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

[Hannah]

No: HPFGUIDX 126591


> bboyminn wrote:
<snip>
> Suffering is part of life; to be alive is to suffer, just ask any
> Buddhist. I think Dumbledore in all his years of experience with 
the
> follies and foibles of man (and yes, it is mostly men) has 
naturally
> developed a calm mellow Buddha-like response to life.
> 
> Yelling and screaming, the wailing and gnashing of teeth, the 
throwing
> of breakable objects, by Dumbledore, at this point, serves no 
purpose,
> but letting Harry rage and storm does. We see clearly in each book,
> that Dumbledore understands that Harry must express himself 
whether by
> emotion or by retelling a terrible tale. Harry must purge 
the 'poison'
> from his system. But as any good councilor knows, when those you
> council dump their 'poison', it's best that you as councilor do not
> then pick up that poison and internalize it. 
<snip>

Hannah:  
I agree with you that DD shouting and becoming hysterical would not 
be in character or appropriate.  I'm happy to accept that his 
attitude is of zen calm, or that of a good counsellor.  My problems 
with the portrayal of DD go way beyond this scene at the end of 
OotP.  It isn't so much his attitude that bothers me, it's his 
actions, and what he has (and hasn't) to say about them.

This was meant to be the speech that told us everything.  They 
teased with that line for months before the book came out.  After 
DD's behaviour in OotP, we wanted an explanation.  What we got was a 
big let down.  It was completely inadequate, and it didn't tell us 
anything we didn't already know/ couldn't have easily guessed.  Even 
the prophecy bit was no big shock (unless you count that of JKR 
having used such a suspect plot device).

So Harry needed to live with Petunia for his mother's blood 
protection.  Wow!  Revelation... except he already told Harry that 
in book one.  But it still didn't explain why the Dursleys were 
apparently given free rein to treat Harry as they pleased for ten 
years, while the great and marvellous DD did nothing to intervene.  
In fact, the only new bits of information we got in this speech only 
served to make me more uneasy about DD's motives, rather than less 
so.

First there's the line about Harry not being a 'pampered little 
prince.'  That raises the extremely uncomfortable idea that DD 
deliberately placed a baby in a family where he knew he would be 
mistreated/ turned a blind eye when mistreatment occured, because he 
felt that would cause Harry to develop into someone that would 
better suit DD's plan.

Secondly there's his 'I have watched you more closely than you have 
known.'  This further suggests that DD knew what was going on with 
the Dursleys, yet still did nothing to stop it.  He never claims to 
have done anything about the situation, and neither does he explain 
why he couldn't/ why he didn't know if that was the case.  

And then there's all the other DD disasters.  The incomprehensible 
recruitment decisions.  The failure to solve problems at his school 
that three eleven/twelve years managed.  His treatment of Sirius.  
His failure to notice/ decision to ignore Quirrel!Mort when Snape 
knew full well what was going on.  

My problems with the portrayal of DD go beyond that single scene in 
OotP, though nothing in that speech did anything to ease them.

Hannah