For & against REDHEAD ALWAYS (long)(Was: Dumbledore is Ron?

[errolowl]

No: HPFGUIDX 53369



Well, its surprising how fast a Harry! Back-to-the-future theory 
shape shifted into a fun Dumbledore!Ron theory. A brief recap before 
I start rambling. 

Piskmiffo brought up this version of Dumbledore!Ron in Message 53151, 
of Ron going back in time to save Harry and inadvertently going about 
130 years too far back. He tries to find Dumbledore to help him 
correct things – only to find that Dumbledore doesn't exist
and that *he* is supposed to assume that role. This explains 
Dumbledore's knowledge of things yet to happen, his uncanny knack
of knowing everything that's going on at least as far as Harry is 
concerned.The similarities in physical description lend credence to 
this plot. 

It has quite a bit going for it, besides a possible similarity in 
physical description. I'm sure there are plenty of people who
could fit the description of tall, thin, with reddish hair. In fact 
as pointed out, it is strange that no one had commented on Ron's
eyes – light, bright and sparkling blue eyes *would* be startling 
with a redhead! Of course, it could always be a Dumbledore disguise 
or a narrative trick. 

However, there are plenty of problems, starting with Aberforth (as 
pointed out by probonoprobono amongst others.) 
Aberforth could be totally fictional, attributed with anecdotes from 
all and any of Ron's brothers. Or he could be part of an adopted 
family
it always seemed strange that the great Dumbledore should
have such a, well, illiterate brother. <g> Another option for those 
who root for the missing Weasly son - Why not Aberforth before Bill? 
It fits the alphabetical pattern. Ron doesn't necessarily have to
know this yet. (yeah, yeah, its all far fetched)
One problem with Dumbledore!Ron is that it negates our conditioning 
to accept Dumbledore as always truthful. So how far do we believe 
Dumbledore now? Do we get to reexamine all his words as we do with 
Moody!Crouch ?

Brin:
I've got one more problem to add. When Dumbledore questions Crouch 
Jr. in GoF, he asks about the Marauders' Map in a way that sounds 
like he doesn't know what it is. If he remembers everything else to 
the second and the tiniest detail, he can't have forgotten that the 
map exists

No, he can't have forgotten..pretending maybe, but why? To
maintain the illusion Harry (and thus young Ron) had about Dumbledore 
not knowing about the map perhaps? It's a stretch..

And then Piskmiffo himself:
... and I hope that Ron!Dumbledore is either forgetful about minor 
details (because of age or whatever) or that he lies to McGonagall. 
Because otherwise there is something in the first chapter of PS that 
doesn't quite fit.<snip>
"My dear Professor, surely a sensible person like yourself can
call him by his name? All this `You-Know-Who' nonsense <snip> I have 
*never* seen any reason to be frightened of saying Voldemort's name."
<emphasis mine>
Well, never is never, but I sure hope he's senile.


Yep, Ron *is* afraid of saying the name. But if he overcomes it 
later, the "never" could be a bit of typical Ron
generalization. After 130 years, his early days may not count so much 
with him.

Eric:
In PoA, it is said that it was Dumbledore's testimony that Sirius 
was the Potters' Secret Keeper that was the clincher that sent 
Sirius to Azkaban: "I myself gave evidence to the Ministry that 
Sirius had been the Potters' Secret Keeper." (PoA, US edition, pg. 
392). Now, if Dumbledore really were Ron, he would've known from 
the start that Sirius was innocent and that Pettigrew was 
untrustworthy, especially because he was the one who let him sleep 
in his bed for years. I'm sure there's more if one searches.
So, how are you going to explain this?

Me:
Um, I'm not! But it could be that Ron!Dumbledore had tried to 
persuade the Potters this time around and truly believed that this 
time they had picked Sirius. As the events unfolded, he realized that 
time couldn't be changed after all – or atleast not that
part. If it was already determined that the Potters be betrayed, by 
tampering with time Ron!Dumbledore might have caused Sirius to betray 
them instead of Pettigrew. It is destined. If he believed this, he 
could have given his testimony in good faith. 

This brings in a debate about the nature of time travel and what can 
and cannot be changed.
Taking Dumbledore!Ron as a given, there are limits to time travel (or 
bi-location) in the Wizarding world. 

So far we've come across just one type of time travel, so I'm
keeping within the rules of the time turner for this discussion. Even 
if the mode of time travel changes, the effects on the time/space 
continuum and the taboos associated with it would, I presume, be the 
same.

The crux of time travel appears to be that you can only function in 
the past if you somehow already fit into the existing pattern. Harry 
is able to conjure his patronus mainly because, paradoxically, the 
patronus was already conjured even before he went back in time. He 
*had* to go back in time to fulfill what had already occurred. Its 
only if he *hadn't* gone back in time that he would have been 
disrupting the time/space continuum. If he hadn't gone back, he
would not have been alive - and time as we know would have been out 
of whack. Does this make sense? 

Similarly, time had been `scripted' with Hermione in two
different classes or more at the same time. Even while she sat in one 
class the first time around, time was scripted to show a Hermione in 
the other class as well. Thus when she went back, she wasn't
changing time.If no one had noticed Hermione the first time around in 
that class, and then they did the second time around, she would have 
been, well,..SEEN. The one time Hermione couldn't go back to do a 
class was when it was evident that she *hadn't* gone back. The
script
didn't allow it. 

And if this reading of the nature of time travel is true, I find it 
very disturbing `cause it sounds very much predetermined –
almost like destiny. 

Dumbledore, PoA, US paperback pg 393:
"..But remember this both of you: *you must not be seen*. Miss 
Granger you know the law – you know what is at
stake
*you-must-not-be-seen*" <emphasis Dumbledore>

There are so many references within a few pages to
"you-must-not-be-seen". The point is this `script'
can so easily bedisrupted when a person is seen where they are not 
supposed to be. But is this disruption cosmic? How drastic are the 
consequences - Irrecoverable damage, Or just plain inconvenient? 

If it is very drastic, this could explain why Dumbledore!Ron
didn't stop Riddle as a kid, or save the Potters. (so much less 
grief, and besides Harry would be safe). Ron had to stick to the 
script, changing only that which was allowed. 

But if it is mostly about breaking the law and not about drastic 
cosmic consequences, Ron could have been more proactive as Dumbledore 
don't you think? And we have canon for "loads" of people
who have broken this law – and apparently the WW managed to cope, 
even if perhaps with great difficulty.

Hermione in PoA, US paperback, Pg 399:
"
you wouldn't understand, you might even attack yourself!
Don't you see? Professor McGonagall told me what awful things
have happened when wizards have meddled with time
loads of them
ended
upkilling their past or future selves by mistake."

Would telling the Potters about Pettigrew have killed his future/ 
past self? Maybe – no one knows. We do know that Dumbledore tried 
warning them, but apparently couldn't change time!

Morgan touches on the same thing:
This gets a bit into physics and time travel paradoxes, but this is 
similar to the Grandfather Paradox (in which a hypothetical person 
goes backwards in time and kills their own grandfather before their 
parent on that side of the family was conceived. The question then 
opened is what happens to you if your parent were never born). One 
solution to the Grandfather Paradox is this: 

you can go back in time as often and as far back as you like, but you 
will still never be able to kill your grandfather. You want to go 
back in time and be a cause factor (you want to cause your 
grandfather to be dead) but since the effect of you NOT killing your 
grandfather (your birth) has already happened, you cannot go back and 
change it. If you tried, you would simply fail every time you 
tried.


And Nobody's Rib contributes:

And anything that young Dumbledore!Ron did wouldn't be interfering 
with the past, because it had already happened. But it gets trickier 
once you get involved with people more directly linked to present 
time situations - situations you have previous knowledge of. (You 
can only *change* that which you are already aware of.) Once D!R is 
involved with situations, such as VWI trials that Eric mentioned, 
that Ron knew about, he is no longer operating purely off of D!R 
instincts, but instead off of future-knowledge instincts, and to 
change these aspects of the past would mean he would potentially 
change the future as well. I'm confusing myself here, but, luckily 
for us, D!R has had 100 years to ponder the metaphysics of time 
travel, and he would understand the intricacies far better. (That's 
a cop-out, I know.) My answer to Eric's question: by the time the 
trials roll around, D!R is no longer young and foolish but older and 
wise, and, regretfully, D!R knows that he cannot risk his own 
existence (and the future's existence) by changing past events.

But then how can he do things to interfere with HHR's lives to help 
them out? Easy - those things have already happened. Just like 
Harry knew he could do the patronus spell, because he had already 
done it before. And if I try to sort this part of the argument out 
any more, my head will burst.

ME again:

In summary of that, it looks like Ron going back in time does not 
change anything. He went back in time to fulfill the time-script that 
demanded a Dumbledore. But the role of Dumbledore is already defined, 
ie, he has already done those things before. So if Dumbledore or 
anyone else did not save Harry's life the first time around, Ron 
going back in time does not help. 

Nobody's Rib:
Well, it really is foolish of him to go back in the first place, 
since purposefully changing *anything* could really mess *everything* 
up. (ex: saving baby Harry could somehow result in Voldemort killing 
baby Ron, and thus the space time continuum collapses... or 
something...). But Ron *conveniently* wasn't around when Harry and 
Hermione time turner-ed in PoA, and thus did not receive Hermione's 
careful warnings about time travel. And impulsive 17 year-old Ron 
would be thinking with his heart and not his head when he made the 
decision to go back in time.

Me again:
According to this, REDHEAD ALWAYS in essence fulfills nothing except 
explain Dumbledore's pre-knowledge of things. By the initial 
reasoning, something happens to Harry, causing Ron to make the 
desperate decision to go back in time. But he still can't change 
anything, and Harry dies anyway.

OR

Ron!Dumbledore manages to break the script, do something and save 
Harry ... giving Ron no reason to go back at all in the first place. 
Neither of this works. 

Of course, R!D can save Harry's life this time around, and then
give young Ron the timeturner and instruct him to blindly turn it 
around so many times...tricking his younger self to fulfill the 
paradox. Ummm, would that work?

Brin:
>Actually, I'd like for Ron himself to be aware of it, because that 
>would reinforce the theme of Ron making a sacrifice. On the one hand 
>he will get the fame, glory and stand-alone hero position he always 
>wanted, but on the other hand he will lose his life and friends in 
>the present day and take on a mind-blowing responsibility!

All this accomplishes in the narrative function is to sacrifice Ron 
from the present in order to explain Dumbledore's knowledge of 
events. It also makes Harry very much indebted to Ron, and gives Ron 
awesome powers (the greatest wizard in the world) that are not backed 
up by what we know to date about his powers. Unless a lot of 
Dumbledore's `greatness' comes from his `power'
to predict the future. (Ah! So that's how he knows which of 
Trelawney'spredictions are true!)  

None of which prepares him to defeat Grindlewald. 

This theory also makes Ron the supreme being of the series – not 
Harry. Try as you might to give Harry a central role, if Ron is 
Dumbledore it is *he* who saves the world by saving Harry through his 
bravery, loyalty, perseverance, power, etc. What does Harry have to 
stack against that? A famous name and an ability to resist Voldmort
– and I guess the power to inspire Ron to become Dumbledore.
Beyond that, Ron!Dumblore does everything. Harry owes him everything.

And I don't like that at all.

Errol
Who really liked this theory, but...