Dumbledore's integrity

[bluesqueak]

No: HPFGUIDX 79453


> --- 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<Snip>. 
> > I predict that over the course of the next two books we'll see 
> > him [Harry] 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.)
Ø	<Snip>
> 
Wanda Sherratt:
> 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.  

Pip!Squeak:	
Ah, Dumbledore as wise, twinkly father image. Good argument – the 
only problem is that there is more than a hint that Dumbledore is 
not just good and twinkly. Or rather, that JK Rowling has her 
Dumbledore operating according to a `good' that acknowledges the 
idea of `greater good'.

Kind, twinkly Dumbledore doesn't survive Chamber of Secrets. Or 
rather he does – but only because Harry sees events from the 
viewpoint of a child, not that of an adult.

Consider Dumbledore's behaviour in Chamber of Secrets from the adult 
viewpoint.  Colin Creevey gets Petrified. And the school stays open. 
Justin Finch Fetchley is Petrified. And the school stays open. 
Hermione, Penelope Clearwater. Same thing. There's a mythical 
monster roving Hogwarts, and our twinkly eyed father image appears 
quite happy to let his students drop like rather stiff flies. ;-)

Wanda:
> A child would especially recognize the father-archetype being 
> depicted:  old, wise, protecting, full of information, loving, 
> concerned, etc.  

Pip!Squeak:
Also willing to dump you with abusive relatives, let you face 
horrific monsters, allow teachers to poison you (hopefully 
Dumbledore at least insisted that Snape had antidotes on hand) and 
not tell you vital information `for your own good'.

This father archetype certainly believes in `Tough Love', doesn't he?

Wanda:
> 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.

Pip!Squeak:
An examination of some of the father images in the books to date:

Uncle Vernon – Harry's foster father. Abusive, bullying and bigoted. 
Snape – cold, belittling, apparently sadistic and unfair. Strangely 
protective when Harry's life is threatened.
Sirius – impulsive, genuinely protective, inclined to see Harry as 
another James and to criticise him when Harry shows he *isn't* James 
re-born.
James. Ah, yes, he *was* the perfect father image, wasn't he? Until 
we hit OOP. ;-)

None of these father figures present a picture of a perfect father 
image. Further, JKR most certainly *is* examining father-child 
relationships. The Crouches have a father who imprisons his son, and 
a son who murders his father. Neville Longbottom has a father he's 
told he can't live up to. Tom Riddle despises the father who 
abandoned him. The Weasley's have a son who refuses to visit his 
critically ill father. Harry idolises his safely dead father – and 
is distinctly shocked by the real-life version.

If Dumbledore is being set up to be the primary father figure, the 
list above makes it very unlikely that anything other than a human 
fallibility is on the menu. It also strongly sets up the possibility 
of future hatred between Harry and Dumbledore.

We just haven't quite got there yet. Nearly, when Dumbledore 
admitted his mistakes. But it would not surprise me at all if Harry 
spent a period of Book 6 or 7 deeply opposed to Dumbledore.  More 
deeply angry than in OOP, because he has discovered that Dumbledore 
*does* consider some things more important than Harry's life.

 
<Snip> 
Wanda: 
> 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.

Pip!Squeak:
But, as I hope I've shown above, there *are* signs that Dumbledore 
is capable of calculation. He risks his students in CoS. Presumably 
in the hope that Harry can defeat Voldemort and put a final end to 
the Basilisk. I think it's been said by JKR that CoS is more 
important than people realise. That is one of the clues, IMO. 
Dumbledore will risk the lives of innocents if the stakes are high 
enough.

Dumbledore admits in OOP to knowingly abandoning Harry to years of 
abuse `I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years.'

That is cold calculation. Ten years of child abuse is worth it. If 
it's the only way to ensure that the child stays alive.

Ten years of neglect, deprivation, violence. That is not a *nice* 
thing for a twinkly eyed father image to do. A *nice* thing to do 
would have been to find a family who would have loved to take Harry, 
and then guard him night and day.

But Dumbledore calculates that ten years with foster parents who 
loathe him is an absolute protection, so off Harry goes to his dark 
and difficult years.

And he is absolutely right. Dumbledore took the right course, not 
the easy one. Dumbledore will ruin the innocent Harry's early 
childhood if the stakes are high enough. If it's a choice between 
neglect and murder, you pick neglect.

> 
> 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?

More likely is that the readers image of `good' is being confused 
with `nice'. Good is not the same thing as nice. Nice is simple; 
good is complex.

It is not nice to lie. If a Death Eater asks you where Hermione the 
muggle born is, what does the good person do? 

It is not nice to steal. If Harry needs to rescue Ron, and the only 
available Gillyweed belongs to Snape, what does he do?

It is not nice to kill people.  If the person is a Death Eater about 
to kill your family, what does Mr Weasley do?

It is not nice to construct a plan where innocent people will die. 
If the alternative is the victory of a faction whose policy includes 
slaughtering those of mixed blood (and any pure-blood opponents) – 
what does Dumbledore do?


Is Harry's life worth the death of Hermione? Of the Creevey 
brothers? Dean Thomas? Penelope Clearwater? Of all the other 
muggleborns in the WW?  Of the `muggle-loving' Weasley's?

It is not, and Dumbledore knows that it is not. He describes 
caring `more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the 
plan fails' as a *trap*.

Kirstini is absolutely right. Dumbledore does not have Harry's best 
interests at heart. He *tells* him that in OOP Ch. 37. Having 
Harry's best interests at heart is a terrible mistake. Having 
Harry's best interests at heart is *not* in the best interest of the 
world.

The choice between good and evil is not the same as the choice 
between the nice path and the nasty one. Sometimes it's the choice 
between the nasty path, and the nastiER. Britain went to war against 
Hitler in the absolute and certain knowledge that innocents would 
die. The alternative was worse. 

Winning was terrible: Britain ended up bombed, bankrupt, and 
mourning its dead. 

Losing would have been more terrible.

Part of growing older is becoming aware of greater moral complexity. 
In OOP we were explicitly told that the world is not divided into 
good people and Death Eaters. And we were implicitly introduced to 
the idea that life is not a simple choice between good and evil. 
Sometimes the decision we have to make is between the lesser and the 
greater evil.

This is something that a child has to learn. It is an entirely fit 
subject to examine in a series of books that are marketed for 
children. 

Sometimes your father figure may not have your best interests at 
heart. Because sometimes your father figure may have to consider 
more than just you.

There *are* times when a good person lies.

Pip!Squeak