Dumbledore and morality/ 12 uses of Dumbledore's omniscience

[errolowl]

No: HPFGUIDX 57729



I wrote, inter alia:
> Cue for a "Dumbledore and Morality" essay, Gulplum

And Gulplum rose to the occasion with: 
>>Ooh, a challenge (or at least, an invitation)! 
I *love* a challenge! <snip> I'm going to start 
with a potentially inflammatory statement: Dumbledore 
is a caricature. <snip lots of stuff on his 4 
roles> <<


Dumbledore as a caricature, and a confused caricature at that, eh? 
<grin ...do I detect traces of a confused Bogart here?> 

Umm, I'd agree with parts of that. He *is* set up to be the
Mentor Figure/Literary Construct (LC), Surrogate Parent (SP), Leader 
of the Free World (LFW), and the ultimate authority/ Hogwarts 
Headmaster (HH). And when they conflict, Dumbledore does seem to 
favor LC > SP > LFW > HH. But I don't think Rowling compromised
there with the chopping and changing, or that she even jumps around 
that much. I personally take it to mean that she has created a 
character with a definite sense of priorities. And the fact that 
Dumbledore values his roles of moral guidance over the role of 
Authority endears me to old Albus. Consequently, he may make a very 
odd Headmaster in the traditional sense... but the ideal mentor/ 
parent. Which in turn should make him an excellent head master in the 
sense of nurturing his pupils. And over all, he does a pretty good 
job. If he `stumbles' sometimes in areas of expressing
authority (the twins and the Forbidden forest, reproaching Harry for 
breaking rules) it is not so much a stumble/contradiction as a 
statement of his priorities and view of life. For an authority 
figure, he apparently doesn't think much of authority.

The "Leader of the Free world" role is more difficult to plug
into his priorities. Should he value it more than mentoring the kids 
under him? (and I don't think Harry is the only one he mentors
– think Hagrid). Where does the trio's health and safety rank
when compared to keeping Voldemort away from the philosopher's
stone?
How does he balance those roles? In Harry's case it's
relatively easy because the boundaries blur, but what about the other 
kids in the school? Even around Harry, the Mentor/ SP roles 
predominate since Harry is still a kid. To an adult wizard helping 
him fight Voldemort, LFW might appear to be the defining priority. 

Gulplum:
>>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<<

Dumbledore is a believable character because he grapples with 
priorities in his own life, is forced to make decisions according to 
his beliefs instead of his formally defined roles, and is fallible as 
he tries to juggle all his duties. That's the Dumbledore I like
– that truly awesome literary creation of JKR's. He is a
caricature who doesn't act too much like a caricature, a
fictional fake who is closer to reality than even he might guess <g>. 
I agree that ever- consistent-Dumbledore, like Omniscient!Dumbledore, 
would have been a mammoth figurehead for the "Mentor"
stereotype in
fiction.But the fallible Dumbledore stands as a mammoth character in 
JKR's universe, refusing to quite fit into the stereotype's
mould. 

Which is precisely why nearly-omniscient-Dumbledore irritates me. 
Here is a nice old chap using his powers as wisely as he knows how
– and nearly everyone expects him to be all-powerful, all-
knowing, and morally perfect. He knows a great deal, and it's
awesome that he knows as much as he does. But to postulate that he 
*ought* to know everything and then accuse him for missing 
something? – as I said, poor, poor Albus.
But, yes, the idea that he is Omniscient is attractive, and even 
encouraged by JKR. (there! another reason to mistrust it!)

Gulplum proposed:
>>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.<<

Yep, that could well be it. In fact it is so firmly entrenched in us 
now, that even if *he* say's he didn't know, we would rather
question his truthfulness or interpret shades of gray in his 
statements, than take his word for it! <grin> I've been guilty of 
this far too often 

I wrote:
>>But Dumbledore is only human. Here's a man who makes a
multitude of hiring mistakes, is an accessory to breaking major 
wizarding laws, 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.<<

Lynn objected, and Abigail responded:
>> I hope Errol doesn't mind me jumping in <<

Oh, not at all Abi! Delighted to have you do so!

Lynn:
>>How do you know Dumbledore doesn't know the extent of the castle?<<
Abigail:
>>Because he says so himself in GoF. <<

Lynn:
>>Yes, Dumbledore does say that to Karkaroff at the Yule Ball. Indeed 
Dumbledore may not know all the secrets, however, that may also be 
Dumbledore's 'modesty'. I see it much the same way as when Dumbledore 
concedes to Madame Maxime that he may have made a
mistake with his Age line. Or, perhaps it was a way to lead into a 
description of 'The Room'. I believe that was actually foreshadowing, 
a way to tell Harry about the room in an understated way. <<

Oh, of course Lynn. I agree. It *may* be his modesty, or a subtle 
hint for Harry. But you agree that those are just surmises. And till 
that time that it is confirmed in canon, I prefer to believe 
Dumbledore here. After all, he may be speaking the plain truth, and 
the wink at Harry would be sly acknowledgement of the, er,
`awkward' example he chose to use. (note: I'm *not*
saying any other interpretations are wrong – in that case this
list could not possibly have gone beyond a paltry 10,000 posts! :) I 
am merely pointing out that the tendency to credit Dumbledore with 
nearly omniscient powers as assumed pseudo-canon status, when it 
might be a fallacy after all.) 

There is also the fact that he didn't know where the Chamber of 
Secrets was. If he had, one assumes he would have done something 
before. 

Lynn:
>>What do you mean he has no control over the actions of mean or 
cowardly people or can't see or fix loopholes?.<<

Lynn:
>> what I really meant by this question was what exactly was meant by 
no control over the actions. Unless someone is under the Imperious 
Curse, no one has control over someone's else's actions. People chose 
their actions for themselves. If, however, what was meant was no 
control over the consequences of people's actions, that's different.<<


This was initially stated more tongue in cheek really (like the 
glasses!), since, yeah, it is a given that you cannot really control 
people (unless you use unethical means that Dumbledore just *wont*). 
No one, including Dumbledore, can control other people. He is not 
omnipotent. He doesn't have handy solutions to ethical dilemmas. 

A side note here: if convincing Fudge of Sirius's innocence were
at all possible, consider the dilemma – unethical hypnotism/
magical persuasion by Dumbledore, Vs. the death of an innocent man. 
Would Dumbledore do it? Could Dumbledore do it? We will never know 
now cause JKR found another way out. Again, here I believe that 
Dumbledore *could* have done it but didn't 
 but that's
just a belief.<g> 

But as for the loopholes – why, I meant the security problems 
plaguing Hogwarts to start with! There's Quirrelmort, his troll, 
Charlie's friends, Dobby, Sirius, Fake!Moody and his
portkey...they all just breeze in and out of a place that is reputed 
to be more secure than the Bank of England, oops, Gringotts. 
Dumbledore apparently cannot secure Hogwarts. Now, yes, he might have 
consciously allowed these infiltrations, but it's somewhat odd to 
first expect Dumbledore to be infallible, then work so hard to 
explain away contradictions by proposing a deeper plan behind them. 
Possible, even probable...but not canon..yet.

And the loophole with the goblet was that Crouch could actually get 
out a fourth champion for a *tri*wizard tournament! There was a 
loophole in Dumbledore's precautions in keeping away underage
wizards.

Lynn:
(now wondering if the teachers get their own personal toilet or are 
left wandering around the school looking for the teacher's toilet all 
night.)       


Errol. 
Laughing hard. :)