Were Dumbledore & Snape involved in James & Lilly's death+ LV downfall?

[Jim Ferer]

No: HPFGUIDX 90073

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer" <jferer at y...> 
wrote:

Alla:
> If she did not characterise Dumbledore as a sympathetic character , 
> I'd say that canon has quite a few clues, which can point out to 
> Dumbledore misdeeds already and who knows, maybe more are coming. 
> You never know...

I don't characterize Dumbeldore's actions as "misdeeds." He can be 
criticized for anything, IMO, except being malicious.

> There are very many sympathetic characters in the books besides 
> Dumbledore and the only message I would read if he will turn out to 
> be evil is that Dumbledore is evil. Period. (again, I don't really 
> think that it is going to happen, but it is possible and not crazy 
> at all, the way I see it)

There's a concept in literature, especially in mysteries, of an 
author "playing fair."  An author can't pull stuff completely out of 
thin air, or tell you one thing in the author's voice and then negate 
it.  You'd say there are many clues that DD could be evil, but I 
don't think there are, really. For a shining example of fair 
surprises, look at _The DaVinci Code_.  As far as messages go, you 
can't take a character readers have known as good, truly good, and 
make him evil that way. It would be like having one of the Seven 
Dwarfs turn out to be working for the Queen.

> See, I did not buy his great love to Harry , when he was talking at 
> the end of OoP. I don't believe that "the only wizard Voldie ever 
> feared" could not come up with a better way to keep Harry safe than 
> to leave him with Duddleys and letting him grew up in the 
> atmosphere of if not physical, then emotional abuse for sure.You 
> call it a mistake, I call it a crime.  I think it was already 
> repugnant enough,  so it is probable that Dum,bledore may do 
> something more repugnant in the future.

I won't say that until I know exactly what else DD could have done.  
The whole WW does seem to let things happen that our world would not, 
though, doesn't it?  I think of Snape's persecution of various 
students here, for example.  The existence of Slytherin House itself 
is another.

> I think that if Dumbledore really loved Harry as much as he claims, 
> he would find ways to talk to Harry at any time before battle at 
> the  MoM happen.

Dumbledore explained it, and I don't think he was lying.

> Could you tell me what changed at the end of OoP that Dumbledore 
> suddenly thought it was safe enough to talk to the boy?
> I also think that it was a crime on his part to ask Snape to teach 
> Harry occlumency, although I love the fact that JKR made them to 
> learn more about each other. 

A crime is something more than a failure to come up with a more 
palatable solution to a problem than the one chosen.  Dumbledore 
thought the risk too great, to Harry and to the cause of fighting 
Voldemort.  The cause is more important than Harry is.

Dumbledore is not above criticism.  He should have found the will to 
tell Harry everything sooner.  I don't know why he couldn't have 
given Harry some comforting words through an intermediary, unless he 
thought even that would have given LV an advantage.  But I would not 
criticize a leader because he made hard calls.