Dumbledore on the Dursleys in OotP (was:Re: Old, old problem.)

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 151309

> Pippin:
<SNIP>
> Dumbledore, who understands the human heart much better than
> young Will,  is far too wise for that. No one could have consoled
> Harry.  Harry did not *want*  to be consoled. He wanted his
> beloved Sirius back, and failing that, to see him avenged. Harry is
> not the sort who could mourn a murdered friend in peace when 
> the killers were still at large. *That* was what made the situation
> at the beginning of OOP so difficult for him to bear.

Alla:

How do we know that Harry did not want both to be consoled AND to 
avenge the killers? You see, I think that while we do agree on 
Dumbledore not being a puppet master, I think we do diverge a great 
deal in evaluation of Dumbledore in this speech. You seem to be 
saying that Dumbledore was correct and right in saying all that he 
said in this speech. I completely disagree with it. I may buy 
Dumbledore not quite in control of his facilities, who while in 
generally doing the right thing - namely telling the truth about the 
Prophecy says plenty wrong things to Harry. I can buy this 
Dumbledore, I am NOT buying Dumbledore who as you say "too wise" to 
comfort Harry. I think that Dumbledore wants to comfort Harry, but 
really is not sure how, but who is Dumbledore to decide that Harry 
does not want comfort?

I mean desire for avenge and desire to be comforted could go 
together, no?


Pippin:
<SNIP>
> I like what was said about Dumbledore being angry at Sirius. It 
> could be that he assumed Harry would be angry with Sirius as
> well  when he'd learned what  had happened. He may have thought
> that he needed to let Harry see that this was okay, that he could
> acknowledge this anger without guilt and without meaning that
> Sirius deserved to die. It could be part of his exhaustion
> and slowed reaction time that he didn't see at once that Harry 
didn't
> blame Sirius at all.

Alla:

Since I am not buying at all that Dumbledore was angry at Sirius ( 
Angry for what? For loving Harry too much? If Harry's best weapon is 
love, I would think Dumbledore would be happy that there is one more 
person here to show what love means to Harry), it is basically 
impossible for me to see the extrapolations of this argument that 
you make, but my question to you would be whether you agree that 
what Dumbledore said about Sirius was not needed to be said at all 
or at least not at that time?

Because really that would take away a lion share of my problems with 
Dumbledore's speech. THAT and cutting Harry when he complained about 
Petunia not loving him. 


Pippin: 
> Granted that it was a bit disarming for Dumbledore to say that 
Harry
> wasn't nearly as angry at him as he should be, I don't think that 
DD
> was being disingenuous. I think he really did want Harry to be 
angry.
> He was not making a clumsy attempt to comfort Harry by saying
> all those seemingly insensitive things, he was trying to provoke 
> Harry to put his anger out where he and Dumbledore could deal with
> it.  This is not the Star Wars universe, where all anger leads to 
the Dark
> Side. But I think Dumbledore was very concerned that Harry find the
> right path for his anger. 

Alla:

Okay, so you are saying that Dumbledore was perfectly aware of what 
he was doing? He was not saying the wrong things because he was 
tired and exhausted, he was doing deliberate thing - provoking Harry 
into hurting more?

Then no, I have no sympathy for this Dumbledore. Sorry if I am 
misunderstanding you here.

Pippin: 
> Consider those trophy heads at GP. Dumbledore must have already
> been aware that Harry could turn out to be Kreacher's next master. 
If
> so, who would have had the  authority to protect Kreacher if 
> Harry had decided to kill him? No one, I guess. Probably no one 
but 
> Dumbledore would even have cared. The laws of the wizarding world 
> would not have called it murder if Dumbledore had failed, but 
would 
> the damage to Harry's soul, and ultimately to his power to defeat 
> Voldemort, have been any less for that? I doubt it. 

Alla:

That is not a bad reason indeed, but timing IS still horrible, 
because the only thing which IMO was important at that moment was 
Harry, NOT Kreacher, not Dumbledore, but Harry and protecting 
Kreacher when Harry is in such pain really does not make me respect 
Dumbledore more.

 
Pippin:
<SNIP>
> IMO, DD wouldn't let Harry rant about Petunia because most of his 
anger 
> was not  about Petunia. It would have been impossible to separate
> his anger about her from his anger and distress over losing Sirius,
> and yet, whatever she was, she wasn't the murderer of Sirius Black.

Alla:

And again, why cannot Harry be angry about MANY things. I think he 
has PLENTY of reasons to be angry with Petunia and as far as I can 
see he IS distressed over her not loving him. IMO Sirius has nothing 
to do with that, moreover IMO Dumbledore OWED Harry to hear him out. 
Don't you see? I will buy Dumbledore making a horrific choice to 
leave Harry with Dursleys to save Harry's life, but in order for me 
to buy that Dumbledore is not a Puppetmaster (and I really don't 
think that he is, unless I am rereading this speech) I have to see 
that Dumbledore IS sorry that he had to make this choice, that no 
matter what he is sorry for Harry's sufferings and cutting him 
across when Harry starts talking about those sufferings really 
really does not help me to do so.

I mean, it is like every time in this speech Dumbledore starts 
saying that he is sorry, he finishes  the sentence with justifying 
himself ( not as well-fed as I liked is a great example. Duh! He was 
starved several times, I so wanted to say get over your high horse, 
Headmaster. :)).

I really loved Amiable Dorsai interpretation that Dumbledore's 
tragedy that he was not a bastard enough and the only thing I wanted 
is better expression of Dumbledore being sorry. And I don't mean him 
beating himself into the chest and starting being hysterical.

I am trying to come up with better definition of what would have 
worked for me, but I cannot come up with anything better than 
Dumbledore being more humble, more apologetic and actually just talk 
less and letting HARRY talk more and indeed being upset more and not 
doing self-justification thingy and blaming the dead man thing.

Amiable Dorsai:
< HUGE SNIP> 
> I think when he talked to Harry that night, he was exhausted,
> emotionally, physically, and morally, and was as sick of keeping
> secrets as Harry was of being kept in the dark.  Perhaps, as a 
result,
> he said a little more about Sirius than he should have.

Alla:

Absolutely. I love this interpretation. As long as we agree that 
Dumbledore was not quite Okay and that he said things that he should 
not have said along the ride, I WANT to buy it. The thing is I am 
not quite seeing too exhausted Dumbledore in that speech. I am going 
to reread that speech again tomorrow, because I do want to buy your 
interpretation, I am just worried that it will make me angry at 
Dumbledore all over again.

JMO,

Alla, who apologises to Pippin if she sounds too emotional or does 
not make much sense. This speech makes me as angry as not many other 
parts in the books do, even angrier than Voldemort's appearances, 
because it casts the character I love in not a good light.