Pensieves objectivity AND: Dumbledore's integrity

[Wanda Sherratt]

No: HPFGUIDX 79442

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kirstini" <kirst_inn at y...> 
wrote:
I'm not saying that *everything* DD has told Harry is false, 
> just advocating that we read it all with a pinch of salt. I said 
in 
> my initial post that the pauses in the prophecy as we have it 
offer 
> the *possibility* that DD is editing it. (SNIP)
> But I was arguing for a situation where Harry *could* realise it, 
not 
> by being told by Dumbledore, but by working it out for himself. I 
> predict that over the course of the next two books we'll see him 
> becoming increasingly independent of Dumbledore, and perhaps a 
huge 
> test of his loyalties occur when he realises, as we've done, that 
DD 
> isn't working with his own best interests at heart. (I'm getting 
> increasingly fond of Ever So Fallible!Dumbledore at the moment, 
> spymaster or no spymaster.) The thing about mentor-pupil 
storylines 
> is that there inevitably comes a point where the pupil overtakes, 
or 
> at least is able to function without, the aid of a mentor.  What I 
> was trying to get towards was a state where DD's end-of-term 
> explanations no longer explain everything satisfactorily either to 
> Harry or to the reader, and Harry constructs a new version of the 
> narrative for himself, rather than simply allowing himself to be 
> written the way DD wants.

I have to say, I think that this interpretation of Dumbledore cannot 
be right.  It's one thing for adults to read these books, and read 
intricate possibilities into them.  But they are still children's 
books, and I think it would be bad, even immoral, for Rowling to set 
up children to think that Dumbledore is good and trustworthy, and 
then to knock that down.  He is the primary "father figure" in 
Harry's world, whether Harry overtly acknowledges it or not.  For 
more than half the series, there has been no hint that Dumbledore is 
anything but a good character, on the side of good, and working for 
good.  A child would especially recognize the father-archetype being 
depicted:  old, wise, protecting, full of information, loving, 
concerned, etc.  To seriously start undermining this picture would 
be almost cruel; it would be telling children, "You can't trust 
anyone.  People who tell you they're acting for your own good never 
are, they're just lying and using you."  I would call that immoral, 
not to mention false, and I don't see any sign that Rowling is 
heading that way.

My reasoning is that Rowling is not really all that subtle when 
she's conveying a message.  An example of where she did do a sort 
of "debunking" is in the way she describes the MoM, and by 
extension, politicians and government in general.  In PS the issue 
hardly arises, but by CoS we start hearing about the MoM, and from 
the start it comes across as seemingly efficient and well-meaning, 
but rule-bound and troublesome.  Harry gets an automatic reprimand 
for Dobby's magic-doing, and there's no way to explain or fix what's 
happened.  Arthur Weasley is harrassed by petty problems.  Mr. Fudge 
is weak and easily cowed by important people like Lucius Malfoy.  
Even though Harry later on has a more positive experience with Fudge 
in PoA, the view of government and "officialdom" is chequered and 
shaded; it's not such a big surprise when the MoM becomes actively 
antagonistic later on - we were never led to expect that much from 
such a quarter anyway.  This is not at all the case with 
Dumbledore.  By now, to find that he's a cold calculator, a 
Richelieu, a manipulator and a liar would be almost as shocking as 
finding out that he's really been a DE all along.

What I think Rowling IS doing is showing us how growing older does 
not mean just getting bigger, stronger, more independent and 
happier.  It can lead to a lot of misunderstanding and trouble; 
after all, have we really learned something new about Dumbledore or 
about Harry?  Harry is the one who changed in book 5 - everyone has 
noticed it.  Why are we to suppose that all his changes are for the 
better, that his changing opinion of Dumbledore is now the true 
one?  Isn't it possible that Harry is mistaken, and that his 
problems and angst are interfering with a realistic view of 
Dumbledore and other characters?

Wanda