How good Dumbledore is?/NECESSITY of killing/ What would DD want? (LONG)

Wed Oct 19 22:17:42 UTC 2005

No: HPFGUIDX 141865

>   KJ writes:
>      Some of us see a different Dumbledore than the others. JKR is 
> obviously making some points about "Nobody is all good or all 
bad." When 
> she suggests that Dumbledore is the epitome of good, I think we 
have to 
> watch out a little bit.

Alla:

I think JKR meant exactly what she said, frankly - that Dumbledore 
is an epitome of goodness - she did not say that Dumbledore is  a 
saint, right? So, he makes mistakes, and as I argued previously some 
big ones, but I think he had a good geart. I am not trying to 
convince you of the opposite, but do want to challenge your examples 
of  I guess Dumbledore not being so good, or Puppetmaster!
Dumbledore. (if that is not you meant, I apologize) But of course I 
am biased on that matter, since I really, really, really do not like 
Puppetmaster!Dumbledore.

KJ:
> 1. He gives Harry an invisibility cloak

Alla: Why this is an example of Bad!Dumbledore? If your answer is 
that he encourages Harry to break the rules, my argument would be 
that JKR actually praises breaking the rules for higher moral 
purpose in our case saving the world.

KJ:
> 2. He has the Slytherin banners up at the year end feast and then 
shoots 
> the Slyths down in flames. That was mentioned by several posters 
to be 
> cruel. Why not leave the walls blank until the final points were 
given?

Alla:

Hmm, this had been debated multiple times in the past, so I am glad 
that you only brought up the giving points on the feast, NOT the 
idea that Trio does not deserve the points they got. Because I think 
that for fighting Voldie they deserved all the points they got and 
more. I don't know why he did that. Maybe because he wanted to 
praise Trio in front of the school and did not have the chance to do 
it earlier.
I am also not buying " Dumbledore biased against poor Slyths" 
argument ( I know you did not raise it, just saying it in advance), 
because the fact that before Harry came to school Slytherins won the 
Cup SEVEN years in a row makes me doubt that they could do it with 
Headmaster of the school being biased against them.

KJ:
> 3. He allows Snape to torment Harry.

Alla:

Yeah, it seems like he does, BUT is it possible that he hopes that 
Snape will figure out things on his own ( just like JKR said that 
Dumbledore did not go to Hagrid thinking that Hagrid comes out of 
his home on his own).

KJ:
> 4. He sends Snape back to Voldemort knowing he could be killed, 
and 
> expecting he will be interrogated rather nastily.

Alla:

Does he? Or maybe "if you are ready, if you are prepared" means to 
be taken literally and Dumbledore again lets Snape make his own 
choice? I tend to think that, but I also think that even if 
Dumbledore decided to call in  the favor because he shielded Snape 
from the Law for thirteen years, that would be not that bad. Snape 
deserved Azkaban, IMO, Dumbledore helped him escaped it by vouching 
for him. Yes, I think Snape owes Dumbledore BIG time, BUT I also 
think that it is OOC for Dumbledore to force Snape to do anything.

KJ:
> 5. His protection of Harry at the Triwizard tournament left 
something to 
> be desired. He knew there was something being planned.

Alla:

Personally I think Dumbledore was careless here, BUT I also think 
that argument that there was nothing he could do is strong (binding 
contract and all that) Are you talking about protection during the 
Tournament or protection against Fake!Moody, because DD did not have 
a clue about Moody being Crouch till Harry returned from Graveyard, 
as far as I can remember.

KJ:
> 6. There was the ever famous gleam when he heard that Voldemort 
had used 
> Harry's blood.

Alla:

Yes, and JKR said that it is still VERY important and we will know 
about that. I believe that Dumbledore figured that it would help 
Harry survive and dispose of Volemort at the same time, but JMO of 
course.

KJ:
> 7. There was his complete avoidance of Harry throughout OotP when 
all he 
> had to do was send Harry a note saying that he would explain later.

Alla:

And he said that it was a mistake. The bottom line in all those 
accidents you site I just don't see malicious manipulation on 
Dumbledore's part, just the shortcomings of the old man, who stands 
so far above the "normal people" with his wisdom that he does not 
check his decisions with somebody else, but himself and that is 
bound to bring disasters sometimes, IMO.

KJ:
> 8. I like his answer to Harry when he asked if learning about Tom 
Riddle 
> would help him to survive. Dumbledore said that he hoped it would 
help 
> him to survive. Not a real confidence builder in my opinion. 

Alla:

I LOVED his answer too, but for a different reason. I saw that 
Dumbledore LEARNED from his mistakes in OOP and was being truthful   
with Harry. He is not G-d, so he cannot be sure that Harry survives, 
but he hopes so.

KJ:
> Particularly since he got teary in OotP over the chance of Harry's 
> unhappiness. He seems to handle Harry's potential death much 
better.

Alla:

I don't see how "and I certainly hope that it will help you to 
survive" - HBP, p.198 translates into Dumbledore " handling Harry's 
potential death" All I can see is Dumbledore encouraging Harry to 
survive.

KJ:
> 9. Forces Harry to pour poison down his gullet in HBP.

Alla:

He did of course

KJ:
> 10. Lays a huge guilt trip on Harry for not busting his arse 
getting him 
> Slughorn's memories. In fact, he sounded a bit like Snape for a 
while there.

Alla:

Oh? I thought he sounded so very UNLIKE Snape here. He did not 
scream at Harry, he did not brought up James, he did not humiliate 
Harry.

He indeed put a guilt trip on Harry, BUT as far as I can see this 
guilt trip was absolutely deserved. For al intents and purposes 
Dumbledore gave Harry homework and Harry did not do it.
I don't remember ONE incident in the books, when Snape successfully 
managed to put a guilt trip on Harry. If anything, Snape manages to 
alienate Harry more and more.

I thought that Dumbledore sounded exactly like Remus when he scolded 
Harry for going to Hogsmeade. Which was such a nice contrast - how 
nicely Remus's scolding worked and Snape did not. ( Your parents 
gave your life for you, such a poor way to repay them for their 
sacrifice - paraphrasing POA)

KJ:
> 
>   All in all, how can anyone think for a minute that Dumbledore 
would 
> stick at a little thing like asking someone to risk splitting his 
soul. 

Alla:

I can think of it more than for a minute actually. :-) 

KJ:

<SNIP>

 He is not just a sweet little old wizard!

Alla:

No, he is not, but to me asking some to rip their soul means that DD 
is Manipulator with a capital M when I am in most charitable mood 
and I don't see him that way. 

SSSusan;
> > > I know that the other day, I presented this argument
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141611 :
> > > 
> > > >>>Consider that DD talks openly with Harry about what he  
> > > believes to be the NECESSITY (or perhaps inevitability?) for 
> > > either Harry to kill Voldy or Voldy to kill Harry. He confirms 
> > > this to Harry in OoP, and he **doesn't** later, in HBP, tell 
> > > Harry, "Gee, I hate that you 
> > > have to do this, because you know it's going to rip your soul!"

Alla:

Hee, not trying to convince you or anything since we talked about it 
many times both on list and off, just trying to explain why I so 
don't see Dumbledore asking someone to rip their soul again.

The example which you gave is very different from anything else to 
me, simply because it is a clear self-defense, IMO and even though I 
am inclined to read the metaphor " murder hurts your soul" in the 
broadest possible sense, I am inclined to either exclude self- 
defense from it completely or say that even if self-defense killing 
hurts your soul, it would be easily mended, as Debbie speculated in 
her earlier post (that souls cold be healed)

If Harry does not kill Voldemort ( I am pretty convinced that he 
would dispose of Voldie in a different way, but Harry does not yet), 
well, then Harry is dead. I think that DD line of thinking is that 
since it is self defense, Harry soul will not be hurt or something 
like this

SSSusan:
<SNIP>
 And perhaps he knows or
> > > suspects that this kind of killing wouldn't rip Harry's soul.

Alla:

Yes, because it is self defense, IMO, but I don't see how situation 
on the Tower could be called self-defense.

> Geoff:
>> I therefore think that when Harry catches up with Voldemort, 
although 
> he will have some personal issues to settle, he will in essence be 
> trying to make the wizarding world a better place by removing this 
> tyrant.

Alla:

Agreed.

Geoff: 
> As a side issue, this raises an interesting metaphysical and 
> spiritual speculation. What determines whether a killing carried 
out 
> by a wizard constitutes a murder? What decides that this is 
heinous 
> enough for the culprit's soul to be split? 

Alla:

Well, my speculation is that everything but self-defense hurts your 
soul, but that is just speculation of course.

> Hickengruendler:
In a scene, by the way, in which he told Harry, that he destroyed 
the Philosopher's Stone, therefore basically sacrificing his old 
friend Nicholas Flamel (of course with Flamel's agreement) to make 
sure that the stone will never get into Voldemort's hand. This does 
IMO seem to imply, that Dumbledore is not totally against 
sacrificing a human life, if it helps the greater good.

Alla:

That is IMO the only example in canon which MAY support the idea 
that Dumbledore may sacrifice human life for the greater good, 
EXCEPT that IMO it does not. :-) 

Dumbledore does not say that he destroyed he Stone when he talks to 
Harry. He says "As for the stone, it had been destroyed" - PS/SS, 
p.297, paperback, which IMO may mean that Stone was destroyed in the 
battle and Dumbledore had nothing to do with it.

BUT even if he did destroy the Stone, I think that "Well, Nicholas 
and I have had a little chat, and agreed that it is all for  the 
best" - p.297, may support  the interpretation that Flanels were 
going to choose their great adventure soon anyways and they just 
made their choice faster.

> Elyse: 
We do not know for sure that every murder splits the soul and 
> until this is proven beyond a doubt, I would not call this canon.
<snip>

Alla:
Well, it is your right of course, but I think " Killing rips  the 
Soul" - HBP, p.498 IS canon. We do interpet that not every killing 
may rip  the soul ( Personally as I said earlier, I may very 
hesitantly exclude self-defense, or maybe not even that, just that 
after self-defense killing soul heals faster, but IMO it is canon.

JMO of course,

Alla