Pensieves objectivity AND: Dumbledore's integrity

[Kirstini]

No: HPFGUIDX 79451

Wanda wrote, in a very well thought out and heartfelt post, which I 
felt the need to respond to:

>>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.>>

But it happens in life. And I remember JKR saying once that she was 
writing books which children would enjoy, not trying to preach moral 
examples at them. Personally, I think that Lily having Harry at such 
a young age is a terrible example to set to little girls (oops, my 
Affective Fallacy is showing again <g>), but JKR's own personal 
morality is not mine, and this makes me reconsider a bit. Yes, they 
are children's books, but, as someone pointed out today, they contain 
scenes of murder, torture, child abuse, distressing deaths and 
extreme grief, and sadism. Ooh, and muckle great creatures which can 
suck your soul out and leave you as nothing but a husk of person. I 
don't think any of the parents on list would be able to claim that 
OoP is the sort of book you'd pick to read to your five year old, and 
I don't think a five year old reader would be able to understand or 
even enjoy OoP for more than the naughty twins, or Vernon Dursley's 
bluster.
<steels herself for barrage of flamers from indignant parents with 
exceptionally bright toddlers> 
JKR's ideal reader grows up at a speed roughly similar to Harry 
himself. 

 >> [DD] is the primary "father figure" in Harry's world, whether 
Harry overtly acknowledges it or not.>>

Mm, and look at what's happened to all of Harry's other father-
figures. Harry became aware of James and Sirius's failings, and they 
receded in their influence over him, until he was able to make moral 
judgements which over-ruled theirs. Dumbledore is also a mentor-
figure, don't forget.
 
>>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.>>

Pip and I have both highlighted areas where DD's actions have been 
ambiguous. During the "gleam of triumph" bit in GoF, Harry catches a 
glimpse of another, altogether more frightenting side of DD. There 
must have been hints, if so many people on the list *have* picked up 
on them. They might not have appeared to be hints to you, but I think 
something which has been increasingly obvious in recent 
daltogetheriscussion (thinking about all the "Harry's sexual 
preference" posts) is that every reader interprets the subtleties of 
canon for themself. 
Also, we aren't denying for a moment that he's working for good. Just 
questioning his methods.

>> 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.  <big snip>
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.>>

But I was trying to point out that she may very well be creating a 
situation where this sort of realisation is possible. The 
destabilising of the MoM as a trustworthy force working for Harry's 
protection was fairly gradual - we may never have warmed to him, but 
Fudge intervenes immediatly for Harry's protection in PoA. And, as 
Pip pointed out, DD has already revealed that he is at least mildly 
calculating. By telling Harry "I cared more about your life than the 
other lives which would be lost", DD implies that he is *now* putting 
those lives before Harry's. Manipulation is inevitable in the 
position he's in, which is that of the head of an army at war. War 
isn't a very nice thing for children to read about either - there are 
lots of random deaths, and generals inevitably have to make judgement 
calls which occasionally turn out to have been mistakes and lose 
lives. Which is what DD admits happened to Sirius. We've also got to 
a state where loss of life as battle casualty is something which all 
the members of the Order prepare themselves for, a concept which 
children may find hard to understand, but it's still mentioned, in a 
children's book. This is a realistically depicted war. And the 
generals of real wars don't tend to be twinkly-eyed eccentrics with 
no agendas or strategies for victory (it would explain a lot, though).

>>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?>>

This was a really interesting point. Of course, Harry has a long way 
to go yet, and I for one really hope he's snapped out of the whining 
and shouting by Book 6. Although I doubt it. The thing is that his 
assesments of all the other characters *are* getting more realistic - 
look at the way he sees Neville towards the end of OoP. He may be a 
stroppy little adolescant, and many of his assesments may very well 
be off-base, but you can't deny that his view towards DD *is* more 
realistic. Perhaps not true, but more realistic than the idea that DD 
is infallible, which is just as much of a false hope to give 
children. It's what children *do* as they enter adolescence - they 
discover that their parents aren't perfect, are fallible, and they 
react by going over to the opposite side for a while before (usually) 
reaching some area of compromise in their feelings.

Kirstini, who though Wanda's post was really interesting, even if she 
didn't agree with it.