Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General)

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 124375


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:
>
> Betsy:
> Oh, I completely agree.  I don't think Dumbledore or JKR are going 
> for the cold-blooded, "good, now that the unstable fool is out of 
> the way..."  I was just answering the rather cold-blooded, "the 
> death of Sirius harms the weapon that is Harry," with a similarly 
> cold-blooded answer.

That wasn't really the original proposition, though: it was "the 
death of Sirius badly hurts the person who is Harry who also is 
vitally important to the cause".  At least onlist, Weapon!Harry has 
the connotations of deliberate choosing and shaping, which I'm not a 
proponent of. :)

<snip>

> As to Harry's general emotional state, Dumbledore showed himself 
> concerned with this in the very first chapter of the very first 
> book when he explains why Harry needs to be left with the Dursleys.
> 
> "Exactly," said Dumbledore, looking very seriously over the top of 
> his half-moon glasses.  "It would be enough to turn any boy's 
> head. Famous before he can walk and talk!  Famous for something he 
> won't even remember!  Can't you see how much better off he'll be, 
> growing up away from all that until he's ready to take it?"  (SS 
> paperback p.13)

But you have to admit that there is strong textual frisson with:

"You had suffered...I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and 
difficult years", etc.

And because it's useful, JKR's website comments point towards the 
sheer necessity of the blood-protection as being the overriding 
concern.  I think it must be the sine qua non.

Although I'm not going to state it as strongly with Lupinlore, the 
idea that Dumbledore left Harry there *with the primary goal* being 
to toughen him up really is rather repugnant, as Dumbledore knew what 
Harry would be deprived of.  His comments to Minerva strike me as a  
rationalization, a side-effect that was positive only in a very 
deeply conflicted sort of way.  [The cynic in me is pointing towards 
the possibility of things having changed somewhat in the writing.  
Not to be dismissed offhand, that idea.]

What I was alluding to and no one took the bait on was Dumbledore's 
perception of Harry's (non)relationship with Snape.  I've argued 
before that the mutual hostility there finally bore fruit, in Harry's 
not remembering/unwillingess to go to Snape as a member of the 
Order.  [Enclosed in there is an argument I will defend if requested 
about trust and fear being mutually exclusive--and Harry does have 
some fear of Snape, because Snape is capricious in his exercise of 
power.]  

Dumbledore has forgotten what it is like to be the inferior in a 
power relationship.  In fact, Snape makes that point oddly manifest, 
with his comments about how Dumbledore has the luxury to say 
Voldemort's name because Dumbledore is powerful--Dumbledore also 
continually has the upper hand in his relationships with all of his 
faculty, and does not have to work through the position of being 
subject to the whims of others.   McGonagall brings up the same 
theme, with her "Yes, Potions"; she knows the trouble, but I don't 
think she takes it as seriously as it proves to be.  And that 
relationship has been allowed to fester to the detriment of the 
emotional health of both parties.  It's needed for the plot, but 
given What Dumbledore Knows, it strikes me more and more as 
potentially irresponsible.  No, Dumbledore can't force rapport 
(hello, Pippin), but he could try to get some of it out in the open.  
That's one wound he's failed miserably at lancing.

-Nora waves hello at Faith, who she hasn't seen in a while