happened,-we had bunch of theories on the forum, but all further conclusions are result of this assumption)-I think Jo had some difficulties with Dumbledore explaining Harry (such a stubborn person who isn't predisposed to change his initial mind about another person [Snape]) why it was necessary to sacrify and keep in secret true loyalties of potionmaker. It must sound earnestly enough for Harry, as even all those years in Hogwarts Dumbledore kept telling Harry about his "complete trust" in Snape- but had those speeches had any effect on Harry's opinion?-noway! So why one can think that even after death, when Harry himself had seen that Snape killed headmaster, the words (the message) of Dumbledore would penetrate Harry's head easily?

Or, as an alternative. Even if Snape really killed Dumbledore, Jo would face with ethical problem of justifying it (in a certain way, for sure). While honestly I think she wouldn't develop the plot this way. No matter how reasonable explaination would sound or if the end really justifies the means- not everyone can accept it. Like not everyone can accept euthanasia.

Just my humble opinion...
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 601 to 650

Post  Mona on Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:29 am

Ag Hart - Feb 12, 2007 9:05 am (#601 of 2055)
Thanks, Midori--and you just about covered #2 in #1. All are possible, of course, and I expect they will be used to some extent. I am also hoping for something more personal. Dumbledore will always be alive in the past, and JKR hasn't ruled out more time travel. (We must not forget that time travel works both ways. Harry could pay a visit to the past or DD to the present.) I do think, however, that she will have a surprise for us, some new way of interaction, perhaps only hinted at previously. DD's office contained a multitude of instruments that might be utilized, or perhaps DD left something for Harry in Aberforth's care, maybe something on the order of the two-way mirror. Dumbledore wasn't afraid of death, so I don't expect that he will be a ghost, unless there are other reasons why a wizard might remain behind before moving on. He could also materialize in some new form. Dumbledore is no ordinary wizard; options are only limited by JKR's imagination, which we know is formidable.



Laura W - Feb 12, 2007 9:33 am (#602 of 2055)
Yes, I take Jo's comment to mean that Dumbledore will be a big part of Book Seven. Not him personally, because he's dead, but all the parts of his story that she has (deliberately) not given us to date.

Complex? I should think so! She has to explain about the big mistake he made in the past and how it has affected his and other's lives; she has to explain in great and believable detail about why he *really* trusts Snape and show why it is or is not ultimately justified; she has to tell us more about his relationship with Harry's parents. Also, she will have to explain in a believable way what really happened in the Cave and on the Astronomy Tower (also Dumbledore's story). Finally, I believe she will have to figure out a way to write in what manner the dead Dumbledore communicates with Harry in DH (eg - a Pensieve memory?, a talking portrait?, a message written in a diary?, instructions previously left with a member of the Order to be given to Potter upon DD's death? Fawkes? something I haven't thought of?), in order to give him more tools with which to find the Horcruxes and defeat LV.

Obviously she's done all this now, but it couldn't have been easy!! And, when she had that short conversation with Mr. Radcliffe, she was still writing the book - and trying to give her readers very complex information about and from a man who was dead. Without bringing him back to life, she had to show us and/or tell us all the stories connected with him that will tie up all the loose ends for us. And do it in a way that will be credible within the parameters of everything we have already read in the first six books.

Yes, Dumbledore is dead. But he is not out of the picture. When she said, "It's more complex" than him just being dead (as in completely gone and out of the story), *my* interpretation of what she said was, "Yes, he is dead; but I cannot just leave him out of the last book. That would be simple. I have to keep him dead but still have everybody see what he did in the past and have him pass on information to Harry posthumously. That makes things complex." Of course, this is just my interpretation.

Possibly we are all making too much out of this one statement of hers. Maybe all she was saying was that Dumbledore's stories will be told in detail in DH and that she was having some difficulty putting them down on paper on the day she came to the OoP set. Who really knows?

Laura



Die Zimtzicke - Feb 12, 2007 10:13 am (#603 of 2055)
Dumbledore's stories, at least some of them, must be told before the end, or I for one will be very let down. So much has been left hanging there.



wynnleaf - Feb 12, 2007 10:33 am (#604 of 2055)
I would think that many aspects of what she planned to do with Dumbledore in book 7 had already been decided by the time she completed HBP -- many long before that.

Obviously what occured at the Astronomy tower has likely been planned from the beginning of the series -- perhaps exactly which book she placed it in, or the exact sequence of events wasn't, but overall that aspect of the plot is too big to have been decided on only when she got to writing HBP.

So my expectation is that having planned to end HBP with DD's funeral, she'd have already known the basics for how DD would be communicating with Harry in the future -- whether as completely dead, communicating through portraits, penseives, a ghost and so on, or whether as some sort of not-properly-dead person communicating in some other way. I don't think she went through HBP still not knowing how Harry would be hearing from DD in the last book.

Further, I doubt sincerely if she ended HBP having not yet decided the basics on how Harry was going to hear about DD's trust in Snape, the truth about the Cave and Tower, etc.

More likely, there were problems with how DD's communications (properly dead or otherwise) could be done in order to believably change any of Harry's thinking or actions. I agree with Midori that since Harry never would believe DD's trust in Snape while he was alive, he's even less likely to believe in it now.

If there are pensieve memories, and I really hope there are, I imagine they'ed need to be full-blown scenes, like the long Tom Riddle memories.



Die Zimtzicke - Feb 12, 2007 10:37 am (#605 of 2055)
I know what you are saying about her planning, but we know she gave a reprieve to a character she meant to kill and decided to kill two characters she had not planned on killing, so it's not like she didn't make other changes along the way. It's entirely possible some of them had to do with Dumbledore. Maybe she just realized in retrospect there were some problems with how she wrote his death and she decided to find a way to address them.

Who knows?



Laura W - Feb 12, 2007 10:54 am (#606 of 2055)
wynnleaf, yes we know that Jo knew the basic plot of all seven books before she even wrote the first one. I didn't mean that she didn't know *what* the DD stories in DH would be. I'm sure she did, overall. When I wrote "Maybe all she was saying was that Dumbledore's stories will be told in detail in DH and that she was having some difficulty putting them down on paper on the day she came to the OoP set," - and everything else in my last post re the complexities of everything she has to explain re DD in DH - I did not mean that she didn't know what she was going to say but that she might have been having some temporary problems actually crafting it.

Without saying why I know this from personal experience, I can tell you that there is a huge jump between knowing what you are going to write, and writing it.

Having ideas - even well-formed ideas - of what you are going to tell your readers are one thing; putting them down in a coherent way, using exactly the right words and making it compelling and interesting to your audience is a totally different thing. And on that day, she just might have been having trouble, technically-speaking.

What she might have been expressing in her comment was her frustration in getting those parts of the book (ie - one or more of DD's stories) just right: the exact wording, the pacing, not saying too much or too little too soon, the dialogue, etc. (*Not* the content which, as we both agree, she knew more-or-less a long time ago.) Everyone who writes for a living has those days, I can say without fear. Even the greats, like JKR.

Anyway, I'm just putting this out as a possibility.

Laura

Or it may be what Die wrote above.



verde823 - Feb 13, 2007 10:52 am (#607 of 2055)
I have a theory about the "gleam of triumph" in Dumbledore's eyes. In GoF, Voldemort believes that now that he has Lily's protection also, he will be able to kill Harry. We know this did not happen. What if it means that Voldemort can't kill Harry (again, underestimating the power of love). He may be able to possess Harry now, but perhaps the protection of Lily's death is working against Voldemort from within. I say this because, there is no way that Harry should have been able to keep the connection of their wands when Voldemort wanted it broken. Voldemort is much more powerful, magically, than Harry, and Voldemort probably knew what was happening, when Harry did not. Sound plausible?



haymoni - Feb 13, 2007 10:58 am (#608 of 2055)
Some have speculated that the gleam comes from the fact that Dumbledore knows Harry's protection will run out at 17, while Voldy does not.



verde823 - Feb 13, 2007 11:32 am (#609 of 2055)
Doesn't that apply to the magical protections Dumbledore himself, put into place at Privet Drive? I didn't think it had anything to do with whatever protection Lily gave to Harry by her death. But, if it does, then what you said Haymoni, would certainly make sense. It would also explain why Dumbledore found it necessary to tell the Dursely's when Harry comes of age, as a wizard, if the Dursely's themselves are protected there as well. Hmmm...there are so many things to think about.



me and my shadow 813 - Feb 16, 2007 3:34 pm (#610 of 2055)
Yes, DD hates the Dark Arts, will not have anything to do with them, and will not teach them or allow them to be taught. We certainly do not see him preparing Harry for his task by saying, "ok,this is how you cast an AK." - mona amon

Although I agree that DD has never said "This is how you cast an AK", I do not have the impression of DD "hating" the Dark Arts. Regarding having them taught, wasn't it DD that requested Moody teach Unforgivables? To me there is no danger in knowing Dark Arts if your intent is to understand, rather than use and abuse, all aspects of magic. It is risky to teach it in a school of hundreds of students as, of course, not all students are pure or mature enough to learn with integrity.



T Vrana - Feb 16, 2007 3:39 pm (#611 of 2055)
I don't think DD told Moody to teach them, but to make the students aware of them and teach the student to resist Imperio. Moody didn't teach the students how to use them. Still a defense class, not a Dark Arts class.



wynnleaf - Feb 16, 2007 5:41 pm (#612 of 2055)
me and my,

I think you're right, though. I don't think we have anything definite in canon that DD hates the Dark Arts. McGonagall says he's too noble to use them. And he won't allow them taught at Hogwarts. But that's not the same as hating them.



Jenniffler - Feb 16, 2007 9:06 pm (#613 of 2055)
He's probably really disappointed when the Dark Arts are used, though.



Wanda - Feb 18, 2007 8:37 am (#614 of 2055)
I don't think DD ever asked Moody to put the class under the Imperius curse. My take on it that the real Moody wouldn't have done it, but seing as it was Crouch Jr he just did whatever he wanted. If you re-read the G0F knowing that Moody was actually Crouch Jr, then a lot of things he did suddenly become a bit peculiar. I think he put them all under the Imperius curse to see how powerful Harry really was and to test him... and I don't think DD knew anything about it. I don't think he would have allowed it, as it's illegal.



T Vrana - Feb 18, 2007 9:02 am (#615 of 2055)
And yet...Harry must be prepared to face LV, and this certainly helped. I don't think Crouch Jr. would have risked his mission to deliver Harry by using the Imperio in a class without DD's knowledge, and further draw deeper suspicion by saying DD told him to do it. If caught he could have blown everything.

edited to add:

Let's not forget DD was a fugitive from the law in OOTP. He is epitome of goodness, but he also has the responsibility of getting LV. The law may be bent as long as morality isn't. Moody (fake) wasn't using Imperio for evil, but instruction. I think DD would be fine with this.



Soul Search - Feb 18, 2007 11:20 am (#616 of 2055)
My thought was that fake Moody talked Dumbledore into teaching students to resist the Imperious curse because fake Moody wanted to get Harry under the Imperious curse to get him to Voldemort.

It didn't work, Harry could resist the curse, so they had to go through with the, rather complicated, Tri-Wizard Cup plan.



T Vrana - Feb 18, 2007 11:39 am (#617 of 2055)
DD told Harry at one point that he's been more closely watched than he can ever imagine. I think it is true. I think the whole complicated Tri-Wizard Cup thing was necessary because it allowed for Harry to be missing, but not missed.

Do you have a way for Moody to have used the Imperius that Harry's absense would not be noticed, in mind?



me and my shadow 813 - Feb 18, 2007 3:43 pm (#618 of 2055)
And he won't allow them taught at Hogwarts. But that's not the same as hating them. - wynnleaf

Yes and although they are not taught at Hogwarts, there are books in the library for advanced students. Following quote reveals acquiring knowledge of the Dark Arts for advanced wizards. In CoS when the trio are looking for books on Flamel:

These were the books containing powerful Dark magic never taught at Hogwarts and only read by older students studying advanced Defence Against the Dark Arts. (from Mirror of Erised chapter)

This reinforces my feeling that knowledge of the Dark Arts is wise for the wizard seeking omniscience/omnipotence.



Soul Search - Feb 18, 2007 4:15 pm (#619 of 2055)
T Vrana,

"Do you have a way for Moody to have used the Imperius that Harry's absense would not be noticed, in mind?"

Not really. It didn't happen. But, since you ask, with Harry under the imperious curse, fake Moody could have just told him to meet him alone, outside Hogwarts, and side-alonged him to Voldemort. By the time anyone had missed Harry, Voldemort would have had his body back.

Harry's learning to resist the imperious curse proved of great benefit in the graveyard. He was able to resist Voldemort's imperious. My thought is fake Moody had to have an ulterior motive for teaching to resist the curse, otherwise he benefited Harry without any particular benefit to Voldemort.

Another possibility is Dumbledore told fake Moody to teach Harry (and incidentally his class) the unforgivable curses. Dumbledore anticipated that Harry might need to understand them. Actually, I like this alternative the best.

Good thing Harry could resist the imperious curse, otherwise Dumbledore would have made a serious mistake.



T Vrana - Feb 18, 2007 4:29 pm (#620 of 2055)
ss- fake Moody could have just told him to meet him alone, outside Hogwarts, and side-alonged him to Voldemort.

I'm not sure he could have done this unnoticed. How would Harry explain, even under Imperius, that he needed to ditch Ron and Hermione and go off grounds? I really do think Harry has been well watched, as DD pointed out, even beyond what Harry could comprehend. Otherwise, Crouch Jr. could have asked Harry to his office and handed him a portkey quill. What Crouch Jr. needed was time. Time for Harry to be missing without being missed. The maze gave him that. It was expected that the maze would take time.

DD make a mistake....?



mona amon - Feb 19, 2007 4:15 am (#621 of 2055)
Surely DD did hate the Dark Arts.Since the Dark Arts seem to be that aspect of magic that deals with causing death,suffering,fear and pain(look at the pictures on the wall in Snape's DADA classroom),they are evil by definition,and any right thinking person would despise them.

Ofcourse,anyone in DD's position will have to decide just how much the students will have to be taught about the Dark Arts in order to be able to defend themselves against them.

Otherwise, Crouch Jr. could have asked Harry to his office and handed him a portkey quill. What Crouch Jr. needed was time. Time for Harry to be missing without being missed. The maze gave him that. It was expected that the maze would take time.

T Vrana,I always wondered about that(why fake Moody could not have got Harry to touch some other object made into a portkey).I think yours is a very good explanation.And yes,probably another of DD's mistakes.Since Harry's name had been entered for the tournament under suspicious circumstances,there was good reason to watch and protect Harry when he was in the maze.But if DD didn't make these mistakes,the plot would come to a standstill.



TomProffitt - Feb 19, 2007 8:35 am (#622 of 2055)
I think the location of the Tri-Wizard Cup Port-Key was as important as the amount of time available for Harry to be missing. Being outside the Castle (but not outside the grounds) it was probably easier to overcome the protective enchantments around Hogwarts (like the anti-apparition charms).



T Vrana - Feb 19, 2007 12:24 pm (#623 of 2055)
Apparition and portkeys are different, aren't they.

DD was able to Portkey Harry into his office, and I don't think he lifted anti-apparition charms on Hogwarts to do it, though he must know something special or anyone could portkey in. The DEs and Snape leave the grounds before apparating in HBP.



Choices - Feb 19, 2007 7:01 pm (#624 of 2055)
I think it is something like Harry being able to use the fire in Umbridge's office when she was the Hogwarts High Inquisitor. She arranged it so that her fire worked and all the others in the castle didn't. I think Dumbledore himself can portkey someone into or out of his office, but if someone tried it on their own, the office would seal itself.



Die Zimtzicke - Feb 20, 2007 10:15 am (#625 of 2055)
Too bad that theory has not been officially verified.



Choices - Feb 20, 2007 11:47 am (#626 of 2055)
As for my post, it is not a theory, it is my personal opinion and I do not suggest that it is canon.



me and my shadow 813 - Feb 20, 2007 5:15 pm (#627 of 2055)
mona amon, I agree Dark Arts are used for evil. My feeling, however, is that in order for a wizard to truly be a Master and transcend the false power of Dark magic, he must thoroughly understand them and, in that understanding, no longer fear them. As Albus said in HBP about Vold, "But once again he reveals his own lack of wisdom. It is the unknown we fear when we look upon death and darkness, nothing more."

That quote reminds me of a former U.S. President who said "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." Of course this can be interpretted in many ways, and misinterpretted, but it is a univeral truth in my opinion.

edit: my post from the other day contained an error -- the quote was from PS and not CoS



mona amon - Feb 20, 2007 8:00 pm (#628 of 2055)
Now I understand,me and my shadow.Yes,I think it quite possible that a wizard of DD's calibre could have made an extensive study of the Dark Arts,perfectly confident that he would not be touched by them,and this knowledge would be useful to him in understanding how the dark side operates,and how to defeat them.



Luna Logic - Feb 21, 2007 2:40 am (#629 of 2055)
Thanks for your debate and clarifications, Me and My shadow and Mona Amon. I agree with your conclusions, Dumbledore has a knowledge about Darks Arts, but no attraction. Then we can consider Dumbledore thinking that Darks Arts must be studied by some wizards, provided that it is in this same state of mind.



me and my shadow 813 - Feb 21, 2007 1:19 pm (#630 of 2055)
Thanks, mona amon and Luna Logic. It it not my intent to try to convert others, rather to be clear, as I've discovered at times my articulation is misunderstood at first. I appreciate your responses.

On another matter, when JKR suggested that inquiries into Albus's family would be a fruitful pursuit, any thoughts as to whether she meant his parents, Aberforth, perhaps a marriage and he's a widower, or perhaps a child that went Dark and/or has since died?



Luna Logic - Feb 21, 2007 2:12 pm (#631 of 2055)
Edited by Feb 21, 2007 1:13 pm
My answer would be geographical: looking where the Dumbledore family could have lived. (And I'm thinking of Godric's Hollow). No hints in canon, except negative ones: the care that Jo R. has taken to hide all about that place, and all about teachers families. Also I wonder about the "brother" existence. Real?



mona amon - Feb 21, 2007 7:40 pm (#632 of 2055)
Luna,if you mean DD's brother Aberforth,he is real all right.JKR even confirmed that he is the barman of the Hogshead Inn.And I think he will have an important role in DH,especially to explain what his brother and Snape were up to in book six.



Die Zimtzicke - Feb 21, 2007 10:14 pm (#633 of 2055)
They have even hired someone to play Aberforth and credited him as such for the film OotP. I've seen a picture of him, in costume, but I can't remember where it was. I think Aberforth IS someone Harry will have to talk to at some point. He was in the Order in the old days. He may help Harry find out something about his parents, as well as about Albus.



Lina - Feb 22, 2007 12:02 am (#634 of 2055)
Yes, it's really a weird feeling, because someone asked her if the barman at Hogs Head is Aberforth and she confirmed. So we know that. But Harry still doesn't. And I'm always surprised when I expect Harry to know that and realize that he doesn't.



Choices - Feb 22, 2007 11:58 am (#635 of 2055)
Here are some random thoughts that plagued me last night. Please be kind as they are rough and not well thought out, but I wanted to toss them out and see if anyone could run with them.

Dumbledore has told us many times that he "trusts Severus Snape" for reasons he has so far kept to himself. Severus Snape is such a Jekyll and Hyde type character - he does things that make us think he is good and then turns around and does things that make us equally convinced he is bad. Granted, even at his best he is not a nice person. I began to wonder if Dumbledore trusts the Snape he knows, but fears the Snape who could be controlled by Voldemort. After all, Snape was a DE in the beginning and it was Voldemort who sent Snape to work at Hogwarts. Did Voldemort figure that if he couldn't have the DADA job, he would have a minion who could? First he inhabited Quirrell who was the DADA teacher.....did Dumbledore fear that Voldemort might do a similar takeover of Snape if he got the DADA position? Perhaps as long as Voldemort was in spirit form, Dumbledore refused Snape the DADA position for this reason, but after Voldemort was back in a physical body and busy with his "comeback", Dumbledore felt it was then safe to give the DADA job to Snape. I think he may have considered giving him the job in Harry's fifth year, but Fudge had other ideas and gave the job to Umbridge in a bid to take over the running of Hogwarts. By the following year everyone knew Voldemort was back and Dumbledore was again in charge at Hogwarts, so he felt the time was right to give Snape the DADA position....or perhaps it was a part of some plan Dumbledore had in the works.

As I said at the top, this is just something that occurred to me - I'm trying to figure why Dumbledore trusts Snape, but doesn't trust him with the DADA job. Why did Voldemort want the DADA job and is he the one who ordered Snape to apply for the job every year? Is there really a curse on the DADA job or is it just coincidence that the DADA teachers only last one year? Anyone want to jump in and speculate about any of this?



haymoni - Feb 22, 2007 12:51 pm (#636 of 2055)
Voldy's jerky hand motions tell me that there really is a curse, but one would think that he would lift it for Snape.

But you know, this Evil Wizard gig is very time consuming. Plotting bridge collapses, trying to control the Giants, torturing those that fail you, reading minds to see who is telling Potter jokes behind your back - it is so much work!

Remembering to lift a curse may have slipped Moldy Voldy's mind.



wynnleaf - Feb 22, 2007 1:15 pm (#637 of 2055)
Choices,

I don't think DD would have given Snape the DADA position at any time, trustworthy or not, because DD knew the position was cursed and if he put Snape in that position, he'd probably have to leave by the end of the year.

The only reason I can see that he'd finally put him in that position is because DD already knew Snape would probably be leaving by the end of Harry's 6th year. Then he knew it would be okay to give him the DADA position, because the "curse" was already accounted for.

I think JKR's comment about DD not giving Snape the DADA position originally gets blown a bit out of proportion. Certainly -- even aside from the curse -- it's understandable that when Snape was quite young, LV was still alive, and Snape was first starting to work at Hogwarts, that DD would not want to put him in the DADA position because of it being some sort of temptation. But that in no way means that 10 and more years later DD still considered the DADA position to present any sort of temptation to Snape. By that time, it may only have been the DADA curse itself that kept DD from putting him into the position.



Choices - Feb 22, 2007 6:59 pm (#638 of 2055)
But, Snape says to Narcissa and Bellatrix that the reason he hasn't gotten the DADA job up till then is because Dumbledore thinks it would bring about a relapse....tempt him into his old ways. It would seem that even 10 or so years down the road, Dumbledore still didn't think the DADA job would be good for Snape, but something made Dumbledore change his mind in Harry's sixth year.



wynnleaf - Feb 22, 2007 8:13 pm (#639 of 2055)
But, Snape says to Narcissa and Bellatrix that the reason he hasn't gotten the DADA job up till then is because Dumbledore thinks it would bring about a relapse....tempt him into his old ways.

I cannot think of any reason for why Snape would need to tell Bella and Cissy the truth about why DD hasn't given him the position -- unless an evil Snape just felt like unburdening to them. But he doesn't even like Bella. So even if Snape was a thoroughgoing DE, he has no reason to tell Bella whatever the truth is. I just can't think why Snape's comments to Bella need have any particular weight.

If Snape is loyal to DD, he has every reason to lie to Bella.

So I think we'd need outside collaborative evidence that DD continued to keep Snape from the DADA position due to some sort of fear of temptation.



mona amon - Feb 22, 2007 8:48 pm (#640 of 2055)
This is JKR's comment about it,thought it might be helpful to the discussion-

Jackson: “Professor Snape has always wanted to be Defence Against Dark Arts teacher. In book 5 he still hasn’t got the job. Why does Prof Dumbedore not allow him to be Defence Against The Dark Arts teacher?”

JK Rowling: That is an excellent question and the reason is that I have to be careful what I say here. To answer it fully would give a lot away about the remaining two books.

When Prof Dumbledore took Prof Snape onto the staff and Prof Snape said “I’d like to be Prof of Defence Against the Dark Arts please” and Prof Dumbledore felt it might bring out the worst in Snape so said “I think we’ll get you to teach Potions and see how you get along there”. JKR at the Royal Albert Hall,26th June 2003



Ludicrous Patents Office - Feb 22, 2007 9:28 pm (#641 of 2055)
I got the impression that the curse wouldn't lift until either Voldy got the job or died. I agree Choices, for some reason or another, Snape got the job because DD knew it was time for him to leave Hogwarts. DD may trust Snape but he also kept him where he could keep an eye on him. The discussion at Spinners End shows how Snape has remained "loyal" to Voldemort. The one thing that really bothers me is Snape taking credit for passing on information that led to the capture and murder of Emmaline Vance. If Snape is loyal to DD why would DD have set up Emmaline to die? Unless she is not dead and in hiding somewhere. LPO



Choices - Feb 23, 2007 10:55 am (#642 of 2055)
I think Snape is just taking the "credit" for getting Vance killed. It really isn't known who did it, so he feels he can safely take the credit in front of Bellatrix and Narcissa and get away with it.

About the excuse Snape gives Bellatrix and Narcissa for not getting the DADA job - we really don't know the real reason - this may or may not be the truth - but it is as good as we have to go on.....so far.



Tom Marvolo Riddleton - Feb 25, 2007 3:30 pm (#643 of 2055)
Hmm. It's a bit quiet here. I'll risk changing the topic to ask if anyone might know or have an idea of what the mysterious yet powerful spell Dumbledore uses against Voldemort during the battle scene of OotP. The specific passage I'm referring to is found in the chapter entitled "The Only One He Ever Feared" (pages 813-814, U.S. hardback edition) and is as follows:

Dumbledore flicked his own wand. The force of the spell that emanated from it was such that Harry, though shielded by his stone guard, felt his hair stand on end as it passed, and this time Voldemort was forced to conjure a shining silver shield out of thin air to deflect it. The spell, whatever it was, caused no visible damage to the shield, though a deep, gonglike note reverberated from it, an oddly chilling sound...

"You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore," called Voldemort, his scarlet eyes narrowed over the top of the shield. "Above such brutality, are you?"

The only thing I have drawn from this is that while the spell is powerful, it isn't necessarily meant to severely harm the object upon which it is aimed, as evidenced by the shield's lack of visible damage and Voldemort's knowledge that the spell was not meant to kill him.



verde823 - Feb 25, 2007 8:17 pm (#644 of 2055)
I have no idea what the spell was. DD knew of at least one horcrux at this point, and probably had guessed that there were more. He would have known he (DD) would have been unable to kill Voldemort. Not only because of the horcruxes, but because it is Harry, and not DD, who has "the power to vanquish the Dark Lord".



Die Zimtzicke - Feb 26, 2007 9:43 am (#645 of 2055)
But that doesn't exactly jive with what Dumbledore implies about prophecies only being fullfilling if you choose to fullfill them. I wish I had a book here right now so I could find his exact statement, in case I'm remembering it wrong!

That would be the only case of a spell (the horcrux spell) only being able to be lifted by one specific person. We're arguing kind of the same thing on the Dumbledore/Death thread, when it comes to the idea that only Dumbledore's death could have lifted the spell on Harry that was keeping him frozen. Dumbledore DID destroy the one horcxrux, although he got injured doing it. It kind of does seem he didn't try to kill Riddle only because he knew there were other horcruxes out there, not just because it's Harry's job to find them.



verde823 - Feb 26, 2007 11:57 am (#646 of 2055)
I think Harry doesn't have a choice in fulfilling his part of the prophecy, Voldemort made sure of that, unknowlingly, when he fulfilled his (Voldemort's) part of the prophecy by marking "him as his equal".



haymoni - Feb 26, 2007 2:18 pm (#647 of 2055)
I disagree. Harry could walk away. He could leave England and leave the whole Wizarding World behind him.

But he won't.

And that is what Dumbledore points out to him. Harry cannot let this evil wizard go on terrorizing and killing people. He will fight Voldy and he will win.

And I refuse to believe that he will die in the process.



verde823 - Feb 26, 2007 2:23 pm (#648 of 2055)
Well, you have a point, Haymoni. Smile He could walk away, but I was referring more to why DD doesn't kill Voldemort at the MoM. I don't think he can, because Voldemort made it so. By marking Harry, which gave the prophecy meaning, the only person who can truly vanquish the Dark Lord is Harry. I don't think Voldemort realizes this, though, and DD certainly is going to let on that this is the case.



haymoni - Feb 26, 2007 2:26 pm (#649 of 2055)
If I were Dumbledore, I'd try to AK Voldy even if I knew that Harry was the Prophesy Boy and that Voldy had Horcruxes.

Let him become Vapormort again.



journeymom - Feb 26, 2007 3:19 pm (#650 of 2055)
Hmmm, haymoni, there's no reason they couldn't continue horcrux hunting even after he became Vapormort again. Interesting thought! He'd still be permanently vanquished the moment his last horcrux was destroyed.
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 650 to 700

Post  Mona on Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:32 am

Mediwitch - Feb 26, 2007 3:25 pm (#651 of 2055)
Maybe he's easier to keep track of if he's got a body and wreaking havoc all over the wizarding world.



haymoni - Feb 27, 2007 11:37 am (#652 of 2055)
He's definitely easier to spot!

Maybe they could trap Vapormort in a lamp like a genie!



Janine Barnett - Feb 27, 2007 6:14 pm (#653 of 2055)
This is my first time posting, and so I therefore apologise in advance if it's not up to the wonderful standard of the Lexicon.

I am currently re-reading the series from the beginning, and something odd jumped out at me in the Philosopher's Stone. When Hagrid arrives at the Hut-on-the-Rock and gives Harry his letter, he then writes a letter of his own:

" "Gallopin' Gorgons, that reminds me,' said Hagrid, clapping a hand to his forehead with enough force to knock over a cart horse, and from yet another pocket inside his overcoat he pulled an owl - a real, live, rather ruffled-looking owl - a long quill and a roll of parchment. With his tongue between his teeth he scribbled a note which Harry could read upside down:

Dear Mr Dumbledore, Given Harry his letter. Taking him to buy his things tomorrow. Weather's horrible. Hope you're well. Hagrid

Hagird rolled up the note, gave it to the owl, which clamped it in its beak, went to the door and threw the owl out into the storm. Then he came back and sat down as thought this was as normal as talking on the telephone." (Bloombury edition, p. 43)

I have tried to see if anyone else had thought Hagrid addressing Professor Dumbledore as Mister was odd, but couldn't find anything, so I apologise if this has already been discussed. I can't recall any other instance in the series when Dumbledore isn't addressed as Professor, or just Dumbledore. This is the only time he is addressed as "Mister". Is it possible that this letter was actually sent to Professor Dumbledore's brother? I realise, of course, that he has played no role in the story as far as we are aware. However, now that Professor Dumbledore is dead, perhaps it will come to light that his brother has been helping Albus in the background all along, and now will take over the role of Harry's protector/helper in the search for the remaining horcruxes.



rambkowalczyk - Feb 27, 2007 7:00 pm (#654 of 2055)
Dear Mr Dumbledore, Given Harry his letter. Taking him to buy his things tomorrow. Weather's horrible. Hope you're well. Hagrid

Maybe Hagrid couldn't spell professor. Smile

Regarding the spell that Dumbledore used at the MOM. How about Expelliarmus?



Choices - Feb 27, 2007 8:23 pm (#655 of 2055)
I checked my Scholastic paperback (USA) and it says, "Dear Professor Dumbledore...." I have not heard anyone else say their copy says Mister instead of Professor. Interesting!



Tom Marvolo Riddleton - Feb 27, 2007 8:23 pm (#656 of 2055)
Regarding the spell that Dumbledore used at the MOM. How about Expelliarmus? -Rambkowalczyk

Do you really think the spell would have been that powerful? I mean, it might make sense that somebody as powerful as Dumbledore would be capable of doing powerful magic, but does a spell really change in it powerfulness merely based on the power of the caster? We do know of one example I can think of, being Avada Kedavra, where the effectiveness of the curse changes vastly due to the caster. However, can we draw a direct parallel between effectiveness and power?



Choices - Feb 27, 2007 8:32 pm (#657 of 2055)
Tom, check out the Dueling Club chapter in COS. Snape fires Expelliarmus at Lockhart and absolutely blasts him into the air. Snape was a bit peeved at the time. Usually Expelliarmus isn't that powerful - it knocks a wand out of someone's hand or something similar, but doesn't blast someone off their feet and into the air. I think Snape's attitude at the moment caused the spell to be more forceful.



Laura W - Feb 28, 2007 2:06 am (#658 of 2055)
Choices, Raincoast hard cover edition says "Dear Mr. Dumbledore".

ramb, well Hagrid does say he can't write down the name of the "wizard who went bad" because he can't spell "Voldemort". (wink)

Choices wrote, "Snape was a bit peeved at the time."

Snort! (Just rereading CoS again.)

" 'As you see, we are holding out wands in the accepted combative position,' Lockhart told the silent crowd. 'On the count of three, we will cast our first spells. Neither of us will be aiming to kill, of course.'

'I wouldn't bet on that,' Harry murmured, watching Snape baring his teeth."

Laura



HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 1, 2007 11:39 am (#659 of 2055)
haymoni, I wondered the same thing about Vapormort. However, would it be prudent - as we do not know what effect an AK gone awry has on the caster. I asked this question on the horcrux thread.

Since DD's ancestry has been kept out of the stories and JKR mentioned it would be a good avenue to pursue (paraphrasing), I have been wondering if there isn't any connection between himself and Harry on a more distant level, perhaps great-grandfather?



Mattew Bates - Mar 1, 2007 12:09 pm (#660 of 2055)
HH11, here's a tidbit from JKR's "Rumors" section:

Professor Dumbledore is Harry's real grandfather/close relative of some description.

If Dumbledore had been Harry's grandfather, why on earth would he have been sent to live with the Dursleys?

Now, I realize she answered with a question, but her whole purpose in that section has been to quash rumors.



Soul Search - Mar 1, 2007 4:21 pm (#661 of 2055)
I have always thought JKR's response a bit strange. Dumbledore knew Harry was going to be important. He went to a lot of trouble to protect him. What difference would a family relationship have made. If Dumbledore had wanted to protect Harry by raising him, no one would have objected. Certainly, the Dursleys wouldn't have cared one whit.

However, I just can't see Dumbledore changing diapers and potty training and all the rest that goes with bringing up a small child. That's why the Dursleys got stuck with Harry.



TomProffitt - Mar 1, 2007 4:27 pm (#662 of 2055)
"However, I just can't see Dumbledore changing diapers and potty training and all the rest that goes with bringing up a small child. That's why the Dursleys got stuck with Harry." --- Soul Search

Actually, I can see him that way very easily. Not only can I see him doing it I can see him loving doing it.



Choices - Mar 1, 2007 8:28 pm (#663 of 2055)
Change a diaper? Not when he's got a magic wand. LOL



MickeyCee3948 - Mar 1, 2007 9:14 pm (#664 of 2055)
I think that Dumbledore was related or an extremely good friend of one of Harry's distant relatives, much like the relationship between Sirus and the Potter's. No canon just a feeling.

Mickey



mona amon - Mar 2, 2007 3:54 am (#665 of 2055)
I thought Harry had to be packed off to aunt Pet because she was his only living relative on his mother's side, and LV can't get him as long as he stays where his 'mother's blood dwells'.

But does that rule out DD being related to Harry on his father's side? JKR's remark is a bit puzzling.



Laura W - Mar 2, 2007 5:28 am (#666 of 2055)
In PS, chapter one, Dumbledore says to McGonagall: "I've come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. They're the only family he has left now." The only family. Not, "the only family on his mother's side."

And from the Leaky Cauldron/Mugglenet interview (questions asked by Melissa):

"MA: What about Harry's family — his grandparents — were they killed?

"JKR: No. This takes us into more mundane territory. As a writer, it was more interesting, plot-wise, if Harry was completely alone. So I rather ruthlessly disposed of his entire family apart from Aunt Petunia. I mean, James and Lily are massively important to the plot, of course, but the grandparents? No. And, because I do like my backstory: Petunia and Lily's parents, normal Muggle death. James's parents were elderly, were getting on a little when he was born, which explains the only child, very pampered, had-him-late-in-life-so-he's-an-extra-treasure, as often happens, I think. They were old in wizarding terms, and they died. They succumbed to a wizarding illness. That's as far as it goes. There's nothing serious or sinister about those deaths. I just needed them out of the way so I killed them.

"MA: That sort of shuts down Heir of Gryffindor [theories], as well.

"JKR: [Pause.] Yeah. Well - yeah.

"MA: Another one bites the dust."

Note, "As a writer, it was more interesting, plot-wise, if Harry was completely alone. So I rather ruthlessly disposed of his entire family apart from Aunt Petunia." Again, she does not say "his family on his mother's side."



HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 2, 2007 7:03 am (#667 of 2055)
Thank you, Mattew, I had forgotten about that. So, how could his ancestry add to the plot, then? Do we know if he was a Gryffindor?



mona amon - Mar 2, 2007 8:50 am (#668 of 2055)
Thank you Laura for the quotes. So no more speculation about DD being related to Harry!



Hollywand - Mar 2, 2007 10:07 am (#669 of 2055)

>>>>>"The Only One He Ever Feared" (pages 813-814, U.S. hardback edition) and is as follows:


Dumbledore flicked his own wand. The force of the spell that emanated from it was such that Harry, though shielded by his stone guard, felt his hair stand on end as it passed, and this time Voldemort was forced to conjure a shining silver shield out of thin air to deflect it. The spell, whatever it was, caused no visible damage to the shield, though a deep, gonglike note reverberated from it, an oddly chilling sound...

"You do not seek to kill me, Dumbledore," called Voldemort, his scarlet eyes narrowed over the top of the shield. "Above such brutality, are you?"

The only thing I have drawn from this is that while the spell is powerful, it isn't necessarily meant to severely harm the object upon which it is aimed, as evidenced by the shield's lack of visible damage and Voldemort's knowledge that the spell was not meant to kill him.<<<<<<<<



I would like to return to Riddleton's question on this passage quoted above. It's a terrific passage to bring to discussion, particularly in light of what we now know from Book Six.

Silent spells are very powerful. Dumbledore uses a silent spell. The word "Dumb" is a word for silent and "dore" a root of the word love. When first reading the series, I translated Dumbledore's name into a metaphor for silent love. Now, I think this association may have some merit. Note: I realize Rowling has said that Dumbledore is Saxon for bumblebee, but there may be yet another underlying meaning which will be revealed in Book Seven. Silence, in both instances, is a metaphor for gold, I think, in spells, and in the mentoring Harry receives.

The spell makes a gong. On the Alchemy thread, we have noted that there is a war between Chaos and Harmony. Harry and Hermione's name can be an amalgam of Harmony. Dumbledore says "Music is a magic beyond all we do here". Dumbledore is an accomplished Alchemist, we learn in the Philosopher's Stone, the first book, note the title. Music, especially chamber music (Dumbledore's favorite), requires four musicians acting in concert, or harmony. This is a metaphor for unifying the four houses to produce something of higher spirit, the Quintessence, the fifth mysterious element. Dumbledore's spell, then, attempts to hamonize an evil wizard who is extremely divided by his own creation, the Horcruxes. Voldemort resists Dumbledore's effort to heal him with his silver Slytherin shield; the deflection produces music, a gong.

Riddle realizes that Dumbledore is trying to unify him, make him mortal once more, but Riddle will have none of it. He has chosen his pathway, so Harry must encounter him instead at a later date, his destiny, which Voldemort chooses yet again, a third time, here. Dumbledore realizes he cannot change Harry's destiny, and weeps at the close of the narrative.

Methinks Harry will recognize this in a game of Snakes and Ladders with Dumbledore in Book Seven. Accio Golden Book Seven.

Kudos to Riddleton for noticing the passage as significant!



rambkowalczyk - Mar 2, 2007 10:31 am (#670 of 2055)
Riddle realizes that Dumbledore is trying to unify him, make him mortal once more, but Riddle will have none of it. Hollywand

Does this imply that Riddle thinks Dumbledore knows about the horcruxes?



Hollywand - Mar 2, 2007 11:01 am (#671 of 2055)
Ramb, I would surmise from Riddle's query to Dumbledore, "You do not seek to kill me?" to indicate that Riddle does not realize Dumbledore knows his secret. Dumbledore speaks to him in analogy. "Your greatest weakness is to not realize that there are things worse than death". (I am paraphrasing here, not quoting directly from the text). Dumbledore's analogy both alludes to Tom's short sightedness----he's so bound in the moment, the current battle, that he does not see the long view, and this shortsighteness will cause him to ultimately lose the war-----and, Dumbledore's alluding to knowing Tom's secret.

A Dumbledore edged sword, if you take my meaning. Tom doesn't understand.



Choices - Mar 2, 2007 12:15 pm (#672 of 2055)
Wonderful and interesting posts Hollywand. I totally agree.



Hollywand - Mar 2, 2007 5:07 pm (#673 of 2055)
Thank you, Choices. You might want to check out Jo's quote on February 23 regarding alchemy, and how she had to learn a "ridiculous" amount about it while writing the series. Perhaps others will warm up to the idea since she made that allusion herself.



Laura W - Mar 2, 2007 5:21 pm (#674 of 2055)
You're welcome, mona.

Hollywand, some very interesting thoughts in your post 669. One thing does puzzle me though. Not having your metaphysical mindset, I would appreciate if you could explain this to me:

I happen to believe that Dumbledore does know spells and other magic known to few. There are just so many places in the books which hint or more than hint at this (including what Professor Marchbanks and others have said about DD's incredible talent). Therefore, I do not think it unreasonable that he would know a unifying or harmonizing spell.

What I don't understand is how it could work - how DD would think it could work - on Lord Voldemort. How could LV become whole (even if the spell caught him squarely on the chest) when he has all these soul bits lying around all over the place? Or are you suggesting that if the unifying spell had actually hit Tom, the remaining five soul bits in their Horcruxes - remember, at this point (ie - OoP) DD had not yet found and destroyed the ring - scattered wherever they are in Britain would have instantly died or returned to his body or something else in order to make Tom whole again? That just doesn't sound feasible to me. Unless I'm missing something.

One thing is for sure. Dumbledore knows that it is only Harry Potter who can defeat LV. Or the other way around. There is no getting away from that. Even if Tom Riddle's soul is whole once more - again, I cannot see the logistics of that occurring in a practical way -, LV knows enough of the prophecy to keep going after Harry until one or the other is vanquished.

And he will continue to be (as Sirius put it) the most evil sorcerer who ever lived. Splitting his soul and making Horcruxes did not make him evil. Being evil made him want to create Horcruxes and split his soul. When he was a boy and hurt those two children in the orphanage and killed Billy's pet rabbit he had a whole soul. Note the conversation between the 16-year-old Tom and Professor Slughorn in the Pensieve scene in HBP. Being a whole young man with an intact soul did not make Tom a less evil wizard. I don't think it would have done so in the MOM either, even if DD's spell (as you cleverly speculate what the spell might have been) had worked. I would not use the word "harmony" to describe Tom Riddle at any stage in his life !

HOWEVER, it *would* undoubtedly be easier for Harry to accomplish his task, or at the very least it would take less time, if he didn't have those darned Horcruxes to hunt down and destroy. Dumbledore would be all-too-aware of this fact. If all Harry had to do (all??) was to find and to vanquish the man who is Lord Voldemort, DH would be a much shorter book than it will be.

Laura



Hollywand - Mar 2, 2007 6:01 pm (#675 of 2055)
Hi Laura. You are reading my interpretation correctly. I think Dumbledore's silent spell lies in the power of love to heal and unify. That's one underlying subtext to the Order book, and Dumbledore's closing remarks, the door that is barred to Harry. I think Rowling will explain all of this.

And yes, I think Dumbledore was trying to reunify Voldemort, make him pieced back together, if perhaps not having all of the pieces. As you say you are not metaphysically inclined, I am disinclined to argue the logic of magic. Magic is not logical; often Rowling's resolutions will not have linear explanations. It's magic. What she's really trying to get at is the heart of the reader; Potter must be read with the heart and a wonderful trip off to the Wizarding World beyond Muggleton.

I once witnessed someone on the Dragons thread vehemently arguing that a dragon cannot be milked. If Rowling says a dragon can be milked, a dragon can be milked. It's her world, and I love it very much.

Now, for a Swedish Short Snout Latte...... Wink



TwinklingBlueEyes - Mar 2, 2007 10:20 pm (#676 of 2055)
Had an interesting thought about the "gong" spell Dumbledore cast at LV in the MOM. Remembering the pensive scene when DD recruited Riddle, the objects in the wardrobe. Those objects didn't rattle and shake by themselves. Remembering DD's finding traces of magic and also seeming to see what they had to tell, I'm thinking that he "read" what the traces of magic had to say and animated them for Riddle. Dumbledore can maybe read both people and objects? The gong spell was kind of a stronger version of olccumency (spell), DD's attempt to find out from the horses mouth about mutiple horcruxes, but LV blocked not only with a shield, maybe to by time to empty his mind, therefore the gong. "You do not seek to kill me", (just seeking informatiom?) How's that for a run on sentence?

Edited 2x for clarity, hopefully.

...toddles off wondering if I am overdue for return to St Mungos...



Tom Marvolo Riddleton - Mar 2, 2007 11:40 pm (#677 of 2055)
TwinklingBlueEyes, do you perhaps mean to say that the gong spell was a stronger version of Legilimency rather than Occlumency? Unless I didn't understand your last post the former seemed to fit better...

Also, Hollywand, do you think that Dumbledore would truly have tried to unify Voldemort before ever telling Harry that it was his job to either kill him or be killed by him? It seems to me that unless Harry knew what it would mean to have Voldemort finally united into one incomplete soul it would have been pointless for DD to unify him, even reckless. After all, Voldemort likely would have split his soul again and thus would have had to create more Horcruxes unless Harry was ready right then and there to kill the him. Considering that DD was busy making an attempt to shield Harry from Voldemort it seems more likely that DD would not have wanted to give Voldemort reason to continue killing, though that part of Voldemort's life may not have been preventable. Lastly, Voldemort's response to the gong spell having been fired seemed to suggest that he knew what the spell was, unless perhaps you argue that he knew what the spell wasn't, being an Avada Kedavra. Wouldn't that mean that if Voldemort knew what the spell was he would also have to know that DD knew he had Horcruxes, being that the spell would have been an attempt to unify him?



TwinklingBlueEyes - Mar 3, 2007 12:09 am (#678 of 2055)
"if Voldemort knew what the spell was he would also have to know that DD knew he had Horcruxes,"

Not quite. If LV recognised the spell, it seems to me he'd only know the broad intent of the spell (informatin gathering), therefore throwing up a blanket defense.

And you may be quite right Tom, I do have a tendency to reverse the two.



Laura W - Mar 3, 2007 1:35 am (#679 of 2055)
Hollywand, I am sorry you were not able to explain your post 669 to me in terms of the points and questions and focus I outlined in my last message. Either I did not express my position and questions well enough - although I was as clear as I could be -, or we are just on such different wavelengths. Too bad. I really was genuinely interested in what your post #669 in terms of the points I made and the questions I raised in #674. So be it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I *do* read the Harry Potter series with my heart!! It was, and has always been, my heart that has been most affected by these particular books. Reading them has been - and continues to be - a very emotional and even spiritual (if not metaphysical) experience for me!

And I *know* it's Jo's world. I accept the magic she has told us about as fact - including the soul bits being stored in Horcruxes throughout the land. Didn't I say that I believe Dumbledore can do magic that few wizards can do? I take that for granted because Jo has told us so and shown us same in the Potterworld. That *still* doesn't explain what Tom becoming whole means in terms of his soul bits. Even in the HP world, there are well-defined rules. Jo has said so in interviews, regarding what magic can and cannot do. From the Barnes and Noble interview in 1999: "I spent a lot of time inventing the rules for the magical world so that I knew the limits of magic." (JKR)

Laura



Hollywand - Mar 3, 2007 7:47 am (#680 of 2055)
Hi Laura, I apologize. I didn't mean to discourage your thinking on solving the quest for the Horcruxes, I think it is a noble pursuit. I'm just not very good at working out those kind of details, and you most likely have much more passion and talent for the quest than I have. I have no doubt you read Potter with an open heart; those who have no open heart are more likely to burn the book rather than read it. I did not mean to imply that you were in that Muggle category. In fact, I just had to read this book that others were burning, so I discovered Harry thanks to Delores Umbridge's tribe! Wink

To answer you and Riddleton, I do think Dumbldore was trying to unify and heal Voldemort, even after all his wickeness, even if incomplete. Dumbledore was Tom's mentor, and Dumbledore would be much more interested in a harmonious resolution that avoided conflict, and spared as many lives as possible. I think Tom would be in agony if reunited with his consciousness, and Dumbledore would certainly want to bring Tom to justice. Remember, Dumbledore says that a person can change their destiny by making different choices. As long as he has the power, he tries to sway the war. That's his mission. I think after the "vanquish" effort fails, Dumbledore's look of "grim satisfaction" indicates that the pathway toward Harry confronting Voldemort to his destruction is indicated at the close of the Order of the Phoenix.

I won't go into the additional Alchemy references indicated by the conflict passage originally quoted, but let you know that, if you are interested in this metaphor, I have posted an additional analysis just now on the Alchemy thread below.



rambkowalczyk - Mar 3, 2007 7:49 am (#681 of 2055)
If Dumbledore did the Unifying spell on Tom at the MOM, did Tom know what it was? If we can say the Unifying Spell was to gather the Horcruxes together, what would Tom conclude at being the recipient of such a spell. I would think Tom would have to conclude that Dumbledore know about the Horcruxes unless Tom had no idea what the spell was, just that it wasn't meant to kill him.



Laura W - Mar 3, 2007 7:56 am (#682 of 2055)
Thanks, Hollywand. I now feel both healed and unified. (big smile)

Laura



Hollywand - Mar 3, 2007 8:02 am (#683 of 2055)
Ramb, Elanor makes a great point on the Alchemy thread that the Bible refers to those who cannot love "like a gong of dischord or clashing symbols", and this is terrific support to Rowling's passage. Since Tom cannot, or will not love, he cannot recognize what Dumbledore offers him, even from the beginning.

I mean, can you imagine having Albus Dumbledore as your mentor, and turning down his teaching, as Tom does? He's very blind, from his earliest beginnings.

And I do think Twinks is correct (waves to Twinkling Blue Eyes) that our man Dumbledore can read both the animate and the inanimate. Talented guy.

I think Dumbledore's going to be a part of our last game of Dungeons and Dragons, um, I mean, Snakes and Ladders.



Tom Marvolo Riddleton - Mar 3, 2007 10:26 am (#684 of 2055)
I think the Unifying Spell is a great idea. It would make a lot of sense to try and make Voldemort whole again and thus be able to defeat him without all the tedious work of tracking down Horcruxes. However, I just can't make it work in my mind if we try to put it in the story at this point. Granted, I understand DD most certainly might have thought that this could be the one and only chance he might have to unify Voldemort, seeing as he could believe he'd likely never get a chance to see him again. I only say that because Voldemort is elusive and likely to be able to hide very well from the only one he ever feared.

However, if DD unified Voldemort at that point in time he would have to have the confidence in Harry to believe that Harry would not only have been capable of defeating the Dark Lord at that moment in time but also would have wanted to kill him. I'm not saying that neither are possible, but it seems that DD was too worried about sheltering Harry at that point to have that confidence in Harry. Poor Harry doesn't even know that it is his job to kill or be killed by Voldemort according to the prophecy, so unless DD plans on weakening Voldemort severely and then kidnapping him until a later date, DD risks giving Voldemort reason to go right out and kill more people in an attempt to recreate his Horcruxes. I don't doubt Voldemort could have had the job done within an hour. If his soul were unified, then he might be terrified that DD knew his secret and immediately go out and snatch five or six Muggles to either recreate a seven part soul or simply go back to the six part soul. Unless, perhaps I've gotten lost in the time line; does Voldemort know that Lucius has lost his Horcrux at this point in time?

I suppose, of course, that you could argue that the spell might be completely unknown to Voldemort, meaning that he might not even know his soul had been entirely unified. As DD later says, Voldemort supposedly isn't supposed to know when one bit of his soul has been destroyed. Therefore, unless he knew the spell he might not even know he had had his soul unified. Yet, unless I'm misunderstanding this, the evidence seems to suggest that Voldemort knew what the spell was. Not only did he know to produce a silver shield for it, which he apparently knew was the correct defense for it, but he also points out his knowledge of the fact that DD does not want to kill Voldemort with the use of whatever spell the gong spell was.

Oh, and I suppose you could also argue that DD might think that Voldemort was likely to kill anyway and therefore was likely to have the necessary murders to create Horcruxes already. Perhaps you might even say that DD wanted Voldemort (who in this instance I am assuming would know that his soul had been unified) to weaken his soul even more in the sense that he would be splitting 6/7 of a soul seven times. However, it seems to me that DD would think that Voldemort was already so immersed in evil that he wouldn't think it would matter how much more Voldemort's already weakened soul was weakened. Also, one thing that has been glaring me in the face throughout all of this is that if DD at any point allowed Voldemort to know that he had knowledge of his Horcruxes, DD would be losing a very valuable element of surprise. I imagine that if Voldemort feared that somebody knew about his secret he would work ten times harder to conceal his Horcruxes, even with his supreme overconfidence in his abilities; his fear of death would override that confidence in my mind.



HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 3, 2007 10:57 am (#685 of 2055)
I think Tom would be in agony if reunited with his consciousness, and Dumbledore would certainly want to bring Tom to justice. Hollywand
That is a great point in favor of that idea, Hollywand but I agree with TMR. In addition, it goes against what JKR told us. When someone asked what would have happened if Ginny had died, her response was that Big V would come back stronger than ever. Would he wish that upon Harry? Additionally, I can't see DD trying to show his hand by attempting to unify Big V. As it has been pointed out, it would certainly reveal DD's knowledge of the horcruxes.

I agree, TBE, in that Big V may have had an idea as to how to protect himself against certain spells. Perhaps he recognizes an AK and it was not an AK that DD cast.

Very interesting and thought-provoking posts. I've enjoyed them all.

EDIT: LOL, Hollywand. Taking into account my nature, I tend to gravitate toward the opposite. I think the two unite very well in her stories.



Hollywand - Mar 3, 2007 11:03 am (#686 of 2055)
As I say, I don't find the logical extensions part very interesting personally to pursue. I don't read the text that way; I read it much more metaphorically.



Laura W - Mar 3, 2007 8:38 pm (#687 of 2055)
Hollywand, dear. Don't worry. You still brought up a fascinating theory. Much fodder for discussion - as illustrated by what has been written since post 669.

As with anything and everything connected with the contents of the HP series, what you speculated on can be looked at in many ways and on several levels. Agreed? The Alchemy Thread folks will be discussing it one way, and be assured - I mean this as a compliment to you (I can't believe you are Gryffindor: surely a Ravenclaw - wink) - we on this thread will continue to hash out the whole DD-shot-a-Unifying Spell-at-LV possibility as *we* perceive it.

Thanks for giving it to us.

Laura



Thom Matheson - Mar 3, 2007 8:41 pm (#688 of 2055)
Hollywand, I have to agree with Laura, again. You have injected a new virus for us to attack. Rehashing the old gets so cheeky after a while. Good show!



Hollywand - Mar 3, 2007 10:09 pm (#689 of 2055)
Hollywand is grateful to you all for your gracious humor and for your kind words of encouragement. Think of my good qualities. She is now off to iron her hands.

I will see what you Logicistas can do to the theory. Have fun.

Don't even get me started on my Dumbledore is RAB theory. ;-)



HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 4, 2007 6:53 am (#690 of 2055)
Don't even get me started on my Dumbledore is RAB theory. ;-) Hollywand

Come on, Hollywand, you know I love your theories. They make great sense even for an earthy, logic-seeker such as myself. Don't leave us hanging like that. That would be cruel.

PS: Does that mean he can't be the Giant Squid?



Hollywand - Mar 4, 2007 7:31 am (#691 of 2055)
Hungarian Horntail, I must admit it would be folly to leave a dragon hanging. Boy, Jo would get a laugh out of that reference since there are so many references to hanging in the Potter series. Alas, earwax, I don't think Dumbledore is the Giant Squib, I mean Squid.

Here is a synopsis of the Dumbledore (or Severus Snape) is RAB theory.

In the "Will and Won't Chapter", Dumbledore shares a glass of mead (sort of) with the Dursleys and Harry. Now, I think here, Dumbledore knows he won't see the end of the school year and Harry's coming of age, so he is really sealing a new protection on Privet Drive. The Dursleys refuse his golden honey beverage at their own peril. When darkness shows up on their door, Harry will be protected, but they will be toast (I speculate).

The casting of runes has a tradition of using mead to seal a charm. The RAB note is written in Chiastic verse, which means an X reverse style. The Avada Kedavra curse is written in Chiastic verse. I speculate the RAB note is another unifying charm on Dumbledore or Snape's part, perhaps the two of them acting in concert. I speculate that perhaps the note has a rune-based meaning we do not yet understand. Miss Hermione Granger is studying runes diligently, and perhaps she will be able to enlighten us. Also, Jo gave us a series of ten runes as a gift on her web site. The ten rune cycle fits the alchemy paradigm, so it looks like pay dirt.

The other possibility is that, the note was written by Dumbledore/Snape and intentionally a decoy for the basin. Dumbledore's narrative when he is ingesting the potion tells me that he was correct; he got the real Slytherin locket. (Dumbledore is reliving the moment Tom Riddle murdered his dad, and his grandparents--go back and look at Dumbledore's dialog while he is drinking the potion with this event in mind.) Dumbledore put the real locket around his neck the moment Harry looked away ("Dumbledore was clutching his chest). That's DD wearing the locket. Snape enters, fires a "Let this thing be destroyed" at the locket Dumbledore is wearing to destroy the Slytherin Horcrux.

Harry finds the decoy near Dumbledore's body, thinking Dumbledore to have made a mistake, but it is Harry who is misinterpreting the events.

(Please note folks here, that I am a fine artist with a background in chemistry and not growing HinkyPunks in my back yard, 'k? Most of this stuff I got from the internet and not The Book of Shadows.)



HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 4, 2007 9:18 am (#692 of 2055)
Does anyone have the quote of the note from RAB? I've been searching for it in Accio Quote but can't find it. It would be great to take a look at it, alongside your theory, Hollywand.

Please note folks here, that I am a fine artist with a background in chemistry . . . Hollywand
Don't you roll over and die on me here, Hollywand. You always add a great new dimension.

I really like the idea of DD leaving behind a protection. It would fit in many ways and also the idea that the real locket was hit with the AK by Snape. I am now curious about the note more than ever.

BTW, I did leave a loophole in one of my previous posts: When someone asked what would have happened if Ginny had died, her response was that Big V would come back stronger than ever.
and I really thought you'd come back with it.



Tom Marvolo Riddleton - Mar 4, 2007 10:16 am (#693 of 2055)
Does anyone have the quote of the note from RAB? -HungarianHorntail11



"To the Dark Lord
I know I will be dead long before you read this
but I want you to know that it was I who discovered your secret.
I have stolen the real Horcrux and intend to destroy it as soon as I can.
I face death in the hope that when you meet your match,
you will be mortal once more.
R.A.B."


Choices - Mar 4, 2007 11:18 am (#694 of 2055)
Hollywand, I love that theory that Dumbledore is really R.A.B. The moment I read it long ago I just had that gut feeling that it was spot on. Thank you for posting it here. It just makes so much sense to me.



HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 4, 2007 1:47 pm (#695 of 2055)
Thank you for providing the quote, TMR!

Hollywand, I see the note in a different light when reading it as DD being the author. I like that idea and agree with Choices. You'll have to help me with regard to the chiastic verse, though. I am more familiar with the "We did not land on Plymouth Rock. . ." type which is easier to recognize in such a form.

One last question: Why would DD bother to make a fake locket (after retrieving the original)? If Big V went to check on it, surely he would recognize it as a fake. He doesn't seem to trust in anyone to share such a secret, so he wouldn't send another. Was DD planning to have it sent to Big V?

BTW, I bring my views to the table for discussion. I certainly don't intend it in a malicious or condescending manner. If you reread my posts, perhaps you (and others) can see that.



sstabeler - Mar 4, 2007 1:59 pm (#696 of 2055)
What about the line where RAB predicts his own death? And why would Dumbledore have drunk the potion if he knew the locket was fake?



Hollywand - Mar 4, 2007 2:28 pm (#697 of 2055)
Providing a decoy would delay discovery. Dumbledore speaks of the importance of delaying Voldemort's return to power several times to Harry. D is in uncharted territory, destroying the Horcruxes.

Google Chiastic and you will find a whole bunch of information on the style. The Chiastic style is quite literary, pointing to a real scholar. In my view, this Chiastic style tends to suggest that it is not the young wizard Regulus, and Kreacher in a boat. It is either Dumbledore, Snape or Borgin (who would also realize Tom's history, the origin of the locket, and be quite well read.) Since Tom is addressed as "The Dark Lord", we know that Severus still addressed him in this regard. The Chiastic note, then, serves as a few metaphors:

Severus is "Double Crossing" the Dark Lord

The reverse X could be connected to the X of the Avada Kedavra (if you look up this history of the curse, you will see it is written this way in ancient magic spells) Again, a unifying charm (Severus heals Draco with a charm, Lily excels in charms, book seven will be about charms----the root for charm, incedentally, is carme, the Old French for song, so we have a musical harmony reference).

Time is also an element. This is why Dumbledore is so keen to review Voldemort's history. Each of the Horcruxes holds a bit of arrested time. Voldemort tries to achieve immortality by segmenting and externalizing time. What makes me think that none of the characters, including the Trio, has a Carte Blanche to survive the series, is that the bit of time must be consumed, and the Horcrux worn to destroy it. Dumbledore is willing to do this.

RAB, both Severus and Dumbledore expect to be dead by the end of the series. Dumbledore is actually already dying (you will note that Hermione says this at the beginning) when we see his blackened withered arm, from wearing the Perverll Ring.

The X is a metaphor for the hour glass. The shape of the note reverses time; Dumbledore and Severus, I believe, are erasing Voldemort by consuming his past.

When the Trio are in the Department of Mysteries, they are in a round room with doors, which Hermione marks with a firey "X" to track their path. Round room, rotating, giant X, we are inside a large time piece.

Hungarian, I commend you on being willing to entertain these ideas. Very often, I will put forth a series of text based ideas, only to have someone say "My gut says no." And leave it at that. That's frustrating. At any rate, there's a whole bunch of other references on the Alchemy thread. A dedicated search on any key words will bring up a lot of interconnected ideas.



HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 4, 2007 4:53 pm (#698 of 2055)
Thanks for the explanation regarding your chiastic verse idea. It seems to fit in well with everything else. Of course, I now have more questions and since my knowledge of this is limited, I will take your advice and perform a Google search.

What makes me think that none of the characters, including the Trio, has a Carte Blanche to survive the series, is that the bit of time must be consumed, and the Horcrux worn to destroy it. Hollywand
I am wondering, then, if a horcrux in Harry (I know you are against this theory but hear me out) hasn't provided a "time suspension" of sorts on its own. I say this because when I read your sentence, the diary Harry destroyed comes to mind. How then could he have destroyed it and not felt any repercussions? (Pun intended.)

And thanks.



Hollywand - Mar 4, 2007 4:59 pm (#699 of 2055)
Well, you could be on the correct train of thought. One root word meaning of Horcrux is "crossing of the hour", so time is of the essence, as it were. Perhaps the scar is a nexus of time.



HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 4, 2007 6:28 pm (#700 of 2055)
Well, at least we're getting somewhere.

One last thought. I think it was Hollywand who mentioned the look of "grim satisfaction". It took me two go 'rounds to realize how you meant it. The only other time I saw "grim satisfaction" written was when Arthur Weasley had the confrontation with Lucius in Flourish & Blotts in CoS. I have compared the A. Weasley sentiment with the latter to get a good handle on DD's sentiment.
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 701 to 750

Post  Mona on Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:43 am

journeymom - Mar 5, 2007 5:36 pm (#701 of 2055)

"In the "Will and Won't Chapter", Dumbledore shares a glass of mead (sort of) with the Dursleys and Harry. Now, I think here, Dumbledore knows he won't see the end of the school year and Harry's coming of age, so he is really sealing a new protection on Privet Drive. The Dursleys refuse his golden honey beverage at their own peril. When darkness shows up on their door, Harry will be protected, but they will be toast (I speculate). "


Hey Hollywand, interesting observation. Mead was used to seal oaths in stories, wasn't it? Though I disagree that the Dursleys are toast. I can imagine they'll be imperiled because they didn't seal the charm you suggest above. But they'll by save by Harry (or the trio or the Order).



Laura W - Mar 6, 2007 7:06 am (#702 of 2055)
I know it seems like it was posted a long time ago, but I just wanted TMR to know that I enjoyed his post 684. Well and logically argued, lad!

Laura



Hollywand - Mar 6, 2007 7:46 am (#703 of 2055)
Well, Journeymom, we will have to bet a plate of Hagrid's stoat sandwiches on that one. I bet that Jo demonstrates Dumbledore set the protection in place for Harry by toasting the Dursleys big time. This will be a sort of dark reenactment of the Godric's Hollow event with Lily and James, as Harry rises like a phoenix from the ashes. I speculate.

I know I'm revealing my inner Voldy here, but I personally cant't wait for the Dursleys to get it. Bwwwwaaaaahaaaahaaaa. Wink



Choices - Mar 6, 2007 10:10 am (#704 of 2055)
Boy, do they ever deserve a good "Gotcha"! Me thinks it will be very satisfying to see them get what they have coming to them.



Tom Marvolo Riddleton - Mar 6, 2007 3:08 pm (#705 of 2055)
Why, Laura, I'm flattered and close to speechlessness.

With respect to the mead-sealant idea, it seemed to me as though Harry was interpreting Dumbledore to be mildly enjoying himself as the Dursleys got rapped about the head with the mead, refusing to take it. I think it great that Dumbledore might have a little resentment toward the people who had mistreated his Golden Boy, but to be joyous at the fact that they are bound to be easy prey for Voldemort seems a bit vindictive. I have to read that scene again and pay much more attention to detail.



Laura W - Mar 7, 2007 2:21 am (#706 of 2055)
Why would the Dursleys be easy prey for Voldemort?

The protection spell was put on the house to protect Harry - who LV would be after in order to finish off the job he unsuccessfully started (ie - killing he who would be the one to "vanquish" Lord Voldemort, according to the prophecy). I don't think Tom Riddle could care less about the three Muggle Dursleys. Having the protection on 4PD lifted on Harry's seventeenth birthday is only of consequence to LV if Harry is still residing there. Which he won't be. I don't think the Dursleys are in any danger unless they continue to hang around Lily and James' son. (As if!)

And I really do not see Dumbledore as gloating in any way. I would say if I did. No, I think, after 15 years of observing what the Dursleys put their nephew/cousin through, in August 1996 Dumbledore feels it is finally time to confront Vernon and Petunia with this.

It isn't really about Harry being a Golden Boy, although DD obviously really loves him and believes him to be "remarkable." It's about the Dursleys hearing, from the horse's (phoenix's?) mouth, how they have failed in the important task they were given (ie - to love and nurture and care for the boy as their own) when their baby nephew was placed on their doorstep with a note from the greatest wizard in the world that early morning of Nov. 1, 1981.

That's how I see this scene in HBP, at any rate. I'm sure there can be many interpretations of it.

laura



Soul Search - Mar 7, 2007 8:23 am (#707 of 2055)
Even after my first read I wondered why the "Will and Won't" scene took place at all.

Why did Dumbledore feel compelled to insist the Dursleys allow Harry "house room" one more time. They let him come back at the end of the OotP school year and the earlier dementor attack. Why would they refuse Harry at the end of the HBP school year? Did Dumbledore know he wouldn't be around at the end of HBP and, if the Dursleys found out, they might refuse Harry house room again?

Was it important that Dumbledore inform the Dursleys that Harry came of age at seventeen? That the protections would be ending a year earlier than they might have assumed?

Dumbledore did have to square away #12 Grimmauld Place, Kreacher, and Buckbeak with Harry. That could have been done anywhere. It was nothing the Dursleys needed to know.

By speaking in front of the Dursleys, Dumbledore informed them:

-- Sirius was dead. They did not have to fear him coming by anymore.
-- Harry had a vault, with gold.
-- Harry had inherited a house.
-- That #12 Grimmauld Place was the headquarters of the Order. Since Dumbledore was secret keeper, that means they could find it.
-- It was important that Harry return to #4 Privet Drive one more time.
-- That Harry didn't need to return to #4 Privet Drive after he turned seventeen. They would be done with him then.
-- That Harry owned a house elf, who didn't like him.
I still haven't come up with any good reasons why Dumbledore did all this. Did Dumbledore want the Dursleys to know all this?



Steve Newton - Mar 7, 2007 8:31 am (#708 of 2055)
Another possible reason could have been to let the Dursleys know that he knows that they did not do what they had promised, take care of Harry like one of their own. Although if this would have made him turn out like Dudders Harry may have come off the better.



frogface - Mar 7, 2007 1:07 pm (#709 of 2055)
I think seeing as he was coming to pick Harry up anyway, Dumbledore used to excuse to let the Dursley's know that he knew how they had treated Harry and that he was not impressed.



lobelia - Mar 8, 2007 1:20 pm (#710 of 2055)
Perhaps it gives the introduction that once Harry is 17 he will no longer have the protection he once had and that leads us into the story that he will leave to go somewhere once he comes of age. It sets up the story for the next book when he will leave immediately following his coming of age.



TheSaint - Mar 15, 2007 4:56 am (#711 of 2055)
I may be a bit dense here, but how does Dumbledore know that Lily was offered a reprieve? How does he know anything about Godrics Hollow? Did he tour the site after the fact? Did he find someone who was there and collect a memory from them? Was one of them still living to give a report? Did he legilemens Harry's baby brain and collect auditory memories?

I ask because DD set up Harry's stay at the Dursley's because he invoked a spell to keep Harry safe where his mother's blood lives. Harry was with Hagrid, supposedly, during the time DD was 'researching' what to do with him? If it was just collecting a delivering Harry, it would have been safer for DD to it via apparition (one would think). He certainly learned exactly what happened there within hours of it occurring. But how?



haymoni - Mar 15, 2007 6:06 am (#712 of 2055)
Well, I guess that's one of the main questions.

Who was at Godric's Hollow or who heard about the events that occurred at Godric's Hollow that would be willing to report them back to Dumbledore???



wynnleaf - Mar 15, 2007 7:49 am (#713 of 2055)
I may be a bit dense here, but how does Dumbledore know that Lily was offered a reprieve? How does he know anything about Godrics Hollow? (The Saint)

As haymoni says, it's one of the Big questions.

Some people like to think the answer is rather mundane and not so important -- Dumbledore had a portrait there that told him everything; or he did legilimency on baby Harry, or some such other easy answer that doesn't really affect the plot.

However, if the answer to the question didn't really reveal anything crucial to the plot, I doubt JKR would have kept it secret for so long. So my guess is that the answer to how Dumbledore knows is a pretty important and revealing plot point.

After all, remember that JKR had written between 10-15 versions of the first chapter of PS/SS. She has said that if you put all the versions together, practically the whole HP plot is revealed. Of course, I don't think she meant the plot of Harry's school days, but the main backstory plot that is still somewhat shrouded in mystery.

JKR wanted to keep that hidden, and part of it seems to include how Dumbledore knew, even when he took baby Harry to the Dursley's, that Lily's sacrifice could enable him to use that magic to protect Harry only through his mother's blood relatives.

It seems to me probable that there was someone else at Godrics Hollow that saw enough of what occurred to know that Voldemort offered Lily a choice to live. Otherwise, DD would not know that her sacrifice was any more powerful than James' sacrifice, and would not therefore know that it was her blood that could protect Harry.

However, some other interesting theories have been floated around, as well. I've seen a theory that DD used a timeturner and somehow saw what happened, unable to save the life of someone who had already died, but able to at least see how they died.



TheSaint - Mar 15, 2007 11:26 am (#714 of 2055)
Do you think DD might have known because he saw it himself?

Some think the story is based on a book-that-shall-not-be-named. If so, then the wise wizard of that book planned the whole thing.



haymoni - Mar 15, 2007 11:54 am (#715 of 2055)
That theory is as good as any others that we've had about that night.

Hubby still argues that if they have those Time-Turner thingies, why didn't they use them to go back and kill Voldy before Wormtail got him his body back?

Well, of course then the story would be over at Book 4!



Thom Matheson - Mar 15, 2007 12:24 pm (#716 of 2055)
Book 4? How about before the end of the first chapter of book 1.



wynnleaf - Mar 15, 2007 12:27 pm (#717 of 2055)
My impression of the time turners (at least of the one we've seen described) is that they only go back a few hours. So Dumbledore could have used one hours after the Potters were killed in order to see what happened, but no one could use one to go back many days, months or even years to make any changes.

Did Dumbledore "plan the whole thing".... I don't think JKR would have that. For one thing, there's just two much suffering. Too many people die, children orphaned, etc... No, I don't think it will turn out that DD planned everything. On the other hand, I've always wondered if we'll eventually find out that he had a lot more knowledge of events than would be generally thought possible -- perhaps through time-turner usage, or maybe prophecy, or some other methods.



frogface - Mar 15, 2007 1:19 pm (#718 of 2055)
I read an interesting editorial not so long ago suggesting that Frank Longbottom witnessed the events at Godrics Hollow. I won't post a link as I think thats against the Lexicon's rules, but I'm pretty sure it was on mugglenet. It also ties into a theory as to why Dumbledore trusts Snape.



Die Zimtzicke - Mar 15, 2007 2:30 pm (#719 of 2055)
I think it all goes back to the missing time. The whole wizarding world had time to find out about the demise of Voldemort, and celebrate all day, and Harry doesn't get delivered to the Dursleys by Hagrid until night. Where was he that day, who was he with, and what did they know?

Either Dumbledore did look at Harry's memories as a baby, or Harry was with someone else who did, or someone else was there and told Dumbledore. Any other ideas on what it could be?



Laura W - Mar 15, 2007 2:38 pm (#720 of 2055)
What I don't get - among other things - is this: if Dumbledore or somebody on Dumbledore's side *was* at GH when LV killed Lily (after giving her the chance to save herself) and saw the whole thing, why did they not just grab baby Harry and take him to Dumbledore as soon as Voldemort became Vapormort? That seems far more logical than going back to DD, telling him what happened and then DD sending Hagrid to the destroyed house to pick up the baby.

In Book One it definitely says that Dumbledore sent Hagrid to pick up Harry at GH and told him to meet him (DD) at 4PD with The Boy Who Lived. Why in Merlin's name would that be necessary if Dumbledore himself saw the whole thing which transpired on Oct. 31, 1981? Or if one of his people saw it? The order of events in that case should be:

1. Watch the whole horrible event.

2. Grab the baby from the ruins (while being amazed that the child is alive).

3. Take him to Dumbledore at Hogwarts. OR take him to wherever you live and send DD an owl telling him what happened and wait for further instructions. OR if you are DD, take the baby to wherever.

Why bring Hagrid into this at all?

Harry actually found out that LV gave his mother the opportunity to save herself during his anti-Dementor lesson with Lupin in his third year. He heard Lily say, "Not Harry! Not Harry! Please - I'll do anything -" and Voldemort say, "Stand aside - stand aside, girl - ". Obviously that is another way to find out what happened at GH that night.

Laura



TomProffitt - Mar 15, 2007 4:14 pm (#721 of 2055)
Egad, I had a thought (which has probably been hashed out on one of the various Snape threads) which should explain the time dilemma and others.

Snape was the witness. Snape protected Harry & notified Dumbledore (and thus the rest of the world through DD). But his role must remain secret to allow him to continue spying to bring in the other Death Eaters. This also explains Dumbledore's trust in him.

If this theory doesn't get shot down here I may take it to the Snape thread. I'm sure it's been discussed on this forum somewhere, though.



Soul Search - Mar 15, 2007 4:44 pm (#722 of 2055)
TomProffitt,

The theory has been discussed before. It has some good legs. In particular, it explains why Snape seems so resentful of Harry being called a hero. Snape would be the true hero.

Bigest problem is the question of why Snape didn't do more and why he didn't fetch Harry from the ruins of the house.



wynnleaf - Mar 15, 2007 5:24 pm (#723 of 2055)
This theory is discussed on the Was It Snape at Godrics Hollow thread. If he was there, one might guess that he had to maintain some sort of DE role (especially if other DEs were about), and therefore not able to actually remove Harry -- perhaps instead hiding him in some way?

My guess is that whatever occurred, it helps answer some of the already existing questions -- which could include why DD trusted Snape -- rather than answer new questions that we don't even know to ask yet. It's sort of like the question about James' cloak. The answer to how DD knew so much about what occurred is almost certain to be highly relevant to the plot, not just some mundane fact.



Luna Logic - Mar 28, 2007 9:32 am (#724 of 2055)
Edited by Mar 28, 2007 8:33 am
Taking back this discussion on a proper place: How does Albus Dumbledore makes himsel invisible?
(From the Aberforth Dumbledore’s thread):
Frogface: He doesn't need an invisabilty cloak to be invisible after all.
Luna Logic: Yes, but what does this Jo's sentence is meaning, literally speaking ? How does Albus makes himself invisible ?.
Frogface: We can only speculate on that. But I don't think Albus can make himself invisible so much as just knows how not to be noticed. Did you ever read the His Dark Materials trilogy? If you haven't I strongly reccomend them to anyone - especially Harry Potter fans. Anyway, in one of the books there is a witch who uses a spell where instead of being invisble, she just makes herself pretty much unnoticble. So that she can move amongst her enemies unharmed. They see her, but they don't register her presense. Another character in the novel who has no magical powers also knows how to do this - not by using magic but by knowing how to act so that people won't notice you. I think something like this may be what Albus was doing.
It was just what I had in mind with my question, Frogface. But I found it too complex to explain. Another sherlockholmian way of disapearing...



HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 28, 2007 10:46 am (#725 of 2055)
What was the spell the Order members used on Harry when they picked him up at 4PD? Could it be something along those lines?

EDIT: Thank you, Choices. My memory isn't what I'd like it to be.



Choices - Mar 28, 2007 10:48 am (#726 of 2055)
Wasn't it a Disillusionment Charm? Harry just blended into the background.



MickeyCee3948 - Mar 28, 2007 11:53 am (#727 of 2055)
Yes Choices, that was it but I think it's more than that. In the battle at the MOM, both Dumbledore and Voldemort seem to be able to disappear and re-appear clear across the room with no indications(pop) that they are apparating.

Mickey



Choices - Mar 28, 2007 5:29 pm (#728 of 2055)
I agree Mickey. It is more than just something simple like a Disillusionment Charm. When two wizards are facing each other in battle in a relatively small area, they are watching each other intently, so I doubt it is possible for one to move visibly across the area and just not be noticed. It would appear they each have the ability to disappear, and then reappear in another spot quite rapidly.



frogface - Mar 29, 2007 3:37 am (#729 of 2055)
Thats not strictly the same as becoming invisible in my opinion though. Its just moving from one place to another.



MickeyCee3948 - Mar 29, 2007 1:38 pm (#730 of 2055)
At a speed faster than light since the human eye would catch it otherwise. Some refraction or other distortion.

Mickey



frogface - Mar 30, 2007 4:26 am (#731 of 2055)
Thats an idea, but we don't know thats how it works. To me it just looks as if its some form of advanced apparation. Are you suggesting that rather than use a cloak Dumbledore would choose to be constantly apparating in order to stay invisible? That doesn't seem like a very convinient option to me.



HungarianHorntail11 - Mar 30, 2007 4:56 am (#732 of 2055)
I agree with advanced apparition, frogface.

It seems to me as though we're shown lots of magic in its most basic form being taught to students. However, a powerful wizard such as DD would make it look effortless and fluid. I wouldn't rule out some form of invisibility talent, though.



journeymom - Mar 30, 2007 11:58 am (#733 of 2055)

"Frogface: ...I don't think Albus can make himself invisible so much as just knows how not to be noticed. Did you ever read the His Dark Materials trilogy? ... there is a witch who uses a spell where instead of being invisble, she just makes herself pretty much unnoticble. So that she can move amongst her enemies unharmed. They see her, but they don't register her presense. ... I think something like this may be what Albus was doing."


I read the book and thought the same thing. Without getting too far off topic, I think there are other similarities between "Dark Materials" and HP.

But I agree, we should remember that Dumbledore and LV are very powerful, and it could be that they simply can apparate quietly.



Eroej Kab - May 4, 2007 10:16 am (#734 of 2055)
Please help me.

Does anyone know if DD ever specifically and explicitly spoke out against house elf enslavement (or any other form of slavery for that matter)?

Thanks for any help you can lend.



Choices - May 4, 2007 10:44 am (#735 of 2055)
I don't remember any instance where Dumbledore spoke out against it. He would have been a kind and generous boss though. Dobby told Harry he had to talk Dumbledore out of giving him more money and holidays.



frogface - May 6, 2007 9:41 am (#736 of 2055)
I think rather than looking at want House Elves want as a species, Dumbledore looks at what the individual wants. Which when you get down to it is a much more progressive and open minded view to take than Hermione's. Hermione insists that the Elves have been brain washed, and tries to tell them what she thinks they ought to want. Her heart is in the right place which is what counts, but really all she is doing is forcing the House Elves to subscribe to her mandate rather than someone elses. Dumbledore pays Dobby because that is what Dobby wants. He doesn't pay the other Elves because they don't want that.



Choices - May 6, 2007 11:03 am (#737 of 2055)
I read an interesting theory the other day about Ollivander being hidden by Dumbledore, so that he could make wands to arm the house-elfs at Hogwarts. When Voldemort tries to take over Hogwarts, the house-elfs will be fearsome fighters to help defeat him. Thus the picture on the DH book cover showing Dobby hoisting the sword to help Harry fight the invading DE's.



Paul Potter - Jun 26, 2007 7:06 am (#738 of 2055)
Hi all This is my first post and so am sorry is this has been discussed before, bit I was just wondering what will happen to Dumbledore's belongings. Like the pensive and all of the memories and all the things that he had in is office

If these go to Harry then maybe there will be things that will help him.

Hopefully Fawkes will choose Harry as his new owner



azi - Jun 26, 2007 7:18 am (#739 of 2055)
I like that idea, Paul!

I suppose it depends on Dumbledore's will. I hope he gives some things to Harry. Some of his possessions might belong to the school though.

Maybe Harry gets Gryffindor's sword this way? After all, he got it out the Sorting Hat!



Paul Potter - Jun 26, 2007 8:03 am (#740 of 2055)
I was thinking that when Harry was breaking Dumbledor's things at the end of OOTP He says Harry can continue to break his belongings as he probably has to many.

Maybe the gold and jewels that HRH are in on the cover of the UK cover of DH is gold inherited By Harry



TwinklingBlueEyes - Jun 26, 2007 8:31 am (#741 of 2055)
An interesting thought Paul, but gold and riches are not what Harry is about, so why would it matter? Harry needs advice, etc. Gold he has, his future life is not yet secure...

...toddles off elsewhere...



Paul Potter - Jun 26, 2007 8:38 am (#742 of 2055)
I agree TwinkligBlueEyes that Harry Doesn't need gold but maybe its something in the vault of Dumbledores that Harry finds in the vault he inherits



mona amon - Jun 26, 2007 9:44 am (#743 of 2055)
I think Dumbledore's brother Aberforth will inherit most of his posessions, though he may have left some item\items to Harry or others.



Paul Potter - Jun 26, 2007 10:04 am (#744 of 2055)
I Think that Dumbledore's will, will prove to be important in DH if we believe that Dumbeldore is dead. Which according to JKR He is



MickeyCee3948 - Jun 30, 2007 5:54 am (#745 of 2055)
I'm almost positive that Harry will get the pensieve and some of the memories. Maybe he will show the memories to R/H to get their take on the scenes. I think that at least one of the memories will lead the gang to one of the horcrux's.

Mickey



shepherdess - Jul 2, 2007 5:41 pm (#746 of 2055)
What I keep wondering is this: If Harry goes into Dumbledore's memories in the pensieve, how in the heck is he going to get out? He has never exited from a pensieve memory by himself. Someone has always had to help him. I don't think he has a clue how to do it.



Solitaire - Jul 2, 2007 6:35 pm (#747 of 2055)
I'm with shepherdess on this one. Harry will need help ... although Slughorn surely understands about Pensieves. Why else would Dumbledore have needed that memory? Perhaps Sluggy will approach him and offer to help. I'm betting McGonagall also understands them; Snape did. Still, I doubt he would seek out adult help on this one, unless he is really desperate. If Harry has confided his Pensieve adventures to Ron and Hermione, she is sure to ask him about how he got out ... and make sure he knows how to do it alone. JM2K ...

I'm still not sure that Dumbledore is going to "give" the Pensieve to Harry. He may borrow it or use it ... but I suspect it may be one of the artifacts that goes along with the office of Headmaster. Harry may have to ask permission to use it ... or he may have to use it "by stealth."

Solitaire



Hagsquid - Jul 2, 2007 11:35 pm (#748 of 2055)
Harry has never tried to exit a memory though. Maybe you have to want to leave the memory, and then it's as easy as standing up.



Choices - Jul 3, 2007 11:17 am (#749 of 2055)
I agree - Harry has never had to exit by himself. I think when the time comes, he will instinctively do it.



Solitaire - Jul 3, 2007 11:29 am (#750 of 2055)
Harry doesn't seem to have any trouble putting his nose into other people's business, but he often has trouble extricating himself from troublesome situations. And now, he no longer has Dumbledore to bail him out. I hope he has made a few mental notes over the years ...

Solitaire
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 751 to 800

Post  Mona on Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:46 am

Ludicrous Patents Office - Jul 3, 2007 2:39 pm (#751 of 2055)
I think Dumbledore's portrait will be able to help. The other portraits know more what is going on than any living person. They will be a good resource if Harry has access to them. LPO



Hagsquid - Jul 3, 2007 3:09 pm (#752 of 2055)
Well, JKR did say she was having trouble with DD in the sixth book, so we know that Harry is likely to communicate with him in some fashion or another.



Remi - Jul 7, 2007 1:19 pm (#753 of 2055)
It's not just exiting from the pensieve that Harry may not have a clue about. He doesn't know a fraction of the things that Dumbledore knows how to do (how to be invisible without a cloak, how to recognize the signs that a place has known magic, how to speak to Mer people, just to name a few). I'm worried about how he's going to track down the remaining horcruxes without some substantial assistance - from Dumbledore or another powerful & knowledgable wizard.

So, if there isn't a higher school of education (per Rowling), where did Dumbledore learn all that he knew? (Now Dumbledore's biography would be something I'd LOVE Rowling to write in a few years.)



Mediwitch - Jul 7, 2007 8:26 pm (#754 of 2055)
Jo said Dumbledore had good teachers, but was primarily self-taught. (I didn't look it up, so it's not an exact quote, but it's pretty close.)



Choices - Jul 8, 2007 9:17 am (#755 of 2055)
My Dad (a school principal) always called it the "School of Hard Knocks". I think Dumbledore was a student in the School of Hard Knocks - he learned a lot by doing and by not being afraid to get his hands dirty. As McGonagall said, he knew the Dark Arts, but was too noble to use them. He had to learn them somehow, though. I don't see him picking up all his knowledge sitting in a classroom. I think he must have started fighting evil at a very young age and learned a lot along the way. He was obviously very talented magically because he distinguished himself before he ever finished at Hogwarts (according to Madam Marchbanks). He has probably seen and done more things than the average wizard ever has, and that is why he is considered the greatest wizard of his time.



Solitaire - Jul 8, 2007 9:54 am (#756 of 2055)
Edited Jul 8, 2007 10:40 am
if there isn't a higher school of education (per Rowling), where did Dumbledore learn all that he knew?

Wasn't it Griselda Marchbanks who said he "could do things with a wand I'd never seen before"? It sounds like DD was probably advanced beyond his peers by a relatively early age. If Wizards are like the rest of us, those who love to learn at an early age usually never lose that desire to acquire knowledge and skills throughout their lives.

I'm sure Dumbledore did a great deal of preparation and study before engaging in battle with Grindelwald. He has obviously been preparing for Harry's entree into the Wizarding World since the night he heard Trelawney's prediction. Remember that Dumbledore was often an "absentee headmaster." Pehaps that is where he has been ... acquiring the knowledge and skills he would need for Harry. We know he was busy getting memories and destroying the Horcruxes he was able to find. JM2K ...

Solitaire

Edit: Did Dumbledore perhaps trust Snape all those years because Snape had taken an Unbreakable Vow with him ... or, perhaps, because Snape had owed him a Life-Debt? When he spoke to Harry of Voldemort having a servant who was indebted to Harry ... could he have also been thinking of Voldemort's servant (Snape) who was indebted to HIM? Just asking ...



Soul Search - Jul 8, 2007 10:40 am (#757 of 2055)
We kicked this around a long while ago, but I thought I would bring it up again. I don't think it has been discussed since OotP, and certainly not since HBP. There may, now, be more to add.

It starts with the Centaur's comments in SS which depict a "cycle" of wizarding events that can be told by observing the stars. The idea is that the Harry Potter saga is one of many of these cycles.

The chocolate frog card tells us of Dumbledore's defeat of Grindelwald. Now, that's about all we have of canon on the subject, but but we can make some inferences.

Grindlewald was the evil villian in the previous "cycle" and Dumbledore was the "hero."

Part of the hero's responsibility is to stay around long enough to prepare the future hero for his confrontation with evil in the next cycle. That's why Dumbledore had to live so long. Trelawney's role was to tell the previous hero, Dumbledore, who the next hero would be. It turned out to be Harry.

Dumbledore has been fulfilling his role as previous hero by protecting and teaching Harry.

OotP adds a small confirmation with Firenze's teaching.

By the tower scene in HBP, Dumbledore has fulfilled his responsibility as previous hero and has passed the role of hero to Harry.

This means, of course, that Harry has to live long enough to train the next hero.



Solitaire - Jul 8, 2007 10:42 am (#758 of 2055)
I think you are talking about the "recurring boy who lived" theory. Wasn't that Vball man's theory? Hm ... speaking of vball man, I have not seen him around for a while. Is he still posting on other threads?



The Viking - Jul 16, 2007 1:20 am (#759 of 2055)
I have been thinking a bit about Albus latly.

I feel that in some way the Hero has to be "better" than the mentor, otherwise the Mentor could just defeat the bad guy himself.

So, as I see it, Dumbledore has to be mistaken about something.

There are a number of things i am incertain about:

Dumbledore seems to assume that Harry will have to kill Voldemort. Voldemort may or may not die, but I think that Harry will at some point learn to feel compassion for and even forgivnes for Voldemort. Harry will do what he will have to do, but his way to enlightement will have to involve leaving any idea about revenge behind. I will not be very suprised if Voldemort is still alive at the end of the book.

Am am far from sure that Dumbledore is right about Nagini being a Horcrux.

Dumbledore is very much a pupeteer. He controls people for the common good, but he is the lonely man on the top.

In OotP he hides information from Harry because he thinks that is for the best, but realises in the end that this was a mistake. Nevertheless he does exactly the same in HBP, with respect to what i knows and does not know about Malfoy and Harry's suspicions. Harry has many well-founded supicions about Malfoy, but never get a good answer to his questions, he more or less gets "Forget it, and do as you are told". It is also typical that when he dies, noone in the order knows exactly why he trusted Snape.

I think that Harry's quest will be more a teamwork between equals, and that will be impportant in some way.

In HBP, Harry tells Draco that "When I wants my friends to stand lookout, I tell them what I am up to"

I think Harry will really do this, while Dumbledore did not. This may prove an important difference.



Mrs Brisbee - Jul 16, 2007 6:36 am (#760 of 2055)
The Viking, I agree with you that Dumbledore was very paternalistic, and Harry's more egalitarian approach will be Harry's strength. We often see Dumbledore making decisions for the good of someone, but neglecting to discuss his decision with the person whose business it is, like not telling Trelawney why she needs to stay at Hogwarts, or not consulting with Sirius beforehand about the Occlumency lessons for Harry. I think Harry is stronger for having his friends' informed help.



The Viking - Jul 16, 2007 10:18 am (#761 of 2055)
A tiny detail:

In OotP Dumbledore promises to tell Harry everything, but he does not tell Harry who did eavesdrop on the prophecy.

And when Harry confronts him with this he still seems to not be telling Harry why he trusts Snape (The reason he gives sounds lame to me).

Again, Dumbledore seems to be telling people what he thinks they ought to hear, and then expect them to trust him, instead of telling them all the facts and allow them to make up their own mind.



TwinklingBlueEyes - Jul 17, 2007 9:50 am (#762 of 2055)
"Again, Dumbledore seems to be telling people what he thinks they ought to hear, and then expect them to trust him, instead of telling them all the facts and allow them to make up their own mind."

Interesting concept, but there are allowances for everything, and everyone. For example, if you knew something about your best friend that would have a catastrophic effect on their life, and you knew that withholding that information would allow them some time for the chance of living in peaceful ignorance...what would you do?

Would you be the first to break the bad news, be a spoiler, etc..., just so you could be the first in the gossip mill, or under the guise of, "in your best interest"?

Or would you respect that persons right to discover their life on their own? ...toddles off amazed at the Dr.'s that have to make this decision everyday...and no matter what they decide, someone will place the blame on them...



Choices - Jul 17, 2007 10:38 am (#763 of 2055)
TBE, I agree. It is never an easy thing to play God. I know that Dumbledore doesn't always reveal everything he knows, but I think he reveals what is important for Harry to know. What purpose does it serve for Harry to know who the eavesdropper was? Does knowing change what happened?



legolas returns - Jul 17, 2007 10:41 am (#764 of 2055)
You could argue that it was better that Harry did not know. Can you imagine his reaction if Snape was still teaching at the school. It would have blowen "cover" for Snape and Harry would have totally gone off on one. I cant even begin to imagine what Snapes reaction to a completely mad Harry.



The Viking - Jul 18, 2007 4:47 am (#765 of 2055)
For example, if you knew something about your best friend that would have a catastrophic effect on their life, and you knew that withholding that information would allow them some time for the chance of living in peaceful ignorance...what would you do?

That is in general a very difficult question to answer, but know that, if you chose to withhold information, you are taking a decision about a other persons life you are normally not the right one to take.

In the case of Dumbledore, that specific question applies only the information he withheld until the end of book 5. It does not apply to the information about whether Snape is good or not.

And yes, there are many good reasons to keep information hidden from those concerned. But the moment Dumbledore does that, he sets his judgment above everyone else's. It is like Lupin says in HBP, it all comes down to whether you trust Dumbledore's judgment or not. The individual can make own judgments, because the information is not available.

Of course, it is a possibility that Harry would have gone completly ballistic if he had been told earlier that Snape was LV's informant. But he did in fact find out, at random point in time. Isn't that potentially even more risky? As it turned out, Harry got this piece of information when at lot of things was going on, and thus it affected the course of things to a limited degree. But what if Harry's conversation had happened earlier?

Also note that Harry's choice of letting the issue rest when discussing it with Dumbledore is not a result of him being convinced, nor a result of a deep felt respect for Dumbledore's judgment, but a result of fear of being banned from the horcrux hunt.

And whose followers is it that is motivated as much by fear as by love for, respect for and trust in their leader?



So Sirius - Jul 18, 2007 5:08 am (#766 of 2055)
I've argued, unsuccessfully, that there's something about DD that seems more evil than good. He's always put Harry in harms way, but then you learn that he loves him and he's probably doing it for the better of the world. You assume he's being truthful, then you come to find out that he's not telling whole stories. When Gambon played him so oddly in GoF, I blamed him and the director, yet in the back of my mind, I wondered whether it was a clue into something we'll come to find out about DD in book 7. He's a real mystery, this one and I suspect we'll come to find he's more of a mystery than we imagined.



Padfoot - Jul 18, 2007 5:37 am (#767 of 2055)
Hey i've got a question, in the OoTP movie when DD and Voldemort attack each other, did the Priori Incantatem effect happpen because their wands connected?



Die Zimtzicke - Jul 18, 2007 7:39 am (#768 of 2055)
I have never understood the concept that Dumbledore is always correct, that he's always doing the right thing, and that he cannot possible have any ulterior motives of his own. He's such a human charcter. He has to make mistakes, he has to have his own reasons for doign thigns, and they cna't always be in everyone's best interests. If he does something to benefit one person, he's got to know he's always messing up things for someone else. He touched on that when he told Harry why he didn't tell him sooner about the prophecy.

Dumbledore is powerful, and no one with that kind of power could possibly ALWAYS use it in the best way.



Potter Ace - Jul 18, 2007 9:31 am (#769 of 2055)
Padfoot - no, it's Harry's wand and LV's that are brothers, not DD's and LV's. the battle scene was well done and exciting to watch, even know the outcome.



So Sirius - Jul 18, 2007 10:02 am (#770 of 2055)
I wonder if the reason DD couldn't look Harry in the eyes during OoTP had more to do with DD's past and his secrets, more so than the excuse that LV could use their relationship against them. The cave and his rantings might have also touched on that. There's more to DD as we all know, than meets the eye, but I always suspected it wasn't in a good way. I think he wanted Harry to go through all this, because he knew he'd be the only one to take down LV and he made lots of things happen to make this a reality. Is that being bad, well ... maybe not for the bigger picture, but it's not being honest.



Choices - Jul 18, 2007 10:24 am (#771 of 2055)
I have always seen Dumbledore as all seeing and all knowing. I think he has had a plan for the destruction of Voldemort since possibly before Harry was born. I see him as being like the director of a movie - he has a script (his plan) and he directs his cast and sets up scenes to achieve his goal for the movie - to make sure that everyone arrives at the desired conclusion when the movie is done. The director (Dumbledore) has lots of help, but ultimately the outcome is his responsibility. He imparts knowledge and information as he sees fit, to facilitate getting to the final outcome as planned. He alone can see the big picture and knows what must be done to achieve success.



The Viking - Jul 18, 2007 10:50 am (#772 of 2055)
That may very well be the case, but if that is the case: Does this make his followers his friends or his servants?



Paul Potter - Jul 18, 2007 10:52 am (#773 of 2055)
His followers can make a choice to follow him or not. That is the main thread of the books.



TwinklingBlueEyes - Jul 18, 2007 10:53 am (#774 of 2055)
Very well said! I agree. Dumbledore has been orchestrating this outcome for many years now. He may not see and know all, but he does the best he can with what he has to work with...



So Sirius - Jul 18, 2007 11:12 am (#775 of 2055)
I think I just figured something out.... we'll see in 3 days.

We've been told that someone told LV the prophecy, or at least the end of it. We've also been told that Snape is the one that heard it. But, what if it was really DD that told Snape the prophecy or worse, that DD is the one who went to LV with it and led them to Harry, opposed to Neville? He knew what had to be done for the big picture and perhaps, made it all happen. Would Harry have done all this if his parents were still alive? Did DD have anything to do with that?



Choices - Jul 18, 2007 11:39 am (#776 of 2055)
So Sirius - "We've been told that someone told LV the prophecy, or at least the end of it."

It was the first half of the prophesy that was told to Voldemort. It was Snape that heard it and he was interrupted before he heard the second half.



So Sirius - Jul 18, 2007 11:48 am (#777 of 2055)
Choices, that's what DD told us. That's what DD told Harry, from Trelawneys letting the cat out of the bag to Harry. The fact that DD didn't tell Harry and the cat had to be let out of the bag, we assumed was because of Harry's already horrid feelings for Snape, but we're assuming a lot here. What if it was DD who told Snape the first half, or what if it was DD who insisted Snape go and tell LV the first half, or DD himself went and told LV.



Nathan Zimmermann - Jul 18, 2007 12:21 pm (#778 of 2055)
There is an interesting new essay on the Lexicon, that presents a theory which, says that Dumbledore impersonated Snape during the scene in Spinners End and the blackened hand was the result of taking the Unbreakable Vow.



So Sirius - Jul 18, 2007 12:23 pm (#779 of 2055)
that's MY theory. well, at least I mentioned that long ago. Of course others could have come up with it too, but here on the forum, long ago, I suggested that.



Nathan Zimmermann - Jul 18, 2007 12:25 pm (#780 of 2055)
So Sirius, I did not realize that please accept my humblest apologies.



Choices - Jul 18, 2007 5:56 pm (#781 of 2055)
So Sirius - "What if it was DD who told Snape the first half, or what if it was DD who insisted Snape go and tell LV the first half, or DD himself went and told LV."

Sorry, but the Dumbledore that I have come to know and love in these stories would never do that in a million years. I can't even entertain that possibility.



Madame Pomfrey - Jul 18, 2007 7:51 pm (#782 of 2055)
I agree with Choices. I can't imagine Dumbledore doing such a thing. I do like the idea that Dumbledore was hiding more than we think when not making eye contact with Harry,though.



Potter Ace - Jul 19, 2007 9:34 am (#783 of 2055)
I think in DH we are going to see a side of DD that we have yet to be shown. In a majority of the characters (Hagrid, Lupin, Sirius that I can recall) we have been shown their "dark" side or in the case of Sirius we we shown that the truth was the opposite of what we had been shown up to this time.

I think we are going to see many such examples of "opposite" behavior with DD, as perhaps as well with Snape. I only hope that what is revealed does not hinder my continued liking of DD, who by far has been my favorite character.



legolas returns - Jul 19, 2007 11:26 am (#784 of 2055)
I think that we might get a better insight into what people might call Dumbledores "special" way of thinking. I would especially like to know why he trusted Snape.

We already know that he isnt whiter than white e.g getting Harry and Hermione to break wizarding law to save an innocent man. Harbouring a known convict. Deliberately failing to follow the MOM instructions. These things can be argued were for Harrys benefit and for saving Sirius and were for the greater good + the ministry was wrong. There is bound to be many more instances of where the ends justify the means e.g getting rid of Voldemort.

I think we might question some of the motives/some of the things he believed/why he trusted people but all the same he still is my favourite character. Nobody is perfect after all.



journeymom - Jul 19, 2007 11:29 am (#785 of 2055)
Isn't it JKR who called Dumbledore the epitome of goodness, or something like that? The Epitome of Goodness does not carry the Prophecy to Lord Voldemort. Why in the world would Dumbledore do that, anyway?

He's not divine. He comes across that way in PS, but gradually, a little in each book, he's revealed to be more human. Therefore, in Deathly Hallows, we'll learn just how human and fallible he really was. This doesn't diminish his goodness or our (Harry's) love for him, but means that by the end of the book, we (Harry) will finally see Dumbledore for who he really is: kind, loving, well intentioned, brilliant, wise, far-seeing, dedicated, very powerful, a little arrogant, wily, judiciously deceptive and sometimes impish. In my opinion.



Mrs Brisbee - Jul 19, 2007 7:17 pm (#786 of 2055)
A lovely post, Journeymom. I liked how at the end of HBP Harry questioned Dumbledore's judgment, but was able to separate that from and still embrace all the good things Dumbledore stood for and strived for. Dumbledore's character has definitely become more human over the course of the books.



wynnleaf - Jul 19, 2007 8:32 pm (#787 of 2055)
Dumbledore's character has definitely become more human over the course of the books. (Mrs Brisbee)

And this makes sense given that Harry, as he gets older, should be seeing Dumbledore as more and more human. We, the readers, see most things through Harry's eyes. It's therefore natural that we'd first see him through the eyes of an 11 year old -- sort of god-like, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. As the books go by, Harry sees more and more of Dumbledore's flaws or weaknesses. In the last book, as Harry enters adulthood, I'd expect him to be seeing Dumbledore more as an adult would see him. But that doesn't make Dumbledore less good or even less wise. It makes Harry more mature.



Solitaire - Jul 19, 2007 9:37 pm (#788 of 2055)
we'll learn just how human and fallible he really was. This doesn't diminish his goodness

I agree. Being fallible is not the same as being evil. While I completely agree that he is impish and wily, I've never really thought of Dumbledore as arrogant. As he himself said (I'm paraphrasing, since I am without my books): "Being rather cleverer than most people, my mistakes are correspondingly larger." And he is correct about that. When he is wrong, as he says, he is WRONG!

Nice post, Wynnleaf! I agree completely! (I bet you never thought you'd read that! )

Solitaire



Ms Amanda - Jul 20, 2007 10:49 am (#789 of 2055)
I would really like to know what DD was reacting to after he drank the potion in the cave. I figure that we're going to find out exactly how tragic DD's life had been.

It is entirely possible that many people in the wizarding world already know how much DD has lost in the past, and that Harry, in his short-sightedness, never bothered to learn. DD had to fight two Dark Wizards in his life, and perhaps out of respect for his talent and achievements, declined to tickle the sleeping dragons of DD's life. If it is indeed tragedy instead of infamy, even the Prophet would not have reported it during the reign of discrediting because it could have drummed up sympathy. If, on the other hand, DD made a terrible mistake in the past and perhaps landed on the wrong side of goodness, perhaps he is the epitome of goodness now because he later completely and irrevocably forsake that darker path.

On the other hand, both possibilities lend themselves to secrecy, too. Or, the potion could have forced him to see a terrible version of the future or of the present (with the school being attacked.)

Whichever way it turns out, I'm thinking we haven't been thinking on a large enough scale when it comes to DD's mistakes. Many are thinking perhaps he got a horcrux wrong or trusted Snape when he oughtn't have. Perhaps the mistakes he is speaking of are in the past, and terribly huge. I'm thinking that the mistake he made costs many many lives of people who were dear to him.

As for the theory that Snape and DD had changed places, I'm going to have to go back and read that one. Is the idea that it was DD, and not Snape, who answered the door at Spinners' End? It would explain why he was so smooth then. And then in order to keep his word he had to ask Snape to kill him, then?



Solitaire - Jul 21, 2007 11:25 am (#790 of 2055)
Perhaps the mistakes he is speaking of are in the past, and terribly huge. I'm thinking that the mistake he made costs many many lives of people who were dear to him.

Actually, Ms Amanda, I think this idea might have come up back on one of the earlier Dumbledore threads, as it sounds familiar to me. I think what you suggest is quite possible and might, perhaps, have happened back during the height of Grindelwald's power ... and possibly even before that. After all, Dumbledore was born approximately 1840, so there could well have been more than two evil wizards during his lifetime. I hope we find out more of his earlier life in DH.

Solitaire



Gina R Snape - Jul 28, 2007 5:44 pm (#791 of 2055)
Shall I take it spoilers for book 7 are not permitted on the DD thread, unlike the Snape thread?



Choices - Jul 28, 2007 6:01 pm (#792 of 2055)
I think this thread has not been opened to spoilers yet, Gina.



PatPat - Aug 4, 2007 8:42 am (#793 of 2055)
Yayyyy!!! Apparently we can now post to this thread! SOOOOOO:

There had been some discussion over on the What Harry Learns About Dumbledore thread about whether Dumbledore did the right thing in regards to Harry. I admit I am a little biased because Dumbledore has always been, and remains to this day, my favorite character. I know, in the eyes of some, that the discoveries that were made about Dumbledore's past lessens the goodness of Dumbledore. IMO, he is only made more noble by these revelations. NONE of JKR's characters are perfect (much like real people). They all have flaws. But, to me, the nobility and goodness of Dumbledore is that he was able to recognize what those flaws were at a young age and overcome them. He could easily have gone the same way as Voldemort and Grindelwald, being just as powerful and just as interested in power at an early age. But he didn't. He CHOSE to instead dedicate his life to doing what is best for the Wizarding World.

As far as Harry, I, personally, do not see what else Dumbledore could have done. He did not, as some have suggested, send Harry coldly to his death. Dumbledore knew (or guessed but his guesses have "generally been good"), by GoF, that Harry would not die. He could not tell Harry this because then Harry's "sacrifice" would not have had the same effect. Harry had to believe he was going to die and walk into it willingly. This is what gave the protection to his friends.

It has also been suggested that Dumbledore could have put Harry somewhere other than the Dursleys', allowing him to live a happy life. I, personaly, don't see that as an option. Dumbledore chose to save Harry's life in exchange for his happiness for 10 years. Sure, he could have given him to a nice wizarding family that would have loved him. But the second Voldemort returned (and Dumbledore was sure that he would) Harry would have been first on his list. And Harry would not have had the strong protection that Dumbledore gave him at the Dursleys'. Without this protection, Harry would have been a goner and probably also the wizarding family that he was living with. So, not only would Harry be dead, but Voldemort would be back and the person with the power to defeat him would be gone. And I think it's important to remember that Dumbledore never forced Harry to go after Voldemort. In fact, as T Vrana pointed out on the other thread, he was insistent in HBP that Harry understood that he did have a choice. I think the biggest point is that Dumbledore's plan worked. Harry survived and the Dark Lord was vanquished.



Choices - Aug 4, 2007 9:18 am (#794 of 2055)
Excellant post, PatPat. I totally agree. Well stated!



rambkowalczyk - Aug 4, 2007 9:45 am (#795 of 2055)
Pat Pat--I too can't really say what Dumbledore should have done differently. I understand why he had to lie to Harry and just as importantly Harry does as well.

But with regard to Snape, I'm a little on the fence. To me it is a miracle that Snape followed Dumbledore's order to the letter when Dumbledore told Snape that Harry had to die. Personally I think Snape's soul was at risk. Although the way things turned out, Snape's soul seems safe and secure, Dumbledore had no way of knowing that it would be that way. It seems as though, Dumbledore risked Snape's soul for the greater good.



PatPat - Aug 4, 2007 9:56 am (#796 of 2055)
I don't understand what you mean, ramb. How was Snape's soul at risk because Harry had to die? Dumbledore didn't say Snape had to kill him. He said Voldemort had to do it. Do you mean that Snape's soul would have been torn simply by allowing Harry to die? And besides, even if this were the case, Dumbledore knew Harry WOULDN'T die. Or am I misunderstanding you?



hellocello3200 - Aug 4, 2007 11:20 am (#797 of 2055)
I don't think Dumbledore knew for sure Harry would survive. Remember that the magical relationship between Harry and LV was unique, so that particular situation had never actually happened.

Was anyone else struck by the similarities between Dumbledore and Percy? I always saw the youthful Albus as a bit of a Fred/George type, using his magical skill for amusement and mostly harmless mischief.

After reading DH, the character the young Dumbledore most resembles seems to be Percy. Both were ambitious and focused on advancing their career through "the establishment" while in school and beyond, in contrast to some more unconventional younger siblings (aberforth & twins) who forge ahead with their own interests (goats and a joke shop). Their ambition blinds them to the harmful nature of the people they are supporting (Grindlewald &Fudge et al) and are citied heavily by their younger siblings for this. Eventually they come round to the right side and amends are made. I'm hoping this means that Percy won't be so pratlike as he ages (and maybe that sense of humor will develop a bit?).



wynnleaf - Aug 4, 2007 1:30 pm (#798 of 2055)
I felt like Dumbledore recognized some of his flaws and worked to avoid them (not exactly correct them), but there were other flaws he didn't seem to see.

What was he doing taking the Potters very important and protective Invisibility Cloak, when he knew they were in grave danger, just so he could satisfy his curiosity and investigate the cloak? He told Harry it was days before the Potter's death. But in Lily's letter, which sounded like a letter written not long after Harry's birthday and was definitely written before they went under Fidelius Charm, she speaks of Dumbledore having had the cloak for awhile and not having given it back. That's certainly more than "a few days." And why did he have it at all, when they were in danger?

And asking Snape to kill him? And when Snape was concerned about his own soul, Dumbledore then pulled a guilt trip on Snape to make him do it. Dumbledore may have used the "please don't let me die at Bella or Fenrir's hands" tactic, but he really wanted Snape to kill him regardless of whether it was such a situation or not. And he didn't tell him the real reason either, even though this was a very, very, very serious thing he was asking Snape to do. And then when Snape started worrying again about it and saying he didn't want to do it -- even though Snape was implicitly offering to die rather than kill DD -- Dumbledore just pulled the "you agreed to it therefore you have to" kind of argument - another guilt trip.

The other thing that bothered me was Dumbledore's dispassionate demeanor in the face of Harry's possible death. I know we're supposed to believe that Dumbledore really loved Harry and did care, but Dumbledore didn't act like he cared when he wasn't right there facing Harry.

Once, again, when Snape had major doubts and was in fact appalled at Dumbledore's attitude, DD didn't explain anything or even answer. He just tried to throw it back on Snape again with the "haven't you stood by and watched other people die?" sort of question.

Thing is, as long as Dumbledore was talking to Harry, he sounded loving and wise and good. But he didn't sound that way other times. And Aberforth, who sounded perfectly reasonable and well-spoken to me (even if I didn't totally agree with him), was the object of DD's ridicule. In past books, Dumbledore questioned whether he could even read! Wow! Now, in retrospect, that just sounds incredibly arrogant.

Don't misunderstand. I have really, really liked Dumbledore and in a few other areas of the fandom, I've seriously defended him from many readers who saw him as cold, cruel and manipulative. But now, I've been trying to reconcile what I've read in DH to what I always believed about Dumbledore and I'm having quite a hard time doing it.



wynnleaf - Aug 4, 2007 1:52 pm (#799 of 2055)
I forgot to add another thing.

Remember when we were wondering before DH if Snape acted on DD's orders? We kept wondering how Snape could ever be proved innocent of murder. We kept wondering how people would learn the truth. Maybe DD would leave a pensieve memory that proved Snape operated at his orders. Maybe DD had another Order member in on the secret. Maybe DD would leave Harry information to clear Snape in his will. Maybe the portrait would tell McGonagall. Of course, once Snape was Headmaster, the portraits are loyal to him, so who would believe Dumbledore's portrait as long as Snape was alive? Can portraits give evidence? They're not technically even a person, as they are supposedly not part of the person's soul.

But, no. Dumbledore didn't tell anyone. The only possible witness for Snape other than himself would possibly be Dumbledore's portrait, but Snape could easily have been killed by an Order member or auror (prior to the MOM takeover), or have died without anyone knowing of his loyalties.



Lina - Aug 4, 2007 3:01 pm (#800 of 2055)
I did not notice the similarity with Percy, Hellocello, but I like your parallel a lot. You are right. (And I was very happy when I saw Percy coming to the battle and returning to the family.)

I was very glad when I saw that some of our problems with Dumbledore that some members (including me) had with him before the book came out to be quite funded and correct. It shows some dark sides of Dumbledore that were suspected by some members on this thread. It was very amazing to read the Viking's post in the light of DH. This all just makes him much more realistic. The fact is that he was tempted with ruling the world and that is something that happens to the extremely bright people. And when he figured out that it was too dangerous to rule the world, he still couldn't prevent himself from ruling other people's lives. Partially because they expected him to. They let him do it.

I'm really glad that Harry was able to forgive him all of that and to love him regardless of his flaws, and that he managed to accept Snape the way he was too. I guess that teaches us to be able to forgive even people that seem to be evil.

The only thing that remained that bothers me is that I think that he belonged much more to Ravenclaw than to Griffindor. He was not brave enough to admit those flaws from his past while he was alive. Maybe he didn't have to do it publicly, but he had to do it with his brother. And he lied to Harry when he asked him what would he see in the mirror Erised. He valued his image too much.

And I kept thinking, throughout the first six books that he wanted to be the headmaster because he thought that teaching is the most important job in the world (which I happen to think), not because he was afraid of what power could do to him.
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 801 to 850

Post  Mona on Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:47 am

Ann - Aug 4, 2007 3:54 pm (#801 of 2055)
I find it interesting that my own picture of Dumbledore has changed so much over the course of the books. In the first one, he was a caricature of a quirky, brilliant, amusing wizard. In the second and the third, I began to wonder why he was leaving Harry and his friends with these terribly dangerous and potentially fatal tasks, and in GoF that unease became even more intense--surely Dumbledore could have got him out of the Triwizard contract, and everyone except Crouch would have been delighted. In OotP, I thought his excuse for disassociating himself from Harry, just when Harry obviously needed him the most, was terribly lame, particularly because there was never the SLIGHTEST evidence that Voldemort was seeing through Harry's eyes, rather than the contrary. By the end of that, I felt that he was really manipulating Harry and probably also playing Snape like a violin.

Then, of course, we got HBP, in which Dumbledore was again the quirky, brilliant, amusing wizard he'd been in PS/SS, and seemed to be answering many of Harry's questions and devoting considerable time preparing him for his quest. There were flashes of the controlling, manipulative DD, but they were rare, and well buried in the more prevalent kindly-old-man stuff. And then, with his death, it seemed churlish to think of him as anything but a hero. But in DH, in the accounts of his early life and even more in the chapter of Snape's memories, he reverted to the puppet-master, willing to risk the lives of all who trusted him "for the greater good." His reaction to Snape's worries about Lily, though he is justifiably annoyed with Snape's lack of interest in James and Harry, seem to me quite cruel. And his cool insistence that Harry needs to sacrifice himself was chilling. In the King's Cross chapter, and the latter part of the following one, of course, he changes again to the kindly old man. Nonetheless....

So it seems to me in retrospect that HBP was not only meant to delude us about Snape's nature, but also it was meant to calm our uneasiness about Dumbledore's methods and basic character.



Soul Search - Aug 4, 2007 4:13 pm (#802 of 2055)
Ann,

Well put.

I am still wondering why Dumbledore, via Snape, set up Madeye and Mundungus as "bait," leading to Madeye's death. It seems the only reason was to ensure Snape would be in Voldemort's good graces and get the Hogwart's Headmaster job. While having Snape to help protect students was a good thing, I thought risking their best warrior a bad choice. Dumbledore seemed to easily risk others, perhaps unnecessarily.



Ann - Aug 4, 2007 4:24 pm (#803 of 2055)
I don't think he set up MadEye and Mundungus. That was MadEye's idea, precisely because he was the best fighter. He knew he'd be a target, and he thought he could deal with it.

The whole "seven Potters" idea was crazy anyway. Either they should *all* have been Potter, or they should all have been Dumbledore or Mrs. Figg, or someone else.



journeymom - Aug 4, 2007 4:58 pm (#804 of 2055)
Was anyone else struck by the similarities between Dumbledore and Percy?

Yes, indeed! I wondered if/how that shared name would play out, Percival being one of Dumbledore's names.

I wish I could remember the context. About Percy's intransigence in the face of Voldemort's return, Dumbledore said it's harder to forgive a person for being right than for being wrong.

So when did Dumbledore need to forgive someone for being right? Did Aberforth warn him about Ariana's poor condition?

I'm pretty sure Aberforth tried to charm goats to make stout, bitters, lager and black-and-tan.



TomProffitt - Aug 4, 2007 5:57 pm (#805 of 2055)
Prior to DH my initial view of DD was of a person who was far too trusting of people. Now after that book, I've turned completely about and see him as someone afraid to trust at all.

DD was clever, manipulative, and brilliant. DD's plan worked, but he made many risks that could have been avoided with greater trust.

DD avoided the truth with Harry, most likely afraid to trust that Harry would stay the course. He avoided the truth with the Order, when greater knowledge of the plan in a few subordinates is almost mandatory, not merely prudent. His silence in regards to Snape is understandable in regards to Snape's risky position.

I wouldn't say I have a lower opinion of DD after DH, I would say that the fully rounded character we've discovered makes much more sense than the Elphias Doge version we were allowed to witness before.

DD gave us the reason why it was safe for Snape to kill. Remorse heals the soul torn by killing. The necessity of Snape's action in saving Draco (and possibly the Wizarding World) by killing DD allows Snape to have the remorse that would heal his soul. (I didn't write that very well, I hope I'm understood.)



hellocello3200 - Aug 4, 2007 7:04 pm (#806 of 2055)
I agree with TomProfitt. I like how Dumbledore turns out to be arguably the most morally intriguing character (even more so than Snape) because you WANT him to be the Dumbledore we met in PS, but his the prudence and morality of his methods are questionable. When you take time to think about all the ways things could have turned out differently, most of which are worse. Snape could have been killed by either side earlier and far away from Harry, or Harry could have not made it to the shrieking shack in time. As long as Voldemort got away with some horcruxes intact, he could have gone on for a while assuming he hid them in more random and better guarded places. Dumbledore put allot of confidence in three teenagers.

I agree with Ann that he was a little too callous when saying Harry needed to die. I thought Snape's reaction was the more reasonable one. I guess that explains why Dumbledore always seemed unconcerned about the danger Harry was in throughout the series, he probably figured "ah, well, worse comes to worse it's one less horcrux" ok, maybe not...

ooh, journeymom I forgot about the Percival connection!



Gina R Snape - Aug 4, 2007 7:09 pm (#807 of 2055)
I'm in line with wynnleaf and Ann. DD has always seemed somewhat remote and manipulative to me. But this book demonstrates just how much of a puppetmaster he can be. Poor Snape goes to him in his weakest most desperate moment, and DD takes the opportunity to insult and berate him and then makes a false promise that strings Snape along for 17 years.

I have no problems with DD's past. A youthful friendship gone wrong is not the basis for judging him in adulthood. But I find his treatment of Snape and of Harry shocking. I see no reason why he couldn't have managed fewer risks, and been open with people about certain things. Harry, especially, if he had been so 'good' would have embraced his suicide mission earlier instead of fumbling in the dark for so long. And I do think he spent years testing Harry, allowing him to do dangerous things to prepare him for a showdown with Voldemort. But I feel most for Snape, who believed in DD's word and then got suckered into following a plan he never agreed to. What choice did he have at that point? None, really.



T Vrana - Aug 4, 2007 7:15 pm (#808 of 2055)
DD never intended Harry to die. He kept his eyes closed during the entire time he told Snape this to hide the lie. It wasn't callousness at Harry's death, it was a lie. But Snape had to believe it so Harry would.

As far as Snape followign through and tellign Harry he had to die. Instead he gave Harry the whole story so Harry could decide with all the info intact.

I do not see DD as manipulative. I see him as a general tasked with saving the world. ALL his soldiers were volunteers. And, it worked. Harry went on to live a happy life, and the world was saved from LV. The more people in on the knowledge and plan, the higher the likelihood it would get leaked and fail.

Love DD. So did Harry. Funny how we have folks who are angry with DD and Snape, but Harry named a son after both

gina- I love Snape, but his most vulnerable moment came because he chose to join a group that killed and tortured for fun. He begged DD to fix his mistake. Then DD asked what he would do for him. An open question, Snape coudl have said 'nothing'. But he said, to hsi great credit, 'anyting'. He then returned to DD in torment because his mistake could not be fixed, James would not listen. And DD gave him a chance to make his life meaningful, a chance to redeem himself, but again, it was Snape's choice. DD didn't make him do anything, and Snape could have walked away at any point. But again, to his credit, he didn't. He stayed the course and helped free the world of great evil. In the process he came to be appreciated and trusted by DD, trusted with his life and his students. DD offered Snape redemption, and Snape took it.



Gina R Snape - Aug 4, 2007 7:18 pm (#809 of 2055)
Even if DD never thought Harry would die, the fact that he made Snape believe that is still horrible. He basically lead Snape to believe that he made a promise for nothing, and that his soul was not worth protecting. I find this horrible treatment.



wynnleaf - Aug 4, 2007 7:18 pm (#810 of 2055)
It may just be that I've considered Snape's morally ambiguous position for so long and have thought through a lot of the aspects of it that it doesn't seem quite so ambiguous anymore, but by the end of DH I felt Dumbledore was a good deal more morally ambiguous than Snape -- and that was really quite, quite unexpected.



wynnleaf - Aug 4, 2007 7:22 pm (#811 of 2055)
And yes, Dumbledore was manipulative. The only real question regarding his manipulations is whether or not they were justified. Even the "closing his eyes" so that Snape can't see the truth is manipulative.

But he did a number of very questionable things as well as I mentioned a few posts back.

I have no problem forgiving Dumbledore from his youthful mistakes. What surprised me were the ongoing weaknesses -- taking the cloak when the Potters need it and keeping it for nothing more than fascination over another Hallow; wearing the ring; manipulating Snape into agreeing to kill him and lying to him about why; his ongoing arrogance regarding Aberforth -- not particularly admirable.



T Vrana - Aug 4, 2007 7:26 pm (#812 of 2055)
Well, since James didn't even grab his wand when LV burst in, I don't think the cloak was going to help much.

A lie to Snape to save the world and Harry...not such a big price really. And if Snape had lived, he would have known and understood, I think.

I'd like to think DD greated Snape at Snape's Kings Cross and let him know what a wonderful job he did, and perhaps asked for his forgiveness as he asked for Harry's.



wynnleaf - Aug 4, 2007 7:56 pm (#813 of 2055)
The cloak could have really helped Lily and Harry. Besides, Dumbledore had no idea exactly how Voldemort might try to attack them. Therefore it is no credit to Dumbledore that he took that cloak, simply out of fascination, at a time when the family was in such danger.

And why did Dumbledore need to keep it secret from Snape that he wanted him to be the one to defeat the Elder Wand? In the end, it might have helped Snape if Dumbledore had told him about the Elder Wand early on, rather than him having to figure it out about the time Voldemort decided to kill him to master it.



PatPat - Aug 4, 2007 8:50 pm (#814 of 2055)
Even if DD never thought Harry would die, the fact that he made Snape believe that is still horrible. He basically lead Snape to believe that he made a promise for nothing, and that his soul was not worth protecting. I find this horrible treatment. Gina

He COULDN'T tell Snape that Harry wouldn't die. Snape was charged with informing Harry, and Harry had to believe that he was going to die. If Harry knew he would live, then the plan wouldn't have worked.



T Vrana - Aug 5, 2007 6:38 am (#815 of 2055)
Pat Pat -Agreed.

wynnleaf- Not really, as we discovered, or Jo released, a simple spell, forget what it was now, reveals anyone using the cloak. Since LV knew they were in the house, and again, James didn't even pick up hsi wand (which by the way is so incredibly stupid, he's been a wizard all his life, is in hiding, the door burst open and he runs at it like a Muggle. I can only assume Jo was trying to show just how certain James was that a friend had not betrayed them).

If James felt he needed the cloak, which he clearly didn't, he could have said no. And it would not have saved them.

Snape was too close to LV to be given full information.

Someone compared DD to LV because DD for a brief spell believed that Wizard rule was their right and duty. No comparison to LV! DD was convinced that wizards deserved to rule, but also only agreed because he believed it was for the greater good. Given what happened to his sister and family, I can see the appeal. In addition, he made it clear that with the right to rule would came responsibility over the ruled and any resistance must be met with restraint. That is DD wanted power and believed he could be and should be a benevolent dictator. To his credit this thought lasted for 8 weeks, and he realized such power, regardless of its intent, was wrong.



Puck - Aug 5, 2007 7:43 am (#816 of 2055)
I think we have known for awhile DD was morally ambiguous. He applauded Marietta's memory modification. He chose to protect Draco by allowing him to stay in school, despite the fact that Draco's clumsy attempts to kill DD had nearly killed two innocent students. For years students have been bullied by other students and teachers alike. DD had the power to stop this, and did not.

So, what we see here seems to fit with what we have already seen.

If he seemed cold regarding putting others in danger, I think we must look at the end of OotP. He says his great weakness is his love for Harry, caring more for his happiness than the greater good. I think he tries very hard to push this aside, to get past personal feelings to do what must be done.

Love the comparisons to Percy, especially the name. I hadn't caught that.



wynnleaf - Aug 5, 2007 7:46 am (#817 of 2055)
T Vrana, while I agree with your last paragraph and don't hold DD's early mistakes against him, I don't agree that he acted correctly in other matters.

For instance, the cloak. LV didn't know the Potters had an invisibility cloak, much less one of the quality they did. And DD wouldn't have known what type of attack LV might use against them. Depending on how LV attacked them, the cloak could have been very useful indeed. Hindsight is one thing, but we know now that DD couldn't see the future. He should have left them that cloak. He clearly didn't tell James why he "needed" it, so James probably assumed Dumbledore had an important reason for the cloak and therefore didn't request it back.

As for telling Snape that Dumbledore wanted him to be master of the wand, yes indeed he should have told him. The possibility that Dumbledore had the elder wand was obviously something that LV could and did figure out. And LV also knew that if Snape was the master of it, he (LV) couldn't directly win over him wand to wand. This would have been a very useful thing for Snape to have known prior to LV learning it, and even prior to Dumbledore's death (if only perhaps just prior to it). I cannot think of any reason why the risk that LV would learn about the wand from Snape would supercede Snape's need to know about the wand.

And this was not some light request that Dumbledore made of Snape. It was a very serious request -- which, by the way, Dumbledore initially framed as an order, not a request. Dumbledore wanted Snape to do it regardless of how his death was to come about, but used the guilt trip of keeping him from a terrible death at Bella or Fenrir's hands to get Snape to agree.

Dumbledore first ordered Snape to kill him. Then he pulled a somewhat deceptive guilt trip on him to get him to agree. And lied to Snape regarding why he wanted Snape to kill him. That is completely wrong.

I'm not saying Dumbledore was evil. Or even not generally a good wizard. I'm saying he had serious flaws even at the time of the books. Some of them he recognized, like his desire for power, and others he did not seem to recognize.



wynnleaf - Aug 5, 2007 7:47 am (#818 of 2055)
He says his great weakness is his love for Harry, caring more for his happiness than the greater good. (Puck)

Did he say this was a weakness? I'd say it was a strength and one of his saving graces.



Puck - Aug 5, 2007 8:07 am (#819 of 2055)
Well, I think he said it caused him to make the mistake of not telling Harry the truth sooner. It clouded his judement. So, the love was not a weakness, but allowing it to get in the way was something he considered a mistake.

And DD didn't wand Snape to be the Master of the Elder Wand. If DD died undefeated, then the wand would have lost it's power. Draco disarming him was what put an end to this plan.



The Viking - Aug 5, 2007 8:35 am (#820 of 2055)
As for the Elder Wand.

Wasn't the one that defeated Voldemort the man that cast the curse on the ring in the first place? When Albus was exposed to that curse, his death became inevitable and he came up with the plan to let Snape kill him.

Thus Lord Voldemort should be the man who defeated DD and the Elder wand's true master.

As for the goodness and/or evilness of Dumbledore, I think most of us do agree that Dumbledore was a great man that did do what he deemed necessary to defeat Lord Voldemort, and that he deserves credit for that.

But he did use methods than may be considered disturbing, and I think how much you are disturbed by the methods he used will depend upon to what extent you will agree to that "The end justifies the means".



PatPat - Aug 5, 2007 9:52 am (#821 of 2055)
Wasn't the one that defeated Voldemort the man that cast the curse on the ring in the first place? When Albus was exposed to that curse, his death became inevitable and he came up with the plan to let Snape kill him. The Viking

No. That implies that every time someone is cursed, their wand will change allegiances. I believe that, for a wand to change allegiance, the defeat has to involve wands in some way. In other words, the witch or wizard must be defeated in a duel or have their wand wrested from them forcefully like Harry with Draco. The curse on the ring had no relationship to wands.

I, also, don't believe that Dumbledore wanted Snape to be Master of the wand. He wanted Snape to end up with the wand. That's different. According to Harry, had all gone according to plan, Dumbledore would have died undefeated because his death was planned with Snape. This would have meant that he remained Master of the wand and the wand's power would have died with him.



T Vrana - Aug 5, 2007 9:55 am (#822 of 2055)
Puck- Marietta's Memory modification saved Harry from the Ministry which, via Umbridge, had tried to kill Harry, and was sure to send him to Azkaban. A little Memory Modification on a sneaky, rotten traitor to keep a boy from being prosecuted unjustly by the Ministry seems a small price.

If Draco had been expelled he would have been killed, probably along with his mother. DD trusted Snape to control the amount of danger Draco could cause while saving the boy's life. It was a calculated risk and it worked out.

No, DD didn't stop all the bullying, but he did try to give students positions of responsibility in an effort to try to curb it. He was about choices and somewhat the school of hard knocks, allowing students a certain amount of freedom to learn and grow. Is this morally ambiguous, or just a belief that Hogwarts is a place to grow and learn socially as well? In this way he may be a bit aloof, but not evil. He didn't favor anyone, he was very hands off with everyone. I don't see this as a moral dilemna at all.

wynnleaf- You are assuming DD said he needed it for something important or James assumed it. There is nothing in canon to support this. DD was a scholar and may have expressed a scholarly interest in it, and based on his confidence in his friends, James said yes. While LV may not have known of the cloak, though I assume he did via Peter, he knew they ran upstairs and would certainly have used the 'revealing' spell to check. Why on Earth didn't Lily disapparate????? She piled stuff in front of the door? Why were Lily and james acting like Muggles?

The Elder Wand- LV did not know for quite some time that DD had the Elder wand. That bought Harry some time. DD needed to keep information limited in order to raise the chances of success. Not morally ambiguous, a decision made with the best of intentions. Making the occassional mistake isn't the same as being morally ambiguous.

It seems most folks are disappointed DD wasn't God, perfect and all powerful. He was a brilliant wizard who made the best of a horrible situation, and always with volunteers who chose to join the Order.

DD didn't order Snape to kill him. While he said "You must kill me." It wasn't given as an order, just a statement of fact as DD saw it in his plan. It was followed with DD calling it a great favor. Snape could have said no. To his great, great credit, he did not. This was Snape's largest sacrifice by far. I wish DD had not asked, but he did, and Snape agreed. He was a grown wizard, he could have said no. Perhaps he agreed, by now, that saving Draco's soul was worthwhile. Not very Slytherin of him. Snape chose to accept this great danger, this very large request.

Allowing anyone else to kill him, Draco, Bella etc. would have given them the power of the Elder Wand, and the use they would have made of it would have been terrible. As it turns out, things went a little wrong, but again, DD isn't perfect, he's not all powerful, he's just a brilliant wizard doing his best to save as many lives as possible.

viking- Draco disarmed DD which seems to be the key to the wand magic and how it works. Since DD did not die from the curse, and was not disarmed by LV, Draco became master.



T Vrana - Aug 5, 2007 10:30 am (#823 of 2055)
pat pat- I disagree. LV killed Snape with a snake, and did not disarm him first. Defeat seems the only key.

So, in all reality, DD's only choice was to get someone to kill him. He knew Draco was not a killer and would fail. And if he succeeded surely he did not want Draco to be master of the wand. He didn't want another DE to be master of the wand. And, if he died of the curse, LV would be master.

Since Snape admitted LV would expect him to kill DD if Draco could not, the only logical choice was to ask Snape to kill him. If Snape refused to do so for LV, Snape would have been killed anyway.



PatPat - Aug 5, 2007 10:31 am (#824 of 2055)
Excellent post, T Vrana. I agree with it entirely. I actually think it would have been totally boring had Dumbledore been perfect and godlike. He had reasons for all of his choices, as you wonderfully stated. Not morally ambiguous at all. Just doing the best he can in a time of war, which, by the way, is extremely realistic.

As far as why Lily didn't disapparate, she couldn't. She didn't have her wand, according to LV. Now, WHY she didn't have her wand, I have no idea, since they knew the most powerful dark wizard of all time was after them. I have a feeling that JKR wrote it this way to show how much trust James and Lily put in their friends. They never would have believed they would be betrayed so they were careless. Lupin makes mention of this when Harry is defending his friends after the Seven Potters chapter. He says James would have found it completely dishonorable to mistrust his friends. That was their tragedy.



PatPat - Aug 5, 2007 10:33 am (#825 of 2055)
pat pat- I disagree. LV killed Snape with a snake, and did not disarm him first. Defeat seems the only key.

I don't see your point here. LV killed Snape with the snake, yes, but we have no evidence that this caused a turn of allegiance of any wands. It obviously didn't turn the Elder wand because it wasn't Snape's, but we also have no evidence that Snape's wand was turned here either. But, either way, even if it did, Snape had his wand in his hand ready to defend himself when he was defeated. The defeat STILL involved a wand.



T Vrana - Aug 5, 2007 10:53 am (#826 of 2055)
PatPAt- The wand did not change allegiance because the person to defeat DD was Draco. Disarming is defeat. But, LV did not know that Snape killed DD by DD's request, therefore Snape was not the Master of the Elder wand.

Yes, Snape had his wand out, but is that required to defeat the Master of the Elder wand? If DD had died of the curse, or the Potion, that would have been a defeat. If LV had snuck up on DD in the dead of night and killed him in his sleep with Nagini, I think he would still be Master of the Wand. I think this is why he insisted Snape kill him, and was so frantic to get to Snape before he could succumb to either the curse or the potion.

Death isn't necessary, we know, disarming works, but death is a defeat.

edited to add: When DD asks Snape to kill him, Snape 'jokes" now or do you want a few minutes to compose an epitaph (paraphrased).

DD's response:

"Oh, not quite yet, " said DD, smiling. "I daresay the moemnt will present itself in due course. Given what has happened tonight, " he indicated his withered hand, "we can be sure that it will happen within a year."

Why within the year? Why not just wait for the curse to kill him? Why ask this of Snape if the curse could solve the problem for Draco? DD is saying here that because he could die of LV's curse within a year, Snape's must do it before then. Only one good reason...masterhood of the Elder Wand.

He does not tie Draco's mission to the deadline at all. Death by LV's curse is what DD is trying to avoid. He knows Draco can't beat him, and isn't a killer. He asks if it will become Snape's job when Draco fails, not if he fails. So he is really asking for Snape to kill him before the curse does.



T Vrana - Aug 5, 2007 11:37 am (#827 of 2055)
On DD not telling Snape about the Elder Wand. Snape's intent may also be key to who is master. If Snape was killing DD out of mercy, and at DD'e request, then he is not defeated and the Elder Wand remains DD's. But if Snape were told, kill me becasue of the Elder Wand, would that change ownership, even though it was voluntary? If Snape knew he was killing DD because of the Elder wand, would that invoke the wands master magic?

Hope that makes sense. Also, if Snape knew, would he be able to prevent some tiny part of him from wanting mastership? Would he be tempted, thinking he could be a good master to the Elder Wand? He is a Slytherin and did desire to be powerful and recognized. Even if he convinced himslef he didn't want it, woudl a tiny part of him have wanted it?



wynnleaf - Aug 5, 2007 12:47 pm (#828 of 2055)
So, in all reality, DD's only choice was to get someone to kill him. (T Vrana)

As I understood it, Harry asked DD at the end if Harry, now master of the wand, was able to die without anyone else having killed him, then the wand would be then without a master and loose its power. DD agreed.

But if that's the case, and earlier while DD was alive he wanted to die with the wand masterless, why not simply arrange his own death, and not have anyone else kill him? This never made sense to me. If Harry can die undefeated and the wand would be masterless, then why couldn't DD have arranged to die undefeated? Why bring Snape - or anyone else -- into it and deceive them into agreeing to kill him?



T Vrana - Aug 5, 2007 12:57 pm (#829 of 2055)
Because he was dying of the curse. And suicide may make it null and void. If DD tried to trick the wand by commiting suicide, my bet is LV would be master for the curse that would have killed him if DD didn't cheat.



wynnleaf - Aug 5, 2007 1:25 pm (#830 of 2055)
Actually, suicide and its options weren't addressed at all, so we don't know.

And why would Voldemort be the one who "won" because of the curse, yet he's not the one that "won" the wand when Draco was only able to "defeat" Dumbledore due to his weakness from LV's potions?

Or what about Snape? If Dumbledore arranged for Snape to kill him and that's not cheating, then what's so different about suicide?

Of course, the suicide option is horrible in a children's book, but not any more so, in my opinion, than the No 1 Good Guy (supposedly) telling his follower to kill him, whilst lying about the reasons.



T Vrana - Aug 5, 2007 1:35 pm (#831 of 2055)
We don'ty know, I'm guessing, but it makes logical sense to me. Otherwise a wounded wizard could rob a rightful winner.

No, he got the wand because DD was busy freezing Harry.

The difference in suicide and Snape is the killer's intent. With suicide, DD's intent, as killer, is to deny the rightful owner the wand. Snape's intent was to save DD from suffering. Perhaps this is why DD could not tell him about the wand. Intent.



rambkowalczyk - Aug 5, 2007 2:14 pm (#832 of 2055)
How was Snape's soul at risk because Harry had to die? Dumbledore didn't say Snape had to kill him. He said Voldemort had to do it. Do you mean that Snape's soul would have been torn simply by allowing Harry to die? And besides, even if this were the case, Dumbledore knew Harry WOULDN'T die. Or am I misunderstanding you? PatPat

I should have explicitly said that Snape's soul was at risk because Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him. Granted in the wizarding world of ethics if Snape performed a mercy killing, Snape's soul would not have been damaged.

But consider Snape's heart at the time he killed Dumbledore. Sometime in April(?), Dumbledore tells Snape that he has to tell Potter he must offer to resistance to Voldemort. This is a betrayal to Snape as he's assumed up to this point he's been keeping Harry alive for Lily. When Snape killed Dumbledore, he could have been doing it on Dumbledore's orders (safe soul) or for revenge (endangered soul)



Lina - Aug 5, 2007 2:21 pm (#833 of 2055)
DD keeps saying that there are worse things than death. I think it should be taken in consideration when he talks so easily about sacrificing some people's lives.



T Vrana - Aug 5, 2007 3:32 pm (#834 of 2055)
rambko- If it was revenge, I think Snape would have become master of the Elder wand, which he wasn't.

Lina- Who did he talk about so easily sacrificing?



Choices - Aug 5, 2007 5:35 pm (#835 of 2055)
Snape killing Dumbledore had more than one effect. I think one reason, apart from the Elder Wand thing, Dumbledore wanted it done to get Snape into an even cozier relationship with Voldemort - he wanted Snape to be without a doubt, Voldemort's right hand man. Snape needed to be in this position to ensure that Dumbledore's plan went smoothly. Harry had to be kept safe and be able to get on with the job of finding and destroying the Horcruxes, and finally Voldemort himself. For this, Snape had to have free entry into the enemies' camp and killing Dumbledore put him right there.



T Vrana - Aug 5, 2007 5:58 pm (#836 of 2055)
Choices- While I agree it solidified Snape's position with LV, and had argued after HBP that it was one reason DD may have asked him to do it, I feel better knowing the Elder Wand left almost no other alternatives.

On DD's morals. Not only was DD concerned with eliminating LV, saving Harry, and assuring his students were protected, but also keeping this very powerful wand out of the hands of evil, while saving Draco's soul. And he pulled it off with the help of his very brave, volunteer Order members, HRH, DA etc., with minimal loss of life. Yet he is called morally ambiguous.

I'm stunned.



wynnleaf - Aug 5, 2007 6:25 pm (#837 of 2055)
I consider him morally ambiguous because I don't think that "the end justifies means" is a good excuse. I don't think lying to Snape about why he was being asked to kill him, and also using a guilt trip to cement Snape's agreement is excusable just because DD had "good motives."

I don't think DD had any business taking the cloak and it doesn't really make any difference why James thought he had it. Dumbledore knew why he took the cloak and knew it was very powerful. He took it -- not to help anyone -- but to satisfy his own fascination with a deeply powerful object.

Dumbledore's attitude toward Aberforth was arrogant, plain and simple.

Whenever Dumbledore was talking to Harry, he sounded gentle and wise (well, most of the time anyway), but in talking to Snape about risking Harry's life and his possible death to bring down Voldemort, Dumbledore was remarkably cold.

Dumbledore was a brilliant guy, but he tended to assume that his plans were the only possible plans and that because he assumed he was right that his way was the only way, he didn't seem to care if he deceived others or risked others lives -- after all, what did it matter as long as it was getting his plans done?

I know that makes it sound like I now dislike Dumbledore. I don't.

But just because things mostly worked out in the end -- mostly -- and just because Dumbledore had good intentions, does not in my opinion make it okay for Dumbledore to use any method he pleased to get the job done.



T Vrana - Aug 5, 2007 6:49 pm (#838 of 2055)
1) Eliminate the most powerful Dark wizard of the day, who happens to have unlimited lives until his horcruxes are found, and one horcrux is a living man

2) Save Harry, who must think he has to die willingly

3) Protect the Elder Wand

4) Protect Draco's soul

5) Don't risk anyone's life or mislead anyone....

Mission Impossible.

He needed a favor of Snape, and Snape agreed. He could not let Snape know the real reason why he needed the favor. Snape made his own decision. Snape also said that LV was planning to ask him to do the same thing, anyway. So he did it for DD instead, and attempted to protect the world from the Elder wand falling into the wrong hands, unknowingly, but it is what he did. Why does it matter why he killed him? If DD could have told him, he would have.

This was all out war, DD did his best to minimize the losses, and they were all volunteers and believers in the cause. There isn't a general alive or dead who didn't have to risk lives. And no one was drafted into service for DD.

DD was firmer with Snape, an adult, and Snape needed a firmer hand. Snape , IMO, grew to care for and respect DD as a father figure, and Snape grew as a man under DD's influence. His life took on meaning, he learned to care for others, redeemed himself and died a hero, a volunteer, who made his own, adult choices.

Yup, DD borrowed the cloak to study it, and it wasn't around when LV arrived. But since James and Lily didn't even bother to carry or grab their wands, I just don't think it mattered. Especially since we now know a simple spell reveals anyone using it, and Pettigrew knew about the cloak. Even if LV didn't, knowing Lily ran upstairs with baby Harry, LV would be certain to use the revealing spell to try to find them.

DD's plans were the only plans? Who else was offering up plans? No one. And DD could not risk letting everyone know everything without risking failure. He was a general, and he did his very complicate job quite well. And it worked.

Aberforth?!? Mister 'save yourself', 'run away'...thank goodness Harry preferred DD's fight evil again and again 'til you win.

wynnleaf- I don't follow your thoughts. Snape threatens and belittles Neville, a child who already lacks confidence, and he's just a strict teacher. DD is a little cold with a fellow adult and he's morally ambigous. DD's cold to hide a lie that must succeed to save a life, Snape is terrible to Neville because he is a bully.



Mrs Brisbee - Aug 5, 2007 8:20 pm (#839 of 2055)
DD's plans were the only plans? Who else was offering up plans? No one. --T Vrana

I'd say Dumbledore tended to hoard information, and keep it from even people who were in a better position to act on it. I think Dumbledore liked knowing things, and liked being in control. Sure, he was good at it, but he was also very arrogant to think so little of everyone else.

And DD could not risk letting everyone know everything without risking failure.

By not letting at least someone know the big picture, Dumbledore was risking failure. Leaving a few well informed people in charge is a far cry from telling the world every single thing you've ever learned.

He was a general, and he did his very complicate job quite well.

He was a good general, and then he died. And then he wasn't a general anymore, because he was dead. And he didn't leave anyone in charge. He knew he was going to die, and had a whole year to put his affairs in order. The best plan he could come up with was to sow fear and discord by having Snape murder him. But he didn't tell anyone of this plan.

And it worked.

As far as I can tell, anything that worked was more by luck than design. Dumbledore left his uninformed cogs turning in his absence, but suppose Snape was killed? Actually, he was killed. Only luck allowed him to complete his mission. Sort of. Or what if Harry, Ron, and Hermione were killed or captured? They were captured, and were imprisoned at the Malfoys. How many lucky escapes did they have? The Elder Wand thing could have played out in any number of ways, depending on who got the wand and who beat Draco. I'm not seeing brilliance in Dumbledore's arrogance, thinking that he could manipulate things from beyond the grave.



T Vrana - Aug 5, 2007 8:23 pm (#840 of 2055)
wynnleaf- but in talking to Snape about risking Harry's life and his possible death to bring down Voldemort, Dumbledore was remarkably cold.

Just re-read it. Legilimency requires two things.....eye contact and emotion. DD needed Snape to believe that Harry must die, so that Harry would believe it and live. DD kept his eyes closed and his emotions cold to save Harry's life and give him a shot at a normal life. Moments later, DD turned back to Snape with tears in his eyes over Lily's patronus and Snape's enduring devotion. He wasn't cold to be cruel, he was hiding a very, very important lie, and he shared a very emotional moment with Snape mere seconds later, when no lie was needed.



Jenniffler - Aug 5, 2007 8:34 pm (#841 of 2055)
T Vrana On my re-read, I noted DD's closed eyes. I like your explanation. Still, it doesn't make it any easier for me to take.



rambkowalczyk - Aug 5, 2007 8:42 pm (#842 of 2055)
rambko- If it was revenge, I think Snape would have become master of the Elder wand, which he wasn't. T Vrana

fair point. But it seems as though the risk to Snape's soul was very high. Other than reason 5, I agree with your post.

I don't think lying to Snape about why he was being asked to kill him, and also using a guilt trip to cement Snape's agreement is excusable just because DD had "good motives." wynnleaf

Although I agree, I see the other side. Dumbledore had two reasons to Snape to kill him. To remove the temptation of obtaining the Elder Wand. Dumbledore recognized his own temptation for power and assumed both Harry and Snape would be just as tempted. The other reason was to spare Draco's soul/avoid being tortured by Greyback or Bellatrix.

I don't think DD had any business taking the cloak and it doesn't really make any difference why James thought he had it. wynnleaf

I think I disagree. Dumbledore didn't know for sure it was the true Invisibility Cloak. If it wasn't then James wouldn't have been safe in it. I don't think James knew of the Peverell connection did he?

Dumbledore's attitude toward Aberforth was arrogant, plain and simple. Wynnleaf

No, I think he acknowledges when Aberforth is correct. If he was truly arrogant he would have fought back when punched in the nose. But Aberforth was deeply hurt by his sister's death and nothing Dumbledore can do can bring her back. (It wouldn't hurt Aberforth to forgive Dumbledore after all these years.)



wynnleaf - Aug 5, 2007 11:11 pm (#843 of 2055)
Mrs Brisbee,

Thanks for being so much more clear than I was.

I don't think DD had any business taking the cloak and it doesn't really make any difference why James thought he had it. wynnleaf

I think I disagree. Dumbledore didn't know for sure it was the true Invisibility Cloak. If it wasn't then James wouldn't have been safe in it. I don't think James knew of the Peverell connection did he? (ramb)

From Lily's letter, it seems that Dumbledore had that cloak a lot longer than he told Harry. And the Potters certainly "wouldn't haver been safe in it" if it wasn't even there. He ascertained what the cloak was, but kept it to study it.

Dumbledore's attitude toward Aberforth was arrogant, plain and simple. Wynnleaf

No, I think he acknowledges when Aberforth is correct. (ramb)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I mean in earlier books when Dumbledore characterized Aberforth for Harry who had never met him as someone who got in trouble for his dealings with goats and someone who Dumbledore wasn't even sure could read. He made Aberforth sound like he was either mentally deficient or was just bizarre. But in DH, while I didn't necessarily agree with Aberforth, I thought he seemed a perfectly intelligent and articulate person.



T Vrana - Aug 6, 2007 5:19 am (#844 of 2055)
Harry told DD that having the cloak would not have saved his parents.

rambko- I was trying to say #5 was impossible. Wasn't very clear.

I sense a certain 'Snape-like' desire to see the very worst in DD by some. It seems we held him in such high regard, when a flaw arose, every action he took became questionable and nefarious. He spent his life teaching and doing good in the WW. He devoted years to learning LV's secret and put himself in danger to track down horcruxes. He made mistakes, but DD has great moral clarity, not ambiguity. Mistakes are not the same as questionable morals.

Mrs brisbee- He did leave a few well informed people in charge. He just limited the knowledge that could have undone it all. What did he limit:

1) Elder wand- could have been to tempting, both Harry and Snape may have wanted it for the right reason, but taking it to kill LV would have given it power unlike DD's over it. DD never took it or used it to kill. Power corrupts, even if the intent on taking seems good, that is, to kill LV.

2) That Harry must die. Harry could not have lived if he did not think he had to die. Snape had to believe it so Harry would.



Mrs Brisbee - Aug 6, 2007 5:56 am (#845 of 2055)
He did leave a few well informed people in charge.-- T Vrana

I don't know who you mean. Which people were you thinking of? I can think of no one who was left to act as the general.

As for being inclined to see the worst in Dumbledore, I saw him as flawed and human before DH, so I'm not terribly shocked by some things we learned about Dumbledore. I already knew he was having Harry raised as a weapon against Voldemort, and Harry was expendable in the larger scheme of things. Dumbledore said as much in OotP, as well as admitting his mistake of abandoning Harry at the Dursley's with no explanation or support system. I'm not surprised Dumbledore would find Snape similarly expendable (although some of Dumbledore's actions are still questionable, because the ring curse was a personal mistake, not the tactical blunder of a general).

I do not "desire" to see the worst in Dumbledore, but I do see it. He left no one in charge even with ample time to get his affairs in order. That is not the mark of a good general, but rather the mark of someone who thought too much of themself, and too little of everyone else. The bottom line is that he simply did not trust anyone else. The plan Dumbledore left in place had so little chance of succeeding without someone at its helm, it is a miracle that any aspects of it actually worked out.



Puck - Aug 6, 2007 6:06 am (#846 of 2055)
T Vrana, I think you misunderstand. I don't think of DD as "bad". I say morally ambiguous because things like modifying someone's memory or telling lies or half truths are usually considered wrong, but DD was not above doing those things when the situation arose. I think he was right to do so.

I still have trouble with him risking other students to save Draco. I agree that Draco was worth saving, but at what risk? Two of his attempts almost killed, and either could have killed multiple people. This made him dangerous. He let DE's into the castle. DD took quite the chance in keeping Draco in school.

And why couldn't he tell Harry that Draco was up to something, that he -DD- was keeping an eye on things, and that Harry should focus on LV? After having a year of Fudge and the Ministry calling him a liar Harry needed someone to believe him about Draco. Everyone, even DD, brushed him off.

I do like DD, I think the first books made him seem distant, perfect, above everyone. Now we see him as human, flawed, not necessarily the "better man". I don't think that's a bad thing. No one should be on a pedestal.



T Vrana - Aug 6, 2007 6:11 am (#847 of 2055)
Edited Aug 6, 2007 7:35 am
Who could he have left in charge? He was the safest general as LV could not reach him. The complete knowledge was safe from LV, as it needed to be.

No, he didn't leave one general in charge, he left two very capable LT.s in charge, each with a mission to do. And it was done.

He put Harry where the protection was the strongest, and the Dursley's abused the trust DD put in them. He may have had a few tough years, but he lived and came out just fine.

Harry was not raised as a weapon, but prepared for what must come. LV was going to hunt Harry no matter what DD did. And DD made it clear Harry could walk away. What should DD have done differently once Harry arrived at Hogwarts? Harry struggled, won, lost and grew up as normally as possible given the situation LV created.

He did not see Snape as expendable, he saw him as the only wizard who could the incredible job he was doing. He told him so. And Snape did it by his own choice.

Sorry, but I don't see the blunders you see. That it could have failed but didn't is moot. Anything could fail, especially given all that DD was trying to accomplish. And adding more folks to the knowledge base could have been disastrous.

puck- What Malfoy was up to was none of Harry's business and getting ready for LV was. Draco's problem was DD's to handle, not anothers students. Besides, Harry would have interfered,and DD wanted Draco to discover he wasn't a killer on his own, and wanted as much time as possible to work with Harry.

DD was a risk taker, but I like that about him. He goes as far as possible to save or to allow growth.

Modifying a memory or telling a half truth to save a life seems very small. These minor moral infractions were not done for personal gain, but out of necessity. DD would have been foolish beyond words to be so morally pure as to put others in danger so he would not have to lie.

Someone said DD wanted Snape to kill him to save him from a cruel death? I don't think so. That was a white lie made up to help Snape do what had to be done. When threatened by Fenrir, DD did not flinch at all. I don't think DD was really worried about a drawn out death, just the Elder Wand.



Celestina Warbeck - Aug 6, 2007 8:07 am (#848 of 2055)
I think Dumbledore was an excellent character. Not perfect, but someone who took a lot of touch decisions even when no one could understand why he was doing that. I suppose he was always aware of the moral ambiguity of his decisions, which is why he never divulged all his plans to any one person anyway. He took risks, like leaking the date of Harry's departure, but I believe they were calculated risks, 'for the greater good'. It is true for every risk or for that matter every decision that there will be something unforeseen which can derail your plan. That is where you need to know your priorities. I think Dumbledore had those in place. As for not leaving someone in the Order in-charge, I honestly cannot see who he could have done that with. Every person was mortal and susceptible. He did in fact divulge pretty much every part of his plan, only to different people. And the people who mattered. He told Snape all that he needed to know, he told Harry all that he needed to know and even the Order was clear that protecting Harry would be a large part of their work. Like Harry thought before going into the forest, Dumbledore was leaving people in-charge without necessarily telling them everything because it was not always needed. That was what Harry learnt and told Neville about Nagini and it paid off. That I think was the hallmark of an astute leader. He kept enough backups without telling too much to any one person so as to put them in excessive danger or even to tempt LV. Had he told Snape about the Horcruxes for instance, Snape might have put his position as a double crosser in risk by attempting to find and destroy them himself. Similarly he did not tell Harry about the Hallows so as not to derail him from the path he ought to have been on. Of course his biggest weakness was the Hallows and he couldn't resist leaving a few hints for Harry, but ultimately DD paid with his own life for dabbling too deep in the Hallows legend.



mona amon - Aug 6, 2007 9:20 am (#849 of 2055)
Is the Elder Wand important in the DD/Snape pact? I thought DD wanted Snape to kill him because

1) He would in any case be dead by the end of the year, from the ring curse.

2) He wanted to save Draco's life, and soul.

3) He wanted Snape to fulfil the task that LV would soon give him, so that he would become one of LV's most valued DEs.

Ofcourse DD knew that by getting Snape to kill him he would die master of the Elder Wand and he intended it to be that way, but I never thought of it as one of the reasons to ask Snape to kill him. If it was so important, wouldn't he have tried retrieving his wand after Draco had disarmed him, summoned Fawkes or something?



T Vrana - Aug 6, 2007 9:36 am (#850 of 2055)
mona- DD knew Draco would not kill him. He asked Snape, 'so WHEN Draco fails, LV will ask you to do it',(paraphrased) not if, but when. In addition, DD pointed to his hand and indicated Snape must kill him within the year, because of the curse. Why ask Snape to do this if letting DD die of the ring curse solves the Draco problem without requiring Snape to kill him? Snape was already tight with LV, asking this huge favor of Snape must have had a huge reason.

My theory, if DD died of the ring curse, set by LV, he would have been defeated by LV and LV would have become the Master of the Elder Wand.

No need to retrieve the wand, it was to be buried with DD. Not sure I understand the question.

Of course, knowing LV planned to ask Snape to do it anyway, when Draco failed, made it much easier for DD to ask this of Snape.
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 851 to 900

Post  Mona on Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:50 am

Celestina Warbeck - Aug 6, 2007 10:03 am (#851 of 2055)
I don't think if DD had died of the ring curse, he would be 'defeated' be LV for the purposes of the allegiance of the Elder Wand. I suspect the 'defeat' would have to come at the hands of someone wielding a wand. That is why he wanted to ensure that he if he died by a wand, it should be Snape's.



T Vrana - Aug 6, 2007 10:06 am (#852 of 2055)
Snape died by snake and LV thought that would work.

So if LV snuck up on DD and had Naginin kill him, LV would not be Master of the Elder Wand? Seems to me defeat is all that is required.



Celestina Warbeck - Aug 6, 2007 10:27 am (#853 of 2055)
Maybe intention is the factor that matters. DD dying of the ring curse would not have been intentional on the part of LV, tt least not in terms of defeating him and conquering the Elder wand. Going by that, I guess if LV did set Nagini on DD, he would be the master of the Elder wand as he would have 'intentionally' defeated DD. Is this making sense? I guess I'm just throwing about a few random ideas!



Soul Search - Aug 6, 2007 10:33 am (#854 of 2055)
Voldemort didn't understand wand lore, nor the Elder Wand. So, his having Nagini kill Snape shouldn't be taken as a valid way to attain mastery of the Elder Wand.



T Vrana - Aug 6, 2007 10:35 am (#855 of 2055)
Intention to take the Elder wand, or intention to defeat? Can't be intention for the Elder wand, Harry ended up with it because he defeated Draco by taking Draco's wand, not knowing about the Elder wand. If it is defeat, the curse was certainly meant to do that.

ss- He didn't understand some of wand lore, that is, why his wand and Harry's would not do battle, but they were breaking new ground. But Mastery of a wand seems pretty basic.

The reason this seems to fit is that DD emphasized that the curse would force the date, not Malfoy, so he did not want to die of the curse. Why? Why not take as much time as he could get? And asking Snape to kill him just to get tighter with LV? He knew Draco would fail, so it wasn't that. And the 'spare me a cruel death was made up unburden Snape. Elder Wand protection seems a much stronger reason.

edited to add: It seems DD would have said the curse solved the problem and no one would need to damage their soul by killing him, because he was bound to die anyway. Instead he says, given this curse will kill me in a year, we know you'll need to kill me by then.

When DD asks Snape to kill him, Snape 'jokes" now or do you want a few minutes to compose an epitaph (paraphrased).

DD's response:

"Oh, not quite yet, " said DD, smiling. "I daresay the moemnt will present itself in due course. Given what has happened tonight, " he indicated his withered hand, "we can be sure that it will happen within a year."



PatPat - Aug 6, 2007 11:32 am (#856 of 2055)
T Vrana, I agree with everything you have said EXCEPT the part about wand lore. This may not be the place for that discussion though. There's a thread to discuss wand lore. BUT, I will say that I don't believe we can use Nagini's killing of Snape as evidence of how wand lore works. First of all, I agree with Soul Search. Voldemort did not understand wand lore, so we can't take his thoughts on the matter as evidence. Secondly, there was no change in wand allegiances from that murder so we don't know what would have happened. It is simply not evidence. Ollivander specifically says "the conquered wand will usually bend its will to its new master." His use of the words "conquered wand" is what leads me to the conclusion that the defeat has to involve wands in some way. Draco disarming Dumbledore. Harry taking the wands from Draco by force. I, of course, could be wrong. Ollivander also said that the laws governing wand use are very complicated.

As far as Dumbledore leaving someone in charge, he did. Though it's not specifically stated, it is clear Moody was the leader before his death. He gives the orders and it is he who makes the decision regarding protecting Grimmauld Place from Snape. There are just certain things that Dumbledore can only afford to tell certain people. All of the members of the Order are in danger of being captured and tortured for information. It was important to limit certain information to need-to-know only. As T Vrana points out, Dumbledore is a very safe general after his death. No one could get to him and force him to reveal anything. In any war, there are people who do the planning and know information and there are soldiers who know only their assignments. This is necessary. The Order knew what they needed to do and did it. Dumbledore DID give them information. Protect and trust Harry. This they did and it worked.



Celestina Warbeck - Aug 6, 2007 11:36 am (#857 of 2055)
I meant that the wand would change allegiance if the intention was to defeat, not necessarily to take the wand. Harry too did not intend to take the 'Elder' wand precisely from Draco. He just intended to take it from Draco and thereby deprive him of the wand. I suppose that would be sufficient to constitute defeat.



T Vrana - Aug 6, 2007 11:42 am (#858 of 2055)
I could be wrong..but I can't see why DD would insist Snape kill him and not even suggest he may be spared the task by the curse. He dosen't say IF the time comes that I'm going to be killed by Draco, or Bella, please step in...he says he knows he will need to be killed by a time set by the curse.

We don't know what would have happened, but Jo never tells us the snake would not have worked, just that possession didn't change to LV because Snape wasn't master when he was killed. So she does lead us to believe that LV would have been Master if not for Draco disarming DD.

Grrrr....hope she answers this someday!



Solitaire - Aug 6, 2007 11:48 am (#859 of 2055)
Wynnleaf: in earlier books when Dumbledore characterized Aberforth for Harry who had never met him as someone who got in trouble for his dealings with goats and someone who Dumbledore wasn't even sure could read. He made Aberforth sound like he was either mentally deficient or was just bizarre.

Interestingly, if you go back over all of my previous posts about Aberforth and DD regarding this issue, I've always contended that Dumbledore was being facetious with this remark about his brother. I've always maintained that Aberforth was smart and Dumbledore knew it.

Solitaire



Mrs Brisbee - Aug 6, 2007 11:53 am (#860 of 2055)
Dumbledore is a very safe general after his death.

This is my sticking point. How does a dead general lead? He has left his cogs merrily turning, but what happens when some unforeseen event derails the carefully laid plans?

"... The consequences of our actions are always so complicated, so diverse, that predicting the future is a very difficult business indeed...." --(Albus Dumbledore to Harry, PoA, Ch 22, "Owl Post Again")

We see that Snape broke into Hogwarts to get advice from Dumbledore's portrait, and that is where the portrait advises Snape to betray the Order. But the portrait can't lead. It has no soul, and has neither the right nor ability to lead especially in life or death matters. Dumbledore himself remarked on the unusual nature of Tom Riddle's Diary, where a memory could begin to think and act on its own. The soulbit seems to be what gave Diary Tom its adaptability. There is no reason to suppose Dumbledore's portrait has that attribute, as I don't see how Dumbledore could have stuck a piece of his soul in it.

So how can Dumbledore lead better from beyond the grave than a living human? In my view, he can't.



Morlicar - Aug 6, 2007 12:13 pm (#861 of 2055)
Wynnleaf: in earlier books when Dumbledore characterized Aberforth for Harry who had never met him as someone who got in trouble for his dealings with goats and someone who Dumbledore wasn't even sure could read. He made Aberforth sound like he was either mentally deficient or was just bizarre.

Solitaire: Interestingly, if you go back over all of my previous posts about Aberforth and DD regarding this issue, I've always contended that Dumbledore was being facetious with this remark about his brother. I've always maintained that Aberforth was smart and Dumbledore knew it.

Morlicar: He actually says in King's Cross that Aberfourth is "...unlettered but infininetly more admirable" than himself. Unlettered implies illiterate. I don't think, nor do I believe that Albus thought that Alberforth was deficient in mental ability, but he seems to have had little or no formal education. Albus made him attend Hogwarts for a time, but whether he rebelled and learned little or nothing and whether he stayed after the death of their sister, we do not know.

Note: the text in quotes is actually a paraphrase as I'm working from memory.



Esther Rose - Aug 6, 2007 12:25 pm (#862 of 2055)
Mrs. Brisbee, I think there is a certain liberty given to the portraits in the Hogwarts Head Master's Office so that they may give suggestions, advice or instructions to the Headmaster in charge.



T Vrana - Aug 6, 2007 12:36 pm (#863 of 2055)
On discussing the wand in this thread. ....I do so because I believe DD had no choice but to ask someone to kill him or the Elder wand would have gone to LV as the wizard who defeated him, via the curse.

Mrs. Brisbee- Didn't Jo indicate that portraits accurately mimic their former living counterparts (never fully understood this part, to be honest). But it seems that the portrait did continue to react to current events, so as plans changed so could the advice.



Madame Pomfrey - Aug 6, 2007 1:54 pm (#864 of 2055)
Excellent posts,everybody! TVrana,I agree with everything you have posted reguarding Dumbledore. I loved Dumbledore's strategy.He delegated different tasks to different people who carried them out without question.Well..of course they wanted to know more,but they trusted that he had his reasons for not telling them everything and followed his plan reguardless.I don't think it could have worked any other way. Everyone knew that Dumbledore left Harry with a mission.Therefore,As far as I'm concerned,Dumbledore left Harry in charge.The moment Harry told McGonnagal that he was at Hogwarts on Dumbledore's orders everything was carried out in order to help Harry with his quest.Even Lupin didn't question Harry further when Harry told him that if Dumbledore didn't tell him about the mission then he couldn't.The only one I could see trying to pump information was Molly,bless her.

As for Dumbledore not telling Snape that Harry would live.I totally agree that Snape had to believe Harry would die so that Harry would believe it.Otherwise,it wouldn't have worked.



Magic Words - Aug 6, 2007 2:51 pm (#865 of 2055)
On why Snape had to kill Dumbledore before the curse did:

I'm not saying Dumbledore foresaw all the events on the tower, but perhaps he was concerned about the possibility that there would be other DE's present when Draco made his move. He mentions Greyback and Bellatrix, so we know he's at least considered the possibility. DE's wouldn't have known about the curse; they'd only know that once Draco failed, the opportunity to perform an enormous service to LV would be up for grabs. And then Bella would have the Elder Wand.



T Vrana - Aug 6, 2007 2:55 pm (#866 of 2055)
magic words- I understand and agree, but he still indicated that the curse would set the deadline, not Draco's move or failure. That is, he wanted Snape to kill him, not anyone else, or the curse, it seems.



wynnleaf - Aug 6, 2007 8:14 pm (#867 of 2055)
In retrospect, we can look back and see that things worked out more or less okay -- but we can't look at Dumbledore's plans as though he knew the future and knew that the exact special circumstances would just coincidently happen to make his plans work.

Dumbledore didn't want to trust any other person with all the facts. That makes some sense while he was a alive, but far less when he knew he was going to die. Sure he was worried that Voldemort could somehow eventually get the information from another person. Yet he gave Harry information that if Voldemort found it, it would sink the whole plan -- that being the case, why not tell Harry a bit more? Or Snape, who had kept vital information from Voldemort for years and was clearly up to the task of keeping Voldemort out of his mind? Once DD gave him the info that Harry had to die and Voldemort had to kill him, DD had given Snape information that if LV had gotten into his mind, then once again, the whole plan would be sunk. So why not tell Snape the rest of the vital info as well?

Same thing with the cloak. The point isn't that the cloak would or wouldn't have saved the Potters. It's that prior to their deaths, DD had no idea exactly what sort of threat they might encounter, and any potential threat could have included circumstances where the cloak could have been important. DD didn't need the cloak and had it for purely personal and somewhat trivial reasons, yet didn't give it back to them. If he had seen the future and knew they wouldn't need it, that would be a different story -- but DD didn't see the future.

The whole thing of telling Snape to kill him is problematic.

Dumbledore agreed that he wanted to die with no one having become the master of the wand. He told Harry that if Harry died without anyone mastering the wand, then it would be without a master. So why didn't DD just make sure he died outside of any sort of combat? Why insist from the day of the ring curse that Snape had to kill him? And even if he just wanted to pass the wand along to a trusted master, we already know it doesn't have to be done by killing, so why not somehow arrange for Snape to defeat him without having to kill him? It sounds a lot more like DD wanted to hang onto the wand until the last moment.

As regards wanting Dumbledore to be flawed... I think it's pretty obvious that JKR wanted us to discover a flawed Dumbledore. 125 year old flaws long since overcome are of no real interest in terms of character development and tension in the story. Dumbledore is far more believable as a continuing flawed individual who makes mistakes, but is still working diligently toward good goals.



Madame Pomfrey - Aug 6, 2007 8:44 pm (#868 of 2055)
Since Ollivander was missing Dumbledore knew Voldemort was in the market for a new wand. Dumbledore knew that Voldemort would soon find out about the Elder wands existance and would seek to destroy it's master,which is why he would want to hang on to it as long as possible being that Voldemort is hard to beat and only Harry has the power to destroy him.Harry might not have vanquished Voldemort had Voldemort mastered the wand.I am still wondering if part of the reason Harry didn't die in the forrest is because his own wand was used against him.While,Dumbledore had planned for Snape to master the wand,I can understand why he didn't tell Snape about it's powers.If Ron and Hermione can get all greedy eyed over it I could imagine Snapes joy.

I have only read the book once and am currently doing a reread so if I get confused please do not hesitate to tell me.



T Vrana - Aug 7, 2007 5:54 am (#869 of 2055)
so why not somehow arrange for Snape to defeat him without having to kill him?

If Snape had defeated DD, he would have become Master of the Elder wand which is what DD was trying to avoid.

As regards wanting Dumbledore to be flawed... I think it's pretty obvious that JKR wanted us to discover a flawed Dumbledore. 125 year old flaws long since overcome are of no real interest in terms of character development and tension in the story. Dumbledore is far more believable as a continuing flawed individual who makes mistakes, but is still working diligently toward good goals.

I have no problem with seeing DD as flawed and as making mistakes. That is a far cry from calling him morally ambiguous. I see no ambiguity in his morals at all.

While,Dumbledore had planned for Snape to master the wand

Actually he didn't want Snape to be Master of the Wand. By agreeing to the mercy killing DD would have died Master, but Draco disarmed him first.



wynnleaf - Aug 7, 2007 6:19 am (#870 of 2055)
Given the huge amount of confusion I'm seeing all around the fandom about whether or not DD wanted Snape to be master of the wand, I'd say that this one is not certain. The problem is that DD first says one thing and then another. Given that JKR had Hermione say she'd modified her parent's memory and then that she'd never done memory charms, or had thestrals grazing, or had Snape in the headmaster's office before the MOM fell, or gave the wrong middle name for Hermione, or had the chronology of Snape's memories twisted by having Snape go to Grimmauld Place after Moody died and then telling us he went before, etc. etc. etc. one could go on quite a bit about the questionable consistency in the story. Given all of that, it's impossible to tell what the truth about DD's wishes for the elder wand actually were.

However, if DD didn't want Snape to be master of the wand, why not arrange his own death? Sure, events ultimately went out of DD's control. But he had no guarantees about how events would pan out when he told Snape to kill him. He didn't say, "if I happen to end up in a life-threatening situation where someone else is going to kill me...." No, he just said for Snape to kill him regardless, and then used the possibility of Bella or Fenrir killing him to convince Snape. He never made the least attempt to figure out a way to die on his own.

And when Snape tried to back out of it later -- a completely legitimate thing for someone to do, rethinking whether they should actually kill someone -- he pushed him saying that he'd agreed so he had to. Basically Snape was offering to die rather than do it. Remember Hagrid's comment? Said that DD was really firm with him? Firm?? Dumbledore was firm with Snape that he had to kill him? And yet didn't tell him the real reason? And there is no moral ambiguity in his firmly insisting that another person has to kill him, while lying about why and not even attempting to try to arrange his own death and so avoid having another person jeopardize themselves to kill him?



T Vrana - Aug 7, 2007 6:33 am (#871 of 2055)
When does DD say he wants Snape to be Master of the Wand?

Snape is having a hissy fit in the Forest not because he is doubting whether he should do as DD's asks, but because he feels put out that DD is spending so much time with the mediocre Harry and not telling Snape everything. In the end, DD doesn't just insist Snape keep his word, he invites him back to his office to give him more information.

DD could not tell Snape about the Elder wand for fear he would try to take it. Even with the best intentions, say to kill LV, if taken to kill it becomes a weapon of evil. DD indicates that he was allowed to possess and tame it only because he took it to protect it and not kill with it.

Snape, a grown man of 37 did give DD his word. Why should DD not hold him to it? And, I'm guessing, if DD offed himself, LV would become Master of the Elder wand via the Ring Curse.

Also, by the time of the Forest conversation DD would have known of the Vow, and would not have wanted Snape to die for him.



wynnleaf - Aug 7, 2007 7:18 am (#872 of 2055)
In King's Cross

"If you planned your death with Snape, you meant him to end up with the Elder Wand, didn't you?"

"I admit that was my intention," said Dumbledore, "but it did not work out as I intended, did it?"

Of course, a reader might imagine that DD only meant for Snape to somehow just physically possess the wand, not be the master of it, but if so, what's the point? If DD thought that Snape's killing him would make the wand completely masterless, why would it matter one way or another who physically possessed it? It could have been buried with him or even given to Voldemort himself, but it would make no difference because there'd be no master and the wand would have no special power.

It is only if DD was expecting the mastership of the wand to pass to Snape that it makes a difference that Snape himself be in possession of it.

On another note, in that same conversation, Dumbledore tells Harry that he borrowed the cloak only days before the Potter's deaths. Either this is yet another flaw in the story's consistency, or a lie. Lily's letter to Sirius sounds very much as though it's written shortly after Harry's 1st birthday. Certainly it seems that the Potters have not seen Sirius since the birthday, so they couldn't very well be under the Fidelius Charm. And with Bathilda dropping by for visits, it's pretty definite that they weren't under the Fidelius Charm at the time. Yet James was getting frustrated with not being able to get about on excursions because "Dumbledore's still got his Invisibility Cloak."

By the way, saying that Dumbledore's actions are "morally ambiguous" doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong decisions or actions. It means that they were not morally clear and straightforward. Saying that the morality was ambiguous is to say that the moral justification for his actions was not certain. It is in doubt, or at the least it is open to more than one interpretation. And it is clearly that -- open to more than one interpretation.

JKR wrote Dumbledore in DH as having made many decisions and actions that readers find very difficult to interpret especially as regards the moral justification of his actions. Therefore while some readers may believe that DD's actions were completely steadfast and upright and without question, JKR seems to have intended the character's decisions and actions to provoke much concern and doubt among the readers as regards his justification. That makes the character actions now morally ambiguous.



Madame Pomfrey - Aug 7, 2007 7:33 am (#873 of 2055)
Kings Cross Pg 721 U.S.version.

Dumbledore is speaking of Voldemort:"For him,the Elder Wand has become an obsession to rival his obsession with you.He believes that the Elder Wand removes his last weakness and makes him truly invincible.Poor Severus..." Harry: "If you planned your death with Snape,You meant him to end up with the Elder Wand,didn't you?" Dumbledore:"I admit that was my intention,"said Dumbledore,"but it didn't work out as I intended,did it?"



Madame Pomfrey - Aug 7, 2007 7:43 am (#874 of 2055)
Oops! cross posted with Wynnleaf.

What is confusing is that we don't know if Snape would have been master being Dumbledore's death was planned.I think not,because Dumbledore's death was planned,Dumbledore would have died undefeated and therefore,Dumbledore would have remained master.



T Vrana - Aug 7, 2007 7:52 am (#875 of 2055)
Wynnleaf- He intended Snape to end up with it, but not be Master of it. Defeat is required to Master the wand, and as Harry pointed out, because Snape and DD had agreed on DD's death, it was not a defeat. I think what DD meant by 'end up with' was ownership. That Snape killed DD would transfer ownership to Snape, but not Mastery as it was not a defeat. Does that make sense? Whether Snape physically possessed it would not matter to ownership, I think.

I think the borrowing of the cloak and the time table is a simple error. DD has no reason to lie. He is baring it all to Harry. The writing of this book as a whole seems not as tight as the other 6.

By the way, saying that Dumbledore's actions are "morally ambiguous" doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong decisions or actions. It means that they were not morally clear and straightforward. Saying that the morality was ambiguous is to say that the moral justification for his actions was not certain. It is in doubt, or at the least it is open to more than one interpretation. And it is clearly that -- open to more than one interpretation.

It is all interpretation, and I can't find a single decision he made as morally wrong. He made tough calls and mistakes, but I can't find a single decision that was morally wrong. His Order were all adult volunteers who knew what they were fighting for and what the dangers were. They chose to trust DD and he did his utmost to protect as many as possible, that included the hundred of thousands, perhaps millions at risk if LV won.



Mrs Brisbee - Aug 7, 2007 8:25 am (#876 of 2055)
By the way, saying that Dumbledore's actions are "morally ambiguous" doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong decisions or actions. It means that they were not morally clear and straightforward. Saying that the morality was ambiguous is to say that the moral justification for his actions was not certain. It is in doubt, or at the least it is open to more than one interpretation. And it is clearly that -- open to more than one interpretation.-- wynnleaf

I agree. I think that when Dumbledore is driven by his desire for the Deathly Hallows, we can not certainly say that his decisions are morally perfect. They are, like Wynnleaf said, open to different interpretations, and thus ambiguous.

It is all interpretation, and I can't find a single decision he made as morally wrong.-- T Vrana

I think that is just it: If Dumbledore's morals match your morals, then you interpret them as straightforward moral; If they do not match, then the decisions are not straightforward moral. I personally have some major issues with some of the things Dumbledore did, especially leaving no general in his stead to coordinate the various cells of the resistance, and betrayal of the Order.



TomProffitt - Aug 7, 2007 8:28 am (#877 of 2055)
He made tough calls and mistakes, but I can't find a single decision that was morally wrong. --- T Vrana

I think the confusion about the strength of Dumbledore's moral character is unintentional. I believe that Rowling tried to arrive at moral solutions to difficult problems that did not have conventional solutions.

The intentional killings of both Dumbledore and Harry are not easily reconcilable moral issues, nor is the leak of information about Harry's escape from Privet Drive. I think Rowling believes her solutions were morally correct, but I can understand that there will be many who disagree with her.



Steve Newton - Aug 7, 2007 8:51 am (#878 of 2055)
The leak of the Privet Drive information seems to have been a decision to protect Snape and keep him in Voldemort's inner circle. Keeping Snape's position viable was important to protecting the students at Hogwarts and in bringing about the downfall of Voldemort. Its a tough call and I will have to leave the morality decision to other right now.



T Vrana - Aug 7, 2007 9:03 am (#879 of 2055)
mrs brisbee- I'm wasn't addressing his youthful ambitions which he recognized and turned from. Should have been more clear.

Let's look at the escape from Privet drive, this one irks me the most, but I still see no moral problem.

In DD's battle to save millions, he has formed a group of like minded adults who volunteered to help defeat LV and to follow DD. As in any war, decisions must be made weighing the risk and reward of all missions, against each other, against immediate reward and overall impact of the entire mission, that is, the defeat of LV.

Dilemna- Harry must be moved. The Order must move him. Snape must remain a useful spy for LV.

First off, just moving Harry is risky. DEs are patrolling over the house in case they decide to move him. But we all agree, I think, that Harry must be moved, and that it is okay to risk Order members'lives to do so. Yes? But why save one life, Harry's, at the risk of others, the Order members? Is this morally sound? We agree, I think, yes, Harry must be protected, even at risk to others. So we are all ok with risking lives. Yes?

Now, DD has to weigh the value of keeping Snape as LV's number one go to guy. It is important to the overall mission. The one to save millions of lives. He decides Snape's position will be jeopardized if he isn't a font of useful info, such as when Harry is leaving.

Now, the original plan did not include 13 Order members plus Harry. If I recall correctly, it was fewer folks going to one place. As we know DEs are watching the house, the risk is already high.

DD accomplishes keeping Snape in LV's good graces, important to the overall mission, by having Snape leak the real date of Harry's move, BUT at the same time, institutes a plan to have many more Order members going in many directions. How much did the risk actually increase from the original mission? And was that risk worth the reward of moving Harry safely while keeping Snape in a position of value? Risk vs. reward.

The Order had already agreed to take on this risky mission. The original plan did not, if I recall, have decoys. Once Harry tried to leave the patrolling DEs would have summoned reinforcements and given chase. The new plan had more DEs, but also more Order members scattering. The overall risk was not much greater and we have seen that the Order tends to be far more skilled than the DEs. If Mundungus had not fled, all may have gone fine. But the reward was still having Snape in a very valuable position to the overall mission.

Not a moral problem, for me.

I think we must also remember Jo is writing a story worth reading. Without danger and surprise, everyone completely safe, no hard decisions, who would be reading it? If we accept that Snape had to provide the info to remain in LV's good graces, and that Snape is key to overall victory, what were the alternatives?

edited to add: Steve- good point on needing Snape in a position to protect innocent students as well. LV rewards those who perform well for him.



Mrs Brisbee - Aug 7, 2007 9:40 am (#880 of 2055)
I'm wasn't addressing his youthful ambitions which he recognized and turned from. Should have been more clear.-- T Vrana

It's okay, because I didn't think you were addressing Dumbledore's youth. I liked Dumbledore's backstory, and thought it made him a more interesting character. I was actually addressing his present day preoccupation of the Hallows that Wynnleaf was talking about, like his taking the Cloak to study and putting on the cursed ring. It is I who should have been more clear.

Let's look at the escape from Privet drive, this one irks me the most, but I still see no moral problem.

Okay. But there is one major sticking point for me that you don't address: Dumbledore is dead.

As far as I can tell, Dumbledore didn't leave anyone in an informed position to make those kinds of decisions. Possibly Snape. Dumbledore might have poured out the whole grand plan to Snape and Snape didn't think it prudent to share those memories, though that would contradict several of the memories that Snape does share. Snape's also deep undercover, and isn't in a good position to run the Order of the Phoenix. So I don't think Snape is The General.

Dumbledore's portrait is not Dumbledore. It lacks a soul, and thus should lack the adaptability that a soul would give it to deal with unexpected turns. It also lacks accountability. All leaders should be accountable for their actions. Where the real Dumbledore is liable is by thinking he can run things from beyond the grave.

What was Snape's mission, exactly? To protect the students of Hogwarts as best he could, and tell Harry he had to kill himself.

Whether protecting Hogwarts trumps the activities of the Order, which is trying to protect all of wizarding society, is open for debate, I think. The message for Harry could have been delegated to someone else who was more likely to find Harry and have an opportunity to speak with him. I'm not sure how Dumbledore expected the Snape-Harry tete-a-tete to work.

It is possible that Snape may have had other tasks that were important enough to warrant the betrayal of the Order, and we just don't know what they were. He doesn't seem to have been a useful spy for the Order anymore.

Whether betraying the Order was worth it is questionable. The Order knew they had been betrayed, and they lost one of their best. That's hardly a great morale boost. Under different circumstances it is impossible to know how things would have played out. Of course, if Dumbledore's portrait had offered the decoy suggestion without betraying the Order, everyone might have made a clean getaway, as they might have anyway with only a few DEs there rather than the thirty.



T Vrana - Aug 7, 2007 9:55 am (#881 of 2055)
mrs brisbee-Check out the DH folder for an excellent post on why DD was still 'in charge', wandless wizard, and my reply each address soem key points. What we learn about DD thread.

Snape's mission was to remain useful to LV, that it also put him in a position to guard innocent children works. DD increased (maybe) the risk to consenting adults, to save lives and protect innocent children. Snape needed to be near LV to know when he was protecting Nagini. We have to accept that it was important for Snape to give this info, or the risk is NOT worth it and it would be questionable.

As I said, I don't like this particular part, but if I accept the premise that Snape needed to do this to stay in LV's good graces, I'm okay with the risk. DD did not intend anyone to die, and if Mundungus had done his part, it seems no one would have.

On DD's continued interest in the Hallows. He wanted to study the cloak, he had tamed the wand and was keeping it to protect. His desire to see his family, any worse than Harry and the Mirror of Erised? He was not trying to unite them for power, so I'm not sure I would call his curiosity and deep desire to apologize to his family a real moral weakness. Just a longing to say he was so, so sorry for his mistake.



wynnleaf - Aug 7, 2007 9:59 am (#882 of 2055)
The first question is why Snape needed to cement his worthiness to LV, right after killing Dumbledore.

After killing Dumbledore, Snape could no longer be a supposed double agent for Voldemort among the Order. Therefore, LV should have no reason to suppose that Snape would still have "inside information" about the dealing and decisions of the Order. So the whole purpose of having Snape giving info about the Order to LV doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I should think Snape could say to LV, "now that the Order know I killed Dumbledore, they've changed all their plans and of course, they're not telling me what those plans are."

As regards the plan itself, my understanding is that the idea to use polyjuice and have 7 Harry's came from Mundungus. And Mundungus' plan came from Snape. Snape told Voldemort the date Harry would be removed from Privet Drive. However, he didn't tell Voldemort about the 7 Harrys, or the number of Order members to be there. But Snape did know.

All of this was at the Order of Portrait-Dumbledore, a soulless character who, as far as we've been told (and we don't know) has no direct contact with the real Dumbledore's spirit.

Yet this is clearly a set-up that the live Dumbledore had put together prior to his death -- that his portrait would continue to run things and be spymaster for Snape. I don't particularly blame Snape. Dumbledore had so many secrets that he wouldn't tell Snape, and Snape realized there was some sort of intricate plan, that he was in a position of having to follow Portrait-Dumbledore's orders because the soulless portrait knew more about the plan than Snape.



T Vrana - Aug 7, 2007 10:07 am (#883 of 2055)
wynnleaf- I agree that the idea that Snape needed to do this was not, IMO, well written. But since it was, I accept it as true. If I accept it as true, it follows for me that a little increased risk (if it even was increased) was worth the reward. I blame Mundungus far more for leaving his comrade alone.

About the portraits being soul-less, just because they do not have a piece of soul imbedded, does not mean they do not act in the way the living witch or wizard, with a soul, would. As I understand it, the portrait is an imprint of the deceased and has the same moral judgements, thoughts, knowledge.



Mrs Brisbee - Aug 7, 2007 10:36 am (#884 of 2055)
As I understand it, the portrait is an imprint of the deceased and has the same moral judgements, thoughts, knowledge.

Albus Deepbluedore?



T Vrana - Aug 7, 2007 10:39 am (#885 of 2055)

knows she should know what Mrs.Brisbee is talking about, but doesn't*

OK, feeling really dumb here. Huh?

edited to add: Wait! I got it! LOL! No....computers have no soul to begin with..but LOL!



Mrs Brisbee - Aug 7, 2007 10:41 am (#886 of 2055)
Deep Blue, the computer that beats chessmasters.

edit: Saw edit after!



T Vrana - Aug 7, 2007 10:49 am (#887 of 2055)
mrs brisbee- I think the crux here is that there was no viable replacement for DD to groom, except Harry. You underestimate how truly great DD was. There was no one of his caliber to step in. No one to groom, he is an extraordinary wizard. Harry is, as DD said, in some ways, a better man, but he is not nearly the Wizard. Who had the power, the knowledge, the restraint and the love DD did? I don't think a wizard as great as DD is simply groomed. He is truly unique. Harry had the love and courage, but not the power or restraint, until the end, after LV's defeat.

edited to add: LOL! Just realized how many people said it was morally wrong for DD to groom Harry for what must come! DD can't win! If he prepares a replacemnt, he's morally wrong. If he tries to continue on in the fight, he's arrogant and wrong!



PatPat - Aug 7, 2007 11:38 am (#888 of 2055)
Snape's position was probably the most important part of the war against Voldemort. He needed to be kept in this position or he would never have been named headmaster and the Carrows would have been in charge, putting hundreds of students at risk. Portrait-Dumbledore states that Voldemort still believes Snape to have inside information. No, we are not told why, but the fact that Snape doesn't contradict him means it is probably true. That means, if Snape does not give Voldemort the true information about Harry's departure from Privet Drive, at the very least, Voldemort would be suspicious. Dumbledore knew this. He is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Allow Snape's very important position to be compromised or find a way to minimize the risk to Harry and the Order while keeping Snape in place. The plan for decoys was not Mundungus' or Snape's. It was Dumbledore's. He gave it to Snape, telling him to confund Mundungus into believing it was his plan. I don't see what else Dumbledore could have done in this case.

As far as someone else being given the duty of telling Harry he must die, WHO?? It had to be someone who was close enough to Voldemort to be able to see that he was starting to protect Nagini. Remember, this was the cue to Snape that he was supposed to give Harry the information. No one else was in the position to be able to do this. The timing had to be perfect or the plan would have failed.



Ann - Aug 7, 2007 6:05 pm (#889 of 2055)
All sorts of great thoughts. I think it was PatPat that pointed out that Dumbledore wanted Snape to "get" the Elder wand, because he would not be its master. But people seem confused about why this is important. Since Dumbledore had asked Snape to kill him, if Snape had got his wand, or defeated him by killing him, it would have been no defeat, since he went willingly to his death at Snape's hand. The wand would have no master, and lose it special (and deadly and soul-destroying to the owner) power. Remember that the wand was, in the first place, meant by Death in the story to be a snare and a temptation for contentious people. Snape would not be defeating Dumbledore, since Dumbledore would not be fighting back. (Parallel: when Harry and Voldemort duel in the Great Hall, Harry is still master of the Elder Wand, even though Voldemort clearly "killed" him. This is because Harry did not resist or fight; it is not taken by the wand as a defeat, just as Dumbledore's death at Snape's hand would not be a defeat.)

But Draco gets the wand before Snape can, so he becomes the wand's master, without ever touching it. Which is odd, actually, since in every other instance we've seen, the wand flies to the wizard casting Expelliarmus. But never mind. (Side note: has anyone pointed out that Draco imitates Harry in casting Expelliarmus against a much more powerful wizard? And that it saves his soul?)

Another Dumbledore-Harry parallel is drawn in the Room of Requirement, where Harry remembers what Aberforth has said about Dumbledore's predeliction for unnecessary secrecy. Harry allows his friends to share in the hunt for the Ravenclaw Horcrux (though with limited information) in reaction to that, proving, as Dumbledore's portrait says later, that Harry is the better (because more trusting) man.

But the real parallel in DH is between Dumbledore and Snape. Both are tempted by power very soon after leaving Hogwarts, seeing themselves as members of a ruling elite that will make the wizarding world better by forcing it to acknowledge their power and superiority. Both bring about the death of a woman they love (Ariana/Lily) by putting this quest for power before their relationship with her. Both are redeemed by their later actions, by fighting people who are similarly deluded, and in particular by relinquishing their quest for power. (Dumbledore does this by rejecting political office, Snape by agreeing to follow Dumbledore's orders and letting him lead.) The only differences are that Snape uses "Dark" magic, which we are never quite told what is apart from its evil intent, and Dumbledore seeks the Elder Wand; and Snape's flirtation with evil is more public (the Dark Mark and his acknowledging his tie to Voldemort by murdering Dumbledore).

I don't find Dumbledore's actions vis-a-vis Harry immoral. He is doing everything he can, given the situation, to make sure Harry survives, training him and teaching him what he needs to know, albeit at a terrible price. What I do find immoral is his demonizing of Slytherin house, his treatment of Snape after the werewolf incident and after Snape comes to him asking for Lily's life, and his callous sneering after Lily's death. These things are completely hypocritical. I think, though, that Dumbledore's growing friendship with and trust in Snape makes him see the error of his ways, as we can see from his "deathbed" discussion with Draco Malfoy, and his decision to save Draco's soul. That he dies for Draco (and for Snape's masquerade, and because he's dying anyway, of course) shows that he has learned as much from their association as Snape has.



T Vrana - Aug 7, 2007 6:50 pm (#890 of 2055)
What I do find immoral is his demonizing of Slytherin house, his treatment of Snape after the werewolf incident and after Snape comes to him asking for Lily's life, and his callous sneering after Lily's death. These things are completely hypocritical. I think, though, that Dumbledore's growing friendship with and trust in Snape makes him see the error of his ways, as we can see from his "deathbed" discussion with Draco Malfoy, and his decision to save Draco's soul. That he dies for Draco (and for Snape's masquerade, and because he's dying anyway, of course) shows that he has learned as much from their association as Snape has.

I agree with most of your very excellent post, but take issue with this last bit.

When does DD demonize Slytherin house?

What was his treatment of Snape after the werewolf incident? Asking him not to reveal Lupin and get him tossed from school? What would have become of Lupin then? And it was Sirius who was to blame. Just as DD gave Draco a second chance, so he gave the Marauders and Lupin a second chance. I don't see this as immoral at all.

I didn't see DD's 'sneering' at Snape post Lily and James murder as immoral, think this word is getting overused. Maybe not terribly compassionate, but immoral? I saw it more as DD's attempt to break through Snape's self pity and inward facing anguish to turn him toward a more useful path of redemption and atonement. Harsh? Yes, but Snape was partially responsible for this moment ever coming to be. Using this moment to turn Snape around and make something of his life was masterful. How would Snape have responded to compassion and pity? More self pity. Instead DD showed him a way to turn his grief into something worth living for.

I think DD treated Draco differently because he was a child and a victim of LV's threats.

I think he treated Snape differently over time as Snape grew to be a better, less self absorbed, person.



Jenniffler - Aug 7, 2007 8:00 pm (#891 of 2055)
...has anyone pointed out that Draco imitates Harry in casting Expelliarmus against a much more powerful wizard? And that it saves his soul? --Ann

Good job Ann! Nice parallel. I'm really enjoying your comments and insight.

On the windy hill, I'm beginning to think Dumbledore's crusty interior was hiding extreme relief and joy in finding a worthy partner in the fight against LV. I personally would have been doing back flips. As their working relationship progresses, especially as shown in the Pensieve, I find that Dumbledore counted on and trusted Snape in a way that could only have been present if they were unified in purpose. It might have been a great leap of faith to abide Snape in the beginning, but the Albus/Severus team is the one that got all that important stuff done behind the scenes.

This might be inflammatory but I'll say it anyway. Dumbledore probably loved having Snape around. Their personal tragedies linked them. It was also good to have someone as smart as Snape to argue with and bounce ideas of of, consequences to the short term (students feelings) be darned. Snape's like a Grindlewald, "I'll show them!," without all the world domination bothersome business. That's right, Snape = Grindlewald without the hostile takeover!

Edit: No Tvrana, I don't have any evidence, but it is a thought, isn't it. I hate the idea of Dumbledore alone in an ivory tower with no one to talk to about life, especially with his sorrowful and dark (tragic) past. Every great leader needs a good sidekick.

P.S. I would never ask a follower or a son to kill me. But a friend, who doesn't idolize me, I could ask him. My personal opinion.



T Vrana - Aug 7, 2007 8:08 pm (#892 of 2055)
jenn- Not inflammatory, but I don't see any evidence of this. Do you have an example? DD seemed very much the father figure and leader, though he came to trust and count on Snape, it was not as an equal.



Nathan Zimmermann - Aug 7, 2007 8:23 pm (#893 of 2055)
Dumbledore's advice on confounding Dung seems to be predicated in my mind on the desire to insure that Snape was as closely ensconced to Voldemort as possible in order to prevent the ascendancy of more fanatical foillowers such as Bellatrix, Dolohov, Yaxley, the Carrows, and Greyback because, with Lucius Malfoy's influence neutralized only Severus could be influenced ro act as a foil to any of the above.



mona amon - Aug 7, 2007 8:56 pm (#894 of 2055)
mona- DD knew Draco would not kill him. He asked Snape, 'so WHEN Draco fails, LV will ask you to do it',(paraphrased) not if, but when. In addition, DD pointed to his hand and indicated Snape must kill him within the year, because of the curse. Why ask Snape to do this if letting DD die of the ring curse solves the Draco problem without requiring Snape to kill him? Snape was already tight with LV, asking this huge favor of Snape must have had a huge reason.

My theory, if DD died of the ring curse, set by LV, he would have been defeated by LV and LV would have become the Master of the Elder Wand.

No need to retrieve the wand, it was to be buried with DD. Not sure I understand the question. (T Vrana post#850)

This was from way back, but got the time to reply only today.

After DD got the ring injury, the situation was like this-

1) He will not be around much longer to protect the school.

2) Snape will no longer be tight with LV if he refuses to kill DD.

The best solution- Allow Snape to kill him, thereby cementing his position as one of LV's most trusted servants. In this position he will be able to protect the students to some extent.

So this was the main reason for DD asking Snape to kill him, not the Elder wand. I do not feel he was thinking about it when he tells Snape he must kill him, it must have been an afterthought, and I feel he did not consider it important.

Draco's 'expelliarmus' defeated DD's wand only because he was not able to regain possession of it before he died. If it was so important for him to die master of the Elder Wand, I feel he would have done something to retrieve his wand after Draco had disarmed him.



T Vrana - Aug 8, 2007 6:46 am (#895 of 2055)
mona amon- Before DH I would have agreed. But post DH, asking Snape to kill him was to accomplish a few things:

1)Save Draco

2)Removed any doubt that Snape was LV's man

3)Had all gone well, retire the Elder wand.

4)End DD's life quickly and with dignity.

Number one is a bit iffy. DD knew Draco would not kill him.

Number two is very important. But if DD were to drop dead before Draco makes his move, would LV really care? There is no question of having Snape refuse, but if DD dies before anyone tries to kill him, so much the better. Getting in even tighter with LV would be a very good thing, but was it enough to ask Snape this terrible favor, or was there more at stake.

Number three is equally important, as you say DD won't be around much longer, thanks to the curse, and he has been the Elder Wand's keeper and protector. With him gone, who will keep it from the likes of Grindevald and LV. Harry? No way, he becomes as obsessed as DD at one point, forgetting about horcruxes and thinkigng only of the Hallows. Of course he wants them to defeat LV, but we know the Elder Wand is an instrument of good only if taken to protect it and not kill. If the curse kills DD will the wand go to LV as Master?

Number four was DD's way of letting Snape off the hook for murder and soul tearing. I don't think this was a real concern at all. He was completely calm and unconcerned on the tower.

For being a nut, Luna's dad was right on with the Elder wand. He noted someone slit someone's throat and stole it at one point to gain possesion (or similar, book not handy), so I think defeating by curse works too, but I could be wrong.

But what I find most interesting is that DD ties the timing of his death to the curse, not Draco or LV. He doesn't say 'before the year's out since Draco can't go home unsuccessful' or anything similar. He indicates Snape must kill him before the curse does. I think it was for the equally important task of protecting the Elder Wand. And on death's door, DD continues to ask for Snape, and cling to life waiting for Snape.

Note: I'm now confused about the Invisibility Cloak. Jo said DD could see Harry because of 'revelio humunus' (or something like that, LOL), but in DH, just reread that the Hallows Cloak will hide the user, and no spell can reveal them. Huh?



Mrs Brisbee - Aug 8, 2007 7:02 am (#896 of 2055)
Note: I'm now confused about the Invisibility Cloak. Jo said DD could see Harry because of 'revelio humunus' (or something like that, LOL), but in DH, just reread that the Hallows Cloak will hide the user, and no spell can reveal them. Huh?

Perhaps the spell cast with only the Elder Wand could? I don't know. The Marauder's Map and Moody's Mad-Eye could also see through the Cloak, so the Cloak never looked more extraordinary than other Invisibility Cloaks to me. But Dumbledore was using Hallow magic against Hallow magic.



T Vrana - Aug 8, 2007 7:11 am (#897 of 2055)
mrs brisbee- Good point!!! That makes sense to me. Thanks!



Die Zimtzicke - Aug 8, 2007 9:36 am (#898 of 2055)
The main MORAL problem I'm seeing on other boards, not so much here I admit, is the issue of mercy killing. I don't agree with it being immoral in Dumbledore's case, but it is still the elephant in the room.



T Vrana - Aug 8, 2007 9:41 am (#899 of 2055)
Die- I agree. I even argued post HBP that Jo wouldn't do this. I was disappointed in this, at first. But in the end it wasn't a mercy killing, I think it was an effort to protect the Elder Wand. DD was dying already, from LV's curse, and if he had died by the curse, IMO, LV would have mastered the Wand. Same goes for letting any of the DEs kill him. In fact, it seemed to me that DD was holding on to life waiting for Snape to arrive. Of course by then Draco had already disarmed him. Wonder if DD realized then that his plan went amiss.

So, not a mercy killing, a performing of the inevitable by a friend rather than foe to keep a powerful, evil weapon protected.



mona amon - Aug 8, 2007 9:49 am (#900 of 2055)
I think that's the whole point about the three Hallows. They are supposed to be infalliable, but are actually nothing of the sort. The 'undefeatable wand' has been defeated several times. The cloak is a very good one, but can be penetrated by certain spells. The Stone only brings back a shadow of the dead. That's why DD calls them 'a lure for fools'.

But what I find most interesting is that DD ties the timing of his death to the curse, not Draco or LV. (T Vrana)

I took the words to mean, 'let's wait for a good opportunity, but it will have to be within the year'. I feel he didn't mind dying of the curse. He just wanted to take advantage of the fact that he was dying anyway to get certain things accomplished. I'm not really sure though. The reasons given keep changing and I find it difficult to figure out exactly what DD is up to, LOL!
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 901 to 950

Post  Mona on Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:53 am

T Vrana - Aug 8, 2007 9:59 am (#901 of 2055)
mona amon- I took his reply that he came back 'after a fashion' (HBP- Lightning Struck Tower)to mean he knew he was a goner. Before he knew that the Castle was compromised, he was going to wait in Hogsmeade while Harry fetched Snape. I don't think he wanted him to save him. I think the combination of the curse (year was almost up) and the Potion from the cave, was doing DD in and he knew it. Snape had done all he could a year earlier. But rather than wait and succumb, and free Snape from having to AK him, he was insistant that Harry get Snape. Later, on the tower, it seems he clings to life waiting for Snape to arrive, slowly succumbing to the curse and potion. I think in the end he held on by sheer will.

Just my interpretation. Hope Jo answers this somewhere!



rambkowalczyk - Aug 8, 2007 3:27 pm (#902 of 2055)
I think that's the whole point about the three Hallows. They are supposed to be infalliable, but are actually nothing of the sort. The 'undefeatable wand' has been defeated several times. The cloak is a very good one, but can be penetrated by certain spells. The Stone only brings back a shadow of the dead. That's why DD calls them 'a lure for fools'. mona amon

agreed. In fact before I got to the end, I thought the Deathly Hallows were pure myth, something to divert Voldemort's attention while Harry searched for the Horcruxes.



Choices - Aug 8, 2007 4:27 pm (#903 of 2055)
But, Voldemort didn't know about the ring and the cloak, did he? He made a Horcrux out of the ring without knowing it was the Resurrection Stone. He only wanted the Elder Wand to defeat Harry's holly wand in battle.



NFla Barbara - Aug 8, 2007 5:17 pm (#904 of 2055)
The "mercy" was that, for reasons discussed at length already, the act was not going to further damage Snape's soul, IMO. I don't think DD's motivation was to have Snape commit a mercy killing in the way that Dr. Kevorkian means it.

On a different note, the "What did Harry learn about DD thread" there seemed to be the start of a discussion of DD's decision to leave Harry with the Dursleys, and what that said about DD and his willingness to use people. I have gone through many of the posts on this thread (but not every single one, I will admit) and did not see that idea picked up. Am I missing something? My original thought was that, in addition to thinking Harry might be safer in the muggle world, DD thought that his family would just be the best place for him. After reading DH I thought it still made sense that someone who had basically lost most of his own family at a young age would think that an aunt and uncle (especially an aunt who had expressed an interest in the WW) would be the best surrogate parents for Harry. But I admit I have trouble with Harry being left at the Dursleys' for all that time without DD or anyone seemingly checking in to see how they were treating him. Was that DD being willing to sacrifice Harry's childhood for the greater good, or was it DD being too trusting of family ties?



NFla Barbara - Aug 8, 2007 5:19 pm (#905 of 2055)
And on yet another note, I think Jennifler had a good idea about the Snape-DD relationship. Perhaps they were not friends in the sense of equals, but DD seems to have been genuinely fond of him towards the end. The pensieve memory where Snape was venting to DD about Harry and how impossible he was comes to mind...DD may have been Snape's only friend, but I don't get the idea that the relationship was completely one-sided.



PatPat - Aug 8, 2007 5:39 pm (#906 of 2055)
NFla Barbara, Harry was checked in on. Dumbledore stationed Mrs. Figg there to do precisely that. Then, in OoP, the Order members make it a point of speaking to the Dursleys about how Harry is treated and Dumbledore basically reprimands them in HBP. I don't really think that Dumbledore thought the Dursleys would be great surrogate parents. He says in OoP that he knew he was condemning Harry to "ten dark and difficult years." I think it was done purely for Harry's safety. As we mentioned on the other thread, Dumbledore had two options:

1) Place Harry with a nice loving wizard family who would treat him wonderfully. Unfortunately, the second Voldemort returned as Dumbledore knew he would, Harry would be a sitting duck. His adoptive family probably wouldn't have fared very well either. This would have left Harry dead and Voldemort in power with no way of being defeated.

2) Place Harry with the Dursleys, knowing Harry would not be treated very nicely, but would have enormous protection. Once Harry becomes 11 Dumbledore would be able to train and groom him while also trying to see that he was as happy as possible.

I think Dumbledore made the right choice and I think Harry would probably agree.



TomProffitt - Aug 8, 2007 5:44 pm (#907 of 2055)
Was that DD being willing to sacrifice Harry's childhood for the greater good, or was it DD being too trusting of family ties? --- NFla Barbara

I believe Jo's intention was to convey that DD was able to use the blood/genetic connection between Lily and Petunia to prolong the protection of Lily's sacrifice for Harry, and also to expand it into a greater spell of protection for the area surrounding Harry's "home." This protection would only work when combined with a blood relative of Lily's who gave Harry a home.

I believe DD would have preferred, in a brighter happier world, for Harry to grow up with an adoptive mother like Molly Weasley, but circumstances did not allow for that to be a prudent choice.



NFla Barbara - Aug 8, 2007 10:56 pm (#908 of 2055)
PartPat, I don't really disagree with you; I was just wondering whether it reveals anything about DD. I will note that apart from Mrs. Figg (I'm sorry for skipping over her; of course she was trying to be kind to Harry in her own way), the other things you mentioned both happened after he had been at school for several years. To knowingly leave someone in an abusive situation (not just neglectful) for 11 years, because you'll be able to bring them to school until they're 17 seems like a dangerous gamble.



Luna Logic - Aug 9, 2007 12:52 am (#909 of 2055)
Agreed, a dangerous gamble - and if Petunia had doted on Harry, Harry could have been another Dudley!



Ann - Aug 9, 2007 4:22 am (#910 of 2055)
Dumbledore also says to McGonagall, when she suggested he be fostered by a wizarding family, that it would be bad for Harry to grow up in an environment where he was viewed as a great hero for something that happened when he was two and that he didn't even remember. Perhaps Dumbledore was more familiar with James' character than we think, and he worried that Harry might turn out the same way. Obviously the blood protection was the crucial element, but I think he worried about Harry's character, too. He didn't want him to be spoiled by the adulation of the wizarding world (as Snape seems to think he was--I wonder whether Snape knew that Harry had been living with Petunia!)

I like the idea, too, that Dumbledore might have been thinking of the Petunia who wanted to go to Hogwarts with Lily and Severus rather than the Petunia that married Vernon. He said in HBP that he was disappointed that the Dursleys hadn't treated Harry as he'd asked, although Minerva certainly gave him clear warning, having observed them for a day. And although it was clear to Mrs. Figg that Harry led an oppressed life, she could attest that they did feed him.



The Viking - Aug 9, 2007 7:40 am (#911 of 2055)
I never saw Snape killing DD as mercy killing. DD hints at mercy killing in order to make Snape do it, but that was not really the point.

As any general, DD considered his men (and women), including himself, as expendable given the right circumstances. The situation had come that all things taken into consideration, having Snape kill DD would be sound strategy, thus he ordered such a killing.

ANN: Dumbledore also says to McGonagall, when she suggested he be fostered by a wizarding family, that it would be bad for Harry to grow up in an environment where he was viewed as a great hero for something that happened when he was two and that he didn't even remember.

I must admit that this, as much other things, I think Albus said as much to calm down the person he spoke to, and I doubt that he really believed it. I do not think that he really belived it would do Harry any good to grow up with people that detested him and everything he represented. It is of course possible that Albus did not realise exactly how bad they would treat him, but then why did he not change he arrangments when he saw how things developed?



Choices - Aug 9, 2007 8:48 am (#912 of 2055)
I think Dumbledore left Harry with the Dursleys for ten dark and difficult years because to do the job Harry had to do, he needed to be "lean and hungry". He had to be needy - needy of saving the wizarding world, needy of helping people, needy of friends and family. Had he been like Dudley - over-indulged, too well fed, too much loved and pampered, too quick to hurt others - Harry would never have been able to vanquish Voldemort. He had to be deprived of things, so that he would come to see their value. A pampered prince could never have accomplished the job.



NFla Barbara - Aug 9, 2007 11:11 am (#913 of 2055)
That's a really good point. This is just one of those parts of the plot where I need to keep reminding myself it's fiction, it's fiction, it's fiction. Because to think that a child could grow up that way and not be extremely psychologically damaged is not realistic. Some kids are more resilient than others, of course, but Harry's resilience is extreme.



PatPat - Aug 9, 2007 11:20 am (#914 of 2055)
I wouldn't doubt that that was a part of it, Choices. But, I still contend that the main reason Dumbledore left Harry at the Dursleys was for his safety. And it may be true that Harry was a much more humble and loving person than he would have been otherwise. That's something we'll never know for sure. But we DO know that Harry could not be touched by Voldemort while he was at the Dursleys. Even Voldemort admitted it. Clearly this was the safest place for him. Yes, Dumbledore sacrificed 10 years of Harry's happiness for his life and for the lives of thousands of others since Harry was needed to vanquish the Dark Lord. I just don't see what else he could have done that would have kept Harry alive as well as kept alive the hope of Voldemort being vanquished.

EDIT: Actually Barbara, as a teacher, I've seen children with neglectful and emotionally abusive home lives, who are able to overcome it and are very loving and humble people. It's rare certainly, but not unheard of. And Harry is described by Dumbledore as very unusual.



wynnleaf - Aug 9, 2007 12:01 pm (#915 of 2055)
The problem with the safety of Privet Drive is that the only way we ever saw it really demonstrated was in DH, when we learned (as we'd always thought) that LV couldn't attack Harry while he called Privet Drive home, until he turned 17.

But we know that LV could attack Harry outside of Privet Drive, so the protection didn't protect Harry's physical body, but only the location.

Yet we can see that Harry was also safe at 12 Grimmauld Place and at the Burrow or other locations, when there were enough charms protecting the place.

It never made real sense to me to send Harry repeatedly back for a few weeks to keep the "protection" when all the protection really did was keep him safe for those few weeks. Why not just send him to the Burrow instead? Or later to Grimmauld Place?

I can more understand sending Harry for the first 11 years, especially if Dumbledore assumed Petunia would welcome her wizard nephew. Remember that as late as Harry's 1st birthday, Petunia was sending birthday presents.

Still, to drop Harry off without anything but a letter wasn't too good a plan, if Dumbledore wanted the Dursley's to accept him. And to never really check back, other than Mrs. Figg's observations, was wrong.



Choices - Aug 9, 2007 12:43 pm (#916 of 2055)
Of course, you're right about the safety, PatPat. I think it has been established that safety was the prime concern for Harry. My comments were just about things in addition to the safety factor.



Solitaire - Aug 9, 2007 1:05 pm (#917 of 2055)
not a mercy killing, a performing of the inevitable Um ... isn't that what mercy killing is?

I concur with PatPat ... As a teacher, I've seen many students from neglectful and even a few downright abusive homes who are somehow able to rise above the situations and flourish.

Wynnleaf: It never made real sense to me to send Harry repeatedly back for a few weeks to keep the "protection" when all the protection really did was keep him safe for those few weeks.

I thought the blood protection covered Harry until he was 17, no matter where he was, as long as he could call home "the place where his mother's blood dwelt," or however it was stated. I do not think the protection was in force only for the days he actually spent at Privet Drive. As to never checking on Harry during those terrible ten years, I think that is not true. I believe there were people in the Wizarding World--in addition to Figgy--who did watch Harry when he was out and about. In fact, we know he realized he'd seen some of them during those years.

Still, even if Dumbledore had visited and ascertained that Harry was not being treated properly, what was he going to do, since Harry had to remain there to keep the protection in force ... move in? He couldn't stay there 24/7. He also couldn't put an Imperius Curse on the Dursleys, even though it might not have been a bad idea. I agree that it was crummy to leave Harry friendless in such conditions. But I also think it must have hurt Dumbledore to know he had to leave Harry at the mercy of the Dursleys.

Frankly, I can't help wondering why no Muggle teachers (who obviously saw him between the ages of 5 or 6 and 10) reported abuse to the British equivalent of Child Protection Services. Here in the US, teachers are mandated reporters, and if we neglect to report suspected abuse, we can lose our credentials and be prosecuted. I can only conclude that there was no serious physical abuse. Psychological abuse is harder to prove, although it is often much harder on the child than physical abuse. At any rate, the Durlseys seem to have followed the letter of the law, if not the spirit of it ... I guess. Poor Harry!

Solitaire



wynnleaf - Aug 9, 2007 1:32 pm (#918 of 2055)
Still, even if Dumbledore had visited and ascertained that Harry was not being treated properly, what was he going to do, since Harry had to remain there to keep the protection in force ... move in? He couldn't stay there 24/7. He also couldn't put an Imperius Curse on the Dursleys, even though it might not have been a bad idea. I agree that it was crummy to leave Harry friendless in such conditions. But I also think it must have hurt Dumbledore to know he had to leave Harry at the mercy of the Dursleys. (Solitaire)

The Dursleys were very much affected by the idea that anyone would actually know how poorly they were treating Harry. As soon as they saw the envelope addressed to Harry in the Cupboard Under the Stairs, they moved him to a proper bedroom. I think just a little accountability would have gone a long way with the Dursleys. They wouldn't have become loving and kind, but they could likely have been influenced to have Dudley stop bullying Harry as badly as he did, and to physically provide for Harry more adequately.

None of this replaces love, but it would have helped a bit. Also, there could easily have been ways of reaching out to Harry to give him someone that obviously did care about him. He visited Mrs. Figg, but Mrs. Figg either didn't personally care, or felt she was unable to show that she cared for Harry. If that was because of the Dursleys, then yes, I think Dumbledore could have used his influence to ensure that Harry knew he had other people in his life that did care for him.

But Dumbledore either didn't know about what Harry was going through because he didn't have enough oversight of the situation, or he didn't attempt to do anything to correct it.

Remember Mad Eye's comments to Vernon Dursley? An occasional comment to the Dursleys, even without coming from someone like Mad Eye, could have helped.



NFla Barbara - Aug 9, 2007 4:34 pm (#919 of 2055)
Wynnleaf, you are capturing and conveying my thoughts much better than I did. I agree with what you just said.

As far as children surviving abuse...I never said they didn't. I have been a guardian ad litem on and off for more than 15 years, so I am fairly familiar with various forms of abuse and their consequences. I said that Harry's resilience is extreme, and I still think that. He went from an atmosphere completely devoid of nurture to being able to trust strangers overnight. That is very unusual, even for a resilient child. I think the earlier point about his violating rules and flaunting authority is a great one -- when had adults ever protected him before? And yet he trusted DD, and Hagrid, and made instant friends with Ron and Hermione. So yes, he was extremely resilient. And I do think DD could have mitigated some of the treatment Harry received if DD were paying closer attention. If he was letting Harry be cruelly treated because it would make Harrya more useful tool in the struggle against LV, that seems very calculating. But then, the WW seems more accepting of certain cruelties than we are, too (e.g. the treatment of house elves), so perhaps DD was simply being consistent in that regard.



Ann - Aug 9, 2007 4:38 pm (#920 of 2055)
Would the blood protection that saved Harry from Quirrell in his first year have been there if he hadn't been living "with his mother's blood"? I always thought that his residence with them gave him that constant residual protection. I think that is also what kicks in when Vernon tries to throttle him at the beginning of OotP. (One wonders whether it would have been effective against Aragog. And of course Riddle and the basilisk, though they never touch him.)

Voldemort says the protection Harry has when he's with his family is very powerful. "I cannot touch him there." (I think that's what he says--my books aren't at hand.) To me, this sounds as if he's tried. (Voldemort knows nothing of love-based magic, remember.) So it's a really important consideration.



mona amon - Aug 10, 2007 4:49 am (#921 of 2055)
Ann, I think the blood protection works only against Voldemort, because his mother died to save Harry from him. It works against Quirrell because Voldemort was possessing him at that time. When Uncle Vernon tries to throttle him and is forced to let go, I think that's a bit of accidental magic.

He went from an atmosphere completely devoid of nurture to being able to trust strangers overnight (NFla Barbara)

We mustn't forget that Harry spent the crucial first fifteen months of his life with very loving parents. That must have helped to an extent.

The funny thing is, in the HP world, those kids who have been loved and adored grow up as bullies, Dudley, Draco and James.

In Snape's worst memory, it is interesting to contrast Harry's reactions to those of his parents. We have James (adored by his parents) ganging up with others to torment and humiliate Snape, Lily (who also seems to have been adored) finding the scene so funny that she had to hide a smirk, and Harry who is totally appalled. Harry does not merely feel sorry for Snape. He completely empathises with him. Because of Dudley's bullying, he knows how it feels to be humiliated in the middle of a circle of onlookers.

It seems like a combination of loving parents in the first few months of his life and harsh treatment later on played a part in shaping Harry's personality, and it all turned out well in the end. But I agree with Wynnleaf. Dumbledore should have checked up on how Harry was being treated.

EDIT: come to think of it, is Draco a bully? He's a nasty kid all right but I can't remember actual bullying...



TomProffitt - Aug 10, 2007 5:59 am (#922 of 2055)
The funny thing is, in the HP world, those kids who have been loved and adored grow up as bullies, Dudley, Draco and James. --- mona amon

Do we really know enough about James to call him a bully? We know he didn't get along with Snape and bullied him, but I see him as more of the practical jokster type like Fred & George. We have limited knowledge of James, practically all of it through Snape's biased eyes.

As for Draco being a bully I don't know if that description fits. He is a natural leader of sorts. I'd call him more of an obnoxious jerk than a bully, really.



Steve Newton - Aug 10, 2007 6:39 am (#923 of 2055)
I have never bought into the James as bully thing. In Snape's worst memory it is enemies fighting. That's what you do to enemies. It was also a selective memory. We know from DH that Snape also had cronies enough that Lily objected to them. I would guess that Snape and friends had ambushed the marauders a time or two.



wynnleaf - Aug 10, 2007 7:29 am (#924 of 2055)
Do we really know enough about James to call him a bully?

In the Worst Memory scene, Snape is attacked for no reason other than that he exists. James attacks first and even when Snape just wants to swear at him, James wants to deny him even the ability to speak (filling his mouth with soap and taunting him).

Lily says, "what's he done to you?" which implies that Snape is not known for attacking James in a similar manner. James' answer "because he exists," does not give any excuse like "he attacks us as well" or "we're getting him back for... (fill in the blank)"

The detention files Harry sorts in HBP show James and Sirius attacking other kids as well. James appears to always work with at least Sirius, not alone.

When Lupin and Sirius, in OOTP "Career Advice" try to explain to Harry about the Worst Memory scene, they told him that while James got better, he continued to have confrontations with Snape even into 7th year, but James made sure they never happened around Lily. How could James make sure of this, unless he was the one determining the place and time of their confrontations?

Sirius, when talking to Peter in the Shrieking Shack, said that Peter was the type to gravitate to "the biggest bully in the playground." Of course, Sirius meant Voldemort, but it seems like this was a characterization of Peter that would also explain his gravitating toward James while in school.

JKR described James as having parents who were "elderly, were getting on a little when he was born, which explains the only child, very pampered, had-him-late-in-life-so-he's-an-extra-treasure, as often happens, I think." That also sounds like the way Dudley grew up, even if his parents weren't older parents.

And last, but very certainly not least, is JKR's inside joke comparing James to Dudley. Dudley has a gang of bullies, one of which is names Piers, a variation on Peter, and who is rat-faced. James has a gang as well, one of which is Peter who is a rat. There's practically zero possibility that this is an accident. Nor is it a "red herring" as it's the kind of comparison very few would ever notice, and anyway JKR backs up the comparison rather than contradicting it.

So, yeah, I think between the Worst Memory scene, the scene on the train in Snape's memories, and all the other clues, lead us to the conclusion that James was a bully.



TomProffitt - Aug 10, 2007 7:40 am (#925 of 2055)
wynnleaf, what I'm saying is we have a picture of what James was like in relation to Snape at a specific instance when James is 15. It's hard to draw from that what James was like at 17, 19, & 21.

As this is Dumbledore's thread I'll compare the two. We know that at 17 Dumbledore was naive with grand visions of accomplishing the right thing for the wrong reasons in the wrong manner. At 150 we can see how he matured, changed, and improved while still having a touch of those negative traits (such as his unwillingness to relinquish control of the plan to trusted subordinates.)

We see James, by comparison at his bullying worst at age 15, but are unable to have accompanying scenes showing how he changed and grew in the six years between then and his death. I don't think its anymore appropriate to draw conclusions about the entirty of James's life based on what little we know of him anymore than to base our opinion of Snape solely on his Occlumency lessons or Dumbledore solely on his friendship with Grindalwald.

Editted to add: Perhaps we should take this to James's thread if you want to continue the debate.



wynnleaf - Aug 10, 2007 8:20 am (#926 of 2055)
No need to continue that debate, because I agree, JKR does not give us any information as regards whether or not James changed, or how much he may have changed.

Actually, I forgot it was Dumbledore's thread.



Steve Newton - Aug 10, 2007 8:22 am (#927 of 2055)
"Lily says, "what's he done to you?" which implies that Snape is not known for attacking James in a similar manner. James' answer "because he exists," does not give any excuse like "he attacks us as well" or "we're getting him back for... (fill in the blank)"

Snape, as it seems like James did later, would not have caused a scene when Lily was around.



PatPat - Aug 10, 2007 10:17 am (#928 of 2055)
The Dursleys were very much affected by the idea that anyone would actually know how poorly they were treating Harry. As soon as they saw the envelope addressed to Harry in the Cupboard Under the Stairs, they moved him to a proper bedroom. I think just a little accountability would have gone a long way with the Dursleys. They wouldn't have become loving and kind, but they could likely have been influenced to have Dudley stop bullying Harry as badly as he did, and to physically provide for Harry more adequately. wynnleaf

I don't agree with this analysis. I always felt the Dursleys moved Harry because they were trying to stop him from getting his mail. In their complete misunderstanding of how the wizarding world worked they felt that moving him would stop him from receiving letters as they were addressed directly to Harry's cupboard. If it was really because they didn't want anyone to know how they treated Harry, they would have started treating him better from that point forward since they clearly knew they were being watched by wizards. It doesn't stop them from locking Harry in his room after Dobby's visit. Then, when Harry is rescued, it is certainly clear that people know how they treat Harry. Yet they still treat him terribly in PoA. I don't believe that what wizards think matters to them at all. In fact, the ONLY thing that seemed to make any difference was learning that Harry had a convicted murderer for a godfather. Which basically goes to Harry learning to stand up for himself with the Dursleys. That was something Harry had to learn on his own.



Die Zimtzicke - Aug 10, 2007 1:42 pm (#929 of 2055)
I disagree that Dumbledore could not have helped Harry more at the Dursleys. Dumbledore could have at least frightened them into properly feeding and clothing the kid. Was that too much to ask? He had the key to James' vault the whole time.He could have sent Harry some properly sized clothing anonymously if he'd wanted to.



PatPat - Aug 10, 2007 5:13 pm (#930 of 2055)
And you really think the Dursleys would have allowed Harry to have the clothing that was sent to him? It took Hagrid breaking into the hut on the rock for Harry to even get his letters.



Ann - Aug 10, 2007 8:45 pm (#931 of 2055)
Dumbledore could have written Harry a letter or two when he was a kid, or perhaps sent birthday presentS. He would have had total control (as Dumbledore seemed to prefer) about the information Harry received through the letters, and f they came at irregular intervals, the Dursley's would probably not have fled them as they did the Hogwarts letters. It would have comforted Harry tremendously to know that *someone* cared about him--his desperate wish for an unknown family member is very telling. I think his surprise at receiving the Hogwarts letter, and later his sadness that he won't be receiving more letters from Sirius, are really, really sad. Dumbledore could have prevented him being *quite* so isolated during his decade with the Dursleys, and, like the letter addressed to Harry in his cupboard, the Dursleys might have treated him better if there'd been any indication that there were others out there who cared. But I suppose for literary purposes, the Angst factor would have been diminished....



Die Zimtzicke - Aug 10, 2007 8:55 pm (#932 of 2055)
Yes, I think Dumbledore could have talked the Dursleys into letting Harry have the "anonymous" gifts. Of course it took Hagrid breaking into the hut to get Harry's letter to him. The Dursleys had had free rein to treat the child any way they pleased for ten years. It shouldn't have come to that,and for that I blame Dumbledore.

There was enough angst that a bit of it could have been set aside in favor of a mysterious benefactor, in my opinion.



Solitaire - Aug 11, 2007 7:52 pm (#933 of 2055)
But then, the WW seems more accepting of certain cruelties than we are, too
Actually, Barbara, this idea has come up in the distant past. Consider all the weird injuries kids sustain at Hogwarts, yet we rarely see a parent there checking on them. Perhaps Dumbledore wasn't being disinterested or neglectful so much as clueless in this respect.

Mona: in the HP world, those kids who have been loved and adored grow up as bullies
Not all kids who have been loved and adored grow up to be bullies. Hermione and the Weasleys are/were loved, yet they are not bullies, although Fred and George do have their moments. But we see other kids who appear to be well-loved and are not bullies. I do agree that Dudley and Draco are certainly bullies, but that is not the result of being loved; it is the result of being raised to think they are better than everyone else. Poor parenting skills are evident in this respect.

As for James in the Worst Memory scene, he may have said he was attacking Snape "because he exists." I think, however, that this was a reaction to Snape following them around and trying to find out about Remus. We do know Snape was sticking mighty close to them that particular day ... and that's how I read that scene. Should James have acted as he did? No, it was immature and ridiculous.

In retrospect, I agree that Dumbledore probably could have done more to alleviate Harry's sufferings by making his presence felt by the Dursleys. But perhaps it was part of the bargain that he would stay away. Have we ever actually seen what was in that letter? I personally think it was probably a combination of this and simply cluelessness about life in a Muggle household. After what happened to his sister, perhaps he should have exercised more wisdom ... but maybe he didn't really think the Dursleys would be so mean to their nephew.

Solitaire



wynnleaf - Aug 11, 2007 8:26 pm (#934 of 2055)
I think, however, that this was a reaction to Snape following them around and trying to find out about Remus. (Solitaire)

Wrong thread to go into this, but recall that in DH we learned that the Worst Memory scene took place well after the Prank. It makes the whole Worst Memory scene all the worse, since the Marauders clearly learned nothing from the Prank and James didn't learn a bit of maturity from it that we can see. It also makes the "because he exists" even more nasty because it sort of implies that Snape's life really wasn't important to James at all, and that maybe he did just save Snape in order to keep Sirius and Lupin from the consequences of the Prank.



TomProffitt - Aug 12, 2007 7:04 am (#935 of 2055)
I wonder if Dumbledore didn't push the Dursleys on their treatment of Harry out of fear that if he did Harry would be kicked out of the house? Vernon came close many times to this. Did he fear that being forceful might just push the Dursleys into finding other ways to take their vengeance on Harry? You can't bully someone into treating someone else with love.



PatPat - Aug 12, 2007 11:19 am (#936 of 2055)
I'm sorry but there is absolutely no evidence that the Dursleys cared at all what other people thought about their treatment of Harry. Vernon tries to strangle Harry right out in the front of the house in OoP. Mrs Figg clearly knew how Harry was being treated as she tells Harry that the Dursleys never would have let him stay at her house if they thought she was being too nice to him. In fact, the neighbors are made to believe that Harry is the one who should be feared. The Dursleys make him out to be a hardened criminal that spends time at St. Brutus'. What the Dusleys DID care about was the neighbors seeing signs of magic. Had Dumbledore tried to contact Harry, it probably would have made things worse for him, not better. Recall what happened when Ron tried to telephone the house in PoA.

It's also possible that Harry was safer not knowing he was a wizard until it was absolutely necessary. Don't get me wrong. I have no evidence for this. It's just speculation.



NFla Barbara - Aug 12, 2007 1:31 pm (#937 of 2055)

But then, the WW seems more accepting of certain cruelties than we are, too Actually, Barbara, this idea has come up in the distant past. Consider all the weird injuries kids sustain at Hogwarts, yet we rarely see a parent there checking on them. Perhaps Dumbledore wasn't being disinterested or neglectful so much as clueless in this respect.


Disinterested, neglectful, clueless...I don't see a lot of difference. (I do know this has been discussed before, but I thought it was relevant here.)

But on the general subject of parenting...there's a connection with DD here, bear with me...there seems to be a theme throughout the books that the apple does not fall far from the tree. There are exceptions (Siruis and Andromeda Tonks spring to mind) but the neglected children of "good" parents seem to be better off than the doted-upon children of parents who are themselves cruel, closed-minded or generally uncaring about others (the Malfoys and the Dursleys). DD had caring parents; Snape did not; LV had none. Neville's Gran gave him a hard time, but her values seem to have been in the right place, and I don't think the book leaves any doubt that his parents would have been "good" parents if they had not ended up in St. Mungo's. So perhaps in JKR's and DD's world, the fact that Lily and James were good and loving parents and that Harry had their blood was more important in how he was going to turn out than how he was treated after they died. I still think DD was a bit too casual in leaving Harry at the mercy of the Dursleys for ten years, though.



Solitaire - Aug 12, 2007 3:05 pm (#938 of 2055)
It's also possible that Harry was safer not knowing he was a wizard until it was absolutely necessary. Don't get me wrong. I have no evidence for this. It's just speculation.

Actually, PatPat, Dumbledore says something along these lines to McGonagall the night they leave Harry on the Dursleys' doorstep:

It would be enough to turn any boy's head. Famous before he can walk and talk! Famous for something he won't even remember! Can't you see how much better off he'll be, growing up away from all that until he's ready to take it?

I think Dumbledore probably made the huge assumption that even Petunia wouldn't blame Harry for Lily's having been a witch. Too bad he didn't think back to what happened to his own sister at the hands of Muggle kids. He might have handled things somewhat differently ... he might have at least checked on Harry once in a while, even if he did have to leave him with the Dursleys.

Solitaire



NFla Barbara - Aug 12, 2007 3:38 pm (#939 of 2055)
When all is said and done, I am enjoying the ambiguities JKR has introduced about DD and his motivation(s). If anything, I feel more esteem for him now that it has been made clear that his own choices helped to determine who he became.



Ann - Aug 12, 2007 4:14 pm (#940 of 2055)
It's interesting. I think Dumbledore's youthful mistakes and bad choices, as well as his tragic family history, make him a more interesting character, but I find him rather unrepentant for someone who has had 150 years to get things in perspective. He is not oblivious to what went on with Harry at the Dursleys--we know that from his reproaches to them and also from the fact that he tells Harry he has watched him far more closely than Harry knows.

I continue to be really bothered by Dumbledore's intolerance for his own mistakes when they occur in others. His attitude to Snape is incredibly cold and unsympathetic, even cruel, when their mistakes are so similar.

NFla Barbara, a very interesting comment about it being our parents (there or not) who determine what kind of people we are, particularly because that is precisely the opposite of what Dumbledore (and Rowling) says. "It is our choices, Harry...." It's a real problem, I think, in the lessons of the series.



T Vrana - Aug 12, 2007 5:47 pm (#941 of 2055)
T vrana not a mercy killing, a performing of the inevitable

Solitaire- Um ... isn't that what mercy killing is?

In the case of a mercy killing, it is to spare the 'victim' pain, suffering etc. In DD's case, he told Snape it was to give him a merciful death, but in reality we know DD was protecting the Elder Wand. So it was not a mercy killing, but a strategically planned death, that was imminent anyway, to protect a very, very powerful weapon. That is, DD was going to die that night, and he chose Snape to do it to protect the Wnad, not to ease his suffering.



mona amon - Aug 12, 2007 7:52 pm (#942 of 2055)
I agree T Vrana. Severus thought he was doing a mercy killing, but DD had ulterior motives. He was taking advantage of his unavoidable death to set up things for the good of Hogwarts and the Wizarding World.

So perhaps in JKR's and DD's world, the fact that Lily and James were good and loving parents and that Harry had their blood was more important in how he was going to turn out than how he was treated after they died. (NFla Barbara)

I think it was not having their blood so much as being loved and cared for by them for the first fifteen months of his life.

His attitude to Snape is incredibly cold and unsympathetic, even cruel, when their mistakes are so similar. (Ann)

Ann, I feel DD gave Severus what he really needed at that time. Sympathy would have been of no use, given the state Severus was in. DD gave him something much better, a purpose in life.



Solitaire - Aug 12, 2007 7:53 pm (#943 of 2055)
in DH we learned that the Worst Memory scene took place well after the Prank.

Can you point me to the chapter, Wynnleaf? Is it in The Prince's Tale? I don't remember, and the order appears to conflict with Snape's timeline info on the Lexicon ... although it is possible that any correction has simply not yet been made.

Timeline info

c.1974 ...
June: Snape sits his O.W.L.s, along with Lupin, Sirius, James, and Peter. Snape’s "worst memory:" That afternoon, James Potter and Sirius Black publicly humiliate Severus; Lily Evans defends Severus until he insults her (OP28).

1 September: Begins sixth year at Hogwarts. Snape is 16 years old.

1974-1975 school year: Sirius tricks Snape into following Lupin through the passage beneath the Whomping Willow. James Potter, realizing that Snape would encounter a full-blown and very dangerous werewolf at the end of the passage, stops Snape from going through, thereby saving his life. Snape, much to his disgust, is indebted to James Potter because of this. Dumbledore calls this a "life debt."

I realize that perhaps the correction has simply not been made.

Solitaire



NFla Barbara - Aug 12, 2007 7:55 pm (#944 of 2055)
I don't think Snape believed it was a mercy killing, but the line about "only you can decide what this will do to your soul" did give him a way to rationalize it. I think Snape realized that it was DD's way to advance his plans. In other words, when they were up there at the top of the tower, I don't think Snape was thinking "I'm not really killing him, I'm helping him avoid a slow, painful death later." It was more like "I'm killing him, really, but this is not the same as wanting his death, because he would still die slowly and painfully." Perhaps I am splitting hairs, though.



mona amon - Aug 12, 2007 8:27 pm (#945 of 2055)
Edited Aug 12, 2007 9:03 pm
I've always felt that on the tower that night, Severus' thoughts would have been something like "I hate him, I hate everybody, I hate everything!!! Avada Kedavra!!!



Luna Logic - Aug 13, 2007 12:22 am (#946 of 2055)
Edited by Aug 13, 2007 12:22 am
I agree with you, Mona, you have to really feel hate to perform an unforgivable curse. Snape had to find hate somewhere into himself to kill. I will add to your possibilities : "I hate him for always using me, even now !"



Ann - Aug 13, 2007 4:34 am (#947 of 2055)
Solitaire, Lily and Snape talk about what is clearly the werewolf prank (although Lily still doesn't know that Remus is a werewolf) in the discussion they have while they are still "best friends." She reproaches him for his friendship with Avery and Mulciber, but calls James a "toerag," too. In the stream of memories, the Levicorpus incident, where he calls her a "Mudblood," occurs later, followed by his attempt to apologize and her refusal to accept his apology, which was apparently the evening of the same day. But even if the memories were in the wrong order (which they don't seem to), Lily would clearly not have considered herself his friend after he'd called her a "Mudblood." So the werewolf incident has to be sometime before their OWLs.

I think that before DH, everyone assumed that it was the werewolf incident that reformed James, and perhaps fragmented the Marauders a little (Remus doesn't stand close to the others in the "old Order" photo.) That's why it was put in their sixth year. But apparently that wasn't the case.

I don't think you "have to really feel hate" to use an Unforgivable. What Bellatrix said was that you "really have to mean them." So Snape doesn't have to hate Dumbledore, he just must genuinely want him dead, and given the situation, there were reasons why he might. If he didn't kill Dumbledore, the other DEs would have, possibly more cruelly; he would have died; Draco would probably have been killed; and so forth. He may even have realized that Harry was present (even Draco noticed the two brooms, and Snape is nothing if not observant); if so, he must have realized that killing Dumbledore would also be necessary to protect Harry. So he really wanted him dead. Even so, the murder probably tore his soul; but you can be sure that he felt more than enough remorse to heal it. I think that's what Dumbledore meant.



NFla Barbara - Aug 13, 2007 5:08 am (#948 of 2055)
I would add that he hated himself at that moment...remember the look on his face. He was revolted at the act. That's a great point about him feeling enough remorse to heal whatever the act did to his soul, and I think it's probably true, but at that instant, I think he hated what DD was asking him to do, hated himself, and probably hated DD or came close to it.



The Viking - Aug 13, 2007 6:06 am (#949 of 2055)
I always thought that Snape's revolted look was because at that moment he hated Dumbledore for giving him such an order.



T Vrana - Sep 10, 2006 3:27 am (#950 of 2055)
Edited Aug 13, 2007 7:01 am
The other reason for killing Dd....Unbreakable Vow.

I don't think there was any one emotion running through Snape at the moment, but many!

Emotions connected to:

Dd's foolishness with the Ring.

Dd's huge request.

The death of the one person who knew him, trusted him and knew he was doing the right thing.

Death/murder of his father figure.

Going it alone among the DEs hunted and hated by his fellow Order members and the WW.

And the Vow, did he consider saying "no" and ending it all?
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 951 to 980

Post  Mona on Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:58 am

Madame Pomfrey - Aug 13, 2007 9:09 am (#951 of 2055)
I just thought of something.Wasn't the vow made before Dumbledore asked Snape to kill him? Also,did Snape confide in Dumbledore about the vow or did Dumbledore know just what Harry told him?



T Vrana - Aug 13, 2007 9:26 am (#952 of 2055)
Vow came after because Snape told Bella and Cissy that DD was recently injured, and DD asked the day he was injured.



Madame Pomfrey - Aug 13, 2007 4:14 pm (#953 of 2055)
Thanks,T.

Then Snape's hand twitching during the vow could be that Snape knew he could no longer back out from his agreement to kill Dumbledore.



wynnleaf - Aug 14, 2007 11:20 am (#954 of 2055)
I wanted to comment on Ann and T Vrana's small exchange earlier on DD's harsh comments to Snape.

Some of DD's remarks I can accept. Others I cannot.

When Snape first went to DD, I can understand DD's reaction. He didn't know for sure how deep Snape's remorse was or his commitment to trying to help Lily, and DD was rightly disgusted that Snape's only focus was in saving Lily and not the rest of her family.

But later, right after they'd died, I cannot find a way to justify DD's comments.

I don't have a book here, so this is from memory and if anyone wants to post the quotes that would be helpful. Well, wait, I found some of the quotes on someone else's post on another site.

'I thought ... you were going ... to keep her ... safe ...'

'She and James put their faith in the wrong person,' said Dumbledore. 'Rather like you, Severus. Weren't you hoping that Lord Voldemort would spare her?'

What?? It's pretty obvious that, although Snape asked Voldemort in desperation to spare Lily, he didn't trust Voldemort at all and risked his life to go to Dumbledore ("don't kill me"), and then risked his life for apparently months because he didn't trust Voldemort to spare her. This was just a cruel remark and didn't have much point that I can see. Quite clearly Snape already knew he'd made a terrible mistake to ever trust LV. DD was just rubbing it in.

Then DD sort of taunts him almost with the fact that Harry has Lily's eyes. When Snape begs him to stop, DD say's

"Is this remorse, Severus?"

Does he truly think Snape isn't remorseful?

At one point, I was trying to justify this by thinking that maybe Dumbledore was trying to redirect Snape's thinking away from his grief and toward something he could actually do to continue to both honor Lily and make her death have some point, and protect what remained of her.

But part of what concerns me is that you'd think anyone with any understanding of human nature would realize that there was a young man with no support system, no one to turn to, who had just lost everything he cared about and through his own mistakes, and was not only feeling terrifically grief stricken, but was suicidal as well. ("I wish I was dead.") There's no reason, given the circumstances, to think Snape was speaking in hyperbole.

Yet Dumbledore just taunts him and makes cruel comments.

And let's not forget that Dumbledore knew what it was to get involved with a terrible person and to have one's mistakes cause the death of a loved one. Dumbledore knows what this is like.

And when Arianna died, did Dumbledore dash out to rectify his mistake? Did he immediately start working to stop Grendelwald's actions? Did he even take enough responsibility to find out who actually killed her? No. He waited what appears to be about 80 years before attempting to bring down Grindelwald, even though Grindelwald had already caused the deaths of many before DD decided to act.

I'm not saying Snape was any better for immediately risking his life to alter the course of his own mistakes. After all, when Snape turned to DD, Lily was still alive and he was trying to save her. Maybe Albus would have acted sooner if he was trying to save Arianna's life rather than just finally, at long last, going after Grindelwald years later after her death.

Still, the point is, Dumbledore knows what this is like. And Snape had nowhere really to turn except to Dumbledore and he met a suicidal young man with very harsh and even cruel taunts -- some of which weren't even true.

I tend to wonder if Dumbledore was venting his own anger at himself for his past actions, onto Snape.



TomProffitt - Aug 14, 2007 12:04 pm (#955 of 2055)
Let's not forget the other people involved here. James, Lily, and Harry. Severus only cared about one of them at this point while Dumbledore cared about them all. Dumbledore has many reasons to be angry and many reasons to question Snape's feelings.

There were greater victims at this point than Severus Snape, he doesn't get much of my pity. I think what Dumbledore is telling him is that remorse after the fact won't prevent a child from being an orphan. He needs Snape to move from "I failed" to "I have responsibility." Until Snape accepts that he has responsibility as a result of his actions, his remorse is meaningless.



T Vrana - Aug 14, 2007 12:16 pm (#956 of 2055)
wynnleaf- I agree with Tom. Snape was wrapped up in his self-pity and DD shook him out of it and gave him purpose. Snape was still only thinking of Lily and his own loss, DD set him on a path to do something other than wallow in self-pity. I don't think he was taunting, but refocusing, with attitude. Again, depsite that first meeting, Snape was still unconcerned with what his actions had cost James and Harry.



wynnleaf - Aug 14, 2007 12:19 pm (#957 of 2055)
Oh, I agree that ultimately it was good for Snape to get sort of redirected from his focus on just his own loss, to what he could still do about the situation -- that is, protecting Harry.

But Dumbledore used methods that, considering Snape was probably fairly suicidal, were cruel, making comments that weren't necessarily true (that Snape trusted LV to spare Lily), and that don't reflect a man who had basically done and been in much the same circumstance as Snape.

Snape, by that point, had actually done more to atone for his mistakes than DD did when Arianna died.

DD could have still talked to Snape about honoring Lily's sacrificial death by protecting Harry. He could still have talked to Snape about Lily sort of living on in Harry. He didn't need to say these cruel things to a suicidal young man who was clearly deeply remorseful and who had already been risking his life to try to correct his mistakes.



NFla Barbara - Aug 14, 2007 1:33 pm (#958 of 2055)
Trust and hope are two different things.

I didn't read that exchange as taunting Snape so much as revealing to Snape that DD really understood him. Snape did not trust LV at all, but that might not prevent him from hoping that somehow, something would trigger an impulse to spare her (certainly not charity, but perhaps some way LV thought he could use her). Yes, Snape asked DD to save all three of the Potters, but even when the worst happened, he was really anguished over Lily, not over the whole family. This was what DD was pointing out to him, I thought -- didn't you **hope** he would spare **her.** DD understood that Snape's motivation to help DD at that point would be solely to save Lily's son as a gift to her, not because he was an orphan who needed friends in the world.

It was an extremely harsh exchange under the circumstances. I thought it was DD at his most Slytherin-like, not because he was being cruel for its own sake, but because he was willing to be cruel to make sure Snape chose the "right" course of action.



TomProffitt - Aug 14, 2007 2:14 pm (#959 of 2055)
Some of Rowling's animosity towards traitors shows through here as well. Snape wasn't the only person to blame for the deaths of Lily and James, or even the most responsible, but he certainly bears a tremendous responsibility. You don't get much lower than to sell someone's life for your own benefit. (Which Snape would have perfectly fine with if it had been the Longbottoms.)



wynnleaf - Aug 14, 2007 4:25 pm (#960 of 2055)
Just so you guys will know, I want Dumbledore to have good reasons for these various exchanges with Snape. It's just that some of his comments not only don't seem justified, but seem downright counterproductive -- well, unless you actually want the suicidal young man to go off himself.

I think Dumbledore is more Slytherin than anything. JKR has never actually told us, and I think we see far more Slytherin qualities than Gryffindor. Still, aside from that, while Dumbledore does use many forms of manipulation, I don't think he actually empathizes very well with people.

DD's comments to Harry, not 1 hour after Sirius' death, are really rather amazing for being clueless about what to say. Dumbledore had allowed Harry, who had just gone through what he did at the end of GOF, to go all year without meeting his eyes, much less really talking to him, and didn't realize that was going to cause some emotional difficulties in Harry -- a kid who's been searching, after all, for father figures and looked upon DD as a kind of grandfather. Dumbledore ordered a man who'd been incarcerated for 12 years and living rough for 2, to close himself up in the home of the family that he was estranged from and not come out all year. I don't point out any of these instances as a reason to criticize DD, but to give evidence that he really did not understand people very well.

So whatever DD's reasons for talking to a grieving, suicidal young man in the manner he did, I don't think the reasons were particularly justified.

Snape says

"I wish... I was dead...."

"And what use would that be to anyone?"

and Dumbledore goes on to try to redirect Snape's thinking to focus on protecting Harry. One might think that DD is attempting to give Snape a reason to live, but it doesn't seem like a particularly good way to go about it, as the basic message is the only reason for you to live is to be of use in this mess.

Actually, it works for Snape in part because he's ripe for it. From what we can tell, and even from what JKR said, apparently only one person had ever particularly loved him and now she was dead, so Snape probably had few expectations that his life meant much of anything except as a tool.

There are some other communications between DD and Snape where I think DD makes some questionable comments, but the one over killing him really concerns me.

When Snape is concerned about killing Dumbledore and asks how it will affect his own soul, Dumbledore doesn't answer. And although Dumbledore offers the excuse ("excuse" as in excusing his killing), that it would be mercy killing if Bella or Fenrir were involved, we know from other comments of DD that he wanted Snape to kill him regardless of the manner of imminent death, because he wanted the Elder Wand to pass to Snape. But DD manipulates Snape by using the mercy killing example as though it is the whole of the reason, when we know it isn't the main reason, and Snape could end up being held to the agreement with DD simply expiring quietly of the curse. It is a very touchy moral question at that point and yet DD is pressing Snape to agree under false pretenses. The thing that makes it all the worse is that by that point Dumbledore appears to be Snape's only real confidant and seems to be his mentor and a sort of moral guide. So I feel that DD's actions, particularly in persuading Snape to commit to such a questionable action under false pretenses, is unethical.

Then later, when Snape is seriously rethinking the implications of this agreement (as well he should, since it is a seriously questionable moral quandary), DD again pressures him and says

"You gave me your word, Severus. And while we are talking about services you owe me," ... implying that Snape agreeing to kill DD is a service Snape owes Dumbledore. If this were a straightforward request, with no ethical dilemma, it would be okay to push the issue as "a service you owe me," but not for a question of serious ethical concerns where Dumbledore is actually lying about the need for it.

There's more, but I'll stop there.



TomProffitt - Aug 14, 2007 4:57 pm (#961 of 2055)
... particularly in persuading Snape to commit to such a questionable action under false pretenses, is unethical. --- wynnleaf

Generally speaking, I am in agreement with your assessment of Dumbledore's character, wynnleaf. For lack of a better phrase, I think the "ethically strong" House is Hufflepuff, not Gryffindor. Personally, I think Dumbledore has a very serious temper and that occasionally it gets the better of him (like some of those scenes with Snape.) I think one part of Dumbledore's failing to understand people is what leads him to be so unwilling to share his plans with others and provide deeper trust.

My only disagreement is the ethical nature of the bargain between Snape and Dumbledore to arrange DD's death. I think Rowling is comfortable with the ethicality of this deal, and regardless of what we the readers may think of it, we should interpret the scenes dealing with it with Rowling's opinion in mind.



Ann - Aug 14, 2007 5:45 pm (#962 of 2055)
Dumbledore's death is so over-determined it's ridiculous--the ring, the Vow, the potion from the cave, Fenrir Greyback and the other DEs--all designed to get Snape off the ethical hook, I think.

To go back several posts to where people were talking about the Astronomy Tower scene, in which it was suggested that the hatred and revulsion on Snape's face was directed at Dumbledore for making him do murder: I think that might be possible, but that it doesn't square with the parallel of Harry's feeding Dumbledore the potion in the cave. Harry's feelings at that point are described with almost exactly the same words as are used to describe Snape's face (as many people pointed out in the early discussions of HBP). Because Harry feels hatred and revulsion at what he has to do, I think we have to assume (in retrospect) that Snape felt the same.

As for the Snape/Dumbledore parallel, you've said exactly what I was trying to, wynnleaf, only more clearly. And I hadn't picked up on the contrast between Snape's immediate commitment to do "anything" to expiate his crime and Dumbledore's long postponement of his duel with Grindelwald.

I also want to suggest that Snape's lack of concern for James and Harry may not be as negligible as Dumbledore makes it sound. When someone that one truly loves is killed, the world goes dark for a while, and it is hard to care about the fate of others. (We don't scorn someone widowed by a plane crash for their lack of concern about the other people in the plane.) Harry's survival and James's death are unimportant to Snape only in comparison to the overwhelming catastrophe that is Lily's death. It is a natural human reaction to care more about those one loves than about those who one dislikes or has never met. Snape's gesture of swatting away an insect is, I think, symptomatic of the comparative size of his concern. Yes, Snape bears some responsibility for James's death (and of course Lily's), but obviously Wormtail and Voldemort are even more culpable, and Sirius and James both contributed to the events with their bad decisions and overconfidence.

Dumbledore taunts Snape, saying he put his trust in the wrong person. He speaks truly: Snape put his trust in Dumbledore. And I think Dumbledore realizes this by the end.



mona amon - Aug 14, 2007 8:33 pm (#963 of 2055)
To go back several posts to where people were talking about the Astronomy Tower scene, in which it was suggested that the hatred and revulsion on Snape's face was directed at Dumbledore for making him do murder.

Ann, I think I started that with my post#945, which was more of a tongue-in-cheek respose to NFla Barbara's previous post, and I was also trying to show how much rage must have been there. He loved Dumbledore. He was about to kill him, and be regarded as a traitor and a coward. I too think rage, and not hatred, was his emotion at that time.

Regarding DD's harsh comments to Snape:

At the end of POA I was rather mad at DD for being so callously amused at Severus's uncontrolled rage, but somehow I don't have a problem with DD in the Prince's Tale scene. He must also have been grieving for the Potters, and his sympathy for Severus must have been limitted. I feel Severus' grief may have been irritating to him at the time, something parrallel to what happens between Ron and Draco after the ROR fire,

'C-Crabbe,' choked Malfoy, as soon as he could speak, 'C-Crabbe...'

'He's dead,' said Ron harshly.

And it seems to have been just the sort of treatment that Severus really needed. Even the callous remark about Lily's eyes does goad him out of his self pity.



T Vrana - Aug 15, 2007 6:32 am (#964 of 2055)
Edited Aug 15, 2007 7:07 am
wynnleaf- Just so you guys will know, I want Dumbledore to have good reasons for these various exchanges with Snape.

Really? No offense, but it seems to me that you are taking the worst possible interpretation of each scene.

It's just that some of his comments not only don't seem justified, but seem downright counterproductive -- well, unless you actually want the suicidal young man to go off himself.

Snape was not suicidal, he was grief stricken, and DD knew it. BUT, he was also laying the blame for Lily's death at DD's feet. DD's comment about putting his trust in LV was:

1) A reminder that Snape's allegiance and trust in LV led to LV's decision to target the Potter's.

2) A reminder that seeking DD's help did not lift Snape's responsibility for his contribution to the death of a young couple and the orphaning of their son.

3) That while DD did what he could to save the Potter's, LV killed Lily, LV did not honor Snape's request, LV is to blame, not DD.

4)That Snape must atone for his misplaced trust and allegiance which got the Potters killed.

I think Dumbledore is more Slytherin than anything. JKR has never actually told us, and I think we see far more Slytherin qualities than Gryffindor. Still, aside from that, while Dumbledore does use many forms of manipulation, I don't think he actually empathizes very well with people.

Slytherins are greedy and self preserving, seeking wealth, power and comfort. I don't see this at all.

Yes, DD can be a bit aloof, but he's the great good wizard and his unflinching insistence that others find the best in themselves is allowed and needed. Snape can be a harsh but caring teacher, but DD can't be a bit tough, aloof and caring without being a Slytherin? (I am stunned by the double standard.)

DD's comments to Harry, not 1 hour after Sirius' death, are really rather amazing for being clueless about what to say. Dumbledore had allowed Harry, who had just gone through what he did at the end of GOF, to go all year without meeting his eyes, much less really talking to him, and didn't realize that was going to cause some emotional difficulties in Harry -- a kid who's been searching, after all, for father figures and looked upon DD as a kind of grandfather. Dumbledore ordered a man who'd been incarcerated for 12 years and living rough for 2, to close himself up in the home of the family that he was estranged from and not come out all year. I don't point out any of these instances as a reason to criticize DD, but to give evidence that he really did not understand people very well.

DD was confronted by many problems and makes mistakes, but he was not a god with all the perfect answers. He admits where he failed.

So whatever DD's reasons for talking to a grieving, suicidal young man in the manner he did, I don't think the reasons were particularly justified.

Snape says

"I wish... I was dead...."

"And what use would that be to anyone?"

and Dumbledore goes on to try to redirect Snape's thinking to focus on protecting Harry. One might think that DD is attempting to give Snape a reason to live, but it doesn't seem like a particularly good way to go about it, as the basic message is the only reason for you to live is to be of use in this mess.

The only reason to live was to atone for a great mistake, and gain a purposeful life. DD seemed to know what he was doing as Snape took up the challenge.

Actually, it works for Snape in part because he's ripe for it. From what we can tell, and even from what JKR said, apparently only one person had ever particularly loved him and now she was dead, so Snape probably had few expectations that his life meant much of anything except as a tool.

As a tool? No, as a brave man willing to do his part for DD and the Order and take responsibility for his actions. Are we forgetting that Snape was willing to let any number of people die? That if LV had targeted the Longbottoms they would all be dead and Snape would still be a DE? Snape was not a victim, he was a man who made a very bad choice, and a man who turned his life around. DD could have had him carted off to Azkaban, he could have thrown him out and back to LV, but instead he gave him an opportunity for purpose and a life worth living. He offered Snape a way out and Snape took it. CHOICES.



T Vrana - Aug 15, 2007 6:38 am (#965 of 2055)
There are some other communications between DD and Snape where I think DD makes some questionable comments, but the one over killing him really concerns me.

When Snape is concerned about killing Dumbledore and asks how it will affect his own soul, Dumbledore doesn't answer. And although Dumbledore offers the excuse ("excuse" as in excusing his killing), that it would be mercy killing if Bella or Fenrir were involved, we know from other comments of DD that he wanted Snape to kill him regardless of the manner of imminent death, because he wanted the Elder Wand to pass to Snape. But DD manipulates Snape by using the mercy killing example as though it is the whole of the reason, when we know it isn't the main reason, and Snape could end up being held to the agreement with DD simply expiring quietly of the curse. It is a very touchy moral question at that point and yet DD is pressing Snape to agree under false pretenses. The thing that makes it all the worse is that by that point Dumbledore appears to be Snape's only real confidant and seems to be his mentor and a sort of moral guide. So I feel that DD's actions, particularly in persuading Snape to commit to such a questionable action under false pretenses, is unethical.

We know why Snape had to kill DD, but DD could not share this with Snape and instead gave him a reason that would not mar his soul or endanger the Elder Wand. AND, Snape had a choice. Out of compassion, he agreed to do it.

Then later, when Snape is seriously rethinking the implications of this agreement (as well he should, since it is a seriously questionable moral quandary), DD again pressures him and says

"You gave me your word, Severus. And while we are talking about services you owe me," ... implying that Snape agreeing to kill DD is a service Snape owes Dumbledore. If this were a straightforward request, with no ethical dilemma, it would be okay to push the issue as "a service you owe me," but not for a question of serious ethical concerns where Dumbledore is actually lying about the need for it.

He was not seriously thinking of not doing it. He was venting frustration because he felt slighted that Dd was spending so much time with Harry and giving him information he would not give Snape.

He had already taken the Vow, DD insisting he keep his word saved the Wand and Snape's life. Though, as I said, Snape was never really thinking about not following through, he was just ticked off about Harry.



legolas returns - Aug 15, 2007 11:03 am (#966 of 2055)
I would like to disagree with posters who said that Dumbledore did not understand people. I actually think that he did understand people very well but had over time become detached in his role in directing the war against Voldemort. His plan was very complicated.

He trusted people where others would be unwilling. He got to know people and how they ticked. He adapted his methods accordingly. Sometime his methods were a little harsh but I do believe that he got the best out of people. He gave people choices and let them choose the correct one. I agree with your sentiments T Vrana.

Regarding Lupin-Dumbledore always championed minority groups. Letting him into Hogwarts in my opinion was not Lupins second chance-he had no choice on being a wearwolf. It was a way of making sure that Lupin was brought up properly (eg went to school and was not raised by other wearwolves) and giving him the choices to make good. Lupin got his second chance after admitting he was wrong at the end of POA and he showed proper remorse.



wynnleaf - Aug 15, 2007 11:45 am (#967 of 2055)
wynnleaf- Just so you guys will know, I want Dumbledore to have good reasons for these various exchanges with Snape.

Really? No offense, but it seems to me that you are taking the worst possible interpretation of each scene. (T Vrana)

I can't be sure, but until DH I don't think I ever had anything negative to say about anything DD did or said. The fact that I now see so much wrong with the way he did things is purely because of what I saw in DH. I'm not "taking the worst possible interpretation." That's what people do when they're coming to something with a negative interpretation to begin with. I came to DH with the highest regard for DH's character. I really didn't like losing the sense of a man who really cared about people. My feeling at the end was a man who cared about his goals, and surely believed he cared about some people, but I didn't think he really cared about individuals to the extent that others did. For instance, I felt that Aberforth exhibited a true sadness over his sister's death -- he missed Arianna. I felt DD came across as more saddened by his own failure and feeling of guilt. I didn't feel that he mourned Arianna as a person, so much as mourning his part in her death. I felt, in the end, that DD cared about ideals not individuals.

Back to The Prince's Tale.

Was Snape suicidal? Well, he said he wished he was dead. Snape at that point had lost the only person he cared about, had no support system whatsoever, had nothing really to live for. Given all that, along with his desperate grief and guilt, we have no reason to not believe his own comment that he wished he was dead. In a real life situation, with a person in those circumstance, a person should take that kind of comment as possibly a truly suicidal state. You certainly don't address such a person with harsh and taunting words about their remorse and guilt.

Dumbledore as Slytherin-like

Slytherins are greedy and self preserving, seeking wealth, power and comfort. I don't see this at all. (T Vrana)

Phineas said that Slytherins will always watch out for themselves. We see that Snape didn't, nor did Regulas, and even Draco was trying to save a friend at risk to his own life.

The Sorting Hat said that Slytherins were

Those cunning folk use any means to achieve their ends.

Sound like DD? Well, in a way, yes. Perhaps not evil ways, but DD was willing to make many decisions that others would have found very difficult to make because the decisions called for such hard choices -- like the best of two evils kinds of choices. For instance, DD was willing to risk the lives of Order members in order to achieve the ends he sought. Was that bad? Not necessarily, but many, many people aren't willing to make those kinds of decisions. It's a Slytherin characteristic to be able to coolly make those kinds of choices.

What about the Sorting Hat's comment to Harry? Wanting to "prove himself?" Sound like young Albus a bit? Sort of.

The Sorting Hat called Slytherins "shrewd" and ambitious. Could be Dumbledore? Yes. Who said that the Slytherins were after wealth? Can't find it. How about comfort? Can't find that either. What about power? Well, they're ambitious, but people can be very ambitious for many things. Young Dumbledore did want power of a sort, just not the monetary kind. That's why he later refused the ministry position. He knew power was a weakness of his.

Gryffindor style bravery? I'm not sure about Dumbledore. He did brave things, but he waited 80 years to go against Grindelwald, primarily because he couldn't bare the possibility of facing the facts as to who actually killed his sister. So people died in the meantime until DD decided he would face Grindelwald.

As regards Snape being used as a tool. I'm saying that Dumbledore did use Snape as a tool. In defence of Dumbledore, I'd say he used himself as a tool as well, taking his own death and using it to gain whatever he could toward the goal of destroying Voldemort. That doesn't lessen anything about Snape -- either the terrible things he may have been willing to allow initially, or his bravery later. It's a comment about DD, not Snape.

We know why Snape had to kill DD, but DD could not share this with Snape and instead gave him a reason that would not mar his soul or endanger the Elder Wand. AND, Snape had a choice. Out of compassion, he agreed to do it. (T Vrana)

I think JKR wanted to construct the plot so that DD had excuses to not tell Snape the truth, but I think he could have told him about the Elder Wand. The idea of the Elder Wand was not a secret from LV. But DD later characterized Snape killing him as "a service you owe me." That just simply isn't true. No one "owes" someone the service of taking their life. And it was perfectly okay for Snape to rethink such a monumental agreement (to kill DD), especially since he had never been given all the facts about it. And I do think Snape was rethinking it.



T Vrana - Aug 15, 2007 1:21 pm (#968 of 2055)
In a real life situation, with a person in those circumstance, a person should take that kind of comment as possibly a truly suicidal state. You certainly don't address such a person with harsh and taunting words about their remorse and guilt.

Not real life, an epic battle between good and evil, and Snape was on the crux between good and evil, blaming DD for Lily's death, bemoaning his own loss and with no clear vision out other than his own grief. He needed a focus and reminder how they came to this point, who was to blame and what path would be best. DD cut through his self pity and brought him back. I saw no taunting, only a harsh reminder of how this all started. Since DD was unable to convince the Potters to change secret keepers, and they died, Snape's 'anything' was really over. Snape was adrift and DD needed to secure him and his soul. It worked. Joining in his pity party would not, in my opinion, have had the same effect.

Those cunning folk use any means to achieve their ends.

DD did not use any means, he always gave his followers CHOICE.

Clearly everyone has a bit of more than one House in them, no one is just, shrewd, or just brave etc. So Harry can be brave, and eager to prove himself and still belong in Gryffindor. And DD can make hard decisions and be brave. How brave is it to avoid making decisions and let LV win? That is cowardice.

I had posted already that the risk to the Order was, at best minimally increased, as #4 was already being watched and the original plan to move Harry had no decoys.

DD didn't care for people? Draco? Who was trying to kill him?! Lupin, who faced life as an outcast from childhood and was given a chance to attend Hogwarts?

Comparing DD's and Aberforth's relationship with Arianna is irrelevant. Aberforth spent the rest of his life bitter and angry. DD turned his grief into good works. Jo said if he looked into the Mirror of Erised he would see his family again, whole. That is not a man who believes only in ideals, his deepest desire was to have his family back. That his love wasn't the same as Aberforth's really doesn't matter. We knew from childhood Aberforth and Arianna were close.

Gryffindor style bravery? I'm not sure about Dumbledore. He did brave things, but he waited 80 years to go against Grindelwald, primarily because he couldn't bare the possibility of facing the facts as to who actually killed his sister. So people died in the meantime until DD decided he would face Grindelwald.

I am. We see that Gryffindor style bravery has little to do with facing one's own fears, and more with rushing in headlong to danger. DD wasn't afraid for his life, he was terrified of what he may have done. He did wait 80 years, but when people began to die, he acted. Harry, a Gryffindor, was unable to truly face his role in Sirius's death, does that make him less a Gryffindor? No, he would still charge in to save even Malfoy!

I think JKR wanted to construct the plot so that DD had excuses to not tell Snape the truth, but I think he could have told him about the Elder Wand.

Let's start with what Jo intended. How can you say she created a scenario where he could not tell, but you, the reader think the author is wrong about the situation she created?

But let's say you are right. How? Even Hermione looked on it with desire, how could Snape have resisted? If he had known I do not believe he could have kept himself from wanting it, even if he tried, and that desire would have made him Master. Killing to obtain the Elder Wand seems particularly destructive, even if it is for good reason. DD said he was only allowed to tame it because he did not kill or want to kill with it. I do not think Snape, or anyone, could have suppressed the desire to kill LV with it. Even Harry obsessed over it for quite some time.

He did owe the service of killing DD once he gave his word, especially since he was only throwing a hissy fit because he was angry at how much time and information Harry was getting. That said, he could still have said no right up 'til the end. He ran to the tower pretty sure what he would find, I think. If he was willing to refuse or die by the Vow he could have stayed in his office.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the rethinking of Snape killing DD. I've read the passage several times and as I read it he's only miffed at what he perceives as DD's lack of trust in him, and complete trust in Harry, a terrible Occlumens etc. PLUS, I really don't think Snape was willing to die of the Unbreakable Vow.

Every General uses others as a tool in a manner of speaking. Should DD have been an Army of one? They were all volunteers and I don't begrudge DD anything he did. Should he have had such high ideals that he should have protected everyone and therefore no one?

I can't be sure, but until DH I don't think I ever had anything negative to say about anything DD did or said. The fact that I now see so much wrong with the way he did things is purely because of what I saw in DH. I'm not "taking the worst possible interpretation." That's what people do when they're coming to something with a negative interpretation to begin with. I came to DH with the highest regard for DH's character.

No, that's also what disillusioned folks do. Now that DD has been shown to be human all of his actions are begin thrown into the worst possible light by some. You assume DD is taunting when he's being firm, that he could have told Snape about the Elder Wand, when he clearly felt he could not. I also came with the highest regard and still have it because I see DD's actions on the same light as all 6 previous books. If DD was sure he could not tell Snape, I assume he had a very good reason, and to me it is he knew he would not be able to resist the lure. If he is tough on Snape I assume it is because he is trying to save Snape and give him a life worth living, not because he needs a tool and doesn't care who he uses or how, or that he is taunting or believes Snape is truly suicidal. Snape volunteered and died a hero.

Jo called DD 'the epitome of goodness'.

Harry named his son Albus Severus. Albus first, but he also valued Severus so clearly he sees nothing wrong in what DD did.

DD's portrait looking with pride at Harry post LV battle filled Harry like Phoenix song.

With all this in mind I approach what DD did and interpret his actions, where any doubt can be had, to be consistent with the DD I have always loved.

You are much kinder to all of Snape's actions, perhaps because Snape was never on a pedestal.



NFla Barbara - Aug 15, 2007 1:39 pm (#969 of 2055)

I can't be sure, but until DH I don't think I ever had anything negative to say about anything DD did or said.

This is more something he didn't do or say, but I shared a lot of Harry's frustration in OoP at the lack of contact and information he got from DD. And while I more or less trusted DD to have some reason at the time, it seemed to be a particularly harsh way of acting. Harry had found two surrogate father figures in PoA, but both had to leave Hogwarts; no one took their place in GoF and, in OoP, they were still "underground." Arthur Weasley was there for Harry at the trial, but for DD to let him go through that without a word or a look was, well, cruel, even though he explained it later.

But having said that, I don't think DD was being cruel to Harry at the end of OoP when he pointed out that Sirius had treated Kreacher poorly. He said "I do not think that Sirius...ever saw Kreacher as a being with feelings as acute as a humans"; a few minutes later, when Harry said "It's OK for Snape to hate my dad, but not OK for Sirius to hate Kreacher," DD said "Sirius did not hate Kreacher...He regarded him as a servant unworthy of much interest or notice." And in response to "SO SIRIUS DESERVED WHAT HE GOT, DID HE?", DD says "Sirius was not a cruel man, he was kind to house-elves in general. He had no love for Kreacher, because Kreacher was a living reminder of the home Sirius had hated."

Far from tearing down Sirius in Harry's memory, he is responding to Harry's anger (remember Harry has just been throwing things around DD's office) and, in the end, explaining something about Sirius to Harry. I think he's being very compassionate. (And now that I've gone back and re-read that, I think I need to re-read all of Book 5. Maybe I will feel differently about some of the things that bothered me the first time around.)



wynnleaf - Aug 15, 2007 1:53 pm (#970 of 2055)
I don't disagree with everything DD did, only some of it. I'm not "disillusioned" exactly, and I don't think he's hateful or awful.

When I say that I think DD cares for ideals more than people, I suppose -- like on the Snape thread -- there's a difficulty in the use of the word "care." Let me use other words. I don't think Dumbledore's care for others is because he's deeply connected to other individuals as person who he loves or has deep affection for. I think his "care" is more of an idealistic care. That is, he realizes that it is important to guard others, protect, give others certain rights, and be concerned for others. But I don't see, except with Harry, much true affection shown for anyone.

Dumbledore shows little to no sadness at deaths when James, Lily and Sirius die. And his sadness over Arianna seems more to reflect his guilt and sadness over his part in her death, not so much for the loss of her as a person.

This actually fits some with JKR's comments about DD having no peers that he can be close to and share things with. DD isn't really close to anyone on a personal level. But his ideals are often very high.

JKR shows other characters being strongly motivated because of very personal love that they have for others. Harry is motivated by personal love for his friends and those he's lost. Snape is motivated by love for Lily. The Malfoys are motivated by love of family. Regulas by his care for Kreacher. Kreacher by his love for Regulas. And so on... But Dumbledore seems more motivated by his ideals. His actual love for others is of a different sort -- not th person "I know you well and love you" kind of love. The only exception I see is with Harry.

I don't think Dumbledore truly understands people. He is able to manipulate people very well. I'd say that's his most Slytherin trait -- cunning and shrewdness. Dumbledore is extraordinarily shrewd and cunning. But I don't think he truly understands how people will emotionally react to his own actions or orders. I've given examples including those of Harry, Sirius and Snape. I'd say Lupin is the same.

Dumbledore "cares" for Lupin in so far as the ideal of providing "equal opportunity" for Lupin to go to school, give him a second chance, etc. Does Dumbledore care for Lupin personally? I don't think so.

Sorry, I don't have time to answer much more right now.

Oh, on the subject of the "real life" reaction to someone suicidal. I don't judge Dumbledore's actions based on the result. That would only work if Dumbledore were omniscient and knew that all of his actions would result in excellent results. He obviously makes mistakes, and some things he does -- like his comments to Snape -- could just as easily have gone wrong. His reaction to Snape wasn't a good one. It just so happened that JKR used it to push Snape to redirection rather than greater despair.

By the way, JKR's opinion about her characters, in terms of saying Dumbledore is "the epitome of goodness" is simply a reflection of how she sees his actions. I don't have to agree with her. In any case, she first said Snape wasn't a hero and a few days later that he was. I wonder if, now that DH is out, she'd still say Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness.



TomProffitt - Aug 15, 2007 2:08 pm (#971 of 2055)
wynnleaf, other than your reaction to the Snape/Dumbledore conversation following the Potters' murder, I agree very much with your assessment of Dumbledore. I'll reserve judgment on the mentioned conversation until after I have a chance to re-read the scene.



legolas returns - Aug 15, 2007 2:15 pm (#972 of 2055)
People joined the Order of the Phoenix knowing that it was not going to be a picnic. All that joined were adults and knew the risk of death but were prepared to sacrifice there life in order to make a better world.

The last words that Dumbledore spoke to Kingsly/Lupin was "Harry is the best hope we have. Trust him."

14 people agreed to help protect Harry/get him to the Burrow regardless of the risk to themselves. They all agreed to the plan. They expected some kind of ambush admittedly by only a few death eaters. The fact that Dumbledore "arranged" things so that Harry would have good chance of being removed/Snape in good books.

I do agree that people judge Dumbledore very differently from other characters-He was on a pedestal. Dumbledore has undoubtably has his faults. When he was young he got burned and since then has tortured himself over his actions. He has tried to prevent his weaknesses getting the better of him by not becoming Minister for Magic. In the Kings Cross chapter he partly blames himself for the death of Harrys parents because he had the cloak. He has tried to prevent other people making his mistakes. He has fought for the side of good-he did not need to fight Voldemort but he did-I wonder if he felt guilt over not being able to prevent Voldemorts rise to power/he fought for inclusion of all/tried to make the wizarding world a better place. He has his faults but I firmly believe he is the "epitomy of good" as JKR describes him.

I agree that if Snape knew about the Elder Wand he would have wanted it.



T Vrana - Aug 15, 2007 2:56 pm (#973 of 2055)
wynnleaf - The fact that DD at 150 doesn't show great sadness over every death doesn't bother me. He sees death as the next great adventure, and I think a life well lived better than a life long lived. He still cares and is saddened, but I think he has a different perspective than others who do not have the fate of millions on their minds.

He is a bit removed, but he always has been. And just as you see no problem with Snape's harsh brand of caring (neither do I), I have no problem with DD's removed caring. He has a bigger picture to worry about and gives folks room and responsibility. Is it realistic that he can work to save the WW along with all his other responsibilities and give everyone complete emotional support and attention? Is every general saddened when a soldier dies? Yes! Is he as sad as the family? The soldier who bunked next to the dead man or woman? Of course not.

I don't fault DD for having high ideals and sticking to them. It is who he is and he does care.

Sorry, but I thought DD's handling if 'suicidal' Snape was masterful and necessary. We just don't see it the same way. I think DD did care and pulled Snape out of his despair and uselessness in a way that worked for Snape, while reminding him of his responsibility for Lily's loss. Again, when Snape is nasty in his caring you accept it, but not when DD is, even when the results are good. I shoulddl add I don't think Snape is the suicidal type, he is not such a coward and I think DD knew this about him already, from his courage on the hilltop.

On JKR and Snape as hero, I think that was more of classic hero vs dark hero and at first she was still a bit concerned that anyone would consider Snape a pure hero. Just my take.



wynnleaf - Aug 15, 2007 3:59 pm (#974 of 2055)
As regards DD's decision that included risking Order lives in the Privet Drive escape, I'm not saying that DD was necessarily wrong to do that. What I'm saying is that the ability to make those types of decisions is not something everyone can do. I compare it in a way to Snape watching the Muggle Studies teacher tortured to death and not being able to do anything, but he does that because it's necessary to do his job. It's a Slytherin ability to use any means to achieve an end, but that doesn't mean that all Slytherins are necesarily unethical. Don't take the "any" absolutely literally. Used in a positive way, it's the ability to make really tough decisions that include what may seem very difficult ethical decisions, in order to achieve important goals. Dumbledore does this in wanting to have Snape kill him so that the Elder Wand is taken care of. I don't disagree with DD's decision there, just with the fact that he lied to Snape about it. Similar Slytherin-style decisions include the willingness to risk Order lives to accomplish a goal of keeping Snape valuable to Voldemort. Or for Snape to do nothing to help Charity Burbage.

Again, when Snape is nasty in his caring you accept it, but not when DD is, even when the results are good.

I don't "accept it" in terms of saying his nastiness is okay, anymore than I'm saying that DD's harshness to Snape is okay. In addition, we're talking about someone typically seen as the epitome of nastiness ( ), so the argument is generally that Snape isn't as awful as many think him to be. With Dumbledore, we're talking about the supposed "epitome of goodness" so he's obviously held to a far higher standard and the question is whether he's really so wonderfully good, or if he is in fact quite flawed. Nobody is questioning Snape's being flawed.



T Vrana - Aug 15, 2007 5:32 pm (#975 of 2055)
wynnleaf- Sorry, but I think the ANY is very important, and DD was not willing to do 'anything'.

On asking Snape to kill him. Keep in mind that DD:

1) First, asked if LV planned to order Snape to kill him WHEN Draco failed, Snape said he thought that was the plan. So DD already knew that Snape was going to be asked to do the very thing he needed done.

2) Gave Snape an out by having him perform an act of mercy (whatever DD's plans, Snape's intent is the key to Snape's soul), rather than an order from LV or a killing marred by the desire for the Elder Wand.

3) Knew, I assume, that defeat by the curse would pass the Wand to LV. Not cannon, but as we know the Wand had been obtained by murdering a sleeping drunk in his bed, I think a curse works just as well.

What do you think would have happened if DD had told Snape about the Elder Wand?

Quite flawed? Not to me. In fact I was heartbroken that he still can't forgive himself at all for the few weeks he conspired with Grindewald to take over for the Greater Good. Given the loss of his father, mother, and a normal, whole sister at the hands of Muggles, I can see the allure of Wizard rule, when secrecy cost him so much. And he urged restraint, not revenge, murder, torture. That he was still so critical of himself after all the good he did is a sign of how truly good and great he was.



Phoenix - Aug 15, 2007 5:45 pm (#976 of 2055)
If I could add to this discussion, I was thinking DD, at 150 years old, more than likely learned the best from all the houses. There's no question of his courage and bravery as a Gryffindor, but he is also as intelligent as Ravenclaw, cunning as Slytherin, and as hard-working and diligent as Hufflepuff. I think he has all that to draw on in making his decisions. I'm in agreement that although the decisions were hard, he did it for the ultimate benefit of all. I really like the point made of DD caring in an 'idealistic' way. It is interesting, even before the first war, or Voldemort was ever heard of that DD did not have any real personal relationships. (perhaps it was that suit? ) --Maybe he was afraid after he failed his sister?



wynnleaf - Aug 15, 2007 5:59 pm (#977 of 2055)
"You might belong in Gryffindor, Where dwell the brave at heart, Their daring, nerve, and chivalry Set Gryffindors apart; You might belong in Hufflepuff, Where they are just and loyal, Those patient Hufflepuffs are true And unafraid of toil; Or yet in wise old Ravenclaw, if you've a ready mind, Where those of wit and learning, Will always find their kind; Or perhaps in Slytherin You'll make your real friends, Those cunning folks use any means To achieve their ends."

Do we take each and every word in this verse completely literally? The Ravenclaws will then "always" (absolutely always) find their kind in their own house, right? The Slytherins will make their real friends in Slytherin, right? Which means that Lily wasn't Snape's real friend? In Gryffindor where the "brave at heart" dwell. If that's true absolutely, then if one is brave, one must be in Gryffindor right? Of course, wrong.

Or this verse from another year...

"Said Slytherin, "We'll teach just those Whose ancestry's purest." Said Ravenclaw, "We'll teach those whose Intelligence is surest" Said Gryffindor, "We'll teach all those With brave deeds to their name." Said Hufflepuff, "I'll teach the lot And treat them just the same."

If you take this Sorting Hat song completely literally, Slytherin must have those with the purest ancestry. Therefore no half-bloods, right? Wrong. And Ravenclaw must have those of the surest intelligence, right? Wrong, because Ravenclaw doesn't have Hermione, the brightest of her year.

My point is that the Sorting Hat song is not literally and absolutely correct. That Slytherins are supposed to use "any means" to get their end doesn't mean that any Slytherin would be willing to do anything (murder, theft, whatever) in order to achieve their ends. That is not what the Sorting Hat meant, unless you want to advocate for the idea that Slytherin is the House of All Evil.

So, the characteristic of being willing to use any means to meet achieve an end can have a positive aspect for those who are not following Dark paths. What could that positive aspect be? It can simply be a person willing to pursue unorthodox methods, or even difficult ethical decisions in order to achieve good ends.

I think Dumbledore meets that positive side of the characteristic.

Now as to asking Snape to kill him. I have repeatedly said that it is not the fact that DD asked Snape to kill him that I find deeply objectionable or unethical. It is the fact that DD asked Snape to make a very difficult ethical decision and lied to him about the details of that decision that I think is wrong.

What do you think would have happened if DD had told Snape about the Elder Wand?

Dumbledore would still have ended up on the tower and would have been disarmed by Draco. Draco would still have become the master of the wand. Whether or not Snape had figured that out, Snape would know that Dumbledore's wand was the Elder Wand and that it would be buried with Dumbledore. Snape may either have allowed the wand to be buried, or would have taken the wand and hidden it elsewhere. Snape would have probably figured out eventually that Draco was the master of the wand. It really wouldn't be that hard, because Snape would realize from the start that he was not the one to disarm Dumbledore. Snape would have understood when Voldemort was out looking for the Elder Wand, exactly what he was looking for and why. Snape could have taken the wand from Dumbledore's grave (if he thought it best) and hidden it.

If Voldemort had gotten so far as to obtain the wand, even though Snape knew it was the Elder Wand and needed to be kept hidden from LV, then Snape would immediately realize (probably already know) why the wand wouldn't work for Voldemort. Snape would realize that Draco was the "master."

Would Snape give Draco away? Almost certainly not.

Snape would realize that LV would eventually decide that someone else was the master of the wand and that LV would realize the master was Snape -- or Draco. Snape could then work on options to attempt to remove the wand from LV, OR -[/b]- Maybe a better plan -- to gain a secret mastery of the wand by defeating Draco in some sort of duel situation where Snape could be the master instead of Draco.

Still, LV would have the wand and would eventually try to kill someone to gain its mastery. But this time, Snape would know that LV might try to gain mastery by killing him or Draco for it. So he'd be prepared.

Yeah, I think things would have gone a great deal better if DD had told Snape about the wand. Snape wouldn't have ended up the master, because events on the tower would have still occurred as they did. But Snape would have had greater knowledge and would have been able to protect the wand from LV much better, as well as being prepared for LV's eventual attempts to kill someone to gain the wand's mastery.



T Vrana - Aug 15, 2007 6:23 pm (#978 of 2055)
wynnleaf- Should have been more specific, Draco disarming DD was a suprise. So if DD's plan had worked, and Snape had killed DD knowing about the Elder Wand, what do you think would have happened?

Hint: I don't buy that Snape would have hidden it. Sorry. Jo made a point of having Ron and Hermione want it, and they knew better and certainly Hermione is not power hungry. IMO, Snape would have damaged his soul by wanting the Elder Wand when he killed DD and would have kept it. To do good and kill LV, yes, I think so, but wanting the Wand to kill, corrupts.



wynnleaf - Aug 15, 2007 6:48 pm (#979 of 2055)
wynnleaf- Should have been more specific, Draco disarming DD was a surprise. So if DD's plan had worked, and Snape had killed DD knowing about the Elder Wand, what do you think would have happened?

Hint: I don't buy that Snape would have hidden it. Sorry. Jo made a point of having Ron and Hermione want it, and they knew better and certainly Hermione is not power hungry. IMO, Snape would have damaged his soul by wanting the Elder Wand when he killed DD and would have kept it. To do good and kill LV, yes, I think so, but wanting the Wand to kill, corrupts.

JKR also made a huge point of having Harry tell everybody and their brother that he had the Elder Wand and was the master of it. If knowing that the Elder Wand is around is enough to get people overcome with a desire for power and go after the wand, then JKR left Harry in Real Trouble.

Even if Snape had wanted the wand, he still wouldn't have ended up the master after the tower. Draco was the master. The question is whether the "lure" of the power of the wand would push Snape into attempting to gain mastery of the wand by defeating Draco. This seems unlikely to me.

Hermione and Ron are lured by the wand, in part because they feel it's Harry's destiny to fight LV eventually and so it makes sense for Harry to get the wand. Snape knows that Harry is the person in the prophecy. So I'm not sure that Snape would be so lured to get the wand in order to defeat LV. We had a lot of theorizing before DH about whether Snape resented Harry because Snape wanted to be the one to bring down LV, but that was just theories and didn't get born out in canon.

So if DD's plan had worked, and Snape had killed DD knowing about the Elder Wand, what do you think would have happened? (T Vrana)

Simple. He would have killed DD at DD's request. No one would have been the master. Snape would possess the wand with no way to gain mastery of it. Wand would be just a wand. Problem solved.

However, LV may have learned that Snape had the wand and still have gone after Snape and the wand. Snape would know the wand was now masterless and would give him no special power. But he'd also know that LV wouldn't realize that and might try to kill him to get the wand. Forewarned is forearmed so they say. Snape could be prepared for LV trying to kill him.

Conclusion: Dumbledore should have told Snape about the wand. Dumbledore was too secretive by half.



T Vrana - Aug 15, 2007 7:29 pm (#980 of 2055)
wynnleaf- Ron and Hermione were tempted after LV's death when Harry told Portrait DD he was going to bury it with DD again. Jo made a point of having them show temptation when the 'need' was gone. Imagine Snape's temptation if the need was present.

Jo made a big point of Harry CHANGING during his burial of Dobby and deciding to go after horcruxes first, and putting aside his obsession with the Hallows. Harry's sacrifice and 'death', conversation with DD and LV's death all preceded Harry's actual possession of the Wand. Harry was ready to be Master and Owner and not want it when he finally possessed it.

Snape would have had it while LV was alive and powerful, if DD 's plan had succeeded and Snape knew about the Wand.

If Snape had known, I do not trust that some tiny part of him would not have wanted the Elder Wand, and upon killing DD he would have become Master.

Simple. He would have killed DD at DD's request. No one would have been the master. Snape would possess the wand with no way to gain mastery of it. Wand would be just a wand. Problem solved

Can't agree. Snape would have been Master of the Wand because he would have known he was killing for the Wand, not out of mercy. And, as said above, I just don't think he could have resisted the urge to want it and use it.

And if it were that simple, DD certainly would have told him.

Sorry, but as far as I can see DD only lied twice and both seemed critical, not 'too secretive'. Harry having to die and the reason for Snape's killing DD.

ETA: The Wand of Power, undefeatable, in Snape's hands, the opportunity to kill LV, Lily's killer. No way he could resist and DD knew it. IMO
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 981 to 1010

Post  Mona on Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:02 am

Solitaire - Aug 15, 2007 8:45 pm (#981 of 2055)
Dumbledore was trying to ensure an appropriate conclusion to the events that were set in motion when Snape chose to reveal the prophecy to LV. Had he not done this--had Voldemort never known the prophecy existed--would he have gone after the Potters and Harry so relentlessly? We know he had already begun making his Horcruxes, so Snape cannot be blamed for that. But might the Potters still be alive and the Longbottoms sane, had Snape not taken that one step? Hard to say ...

I do not think we can know for certain that Snape was suicidal when he said he wished he were dead. I've heard people say that without really meaning it ... like "I could have killed you ..." Even if he had been serious, Snape's suicide would have been a selfish act, committed because he was focused on how he was feeling ... not on what would happen to Harry, now that his parents were dead. I think Dumbledore had to reel him back in and make him see that someone besides Snape was suffering now ... Harry was orphaned, and if Snape truly wanted to atone for what he had done, he could help the son Lily had died to keep alive.

In the end, when Dumbledore makes the comment to Snape about sorting too soon, I think that is his way of saying that he thinks Snape has, in a sense, become a Gryffindor ... because in the last two books, we do see Snape behave in ways that require a lot of bravery. I still think he is unnecessarily mean to the kids, but when it has counted, he has done what he needed to do.

Solitaire



wynnleaf - Aug 15, 2007 9:48 pm (#982 of 2055)
Can't agree. Snape would have been Master of the Wand because he would have known he was killing for the Wand, not out of mercy. (T Vrana)

Where in Snape do we see the kind of character that would murder Dumbledore for the wand? Do you think Hermione or Ron would murder Harry for the wand? By the end of the book, they've still got the opportunity to try (as does practically everyone else in the WW, since it's bound to be in the newspapers now that Harry told everybody at the Final Confrontation). Do you seriously think JKR means us to believe that the lure of the Wand is going to keep Harry dueling Wand Master wanna bees for the rest of his life? Probably not. So why are we supposed to think that Snape would kill Dumbledore to get the wand? I didn't see that even hinted at.

You're trying to say Dumbledore couldn't tell Snape about the wand, because if he did, Snape would be compelled by the lure of power to kill Dumbledore to get the wand, thereby becoming the master of the wand (even though apparently Harry doesn't have to worry about anyone being lured by this terrible force now that he's the wandmaster and everyone knows it) and then be compelled by some sort of other compelling force to try to take down LV with the wand (even though we've seen no evidence that Snape was wishing to personally kill LV).

Is there any place in DH where Dumbledore says that he didn't tell Snape about the wand because he was afraid Snape would unwisely use the power, or be lured by it? I'm not sure. I can't find it.



TomProffitt - Aug 16, 2007 4:22 am (#983 of 2055)
wynnleaf, I haven't made a decision on this, myself, but the point is valid. It would be very like Dumbledore to keep information about the Elder Wand from Snape in order to deny Snape the temptation. Snape's resistance to that temptation would have been much greater in his last year of service to Dumbledore than in his first year. The question though, is not what Snape would have done, but what would Dumbledore have done.



wynnleaf - Aug 16, 2007 6:08 am (#984 of 2055)
Solitaire,

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to lay the blame for everything at Dumbledore's door. Sure, Snape's action in taking the prophecy to LV caused many of the problems and obviously led to the Potter's deaths. Of course, it also led to the first downfall of LV and ultimately saved many lives, but the good results from Snape's action don't excuse his action, since he didn't know what the results would be when he took the prophecy.

As regards whether or not Snape was suicidal, we can't know for sure, and even if he had been, certainly a person who commits suicide bears responsibility for their own action. But that doesn't let Dumbledore completely off the hook for his harsh comments -- and unfair comments as regards claiming Snape trusted LV to spare Lily -- spoken to a young man who may well have been suicidal. The fact that things eventually worked out for the best doesn't excuse DD's action, as DD had no prior knowledge of what the effect his words might have.

Later, DD told Snape he thought sometimes they sorted too soon, giving Snape the implied compliment that Snape's bravery was such that he could have ended up in Gryffindor. Some people dislike this comment, because they think the implication is that Gryffindor is the most "worthy" house, but I see it as simply DD's opinion the Snape's bravery is so great that it may be an overriding characteristic, even more characteristic of Snape than his more Slytherin qualities.



T Vrana - Aug 16, 2007 6:14 am (#985 of 2055)
wynnleaf- Now we've discussed Snape enough on his thread that I'm a little surprised by your question.

Your are missing the subtle desire for the wand. NO, I don't think Snape would have murdered DD for the Wand, he wouldn't even try. DD was a powerful wizard, and Snape was not a murderer. But we know Snape HAD promised to murder DD. It was a done deal, Snape was going to murder DD. Snape thought he was killing DD to spare him a horrible death. My point is that if Snape knew about the Elder Wand, given that he had already promised to murder DD, and he knew DD was going to die shortly, it would have been impossible for him to suppress all desire for the Wand. At that crucial moment, on the Tower, I can't believe some tiny part of Snape would not want the Wand to vanquish LV. And I contend that even if he had the tiniest desire to Master it, he would have. Not for power, but for the vanquishing of LV, Lily's murderer. Why give up such a powerful weapon against evil? I am reminded of the One Ring and I think the parallel fits. Especially since we see the desire in Ron and Hermione after LV is dead. Of course they won't act on it, they aren't going to murder Harry or steal it, BUT, if it were up to them, it appears they would have kept it. I think the same can be said of Snape as he raised his wand to fulfill his promise to DD.

Is it really hard to believe that the man who cast a Doe patronus for DD would consider keeping a powerful weapon alive to kill the Wizard who broke his promise and killed his love? Not the tiniest desire to possess it? I think Jo was showing us it would be there with Ron and Hermione, and that Harry was the one wizard, the better man than DD!, who could possess it without the desire to use it.

Though DD had asked Snape to kill him, I think the desire for the wand would negate the deal.

ETA: As I've said before, I think DD had already assessed Snape's character and knew he was not such a coward as to kill himself. It took great courage for Snape to approach DD on the hilltop and promise 'anything'. I give DD credit for knowing Snape was not a suicidal coward and giving him the push to bring him back to a life worth living.



NFla Barbara - Aug 16, 2007 6:18 am (#986 of 2055)
Or if not completely "negate" the deal, perhaps it could mix up Snape's motives enough to put his soul in jeopardy after all. I agree that Snape would never have deliberately killed DD to get the Elder Wand, but knowing that it would pass to him and desiring it is a different thing.



wynnleaf - Aug 16, 2007 6:50 am (#987 of 2055)
I don't think the desire of the person wanting the wand is the point. Otherwise, LV would have acquired the wand when he struck down Harry. It was Harry's going to his death willingly that made LV unable to defeat him, regardless of LV's own ambitions. Therefore Snape could even have wanted the wand, but if he killed DD because DD was willingly going to his death, Snape wouldn't get the mastership of the wand. So Snape's intent doesn't matter -- only DD's.

T Vrana, you seem to assume that suicide is an action born from cowardliness. It is usually born from severe longterm depression or perhaps more immediate overwhelming depressive emotions and desperation. I would guess that Snape could easily have been suffering from overwhelming depressive emotions and desperation -- he appeared that way to me in his conversation with Dumbledore. Bravery versus cowardliness need have nothing to do with it.



T Vrana - Aug 16, 2007 7:12 am (#988 of 2055)
wynnleaf- Disagree. LV had no idea Harry was Master of the Elder wand and therefore could not desire it when attempting to kill Harry, he was holding it, and thought he was alredy Master, nor could he defeat Harry with the Wand Harry was Master of. Quite different from Snape wanting the Wand and killing DD with his own wand. Wand chooses the Wizard and if DD tried to deny a new Master, but Snape was unable to supress his desire, I think the Wand would have recognized Snape's desire, and therefore defeat, of DD's desire to put it to rest.

On Snape's actual thoughts about suicide, and bravery to face what he had done and atone or cowardice and inability to take responsibility and make something of himself. Agree to disagree.



mona amon - Aug 16, 2007 7:13 am (#989 of 2055)
Is it really hard to believe that the man who cast a Doe patronus for DD would consider keeping a powerful weapon alive to kill the Wizard who broke his promise and killed his love?

Yes! There is a total absense of any feelings of revenge against LV in Snape.

Not the tiniest desire to possess it?

Absolutely not!

I totally agree with Wynnleaf. We have never been given the slightest hint that Snape would have wanted to possess the wand or that DD was afraid that he would be tempted by the wand. He tells Harry, "I trust Severus completely." Completely. No reservations at all.

True he doesn't share all his secrets with him, but he gives him a good reason- Severus simply spends too much time with Voldemort. Telling him everthing would be too dangerous, skilled occlumens though he is.

My interpretation of the Elder Wand business-

How do we know DD did not tell Snape about the wand? I think he would have, in one of those 'after you have killed me Severus' conversations. Something like, "After you have killed me, take my wand and run. Keep it safe. There may come a time when Lord Voldemort will want it. You must give it to him." He wouldn't have told him it was the Elder wand, because of the danger mentioned earlier.

I'm giving DD the benefit of the doubt here. I do not think he would have expected Voldemort to kill Snape for it.

If all had gone as planned, the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort would have taken place with LV using a wand that had lost its power, and Harry using a wand powerfully strengthened by its earlier encounter with LV's wand.



T Vrana - Aug 16, 2007 7:24 am (#990 of 2055)
Mona amom- Why show Ron and Hermione being tempted? Where does it say there is an absense of revenge for LV? With LV rising in power and DD gone, Snape would not have had a flicker of temptation? It isn't about trust, it is about the desire to do a good thing with a bad weapon. It is about the lure that DD was sure even Harry could not resist so he hoped Hermione would slow him down until the right time, and he considered Harry a better man than himself!



Soul Search - Aug 16, 2007 7:31 am (#991 of 2055)
"Is it really hard to believe that the man who cast a Doe patronus for DD would consider keeping a powerful weapon alive to kill the Wizard who broke his promise and killed his love?" (T Vrana)

"Yes! There is a total absense of any feelings of revenge against LV in Snape." (mona amon)

And, I have been wondering about that.

I can't find even the barest hint that Snape wanted revenge on Voldemort for killing Lily. With Snape's obsession for Lily, one would think revenge would be his primary motivation. It seems, however, everything Snape did was for his promise to Dumbledore on the hilltop. Does this mean Dumbledore read Snape exactly right?



T Vrana - Aug 16, 2007 7:35 am (#992 of 2055)
SS- I think it means Snape, who absent mindedly touches his Dark Mark and remarks to Harry that DD is a great wizard that's why he can say Voldemort, is a sign Snape knows, or thinks, he is no match for LV.



mona amon - Aug 16, 2007 8:07 am (#993 of 2055)
T, we are shown all three of them being tempted, Harry most of all, until Dobby's death helps him to focus again on what DD really wanted him to do. But Snape is different. He has already learnt some very hard lessons in life. I really believe he would not have been tempted, and I'm sticking to this unless JKR tells us differently!

I think it means Snape, who absent mindedly touches his Dark Mark and remarks to Harry that DD is a great wizard that's why he can say Voldemort, is a sign Snape knows, or thinks, he is no match for LV.

I do not think it is only that. It would prevent Snape from being foolish enough to try to bring down LV on his own, but the revengeful feelings would have been there, and there is never a hint of such feelings. I suppose he feels LV is just a mindless killing machine who has to be stopped, but no point wasting your emotions on him!



wynnleaf - Aug 16, 2007 8:20 am (#994 of 2055)
mona amon,

You bring up what could be a distinct possibility. I think it was wrong of DD to not tell Snape about his true reasons for wanting Snape to kill him. But that doesn't mean that DD did not tell Snape about the Elder Wand at a later point in time, especially when portrait Dumbledore may have realized LV was after the wand. I've seen the scene where LV is talking to Snape about the Elder Wand argued both ways -- that Snape had no idea what LV was talking about, or that he did know that LV was talking about the Elder Wand, but took a few moments to understand what LV was talking about as regards who LV thought was "master" of it.

LV had no idea Harry was Master of the Elder wand and therefore could not desire it when attempting to kill Harry, he was holding it, and thought he was already Master, nor could he defeat Harry with the Wand (T Vrana)

This explanation won't fit with the way Draco or Harry acquired mastery of the wand. Neither was even attempting to gain mastery of the wand, not even knowing it existed or that the person they were firing against was a master of the wand. Yet they both gained mastery. It doesn't depend on the intent of the duelist who is not the master, but if the person who is the master allows himself to be defeated, then it is no true defeat and the wand mastery does not change.

DD did not willingly relinquish his wand to Draco. Therefore Draco gained mastery.

It doesn't matter whether Snape knew about the wand or not, or whether he would have desired to be the master or not. All that would matter is that DD went willingly to his death (like Harry later), and the person who killed him would not gain mastery.



T Vrana - Aug 16, 2007 8:41 am (#995 of 2055)
Edited Aug 16, 2007 9:22 am
wynnleaf- LV can't gain mastery of the elder wand by using it against Harry when it won't work properly because Harry is master. He would need to use a different wand.

Disagree on Snape knowing. Defeat matters. If Snape desired the Elder Wand, despite DD's desire to end its power, then it would be a defeat.

ETA_ Had to run out and didn't reply properly. Yes, one need not know about the wand for defeat, but LV can't defeat Harry with the Elder wnad, as we saw in the Great Hall and the forest.



TomProffitt - Aug 16, 2007 2:27 pm (#996 of 2055)
wynnleaf, I finally re-read The Prince's Tale, and I think taking the scene in context that Dumbledore's responses to Snape's "I wish I were dead." were not inappropriate or wrong. Taking the scene in context Dumbledore was molding Snape to assume the role DD had in mind for him. I think DD was prepared to adjust and adapt his manner to achieve the desired result.

It's not that what he did worked, but I think that he chose what worked and had opportunity to adjust his approach that matters. Had Snape reacted differently DD had ample opportunity to prevent Snape's potential negative reaction.



PatPat - Aug 16, 2007 6:47 pm (#997 of 2055)
I have to agree with T Vrana regarding the Elder Wand and whether Dumbledore was right in not telling Snape about it. Remember, Dumbledore did not know that the events on the tower were going to play out as they did. All he knew was that Snape was going to kill him. T Vrana's point is that defeating the wizard who is master of the wand is what changes its allegiance. Dumbledore knew that Snape would not be defeating him if he only killed him because he was following orders. BUT, if Snape had even the slightest, tiniest desire to possess the wand then there would be a part of the action that would not have been completely altruistic. The reasons for Snape killing Dumbledore mattered as to whether the wand would pass to him or not. Harry tells us this:

"Dumbledore's death was planned between them! Dumbledore intended to die undefeated, the wand's last true master!" (DH 36)

But Dumbledore knew that, if there was even the slightest deviation in Snape's reasons for killing him, it could have been seen as a defeat. Remember Dumbledore didn't tell Harry about the wand either because he was afraid that even HARRY would want to possess the wand for the wrong reasons. And he was right. Harry changed only after Dobby's burial. I'm sorry but I simply cannot buy that Snape would not have been tempted. Dumbledore was tempted, Harry was tempted, Ron was tempted, Hermione was tempted, but Snape was immune??? No way. Sorry.



wynnleaf - Aug 16, 2007 8:21 pm (#998 of 2055)
The reason it was necessary for Harry to go willingly to his death was because that was the necessary component for him to retain mastery of the wand even after LV "killed" him. Granted, the horcrux would also protect his life, but the horcrux does not protect the mastery of the wand. Only Harry's willing sacrifice of his life keeps LV from "defeating" Harry. It has nothing to do with what wand anyone is carrying or what LV's intent is. It's Harry's intent that matters as regards whether or not he was defeated.

Similarly, what mattered in DD's death, as regards the mastery of the wand, was that he go willingly and unresisting to his death. That way, regardless of Snape's intent, Snape would not get mastery of the wand. However, Draco took DD's wand against DD's will, and therefore got mastery. Telling Snape about the wand would not have affected the mastery, because -- as with Harry -- what was important in DD not being defeated was the fact that DD would not resist and that it be his decision to die.



mona amon - Aug 16, 2007 8:45 pm (#999 of 2055)
I agree with Wynnleaf on this. If DD wanted to be killed by Snape, then, whatever Snape's intentions, by killing him he is only doing what DD wants him to do. So how is it a defeat?

I feel Snape wouldn't have been tempted because

1)Unlike the others, he has experienced strong temptations, made bad choices, faced disastrous consequences. Now that he has changed, I think he'd be a lot wiser about resisting such temptations.

2) His job, in the war against Voldemort, was quite different from the others. It was not his job to 'take down Voldemort'. So unlike the trio, getting an invincible weapon would not have had the sort of appeal that it has for them.

Dumbledore had a good reason for not telling Snape that his wand was the Elder Wand, and other things like the Horcruxes. It is too dangerous to entrust such secrets to someone who spends so much time hanging out with Voldemort, a skilled legilimens. It is definitely not because Dumbledore felt Snape would be tempted by the wand, because we haven't even the smallest hint of that in canon.

EDIT: cross posted with Wynnleaf!



NFla Barbara - Aug 16, 2007 9:38 pm (#1000 of 2055)
On one hand, we see DD was tempted by the Hallows (putting the ring on) and we saw Ron's interest in the wand. And DD purposely made the hunt for the Hallows as difficult as possible for Harry so that Harry would not find them too soon. I see those as pretty big hints about how tempting the Hallows are, especially because Ron has already given in to weakness once in the book and immediately regretted it. We know that Snape has been fascinated with dark magic since he was a student, and I don't think it was just because it was dark, but because it was powerful. We know that he has just spent the last 17 years of his life working to protect Harry, and just a year ago learned from DD that the goal of protecting Harry was to raise him to be a sacrifice. Snape's role has not been to "take Voldemort down," but by the time DD dies I think Snape is committed to that goal, and with DD dead Snape might think that every possible weapon should be used. So all of these things make me think that part of the reason to give Snape so little information about the wand is to keep him from being tempted by its power -- tempted in the sense of wanting to make sure the weapon is used on the "right" side.

On the other hand, keeping information about the Elder Wand as far as possible from LV is the best reason not to tell Snape about it, just as DD did not tell him DD's theory that Harry's blood in LV would keep Harry alive (and kept his eyes tightly shut while they talked about Harry sacrificing himself).

I can't decide either way.



T Vrana - Aug 16, 2007 10:48 pm (#1001 of 2055)
The reason it was necessary for Harry to go willingly to his death was because that was the necessary component for him to retain mastery of the wand even after LV "killed" him

Wrong. When DD told Snape that Harry had to die he had no idea that Harry would be Master of the Elder Wand. None. Not even remotely possible since DD thought he had plans that would put the Wand to rest. When he told Snape Harry had to die, he did not know Malfoy would disarm him, or Harry would disarm Malfoy. He knew the sacrifice would kill the bit of LV soul but not Harry.

Similarly, what mattered in DD's death, as regards the mastery of the wand, was that he go willingly and unresisting to his death. That way, regardless of Snape's intent, Snape would not get mastery of the wand.

Opinion and I disagree. If Snape killed DD wanting Mastery, even just a little, it was a defeat of what DD wanted.

I agree with Wynnleaf on this. If DD wanted to be killed by Snape, then, whatever Snape's intentions, by killing him he is only doing what DD wants him to do. So how is it a defeat?

The defeat is in the intent. If Snape killed DD with even a tiny desire to Master the Wand it would have been a defeat. DD wanted Mastery to die with him, if Snape had any desire to Master, even for good, it was a defeat of what DD wanted.

Snape is a bit wiser, but not any more immune than Harry, Ron, Hermione....

Snape was annoyed that DD gave so much power and trust to Harry, I love Snape, but I truly doubt he could have supressed all desire to Master and use the Elder Wand to defeat LV.

As for Legilimency..he trusted Gryffindor's sword etc.

Barb- Hermione, the most level headed, was tempted as well.



T Vrana - Aug 16, 2007 11:10 pm (#1002 of 2055)
Despite my 'agree to disagree' regarding DD's treatment of poor suicidal Severus.

I am rereading the whole series and am reminded that this is a world where ELEVEN year olds are held accountable for infractions, being out of bed, even with noble cause, and punished with trips into the Forbidden Forest, off limits to all students for extreme danger.

But DD was too harsh on an adult whose careless lack of concern for human life led to the death of a young couple and the orphaning of a 15 month old?!? I LOVE SNAPE. But as Hagrid said, You've done wrong and have got to pay. No psycho analysis or Dr.Phil. You've done wrong and have got to pay.

I love Jo for cutting to the quick here. Understand how you got here, but you did what you did, and you have to pay. No hot cocoa or hugs. But, still a choice.



Madame Pomfrey - Aug 17, 2007 5:58 am (#1003 of 2055)
Wow! I have been catching up and you all have a heck of a debate going on! I loved reading every minute of it.

To add to the Elder Wand discussion IF Dumbledore would have told Snape about the power of the Elder Wand not only would there have been a defeat,as TVrana already stated,but,also Dumbledore's death would have changed from a mercy killing to a murder ripping Snape's soul,IMO. When Dumbledore told Snape that only he(Snape) would know if killing Dumbledore would damage his soul I'm guessing he meant intent.If Snape, when killing Dumbledore, had just a small amount of desire to master the wand,then I think it would have been murder. His ignorance about the wand kept his soul intact. Does that make sense?



T Vrana - Aug 17, 2007 6:21 am (#1004 of 2055)
M Pomfrey- I think it makes complete sense. And it is more in line with DD as I see him.



wynnleaf - Aug 17, 2007 6:52 am (#1005 of 2055)
T Vrana, the idea of what constitutes defeat is purely your opinion and nothing born out in the books. Further, nothing in the books said that DD had any concerns about Snape taking the wand, using it unwisely or anything like that. So that's just opinion as well. I disagree, primarily because there is nothing in the book that tells us any of these things you assert.

1. DD would be defeated if Snape knew about the wand.

2. DD was concerned about Snape being tempted by the wand.

In any case, none of this made the slightest difference once DD was dead and Draco was the master of the wand. Snape could easily have been told by that point and should have been.

There were two things going on with Harry walking to his death. First, he had to die because of the horcrux. That was important. But DD didn't tell Snape in the memories that Harry had to walk willingly to his death. That wasn't necessary to destroy the horcrux. That part was necessary to preserve the mastery of the wand. Harry knew that later, but DD in the memories wasn't aware of that aspect of the situation. DD never gave instructions to Snape to tell Harry to go willingly to his death, only that he had to die at LV's hand.



T Vrana - Aug 17, 2007 7:08 am (#1006 of 2055)
Wynnleaf- Yup, opinion based on what evidence I think Jo has given us and I'll stick by it until Jo says different.

Harry went willingly because he knew if he drew his wand there was the chance the DEs would draw their wands and kill him and DD made it clear it must be LV who killed him. As for Mastery and defeat, Harry wasn't defeated, he wasn't disarmed, he didn't die. If he had drawn his wand, he would have won, as we saw in the Great Hall.



wynnleaf - Aug 17, 2007 8:15 am (#1007 of 2055)
I want to quote some things DD says in King's Cross, beginning right after Ariana died:

And Ariana... after all my mother's care and caution... lay dead upon the floor.

Well, Grindelwald fled, as anyone but I could have predicted. He vanished, with his plans for seizing power, and his schemes for Muggle torture, and his dreams of the Deathly Hallows, dreams in which I had encouraged him and helped him. He ran, while I was left to bury my sister, and learn to live with my guilt and my terrible grief, the price of my shame.

Note first that DD did not immediately attempt to rectify the terrible wrongs set in motion by his actions. His sister was dead. He buried her. That's all.

Years passed. There were rumors about him. They said he had procured a wand of immense power. I, meanwhile, was offered the post of Minister of Magic, not once, but several times. Naturally, I refused. I had learned that I was not to be trusted with power. (snipping a bit of Harry/Dumbledore interchange) I had proven, as a very young man, that power was my weakness and my temptation.

Note. Years passed and Dumbledore does nothing about Grindelwald, who is working on plans for Muggle torture, getting the wand, etc. Further, DD admits that the lure of power is his greatest weakness. (Slytherin like?)

But while I busied myself with the training of young wizards, Grindelwald was raising an army. They say he feared me, and perhaps he did, but less, I think, than I feared him. (snipping a bit) Not what he could do to me magically. I knew that we were evenly matched, perhaps that I was a shade more skillful. It was the truth I feared. You see, I never knew which of us, in that last, horrific fight, had actually cast the curse that killed my sister. You may call me cowardly: You would be right. Harry, I dreaded beyond all things the knowledge that it had been I who brought about her death, not merely through my arrogance and stupidity, but that I actually struck the blow that snuffed out her life.

I think he knew it, I think he knew what frightened me. I delayed meeting him until finally, it would have been too shameful to resist any longer. People were dying and he seemed unstoppable, and I had to do what I could.

Now this is important.

Dumbledore is a strong parallel to Snape. Both fall to the lure of a very Dark wizard. Both fall into paths that lead them to, in part, cause the deaths of people they love. But there are differences exhibiting the weaknesses of each wizard. But let's not mistake that Dumbledore has some weaknesses as well as Snape.

Where is Dumbledore's immediate response of a willingness to do "Anything!" Where do we see Dumbledore taking immediate action to right the wrongs he's set in motion? Where is Dumbledore's immediate concern for the Muggles tortured and people dying? We don't see it for 80 years. And what is overriding this concern? Dumbldore's own unwillingness to face up to his degree of culpability in his sister's death. It is only when it becomes "too shameful" (I think it was already rather shameful), that Dumbledore finally went against Grindelwald to right the wrongs that he, Dumbledore, had helped in his youth to set in motion.

Snape -- and granted Lily had still been alive -- immediately faced up to his own culpability and, at what he felt was the risk of his life ("Don't kill me!") he went to Dumbledore. He confessed his own guilt and offered to do "Anything!" in response. No waiting for years. Like Dumbledore, his focus was not at first on the other people who were dying or being tortured. His first concern was only Lily. Dumbledore's Ariana was already dead. His concern seems to be on his own unwillingness to find out the truth. Still, my point is that both wizards weren't as concerned as they should have been about other people who were being tortured or dying.

This isn't a point about how Evil Dumbledore was. Absolutely not. But what I am pointing out is that when Dumbledore takes Snape to task for only caring about Lily, it is something very similar to what Dumbledore did for eighty years. And when Dumbledore pushes Snape to take up his own responsibility for his actions, he is speaking from the position of a person who neglected his responsibility for eighty years.

And where was Dumbledore's just punishment? Where do we see where Dumbledore has "done wrong and has got to pay?" Hm? Yes, Dumbledore paid through his own remorse and, eventually, his willingness to make up for it. So did Snape. But who took Dumbledore to task and castigated him for his sins? Aberforth? Who Dumbledore makes fun of? That's about it, as far as I can tell. And Dumbledore didn't appear to take it to heart, if he was still able to set aside his responsibilities for 80 years.

Personally, I see Dumbledore's anger at Snape at their first meeting justified. Snape has done nothing to show his taking responsibility at that point and Dumbledore wouldn't even have known how sincere Snape was. But later, after the Potters died, Snape had already shown far more willingness to take immediate responsibility for his actions, risking his life immediately, not eighty years later, to try to right the wrongs he'd created. And what does Dumbledore do? He taunts Snape for trusting LV to spare Lily, when Snape had been risking his life clearly because he didn't trust LV. And he says, coldly to Snape (for all the world as though he, Dumbledore, is in some righteous position), "If you loved Lily Evans, if you truly loved her, then your way forward is clear." Just as though Dumbledore, in the same position, had not set aside his clear "way forward" for eighty years.

My personal take on Dumbledore at this point (right after the Potter's deaths) is that he is venting his anger at his own mistakes at Snape, who is at this point not making anywhere near the mistakes Dumbledore made. Snape had already been risking his life trying to right the wrongs he created. Snape had already been trying to save other lives than Lily (James and Harry, even though Snape only did it because he had to). But that was certainly more than Dumbledore had done immediately following his mistakes.

It's a very complicated relationship going on. On the one hand, Snape needed Dumbledore's driving and pushing him. But on the other, I hate it that Dumbledore is coming across as though he's the righteous leader who hasn't made the exact same mistakes and not been nearly as quick to take true responsibility for them.

Dumbledore does take responsibility in his after life and tells Harry the truth. But he wasn't honest with Snape and, given his role as mentor and leader to a man who had actually been in a very similar position as himself, I think he should have been more honest both with Snape and with himself.



NFla Barbara - Aug 17, 2007 8:24 am (#1008 of 2055)
In the "don't kill me!" scene, it is clear that Snape is already as a messenger for LV (DD immediately says "what message does Lord Voldemort have for me?"). It would have been foolish for DD to start revealing his own weaknesses and mistakes to Snape at that point. Later, even when DD trusted him "completely," he was careful to avoid giving Snape certain information that would be too damaging for LV (through legilimency) to obtain. Perhaps if Snape's role had been other than that of a double agent, DD could have eventually been more forthcoming with him. But I think it would have been extremely risky for DD to be more honest at that moment -- and yet he had to seize the opportunity to bring Snape over to the right side.

When DD says to Snape "if you loved her, your way forward is clear," I think he IS speaking from a righteous position. But this is something I think we just won't be able to reconcile -- whether he was being unnecessarily cruel to Snape, or whether he was using his knowledge of Snape's character, along with the memories of his own failings, to bring Snape quickly to a point where Snape would do the right thing.



T Vrana - Aug 17, 2007 8:39 am (#1009 of 2055)
Note. Years passed and Dumbledore does nothing about Grindelwald, who is working on plans for Muggle torture, getting the wand, etc.

Plans. No crimes. DD is not the thought police. When people started dying he acted. Yes, he still faults himself for not acting sooner, but I do not think we are supposed to believe people were dying for 80 years. It all took time, the plans, the acquiring of wands and followers.

Just because DD made mistakes does not preclude him from, many years later, pointing out Snape's mistakes and challenging him to make good. If Snape hadn't been soley focused on Lily and his own misery DD would not have needed to be so harsh. But Snape was still stuck on himslef and his loss, while not taking responsibility for his part.

"I thought YOU were going to keep her safe"

Poor Snape? Poor Harry....

But who took Dumbledore to task and castigated him for his sins?

He did. He didn't need to be told. He didn't defend himself against Aberforth's rage. He knew immediatley he was wrong and what he had to do. He is still embarrassed, ashamed, and filled with grief after 130 years. He still weeps at what he did. Did he lock himslef in a stinky bar and spend his days bitter and grieving? No, as he told Harry about the Mirror of Erised, it would not do to dwell. So he turned his grief and talent to better use. But he never forgave himself.



wynnleaf - Aug 17, 2007 9:17 am (#1010 of 2055)
Ditto Snape, as far as I can tell -- continuously full of remorse and guilt, as is evidenced in the memories he gave Harry.

But back to Dumbledore. While Grindelwald may not have immediately set to work killing people, Dumbledore was well aware that was his plan. And when DD went after Grindelwald, he had apparently killed quite a lot of people, even if it had not been for all of those 80 years. I mean, it wasn't like a few people died and DD was right there ready to duel. Grindelwald didn't get to be known as such a hugely Evil Dark Wizard by killing off a few people. No, DD waited quite a bit, even after Grindelwald started killing.

I'm not saying "DD was Horrible." I'm saying DD doesn't have the moral highground over Snape who immediately not only felt full of remorse, but went out to try and do something about it. DD just felt remorse for years, without doing anything about it until the shame became too great for him to bear.

Should DD have approached Snape the way he did? To an extent, I think Snape did need pushing after the Potter's deaths, to see that there was still more to be done (protecting Harry). But the harshness DD takes really makes it sound like he had the moral highground. And he didn't, because Snape had done not much worse than Albus had and had responded with just as much remorse and more immediate action to right the wrongs he'd created. Dumbledore could have been much more honest with Snape and approached him as someone who had made the same mistakes, rather than acting like he was still "disgusted" with Snape.
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 1011 to 1050

Post  Mona on Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:04 am

T Vrana - Aug 17, 2007 9:56 am (#1011 of 2055)
Ditto Snape, as far as I can tell -- continuously full of remorse and guilt, as is evidenced in the memories he gave Harry.

Remorse and guilt for Lily, and himself, not what he did. Not for dead James and not for the orphaned Harry. DD was remorseful for what he did as shown by his refusal to accept any position of power, his vanquishing of Grindewald (though delayed), his good works and his compassion for all, even Draco.

I'm saying DD doesn't have the moral highground over Snape who immediately not only felt full of remorse, but went out to try and do something about it. DD just felt remorse for years, without doing anything about it until the shame became too great for him to bear.

I disagree. Again, Snape was only full of remorse because it was Lily. Had it been the Longbottoms he wouldn't have raised a finger to stop LV. There would have been no shame or guilt. And I see a huge difference between joining an evil organization and wizard, and hesitating to stop one. When Snape was stirred to act it was for one person, when DD was stirred to act it was to save countless strangers at his own peril. That DD felt shame and guilt and was moved to stop evil, is different from Snape's selfish act of trying to save only the person he valued.

because Snape had done not much worse than Albus

Not true. DD had plans for power, but urged restraint. He did not send Grindewald after anyone's family, after a child. Grindewald had his own plans. If he and Grindewald had continued on he surely would have stopped Grinewald from killing and torturing. His plan for power did not involve murder.

Snape, on the other hand, joined a group known for torture and murder and contributed willingly to the planned murder of a family, until he found out his love wsa in danger, then he was fine with the murder of her husband and child.

and had responded with just as much remorse and more immediate action to right the wrongs he'd created. Dumbledore could have been much more honest with Snape and approached him as someone who had made the same mistakes, rather than acting like he was still "disgusted" with Snape.

Remorse for one, not for his act. DD did not make the same mistake. He did not contribute to any plan to murder, nor was there any evidence he would have allowed it if he and Grindewald had pursued their plans for power.



wynnleaf - Aug 17, 2007 10:08 am (#1012 of 2055)
T Vrana,

I commented on this on the Snape thread, because it applied there as well, but I don't see DD finally, at long last, going after Grindelwald because he felt remorse over people dying, but because the shame was too great to not go. It was the shame of not doing anything that moved DD, not the people dying.

As far as I can read it, DD's remorse over the years was much more focused on his part in Ariana's death, much like Snape's is for Lily.

Snape as well eventually worked hard to save other lives. Was it for Lily? Or a growing concern for others? We don't know. But we know no more about DD.

Dumbledore said he knew in his heart what Grindelwald really was -- even during their association. We don't know what was going through Snape's mind, because we're not shown. We don't know if he, like Dumbledore did about Grindelwald, deluded himself about LV, suppressing what he really knew was true about him. The parallel has been drawn so closely by JKR, that I tend to think they were similar in this as well, both deluding themselves as to the true evil of the one they associated themselves with, until someone they loved was dead or in danger of dying.



Ann - Aug 17, 2007 11:13 am (#1013 of 2055)
wynnleaf, you make a lot of good points about the parallels between Dumbldore and Snape, which I've posted about earlier as well. One point that, I think, you've overlooked, makes Dumbledore's unkindness to Snape as he mourns the death of his only friend even worse: By that time, Snape has ALREADY begun to make amends for his terrible mistake. According to Dumbledore himself (GoF, pp. 590-91 of the American edition), Snape "rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk." This statement, which he makes to the Wizangemot at Kakaroff's trial, must have been made not long after his castigation of Snape, since Kakaroff's is the first of the trials, and the most bitter.

So the "anything" that Snape offered Dumbledore to protect Lily was backed up by the risk of his life--spying for the Order, lying to Voldemort. We don't know how long he did this, but JKR said that at Harry's christening, James and Lily already knew that they needed to go into hiding, so it was three months at a minimum. For Dumbledore to accuse Snape of "putting his trust in the wrong person" after that is really appalling.

Another parallel is between Snape and Harry. JKR makes that parallel in all sorts of ways: the fact that both are bullied, that both find Hogwarts a refuge (Harry himself draws that parallel in DH), and that both Dumbledore makes them both promise to do what he asks of them and then orders them to take actions to kill him, and both suffer terribly from their tremendous reluctance to do so. (Dumbledore himself says that he is sure the potion won't kill him "right away.")

I'm citing this parallel in part to refute mona amon's remark many posts back that Snape doesn't hate Voldemort--that "there is a total absense of any feelings of revenge against LV in Snape." I strongly disagree: I think another major parallel between Harry and Snape is that Dumbledore trusts both of them to do everything they can to defeat Voldemort because Voldemort killed James and Lily. Harry makes this explicit in HBP, when he and Dumbledore are discussing the prophecy. I think we can take it as a given that Snape hates Voldemort and is working against him in to avenge the death of his one love. He's not a man to show his feelings.



T Vrana - Aug 17, 2007 11:46 am (#1014 of 2055)
but I don't see DD finally, at long last, going after Grindelwald because he felt remorse over people dying, but because the shame was too great to not go. It was the shame of not doing anything that moved DD, not the people dying.

How could he feel shame if he didn't feel remorse? Note that Snape felt no shame at suggesting LV kill only James and a baby. DD felt shame and acted.

As far as I can read it, DD's remorse over the years was much more focused on his part in Ariana's death, much like Snape's is for Lily.

I don't see this as he said in the cave 'I know I've done wrong, don't kill THEM (not her), kill me'.



wynnleaf - Aug 17, 2007 12:18 pm (#1015 of 2055)
"don't kill them" could easily apply to Ariana and Aberforth, as Aberforth was part of that confrontation. He could have been killed as well.

How could he feel shame if he didn't feel remorse? Note that Snape felt no shame at suggesting LV kill only James and a baby. DD felt shame and acted. (T Vrana)

Very interesting question. Yes, it's quite possible to feel remorse for one's actions without feeling personally concerned about the people that died. One can feel shame that you didn't live up to your ideals, that you failed, etc. One can feel guilt that you did something terrible. That's not the same as caring specifically about the people that got hurt.

We have no canon of Snape "suggesting" LV kill only James and the baby. LV was going to attempt to kill Harry regardless. It would have been pointless to ask him to do otherwise. And it would have seemed completely bizarre for Snape to have asked LV to spare James when Snape's DE friends would have known of Snape's hatred of James. Snape asked LV to spare Lily, which he could plead with a certian amount of Death Eater style rationale. LV clearly thought it was just an unimportant sort of passion that Snape had for Lily (LV thought other women would do just as well for Snape). But if Snape had begged for the rest of the family it would have been even more pointless than his asking LV to spare Lily. And we are certainly never told that Snape "suggested" that LV kill anyone.

Back to Dumbledore. His initial focus was on Ariana. Lots of people must have died before DD finally went after Grendelwald, else Grendelwald wouldn't have such an infamous reputation. DD said him self he had to go because it would be "too shameful" not to go after so many died. He didn't say, "I had to go because people were dying and I had to stop it." He said he had to go because the numbers of people dying were making it "too shameful" to not go.

I am not saying that Dumbledore never, ever cared for anyone else. What I am saying is that after Ariana's death, he was not at first moved by the plight of others, but by his own desire to not be shamed. Snape at first cared only about Lily's life. Later, he seems to have grown to care for others, to the extent that he wouldn't stand by an let someone die if he could save them.

Both characters grow to care for people beyond the personal loved one. But neither character cared for the plight of others until later.

As regards taking responsibility for their actions and trying to right the wrongs they created, Snape moved far, far faster to try to right his wrongs than Dumbledore did.

Dumbledore's anger at Snape after the Potter's death was well after Snape had been trying to right some of those wrongs and after Snape had risked his life in attempts to help save the whole family, not just Lily. The fact that at that point Snape only cared about Lily, doesn't negate his willingness to try to save them all. And it isn't much different from Dumbledore's concern only about Ariana until shame made him willing to save others.



Nathan Zimmermann - Aug 17, 2007 12:25 pm (#1016 of 2055)
Speaking of Ariana, and Aberforth and their relationship to Albus, I have a question:

In PS chapter twelve Dumbledore tells Harry that he sees the following:

"I see myself holding a pair of thick, woolen socks." Harry stared. "One can never have enough socks," said Dumbledore. "Another Christmas has come and gone and I didn't get a pair. People will insist on giving me books." (PS12)

Could the pair of woolen socks that Albus wishes he could hold be a metaphor for Ariana and Aberforth the pair that tended the family's goats given the fact that J.K. Rowling revealed Dumbledore's desire to see his family whole with his sister, Ariana in good health and he and Aberforth reconciled to each other?



legolas returns - Aug 17, 2007 1:19 pm (#1017 of 2055)
Some people were saying that Dumbledore delayed meeting Grindelwald for 80 years. I think Grindlewald for some of that time probably went looking for Deathly Hallows and thought about how to gain power.

If you believe Rita Skeeter

"Dumbledore delayed, for some five years of turmoil, fatalities and disapperances, his attack on Gellart Grindelwald".

I think this is nearer the mark in terms of time frames as disapperances and disasters would be noted.

When Snape seeks out Dumbledore with information that Voldemort is going to be going after Harry I think Dumbledore is justifiably harsh.

Later after James and Lily have been murdered

"I thought... you were going..to keep her... safe.."

I think that Snape is asking why Dumbledore failed to do what Snape asked of him and trying to blame him for Lilys death.

If you look at the whole of the sentence about putting your trust in the wrong people Dumbledore does point out that James and Lily made the same mistake as Snape did. Snape trusted that Voldemort would let Lily live even though he knew Voldemorts feelings on muggleborns. James trusted the secret keeper. I dont see this as harsh as its another instance of Dumbledore pointing out that people make the wrong choices. Dumbledore volunteered to be keeper but James chose his friends. Dumbledore could not force him into making him secret keeper.

I also think that Snape could not care that Harry had lived and saw the reference to Lilys eyes as a taunt.

Killing Dumbledore-Humiliation and pain. Pretty feeble excuse from Dumbledore and not a modicum of truth. There is the small matter of the ownership/ending the power of the Elder wand. At this stage I think this was the main reason for the request. Another reason could be that Dumbledore did not want the curse to overcome him and possibly alert Voldemort that he had destroyed one of his horcruxes. Voldemort would know what curse he put on the ring and might become suspicious if Dumbledore died unexpectedly and not in a fight/illness of old age.

If Voldemort thought that Draco would fail and would expect Snape to do the deed I cant even begin the entertain this as an excuse. Wouldnt Voldemort expect Dumbledore to try and talk Malfoy out of killing him. If Malfoy did succeed it would be a quick kill because Dumbledore would not be expecting it. Voldemort would expect Snape to be able to get close to Dumbledore because Dumbledore would believe him to be on the side of good. An unexpected surgical AK would then occur. No pain and humiliation.

HBP-It seemed that the ring curse was begining to overcome Dumbledore prior to Snapes AK although he claimed the potion in the basin was "no health drink". I think he said this to Harry as he did not want to let him have all the information as he could so easily be read by Snape/Voldemort. I think the pleading with Snape is a kill me now thing as the curse is getting the better of me. A slow decline in front of death eaters could lead to them humilating him. At the time of his initial request the reason was untruthful but eventually came true.

Later on I think Snape is annoyed that Dumbledore tells Harry stuff that he will not tell him. I think a large part of his reaction was due to this.

I can totally understand Snapes horrified reaction when he hears about Harry having to die especially when he is not given the full information.



wynnleaf - Aug 17, 2007 1:49 pm (#1018 of 2055)
legolas returns,

Good post. I agree with much of it with a few changes. On the 80 years, DD knew what Grendelwald wanted to do, so even though GG had not yet begun, DD knew his intent. Later, there does seem to have been about 5 years (roughly corresponding to WWII??) where DD still waited to go after GG, primarily because DD didn't want to learn the truth of his degree of culpability in Ariana's death. It was the shame of the number of deaths taking place that caused him to finally act. So overall, a delay of 80 years, but only about 5 years while GG was killing and torturing people.

As regards Snape... Snape did ask LV to spare Lily, but he clearly never trusted LV to spare Lily, or Snape wouldn't have gone to Dumbledore instead, and risked his own life to save her. Dumbledore's harsh comment to Snape that he'd trusted LV to save her simply wasn't true and Dumbledore knew it wasn't true.

The rest I tend to agree with.

Thing is, I see these as two very complicated characters who had some very similar experiences, mistakes, etc. DD was much, much older than Snape and in a position of power and authority, whereas Snape was very dependent on Dumbledore as mentor, spymaster, etc. I see both as flawed characters -- not just in their youth, but as adults. I tend to hold DD more responsible for his comments to Snape than I do Snape's comments to Dumbledore, because of DD's multiple roles of authority over Snape.

I've said before, I think DD used Snape much as a tool, but in DD's defense, he used himself as well.



legolas returns - Aug 17, 2007 2:15 pm (#1019 of 2055)
Its not an excuse but its very difficult to stop someone doing something that they have talked about especially if they are not with you. You can advise them against it -point out the pros and cons but it a person choices that determine whether they will do something or not.

The position of Teacher/Spy/Death Eater must have been hard to keep up/control. Both had a difficult job and I can see quite easily how DD or Snape could step over the line.



Die Zimtzicke - Aug 19, 2007 8:55 pm (#1020 of 2055)
Dumbledore not going after Grindlewald immediately reminds me of what he did later. He said at some point it didn't matter if nameless and faceless people and/or creatures died, (sorry I don't have an exact quote for you right now) as long as Harry was well and happy. Does anyone else see a connection there? I sense something but I can't quite put my finger on it.



wynnleaf - Aug 19, 2007 9:08 pm (#1021 of 2055)
Die, that's a fascinating observation. I'll have to think about it.

One thing comes to mind right away -- and it relates to my recent post on the Snape thread. Snape deserves criticism for the fact that as a young man he only cared about LV targeting the family of the person in the prophecy, because the family turned out to include Lily. Naturally, it was terrible that Snape was not concerned about the nameless dead, but only about the one person he loved.

Yet here, we see Dumbledore admitting to something very similar. He is saying that he was risking the lives of nameless other people, because he cared so much about this one person.

One of the coolest things about Deathly Hallows (and there were many weaknesses, in my opinion), was this fascinating parallel between Dumbledore and Snape. I never would have expected JKR to do that, but it is so clear.



Die Zimtzicke - Aug 19, 2007 9:13 pm (#1022 of 2055)
If anyone has the exact quote, I'd be grateful. I haven't got that book where I am right now. But I'm 99% sure that I remember reading that Dumbledore was willing to let others die so Harry would be happy and well, and in retrospect, to me that means well enough to be used to Dumbledore's advantage. And that makes him just as suspicious as anyone else who let others go to their deaths for their own gain.



wynnleaf - Aug 19, 2007 9:37 pm (#1023 of 2055)
I won't quote the whole thing. You should go back and read it as it's a long explanation.

Dumbledore is talking about his plan. He says the "flaw in the plan" was that he came to care so much for Harry personally. For that reason, he delayed and delayed telling Harry what Harry needed to know about the prophecy. Dumbledore talks about his care for Harry making him want to keep "alive, and well, and happy." The reason -- we now know -- that was a "flaw in the plan" is that Harry couldn't ultimately be kept alive, well, and happy if Voldemort was to be defeated.

So DD's love for Harry was making him want to keep Harry from his destiny (so to speak). If DD bowed to his love for Harry, it could lead to the deaths of many. Yet for several years, if I understand what DD was saying correctly, that is what he felt he was doing by not telling Harry about the prophecy.

Actually, I don't think that's quite correct. He didn't really keep Harry thoroughly well or happy. He was still willing to risk Harry's health and happiness in things like sending him and Hermione to rescue Sirius at the end of POA (something DD could have done himself), or allowing other risky adventures Harry got up to. One would think he could have told him about the prophecy as well. But anyway, in DD's thinking, he was keeping this info from Harry in order to keep him alive and well and happy. Presumably, DD was having a very difficult time allowing Harry to go on toward this destiny as the Chosen One.

Still, it does show us that DD was willing to put his care and concern for Harry above the lives of numerous other nameless people. Dumbledore ultimately tells Harry about the prophecy because his hand is forced.

Still, this seems to be DD's thought process in talking to Harry at the end of OOTP.

He says

"What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future if in the here and now you were alive, and well, and happy?"



T Vrana - Aug 20, 2007 6:27 am (#1024 of 2055)
Yet here, we see Dumbledore admitting to something very similar. He is saying that he was risking the lives of nameless other people, because he cared so much about this one person

We're back to the same disagreement. Inaction against evil vs. actively helping it. Big differnce between shielding a child from the knowledge he must kill or be killed, vs. an adult joining an evil organization and aiding its leader, sending him after a family, a baby.

DD never planned to ultimately risk lives in the future, he simply kept delaying what he knew he must do.

As for DD rescuing Sirius, this is Harry's story not DD's.



wynnleaf - Aug 20, 2007 6:58 am (#1025 of 2055)
DD never planned to ultimately risk lives in the future, he simply kept delaying what he knew he must do. (T Vrana)

I didn't mean to draw too close a correlation between this particular comment of DD's and Snape's not caring about James and Harry. I didn't mean that they are exactly alike, but that we are seeing DD in this instance commenting on caring so much for one person, but being willing (at least for awhile) to put aside the possible death's of many nameless people.

We see DD actually do this when he took so long to correct his wrong by confronting GG.

Once again -- there's too aspects of DD and Snape's culpability. 1. What they actively did to help Evil. DD helping GG plan and strategize that led to GG deciding to go after the Hallows and muggle domination actions. Snape bringing a prophecy to LV that led to LV deciding to target the Potters. And 2. what DD and Snape did to correct their actions. Snape didn't care about anyone but Lily and so was only moved to action by threat to her. The person DD most cared about was dead (Ariana), and the deaths of many nameless people didn't move him to action until it started to shame him.

As for DD rescuing Sirius, this is Harry's story not DD's. (T Vrana)

So DD's not to be held responsible for sending two 13 year old kids out against hundreds of dementors, to rescue Sirius and Buckbeak, just because it's Harry's story? I guess that let's Snape off the hook for taking prophecy to LV, because without that poor Harry wouldn't have such an interesting story. It let's Lupin off for not telling DD all he knew about Sirius, because without that the POA story would break down. It lets off practically everyone except Harry that did anything wrong, because Harry needed their actions to have his story.

No, sorry, I don't think it being Harry's story excuses the characters.



T Vrana - Aug 20, 2007 7:18 am (#1026 of 2055)
Grindewald arrived at Godric's Hollow already intent on the Hallows and domination. It was why he was there, where the Peverell's graves were. And he was thrown out of Durmstrang for already wanting to take over. That's why DD mentioned the trouble Grindewald had before. It was Grindewald that awoke an interest in DD, not the other way around.

But DD felt shame for the nameless he knew nothing about, and had no responsibility for. Snape felt no shame at all the deaths happening while he assisted LV. He didn't even feel shamed by telling DD he woidl trade a baby's life for Lily's, until he heard the disgust in DD's voice.

DD from the start has given Harry room to try himself and Harry seems fine with it. So am I. Giving a young wizard a challenge, room to grow, an opportunity to succeed is not even in the same category as working for the most evil wizard of his time and sending him after a baby.

ETA- It is the difference between teaching my kid to ride a bike, knowing she may fall and hurt herself, and pushing her off the bike. While the result may be the same, a few scrapes and bruises, I doubt anyone is going to tell me I'm evil for teaching my kid to ride a bike. They would if I pushed her over!



Ann - Aug 20, 2007 7:31 am (#1027 of 2055)
I agree with T Vrana that the parallel from OotP isn't really applicable as a parallel to Dumbledore's initial involvement with Grindelwald. It makes a better parallel with his reluctance to go after Grindelwald later. (Dumbledore does tend to take a wait-and-see approach.) But both references, as well as Snape's story, bring up the moral problem of caring about people we don't know. It is human nature to care more about those we know and love. Caring about strangers and those we dislike takes more work and tends to be more intellectual: we know we should care, so we do. That's why news stories of large disasters tend to focus on a few individuals and the effects of the disaster on them and their families. We come to know them a little, and hence we come to care more about the larger group of which they are a part.

As for whether it was worse for Snape to join Voldemort or for Dumbledore to plot with Grindelwald, I think Rowling meant for us to see them as equivalent, although she does not really give us enough information to make that clear. (I think she's trying to make these heros flawed, but not too flawed, lest we be so appalled by their bad acts that we can't forgive them.)

She's sent very mixed messages about how well-known Voldemort's evil nature was. Sirius says that his parents thought he had the right idea and his brother (two years younger than Snape) became a Death Eater without knowing what he was getting into, implying that the blood purity line was widely known, but the ruthlessly violent tactics weren't. (I do wish she'd let us read some of Regulus's old clippings about Voldemort, which would have clarified these questions.) But elsewhere, Dumbledore implies that the war has been going on since 1970 (eleven years before Voldemort's first fall), suggesting that it was obvious by the late 70s what his methods were. We also don't know when Snape joined the Death Eaters. Regulus joined even before he left school, and Draco seems to have joined at the end of his fifth year. But Dumbledore implies (when he asks Snape to kill him) that he has never killed, and we know of nothing eivl that Snape did before he turned spy by the late summer of 1981, except for turning the first half of the prophecy over to Voldemort. And the first half of the prophecy says nothing about a baby--it just says the one who has the power to vanquish Voldemort is approaching, has a late July birthday, and parents who have defied him three times. It's only the final line that makes it explicit that the hero is yet to be born.

Dumbledore's brush with evil was much shorter--only two months. And Grindelwald was just starting out, although he had already been thrown out of school for "twisted experiments" (Rita Skeeter) and using more force than was "necessary" (as implied in Dumbledore's letter). While Dumbledore tried to moderate his friend's more violent side, he still advocated using whatever force was necessary ("and no more") to assure that wizards ruled over Muggles. In his King's Cross conversation with Harry, he says he saw himself as the co-leader of a revolution that forced Muggles into subservience. He says he knew Grindelwald wanted to raise an "army of Inferi." But he also said he "encouraged him and helped him" in his "plans for seizing power, schemes of Muggle torture." And we know that Dumbledore came up with the Nazi-esque slogan "For the Greater Good" that he put over the gate to his fortress-prison. One could argue that his support for Grindelwald at that crucial moment, immediately after his expulsion, allowed Grindelwald to recover from that blow and resume his campaign. He was Grindelwald's equal, even his superior; he might have stopped him or channeled his energy into more productive areas. Instead he gave him PR advice.

There are lots of differences, many of which cut both ways. Grindelwald was never Dumbledore's master; the periods of their delusion were different; and Snape told his master of an overheard prophecy while Dumbledore helped plan and sell a campaign to subjugate Muggles to wizards. After their eyes were opened, Snape turned spy immediately at the risk of his life, while Dumbledore watched and waited, and delayed for five years (according to Rita) after the beginning of Grindelwald's reign of terror to challenge his former friend to a duel he was fairly confident he could win.

I'd say all of the details more or less even out. What seems to me to have made the most difference to their ultimate fates is that Dumbledore was a charming, nice man, and Snape wasn't. Rowling wants her readers to realize that there are all sorts of heros.



T Vrana - Aug 20, 2007 7:40 am (#1028 of 2055)
I think Rowling meant for us to see them as equivalent, although she does not really give us enough information to make that clear

I disagree. Eight weeks of dreaming with a 17 year old of responsible power over the folks who ruined his sister, who ended up killing his mother, and resulted in the loss of his father, is hardly the same as joining an active, murderous group and helping them.

ETA: Caring about strangers and those we dislike takes more work and tends to be more intellectual: we know we should care, so we do.

Snape doesn't know or care until DD's disgust. Even then, after Lily's death, he still doesn't care.

DD knew and cared, otherwise he could not have felt shame at waiting. It wasn't that he didn't care, it was that he had to overcome his fear and guilt. I seriously doubt DD waited those five years thinking, "who cares about the dying". From what we know of DD, I am more inclined to think he was concerned and hoped others efforts would keep him from needing to face his fear. When it became clear that Grindewald was not being stopped, and the level of shame reached a point where it overcame his fear and guilt, he acted. They just don't compare.



wynnleaf - Aug 20, 2007 7:47 am (#1029 of 2055)
I'd say all of the details more or less even out. What seems to me to have made the most difference to their ultimate fates is that Dumbledore was a charming, nice man, and Snape wasn't. (Ann)

I completely agree.

And to clarify, I wasn't trying to draw a direct correlation between the OOTP comments by DD and Snape not caring about James and Harry's deaths, but only about Lily. Not a direct correlation. But I did think it interesting that even DD admits how easy it is to focus one's care on the person one loves, while pushing away any concerns for the nameless others. And DD directly does this during the several years that GG was torturing and killing people, because at that time people were actively dying. This can in my opinion, be compared to Snape's lack of concern for James and Harry's potential deaths, and his willingness to only try to save them when it became necessary in order to save Lily as well. In DD's case, he didn't work to save others because he was trying to also save a person he loved. He did it because to not do so would be too shameful for him.

I think it's worth pointing out, by the way, that Dumbledore at 17 was not just your typical adolescent dreaming dreams. He was an extraordinarily brilliant and powerful young man. Grindelwald was the same, apparently. Extraordinarily brilliant 17 year olds are not like typical 17 year olds. They should compare to substantially older individuals, both intellectually and usually in maturity.

Of course, Snape appears to have been fairly brilliant as well. I would say that he was probably a good deal more damaged emotionally than Dumbledore, although Dumbledore may have been much more emotionally affected by his family's plight than he appeared. I would guess that while Snape would be highly tempted to accept anyone than seemed to appreciate him, Dumbledore would probably accept anyone who was his intellectual equal, since that appears to have been one of the big things that attracted him to GG. That doesn't excuse either one, of course.



T Vrana - Aug 20, 2007 7:52 am (#1030 of 2055)
He did it because to not do so would be too shameful for him.

If he didn't care, he could not feel shame.



wynnleaf - Aug 20, 2007 8:14 am (#1031 of 2055)
He did it because to not do so would be too shameful for him. (wynnleaf)

If he didn't care, he could not feel shame. (T Vrana)

Yes, but what exactly did he care about? He seemed to care more about being shamed than about the people's lives. For instance, Harry doesn't need to be shamed into his "saving people" thing. He goes out to save people because they need saving and he's going to try to save them. It's not "oh, if I don't save them I'll feel like a horrible person, so I've got to do it even though I don't want to." Harry does it because he cares about other people. Harry's motivation is the plight of others. Dumbledore's motivation was his own plight -- he didn't like feeling shamed.

In part, that's what bothers me about Dumbledore's guilt over Ariana's death. And this one may really just be my "feeling" about the way it's written. Unlike Aberforth, whose words make it clear that he truly loved Ariana for herself, Dumbledore never gives us those sorts of comments about Ariana. He said he loved his family and sister, but we don't get the words of emotional attachment to Ariana that Aberforth gave. And when DD talked about her death and his responsibility, the guilt and remorse all seemed to be for his part in it, not for the fact that she was dead. It was, to me, as though Dumbledore was more sad that he was had done a bad thing, than sad that Ariana was dead.

If I'm not making much sense, maybe I can compare it to Snape. Snape is both remorseful for his part in Lily's death and very, very grief stricken that she's dead at all (by whatever means). It is both his part in her death and her loss that affect him, because Snape loved her so much.



T Vrana - Aug 20, 2007 9:48 am (#1032 of 2055)
wynnleaf- You are assuming DD didn't care about those dying. I don't. I assume he did. It wasn't a matter of, 'oh bother do I really have to go save those people I really don't care about, well I'm shamed so I better do it', but rather of overcoming his fear of the truth. I wish his concern had overridden his fear earlier, so does he. His shame was that his fear kept him from acting on his concern.

Aberforth and Arianna were very close, it seems DD and his siblings were not as close. That doesn't mean DD didn't regret Arianna's death and didn't love his sister. Aberforth remains bitter, DD turns his grief toward doing good. According to Jo, DD would see himself with his family, whole again, in the Mirror of Erised. Enough said. If he were only interested in ideals I imagine he would see himself alone and honored, as he is, by the WW for his high ideals etc. But he sees himself woth his whole family, which was denied him from a young age.



Madame Pomfrey - Aug 21, 2007 7:01 am (#1033 of 2055)
Tom wrote I don't disagree that we have an interesting parallel between the two characters Snape & Dumbledore, but I don't think we have enough information to arrive at the conclusion they were at equal levels of culpability for their mistakes. I would not be surprised if Dumbledore believed that were true, but we are really only given Dumbledore's view on the subject without a great deal of exposition to show just exactly what took place when in regards to the rise and fall of Grindelwald.

I agree, Dumbledore didn't compare his mistakes to that of Snape's,but to Voldemort! I got the impression that some of his story was made to sound worse by a self-unforgiving,grieving Dumbledore. Harry said Dumbledore was like a child seeking reassurance and how odd it felt to sit there and defend Dumbledore from himself. Dumbledore has really beat himself up over this.I felt that reguardless of who really killed Ariana,Dumbledore has took full blame.He blames himself no matter who actually dealt the blow.



T Vrana - Aug 21, 2007 7:15 am (#1034 of 2055)
M pomfrey- I agree DD is his own toughest critic. Re-read DD's recounting of his misdeed last night and was brought to tears again by his sorrow and humility. He was clearly the most powerful wizard in the WW and could have done great things, great evil, great questionable (with good intent), great good. He chose the latter but not by taking power, which would have been easy, not even when it was offered over and over, but as a teacher, a consultant, a voice of restraint in the justice system, an ambassador....It pains me to see all his good qaulities shoved aside with accusations of being manipulative, secretive, controlling, uncaring, cruel etc.



Mrs Brisbee - Aug 21, 2007 7:32 am (#1035 of 2055)
It pains me to see all his good qaulities shoved aside with accusations of being manipulative, secretive, controlling, uncaring, cruel etc.

Manipulative, secretive, controlling (and a few other unflattering terms, like paternalistic and arrogant)-- yes. But I would never call him uncaring, because it is clear to me that he cares very much. As for cruel, I think he only is as cruel as need be to get what he wants done for the Greater Good. Dumbledore didn't create Accidental Horcrux-Like Harry; Lord Voldemort did that. Dumbledore did use Harry, and I think it pained him very much to do so. Perhaps one of the reasons he didn't look after Harry like he should have when Harry was a child was so he could avoid thinking about it.

I only just realized (I'm kind of slow on the uptake sometimes) that when Dumbledore stopped Voldemort from AKing Harry in OotP, Dumbledore already suspected that Harry would survive and the soulbit in Harry would be destroyed. Did Dumbledore not want to risk testing his theory, or was he trying to preserve the connection between Harry and Voldy for later use? Maybe a combination of both.



T Vrana - Aug 21, 2007 7:41 am (#1036 of 2055)
Didn't Harry need to willingly submit to the AK to have the option to return?



NFla Barbara - Aug 21, 2007 7:41 am (#1037 of 2055)
I thought DD wanted the showdown between LV and Harry to come later, after the horcruxes were destroyed. Is that right? If LV had AK'd Harry earlier Harry might have survived again, but LV would still have the rest of his horcruxes, and then Harry would no longer have protection against yet another attempt.



wynnleaf - Aug 21, 2007 7:41 am (#1038 of 2055)
I agree also that Dumbledore was very remorseful for his actions. Was he his own worst critic? Well, not exactly. Even if unfairly, Rita and Aberforth were both worse critics of DD than he was of himself -- or at least, just as bad.

Are his good characteristics being "shoved aside?" Sure, temporarily. It's not like his feelings are getting hurt. His good characteristics are certainly not being denied. Before Deathly Hallows, we really had little more than suggestions that perhaps DD was a little too manipulative or perhaps a little too willing to accept risks for others (like the school children while Draco was trying to kill him). But we didn't have any specific evidence of fault in DD. JKR didn't just toss in those flaws in DH as a sort of "by the way, Dumbledore isn't perfect, you know." It was clearly one of the biggest threads in Deathly Hallows -- chapter after chapter about it. To not carefully examine Dumbledore's faults, and instead just repeatedly affirm "the epitome of goodness" view, is in my opinion denying what JKR took so many pains to show us.

In most of the books, with the exception of HBP which is more like the first half of a book, Dumbledore explains The Facts to Harry at the end. There may be all sorts of misdirection throughout the books, but by and large those final explanations by Dumbledore are where the author stops the misdirection for awhile and enlightens Harry, and the reader, about what's really going on.

The very last explanation by Dumbledore, in the very last book of the series, is more than any other the End of misdirection by the author. We are meant to read Dumbledore's final explanation as the facts. We had Doge's version, Rita's version, Bathilda's version, and Aberforth's version. Now we get the Facts from Dumbledore. Not only is Dumbledore giving us the final summing up explanation for the final book and the series, he's giving us the facts about himself. Do we believe him, or take this final explanation as just another misdirection and assume that the Real Facts lay somewhere in our imagination and whatever we want to believe about Dumbledore? In my opinion, that final explanation by Dumbledore is to be taken as the truth, not another biased account that doesn't really give us the truth because Dumbledore was just as critical of himself as Rita or Aberforth.



T Vrana - Aug 21, 2007 7:46 am (#1039 of 2055)
wynnleaf- I meant critics with credibility. Rita and Aberforth don't count. Rita clealry lies and Aberforth assumes DD cares more for his schemes than Harry. Not true. DD's 'schemes' saved Harry and no one else in the WW had the knowledge, power or took the time to do so.

In my opinion, that final explanation by Dumbledore is to be taken as the truth

Yes....what is your point? Did I suggest it wasn't the truth?



wynnleaf - Aug 21, 2007 8:15 am (#1040 of 2055)
You suggested (at least, I thought you were suggesting), that Dumbledore was his own worst critic and therefore his comments about his own culpability, cowardice, what he knew about Grendelwald, etc., were not necessarily to be taken as exactly the truth, or at face value.

If I misunderstood you, I apologize.



T Vrana - Aug 21, 2007 8:19 am (#1041 of 2055)
wynnleaf- They are his true opinion of himself, and a harsh one, but clearly Harry did not agree that DD should be so hard on himself, and neither do I. But DD was an extraordianry wizard who was his own toughest critic, and who never in 130 years forgave himself.

ETA- I wasn't trying to suggest that anything he said or thought was untrue, but he unflinchingly examines his 17 year old self with the wisdom and experience of 150 years, and cuts himself no slack. He say at one point of Grindewald, 'I think I knew', which suggests to some, he knew exactly who and what Grindewald was and ignored it. When in reality, I think he may have had pangs of concern which at the time he was able to rationalize, and put aside, that in hindsight he can see as knowledge ignored. It is a subtle difference, but a real one and an important one. Does that make sense?



Madame Pomfrey - Aug 21, 2007 9:31 am (#1042 of 2055)
Perfectly,and I agree.

Dumbledore said "Grindelwald lost control.That which I had always sensed in him,though I pretended not to,now sprang into terrible being." Doesn't it sound like Dumbledore only sensed these things about Grindelwald but many years later he says He Knew but pretended not to? He sensed something at the time,but didn't act because he didn't know for sure.Then,years later,when everything he sensed became reality he beats himself up saying he knew all along. Sensing something and knowing something as fact are a little different being that you can take action on something you know,but not on something you only sense.Does that make sense? I feel I am being confusing.



T Vrana - Aug 21, 2007 9:50 am (#1043 of 2055)
m pomfrey- It makes sense to me and I'm pleased I made sense. It should also be noted that DD has never had a confidence problem and what inklings he had of trouble would be easily put aside given DD's own belief that he could influence Grindewald, and that Grindewald was a friend whom he could count on to work toward their common goal in a common fashion.



PatPat - Aug 21, 2007 7:34 pm (#1044 of 2055)
I agree with M. Pomfrey and T Vrana completely here. We often tell ourselves later that we KNEW something terrible and should have stopped it. That doesn't mean we really did know for sure. Sometimes we sense things subconsciously and later, in hindsight, realize this and then blame ourselves for not doing something about it. This, I believe is what Dumbledore is doing.

Actually, I don't think that's quite correct. He didn't really keep Harry thoroughly well or happy. He was still willing to risk Harry's health and happiness in things like sending him and Hermione to rescue Sirius at the end of POA (something DD could have done himself), or allowing other risky adventures Harry got up to.

That would have made for an interesting story. "Harry, you and Hermione stay here, I'll take care of this." Pops out. Pops back in. "OK, it's done. Carry on."

In all seriousness, Dumbledore explains, in a way, why he allowed Harry to perform some of these dangerous tasks. He says that it was essential to let Harry "try his strength." Dumbledore knew the task that Harry would have to complete and what it was going to entail. Without the many trials throughout his seven years at school, he would not have developed as he did and would never have been able to get through the task at hand. His whole education at Hogwarts was really training for what he needed to do.

Regarding Draco and the victims of his attempts on Dumbledore's life, I'm really not clear what else Dumbledore could have done here. He does tell Snape to keep an eye out because he is concerned about unwitting victims of Draco's plans. He is not oblivious to the danger presented. But, he could not confront Draco for many reasons. Had he done so, not only would Draco and his family's lives be in danger but the entire plan would be. Voldemort would wonder how Dumbledore had learned of Draco's assignment. This would also put Snape's crucial position in peril. Again Dumbledore had to try to make the best of a horrible situation.



wynnleaf - Aug 21, 2007 8:11 pm (#1045 of 2055)
We often tell ourselves later that we KNEW something terrible and should have stopped it. That doesn't mean we really did know for sure. (PatPat)

This is an example of what I mean about whether we're going to really believe what we're told in Kings Cross, or whether we're going to think, "yeah, that's what DD says, but it wasn't really like that." Dumbledore said deep down he knew. This is the last, final explanation by Dumbledore in the entire series. JKR uses these explanations to give us facts, to stop the misdirection. This is facts -- not just a spin on it that DD has just because he's his worst critic.

Besides that it seems most likely that JKR has intended the Dumbledore and Snape situations as a parallel. They're just too similar. When Dumbledore makes comments that make the parallel seem closer, I don't think it's analyzing it correctly to explain away his comments by assuming he's over stating the case.

Individual readers may disagree that Dumbledore and Snape's situations, degrees of culpability, etc. are very similar. Fine. But JKR wrote enough indisputable similarity in that the rest of the similarities are far more likely to be her intent than not.

It doesn't mean any reader has to agree with the comparison. That's up to every individual as to whether they think DD and Snape were similarly culpable. But I think JKR intended it that way.



T Vrana - Aug 21, 2007 8:43 pm (#1046 of 2055)
wynnleaf- While I agree we are to see similarities, that is, mistakes, and redemptive actions, I dosagree it is clear that Jo expects us to see them as equal for reasons I've already outlined.

This is an example of what I mean about whether we're going to really believe what we're told in Kings Cross, or whether we're going to think, "yeah, that's what DD says, but it wasn't really like that." Dumbledore said deep down he knew.

Actually what he said was "I think I knew". My point wasn't that he didn't suspect on some level, but that he is judging how much he really 'knew' in hindsight.



rambkowalczyk - Aug 25, 2007 7:00 am (#1047 of 2055)
One thing I notice about Dumbledore is that he tends not to do things and that this inactivity could be construed as avoiding the issue, or allowing someone a second chance.

He did nothing for the first five years when Grindelwald was clearly doing wrong. Presumably during the years 1940-1945. As far as he doing nothing between ~1870 and 1940, it might be reasonable to say that he was giving Grindelwald a chance to change his mind.

Knowing that Tom had a penchant for hurting other kids, Dumbledore did not tell Dippett this crucial fact about Tom. Again he was giving Tom a chance to change.

Dumbledore never severely punished Harry for anything that he did that was wrong. ( Flying car, and Sectumsempera come to mind). To Harry's credit, Harry felt sufficiently guilty and didn't need the punishment.

Dumbledore never chastises Snape for his nastiness to the students. (I'll acknowledge that we really had no positive proof of this).

Dumbledore doesn't stop Draco even though he knows there is a possibility that other students would be harmed.



Madame Pomfrey - Aug 25, 2007 7:37 am (#1048 of 2055)
Good point,Ramb! Dumbledore is well known for giving second chances. I think Dumbledore gave Grindelwald a second chance by sending him to a wizarding prison rather than killing him.This gave him the chance to feel remorse and save his soul. Grindelwald tried to prevent Voldemort from getting the Elder Wand. He also told Voldemort he welcomed death which proves he had at least figured out that the true Master of Death is one who accepts death.



wynnleaf - Aug 25, 2007 7:52 am (#1049 of 2055)
I used to hope that the last book would tell us that Dumbledore had some methods of special knowledge whereby he would know that the "risks" he took weren't really as risky as they looked. But we didn't find that out. In fact, it turns out that DD actually took many rather dire risks with the lives of others.

For instance, he could have told other teachers something of Tom's history. It wouldn't have kept Tom out of Hogwarts and might have made other teachers far more observant and not so complacent regarding Tom. But DD didn't do that.

He brought the Philosopher's stone right into Hogwarts to hide it, even though he knew it was bound to draw evil wizards in to get it. Yes, he put protections around the stone, but clearly they weren't good enough since children ended up at risk.

Allowing Draco to stay at the castle while attempting to kill him was extraordinarily risky. The only reasons Katie and Ron didn't die is because of the fortuitous circumstances of Katie being seen and help found quickly for her, and Harry being around and remembering to use a bezoar to help Ron. They lived, not because DD was gaurding the castle properly, but because other people happened to be around to help.

I have no problem with the second chances that Dumbledore gave people. But sometimes he allowed risks where he could have avoided them and people either died or could have died because of it.



legolas returns - Aug 25, 2007 10:01 am (#1050 of 2055)
Dumbledore gave many people second chances

Toms history-I am sure that Dumbledore could have told the other teachers but I dont think it would have altered things. I think that most of the teachers were taken in by Tom Riddle and thought that he was a model student. He managed to charm/get information out of all the teachers except Dumbledore. Tom Riddle or his minions did not get caught in any wrong doing which is the important thing. Dumbledore could not prove his suspicions.

Allowing Draco to stay at the castle. I am sure that if Dumbledore challanged Draco early on in the story then Dracos life would be at risk. He says at much in the book. He had detailed Snape to check up on Draco which he did but not very sucessfully. This was risky strategy because as Draco got more desperate people could have died.

Philosophers stone-Hiding the stone in Hogwarts. There was quite a bit of protection around the stone. Including the Mirror of Erised. Dumbledore said that if Harry was so pure of heart that he could look into the mirror and see himself getting the stone but not using it. A servant of Voldemort would see themselves presenting the stone to Voldemort. Harry was supplied with a number of facts/cloak/pieces of information that no other student would have been given as a result 99.9% of students were not put at risk. It was Dumbledore that sent Hagrid to get the stone the same day he went to get Harry. It was Dumbledore who gave him the cloak and told him the exact way that the mirror of Erised worked. Harry would have done anything to prevent Voldemort getting the stone regardless of the risk to himself. He brought his friends with him but he gave them the choice to turn back. Dumbledore put Harry and his friends at risk and they could have died but not any of the other students. He gave Harry a chance to prove himself which is something that nobody else would have done.

If Harry had not been given chances would he have been so successful in getting rid of Voldemort?
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Posts 1051 to 1100

Post  Mona on Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:06 am

wynnleaf - Aug 25, 2007 10:27 am (#1051 of 2055)
Oh I agree LR, that all those opportunities give Harry lots of adventures and ways to grow and eventually deal with Voldemort.

But that doesn't exactly let DD off the hook. The only reason Harry lives through the PS/SS is because of Lily's protection. Great. DD already knew about that. Did he know that Harry would be facing Voldemort? Rather than some other evil wizard with whom the protection wouldn't work? What about Hermione and Ron? Did DD know that they'd make it through without losing their lives?

Then Draco. Sure, it kept Draco safe from LV to keep him at Hogwarts. But other students could have died and nearly did. You don't let a kid with homicidal intent have free run of a school.

There's lots of examples. Of course, JKR did this to have fun plots. Does that let her characters off the hook? Sometimes I'm inclined to not want to judge her characters on this kind of thing if I'm convinced that JKR wants us to view a character one way, but her plot is sort of getting in the way. But in this case, I think JKR does want us to see Dumbledore as someone who took a great many risks with other people's lives and the other people sometimes died because of it. If she didn't want us to see that, she wouldn't have some characters in DH specifically noting this kind of thing.



legolas returns - Aug 25, 2007 10:46 am (#1052 of 2055)
Dumbledore knew about an awful lot of stuff that went on in the school but he could not have predicted the way that everything had happend. The maurauders got up to a lot of mischief he did not know about. The vast majority of his hunches panned out correctly.

He told Snape to watch out for Quirrel so he must have known that he was dodgy. I dont think he could have known for certain that Harry had his mothers protection. Harry would want to meet Voldemort on his own. He could not have ensured that Ron and Hermione would not get hurt but the three of them complemented each other e.g brains/strategy/courage/determination and worked well as a unit.

We did get the view particularly from Aberforth that Albus took chances with peoples lives for the greater good. People did die and Albus admitted as much himself.

Did it provide good reading? Of course



rambkowalczyk - Aug 25, 2007 12:37 pm (#1053 of 2055)
I have no problem with the second chances that Dumbledore gave people. But sometimes he allowed risks where he could have avoided them and people either died or could have died because of it. wynnleaf

I think the very nature of a second chance implies risk. True trust has the implication that the trust can be violated. Although I think there is good reason to question Dumbledore's judgement in individual instances maybe JKR's point is that giving people 2nd chances is risky but the right thing to do.



Die Zimtzicke - Aug 27, 2007 3:26 pm (#1054 of 2055)
Sometimes doing nothing has results, the same way doing something hs results. I see this with Grindelwald, and also when Dumbledore admits Harry's happiness was more important than the possiblility of the nameless and faceless dying.



wynnleaf - Aug 27, 2007 5:25 pm (#1055 of 2055)
Dumbledore's not telling Harry until he was almost 16 about the prophecy was because he didn't want to cause Harry greater stress. Dumbledore says something about his focusing on nameless people that could be hurt by it. In the end, it wasn't nameless people, it was Sirius, because Harry didn't understand the seriousness with which LV was pursuing the prophecy and how closely this was linked to Harry himself. Further, because Harry felt so in the dark, he really wanted any info he could get, regardless of the source. So Harry didn't put the effort he should have into occlumency. Net result: Harry was tricked by LV and Sirius died. So DD's decision had consequences.

And with Grendelwald, Dumbledore continued to wait while Grendelwald killed and tortured muggles for, apparently, several years until the "shame" of inaction became too much.



TomProffitt - Aug 27, 2007 7:06 pm (#1056 of 2055)
So Harry didn't put the effort he should have into occlumency. --- wynnleaf

Small quibble, really, especially as I agree that Dumbledore caused a great deal of avoidable harm by trying to keep too much control in his own hands.

I think that Harry, being a horcrux and all, just wasn't physically capable of occlumency. Rowling said as much in a chat or interview (of course given her accuracy in those things we can't put too much emphasis on it.)

Of course the occlumency lessons was a real disaster to start with. Wrong teacher for the task given all of the emotions involved (I'm certain Snape could have successfully taught Hermione or Luna, for example). More appropriate teacher aggravating things by avoiding Harry completely. Student with a horcrux on his forehead. Deranged psychopath trying to get into the student's head. Student with poor study habits for all of the previously mentioned reasons (plus he always had bad study habits even when Dark Lords weren't involved). Recipe for failure I think. For all of his supposed brilliance, you'd think DD would have seen that coming.



wynnleaf - Aug 27, 2007 7:23 pm (#1057 of 2055)
I agree, Tom. There were a variety of reasons for why Harry didn't learn occlumency.

But ultimately, he wouldn't have needed to keep LV out of his mind, so much as to know why LV wanted in. If Harry had known that there was a prophecy about himself at the MOM, and that only he or LV could access it, then he'd understand that LV would do anything possible to either get the prophecy himself or lure Harry to the MOM. Knowing that, Harry would have been much more prepared to deal with the last vision. After all, he had been warned that LV might try to put something in his head (I think?). He may not have been nearly so quick to dash to the MOM if he'd realized that LV not only needed him to go there, but that if he went he was not only risking himself, he was also risking LV finding the prophecy.

Of course, that's in part what DD was referring to when he talked about this mistakes.



mona amon - Aug 27, 2007 8:02 pm (#1058 of 2055)
There's lots of examples. Of course, JKR did this to have fun plots. Does that let her characters off the hook? Sometimes I'm inclined to not want to judge her characters on this kind of thing if I'm convinced that JKR wants us to view a character one way, but her plot is sort of getting in the way. (Wynnleaf)

I think you have summed up there the big problem with Dumbledore. JKR created this extremely wise, extremely skillful 150 year old wizard, and put him in charge of things. If he always acted 'in character' there would not be much for the young, inexperienced hero to do. So we have the problem of deciding which of his mistakes are due to JKR advancing her plot at the expense of Dumbledore's character, and which are Dumbledore's own mistakes.



Soul Search - Aug 27, 2007 8:31 pm (#1059 of 2055)
mona amon,

"... deciding which of his mistakes are due to JKR advancing her plot at the expense of Dumbledore's character, and which are Dumbledore's own mistakes."

Ah ... not sure what you are getting at, here.



mona amon - Aug 28, 2007 3:40 am (#1060 of 2055)
Soul search, I'll try to give examples. In DH we learn that Dumbledore was friends with the evil Grindelwald for a while, and that he helped him develop some of his ideologies. This is a clear cut example of Dumbledore making a mistake when he was younger, and it influences us when we try to form a picture of his character.

But in OOTP, Dumbledore knows that Voldemort would try and lure Harry to the Department of Mysteries, and yet he never gives Harry this crucial information. This would be a stupid thing to do for anyone, unbelievably foolish in someone like Dumbledore. But what could JKR do? If Dumbledore had given Harry the information, there would not be much plot. So I cut Dumbledore some slack here and do not let this bit of stupidity influence my idea of his character.



wynnleaf - Aug 28, 2007 6:19 am (#1061 of 2055)
mona amon and Soul Search,

Actually, I think JKR did intend for the OOTP example to have been a mistake of Dumbledore's, because he addresses that in his comments to Harry. Isn't that part of his whole point? He loved Harry so much he didn't give him the info he needed? And thus Harry falls for LV's trick.

And I agree that JKR wants the reader to take a hard look at Dumbledore's choices in regards Grendelwald.

But there are other examples as well. For instance, readers are often critical of Dumbledore for leaving Harry with the Dursleys without any oversight of the situation, without really contacting Petunia first (whoever heard of dropping off a baby with nothing more than a letter!), and without offering any support to this muggle family which hated magic and was surprised to be forced into raising a magical child, and a possible danger to them as well. But I don't think JKR means us to think through all the things Dumbledore could have done to make the situation better or judge him because of all the "might haves" and "could haves."

More tricky to me are some of the occasions when DD lets students fall into danger. I'm not always sure whether we're supposed to judge DD for his willingness to have student's endangered, or whether we should just consider it part of JKR's plot which happened to give him options that she didn't allow him to take.

For instance, in POA DD sent two 13 year old kids back with the timeturner to fight off hundreds of dementors and save Sirius and Buckbeak. Considering that the time elapsed in regular time was almost nothing, why couldn't Dumbledore have been the one to go back and fight off the dementors, rescue Sirius, etc? How does DD know Harry and Hermione make it through unscathed? All he really knew was that someone went back and sent a great patronus to chase away the dementors. He has no way of knowing if that same person, or their companion, will not be subsequently bitten by a werewolf, hurt by other dementors, hurt by Buckbeak, captured by ministry officials while trying to free Sirius, etc. Should we even consider these things when we judge DD's character? Or should we assume that JKR meant for only Harry to be able to go back and do the rescue, even though the plot isn't so tight that it was necessary?

Similarly, we have Draco at Hogwarts throughout HBP. Ron and Katie Bell nearly die and are not saved through any safegaurd of Dumbledore's. His decision to allow Draco to have an almost free rein could have resulted in the deaths of two students. Are we meant to think this through when we look at DD's character? Or should we simply assume that DD had everything under control and would have somehow made sure everyone was safe? I used to assume that JKR would show us in DH that somehow DD had some sort of broader inside knowledge -[/b]- Maybe a way of keeping up with events all over the castle -- so he was keeping greater tabs on Draco than we knew. But that turned out not to be true. DD really knew little more about Draco's actions than Harry.

So if we look very closely at all of the books, DD often comes out as an extreme risk taker, especially when he's been given the responsibility to watch over children. But are we supposed to be looking so closely at the plots that we see all of these risks? Did JKR mean for DD to be this much of a risktaker with the children's safety? I'm not sure whether she intended it or not.



TomProffitt - Aug 28, 2007 6:29 am (#1062 of 2055)
I've been thinking about starting a new thread to discuss this and similar issues. I'm of the opinion that we are judging much that takes place in the Harry Potter Series based on an incorrect assumption. Namely, that stylistically. the series is "played straight."

What I mean is that with different genres there are different rules the audience uses to interpret the rationality of the plot. To use a TV analogy, different rules apply to a Sit Com, a Soap Opera, and a Drama. Harry Potter in my opinion has just a bit too much slap stick comedy and overt symbolism for us to judge everything at face value.



legolas returns - Aug 28, 2007 12:40 pm (#1063 of 2055)
Wynnleaf-Dumbledore made sure that Mrs Figg lived close by so that she could keep an eye on him and babysit every so often.



Die Zimtzicke - Aug 28, 2007 1:02 pm (#1064 of 2055)
One thing I still don't understand, and I do not know if we've ever gotten a consensus on is the idea that Dumbledore is about 150 during the series, according to information from Rowling herself.

Which means if he met Grindelwald when they were both around eighteen, it was about 1850-55 when it happened. Dumbledore is supposed to have defeated Grindelwald in 1945. That is just a bit less than a hundred years AFTER the summer they spent together. What really was the point of Dumbledore holding himself responsible for what someone he hung out with for one summer around, say 1860, did in the 1940's?

I'm lost with that one.



TomProffitt - Aug 28, 2007 1:15 pm (#1065 of 2055)
Die Zimtzicke, I think is "Jo and her maths" all over again. I think in her own mind Jo thinks of DD as being 150 years old and never bothered to check how old DD would really have been given the events of the books.



wynnleaf - Aug 28, 2007 1:46 pm (#1066 of 2055)
I don't have the book handy, but the story the elderly aunt tells at the wedding would make Dumbledore a lot younger -[/b]- Maybe 30 or 40 year younger?

I think the aunt is around 107 and she tells a story of listening in on conversations when she was a girl that would make Dumbledore far too young.

Yeah, I think it's just JKR and maths.



Mrs Brisbee - Aug 28, 2007 7:01 pm (#1067 of 2055)
So if we look very closely at all of the books, DD often comes out as an extreme risk taker, especially when he's been given the responsibility to watch over children. But are we supposed to be looking so closely at the plots that we see all of these risks? Did JKR mean for DD to be this much of a risktaker with the children's safety? I'm not sure whether she intended it or not.-- wynnleaf

I have this problem too when trying to read Dumbledore. Does he take these risks for Plot Reasons? Is this part of normal Wizarding culture, so most people don't bat an eye at it? Or is it his personality? Or maybe he's taken on too many roles and can't quite fulfill his duties in one without sacrificing his duties in another of his roles? I suspect a combination, but sorting out which is in play at any given time is headache inducing for me.

As for Dumbledore's age, I think Rowling gave his age as 150 only one time in an interview in 2000. The books have never given any indication of his age other than generally very old, until Aunt Muriel's more specific information. I don't think this is a case of Rowling being bad at math, I think she just decided for the expedience of the story she wanted some contemporaries and elders of Dumbledore to still be around, and that's easier to do with a less extraordinary age. I can kind of understand why people have a hard time adjusting to the lower age, though. I think I stopped reading one book,The Amber Spyglass, because I couldn't figure out the age of the child protagonist, and so couldn't get a picture of her in my head. Changing the age sort of messes with people's long established view of the character. I think that the majority of readers, who never will encounter Rowling's interview information, will assume from the beginning that Dumbledore is old but just normally old. They'll probably be astonished at Muriel's information because Dumbledore (and Muriel and Doge and Grindelwald and Bagshot and Marchbanks) was so incredibly old from a normal human perspective!

So, if Dumbledore was born around circa 1880, he was hanging out with Grindelwald around 1897, and it would be around 48 years later that Dumbledore and Grindelwald have their famous duel.



mona amon - Aug 28, 2007 9:23 pm (#1068 of 2055)
I suspect a combination, but sorting out which is in play at any given time is headache inducing for me.

That's why I never analyse Dumbledore too much!

Actually, I think JKR did intend for the OOTP example to have been a mistake of Dumbledore's, because he addresses that in his comments to Harry. Isn't that part of his whole point? He loved Harry so much he didn't give him the info he needed? And thus Harry falls for LV's trick. (Wynnleaf)

Wynnleaf, do you mean this passage- "What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now you were alive and well and happy?" Actually I never really understood what Dumbledore meant by that. Why should people get slaughtered just because Dumbledore delays giving the prophecy info to Harry?



TomProffitt - Aug 29, 2007 5:56 am (#1069 of 2055)
"What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now you were alive and well and happy?" --- Dumbledore in OotP

I've always interpreted this to mean that Dumbledore understood that the means to stop LV lay in Harry and Harry's ordeal. Should DD invest in giving Harry a happy future free from the obligation of fighting LV the resulting deaths would only be hypothetical. Or to put it another way, it's difficult to mourn those unknowns who may be victims in the distant future when you see before you a loved one who is a victim right now.

Edited to add:

This puts Snape's "pig to the slaughter" quote in perspective as well. If DD chose to save Harry (and himself) surely many would die preventable deaths. This is the "lesson" DD learned from delaying his fight with Grindelwald.



Die Zimtzicke - Aug 29, 2007 6:23 am (#1070 of 2055)
It will be interesting to see how these books play years later when people can read them straight through, without aging as the trio do, and do not rush to look up every JKR interview. I do think Dumbledore will come off different without Jo's extra comments, and to me, that's as it should be, since I think any information she wanted us to have should be in the books themselves.



wynnleaf - Aug 29, 2007 6:35 am (#1071 of 2055)
But in OOTP, Dumbledore knows that Voldemort would try and lure Harry to the Department of Mysteries, and yet he never gives Harry this crucial information. This would be a stupid thing to do for anyone, unbelievably foolish in someone like Dumbledore. But what could JKR do? If Dumbledore had given Harry the information, there would not be much plot. So I cut Dumbledore some slack here and do not let this bit of stupidity influence my idea of his character. (mona amon)

A number of posts back I was commenting that it's hard to tell about some instances where we, the readers, feel there are things that could reflect poorly on DD, because some of these instances may not have been intended by JKR as areas where DD made a mistake or was taking a serious risk, etc., even though it may look that way to the reader. I brought up DD leaving Harry with the Dursleys with no prior warning and no supporting help for the Dursleys in raising Harry, and no particular oversight (Mrs. Figg hardly counts since her "oversight" accomplished precisely nothing in terms of helping to curb the Dursley's nastiness to Harry).

However, the mistakes DD made in OOTP, by failing to tell Harry about the prophecy and that LV was trying to lure him to the MOM in order to get the prophecy are supposed to be seen as actual questionable things DD did. We know this because JKR has DD talk to Harry about those mistakes. We may disagree as to whether or not DD is too harsh on himself, but my point is that his actions regarding this are supposed to be something the readers are to notice and consider when understanding his character.

Another example is regarding DD's comments versus Lily's comments about DD's borrowing the invisibility cloak. If you look at DD, he tells Harry that he borrowed the cloak days before the Potters deaths on Oct. 31. But Lily's letter, which appears to have been written not long after Harry's birthday on July 31, and which mentions Bathilda dropping by for visits which is a clear indicator that the Potters were not under the Fidelius Charm, also speaks of DD having had the cloak for what appears to be some time, since James has been constrained in his movements and unable to go out and about without the cloak.

Are we to wonder if Dumbledore lied to Harry to make his borrowing the cloak and his fascination for it seem more acceptable, having only just briefly borrowed the cloak by chance at the time the Potters were attacked, versus have borrowed it and kept it for a long period in spite of the danger the Potters were under? Or are we to not consider this anything more than JKR being a little inconsistent between Lily's letter and DD's comments and we're to not worry about it or even consider it when evaluating DD's actions?

I mention this only as an example, as there are many such instances throughout the series where DD's comments or actions seem rather questionable, but I'm not sure if JKR knew that they were questionable because she may have never intended the reader to have other options for how to view his comments or actions.



NFla Barbara - Aug 29, 2007 8:08 am (#1072 of 2055)
Maybe that should be added to the list of "plot inconsistencies."



journeymom - Aug 29, 2007 9:23 am (#1073 of 2055)
Good point, Wynnleaf, and Barbara. There's a difference between plot inconsistencies and plot points. And in the case of James's cloak, the inconsistency isn't even relevent. Whether Dumbledore had had it for months or merely days doesn't change the fact that he still had it when Voldemort came to call on the Potters.



wynnleaf - Aug 29, 2007 11:09 am (#1074 of 2055)
And in the case of James's cloak, the inconsistency isn't even relevent. Whether Dumbledore had had it for months or merely days doesn't change the fact that he still had it when Voldemort came to call on the Potters. (journeymom)

Well, it would make a difference if DD intentionally misrepresented his use of the cloak to Harry, by reducing his report of the strong degree of interest he had in the cloak to just a few days. Further, if DD really had the cloak for a long time, while telling Harry he only had it a few days, it would add weight to the interpretation of DD that he was somewhat more cavalier with the risks of others when it came to his own plans and agendas. In this circumstance he'd kept the cloak when the Potters were in dire peril and could have potentially been attacked in any number of ways where the cloak could prove useful, all to satisfy his own curiousity in the cloak.

That's a criticism of DD in that instance either way, but it's less if he only asked for it for a day or two, versus keeping it for weeks or months.

It makes no difference, by the way, that as it turned out LV attacked in such a way that the cloak might not have been of any use. DD wouldn't know how LV might attack and the Potter's could have been helped or saved by having the cloak if LV had tried some different method of attack.



Soul Search - Aug 29, 2007 12:24 pm (#1075 of 2055)
There might be another complication to our interpretation of Dumbledore having the cloak.

Dumbledore didn't know the secret, so he got the cloak before the Fedilus Charm was performed. After the charm was performed, Dumbledore couldn't return the cloak until someone told him the secret.

Also, where is the idea Dumbledore told Harry he only had the cloak a few days coming from? I can only recall "left it in my possession," which doesn't imply any timeframe. Am I missing something?

Do we know when Lily's letter to Sirius was written? It could have been months after Harry's birthday. In fact, the "Wormy was here" reference suggests to me it was shortly before he was made secret keeper.



wynnleaf - Aug 29, 2007 12:44 pm (#1076 of 2055)
Soul Search,

In Kings Cross DD said, "James had showed it to me just a few days previously." He is speaking of just before the Potters died. Which, by the way, if DD is being completely factual, would have been after the Fidelius Charm was begun. No one ever said DD wasn't told the secret of the charm. He could have been given a note, just as he sent a note for Harry about Grimmauld Place, and the note had no signature.

However, Lily's letter seems to have been written closer to Harry's birthday. She goes through a lot of chatting about the birthday party and thanking Sirius for his gift. Surely, since Sirius was closely involved in the plans for who would be the Secret Keeper, the Potters had seen him since Harry's birthday on July 31. If Lily's letter were written only days before her death (which would be necessary if DD is correct about when he took the cloak), then the Potters didn't see Sirius at all from Harry's birthday until their deaths.

Further, Lily's letter mentions Bathilda coming over and visiting, as though that were an ongoing occurance. But if Lily was writing only a couple of days before her death, they'd be under Fidelius and Bathilda wouldn't have been dropping by.

Further, Lily says "James is getting a bit frustrated shut up here. He tries not to show it, but I can tell," and goes on to say that the reason James can't get out is because DD has the cloak. This doesn't sound at all as though Dumbledore had only borrowed the cloak in the previous day or so.

In fact, now that I think on it further, I think JKR could hardly have written Lily's letter, and Lily talking about the cloak, and somehow completely inadvertently made it sound like DD had the cloak for some time. JKR had given that as the big "never asked question." Surely she'd given a fair amount of thought into just when DD took the cloak and how long he had it. If it was fairly firmly fixed in her mind as only a few days before their deaths, how could she have written such a long letter from Lily, making it sound as though the letter was written weeks or more before their deaths and that DD had kept the cloak for some time?

This is sounding less possible to be an error, and perhaps more possible that she intended DD to be a bit deceptive in telling Harry just how long he had the cloak.



legolas returns - Aug 29, 2007 2:00 pm (#1077 of 2055)
A lame explanation could be that Dumbledore had held it for years till he gave it to Harry and could have forgotten when he actually took it. He concentrated on the fact that if the Potters had had it something different may have happend.

There is the chance that he was so busy with the Order stuff that he took it and did not look at it for a while. He suddenly realised what it was. This seems unlikely because he had been really interested in Hallows when he was younger.



Soul Search - Aug 29, 2007 3:39 pm (#1078 of 2055)
I have reviewed "King's Cross" and the context for Dumbledore telling Harry "James had showed it to me just few days previously." I can allow an imprecise "a few days" to cover the "barely a week" for the timeframe of the Fedelus Charm to Voldemort killing Lily and James. That way, Dumbledore doesn't have to have visited the Potters after the Charm was performed.

I can't stretch that to cover Lily's letter. While I do think it could have been written well after Harry's birthday, I don't see James going stir crazy in just "a few days."

So, was Dumbledore still not telling Harry "everything." All I can conclude is Dumbledore kept the cloak for a long time, perhaps wanting to keep his second Hallows forever. He couldn't admit that to Harry, even though he was dead!



Xenophilius - Aug 29, 2007 3:49 pm (#1079 of 2055)
I do not feel the chronology of Dumbledore's possession of the cloak is that important. We do know his posssesion of the cloak would not have saved James and Lily. What I think is more significant is Dumbledore gives the cloak back to Harry, its rightful owner, a few months after Harry re-enters the wizarding world.



Soul Search - Aug 29, 2007 3:57 pm (#1080 of 2055)
Xenophilius, I agree. We also may have a good reason why "It is time it was returned to you," even though giving an eleven-year-old such a thing was inviting trouble.

Maybe after your are dead, you can't do maths very well.



wynnleaf - Aug 29, 2007 4:23 pm (#1081 of 2055)
We do know his posssesion of the cloak would not have saved James and Lily.

The problem is that this is something no one would have known except in hindsight. Even DD thought the cloak was important enough as protection that he wanted Harry to carry it 24/7 his entire 6th year at Hogwarts. Yet when the Potters were being targeted by Voldemort for some sort of attack (no one knew how LV might attack them if given the chance), Dumbledore borrowed and kept the cloak for -- clearly -- longer than James was comfortable with him keeping it.

DD's decision to keep the cloak had nothing to do with thinking or knowing that it wouldn't help save the Potters in case of an attack. He had no way of knowing. For all he knew, it could have protected them. But he kept it anyway, and probably for a lot longer than a few days.



Xenophilius - Aug 29, 2007 4:28 pm (#1082 of 2055)
Voldemort would have used Homenum Revelio if the house seemed empty.



Xenophilius - Aug 29, 2007 5:43 pm (#1083 of 2055)
I've been thinking about this (always dangerous) and would like to make a couple of more points.

If James felt uncomfortable lending the cloak to Dumbledore he had the option of saying no. If he felt after he lent the cloak, that he needed it it was up to him to let Dumbledore know. He could have sent a Patronus Express to Dumbledore requesting the cloak back. (I am sure Dumbledore would have sent it back overnight via Phoenix Express.) If Dumbledore failed to return it then we could blame Dumbledore.

The Potters were a highly skilled magical couple who would have known how to use a Disillusionment Charm. Both the Charm and the Cloak would have been useless because Voldemort knew they were in the house, before the Potters were aware of his presence. The problem was they did not have time. They didn't even have time to retrieve their wands.

After reading Lily's note, James was frustrated because they were "shut up". The cloak was mentioned as an afterthought to explain why James would not be making any "little excursions".



wynnleaf - Aug 29, 2007 6:13 pm (#1084 of 2055)
Xeno,

None of this makes any difference. DD was not keeping the cloak for any sort of important reason. He was keeping it out of fascination for its being a Hallow. James probably had no idea why DD had the cloak. He could have assumed (as most of us did when JKR asked the "never asked question") that DD had some important reason, maybe Order related, to keep the cloak.

Hindsight is NO excuse for keeping a highly protective item that could have proved useful to protecting the Potters.

For instance -- just by example -- suppose they had the cloak and kept it near to Harry at all times(he being LV's target) so that at any moment a parent could grab up Harry and run out a back door covered in the cloak? All they would need is seconds to get one parent outside with Harry and they could apparate. LV wouldn't know anyone was under the cloak until after he'd checked out the house.

No cloak -- no way to dash past LV or sneak out a back door.

That's only an example. It did turn out that Harry and Lily were upstairs. But if they'd been downstairs and had the cloak nearby, they could have used it.

My point is that DD had no idea if it would prove useful or not. James probably assumed DD needed the cloak for an important purpose. Would James have stayed frustrated in his house, unable to get out without the cloak, just so DD could have some fun studying a fascinating magical item? Very likely not.



Xenophilius - Aug 29, 2007 6:33 pm (#1085 of 2055)
wynnleaf - There is nothing in the books to support this your arguement. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.



TomProffitt - Aug 29, 2007 6:42 pm (#1086 of 2055)
wynnleaf, I think DD was as blinded as the Potters to the security of the Fidelius Charm. I don't care for making excuses for people (or myself for that matter), but you're being pretty tough on Dumbledore on not much information. I think DD made other errors far more significant than this one.



rambkowalczyk - Aug 29, 2007 6:46 pm (#1087 of 2055)
I find it difficult to think that Dumbledore is going to fudge facts after he is dead.

Lily's letter seems to have been written in August and that is sufficiently more than a few days before James' death. I believe this is a mistake that might be corrected in later editions.



wynnleaf - Aug 29, 2007 7:14 pm (#1088 of 2055)
Xeno,

I'm not sure what argument you are saying is unsupported.

We know DD borrowed the cloak and we know why he borrowed it. We know DD considered it very, very useful for Harry's protection. We know the Potters were in peril of their lives. We know LV was targeting them. We know DD had no knowledge of exactly how LV would try to kill them.

What exactly do we not know?

We don't know for sure if James knew why DD had the cloak. Maybe DD actually told him that he wanted to borrow it because he'd always wished he had all the Hallows and wanted to study it for awhile just out of curiosity, and James turned it over to him because he had no better use for it. Except that he did have a use for it, as Lily shows.

So I'm not really sure what it is that I argued that's unsupported.

I said that for all DD knew the cloak could have come in handy to protect them. Since DD didn't know the future, I don't see how that's unsupported.



Mrs Brisbee - Aug 30, 2007 3:42 am (#1089 of 2055)
I can see wynnleaf's point, because it all goes back to the question of how do we read Dumbledore's personality, especially if we have to discount part of what we learn as a "mistake" on Rowling's part.



Madame Pomfrey - Aug 30, 2007 5:40 am (#1090 of 2055)
Edited Aug 30, 2007 6:22 am
I don't see how having the cloak would have helped the Potters.Voldemort knew they were there.Voldemort's spy was secret keeper.Had they been huddled under the cloak,there is no doubt in my mind that Voldemort would have used magic to find them.I also wouldn't put it past Voldemort just to blow the whole place up like Wormtail did the muggles.Also,Dumbledore had no reason to believe that the Potters were not sufficiently protected by the fidelius charm or that their secret keeper would turn out to be a traitor.

I think JKR answered this question through Harry."The cloak wouldn't have helped them survive,though.Voldemort knew where my mum and dad were.The cloak couldn't have made them curse-proof."

Another thing, Lily mentioned the cloak because James was getting restless holed up in the house. They didn't have the cloak so he couldn't sneak out. She didn't seem to be worried about safety issues.



wynnleaf - Aug 30, 2007 7:37 am (#1091 of 2055)
I repeat -- it would not have saved them as the circumstances played out, but DD could not have known that beforehand.

Dumbledore originally offered to be Secret Keeper why? Because he suspected based on spy reports that someone close to the Potters was betraying them. That means that DD knew that the Fidelius Charm protection could possibly be breached by the Secret Keeper being a traitor and passing along the info to LV.

That means DD knew that if the Secret Keeper betrayed them, LV could attack them even at Godric's Hollow.

DD could never have known that at the precise moment LV entered the house, James would be downstairs and wandless, unable to stall LV with a duel, and Lily upstairs with Harry, unable to leave the house. It could just as easily have been Lily and Harry in the downstairs floor in the back of the house and perfectly capable of secretly leaving the house just as James dueled with LV. An invisibility cloak could have helped. All they needed was to get to where they could apparate.

It makes no difference that in the actual circumstances the cloak wouldn't have helped. For all DD knew beforehand, it could have helped tremendously and he still took the cloak.

For instance, without the cloak, they couldn't leave the house. Suppose an emergency had come up and they had to leave? But without the cloak what would they do?

No, taking the cloak -- especially when just to satisfy his own fascination with the Hallows -- was wrong. To keep it any significant length of time was doubly wrong.



Mrs Brisbee - Aug 30, 2007 9:20 am (#1092 of 2055)
I have to agree with wynnleaf. The importance of Dumbledore having the Cloak is to show us something important about Dumbledore's personality. Taking the incident in that regard, it doesn't matter that the Cloak wouldn't have helped, if there was the possibility that it could have helped and Dumbledore kept it anyway. Dumbledore seems to feel a little guilty about it, as seen by Harry's reassurance to him in "King's Cross". The Hallows are a weakness of Dumbledore's. He was able to give the Cloak to Harry when Harry was just eleven, when he probably could have held on to until Harry was at least seventeen. Perhaps another small sign that Dumbledore was feeling guilty about his obsession with the Hallows, and recognized his fault.



legolas returns - Aug 30, 2007 9:33 am (#1093 of 2055)
Good thinking Wynnleaf

Not having the cloak also protected James because I am sure that he would quite happily have gone out of the house and have gone to see his friends and done some risky stuff.

This isnt an excuse for taking the cloak a number of months in advance though.



wynnleaf - Aug 30, 2007 11:37 am (#1094 of 2055)
The importance of Dumbledore having the Cloak is to show us something important about Dumbledore's personality. (Mrs Brisbee)

Excellent Mrs Brisbee. Of course! Duh! I don't know why I didn't realize that at the first, come to think of it. What other reason is there for the cloak to be a Hallow instead of some other item in the HP world. Why the cloak? Harry doesn't use it in any way other than as a typical invisibility cloak. What's the point of it being a Hallow except to show us the lengths that Dumbledore would go to in order to get his hands on another Hallow?

JKR said that the "never asked question" as to why Dumbledore had the cloak when James died was crucial. It's not crucial if it's just a triviality. DD innocently just happened to want to borrow it for a couple of days and it had no impact on anything? That's a crucial reason? No, it wouldn't have saved their lives. But the only reason to make it a Hallow that DD borrowed when they were being targeted by LV is to show us that DD wanted the Hallow so badly he'd borrow it even if it meant risking the lives of others.



Soul Search - Aug 30, 2007 12:44 pm (#1095 of 2055)
Dumbledore having the cloak also supports him not being able to resist putting on the ring without checking it for a curse.



wynnleaf - Aug 30, 2007 1:36 pm (#1096 of 2055)
Oh certainly, but it didn't have to be a protective device owned by someone Voldemort was targeting for death, did it? In other words, the 3rd Hallow could have been innocuous, as regards it's importance in the rest of the plot, if it was only to show us that there was a 3rd Hallow that DD wanted.



Mrs Brisbee - Aug 30, 2007 7:16 pm (#1097 of 2055)
Excellent Mrs Brisbee. Of course! Duh! I don't know why I didn't realize that at the first, come to think of it.--wynnleaf

Heh, I thought that was the point you were trying to make!

JKR said that the "never asked question" as to why Dumbledore had the cloak when James died was crucial. It's not crucial if it's just a triviality. DD innocently just happened to want to borrow it for a couple of days and it had no impact on anything? That's a crucial reason? No, it wouldn't have saved their lives. But the only reason to make it a Hallow that DD borrowed when they were being targeted by LV is to show us that DD wanted the Hallow so badly he'd borrow it even if it meant risking the lives of others.

I'd forgotten that Rowling had said it was "crucial". But it is true, Dumbledore's ongoing obsession with the Hallows did prove crucial. Obsession with the Stone lead to the curse and only one year to live, obsession with the power of the Wand led to Dumbledore plotting his death and Snape taking the blame.

Nothing bad happened from Dumbledore's obsession with the Cloak, but I think it bothered him that it could have. Perhaps that is why it was one Hallow he was able to give away (back to its rightful owner). Or perhaps it was the Hallow that least interested him. I forget what important symbolism was tied to each Hallow. I think I need to go take a second look at the three Hallows.



mona amon - Aug 30, 2007 9:00 pm (#1098 of 2055)
Yes, I think we are meant to see that Dumbledore had a morbid, dangerous and life long obsession with the Deathly Hallows. He is so tempted by the cloak that he deprives the Potters of it at a time when they are in need of all possible protection (Harry has to comfort him about it in King's Cross), and he succumbs to the temptation of the stone, resulting in his death. I haven't worked out the Elder Wand part yet, but I think he was a good master of the wand, did not abuse its power or anything. I feel he plotted his death with Snape mostly for other reasons, and that the power of the wand dying with him was just a bonus.

I like this new, flawed version. 'Epitome of goodness' is rather boring from a literary point of view.

Thank you both (Wynnleaf and Mrs Brisbee) for pointing out the importance (for our view of DD's personality) of Dumbledore having James' cloak. I'd have missed it by a mile.



T Vrana - Sep 4, 2007 10:22 am (#1099 of 2055)
Yes, I think we are meant to see that Dumbledore had a morbid, dangerous and life long obsession with the Deathly Hallows. He is so tempted by the cloak that he deprives the Potters of it at a time when they are in need of all possible protection

I disagree. DD was curious, but he said it was the Hallow he and Grindewald were least interested in. They only wanted it to complete the trio and perhaps hide Ariana. By the time DD borrowed it he didn't want the power and Ariana was long dead. He only had the wand because he wasn't interested in it as a Hallow, but rather in protecting it.

He did not seek the Ring, but only found it as a horcrux. Then he only put it on in the hopes of apologizing for a 130 year old mistake.

As for the Potter's needing a cloak designed for one to hide two adults and a child, why on Earth would DD assume that two memeers of the OOTP would choose to hide? He would assume they could and would apparate, not hang around under a cloak to be found by the revealing spell. Why would he assume they would carry a cloak around, rather than their wands?

James only wanted it so he could get out of the house to play, as Lily's letter indicates. He wasn't even concened enough to want to stay home with his family, so I don't think he was planning to use it as a great tool to save his family.

wynnleaf- You said earlier that Lily might have grabbed the cloak and run to a place to apparate. There was nothing stopping her from apparating from the house. Why grab a cloak, run and apparate? The only reason she didn't apparate is she didn't have a wand. Truly silly given their circumstances.

There is no scenario that makes the cloak valuable as protection when Lily and James, talented adult wizards had wands. If they weren't going to bother carrying wands, or listening to DD's warnings, how was the cloak supposed to be useful?



legolas returns - Sep 4, 2007 12:10 pm (#1100 of 2055)
Good point T Vrana. The cloak did not stop Harry getting stupified by Draco in HBP. It would have not stopped any spells.

I agree that James would have used the cloak and put himself at risk because he was bored. Dumbledore removed temptation by taking the cloak even though we knew he took it for much more selfish reasons.
avatar
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 54
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Re: Albus Dumbledore

Post  Sponsored content