Dumbledore and Favoritism in CoS

[Grey Wolf <greywolf1@jazzfree.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51376

Tom Wall wrote:
> But Fawkes? Nope. Fawkes clearly is acting of his own
> accord, or else under orders from Dumbledore. 
> Harry in no way "uses" Fawkes. 
> 
> And without Fawkes, Harry would have been toast.

Let me put it this way: if Fawkes was all that was needed to destroy 
the basilisk, why didn't Dumbledore send it immediately after the first 
attack? Since Fawkes did all the work, there was no need to wait for a 
12-year-old to piece eveything toghether, did it?

No - don't answer that last question. After all, we all know the 
answer.

The fact is that Fawkes was *not* the panacea (or elixir of life <g>). 
Harry *had* to be there, and it was Harry that caused the entire 
situation. The fact that Fawkes saved Harry's life doesn't make Harry's 
act less valid. If instead of Fawkes, Harry had carried with him a 
mirror shield (like the appropiate Greek Hero - can't remember which 
one right now) and an anti-venom with him, Fawkes would've been 
unnecesary. Which means that Fawkes was nothing but an instrument, even 
though he moves in its own accord.

> GREY WOLF WRITES:
> Being there is an achivement in its own.
> 
> I REPLY:
> Nope, totally disagree there. This seems to be a 
> prevalent line of thought from several posters on 
> this list. For the record, "existence," IMHO, 
> is not action, unless breathing and sleeping are 
> actions. Which, to be uber-technical, they are, but 
> not in the spirit of the word. And without action, 
> there's no merit for points.

Let me give you a quote:
(talking about dinosaurs)
Recent Runes: "When they come to write the history of this world, this 
is the page everyone will skip.  Terribly dull lizards, they'll be 
called.  You mark my words." 
Rincewind: "They have stayed around for a hundred million years, sir." 
Recent Runes: "And what have they done?  Is there a single line of 
poetry?  A building of any sort?  A piece of simple artwork?" 
Rincewind: "They've just not died, sir." 
Recent Runes: "Not dying out is some kind of achievement, is it?" 
Rincewind: "Best kind there is, sir."
	Ian Stewart, Jack Cohen and Terry Pratchett, Science of Discworld

Existing and surviving *is* the greatest achivement there is, from a 
certain point of view. But never mind that - in this case "being there" 
has the same value of "standing to Voldemort" in the PS - it takes a 
lot of courage to go look for a basilisk. The fact that Ron went along 
is already an achivement, because, when push comes to shove, it is our 
intentions that count, and Ron would've gone to the end if it wasn't 
for the bloccked passage.

> Look, this brings me to a larger point: as a reader, I too can find a 
> million and one reasons why HHR are brave, loyal, independent, 
> selfless, civic-minded heroes who are deserving of every House Cup, 
> every Quidditch Cup, and every award Hogwarts can offer, plus the 
> Order of Merlin First Class to boot. That's *easy.* Anyone with
> a copy of the books could do this without any independent thought 
> whatsoever, because that's precisely what we're *supposed* to be 
> thinking.
> 
> In other words, defending Harry is not a difficult task, since JKR 
> has already made the case more eloquently than any of us could: 
> because she deliberately wrote the books from that exact perspective.
> 
> So, although I really appreciate the amount of time and effort that 
> goes into such a great post as Catherine's "In Defense of Harry," it 
> strikes me as the *one* thing that's not needed. That's, after all, 
> what the entire series is. One big seven-book long story of Harry.
> 
> And that's fine. As I said, I love the books, and I love HHR. And, 
> you'll be surprised to find out that Dumbledore is one of my favorite 
> characters, because, mostly, of his wisdom, and also his sense of 
> humor.
> 
> But it's *boring* to always take that perspective. If I wanted that 
> perspective, I wouldn't be on this list. I'd be re-reading the series 
> all the time, which, ironically, I am anyways. ;-)  It's much more 
> interesting to try to look at things another way. And I'll I'm doing 
> here is pointing out that there is a very compelling case to be 
> made against Dumbledore... and that it seems likely to me that she's 
> doing it for a reason which we'll become privy to in subsequent 
> installments
> 
> -Tom

OK, let me see if I've got this straight - you are telling me that, 
since defending Harry and co. and Dumbledore is easy, we should all 
just play dead when you come along putting them down? I'm sorry, but I 
will never do that. I am in this list because I hold opinions in the 
theme of HP. Opinions that are not always universal (see the MD wars 
for examples of what I'm talking about). There is no need to go out of 
my way to expose theories that I don't believe in and, what is more, I 
will *always* defend my own viewpoint, unless I feel that whomever is 
against me is being silly (in which case, I can't be bothered). But 
that adendum is unnecesary, so far, in your case, so as long as I 
continue to have arguments I *will* defend what I believe to be 
correct. And in this case, I believe that Harry earned every single one 
of those points, and probably more, and that thus it doesn't show any 
form of favoritism on Dumbledore's part.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf