MAGIC DISWASHER and Dumbledore Dead

[Tom Wall]

No: HPFGUIDX 59416

Pickle Jimmy wrote:
My arguement wasn't that if he dies he couldn't MD - because, in my 
previous post, I parallelled Dumbledore with Obi Wan (who died and 
still directed Luke from the grave) and Gandalf (who "died" and came 
back to aid Frodo's quest). What I was saying is that *I* don't think 
JK will use the "Death of a Mentor" plot in the series as it has been 
done.

Melody posited:
Eh... [Dumbledore's death] would be ok. Epic. Grand. Fitting. I am 
sure Dumbledore would find some way, he is a powerful wizard, to 
still influence Harry beyond the grave.

Brief Chronicles added:
So, since she has set her story in the realms of the fantasy genre, I 
don't see why killing the mentor of our protagonist would be a 
problem. In fact, she's hinted at Dumbledore's age so much that I'd 
say JKR expects us to know Dumbledore must die *sometime* in the 
series, and she's not hiding it. I'm willing to bet his death won't 
be a huge shock when we get to it -- which is why I took back my bet 
that he's the "horrible" death in Book 5.

I, Tom, concurring with Melody and Brief Chronicles, reply:
Actually, I'm of the opinion that Dumbledore *has* to die before the 
end of the series in order for the story to have any serious weight, 
and in order for Harry to come into his own. No if's, and's, or but's 
about it.

As Brief Chronicles noted, JKR has set her story in the fantasy 
genre, which carries with it certain epic plot devices. One of these 
is the `Death of the Mentor,' which has been used in many of the epic 
tales that we all know and love.

The way I see it, this device doesn't exist for no reason – and, 
IMHO, just because it's a notable plot device doesn't mean that it's 
been used the same way every time, nor, as Jimmy notes (I'm 
thinking,) does it mean that she will retread a tried variance on the 
theme. It does indicate to me, however, that this plot point will 
emerge eventually in the series.


Brief Chronicles stated:
I don't see why it would be so problematic, or cliche as some have 
implied, for JKR to go with the whole "Death of the Mentor" thing. 
There are only so many plot lines in the world. And, no matter how 
talented JKR is, she can't create something entirely new. She can 
only mix and match, as all writers do. She happens to do it very well 
and we love it. :)

I, Tom, add:
I couldn't agree more, Brief Chronicles!

As Pickle Jimmy astutely analyzed, Dumbledore has clear parallels 
with Obi Wan Kenobi and Gandalf. Harry, therefore, would be 
paralleled with Luke Skywalker and Frodo.

However, I'm unclear on exactly what Jimmy meant concerning JKR using 
this Death of the Mentor plot device `as it has been done.' By that, 
do you mean that she shouldn't use it at *all,* or that she should at 
least try to use it differently than others have used it? 

My take on this is that the 'Death of the Mentor' is an *essential* 
step in the progress of the series, and the evolution of a hero.

What's important to note is that in almost every case that this 
device is used, the `Death of the Mentor' is not just a random plot 
point. It's supposed to be the catalyst for the hero's development 
and growth, and ultimately the necessary push the hero needs to come 
into his/her own. 

The mentor first schools the fledgling hero, instructing him/her 
about the past, the `magic' (i.e. whatever mystical power is the 
centerpiece of the universe,) and destiny. The mentor is the 
failsafe. The mentor is the lifesaver. The mentor then disappears, 
leaving the hero with the (normally unsolicited) burden of 
implementing what the mentor has taught, and resolving the quest that 
the mentor has introduced.

In other words, as long as there's a wizened old mentor hanging 
around to, as Pickle Jimmy said, `Magic Dishwasher' events (in the 
verbal sense,) there's no real pressure on the hero, i.e. the mentor 
can always save the day when the situation gets too hairy. And this 
is usually what happens over and over again until the mentor dies, or 
alternately `goes away for a while.' Because the hero knows that the 
mentor can save the day, the hero doesn't (and sometimes can't) take 
the initiative. The hero waits for the mentor's say-so, or for the 
mentor's intervention when things get too sticky. In other words, the 
hero can't ever be fully developed until the mentor is out of the 
picture. Only then can the hero begin to realize his/her full 
potential. Only then does the hero take fate by the reins and start 
to understand.

I like how Pickle Jimmy used parallels with other famous epics. I'd 
like to dissect them a tad more, if no one minds, and if it's not 
*too* OT. ;-)

Let's start with `Star Wars.' In the case of Episodes IV-VI, what we 
have is the story of Luke's growth and triumph over both his own 
father and the leader of the Dark Side, Emperor Palpatine. Obi Wan 
Kenobi bites the bullet early on in the story in Episode IV. In this 
case, although Obi Wan is Luke's mentor, what happens is that Luke 
has somewhere else to turn, i.e. Yoda. So, what we have in Star Wars 
is an interesting twist on the standard death of the mentor theme: a) 
A better, stronger, less-flawed mentor (Yoda) replaces Obi Wan, and 
b) Obi Wan can still guide from beyond the grave as his ghostly self. 
Please note that, even though Obi Wan can ostensibly communicate with 
Luke even while dead, he still only pops up in times of dire peril to 
provide guidance. In other words, Luke is largely on his own despite 
his mentor's ability to help. It's not always in the hero's best 
interests, after all, to be saved by the mentor. Sometimes the hero 
is supposed to stumble. How else can redemption happen?

In the case of `The Lord of the Rings,' we have the same theme, but 
again, altered to fit the parameters of Tolkein's epic tale. As Jimmy 
notes, Gandalf doesn't *die,* per se, as much as he is transformed 
from 'Gandalf the Grey' into 'Gandalf the White.' This metamorphosis 
has several key relationships to the rest of the plot's development, 
beyond simple disappearance for disappearance's sake. First, 
Gandalf's transformation from 'Grey' to 'White' is necessary to 
facilitate his equality with Saruman the White, who is until that 
point technically his superior. Once they're on equal footing, 
Gandalf is able (behind the scenes or not) to successfully confront 
and undo Saruman. Second, we have more than one story of growth in 
this saga: Frodo, yes, but also Aragorn, who is destined to assume 
his place as the King of Gondor in Minas Tirith. 

Thus, we don't need Gandalf to *die* as much as we need him 
to 'disappear for a while.' This disappearance allows both Frodo and 
Aragorn to more fully understand their own roles in the quest. This 
disappearance is what forces them to begin deciding for themselves 
how they intend to grapple with their own fates. In Frodo's case, he 
realizes that the One Ring is too dangerous a temptation for the 
Fellowship, and sets off on his own. Well, until Samwise insists that 
he accompany his friend on the journey, that is. ;-) Of course, this 
is because of the promise he made to Gandalf before the wizard's 
disappearance. In such a way does Gandalf `Magic Dishwasher' events 
even from a great distance, across both time and space. In Aragorn's 
case, he assumes leadership of the remainder of the Fellowship upon 
Gandalf's fall into Moria's abyss. Until this point, Aragorn was a 
leader-in-waiting. Now he's *is* the leader of the quest, and soon to 
be of all mankind. Gandalf's disappearance is integral to the plot in 
the sense that neither Frodo nor Aragorn would have taken the 
initiative unless it was forced upon them.

Now, let's add to these two examples some other greats from this line 
of storytelling, say, `The Matrix (since I just 
caught `Reloaded,') `The Dark is Rising Sequence,' and `The 
Chronicles of Narnia.' 

In `The Matrix,' Neo is a would-be Messiah, `destined' to face the 
machines on behalf of an exiled-to-the-center-of-the-earth mankind. 
His mentor is Morpheus. Morpheus (spoiler warning ahead, for those 
who still wish to see the film untainted with pre-knowledge)...

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

... has not died yet. This is not to suggest that he won't die in the 
future, simply that he hasn't thus far. Indeed, the prebuzz for 
Matrix Revolutions indicates that the third installment is largely 
concerned with death. However, in fitting with the theme, what 
Morpheus *has* done has been out of reach for a while. 

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

Okay, no more spoilers, unless you haven't seen the first 'Matrix.'

In the first film, Neo is forced to battle Agent Smith in the train 
station once Trinity has exited the Matrix. Morpheus, of course, is 
back on the Nebuchadnezzar, operating from behind the scenes. But now 
that Morpheus cannot guide Neo directly, now, for the first time, our 
hero is truly on his own. If Morpheus had been present here, this 
development for Neo's character would not have occurred. Thus, 
Morpheus does not need to die to facilitate Neo's growth and 
realization. All that needed to happen was a disappearance, thus 
rendering him unable to be the failsafe that Neo needs (or desires,) 
and therefore forcing Neo to realize his own hidden potential.

Moving onward, in `The Dark is Rising,' (by Susan Cooper,) the role 
of the mentor is fulfilled by Merriman Lyon, a wise old man who is 
ancient out of the ages, and who schools young Will Stanton in the 
ways of the `Old Ones,' people destined from birth to battle 
the `Dark,' which is constantly threatening to rise up and destroy 
mankind. In `The Dark is Rising,' again, we do not have a situation 
where Merriman must die to facilitate Will's growth. What we do have 
is slightly different from our other scenarios in that Merriman is 
inaccessible at certain pivotal rough points in Will's quest. Why? 
Well, unlike Gandalf (who is growing and changing himself,) or Obi 
Wan (who dies,) or Morpheus (who sits by biting his nails while Neo 
is threatened by Agent Smith,) Merriman Lyon is off completing a 
separate part of the quest, which, of course, is a manifold 
undertaking that involves timing and a collision of events to work. 
In other words, Merriman, due to the separate and distinct role that 
he must fulfill in the quest, is otherwise indisposed when Will and 
the others need him. It is this inability to assist that forces Will 
and his friends to make up their own minds, to decide how to act on 
their own - to take responsibility for the development and 
fulfillment of the quest unto themselves.

In `The Chronicles of Narnia,' we have yet another twist, as the 
closest parallel to `the mentor,' is none other than Aslan the Lion, 
i.e. C.S. Lewis' representation of the God-archetype. Aslan's 
narrative function is to force the main characters (both the Narnians 
and also the earth-children,) in short, to `grow up.' Unlike the 
other mentors, Aslan is not forced out of the way by death (although 
he does die,) nor by other situations (because as God, he can be 
simultaneously present in several places at once. Must be nice to be 
God. Anyways...) In the case of the Narnian Chronicles, Aslan is 
absent as a matter of deliberate choice. He's a guide for the 
characters from the sidelines, stepping in only at the very last 
resort to provide enigmatic counsel (he rarely gives a direct 
answer,) and sometimes not even in the last resort. Sometimes, the 
characters are entirely on their own, and they know it. The point is 
that the characters cannot develop until they're forced to assume 
responsibility for their own actions – until they act morally of 
their own accord, and without the guidance of the Lion.


Now, to return full circle to Harry Potter. 

Dumbledore is the mentor. Harry is the pupil. 

Like the other protagonists, Harry is currently caught up in a 
situation of destiny – I believe he still possesses free will, and 
the capacity for choice, and therefore the must accept responsibility 
for the consequences of his actions. But due to predictions such as 
those from Trelawney, there is built into the story, as with the 
other epics, a certain capacity for prophecy and thus, 
predestination. However, one of Dumbledore's functions, I believe, is 
to reconcile these two, by instructing Harry about his past, about 
his destiny, and by tutoring him in self-reliance and proper decision-
making.

In Harry's case, Dumbledore is NOT always there to save the day, 
unlike many of the other mentors.

Now, the way I see it, Magic Dishwasher suggests that Dumbledore is 
orchestrating events to facilitate Harry's growth, the point being 
that Harry has to learn to make choices and function on his own, 
independent of Dumbledore's guidance. Thus, we see that, unlike with, 
say, Gandalf, Dumbledore the Mentor rarely intervenes directly, and 
in some cases in the theory, he *can't* step in directly. I'm 
thinking of the GoF graveyard scene here, when Dumbledore is 
completely out of the loop and unable to help. Of course, proponents 
of the theory might suggest (and there is some canon to lend credence 
to this notion) that Dumbledore orchestrated the situation of 
the `sharing of wand cores,' which, via Priori Incantatem, saves 
Harry's butt. 

In this case, as with Gandalf and the promise he extracted early on 
from Samwise, MD!Dumbledore has taken advance steps to ensure the 
protagonist's safety. These steps are not a failsafe, but they do 
help Harry to survive. But remember – even with all of the behind-the-
scenes assistance, Harry wouldn't be able to survive unless he made 
choices, unless he acted on his own. The nature of action as a result 
of choice and free-will is, IMHO, integral to the HP storyline. As 
Dumbledore says at the end of GoF (and JKR asserts that this will set-
up the remainder of the series):

"Remember, if the time should come when you have to make a choice 
between what is right and what is easy, remember what happened to a 
boy who was good, and kind, and brave, because he strayed across the 
path of Lord Voldemort. Remember Cedric Diggory."
GoF, US paperback, Ch.37, 724

Man, that gets me every time. Poor Cedric.

Anyways, `choice' being the major theme of the final three books, one 
would have to accept that, as long as Dumbledore is the mentor/leader 
figure for our heroes, their ability to choose is stunted somewhat by 
his position of authority. Dumbledore is, after all, as we see from 
GoF Ch. 36, *still* orchestrating events.

Therefore, on the question of whether or not Dumbledore will die, I 
think that the answer is a qualified `definitely.' I understand why 
you (Pickle Jimmy) would prefer that JKR forge ahead into her own 
brave new world of fantasy, but I just don't see it as a likely 
possibility. What makes these books good (IMHO) is exactly the way 
that the author retreads the old plotlines, and the way that she 
reuses the tried-and-true devices in a way that's new and fresh. Yes, 
she has made valuable and unique contributions to the genre, but I 
believe that these contributions are primarily the result of her 
uncanny talent for combining old themes and making them fresh.

That said, we have been given several hints to suggest that 
Dumbledore will inevitably bite the bullet, or at least (like some of 
the other mentors,) will necessarily vanish for a while. 

First, we have the references (highlighted repeatedly in GoF) to 
Dumbledore's advancing age. Though not yet enfeebled, Dumbledore is 
noticeably getting older. I have difficulty accepting that this is 
simply an aesthetic point JKR is trying to make. I don't believe that 
the references to Dumbledore's age are meant for the GARBAGESCOW. 

Second, we have the interesting and unique take on ghosts in this 
series, suggesting that perhaps, if he has truly unfinished business 
(such as, oh, Voldemort's downfall,) Dumbledore might make an encore 
appearance after his death, ala Obi Wan. I personally reject this 
possibility as corny and already-done, but I do concede that it is a 
possibility, and one that is foreshadowed by the canon that we have.

Third, we have the ominous foreshadowing of Dumbledore's 
inaccessibility at the conclusion of every book. In PS/SS, he 
*supposedly* heads off to London at the Ministry's request. In CoS, 
he's removed from the Headmastership of Hogwarts. In PoA, he's absent 
(although as MD would suggest, represented by Snape. My own take on 
this, Dark Ladles/DL, or Persil Automatic/PA (in message #51835,) is 
that he could alternately be represented by Lupin. Risti and Shauna 
proposed, in Sunlight Ultra/SU (in message #52129,) that perhaps 
Lupin and Snape are working together. The point is that Dumbledore's 
operating behind the scenes in the Shrieking Shack via AN agent. 
Finally, in GoF, we have the unexpected Portkey to the graveyard, 
where Dumbledore, for the first time, appears to be almost completely 
powerless to lend a hand.

In GoF, we begin to see how much pre-planning Albus has done, with 
protections at the Dursleys, the confirmation that batty ole Mrs. 
Figg is connected with him, and possibly the arrangement of Priori 
Incantatem via the wand cores. And taking a closer look at the climax 
scenes for every novel, it is exactly Dumbledore the Mentor's 
proclivity for doling out information in perfect doses that enables 
Harry to overcome:

-In PS/SS, it is the information about the Mirror of Erised. 
-In CoS, it's the timely delivery of Fawkes, with the Sorting Hat and 
Gryffindor's sword. 
-In PoA (if you accept MD/DL/SU) he's there via an agent in the 
Shrieking Shack. 
-In GoF, Harry's saved by Priori Incantatem, which presumably was 
orchestrated by Dumbledore long ago. In fact, as we learn in this 
scene, the phoenix song is a sound that Harry associates with 
Dumbledore. Of course, this supports the idea that Dumbledore is and 
always was laboring secretly to ensure Harry's eventual triumph.

In each book, Dumbledore is absent during the climactic moment. In 
each book, this absence, and Harry's subsequent belief that he is 
totally on his own, is what pushes the plot towards its resolution. 

This illustrates several points to me: first, Dumbledore as Mentor 
cannot actually save the day on his own. His function is to prepare 
Harry to do that. Presumably, this is because ultimately, the power 
to force the plot through its final climax will rest solely with 
Harry. Second, Dumbledore as Mentor must provide just enough 
information to aid Harry without revealing the solution. To reveal 
the answer is to strip Harry of his responsibility to choose for 
himself. Third, Dumbledore as Mentor eventually will have to trust 
that he has given Harry the skills he needs to eventually prevail. In 
other words, at some point in a future novel, Dumbledore the Mentor 
must be out of the picture. Harry must be left on his own.

There is one final thought I have to add, and it is oft repeated both 
on-list and in the books: 

Dumbledore is the only wizard Voldemort fears. 

IMHO, this is an essential bit of information, and an ominous bit of 
foreshadowing. If Dumbledore is the only wizard that Voldemort fears, 
then Harry is presumably fairly safe as long as he's under 
Dumbledore's tutelage. In other words, if the books are to make us 
realize how truly dangerous Voldemort is, then Harry must, at some 
point, be totally on his own, with no help of outside salvation, i.e. 
by or during book seven, Dumbledore must be taken out of the picture 
in order for Harry to assume the role for which he's destined.

So, in conclusion, I believe that JKR will inevitable have to 
confront the age old `Death of the Mentor' theme. It is my hope, 
however, that she will accomplish this necessary step in a 
meaningful, surprising, and fresh new way.

-Tom