[HPforGrownups] Re: Riddle's popularity/Dumbledore and evil (was re: Dicu...

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 37663


Shayla quotes me (Eloise):

> >That's interesting isn't it? I'd never really though about the significance
> >of Hogwarts having a head boy from Slytherin: we see the Slytherins so much
> >from Harry's POV that it seems inconceivable. But no, evidently not.>

Shayla:

> Well, not really. We have no idea what makes a head boy yet. Percy was one, 
> which implies that it takes great dedication to your studies and obedience 
> to rules. Slytherins, in their great ambition, could conceivably apply 
> themselves quite assiduously to their studies. If Ravenclaws are motivated 
> by a yearning for knowledge, then Slytherins are motivated by the 
> calculation of a means to an end. Knowledge is power after all.
> 
> which is not to say that there aren't other factors to being head boy. All 
> we know is that Tom, Bill, James and Percy were. Does the sorting hat pick 
> 

Agreed. This was merely a preamble to discussing his popularity. I think it 
is highly unlikely though, that an *unpopular* student would be chosen as 
Head Boy. 
I am also intrigued by the way so many people seem to think that academic 
excellence is a requirement for being Head Boy. Evidently one must be able 
enough that the extra duties will not compromise academic studies, but I am 
under the impression that, at least here in the UK, it is personal qualities, 
including responsibility, leadership skills and the ability to work well both 
with staff and fellow students which are the most important factors. <stands 
by for deluge of experiences of rotten Head Boys/ Girls who displayed none of 
the above>

Shayla:
   as for Dumbledore himself, I have to disagree with your comment about him
> knowing that Tom Riddle had framed Hagrid. Dumbledore really appears in the 
> books to be omniscient, but there is ,
> clear evidence that he is not. he did not know about mwpp being animagi
> and he didn't realize his own defense against the dark arts teacher was an 
> imposter for *months*. no, the man may be very aware of what happens within 
> his school, but he does not know everything. he may very well have 
> *suspected* that there was something amiss with Tom riddle, but with a 
> complete lack of evidence in Hagrid's defense, and probably with the 
> opinion of the school board about teaching a half giant anyway, he may have 
> 

Eloise:
I have never suggested that Dumbledore *is * omniscient, merely (in other 
posts) that he gives an impression of near omniscience. However Riddle 
himself thinks that Dumbledore was onto him:

' " Only the Transfiguration teacher, Dumbledore, seemed to think Hagrid was 
innocent. He persuaded Dippet to keep Hagrid and train him as gamekeeper. 
Yes, I think Dumbledore might have guessed. Dumbledore never seemed to like 
me as much as the other teachers did..." ' (CoS, UK, 230).

I think perhaps Kel, who originally raised this point and I are both a bit 
guilty of over-egging the pudding, as clearly, Dumbledore *did* do something: 
he enabled Hagrid to stay at Hogwarts. But the system rewarded Riddle and 
that was the original point. The innocent still got punished and the 
evil-doer still got rewarded.

Take the Aragog/ Basilisk incident out of the equation, if you wish. I still 
find Dumbledore strangely ambiguous as the apparent embodiment of goodness/ 
justice in the series. 

The issue of what he knows is also intriguing. We know that Dumbledore has 
problems containing all his thoughts, hence his use of the pensieve. I have 
long had the feeling that there are some areas in which he does choose to 
employ a near omniscience, and others where he chooses to remain in 
ignorance. The secret doings of the Marauders would be an example of the 
latter.

His ignorance, like the issues of his goodness and justice can also be 
worrying and I wonder if this can be related to my speculations in my last 
post about an awareness of a predestined plan working itself out. Perhaps not 
investigating Crouch/ Moody and Quirrell is an aspect of this. Perhaps he 
only chooses to know that which is both important and which he can (and 
should) do something about. From our perspective not knowing about those two 
was a major omission, but I think his perspective's a whole lot different 
from ours.

Eloise (probably not making any sense to anyone but herself).



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]