Gandalf and the Dishwasher/Enough is enough (for now)

[fun_n_games_2663]

No: HPFGUIDX 47595

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grey Wolf" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:

> The basic stumblicng block I have with your theory is exactly 
that 
> Gandalf parallelism. As you have mentioned, Gandalf had been 
> forbidden 
> to take a direct hand in the affairs of men due to his condition 
of 
> semi-god which wasn't actually part of Middle Earth (or something 
> along 
> those lines; I am not particularly knowledgable in Middle Earth 
> theory). What is stopping Dumbledore, then? There has been no 
> mention 
> of Higher powers forbidding Dumbledore to act, and we know he 
*has* 
> participated in the past (i.e. Grindewald). Introducing a 
superior 
> being at this point would be premature, unless you take hold of 
> metathinking and reduce it to "I don't think JKR plans Dumbledore 
> to 
> participate in this war". At which point we would separate ways, 
> because I don't think so (this is pretty obvious, if anyone has 
> read my 
> views on MD).

Lucky Kari also weighed in with a similar concern.
 
I would like to explain that I have no delusions that Dumbledore is 
an angel or a god or anything else not of this world 
(and, yes, I know that Gandalf is Maiar, but I don't want to 
debate exactly what that is).  I only referenced Gandalf to give you 
the picture of how I perceive that Dumbledore wishes to "sit this one 
out" so to speak, but to train and counsel others on the specific 
requirements of fighting the dark forces.  I think he is doing this 
because he feels that someone has to be trained to take his place 
when he goes.  150 is old even in the Potterverse.  He is not going 
to be around forever to defeat the Grindewalds of the world.

Grey Wolf continues:
> 
> As Harry himself mentions at the end of PS, it is very possible 
> that 
> Dumbledore used that oportunity to further Harry's education in a 
> practical way: facing Voldemort once again. Without going into 
> Melody's 
> variant of first shot at destroying Voldemort, Harry needed that 
> oportunity to learn about Voldemort, which is not the sort of 
thing 
> that can be taught to him "in theory". By facing him, he was 
facing 
> his 
> fears, learning about himself (his protection, his parents, etc.) 
> and 
> learning about the person who desperately wants to kill him. 
Which 
> is 
> always useful, in an information war. Note that this fits both 
> theories: MD!Dumbledore was definetely playing the teacher all 
> along, 
> since he was hiding someplace nearby, ready to rescue Harry if 
> things 
> got out of hand (which, not surprisingly, they did).
> 
Now me: 

I agree with this analysis.  I also agree that it fits both 
theories.  I think PS was a "learning tool" for Harry, and he 
passed with flying colors.

Grey Wolf continues:
>  
> 
> This hasn't been particularly analized by MD, to tell the truth - 
> it is 
> not something Dumbledore could've planned, since he didn't know 
> about 
> the diary, and it is still uncertain whether Voldemort himself 
> planned 
> it (if it wasn't, then it's not part of MD, really). So, leaving 
MD 
> for 
> a while, you have to realise that DUmbledore probably knows that 
> only 
> someone with the capabilities of a heir could enter the chamber 
> (which 
> would explain why no-one else had been able to find it). Since 
> Dumbledore suspects that Riddle aka Voldemort was the last heir, 
> and 
> that Harry has part of his powers, he might have been using Harry 
> to 
> get someone into the chamber. But since he's not a cruel person, 
he 
> also has something prepared to get him out of trouble in case he 
> succeds in finding the place (i.e. the hat and the pheonix). 
Going 
> back 
> to MD for a moment, part of the addendums I vaguely recall (I 
need 
> that 
> unifying post as much as anyone else) is that Dumbledore always 
has 
> something ready to help Harry is things go seriously wrong 
>(himself in PS, Fawkes & SH in CoS, Snape in PoA's SS, Harry himself 
>in PoA's 
> Dementor Dementia, but none in GG - because he didn't see it 
coming 
> [yes, I like using double letters for situations in the books. It 
> keeps 
> with JKR's style]).
> 
Now me:
 
I agree again!  "Counselor" Dumbledore is training Harry.  He 
doesn't necessarily know what evil lurks each year, but he figures it 
out and then lets Harry go about learning it and attempting to solve 
it.  Of course, Dumbldore is available to lend assistance if 
required.  This concept, as you say, does not carry through to GoF, 
where I think Dumbledore was caught unaware by the plot cooked up by 
LV.  It just so happened that Harry had been trained up pretty well 
by the time of GoF, and survived on his own.

Grey Wolf continues:

> As many others, you seem to forget that Dumbledore is not playing 
a 
> chess game *at all* - not even in MAGIC DISHWASHER. Voldemort and 
> Dumbledore are fighting an information war, which means that the 
> one 
> who gets to know more about the enemy while hiding his own moves 
> will 
> win. Just like Dumbledore was able to fool Voldemort into using 
the 
> potion, Voldemort was able to slip one of his DEs into 
Dumbledore's 
> plac without him noticing. Good spies are, by definition, 
difficult 
> to 
> catch (the bad ones are dead).
> 
> Also, in relation with the free choices: Dumbledore does not make 
> any 
> of his allies choices, except indirectly. Let me explain that: 
you 
> can 
> read through all (pro-)MD posts and you'll never see a reference 
to 
> Dumbledor forcing decisions on his allies. He does indeed make 
> decisions for his enemies, but that's the core of any good plan: 
to 
> get 
> your enemy to do what *you* want, not what they would want.
> 
> How does he make choices indirectly? By education, of course. 
Many 
> of 
> your "free choices" are based on you education: of morality, of 
> logic, 
> of options, etc. Now, don't misunderstand me: I believe that 
those 
> are 
> still free choices, but they have been tainted by the morality of 
> those 
> that have taught you, especially in school years (and even more 
at 
> the 
> onset of puberty, which is when you are given the heavy moral 
> education). If you check some of the posts on MD morality, you 
will 
> see 
> that it is a basic position that Dumbledore hopes that Harry will 
> make 
> the right choices (if he had allowed Lupin and Black to kill 
Peter, 
> that particular plan would've fallen around Dumbledor's ears, 
> especially since Snape was no longer in charge).
> 
Now me:

Once again, I agree with almost all of this analysis.  The one 
thing I disagree with is that I believe that MD has to assume that 
Dumbledore thinks ahead to what he beieves his opponent's next move 
is, e.g. to concoct a potion to give V back his body, and then 
plots a countermove, e.g. to get V to use a defective potion.  In my 
mind, this constitutes Chess Theory or Gamesmanship.  My point here 
is that Counselor!Dumbledore may not know what the evil side is 
cooking up ahead of time, but is usually smart enough to figure it 
out ahead of our heros.  He usually then leads them along the path to 
realization and provides them with the tools necessary to win the 
battle.  I agree that it is up to them to make the choice to act.  As 
I say, I think that in GoF, Dumbledore slipped.  He didn't know who 
the spy was, he didn't didn't know they would try to steal Harry for 
the potion, and it is only because of Harry's training in the first 
three years that he successfully escaped V in the graveyard.  This is 
why I think the 4th book is a pivotal novel.  It is the first time 
Harry was really on his own (no help from Dumbledore) and succeeded.
 
Grey Wolf continues:
>  
> Thus, MAGIC DISHWASHER, and evcerything else we want to draw from 
> canon 
> that is not canon itself is a theory OR a hypothesis. What it is 
> not is 
> a tautology, a theorem, a truth or Gospel (as Russ said).
> 
> Hope that helps,
> 
> Grey Wolf, who would like to use this oportunity to thank all 
those 
> people who wrote to me after that hellishly long post yesterday 
to 
> tell 
> me you liked it. You know who you are, and I'm very grateful for 
> it - 
> it was very hard (and long) to write, and it's nice to know 
someone 
> actually listens.
 
Now me: 
 
If it wasn't clear from my last post, I would like to say the MD is 
an excellent theory.  And theory it is, although we could call it 
speculation or hypothesis as well.  One of the reasons I posted the 
Couselor!Dumbledore theory was to point out that different theories 
can coexist until one is proven wrong.  In the meantime, we can 
have wonderful fun debating our theories and using canon to support 
them.  One does not have to be right and the other wrong.  The only 
judge of what is right or wrong at this point is JKR.  For my part, I 
look forward to lively debate on the topic.  A lively debate, 
however, does not include personal attacks. 

In discussing theory, I'm always reminded of Monty Python and the 
Holy Grail--the "How do you know she is a witch?" scene.  We burn 
witches, so they must be made of wood.  If they are made of wood, 
they will float.  Instead of drowning her to prove she is not a 
witch, though, we can compare her to a duck, which also floats.  
Thus, if she is heavier than a duck, she is not a witch.  Theory?-
yes.  Funny?-yes.  True? of course not--we all know witches don't 
really burn, but use a freezing spell and only pretend to burn!
 

Russ--Fun_n_games.