In Defense of DD (was Re: DD's dilemma)

[Hannah]

No: HPFGUIDX 126540


Lupinlore wrote:
> True, I suppose, but nevertheless rather beside the point.  The 
> point is that JKR is trying to sell a particular image of 
> Dumbledore, and it just isn't getting across.  If he is 
> indeed "compassionate/sympathetic" then we need to see much 
greater 
> evidence of that than we have received to this point.  You say 
that 
> JKR can't remold his character just to please readers.  I suppose 
> that is true.  However, if sympathy/compassion ARE part of his 
> character presumably they can be revealed in a relatively clear 
> fashion.  At this time, to many of us, postulating a cold and 
> manipulative Dumbledore simply fits the evidence better than a 
> sympathetic/compassionate Dumbledore who for some reason behaves 
in 
> bizarre ways not very consistent with sympathy or compassion.
 
Hannah now:
I was going to post something similar myself, Lupinlore, but you've 
put it better than I could!  JKR keeps telling us, both personally 
in interviews, and through her characters, that DD is good, 
benevolent, powerful, virtually omniscient etc., and yet the 
character she shows us through his actions in the books doesn't 
measure up to that at all.

I like the theory of puppetmaster!DD, and I think, when the books 
are as closely analysed and discussed as they are here on HPfGU, it 
emerges as a stong theory with lots of evidence to back it up.  Yet 
I don't believe JKR intends for this to happen; at least, I don't 
think that there will ever be an explicit 'Merlin's beard!  DD's 
been setting this up all along!' moment in canon, because she 
doesn't seem to see him like that.  I hope she addresses some of his 
incomprehensible blunders and decisions in later books.  I doubt 
that she will.  With DD, it's a matter of faith.  She wants us to 
believe what she tells us, blindly, no matter what evidence comes to 
the contrary.

John wrote:
> > There is one other point to be made here, I think. DD, when he 
> > planned Harry's future and ultimately left him on the Dursley's 
> > doorstep, may have felt some attachment to the boy, but I doubt 
> very 
> > much whether he *loved* him, as such. The same applies to 
Harry's 
> > first ten years with the Durlseys. Only after Harry came to 
> > Hogwarts, and met the challenges confronting him there, did DD's 
> > feelings for the boy develop. That must be kept in mind, I feel, 
> > when analyzing his original decision, and the said anguish and 
> > tension that went into it.   


Hannah:  
Just because DD didn't *love* Harry at the time, that was no excuse 
to abandon him to his abusive relatives for ten years.  All adults 
have a moral responsibility to protect children when they have to 
power to do so, regardless of whether they love, like, dislike, or 
don't even know them.  If DD is as powerful as JKR wants us to 
believe, I'm sure there's something he could have done to improve 
the way that Harry was treated.  However, it appears he did not.

The Dursleys don't love Harry, but that doesn't make it OK for them 
to have locked him in a cupboard and told him he's worthless for ten 
years (I know that's an extreme example, but it's the same 
principle).  Vernon and Petunia had a responsibility to treat Harry 
better than they did.  DD, as self-appointed adoption-fixer, also 
had a responsibility to ensure Harry was treated properly for those 
ten vital formative years.  Whether or not he loved or was attached 
to Harry, he still had a responsibility towards him.  From what we 
see in canon, he does not appear to have fulfilled that duty.

Hannah