[HPforGrownups] Re: Acceptable Abuses?

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 95989

On 14 Apr 2004 at 14:50, dumbledore11214 wrote:

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" <drednort at a...> 
> wrote:
> 
> snipping the frst part of Shaun's post, because completely disagrees 
> with him, but realising that that is indeed strictly a matter of 
> personal opinion and experiences.
> 
> 
> > I think Dumbledore does love Harry.
> > 
> > But he also loves his world - and when there is conflict between 
> > those two loves, he'll do what he has to do to save that world.
> > 
> > I'll go further. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that 
> > Dumbledore loves Tom Riddle as well.
> > 
> > But he will kill Tom - and more than kill Tom - to protect his 
> > world.
> > 
> > Dumbledore does what he has to do.
> 
> 
> That I don't know. If I would have been sure that he at least LOVES 
> BOTH Harry and his world, I would have been more sympathetic to his 
> struggle. 
> I will probably regain my respect for Dumbledore if he at least tries 
> to find a way to reconcile both like giving Harry all necessary tools 
> to survive Voldemort, not keeping him in the dark, etc.

The question is, though, who are you to decide that this is what is 
necessary? Who are you to decide that Dumbledore should not be 
keeping Harry in the dark?

I'm not saying you are wrong. In fact, I personally agree that 
Dumbledore should be (and should have been) far more open with 
Harry than he has been, and that Harry is entitled to all available 
information. I wish it wasn't so. I wish he could be given the 
luxury of ignorance, but that doesn't seem a realistic possibility.

But even though I agree with you - how do we know we are right? 
This is not a situation we really have to deal with (well, I hope 
not, anyway). It's very easy to sit back and calmly analyse what 
people should and shouldn't do when you are just reading a book. 
But imagine yourself in the book - how would you cope if you were 
in the position of Albus Dumbledore - if you had to deal with the 
real consequences of the choices you make, in an environment where 
fear and terror is a normal part of your life. Where you are the 
only one who has to make the decisions, and you're the one who has 
to live with the consequences of your decisions.

Just consider for a moment - it's easy to criticise Dumbledore for 
keeping things secret from Harry from the age of 11-14 - and it's 
easy to do so because Voldemort *has* risen again. But was 
Voldemort's return to a position of power a certainty? No, it 
wasn't. If Wormtail hadn't returned to his side, if Mr Crouch 
hadn't conspired in the release of his son... there's all sorts of 
variables that have lead to Voldemort's rise, at that time, at that 
place.

Dumbledore had to decide how to deal with Harry. And whatever 
choices he made, the consequences could be bad depending on what 
actually happened.

Consider if Dumbledore had told Harry everything when he was 11 
years old - and then Voldemort had never risen (or perhaps seeing 
we have the prophecy, so we might assume that that was preordained, 
perhaps Voldemort wouldn't rise again until Harry was 30). In that 
case, Dumbledore would have been guilty of ruining Harry's chances 
for a normal childhood, not once, but twice. He'd already taken 
away his happiness from the age of 1-10. Would it really have been 
an improvement to take it away from the age of 11 as well? His last 
chance at childhood? I'll be personal again for a second - at the 
age of 12, I lost my childhood due to the garbage being heaped on 
me at every opportunity. Fortunately for me, I got it back when I 
was 13 - because teachers worked to give it back to me. And I am so 
grateful for that. That makes it hard for me to accept the 
Dumbledore should have told Harry everything prior to now. 
Intellectually I believe it, emotionally I find it hard.

I believe Dumbledore should have told Harry everything - but I 
won't condemn a man for making mistakes while he's walking a 
tightrope between trying to give a child a childhood, and to 
prepare that child to live - or very possibly die - a soldier.
 
> Personally, I think Dumbledore will be REALLY surpprised by  the 
> ending of the books. :o)
>  
> > Two of my favourite series of SciFi books - the Ender series 
> > (including the Shadow books) and the Seafort saga, both have 
> > situations where men with a genuine love and caring for the 
> > children they teach, are forced into situations where they have to 
> > use those children to save their world. In 'Fisherman's Hope' 
> > (spoilers ahead), Nicholas Seafort, Commandant of the Naval 
> > Academy, a devout Christian, who genuinely cares for the children 
> > he trains, deliberately sends numerous of them unknowingly to their 
> > deaths - because it is the only way he knows to save the human 
> > race.
> 
> By the way, I really really hate "Ender Game". Although it is a 
> wonderfullly written book, indeed. Probably because it is a typical 
> example of what kind of story produces negative emotions in me. Child 
> is expected to save the world and adults around him take an easy way 
> out without trying to find some other way to save the said world 
> without sending children to die.
> I read "Ender Game" about a year ago, so I may not remember the 
> details, but so far I don't any adults around cared about Ender much, 
> they cared first and most of all about winning a war.

Oh, they cared. It might not be that clear in Ender's Game, I admit 
- I've lent my copy to someone so I can't check - but Ender's 
Shadow is much more illustrative. Ender's Shadow, in case you don't 
know - is the same story as Ender's Game, told from the perspective 
of Bean, one of the other children at Battle School. It takes place 
at the same time, we see the same events from a slightly different 
angle. And we get to see quite a bit of the discussion between the 
adults involved - specifically discussion comparing Bean to Ender 
(they are the two standouts among all the children). If you didn't 
like Ender's Game, it's unlikely you'd like Ender's Shadow - but it 
does show a bit more detail. And the adults do care - they care 
incredibly. It's not always obvious because they suppress it, 
because they feel horror at what they do.

And the adults do not find an easy way out - they use the children 
not because they don't want to find another way. And they don't 
send children to die. The only children who die (and as I recall, 
there are only two) do so despite their best efforts - and are 
killed by other children, not as part of the plan - the adults bear 
responsibility for one of those deaths, certainly, but only one of 
them had any reason at all to anticipate the possibility. The 
people who die are adults who do so willingly on the orders of the 
children. They do use the children - because they have to. Yes, 
they care first and most of all about winning the war - but if they 
don't, all those children will die anyway.

Near the end of Ender's Shadow, two of the adults talk about what 
they've done:

"'Children. Sister Carlotta, the things I did to these children.'

'You gave them a world to come home to.'"

They cared - they regret what they did. But it was necessary to 
save the world - and the world came first.

And Dumbledore really faces a somewhat similar choice - he is in a 
very unenviable position.

The life and happiness of one child versus the survival of dozens 
or hundreds and a reign of terror...

> > It's not even a choice, really. The lives of a few against the 
> > lives of many.
> 
> But that is what makes such a wonderful read . It is a choice and 
> usually really "humanistic" characters struggle with such choice, not 
> just take an easy way out and sacrifice life of few for "the greater 
> good"

And I think that Dumbledore probably does struggle - but should he 
reveal that struggle to everyone around him? Just because you don't 
see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.
 
> > But such choices aren't uncommon in literature today (well, they've 
> > never been uncommon - but they are starting to emerge more and more 
> > often in contemporary YA and children's works).
> > 
> > Dumbledore has to make his choices based on his morality. Are his 
> > choices easy ones? No. Are they correct ones? That depends on your 
> > point of view, I guess.
> > 
> > But I'd say that whatever else they are, they are COURAGEOUS 
> > choices.
> 
> If Dumbledore sacrifices himself too in his fight against Voldie, 
> than yes, definitely his choices are courageous, otherwise it is 
> hiding behind the child back and expecting this child to win the war 
> for him and save wisarding world.

I don't agree - and the reason I don't agree is based on the 
prophecy. If Dumbledore had chosen Harry for this role, then he 
might be guilty of hiding behind him. But he didn't choose him. The 
prophecy revealed him, and Voldemort marked him. He is the one - 
whether Dumbledore wants him to be or not.

I mean, it's not as if Dumbledore doesn't have plenty of others to 
choose from.

Moody and Lupin would, it seems to be, willingly give their lives 
to defeat Voldemort - and both of them are far more competent than 
child-Harry. I think that every member (or at least virtually every 
member) of the order would stand and fight and die to defeat 
Voldemort.

If Dumbledore just wanted to hide, he could hide behind them. He's 
not hiding behind a child - he's dealing with a reality where he is 
told this child will have to live or die to defeat the Dark Lord.

It's not his choice - it's preordained, and the only element of 
choice was that of Voldemort - who decided which of the two 
possible children, he would mark.


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia