Omniscient Dumbledore (Was Re: Snape's AK Failed!!!, and DADA responses)

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 135134

-
> Betsy: <snip>
>
> > Snape, on the other hand, is one of Dumbledore's most trusted
> > confidants. When it comes to Order work I was under the
> > impression that Snape was pretty much Dumbledore's second. If
> > Snape does turn out to have been Voldemort's man all along, it
> > means Dumbledore was *completely* fooled.

> Nora:
> Confidant is an interesting word, because that is exactly what JKR
> says that Dumbledore *does not have*, in the latest interview.

Valky:
I agree with you Nora that, certainly some at least, of the
hypothesising about the brothers in arms relationship between
Dumbledore and Snape is dashed now, and should not be deliberated
here. OTOH I am in strong agreement with Betsy, in any case I think
that Dumbledores trusting of Snape, although it does seem on the
surface incredibly reckless, would make him an absoutely fool given
the HBP canon if there is nothing more to Snape that can redeem him to
some degree. And I am not ready to believe that DD was a complete and
total fool about Snape, although it is reckless to trust someone with
such a past as dear Sevvie had. Suffice to say that recklessness is
not essentially stupidity. Many will beg to differ on that, but I
don't mind because, to me, there is a degree of recklessness to all
incredible courageousness and to incredible compassion. Because I
never had trouble believing that James was *always* courageous and
compassionate, I also have very little trouble believing that
Dumbledore trusted Snape not foolishly, but bravely and
compassionately and it was not necessarily a mistake.


>
> Betsy:
>
> > Snape, however, is very much Dumbledore's baby. McGonagall
> > suggests that the entire Order thought it strange that he was so
> > trusted.

> Nora:
> I'd say the theme of second-hand trust and its dangers was a huge
> one throughout the book--I do a little dance at having called that
> one absolutely dead on. :)

Valky:
I definitely agree with that Nora. I think it's also been highlighted
from the start by Harry's determination to make up his on mind. Who
can forget in PS/SS Harry saying to Draco {I think I can tell the
right sort for myself}. This seems to be very much the groundwork for
this theme. Everyone questioned in themselves why Snape was trusted,
but many stopped arguing about it after a while and fence sat instead.
Its fair to say that Snape really needed to earn the trust of each
individual himself, not have Dumbledore assure it for him. But I am
not quite sure yet that he isn't actually trying to do that now, at
the enormous sacrifice of being alone and in grave danger. It's really
difficult to imagine that Dumbledore's death might not be a very
important sacrifice, and a final clue to Harry of what's to come. On
the surface, and even a little way under, it does seem so much like a
murder. But so many little things don't add up to it for me, its a
very small stone but it trips me every time.


>
> Betsy:
>
> > If Snape really is ESE it means that Dumbledore examined that
> > question and came up with the completely wrong answer. It would
> > mean, in other words, that Dumbledore is a fool. And it would
> > mean, IMO, that any "wisdom" he passed along to Harry would be
> > suspect.
>
> Nora:
> This seems to me to be excluding some potential pathos and latitude
> here, which is that Dumbledore could have been partly right and
> partly wrong in trusting Snape. That is to say, there could have
> been reasons good enough for Dumbledore to trust Snape, but given
> Dumbledore's canonical personality flaws, he failed to pick up the
> lingering resentments and dangers within Snape's personality and
> character. Snape could have changed or slid *after* he told
> Dumbledore his story, which would make the whole situation Deeply
> Tragic. Given the pretty solid confirmation of Rowling as an
> essentialist who believes in character, I wouldn't be shocked. [See
> the Gaunt family story...]

Valky:

I'm not ready to believe that its over at essentialism yet. Despite
that Jo sometimes seems to come back round to that, the nuances are
dropped into the mix to begin with by her hand, and the story has gone
beyond a childrens fairytale by wide marks now, so I seriously doubt
slices of black and white will be served in the end as might be
expected if the story were essentially fairytaleish. Or maybe I just
hope for that. No I actually doubt it, I really do, with the
development of Sirius almost certainly very near complete and
definitely well greyed around the edges in its final stages, I'm
thinking that this is a small taste of the depth we should expect.
Sirius didn't get much page time, but he got several layers all the same.
The Gaunt family were to some degree essential, yes. But they got half
a page and Merope developed some small white strokes, I think mostly
because her character was the plot focus character so some depth was
needed, I certainly didn't take away an all shadows Merope from HBP,
she was pitiable and spotted grey for me.


> Nora:
> I wouldn't be surprised if part of the lesson is indeed that while
> Dumbledore is very wise, Harry is going to have to surpass him in
> the field of action and not make his same mistakes, not merely be
> someone following Dumbledore's lead.

Valky:
Yes I think he very well already is. Snape does have to earn Harry's
trust himself, Harry has made that pointedly clear. In some ways yes,
Harry is sure to surpass Dumbledore, as was always expected. But
again, I have my doubts that it's going to be that Snape always never
(awful grammar! lol but that works for me) deserved Harry's trust. It
is admirable of Harry, however, to be sure in himself that the right
decision is the one he makes based on truth, and not heresay.



> -Nora notes that the essentialism sits uneasily upon her shoulders,
> but that it's been there in flaring lights since book 2 at least

Valky also uneasy with this thought, but less sure that the final book
won't streak unexpected colours all over key characters.