[HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Harry, Dumbledore, and flaws in the books

[James Lawlor]

No: HPFGUIDX 105848

Wow, fantastic email there, Laurasia.


> 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.
> 
I, James reply:

I'd like to add, that to a point, I think this can be necessary when
writing books "about good and evil" because at some point you have to
say "Ok, these characters are ultimately good, these characters are
ultimately evil, and this is how the conflict will eventually be
resolved" and then you have to fit the characters and their actions
into the mold of what has to happen for the story to work as intended.
But I'm not really a writer, so perhaps I'm wrong.

On a somewhat unrelated note, the only thing that's ever *really*
bothered me in Harry Potter as a "plot device" was the Ford Anglia in
the Forest in CoS, aka the Deus Ex Machina Car. Gawp is admittedly
similar, but Gawp makes more logical sense (Gawp is in the forest, but
could easily break his bonds, Gawp knows Hagrid and remembers "Hermy",
etc).


Laurasia:
>     Dumbledore _doesn't_ recognise Imposter!Moody until the end
> of the year even though he's allegedly an old friend.

Me (James):
That's a valid point, but it makes enough sense to me. Dumbledore knew
Moody when he was a young(er) Auror, before the job took it's toll on
Moody, and probably hasn't had as much contact with him since he
became a reclusive paranoid old man. I expect he noticed various
oddities about Imposter!Moody, but wrote them off as Moody's changed
personality, being (as always) extremely busy. And "old friend"
doesn't necessarily mean he knew a great deal about Moody, after all
I'm sure we all have a fair amount of variation in how well we know
people we call our "friends".

Laurasia:
>     Nobody remembers that Lupin shouldn't walk into the moonlight.

Me (James):
I know I sure wouldn't have remembered. Everyone but Lupin and Snape
would probably have paid little attention to the phase of the moon
anyway, and they were the only two who knew Lupin had forgotten his
potion, and since Snape was unconscious and Lupin had obviously
forgot, with all that had been going on  it makes sense that no one
would really connect the dots until they saw Lupin staring up at the
moon.

Laurasia:
>     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?).

Me (James):
I would think that the Anti-Apparation Barrier extends to Hogsmead as
well - indeed probably an area of 10 or 20 miles around Hogwarts.
There would be little point to the barrier if you could Apparate a
mile or two away and walk right in. That leaves only Portkeys (which
require authorization - and Dumbledore only disregards Ministry laws
when there is a great need or no other way).

Laurasia:
>     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


If I recall correctly, it was never explicitly stated (in, say, the
book Hermione ripped a page out of) that Basilisks are known to
Petrify their victims when they have indirect eye contact. Perhaps
that explains a bit.



> 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*
> 

I think a "perfect Dumbledore" would rather be going against most
everything Dumbledore stands for. "It is not our abilities, but our
choices that define who we are" implies that poor choices and
imperfection are inevitable, and must be dealt with as we best know
how - or else Voldemort could not have become Voldemort.

Erm, yes, I think that made sense... maybe.

- James Lawlor
jlawlor at gmail.com