Dumbledore's Hypocrisy

[sophierom]

No: HPFGUIDX 129236

Laura wrote:
<Snip>
> As for 
> underestimating Kreacher -- well, Dumbledore can act all high and 
> mighty if he likes, but do you really think it ever crossed *his*
mind 
> that Kreacher was even *capable* of betrayal?  As the leader *and* 
> Secret Keeper of the Order, it was more his responsibility than
anyone 
> else's to make sure that Grimmauld Place was secure.  *Especially*
if 
> he was going to insist that Kreacher remain there.
> 
> Personally, I would have forgiven Dumbledore of this oversight (no
one 
> else saw it coming, after all, and everyone makes mistakes), except 
> that he goes out of his way to implicate Sirius in the matter. 
Sigh.  
> Sometimes I can't fathom how the man takes himself seriously.  He's 
> worse than Lockhart in some ways.
> 
> Laura (who swings wildly between being absolutely furious at
Dumbledore 
> at times and quite liking him at others.)

Sophierom:

But, from the very beginning, Dumbledore did see Kreacher's betrayal
as a real possibility:  "I warned Sirius WHEN we adopted twelve
Grimmauld Place as our headquarters that Kreacher must be treated with
kindness and respect.  I ALSO told him that Kreacher could be
dangerous to us" (Ootp, Am. ed., 832 - emphasis mine).  So, he did see
it coming.  To my knowledge, that's why Dumbledore did not let Sirius
free Kreacher (if Dumbledore did order him to keep Kreacher in the
house, and I can't find that reference; if you could point it out,
that would be great!).  If Sirius had freed Kreacher early on, the
house-elf would be under no obligation to keep any of Sirius's
secrets.  The only reason that Kreacher doesn't provide more
information to the Death Eaters in OotP is that he was "bound by the
enchantments of his kind, which is to say that he could not disobey a
direct order from his master, Sirius" (831).  

So, it sounds to me that Dumbledore did see Kreacher as a real
"danger." You can blame Dumbledore for accepting Sirius's offer of
Grimmauld Place as headquarters, but I don't think you can argue that
he didn't warn Sirius about the dangers Kreacher presented.

This does make me wonder, why did the Order use Grimmauld Place?
Was/Is it really the best locations for a Headquarter? Was it that
Sirius, who felt he had little to offer the Order - think of Snape's
taunts - insisted that Grimmauld Place serve as HQ, and Dumbledore,
having no other options, accepted reluctantly? Or is there strategic
value in having the Black family home as the HQ? (Or was it just a
neat way for Rowling to introduce us to the Black family and all of
its lovely skeletons and issues?)

Getting back to Dumbledore, I don't think he does take himself as
seriously as Laura suggests in her post.  That is, I don't think he's
conceited in the sense of Lockhart.  Nor do I think he's
self-important in the sense of Fudge or Malfoy.  I don't think he's
hypocritical, as the post heading suggests.  I do like Lupinlore's
suggestions that he's restrained (I believe it's Lupinlore - forgive
me if I'm wrong!).

I'd like to add another adjective in there: reactionary.  Not in the
political sense of the word  - he's apparently progressive when it
comes to house-elves and magical creatures.  But he's reactionary in
the most basic sense of the word.  He's not the chess master that so
many have claimed. He's not a master manipulator or an omniscient wise
man.  Dumbledore is the biggest pawn in the series. And we the
readers, as well as poor Harry, have come to realize this by the end
of OotP.  By virtue of the prophecy, Dumbledore has never really been
able to be pro-active about the threat of Voldemort. It's actually
Harry who will get to be the most active player in the series. As much
as this realization pains him at the end of OotP (What, I can't let
Dumbledore deal with LV ... I have to kill him!), it will actually be
a liberating experience for Harry, I think.  Painful, but liberating.
 

And I think it must be painful for Dumbledore to sit back and let
things happen as they will.  Is he failing to follow his own advice
about neglect and indifference? Well, yes and no.  Yes, he "neglected"
Harry as a child.  But I believe that Dumbledore saw this as the
lesser of two evils, recognizing the importance of the blood
protection. Yes, Dumbledore chose to let Harry grow up thinking he
wasn't anything special (and I believe he did this not because he
wanted to make Harry tough but because he knew that the Dursleys would
threaten to kick Harry out if a bunch of wizards dropped by Privet
Drive and to keep Harry company ... of course, I have no evidence
except Vernon and Petunia's fanatical dislike of wizarding society and
Vernon's trek to the island in the sea to avoid the owls in PS as
possible evidence for this theory). Yes, Dumbledore chose not to tell
Harry about the prophecy.  But as he himself admits that this develops
precisely because he wasn't indifferent to the boy. So, in the bigger
scheme of things, no, Dumbledore didn't neglect Harry's safety (he was
attempting to protect him) and he didn't feel indifferent to him. 
Whether or not he made good decisions is not the issue.  These were
not good decisions.  But, it seems, given the constraints Rowling has
placed in her own universe, Dumbledore made the best of all possible
decisions given a very bad situation. 

So, by the time that Dumbledore has to explain Sirius's death,
Kreacher's involvement, and the prophecy to Harry, he has little
choice but to tell Harry some very painful things.  Was the timing
bad? Hell yes. But did he have much of a choice? Well, since it was
Harry who asked him how Kreacher could have betrayed Sirius, he could
have avoided Harry's question, lied, or said what he did. I suppose he
could have said something like, "Well Harry, Kreacher's relationship
with Sirius is complicated," but given CAPSLOCK!Harry's state of mind
at that moment, I don't know that he would have accepted a brush-off
like that.  

Thinking back on canon, I can't remember a situation in which
Dumbledore refuses to answer one of Harry's questions. It's just that
Harry never asks questions that force Dumbledore to provide the
complete truth. (At the moment, I don't have time to go through canon
and look at each of Dumbledore's interactions with Harry; if I'm wrong
about this, or if others have canon evidence available to confirm or
contradict my suggestion above, please chime in!) Sirius's death,
however, forces these issues to the surface. In other words,
Dumbledore reacts to the situation, only giving information because he
feels he has no other choice.  

I don't know if this makes Dumbledore good or bad, strong or weak,
manipulative or caring.  But I do think Dumbledore has far less power
than we tend to ascribe to him.  It's a rude awakening for Harry and a
rude awakening for us, the readers, which is why I suspect that many
of us, myself included, were pulling out our hair during those last
few chapters of OotP, screaming at the book, "How did you let things
get this way, Dumbledore!" What, I'm the only weirdo that did that?
Oh, uh, okay. Never mind.  That was actually a friend of mine, not me.
 Yeah, a friend did that. :-D

All the best,
Sophie