Competence (Was Re: Dumbledore's serious errors...)

[Dan Feeney]

No: HPFGUIDX 122903


Competence (Was Re: Dumbledore's serious errors...)

Lupinlore:
> On a related note, this seems to be one of the clearest examples of 
the deep flaws running through the WW.  People in the Wizarding World 
are often very powerful. However, wizards in general seem to be 
astoundingly incompetent. Which is why, by the way, I tend to think 
the muggle world has nothing really to fear from Wizards. Were their 
existance ever to become known wizards would be overwhelmed, albeit 
with high losses, by cultures that not only greatly outnumber them 
but are as systems vastly more competent in every signficant area 
outside of magic itself.

Dan:
Perhaps our RW systems can look more competent (particularly if we 
aren't in the process of dealing with large, legal issues in our own 
lives, or in a situation where some investment in technical ordinance 
could have saved a hundred thousand people from death by drowning, 
say) than those of the depicted WitchWizard World, but do the muggle 
ones? We're really not shown much of the muggle world aside from the 
disfunctional Dursleys, Dudley's gang, the half-deaf gardener, the 
unfortunate flying muggles at the QWC, and poor Mr. Roberts. We are 
given the idea that muggles are, generally, considered clueless by 
the WitchWizard World, with exceptions, of course. We aren't, 
however, shown systems. We are shown either victims of WitchWizard 
malice, or Extremely Caricatured People (ECP).

Is incompetence evil, or rather, as the opposite of competence, is it 
what sustains the shabby (the mundungial! even the dumbledorian!) or 
the awry? Would a small explosive nuclear device have an effect on 
Hogwarts? Does the WitchWizard world have the means to unpollute a 
lake? (Aside to Carol's notes.) Where exactly do the lines between 
incompetence and malice diverge? A headline in today's paper in 
Canada says "No one heard soldier's story about Nazi Death Camps". To 
what degree does this become a question of competence? If one's 
expectation of what admitting the return of Lord Thingy entails is 
realistic, it is an action that has vast consequences. What I mean 
is, is Fudge's incompetence instead more like fear, a kind of 
conservative dread at what the future will bring? If this is so, does 
it colour-correct the light in which we see his actions?

Lupinlore:
> In Anglo-American culture, drenched in the theories and practices 
of capitalism and deeply influenced by the demanding religious 
traditions of Calvinism and Millenialism.... we tend to 
unconsciously, and often consciously, wrap a pronouncement of failure 
up in the language and intent of moral judgment.
> That is, if he is the EoG (Epitome of Good) then he would 
undoubtedly have planned for things to go very
differently at many points. They did not, ergo he has failed. It is 
simply an objective fact. However, in that he remains the EoG, he is 
not a failure in the second, moral sense.

Dan:
Ah, but there is in fact a kind of flaw here, which is made explicit 
in the second last chapter of OoTP, and which is huge. "I cared more 
for your happiness than your knowing the truth, more for your peace 
of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be 
lost if the plan failed." What is not said, but is what in fact 
happens, is that Harry NEVER has peace of mind, his life is 
consistantly put into danger, etc. etc., by this very decision of 
Dumbledore's. In other words, Dumbledore is as deluded as Fudge. In a 
sense, Dumbledore is confessing a proprietorial relationship to 
Harry's being. This is, uh, not good. It's not that, had Dumbldore 
told Harry what he knew, Harry would have necessarily been any better 
off in terms of safety, peace of mind and the like, but he would have 
understood some of the "suggestions" and actions of those around him 
better, and that quest for understanding is what Harry is about, 
often enough - from the pensieve scenes to his questioning of Snape 
and so forth, his motivation. Does his reluctance to see James as 
James arise from the enforced ignorance about himself that 
characterizes both Dumbledore's approach and Petunia and Vernon's? Is 
Dumbledore more accountable because he in fact knows more than they 
do, and is not predisposed to speak of magic as impossible? I'd say 
so.

Tonks:
> Then it is up to Harry or whoever to follow or not to follow his 
advise. It is their choice. In OOTP Harry makes many poor choices and 
we see the consequences of those choices. And this is a lesson for us 
all.

Dan:
And the lessons in the book, what are they? If we examine the 
outcomes, emotionally, spiritually, in terms of plot etc., the 
lessons include - those who won't look at you or be open with you 
(Dumbledore, Snape) are  hiding something important - the government 
will avert its eyes, given the chance - rely on your friends - look 
for allies - do not be afraid of your dreams...

Given that Harry is, in fact, the ultimate commodity in this fight 
against Voldemort, and has been treated as such, though not openly, 
these choices look pretty good to me.

Dan