[HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore (Was:Could the Stone have been Not Destroyed?)

[Andrew MacIan]

No: HPFGUIDX 35437

Greetings from Andrew!

William of Ockahm, please report for immediate jump
duty!

(I really wonder why I answered this, but since the
time is already spent, here 'tis.  Enjoy!)

--- dicentra_spectabilis_alba
<bonnie at niche-associates.com> wrote:
{snip} of some previous commentary in re HP being
permitted/encouraged to do dangerous things...this in
an effort to 'prove' Prof D is, perhaps,  'evil'.

> Dumbledore not only knew Harry would go after the
> stone, he set the
> whole thing up so that Harry *could*. This is why, I
> believe:
> 

Could != permit; neither does it, IMO/E, imply that
Prof D 'knew' that Harry would go after the Stone.

However, let's progress.

> 1. It cannot be a coincidence that Harry was with
> Hagrid when he
> recovered the stone. Dumbledore sent Hagrid to
> collect Harry and get
> the stone at the same time.

Really?  It *can not*?  I beg to differ in that,
whilst Hagrid was dispatched to do both
simultaneously, the actions were potentially in
parallel.  There is at least some chance that Harry
would not either be with Hagrid every nanosecond that
both were in the Gringotts, or would be able to make
out what it was that Hagrid removed from the vault. 
Unless, if course, one imputes precise precognitive
powers to Prof D.  In my view, he's *good*, but not
that good.

> 2. It is also no coincidence that the stone was
> retrieved the day
> Quirrell broke into Gringotts.

Concur, but this is, of course, seen in retrospect.

> Dumbledore must have
> known what had
> happened to Quirrell in Albania and what Voldemort
> was up to.

I have a hard time with this.  What's Prof D's
logic/motivation for letting the (figurative)
anti-christ set up shop on his campus?

> He
> brought the stone to Hogwarts to protect it, yes,
> but he also knew
> Voldemort would follow it. Perfect opportunity to
> let Harry confront him.

{sigh}  Same question:  Why would Prof D *do* this?

> 
> 3. As has been mentioned, the Mirror of Erised was
> the only real
> protection the stone had. Quirrell and Voldemort
> would have no problem
> getting through the other kinds of "protection"
> surrounding the stone
> (though it did slow them down some). The mirror was
> kind of a monkey
> trap--you can't pull your hand out until you let go
> of the fruit--that
> Voldemort could never foil.

Concur, but only because of the actual *condition*
Prof D placed on it: If you wan it *to use*, you
cannot have it.

 
> 4. Dumbledore gave Harry the Cloak of Invisibility
> for Christmas,
> telling him to "use it wisely." What could that mean
> except "go
> roaming about the school after hours to figure out
> this mystery"? 

Oh, I dunno...how about simple self-defense, just for
a start?  And for a *much* simpler reason?

> 
> 5. It's therefore no coincidence that Harry found
> the Mirror of
> Erised.

Erm.  Excluded middle, I think.

> After Dumbledore tells Harry how the mirror
> works, he says
> "The Mirror will be moved to a new home tomorrow,
> Harry, and I ask you
> not to go looking for it again. If you ever do run
> across it, you will
> now be prepared." At the time, Harry probably
> thought the last
> sentence meant that he wouldn't waste away in front
> of it, but I think
> he was referring to the confrontation with
> Voldemort.

Possibly, but again I don't see the same motive(s) in
Prof D's actions that you do.

> (And, by the
> way, the stone was probably in the mirror the whole
> time (even before
> Christmas?), "unprotected" by the other spells.)

{shrug}  Unknown.  Unprovable.

> 
> 6. Some have suggested, with reason, that the tests
> required the
> cooperation of all three to pass and were
> deliberately set up this
> way. The only test that didn't have this quality was
> the troll, which
> Dumbledore knew would have been defeated by Quirrell
> before Harry met
> up with it.

Too tenuous, but let's go forward....

> 
> 7. That the test was ultimately meant for Harry
> alone is shown in
> Snape's potions test. Only one person can make it
> through to the
> mirror. Dumbledore counted on that one person being
> Harry. (If no one
> was meant to get to the stone, ALL the vials would
> contain poison.)

Well..not to me.  It was patent that it was meant for
ONE person, but not one *given* person.  Again, you
multiply entities without reason, IMO.

> 
> 8. Dumbledore was counting on Harry to figure out
> where the stone was
> and who was after it.

Again...WHY HARRY?  What's Prof D's motive in pitting
a 13 year old child against the most powerful Dark
wizard in the world?

> When Harry asks him later
> about the fate of
> Nicolas Flamel, he brightens up: "Oh, you know about
> Nicolas?" said
> Dumbledore, sounding quite delighted. "You *did* do
> the thing
> properly, didn't you?" The "thing" was the mystery
> Dumbledore had set
> up for Harry.

Again.,..this is after the fact, and appears to be a
post hoc fallacy.

> 
> 9. It's possible that Dumbledore was not fooled in
> the least by the
> fake MoM message, instead understanding that
> Quirrell was making his
> move. He "leaves" Hogwarts, but he probably doesn't
> go far. (He tells
> Harry that he makes it as far as London, but I
> wonder...) As Hermione
> later recounts "we were dashing up to the owlery to
> contact Dumbledore
> when we met him in the entrance hall--he already
> knew--he just said,
> 'Harry's gone after him, hasn't he?' and hurtled off
> to the third floor."

Nothing like a blinding flash of insight *after* the
pieces fall into place, yes?

> 
> 10. Ron then asks, "D'you think he meant you to do
> it? Sending you
> your father's cloak and everything?" Harry responds
> (after Hermione's
> obligatory horrified reaction), "I think he sort of
> wanted to give me
> a chance. I think he knows more or less everything
> that goes on here,
> you know. I reckon he had a pretty good idea we were
> going to try, and
> instead of stopping us, he just taught us enough to
> help. I don't
> think it was an accident he let me find out how the
> mirror worked.
> It's almost like he thought I had the right to face
> Voldemort if I
> could...." I don't think this is Harry?s personal
> interpretation. I
> think this is JKR's message to the reader.
> 
> I wondered what would possess Dumbledore to not only
> allow, but to
> arrange for, a first-year student to confront
> Voldemort (weak, yes,
> but Quirrell wasn't). He must have known that
> Quirrell wouldn't be
> able to touch Harry because the spell that protected
> him against AK in
> the first place was still working. But as he says,
> "I feared I might
> be too late.... For one terrible moment there, I was
> afraid [the
> effort to keep Quirrell off you had killed you]." Ah
> well, I guess
> that there is no reward without risk. But what a
> risk!

Whilst I agree with you in the effect/outcome, I
really  wonder why Prof D would gamble so heavily on
so many unknowns having to come out *exactly* right.

In the end, Harry prevails-- and a good thing it is,
too!-- but I still find unproven the notion that (1)
Prof D did all of this deliberately and thus (2) Prof
D is somehow 'evil' for having so allowed it to occur.

> 
> --Dicentra, who's always glad to enlighten the
> masses :)

Cheers,

Drieux


=====
ICQ # 76184391

'Each game of chess means there's one less
      Variation left to be played;
 Each day got through means one or two less
      Mistakes remain to be made.'
      --'Chess' by Sir Tim Rice

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com