Childhood values v Adulthood values in Potterverse WAS: Re: Power vs. Trust

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 143170

Sydney:
<SNIP>

> Responsible people in charge of dangerous animals do not involve 
them
> in 'many close calls'.

Alla:

I think that they did not think of Remus as " dangerous animal", but 
as their friend who gets sick once a month  and needs their company. 
Did they underestimate danger, sure, they probably did, but I ive 
them credit for good intentions, even if poorly thought out.


Sydney:
<SNIP>
> My reaction was identical to Hermionie's, and obviously came well
> before the Pensive scene, that it was a dangerous, careless thing 
to
> do and absolutely typical of overconfident teenage boys.  


Alla:

Then I have to ask - would you think of them better if they did NOT 
keep Remus' company on those nights, especially if they learned 
about his condition in any event? Because I would not. They WERE 
teens and of course they were reckless, but I think they were trying 
to do a good thing here. Someone said that they should have stayed 
in Shrieking Shack. Yeah, that sounds fine with me, but I do like 
that they were there with Remus. Oh, as I suggested they should have 
probably found the empty territory to run on, but I liked that they 
did SOMETHING for Remus, which to me is much better than doing 
nothing.




Sydney:
<SNIP>
  I'm perfectly capable
> of understanding that not too abnormally self-absorbed teenagers 
can
> recklessly endanger people's lives without being monsters of
> heartlessness.  

Alla :

Good. :-)


Sydney:
It happens every day. And they grow out of it.  And
> then they look back from a mature viewpoint and say, "Good times...
> thank god we didn't kill anybody."


Alla:

Well, my point is staying the same, I really hope that if they were 
alive, they would not grow out of it, NOT of their recklessness, but 
of desire to help their friend.




> Pippin:
> Um, it is just your interpretation of canon that the adults 
weren't doing
> anything about it.  We don't know whether they weren't taking 
Harry 
> seriously or they were pretending not to because Dumbledore didn't 
> want him involved. 

Alla:

Of course, it is just an interpretation, but it is a valid 
interpretation, IMO since we don't know why  the adults had been 
doing nothing. I mean, of course Dumbledore says he knew, true, but 
as you know, Pippin, I am really questioning some of his 
judgements. :-)



Pippin:
> Are you saying that McGonagall or any of the other teachers would 
not
> have tried to save Ginny if Harry had gone to them instead? 
Remember,
> the only reason he could find the chamber was because he was
> a parselmouth, not because kids are more capable than grownups.

Alla:

Well, we do know that none of the teachers tried to save Ginny, no? 
Instead they sent Lockhart there. I mean, sure they seem to want to 
show the world how incompetent Lockhart is, but woudn't the truly 
capable adult I don't know ask Lockhart where Chamber is and try to 
go there themselves?

Do they even know that only Parselmouth can open the Chamber? Again 
it does not stop them from asking Lockhart to go there and that is 
exactly what forces Harry and Ron to act IMO - seeing  the 
incompetency of one adult whom other teachers assigned the job.





 
> > > Pippin:
> > > He was surprised  because he knew he was the
> > > intended victim and he knew he wasn't dead.  
> > 
> > 
> > Alla:
> > 
> > Could you point me to the quote, please?
> 
> Pippin:
> "You have been trying, with increasing desperation, to kill me all 
year."


Alla:

Thanks, but that is not what I meant. I was trying to say that we 
don't know the reason for Dumbledore's surprise. If he indeed knows 
what Draco's task was AND knows every detail of Draco does, woudn't 
it  be more logical for him to know that Draco repaired the cabinet 
and DE would be in Hogwarts that night.

Am I making sense? If Dumbledore knew as much about Draco's 
activities as he claims, it makes no sense to me that he was 
surprised.

JMO,

Alla