Dumbledore's intentional misleading (Re: A Question of Which Book)

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 144891

> buvuturo wrote: <snip>
> > This is the canon proof I knew I had read, in which
> > Dumbledore knowingly mislead Harry about the true nature of 
> > Snape's grudge against James Potter and the Marauders.  

Alla:

As far as I can remember Dumbledore NEVER mislead Harry about 
anything, actually. Now, Dumbledore did not TELL Harry some 
important things and by that I really don't mean The Prank, but 
Prophecy, but I don't remember him EVER letting Harry believe that 
something opposite to the truth is true. I can be wrong of course.


Buvuturo: 
> > Instead of telling Harry that his father and friends had been 
> > involved in a dangerous prank that could have proved fatal for 
> > Snape, Dumbledore told a partial truth that suggested to Harry 
> > that Snape was an ungrateful git, not the nearly murdered party 
> > in a violent conflict between him and the Marauders." <snip>
> and
> > In POA, Snape's reply to Harry also keeps Lupin's name out of 
> > it, but he gave a more factual account, in that he was put at 
> > risk of death, and that James Potter would have been expelled 
> > if he had not intervened." <snip>

Alla:

Dumbledore told Harry that James saved Snape's life. Could you refer 
me to canon which says that James did not save Snape's life? Now, he 
did not tell him the circumstances, that is true, but again, I don't 
see how "not telling about something" equals "intentional 
misleading" about something.

And it is you right of course to believe that Snape gave more 
factual acount of the events, but " my memory is as good as ever" 
makes me doubt it. JMO of course.

Could you also refer me to canon which says that James Potter would 
have been expelled, had Snape not intervened. I am truly confused 
now.


 
> 
> CH3ed:
> O, but James really was not involved in the prank. <SNIP> 
> Snape's version was actually the inaccurate one that added his own 
> assumption of James' involvement in Sirius' plot. 

Alla:

Exactly. Thank you! As I said many times, I am of the opinion that 
we have NOT heard the complete version of the Prank from anybody yet 
and JKR promised that we find out more, so I can't wait.



CH3ed: 
> The one scene where I think DD might have intentionally hid 
> something factual from Harry is in OotP when DD showed Harry the 
1st 
> prophecy. They didn't go into the pensieve to see the whole thing, 
> instead DD had this watery Trelawny rise up from the pensieve to 
> tell it (so that Harry didn't see the interruption of the prophecy 
> by Snape). 


Alla:

Right, but again - is " hiding the complete truth" 
equals "intentional misleading"? Dumbledore did not let Harry 
believe that anybody else was an eavesdropper ( personally I was so 
proud of myself that I was set on Snape being the one right away :-
)), he just did not let Harry know who it was. I am guessing because 
he wanted to protect Harry and Snape. You know - typical Dumbledore. 
But intentionally misleading people is just not Dumbledore, IMO of 
course.

I am racking my brain, but cannot remember in the books that 
Dumbledore intentionally made someone believe in a lie.