Dumbledore and morality

[GulPlum]

No: HPFGUIDX 57704

Errol (Who would be frankly amazed if someone had the patience to read
through his entire post:) wrote, inter alia:

 > Cue for a "Dumbledore and Morality" essay, Gulplum

Ooh, a challenge (or at least, an invitation)! I *love* a challenge!

(BTW why would you be amazed? This is, after all, a list for "grown-ups", 
and it should be taken as read that people are capable of more than 
debating which character is sexier than another or going all gooey-eyed 
when they discover that Nicolas Flamel is a real historical character)

A word of warning: because I'd like to get this out ASAP, this isn't really 
a presentation of a particular thesis, but several disparate thoughts on a 
common theme.

I'm going to start with a potentially inflammatory statement: Dumbledore is 
a caricature.

It's generally accepted that unlike most of the other characters in the 
books, the Dursleys are little more than caricatures of the archetypal (not 
to say stereotypical) Evil Step-family. We accept their presence in the 
stories because they're sort of peripheral to the action whilst giving 
Harry some of the motivation to safeguard his acceptance in the wizarding 
world, if not to safeguard the wizarding world itself. They fulfill this 
single role fairly well, and JKR gets rid of them fairly quickly in each book.

Dumbledore presents a problem. Within the stories, he has three roles: 
Headmaster of Hogwarts, Leader of the Anti-Voldemortists, and Harry's de 
facto godfather (several characters admit that caring for Harry after the 
Godric's Hollow attack fell on him; he had James's Invisibility Cloak).

As a literary construct, he has a further role as Harry's mentor, moral 
compass and guide to the magical world. He is not only the motor of Harry's 
development as a person and as a wizard, but the motor of the overall plot 
of the sries. He is, as has been repeated ad nauseam, Luke Skywalker's Obi 
Wan Kenobi, the Narnia childrens' Aslan, and others.

Harry has a perfectly viable actual, titular godfather, so this role is a 
bit of a shoe-in, governed by his role as a literary construct rather than 
an actual person within the books. But I'll gloss over that. Nevertheless, 
I do continue to wonder just why James left his Cloak in the care of 
someone other than Sirius: "... left in my possession *BEFORE* he died..." 
- emphasis mine; what reason did James have not to trust Sirius with the 
Cloak? And of course, we always assume that the Cloak came from Dumbledore. 
But what real proof of that do we have? I have a nagging suspicion at the 
back of my mind that there is someone *else* who is looking out for Harry, 
who is yet to be revealed to us.

In terms of morality, these three roles rest uneasily on the same pair of 
shoulders, regardless of their breadth. It is partially because Dumbledore 
jumps between these roles with apparent ease that we (readers) have the 
impression of omniscience, omnipresence, infallibility and invincibility. 
However, a closer investigation of the character shows that whenever these 
three roles come to head, the priorities inevitably end up:
First: Mentor Figure/Literary Construct (hereinafter LC)
Second: Surrogate Parent (SP)
Third: Leader of the Free World (LFW)
Fourth: Hogwarts Headmaster (HH).

As LC, he has to be able to relate to Harry, and to the readers. So we have 
his slightly batty, child-like self, who likes to play tricks on people 
(e.g. the description of how he hides the Stone in the Mirror) and can be 
quite anti-Slytherin (e.g. the points-giving at the end of the first year). 
He has a sweet tooth (which Harry doesn't really share, although most 
children do). At the same time, he needs to keep Harry on the straight and 
narrow in both the small things (e.g. corrects "Snape" to "*Professor* 
Snape") and the big ones ("it's our choices which determine who we are").

He also needs to reassure Harry from time to time, but whilst he's 
permitted to do so at the cost of being a good HH (dissin' the Slyths 
again), heaven forbid he should do so at the cost of the plot (my previous 
comments about Parseltongue in CoS, or why Voldemort wanted to kill him - 
compare to Obi Wan not telling Luke the whole story about his dad).

Dumbledore is suitably humble about his achievements and his status (he 
blushes when McGonagall describes him as "noble" in Privet Drive, he 
doesn't want to be Minister although most people appear to want him in the 
post), but he doesn't actively do anything to negate it.

As HH, it is of course natural that he should appear to the pupils in his 
care as uncrossable/omniscient (e.g. the Age Line around the Goblet). 
Likewise, as LFW, he has to appear unassailable. But to Harry, he 
increasingly appears human and not only fallible, but prone to make mistakes.

Let's take a closer look at some of Dumbledore's actions:

At the beginning of PS/SS, he puts Harry in the care of people who hate him 
(we discover later on that Dumbledore associated with the Potters after 
they left Hogwarts, and it's reasonable to assume that he knew how Lily's 
family perceived her). I suppose he's acting out of a principle of "there's 
no gain without pain" (as seen on countless exercise videos). In the short 
term, morally wrong, in the long term (as we can see), justified and 
perhaps even right.

The reasons for leaving him there, though, are unrelated to Dumbledore's 
status as HH, and are divided between LFW and SP. However, the main reason 
is The Plot. Harry has to know nothing about the wizarding world, but once 
inducted has to want to remain there despite the dangers, because the 
alternative is worse.

 From Harry's perspective, on finding out at the age of eleven that 
Dumbledore deliberately left him with these despicable people, he should 
hate him. However, it is important for LC!Harry and LC!Dumbledore to reach 
an immediate rapport and to trust each other.

He gives Harry his inherited Invisibility Cloak: as HH, a foolhardy if not 
downright bad move, inviting trouble. As SP, it makes sense, reminding 
Harry that he has a legacy to live up to. As LFW, it can come in useful. 
Harry is clearly a part of his plan against Voldemort, and giving him the 
tools with which to fight seems like a good move. However, it's as LC that 
passing the Cloak on mkes the greatest sense, being as it is, the perfect 
plot device in so many circumstances. And, of course, it only really makes 
sense because Dumbledore can trust 11-year-old (!) Harry to use it "wisely".

Morally, not a particularly morally "adult" thing to do on Dumbledore's 
part, neither in the short nor long term, but boy, does it up the ante plot 
wise!

Just a couple of points on the point-giving at the end of PS/SS: as HH, a 
very bad move. Perhaps he's teaching the Slyths to accept disappointment, 
or, as some people have said, that earning points is more valuable than 
engineering having them taken away from others. The main lesson he's 
imparting is "I can be as fickle as the worst of you". As LFW, he's saying 
"the rules don't really count as long as we maintain allegiance to higher 
principles". Again, it's only as SP and LC that the scene makes sense, or 
is given moral validity, and that's what the text shows.

I'll be honest and admit that I'm getting a bit bored of this (not to 
mention, pressed for time), so although I really wanted to do the same 
thing with CoS, and in particular the final "revelation scene" in 
McGonagall's office (Dumbledore is *beaming*, for goodness' sake!), I'll 
leave it as "an exercise for the reader".

The fact is, as stated at the start above, Dumbledore is a caricature, a 
cartoon. He's not *meant* to be taken as a single, moral being, but juggles 
his four roles with some discomfort. Now, had Dumbledore's character been 
entirely consistent and his decisions and actions comprehensible (not to 
mention morally justifiable) from all four perspectives, JKR would have 
created a literary character of mammoth proportions. As things stand 
mid-series, he's a fake who reveals his fictional roots at every turn. 
Regardless of the plot twists ahead, nothing will change the fact that his 
decisions cannot be said to be truly adult, and consistent with his role as 
the authorial voice of morality in every respect.

On the other hand, this makes the character fascinating for speculating 
what lies ahead, because although not all of his actions are "right", and 
those undertaken in his role as the literary construct of mentor and moral 
guide are those which should guide us, his alternative personas are just as 
able to make the right decisions at the right time (that timing determined 
by the plot, of course), and thus theories like the DISHWASHER of REDHEAD 
ALWAYS remain a possibility, if only a very, very slight one.

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, who really shouldn't post this before doing a lot more 
work, but would prefer to put it up for debate before continuing to think 
about it (besides, The West Wing has just started) :-)