The 12 uses of Dumbledore’s omniscience

[errolowl]

No: HPFGUIDX 57647



This is basically a rambling think-aloud that 
was written long,long ago and which never got 
to see the mauve of the list. For some strange 
reason, I feel the urge to post it now - 
Perhaps brought on by the 
insightful observation by Abigail:

>...I've had the sneaking suspicion for a while 
>now that the defenses on Hogwarts are more 
>psychological than physical - everyone knows that 
>the castle is impregnable, so no one tries to get 
>in. Dumbledore's presence probably helps, too....


Oh Goody Abi! You see, I believe Dumbledore's omniscience is a 
similar psychological point, assumed as fact by the WW 

Ah, nearly-omniscient Dumbledore! That's the
general impression he gives, or rather that's how he impresses
Harry. He's a living legend with awesome powers, grandfatherly 
wisdom, a kindly spirit, a mischievous twinkle, noble ideals, and 
enormous responsibilities. Someone whose powers have IMO been 
exaggerated in the WW with the telling and retelling, till he is 
assumed to be infallible, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and 
omnificent all at once. Poor Albus – talk about the burden of 
expectations! 

But Dumbledore is only human. And Harry is of course just catching on 
to something that we knew all along. Here's a man who makes a
multitude of hiring mistakes, is an accessory to breaking major 
wizarding laws, (now, who shares that certain disregard for rules, 
eh? -- Cue for a "Dumbledore and Morality" essay, Gulplum),
sometimes mis-times his awarding of points ever so slightly, gets 
decoyed by fake letters, needs glasses, has absolutely no radar for 
illegal animagi, doesn't know the extents of his own castle, has
no control over the actions of mean or cowardly people, and either
can't see or can't fix all the loopholes in his school's
defenses.And there's more where that came from. 

I don't think I'm being too harsh either. Yes, it can be
argued that he *might* have know all about everything all along, and 
that it is part of a cosmic/ Dumbldorian plan -- there are 
certainly plenty of brilliant theories out there, ranging from the 
mighty MAGIC DISHWASHER to Dumbledore!Ron REDHEAD ALWAYS. But the 
feeling I get is that fans in general tend to give enormous credit to 
Dumbledore, and I find it curious. Even if he isn't omniscient,
one is obliged to make excuses for why he isn't so. ;-)


Way back in post 37663, Eloise grappled with this problem thus:

>I have never suggested that Dumbledore *is * omniscient, merely that 
>he gives an impression of near omniscience. <snip> 
>The issue of what he knows is also intriguing. I have long had the 
>feeling that there are some areas in which he does choose to employ 
>a near omniscience, and others where he chooses to remain in 
>ignorance. The secret doings of the Marauders would be an example of 
>the latter.
>
>His ignorance, like the issues of his goodness and justice can also 
>be worrying and I wonder if this can be related to my speculations 
>in my last post about an awareness of a predestined plan working 
>itself out. Perhaps not investigating Crouch/ Moody and Quirrell is 
>an aspect of this. Perhaps he only chooses to know that which is 
>both important and which he can (and should) do something about. 
>From our perspective not knowing about those two was a major 
>omission, but I think his perspective's a whole lot different from 
>ours.

To which Talondg replied:

>An _informed_ ignorence. :)
>There's ignorence-as-cluelessness, then there's ignorence-as-tacit-
>approval, and then there's ignorence-as-teaching-skill.
>
>The latter two aren't really ignorence. You _know_ what's going on,
>but you pretend otherwise unless you're forced to step in.
>The Marauder's activities are to my mind, Dumbldore letting them run
>wild a bit so they can learn some life skills - it's more supervised
>than they think. Same with Harry's contact with Sirius in GoF.
>The rescue of BuckBeak in PoA is ignorence-as-approval.
>No, I think Dumbledore knows exactly what is going on around him, bit
>only reveals his awareness if it suits a purpose or if he is forced 
>to by circumstance

or take Michelle's post (37691):

>From what I've gathered reading chat transcripts and theories, 
etc...I 
>actually believe Dumbledore's so-called 'omniscience' has to do 
>specifically with his office. So, maybe Dumbedore's office has 
special >properties that let him see into other rooms or listen to 
>conversations within the Hogwart's grounds? That way, whenever 
>Dumbledore is out of his office, he misses things that happen, like 
>perhaps Riddle's framing of Hagrid. And this could explain other 
>things he's missed, too, like the Marauder's being animagi and 
>Crouch Jr's impersonation of Moody. After all, Dumbledore is a busy 
>man and doesn't have time to snoop for hours on end. He probably 
>only snoops when he has specific suspicions, or if he just wants to 
>check up on someone, like Harry.



Sigh. I'd really like to believe all that. But canon doesn't
support any of that yet. Much like Darrin's quest for a "good
Slyth", I await the "almost-omniscient" Dumbledore. So,
does that make it my turn now to explain how he apparently knows 
things if he is not at least somewhat omniscient? -- but, but I 
really do not have any clever theory -- please, may I be excused? 

Please?

Oh, very Well then, I'll give it a shot. 
Why do people think Dumbledore knows more than any powerful wizard 
with acute intelligence, excellent extrapolating powers, and a keen 
understanding of human nature could know? What are those instances 
that cannot be waved away with "he had an informant", "it
came to him in a dream" or the equally handy "that's a
part of the spell"? <grin> These three, well ok, excuses, may not 
have canon,but neither does know-it-all Dumbledore.

He admits himself that he doesn't know why Harry survived. SS, pg 
12 "We can only guess" said Dumbledore. "we may never
know". He does seem to be amazingly certain about the events of
that night, but that could conceivably be explained by any 
combination of informant (5th man at Godric's?), JabberKnoll,
dream scene (much like Harry with Frank Bryce's murder), or
merely background knowledge of events leading up to that point that 
helps him extrapolate ("I'm going to tell you everything
Harry"). 

He knows that Harry isn't getting his letter? Seems more like
the magic quill dashes off those letters with a kind of built in GPS 
for as long as the recipient has not received it. Of, course, it goes 
through McGonagall for her signature, and she informs Dumbledore. 
(Did Minerva really sign *all* those hundreds of letters to Harry 
alone?). Same thing with Harry getting his letter in CoS, care of the 
Weasleys. Of course, Arthur says "Dumbledore already knows you
are here Harry. Doesn't miss a trick that man", but he could
be referring to the trick of programming the quill to do the GPS 
thing, right? ;)

The mirror of Erised? Why couldn't he have just been keeping a
watch all twinkly eyed, on Harry that night to see if he did sneak 
off to the kitchens like James? And then of course, once Harry finds 
the mirror, he's forced to monitor events and explain how it
works.If he discovered that Harry was on a quest to find out about 
the stone, he's just the kind to help instead of restrict or
discourage. He lets Harry take a hand due to the interest he shows
– and perhaps as Harry postulates later, a feeling that he has a 
right to face Voldmort if he wanted to. We don't know that he set
up the obstacles to suit the kids at all. (Not very good obstacles I 
agree – but that's the fallible Dumbledore)

And the BuckBeak thingy – ah, my favorite half-baked theory :) 
Dumbledore, at the execution gathering for Buckbeak, decides to 
rescue the poor animal. To that end, he uses a spell that causes, 
say, a crack in the fabric of time, perhaps intending to come back 
himself from the future and release Buckbeak. Later when he faces the 
Sirius dilemma, he connives his idea to let H/H do it, rescuing 
Sirius in the bargain. All spur of the moment reaction. (Of course, 
begs a side note on er, time-cracks and time travel. Maybe I'll
work toward it..)

And so it goes on. See, it's all an illusion. ;-)

Pippin had the gist in post 45242:

>"But if Dumbledore's omniscience is a comforting illusion which 
>is slowly dispelled, then what we see is a sort of religious 
>parallel-- Harry first sees Dumbledore as an all powerful and 
>benevolent but distant being. This being controls his destiny and 
>can intervene to protect him in miraculous ways, but has 
>inexplicably abandoned him to a world of suffering. But as Harry 
>grows, he begins to see Dumbledore as a mentor and friend, 
>immeasurably wiser than himself but still fallible, far more 
>benevolent but not infinitely so, someone whose power is limited 
>but whose love is unconditional--as long as we don't expect 
>blindness instead of kindness, that is."


Which brings me to wondering if Rowling consciously created the 
illusion of Omniscient!Dumbledore. He definitely comes in handy as a 
plot tool. It is certainly useful in tying up loose ends; in 
providing a way for Harry to set off for the holidays not quite so 
angst-ridden or shouldering enormous burdens – after all, 
*Dumbledore* knows about everything thats happened; as Harry's 
omnipresent link between the different facets of the plot –home
life, school life, and the greater war; as the single source of 
believable information the readers and Harry accept unquestioningly 
(she confirmed as much in the Cos DVD interview); to illustrate the 
greater morals of the story from the perspective of someone who 
apparently knows *all* the aspects of the story .... and possibly to 
ultimately illustrate that even role models are ultimately human, and 
that no one is absolutely powerful. 


Errol.
Who would be frankly amazed if someone had the patience to read 
through this entire post:)