OP ch.37, link with LV (was: Dumbledore Fessing Up / Pensieve Objectivity

[idlerat]

No: HPFGUIDX 65827

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M. J. Pascual" <renimar at y...>
wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "idlerat" wrote:
> 
> > two other questions that might be on it:
> > 
> > - why is it safe for DD to talk to Harry at the end? is the 
> > possession over?
> 
> It's not so much that it's "safe", as Dumbledore finally realizing 
> that what he was doing -- keeping Harry in the dark for the sake of 
> his so-called happiness -- was the wrong thing to do.  Harry was 
> feeling frustrated and angry much of the book because of it, and 
> Dumbledore realizes this now.  If Harry is to be miserable as a
> "marked man" anyways, better than he be armed with the whole truth.
> 
> It is somewhat funny that the character who, just in the previous 
> book, states that the truth is generally preferable, adopts an 
> "Ignorance Is Bliss" policy with Harry.


Me: (idlerat) -- first off let me just say that I mentioned these two
questions because I think they are important ones that have been
raised a lot in the discussions of the past week, and therefore belong
on the FAQ, not because I don't have my own answers =) -- but thanks.
 Now I'll tell you why I disagree with this: Harry does not feel the
"snake" rising up in him in this scene, as in previous meetings with
DD, and in fact his "sensitive aerial" picking up LV's emotions seems
to have shut down after what happened at the MOM.  I posted on this in
more detail a couple days ago, if anyone is curious.  I think what
happened at the MOM decisively drove LV out of Harry's mind, at least
for the time being.  At least one other poster has speculated that DD
has developed special charms on his office that seal it off from LV's
brainwaves.  

I do agree with you, though, about DD's motives.  I think this part of
OP is a wee fable about being overprotective of adolescents and not
letting them grow up, and how that can damage them.

> 
> > - is the pensieve objective?

again, see above; it's been argued both ways, in many permutations, *a
lot*, and maybe the FAQ should reflect that.

cheers, 
idlerat/Jane
filing class action suit with Scabbers; snakes eat rats!