Dumbledore's integrity (was Prophecy problems)

[Kirstini]

No: HPFGUIDX 79280

First there was me, and I wrote:
>>> Also, remember that DD controls the version of the prophecy that 
Harry hears, and all those pauses at least offer the possibility that 
what he shows Harry is edited.>>>

Then there was Salit, and he wrote: 
>> That would make sense except that it would make Dumbledore an
outright liar. He told Harry at the beginning of their conversation
that he would "tell him everything". Since he has always shown
himself an honorable man, I am sure what we have seen is the entire
prophecy.>> 

Then there were a whole bunch of people, and they wrote a series of 
posts agreeing with this assesment.
<sighs>
I must confess myself a little disappointed by the willingness of 
people on this thread to take Dumbledore at face value. I'm not 
necessarily rooting for a revival of ESE!DD, but I did expect to warm 
the cockles of at least a couple of sceptics out there. I'm not 
entirely sure that Dumbledore has ever conducted himself with the 
integrity you attribute to him, much less that the section of the 
prophecy Harry has seen correalates to any objective truth simply 
because Dumbledore *says* it does.
Salit, had Dumbledore really told Harry "everything", would the 
readers be left making up their own, numerous, conflicting 
interpretations of the prophecy? You yourself agreed with me that 
many questions about Harry's ultimate destiny remain unanswered by 
it. 
(Me:
>>> Don't forget, OoP still hasn't resolved the problem of why James 
had to die and Lily didn't. I still think there's *something* about 
those Potters.>>>
Salit:
>>I agree. I think there was a good reason why Harry was selected
and not Neville. I don't believe it was random. But we won't find
out until book 7...>>)

The fact that Sirius describes Harry as "the last of the Potters"
suggests to me that he has some sort of information about the 
bloodline of the family and its importance to Voldemort that Harry 
and the reader still don't.  And would Order member Sirius really 
have kept this information from his boss? If we can assume that DD 
has this information, and Harry doesn't, then it's not to big a step 
to get to the assumption that he *hasn't* told him everything. 
And I'm not sure about that "proved himself an honourable man" bit, 
either. Remember, in the same scene, DD admits that while not 
actually *lying* to Harry previously, he has been somewhat economical 
with the truth.

Salit again:   
>>Why otherwise would Dumbledore hire her and keep her at Hogwarts 
despite being a total incompetent? Why would he order her to stay at 
Hogwarts even after she is fired? Clearly he fears that Voldemort 
will capture her and extract the prophecy from her subconscious 
memory. Now that the record in the DoM is destroyed, this is probably 
what Voldemort will attempt to do (and I expect that he may very well 
succeed)>>

Aah, that's more like it! Dumbledore keeps her at Hogwarts because he 
has an *agenda*. Because I think what people often forget about DD is 
that he isn't really a twinkly-eyed old grandfather with a pocket-
full of Werther's Originals. He's a spymaster and tactician. (Please 
see the mummy of all MAGIC DISHWASHER posts, Pip's "The Spying Game": 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39662 for more.) 
He exerts a huge amount of control over the narrative of each book, 
and tends to reveal this control, almost gloatingly, in his annual 
end-of-term interview with Harry. People in this sort of position 
often have to play people like pawns and act ruthlessly, even if 
they're working for a greater good, as I'm sure Dumbledore is. 
(Although not everyone is convinced - another Fantastic Post to have 
a look at on this topic is Talisman's "Dumbledore is GUILTY!": 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/66983)
 I think it's important to remember that the series seems to be 
increasingly directing our attention towards the fact that no human 
being is infallible, and that human characters are not fixed and 
easily comprehensible. An alternative reading of Dumbledore's actions 
throughout the books can make him seem astonishingly cold-blooded at 
times. Listies have debated endlessly the extent of his knowledge of 
Quirrell's plot in PS, and the moral implications of his complicity 
in Harry's involvement. He's certainly not as closed a book as you 
make him out to be. 

Kirstini
(who, incidentally, would like to point out that Dumbledore keeping 
Trelawny at Hogwarts after her sacking does not in itself prove that 
she keeps knowledge of her real prophecies in her subconscious. 
Trelawny is one of the other people able to pick the prophecy up from 
the Dpt of Mysteries.
However, it has just occurred to me that Harry if Pensieves really 
are objective, Harry may be able to review his memory of the point 
when it broke and actually listen to what Ghosty Sybill has to say. 
And I find that thought oddly comforting.