Pensieves objectivity AND: Dumbledore's integrity

[kiricat2001]

No: HPFGUIDX 79587

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mochajava13" 
<mochajava13 at y...> wrote:
>> Now me (Sarah):
> 
> I agree with all that has been said about Dumbledore needing to be 
> cold and calculating in order to effectively battle Voldemort.  
> However, I think Dumbledore's weakness is that he also treats some 
> people as children when they aren't (or can't be), and when he 
> should have placed adult responsibilites on them.  In other words, 
> he cares about people as a father cares for his children.  He wants 
> to protect people he cares for, but panders to their desires to 
feel 
> happy and useful.  
> 
> For example, with Harry, Dumbledore should have told Harry 
> everything.  Harry needed to know, for his own protection.  I don't 
> think the events of OoP would have changed even if Harry knew that 
> Voldemort wanted the prophecy. 

But, perhaps the combination of Harry knowing what was going on, plus 
hearing a detailed explanation about the value and nature of 
Occlumency from someone he trusted, might have made a difference. I 
know, I know, Dumbledore had to stay away from Harry  so Voldemort 
wouldn't find out when strolling through Harry's mind that the good 
guys had figured out about the connection between Harry's mind and 
Voldemort.  But, Dumbledore could have had Remus or Moody or 
McGonagall be the one to talk to Harry alone to explain all of this, 
and also explain why Snape has to be the one to teach Harry.  
Instead, Harry is informed about this (still with his relative 
knowledge vaccuum) by Snape in a tense situation.  From the start, 
Harry was unwilling and unhappy about this extra instruction.

 Hermione told Harry that Voldemort might be tricking 
> Harry, but Harry said he didn't care; he was going to go after 
> Sirius anyway.  I think that Harry would have gone after Sirius 
even 
> if he knew what the prophecy was all about.  That's Harry's nature; 
> to go after those in trouble.  Dumbledore telling Harry about the 
> prophecy and Voldemort's desire to get it wouldn't have changed 
> anything.  (Harry might have been even more likely to go after 
> Sirius in an attempt to prevent Sirius picking up the prophecy and 
> going insane.)


> And Dumbledore also treats Sirius like a child.  Dumbledore ordered 
> Sirius to stay inside Grimmauld Place, with good reason.  The death 
> eates knew of Sirius' animagus form, and would have tried to kidnap 
> Sirius just to get Harry.  Sirius was a target, and needed to stay 
> hidden.  Plus, the ministry was looking for Sirius.  Human 
disguises 
> could be seen through, 

What sort of disguises do you mean? Polyjuice Potions?  
Disillusionment Charms? Grouch Marx masks?  How long does a 
Disillusionment Charm last?  That was used on Harry when he was being 
sent to 12 Grimmauld Place from the Dursleys because of the great 
need for secrecy (although his flying wizard escorts were evidently 
perfectly visible...)

and Sirius might have been sent back to 
> Azkaban or given a dementor's kiss.  Sirius realizes this, and, for 
> the most part, complies with Dumbledore's orders to stay inside.  
> But, Dumbledore pandered to Sirius' desire to be useful and to know 
> about the fight against Voldemort.  Why keep Sirius at Grimmauld 
> Place?  True, it is very well hidden, but enchantments could have 
> been placed at a number of other locations.  However, if Sirius was 
> carted off to a different location, even if it was one Sirius 
> enjoyed being at, Sirius would be out of the loop.  He would have 
to 
> rely on messages from others.  So instead of having Sirius hide 
> somewhere else, or setting up headquarters somewhere else, 
> Dumbledore gives into Sirius' desires.  
 
As a father would, not as a 
> general would.  Dumbledore had misgivings about using Grimmauld 
> Place as headquarters, but gave into Sirius' desire to feel useful.

I think this is a stretch.  Sirius offered the house as a 
headquarters and Dumbledore accepted.  I haven't found any evidence 
that Dumbledore did this because it would make Sirius feel good. And 
Sirius indicates from the very first scene we see him that he feels 
he doesn't have anything useful to do.  

Plus, where does it say that Dumbledore had misgivings about using 12 
Grimmauld PLace?  Had Dumbledore had another place to use as 
Headquarters and insisted that Sirius stay locked up in it, I think 
Sirius would have handled it better than being locked up in the very 
house that represented everything he hated about his childhood. 


> Anyway, I think Dumbledore tries to be Macchiavellian for the 
> greater good.  (Sacrifice the few for the greater good of the 
> whole.)  But I think he fails because of his fatherly attitude 
> towards those much younger than himself.  Dumbledore tries to 
> protect too many people, instead of giving these people the 
> responsibility to look after themselves.  (Namely Harry and 
> Sirius.)  He wants to give Harry a childhood.  He wants Sirius to 
> live, really live, after being unjustly stuck in Azkaban for so 
> long.  Just my two cents.

If keeping Sirius locked up in that house was Dumbledore's idea of a 
great way for Sirius to be able to live, really live, then 
Dumbledore's not being either Macchiavellian or fatherly - he's being 
sadistic.  The only way to give Sirius a chance to live was to find 
Pettigrew and bring him to justice.  We heard not a peep about that 
in OoP because everyone was so busy with the prophecy stuff. 

I think your points are quite valide with Harry, but I just don't see 
it with Sirius.

Marianne