Dumbledore, the master of restraint

[dzeytoun]

No: HPFGUIDX 114616


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Freud" <geekessgoddess at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> 
> The explanation that he gave Harry about being afraid Voldemort 
> would try to get to him through Harry just doesn't sit well with 
> me.  Dumbledore does not appear to be the kind of person who is 
> afraid.   Surely he could have made some kind of physical gesture 
to 
> Harry to let him know he still cared about him - or given him some 
> form of emotional reassurance in a letter.  It makes no sense. 
> 
> The only logical explanation that I can come up with is that 
> Dumbledore simply doesn't want Harry to rely on him for his own 
> good.  (And perhaps, there is some of that in reverse as well....)  
> 
> It will be very interesting to see how this plays out in the 
> following books.  
> 
> The underdogs appear to be "forced" to live out their destiny 
> without interference.  Yet I think it is possible we will find in 
> the end Dumbledore was the master puppeteer all along. 
> 

Well, this is another subject that could go on forever.  But to be 
brief, I agree that Dumbledore's actions are often inexplicable and 
his explanations lacking.  However, I don't think that it is do to 
his being a puppetmaster.  Rather, I think he's largely a victim of 
the plot.  In order to tell the story she wants, JKR has to have 
mysteries and challenges that wouldn't exist if the adults around 
Harry behaved in common-sense ways.  This means that a lot of times 
the characters, particularly Dumbledore, aren't very consistent in 
their behavior or clear in their thinking and communication.  
Dumbledore in particular suffers since through at least the first 
three books he was essentially nothing but a walking plot device.  
Now the plot device has become a person, and the transition isn't 
particularly easy.

As you say, examples abound.  Why leave Harry with the Dursleys?  For 
some nefarious plot or complicated scheme?  No, JKR wanted a fairy-
tale bad childhood for the boy and so she cooked up a reason, 
protection, for Dumbledore to place Harry with his relatives.  Why 
does Dumbledore not just sit Harry and Snape down together and 
straighten things out?  Because it suits JKR's plot for that tension 
to exist.  Why did Dumbledore not teach Harry Occlumency?  Because 
JKR needed Snape to teach it in order to deepen the Harry/Snape 
hatred and set up that "I'll never forgive him" moment in OOTP.  Why 
not send Harry *some* sign of affection/support in OOTP?  For some 
deep philosophical reason?  No, JKR needs Harry to be isolated and 
for Dumbledore to make certain mistakes so she comes up with 
the "fear of possession" plot thread to justify keeping them apart.

JKR has said on multiple occasions that she regards DD as the epitome 
of goodness.  It seems that she means his explanations and motives to 
be taken at face value, at least the vast majority of the time.  And 
in that doing so causes problems -- well, consistency is not JKR's 
greatest strength.

Dzeytoun
> Freud