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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 151341

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> Maybe Dumbledore IS upset, what I don't see is self-doubting      
> Dumbledore, Dumbledore who is not sure again whether he does a    
> right thing, etc. What I do get out of this speech is Dumbledore  
> indeed being JKR's mouthpiece and doing the explanation of the    
> plot points, one by one.

Betsy Hp:
I think that it's very in character for an upset Dumbledore to fall 
back into speaking a bit pendantically.  Hence his rather long build 
up to the prophecy reveal, where he walks Harry through his mistake 
like it's a lesson of some sort.  (Do you see my mistake, Harry?  Do 
you see the lesson in this?)

Because Dumbledore is trying to *not* express his emotions here.  
And that's for Harry's sake.  To indulge in a fit of apologizing or 
agonizing over past mistakes made would be considered very selfish 
behavior by Dumbledore, I'd think.  So he escapes into "professor" 
mode.

And actually, Harry expresses his need for Dumbledore to remain 
unemotional and distant in this passage here:

"Dumbledore closed his eyes and buried his face in his long-fingered 
hands.  Harry watched him, but this uncharacteristic sign of 
exhaustion, or sadness, or whatever is was from Dumbledore, did not 
soften him.  On the contrary, he felt even angrier that Dumbledore 
was showing signs of weakness.  He had no business being weak when 
Harry wanted to rage and storm at him." (OotP scholastic hardback 
p.834)
 
> >>Alla: 
> I mean, if we were to argue that while in general Dumbledore was 
> right that it is necessary to tell the truth to Harry (and I      
> agree with it), his mood prevented him from stopping himself and   
> NOT to talk that way about Sirius (like what Kreacher did was     
> Sirius fault, and that basically it is Sirius fault that he died - 
> of course that is just the impression I got), I will buy it.

Betsy Hp:
It's beyond a "mood" in my opinion.  I feel like you're mistaking 
Dumbledore for a disinterested party here.  That he's attending the 
funeral of a person he barely knew, speaking to the deceased's son.  
But Dumbledore is not disinterested.  He's had quite a past with 
Sirius, who was not only a student under his care, but also an Order 
member, *and* someone he misjudged so badly that he left him rotting 
in Azkaban for over a decade.

Sirius and Dumbledore have a past.  Dumbledore is dealing with his 
*own* grief here.  And while he's loving enough to try and keep it 
from Harry, his own pain does come out.  That's what brought up the 
Kreacher bit, IMO.  He's the parent, sitting in the emergency room 
at the hospital, trying to get a handle on the reason his child has 
died and falling into the "if only he'd listened!" speech.

An example: The son of a friend of mine got into a car accident.  It 
was quite minor (at least for the boy, the car was totalled) and he 
walked away with only a hurt wrist.  But my friend kept going over 
and over the fact that he'd taken a road she'd told him not to 
take.  Even though the reason she'd forbidden that particular road 
was the amount of traffic and the accident occured because he'd 
taken a curve too fast, she kept going back to him ignoring her 
order and taking the road in the first place.

I think Dumbledore is going through a similar experience.  Only in 
his case, the boy died.  Would Sirius following Dumbledore's advice 
and treating Kreacher well have changed the ending of OotP?  I doubt 
it.  Kreacher had been twisted by Mrs. Black many years ago.  But 
this is something Dumbledore can cling to.

Of course it's not helpful to Harry.  And I doubt Dumbledore would 
have spoken about it to him except that Harry starts to set Kreacher 
up as a scapegoat.  It was important, I think, that Dumbledore keep 
Harry from fixating on Kreacher.  But once that door was opened, 
Dumbledore was human enough, hurt enough, to express the "if only 
he'd listened!" stuff.

> >>Alla:
> I will buy it that Dumbledore being 150 old man had no clue how to 
> talk to grieving teenager, that he forgot the pain of loosing the 
> loved ones and only just recently experienced the scare of loosing 
> Harry and that is why he was not quite himself... <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Again, I don't think the problem was Dumbledore being too 
disconnected.  Dumbledore was too *connected*.  Not only does he 
remember the pain of losing loved ones, he's in the middle of 
feeling that pain himself.  But he's trying his damndest to hide 
that pain from Harry.  Because Harry doesn't need or want a weak and 
grieving Dumbledore at the moment. 

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> I liked the scene quite a bit, I thought it showed us a new side of
> Dumbledore--one I found quite believable.
> Up until this moment, we've seen a Dumbledore who was on top of his
> game--even when confronted by Fudge and Umbridge in his ofice, he 
> was in command of himself and the situation.  In the scene with    
> Harry at the end of OotP, I think we're seeing something else     
> entirely. we're seeing a man whose good intentions have just blown 
> up in his face, a man who is feeling every one of his 150 years.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I love the juxtaposition of those two scenes.  The confrontation 
scene showed Dumbledore at his finest, analytical and adaptable.  
While this scene showed Dumbledore at his lowest (and still 
responding to it analytically, interestingly enough).  OotP is the 
book that shows Harry really acheiving adulthood.  It's what sets 
him up to truly learn from Dumbledore in HBP.  And I think one of 
the most painful moments in the path from childhood to adulthood is 
the realization that those elders around you are just winging it.  
That there isn't some sort of secret key to everything that you get 
at reaching your majority.

Only by Harry and Dumbledore having this scene together is it 
possible for the "I'm not worried, I'm with you" scene in HBP, in my 
opinion.  If Dumbledore had said something of that sort to Harry in 
OotP, Harry would probably be scared of the responsibility being 
foisted on him by such a statement, and angry that Dumbledore was 
suddenly dumping it all on him.

> >>BetsyHP:
> > But this does raise a question for me, especially for those who
> > disliked the scene: Did Dumbledore seem out of character here?

> >>Magpie:
> Not to me.  He seemed perfectly in character and very human, but  
> this is the bad aspect of Dumbledore's character coming through in 
> technicolor.

Betsy Hp:
Good!  Because one thing I disagree with is that the scene itself 
was badly written: that JKR sort of twisted the character of 
Dumbledore to make plot points.  Rather, I think it tells us a lot 
about Dumbledore's character, and can be used to explain what you 
like about the character or dislike about him.

(Honestly, I've gotten to the point of cringing whenever JKR 
discusses one of her characters in interviews.  I think it ties the 
reader's hands when she calls Dumbledore "the epitome of goodness" 
rather than providing insight.  Just as I think I'd have had a 
better chance of getting a handle on Ginny's character if JKR hadn't 
come out and proclaimed her "Harry's perfect girlfriend" or words to 
that effect.  It's the paragon problem, again.)

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> > <snip>
> > The tragedy of Dumbledore, as I see it, was that he couldn't    
> > bring himself to be enough of a bastard.
> > <snip>

> >>Joe:
> Sorry but I think it would have been an unmitigated disaster to   
> tell a eleven year old boy who only just found out about the      
> magical world that he had to save it by killing one of the most   
> powerful wizards on the planet.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think Dumbledore realized he should have followed the same rule of 
thumb that I've heard applied to the question of when to talk to 
your kids about the birds and the bees: When they start asking 
questions.  Harry asked about his connection to Voldemort at the end 
of PS/SS, and I think Dumbledore in OotP realizes that he probably 
should have answered Harry's question at that time.

Betsy Hp (forgive me for the really, really, really long post <g>)