killing voldemort/ polyjuice affecting personality?dumbledore cold&calculating?

[Kimberly]

No: HPFGUIDX 14275

Someone wrote (sorry, I thought I'd kept the name, but I can't find 
it now):
<<How about this: Snape dies in the middle of BK. 7 to help Harry to
> escape back to Hogwarts; (thus giving Harry (and JKR) plenty of time
> to milk all possible angst out of it) Harry blame himself because if
> only he had used the killing curse on V, Snape would have been 
saved;
> big V attacks Hogwarts; tries to use the killing curse on either Ron
> or Hermione and this time Harry seizes the chance ...>>

Rebecca replied:

<<Except by using the Avada Kedavra curse on Voldemort, Harry would 
be no better than V. himself.  Using the Dark Arts (and that *is* 
what Avada Kedavra is, no question of it) to defeat the enemy would 
be unthinkable,both in terms of the moral framework of JKR's story 
and also in terms of the legal ramifications in the wizarding world 
<snip> 
In the end I think that one way or an other, V.'s own evil is going 
to turn against him and destroy him.<snip>  
That's the only kind of ending I can see really fitting in with the 
moral framework JKR has constructed up to this point.  She's already 
taken pains to point out to us in several places that love is 
stronger than evil and that forgiveness and mercy are powerful 
things -- I can't see her suddenly turning around in Book VI and 
saying, "But hey, it's OK for Harry to kill Voldemort because V.'s a 
really bad guy.">>

I agree with this completely.  I can't imagine that JKR would have 
pointed out that Crouch Sr approved the use of the unforgiveable 
curses against dark wizards but that (the real) Moody wouldn't use 
them if she meant for Harry to use them later.  It too clearly said 
to me that she feels that the ends do *not* justify those means.
So thanks, Rebecca, for expressing this for me.  I'd been trying to 
explain why the idea bugged me so much, and you explained it better 
than I could have managed.  If it did end with - "oh, well, it's okay 
to kill somebody if they're really BAD" without giving me a really 
really really good reason to accept the change in outlook, I think 
I'd be more disappointed than if Harry died, Hermione married Filch, 
Ginny became a magical porn star and Ron moved into the toilet with 
Myrtle.

I guess I find poetic justice (like you said above, his own evil will 
do him in somehow) more satisfying than vigilante justice.

On polyjuice potion:
Margaret Dean wrote:

<<It makes me wonder about the effects of using a Polyjuice Potion
> long-term, and how much of the false "Moody" actually =was= Moody 
and not an act.  Harry and Ron only stayed in Crabbe and Goyle form 
for an hour.  What would have happened if they'd kept it up?  Would 
they start "being" Crabbe and Goyle in more than just outward form?>>

I don't think that can be.  If Crouch Jr. was 'becoming' Moody as 
early as the Imperio lesson, I can't imagine that by the time of the 
3rd task there'd have been enough of Jr. left to actually go through 
with the plan.  Unless, of course, he was periodically reverting back 
to himself, I guess..  Hard to say.

 


On to Dumbledore now:

CMC wrote (and by the way, awesome character sketch thingy - lots of 
thought-provoking going on!):

<<At the same time, there is a calculating, ruthless side to 
Dumbledore that I think is best illuminated at the beginning of the 
story, when he chooses not to reveal why Harry must be raised by the 
cruel and petty Dursleys. Dumbledore strongly downplays their 
Muggleness, not sharing with either McGonagall or Hagrid the true 
nature of that family. When Hagrid finally meets Harry, he is clearly 
shocked - he expected Harry to be at least somewhat informed on his 
wizard heritage (and just who was responsible for not informing him 
> accurately?)>>

And then:
<<1. We all remember the chilling scene in GoF, when Barty Crouch Jr. 
> explains to Harry how each of his actions as Moody was coldly 
> calculated to advance Voldemort's agenda.  Will there someday be a 
> parallel scene where Dumbledore will explain his own coldly 
> calculated behind-the-scenes maneuverings to Harry?>>

meboriqua at a... replied:

<<Gosh, I just don't see Dumbledore that way at all.  Besides, aren't 
we making asumptions by describing him as cold and calculating?  I am 
a strong supporter of Dumbledore, but I don't think he knows 
everything!  
I believe that Dumbledore likes to give people the chance to learn on 
their own whenever possible, and Harry, more than anyone, can 
capitalize on that.  So far, he is one of Dumbledore's biggest 
success stories. >>

I agree with this assessment.  First, I don't believe that Dumbledore 
knew the Dursleys would be so terrible.  Nor that Mrs. Figg knew 
fully what was being done to Harry.  She clearly never broached the 
subject of being a wizard with him, or he'd have remembered it at 
some point.  All we know is that she occasionally babysat him.  
Harry's not big on sharing, and the Dursley's aren't about to 
advertise the fact that they're abusive (sticks out nearly as much as 
having magic in the family, after all.  Not very muggle-respectable).
Dumbledore, Hagrid and McGonagall all knew they were muggles, but 
there's nothing to say that any of them knew they were cruel and 
horrible muggles before Hagrid met them in person.  I still believe 
the blood relationship played a part in keeping Harry safe, and that, 
coupled with the desire to sheild him from his fame in the wizarding 
world, was the main impetus for leaving him with the Dursleys.  
I don't think Dumbledore purposely left Harry with a pair of abusive 
cretins, and while he may have come to realize at some point that 
they were less than the ideal foster parents for Harry, their home 
was, for some reason, the safest place for him to be.  And as for the 
invisibility cloak... it belonged to Harry.  His father left it for 
him, and while Dumbledore may have been pleased that Harry made use 
of it, it wasn't for him to keep it from Harry anyway.

<< 5. Voldy loves nothing more than to talk about himself (see 
Chapters 32-34 in GoF).   By contrast, most of what we know of 
Dumbledore's past was on the back of a trading card.  What is the 
significance of Dumbledore's consistent refusal to talk about himself?
>>

Refusal sounds to me like an overstatement.  The mirror of erised 
question, as Harry realized later, was a very personal question, and 
therefore it would be reasonable for someone not to answer (although 
he may have told the truth, we don't know) directly.  If he really 
didn't want anyone to know anything about his past, then it *would* 
be rather strange if he deliberately allowed Harry to see into his 
pensieve.  Not that I'm sure he did that on purpose, as he'd have had 
to know ahead of time that Harry would be there, and that he would 
notice the cupboard open, and that of all the things inside the 
cupboard, he'd snoop into the pensieve, and...
Of course he may have left it open sort of on the off-chance, and 
been pleased that Harry *did* find it.  I wouldn't rule that out.  

I guess what I'm saying is that I think Dumbledore is human.  I think 
he's a very wise human, but I don't think that he's been coldly 
manipulating Harry's every move since 1981.  If he were, Harry would 
be less interesting than Pinnochio, and we could've just called the 
stories 'Albus Dumbledore and the ...'.
I do think he's as sly/clever as he is wise, however, and I'm sure 
he's done whatever he could behind the scenes to help Harry learn 
what he needs to learn.  I think he has allowed Harry to go into 
dangerous situations, but I don't think he's ever deliberately 
manipulated an unknowing Harry into such danger.  I guess I base that 
on the way he was in GoF with Sirius, Severus, Hagrid, etc.  He asked 
each of them to go into dangerous situations to help the cause, but 
not without them each fully understanding the implications.  I don't 
think he's pure as the driven snow, but neither do I think he uses 
people to his own ends.  It just doesn't jive with what I know of 
JKR's world.  The Crouch Srs of her world do that sort of thing, not 
the Dumbledores.  Of coures, maybe that's my world I've created from 
hers, but for now, I'm sticking with it ;)


<<10. Dumbledore tells Harry that the one thing Voldemort cannot 
> understand is love.  Does Dumbledore understand love?  How does he 
> demonstrate (or fail to demonstrate) it?>>

Depends on how you define love, I guess.  I like the definition in 
the Bible, so going by that, I think he does pretty well.  He's 
reasonably patient and kind, not particularly envious or boastful, 
not proud or rude or self-seeking, he isn't easily angered (Harry 
says he never saw him truly angry until he charged in at Crouch Jr. 
In GoF, I think).  And he has demonstrated with Snape and with others 
that he keeps no record of wrongs.  Doesn't delight in evil, our 
Dumbledore.  The rejoicing with the truth... that one might be 
debatable, I guess, as Caius did make a pretty good case, but "always 
protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perserveres..." seem to 
be at least fairly in-character for him.

Even if I don't go by that definition, I do very much believe that he 
understands love.  I think he demonstrates it with Hagrid most 
especially.  His patience and fatherly care for Hagrid for all these 
years are one of the more touching aspects of the books for me.  I 
can't imagine what would have become of Hagrid had Dumbledore not 
taken him under his wing.  Hagrid is the type of person who, yes, 
tends to make foolish mistakes, but who, given the chance, will live 
up to expectations of him or die trying.  Dumbledore saw that in him, 
and chose to hold high expectations for him (see his resonse to 
McGonagall at Privet Drive).  I also believe the time and council he 
gives to Harry are quite loving.

So I guess the possibility is that I'm just an emotional sap who 
wants to believe in the goodness of people.  Oh well, if I'm 
delusional, at least I'm happy *handspringing across the room making 
whoop whoop noises a la Daffy Duck*

Kimberly