Snape, Harry, Dumbledore, and flaws in the books

[sevenhundredandthirteen]

No: HPFGUIDX 105692

Dzeytoun wrote:

>JKR sometimes commits the cardinal sin of writing, she lots plot
>dictate character instead of the other way around. A lot of the
>seeming inconsistencies and flaws really ARE inconstistencies and
>flaws.

<snip>

>She just isn't very good at explaining
>what makes people tick. Look at the trio. After five books we STILL
>don't really know much about what kind of people Ron and Hermione
>really are, and why they make the decisions they do.

I (Laurasia) reply:

Yes and no. I agree with what you've said sometimes, and not in 
others. I think Dumbledore is especially inconsistent. But I think 
we do understand things about Hermione, especially. And I do think 
characters drive the plot in some instances.

The problem I have with the inconsistency of plot driving 
characters, rather than characters driving plot is that a lot of 
that is critical of the things characters _don't_ do, rather than 
what they _do_ do.  People are always acting dumber than we think 
they are when they are inconsistent.

All these things are inconsistent with characterisation, but all 
rely on people not doing things, rather than actually doing things:

    Dumbledore _doesn't_ intervene with Snape's bullying of
Harry.
    Dumbledore _doesn't_ recognise Imposter!Moody until the end
of the year even though he's allegedly an old friend.
    Voldemort _doesn't_ attempt to whisk Harry away to use his
blood in his rebirth until the end of the year.
    Nobody remembers that Lupin shouldn't walk into the moonlight.
    Dumbledore _isn't_ at Hogwarts for an extended period of time
at the end of PS for so good reason (He can't apparate from the 
village? Must literally _fly_ yo London?).
    Hermione _doesn't_ tell Harry she knows it's a basilisk,
but rushes of to get petrified.
    Dumbledore _doesn't_ recognise a basilisk victim when he sees 
one, even though he's allegedly the most powerful wizard of the
age. In fact, he can't even bring up a top 5 of monsters that can
petrify people, realise that only one of them is a serpent, and then 
join the dots that Slytherin was a snake enthusiasts, AND a
parselmouth

    Death Eaters _don't_ cast Avada Kedavra's in battle all
the time, opting for tap dancing curses and drunkenness instead. 

They are arguably all things that needed to happen for narrative and 
structural reasons. We need Harry to have a nemesis, and it works 
better for continuity if they are the same person in all books. We 
need all the important things to happen at the _end_ of the school 
year for structurally climactic reasons. We need Harry to face his 
fights ultimately alone, so everyone else is conveniently taken out 
of action. We need Harry to figure the stuff out himself so he 
appears the hero. These are all things that have nothing to do with 
the sequence of events or character relationships. JKR just decided 
somewhere along the line that each book would tell the story of one 
complete year of Harry's schooling. The books wouldn't be any
less compelling if the plot of Goblet of Fire took place over one 
month instead of 10.

That's why most of these `plot device' are
inconsequential, IMO. JKR has _never_ set herself up as an evil 
author who will change the rules at any given moment. We _know_ 
Harry can't die before book 7. 

BUT, take Lord of the Rings- Tolkein left book 2 of a trilogy with 
Frodo dead, and Sam taking the burden of the ring and continuing on. 
Tolkein was setting himself up as an evil author who could kill the 
main character if he wanted to, so readers were scared that all of 
their beloved characters could die at any moment. JKR uses school 
years- we _know_ book 7 will take place in Harry's Seventh Year
at Hogwarts, and that he will pass every year before that. We _know_ 
that the final climax will take place in June sometime. JKR has 
never scared us that she might do otherwise, so we just accept that 
things will never be resolved until the end.

Also, when inconsistencies are based on inaction, there is always 
the question- but how much do they actually know? How aware is 
Dumbledore of Snape's actions towards Harry? We can't be
sure. It's one thing to say `A kind man like Dumbledore would
never let a cruel man like Snape teach' but how are we to know how
aware Dumbledore is of the abuse going on in his classes? When his 
inconsistency is _not_ acting, there is always the defence- but 
maybe he doesn't know. That's why a lot of inconsistency can
be easily explained away.

It's the same with a lot of other inconsistencies- Voldemort 
characterised as a power hungry megalomaniac, yet he's happy to
sit in a gusty house whilst not in human form, completely dependant 
on an incompetent fool who could desert him at any moment and just 
do nothing! Unlikely! It goes against his character to wait, but, 
because the inconsistency is lack of action, there are a million 
easy reason why it was necessary- he wasn't strong enough yet- it 
really was the fastest they could do it.

Even though Lupin has struggled with his lycanthropy for his life 
and is really conscious of it, feeling guilty all year, _telling_ 
everyone his whole story
. But then he forgets. In fact, everyone 
forgets. Even Ron who is truly alarmed to know he's a werewolf
and is afraid of him, even Hermione who knowledge about almost 
everything, even though they are lugging Snape along who came for 
the reason- Lupin forgot his potion
. _NO ONE_ remembers. Nobody.
It's character inconsistency
. BUT, there was so much excitement 
going on, that nobody really blames them. When your pet rat just 
transformed into a long dead wizard and confessed to killing two 
people to Voldemort, and no, that psychopathic murderer is actually 
innocent, OF COURSE it's easy to see how who is the werewolf is 
driven from everyone's minds.

Why do the Death Eaters cast drunkenness spells one second, but AK 
people whenever they miss. It sounds fishy. Very fishy. Plot device 
right? Even though the Death Eaters are sadistic and cruel and under 
strict orders, there are still tap dancing spells being hurtled 
though the air? Inconsistency of character, used to stop anyone 
dying. Maybe to explain this one away we say it takes real power and 
focus to cast an AK, so in battle Death Eaters cast one every few 
minutes, and then have to recharge. AKs are too draining
 or,
they are harder to aim. All easy reasons to explain why the DA only 
got hit with inconsequential spells.

Snape has every right to act the way he does- his bullying and 
general nastiness is perfectly in character for a grudge-bearing man 
who was abused as a child. Whereas, Dumbledore
 yes, he does act 
inconsistently. After all, is he is a kind  powerful headmaster, why 
does he let a nasty bullying teacher bully his kids. Surely, 
Dumbledore should stop it the second he discovers it.  Either he 
doesn't know, or he isn't the kind powerful head master Harry
thinks he is, or else he wants it to happen. Clearly, conceding that 
Dumbledore is weak goes against his characterisation and Harry 
himself is reluctant to do it. He is angry when Dumbledore shows 
signs of weakness (end of OotP). We as the readers seem to be doing 
the same. Instead of conceding that Dumbledore can't fix all, we 
want to believe he's been orchestrating this. 

However, Dumbledore always has another agenda. He is not just a kind 
powerful headmaster. He has ulterior motives right from the get go- 
is also the leader of the anti-Voldemort league, and Snape is, 
arguably, his most pivotal spy. Whilst it is not understandable for 
a kind headmaster to put the well-being of his students above the 
petty desires of his staff, it is understandable that Snape's
petty well-being may be more important to the Voldemort War, not 
just the Hogwarts Students, if only to keep in on his side. 
Dumbledore needs his students taught (fire Snape!), but he also 
needs to ensure that Snape doesn't go back to Voldemort (umm, you 
can be as nasty as you like, so long as you're happy!). 

Dumbledore underestimates Snape- he suggests he can overcome his 
feelings for James to teach Harry Occlumency. He also finds the 
Snape/James charade, comical almost- the way he states the way he 
wanted to go back to hating James' memory like it's a fun
fact. He believes in second chances. He also believes in the human 
spirit- always commending Harry on the faith he shows him, the 
courage he musters, rather than his intellectual decisions. He says 
he believes that Snape will be able to overcome his hatred. 
Dumbledore believes that Snape will stop it, without his 
interference.

Even though Dumbledore has known Moody for years, a wizard who has 
been locked up for over a decade and who only abducted Moody one day 
earlier can suddenly be his exact double and only stuff up once, 10 
months later. Unlikely! BUT, because this inconsistency is based on 
inaction, there is always the possibility that had other things on 
his mind.

If Dumbledore is to be a consistent character (consistent with not 
recognising the dangers even when he should) then he just has to be 
not as powerful, not as kind, not as knowledgeable and not quite as 
good as we think. Someone who wasn't nice or powerful or 
knowledgeable or good can let Snape bully his kids, will not 
recognise a friend when a guy in his late 20's who has been 
stuffed under an invisibility cloak for the last 10 year under the 
Imperius charm impersonates him, won't recognise the signs of a 
basilisk attempt, will FLY to London, instead of apparating from the 
village, as it was _urgent_ business. The only person who can make 
all these mistakes is someone who is not Albus Dumbledore. Or is it?

Of course
 we can always explain this away, can't we (without 
resorting to overly puppet-mastering schemes, that is)?! The 
interpretation of Dumbledore as perfect in the first place was 
really intended by JKR to show us the naivety of Harry's point of 
view. After all, Harry is slowly beginning to realise Dumbledore is 
an old man, who can't solve everything, who makes fatal mistakes, 
and what does he do? He gets angry. He throws things at him. Perhaps 
we as the reader are following a similar structure. We don't want 
Dumbledore to be weak, so we make him the puppet master, who knows 
all, and factors in failure as essential  elements of Harry's 
journey which he is influencing.

And what about Umbridge? The example of her insistence of taking 
Harry into the forest with Hermione at the end of OotP is often 
stated as being a plot device to get Harry to witness the events. 
JKR wants/needs Harry to see something, so she invents a plot device 
for him to see it. Why in the world should a woman choose someone 
who has consistently defied her in class, has just broken into her 
office, in not a crying girl, she _knows_ he can produce a corporeal 
Patronus and single-handedly repelled two Dementors the previous 
summer, she purposely out-numbers herself 2 to 1? There is proof he 
is a very powerful wizard, yet Dolores Umbridge asks him to come for 
a trip into a forest to see a really powerful weapon which he could 
know how to operate! Clearly, this is inconsistency to the extreme. 
Or is it? 

Dolores Umbridge enjoys seeing people punished. She enjoys holding 
the power, and watching people suffer- her detentions is enough, but 
she also wants to put the Cruciatus curse on Harry! Dolores Umbridge 
thinks she is a match for an entire herd of centaurs, it is very in 
character for Umbridge to consider herself a match for Potter, and 
actively seek pleasure from watching his suffer as she forces him to 
reveal Dumbledore's secret weapon to her. In fact, her choosing
of Harry was an very much in character decision which very much 
drove the plot. If Umbridge didn't enjoy watching people suffer,
she never would have brought Harry along, and then the events of 
OotP would never have turned out as they did. In fact, without Harry 
there, maybe the centaurs would have let Hermione pass (they say 
Harry is nearing manhood, but don't suggest Hermione is anything 
other than a foal), then she could have scurried back to the office 
where the others were waiting.

I disagree with what you've said about not knowing Ron and
Hermione in some ways, but agree is others.

That is, we never really know why Ron and Hermione follow Harry down 
the trap-door after the Philosopher's Stone.  They're loyal
to Harry and morally concerned about a megalomaniac taking control, 
but they're not very specific or defining traits. But, Ron and 
Hermione's actions are never central to bringing on plot events.
For instance, it would matter little whether Ron and Hermione were 
there with Harry, so long as he made it through the obstacles. Their 
presence there makes little difference to Harry. That is, is
doesn't act differently because they were there. If Neville also 
came along for the ride, then it wouldn't have affected the way
Harry behaved. 

Harry's personality- whether he's a hot-head or a
procrastinator makes little difference once they've entered that 
trap-door. 

Most of the obstacles are tackled intellectually anyway- play a 
flute, light a fire, find the one and only key which matches the 
lock, play an intellectual game, figure out a puzzle - these are all 
things that have one answer and one answer alone. So temperament and 
characterisation aren't driving the plot. For instance, if Hamlet 
went to the third floor corridor, so long as he had all the 
knowledge, he too would make it to the mirror of Erised, even though 
Hamlet's character is considerably different to Harry's.

Plot device- Ron and Hermione both get taken out early in all books 
because JKR wants Harry to reach the end alone. There is no good 
_character_ reason for Ron and Hermione not to keep going- they both 
_want_ to (they never lose faith), only JKR prevents them going on 
by leaving barely one gulp of potion. That is, Ron never gets scared 
and has to run away. (For instance, the book "Rowan of Rin"
by Emily Rodda is about a group of people who endeavour to climb up 
a mountain, and every time they reach an obstacle one member of the 
team is incapable of going forward, gets scared and runs back down 
the mountain, so that when the boy Rowan is finally the very last 
person at the top of the mountain it was because he was the sole 
person who didn't lose courage, not because there was a one
person only rule). 

The way JKR was setting it up, even if they made it all the way to 
the potions chamber, there was still only one gulp of potion to take 
the drinker onwards. Both of them wanted to keep going if they 
could. This is a bad move, because we don't learn anything about 
them as characters. What is Hermione's breaking point? She's
never been tested, so we don't know. We know Harry can face
torture, seeing his friends die, his own imminent death before 
breaking
 But when he sees his godfather die, he stops. What
would it take to break Hermione? What does it take to scare Ron? 
Hey, they guy goes into the forest after the spiders, even though it 
is what he fears most in the world out of loyalty to his friends- 
Harry, imprisoned!Hagrid and petrified!Hermione. He doesn't run
away like a coward! He vomits into the pumpkin patch, that's all! 
What does it take to make Ron lose his faith in Harry? 

In CoS, Hermione is petrified, Ron gets taken down by the landslide, 
so that Harry goes on alone, even though both of them want to keep 
going if they could. This doesn't really tell us anything about 
Ron and Hermione, again, because they both would have continued on 
if they hadn't been annoyingly blocked. 

The moment they change from wanting to reluctance that we learn the 
most about characters. It's why Harry's outburst at the end
of OotP is so powerful- when he exclaims he doesn't want to be
human any more. This is why Hermione's reluctance to `save
Sirius' is a wonderful characterisation which actually drives the 
plot. If she wasn't so reluctant to check, they would never have 
been in Umbridge's office, they would have never been caught,
they would never have had to go into the forest, they would have 
never encountered the thestrals with Luna, in fact, they probably 
would never have figured out a way to get there. Hermione's 
characterisation directly influences the plot here. She must find 
facts before she can invest herself to something. 

Hermione's characterisation is that she always has to check
before she invests herself, and when she believes she is right she 
is blind. Don't believe me? What about all these other times in
the story where Hermione checks before investing herself, because 
she is afraid of being wrong. In CoS she figures out that Harry is 
hearing a basilisk, but them she runs away before telling everyone. 
Of course, this is allegedly a big plot device moment- Harry can't
know the creature is a basilisk until the very last moment- he
can't know until the end of the year, on the very same day Ginny 
Wealsey has been taken because it creates tension. JKR has chosen 
the plot element
 and that is exactly what she does wrong- making
characters do unlikely things, only because she wants the plot to 
turn out that way. Or is it? 

Hermione running off to the library to check if she's right is
very much in character for Hermione. She's clearly very afraid of
being wrong- her boggart, what she fears most in the whole world, is 
the clearest proof. She always checks before she says anything- 
she's checked the animagus list, so she confidently says there is
no way Peter Pettigrew can be an animagus. She's checked the lunar
charts and noticed Lupin is always sick on the full moon. She checks 
with Mcgonagall before telling Harry she thinks his broomstick is 
possessed. She will never concede her cat ate Ron's rat until he
can verify the fact with hard proof. All these are examples of 
Hermione not believing something until there is verification. 

Also, Hermione is blind once she has facts. Take her house-elf 
cause. And then think about the blind belief that going into the 
forest to attract the centaurs was going to work to her plan. What 
about her insistence to continue with the polyjuice potion plan in 
CoS? What about her enthusiasm to continue the DA? If she thinks 
that she is right, she will not let rules get in her way. Again, 
this is a character choice that directly influences the plot of the 
story- if she hadn't lead Harry and Umbridge into the forest,
they never would have met Grawp and the centaurs, they never could 
have been covered in blood, and never would have attracted the 
thestrals, and never flew to London. What's better is that her 
blindness was _wrong_. The DA was a good thing for Hermione to 
pursue because she _was_ right, but the centaurs may have lead to 
her own death.

If Hermione wasn't Hermione, then OotP would not have been OotP.
Her character was intrinsic to driving the plot.

 A defining feature of both Ron and Hermione is that, event hough 
they are always taken out of action against their will, they are 
happy for Harry to be the one who continues. They _want_ Harry to be 
the one who goes on alone. So, even when faced with forced exit from 
the proceedings, we still do learn something about their 
characterisation- that they are prepared to step down for Harry 
(Obsatcles in PS is the clearest example).

In summary, I believe it is wrong to use the blanket statement that 
JKR is poor at characterisation and lets plot dictate character, 
instead of character dictating plot. A lot of character 
inconsistency relies of inaction, not action, which means they can 
be easily explained away (without grand plans or secret pupating 
from behind the scenes) by simply saying `They forgot/they
didn't know/ they had other things on their minds.' Because
of this, a lot of the alleged inconsistencies aren't really
inconsistencies at all.

Dzeytoun wrote:

>Dumbledore IS NOT a
>Machiavellian puppet master. Snape and Dumbledore ARE NOT engaged in
>some tag team good cop/bad cop arrangement to teach Harry about
>life. Snape IS NOT secretly a good guy who abuses Harry and Neville
>for their own good. Dumbledore IS NOT some secret evil genius out to
>manipulate Snape, Harry, and everybody else for some nefarious end.

I reply:

Couldn't agree more. Dumbledore is NOT a superhero. He is NOT 
omniscient. He is NOT a perfect human being. The guy has faults, he 
forgets things, he doesn't pay attention, he doesn't always
choose the right thing to do. I think the belief that he is always a 
powerful wizard who can solve everything is also a flawed 
assumption. If we take it that Dumbledore isn't as powerful as we 
think, then it's perfectly in character for him to take a
thestral to London on urgent business instead of apparating, because 
he was conserving his energy
 *grins*

This post has gone on long enough, and I'm beginning to feel I 
should take up a career writing articles for the Quibbler (*cough* 
Or is it? *cough*), so I'll stop. Thanks for reading this far!

~<(Laurasia)>~