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

[Hannah]

No: HPFGUIDX 126546


> lupinlore wrote:
> The point is that JKR is trying to sell a particular image of
> Dumbledore, and it just isn't getting across.
 
> stickbook replied:

> Lupinlore's touched on something here.
> 
> Yes, JKR is trying to sell a particular image of Dumbledore, and 
it's
> been remarkably successful.  That image is *despite previously
> notions, Dumbledore is, in fact, fallible*.  Is it a coincidence 
that
> we are discovering this when Harry discovers it?  We've discovered
> everything else when Harry discovered it, so probably not.  Is it a
> coincidence that we react with anger the same way Harry reacts with
> anger?  We love Sirius and hate Draco the way Harry does (fanfics
> aside), so probably not.
> 
Hannah:  I see the 'DD is fallible' lesson as separate from 
the 'highly questionable motives of DD' theory.  Yes, fallibility is 
what JKR wants to show, and she does it.  But the problems that I 
have with DD's character development go beyond that.  I'm not 
talking about 'an old man's mistakes,' I'm talking about a highly 
intelligent, extremely powerful wizard, who makes very questionable 
decisions, constantly gets things wrong, and could be considered to 
be heartlessly manipulating those around him.    

I'm not sure I agree about discovering it along with Harry.  Even 
when I first read PS, back in 1997 before any of the other books 
were written, I thought it was strange that this supposedly 
wonderful wizard had left Harry with his horrible relatives, and 
that he managed not to notice what Quirrel was (or worse, noticed 
but did not do anything about it), and that he was duped into going 
off site for a whole day, while Harry and his friends saved the day 
single handed.

I had my doubts about him in CoS, when he apparently was unable to 
work out the mystery of the basilisk.  And again in PoA, when the 
whole Sirius Black thing came out.  In fact, I've *never* thought 
that DD fits JKR's image of him.  

Also, we don't necessarily feel the same way that Harry does about 
characters.  A lot of people (yes, me included) love the character 
of Snape (as opposed to his behaviour), and a lot of people (not me) 
love Draco, and an awful lot hate Hagrid and can't stand Sirius.  

Stickbook continued:
> Harry's anger with Dumbledore is born not our of Dumbledore's 
rather
> weak explanation at the end of OotP, but out of the fact that
> Dumbledore is not the omniscient fix-all protector that Harry 
thought.
>  Nothing about Dumbledore has changed except for Harry's view of 
him.
>  And isn't that adolescence in nutshell?  All of a sudden our 
parents and teachers aren't as great as they used to be, and it's 
very upsetting.


Hannah:  
But it's not just Harry that thinks that.  I agree with what you've 
written with regards to Harry's own personal psyche, and the good 
point made about adolescence, but the 'great and good' image of DD 
has been fed us by a lot more people than Harry, from JKR herself, 
through to Hagrid, Lupin, Ron, Percy, the Weasleys...  

No, nothing about DD has changed.  He's still supposedly this image 
of goodness and omniscience, but also the man who's been making a 
right royal mess of things since day 1 (Kneasy wrote a fantastic 
post on this a while back).  I agree that Harry is now seeing him 
more as I see him.  But that doesn't change the discrepancy between 
JKR's vision of DD, and the character she's actually portraying.

Hannah, who wouldn't want to do adolescence again either!