In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer

[hickengruendler]

No: HPFGUIDX 158688

 
> 
> Julie:
>  In her own words then, 
> he is a "*human* epitome of goodness," i.e., his heart is in the 
> right place and he acts out of kindness, compassion, and in what he 
> believes to be the best interests of those around him. While his 
> intentions may be the best he is still humanly capable of 
> misunderstanding, miscalculation, and even arrogance when putting 
> those best of intentions into action. 
> 
> Julie, who doesn't think all Dumbledore's actions have had *good* 
> results, but believes they were carried out with *good* intentions.
>

Hickengruendler:

I agree, that this is what JKR meant, that Dumbledore is always trying 
to do his best, even if he might fail. And this interpretation does 
come close to what I consider an epitome of goodness, after all, he was 
never said to be an epitome of perfection. And in most cases, I also 
agree, that, yes, Dumbledore made this and this possible mistake, but I 
can also see *why* he made them and consider his reasonings as 
understandable. 

But his reason to give Harry to the Dursleys as given to McGonagall in 
the first chapter is just awful. First of all, looking at Dudley, I 
would argue, that if the Dursleys indeed had loved Harry and cared for 
him the way they thought was best, he might very well have become 
the "pampered little prince" Dumbledore didn't want him to be. Second, 
the whole scene seems to suggest, that Dumbledore knew (or at least 
suspected), that the Dursleys would be bad guardians, and he still gave 
Harry to them, for a somewhat odd reasoning. But like I said, the 
damage to Dumbledore's character was done by the second chapter of PS. 
Giving Harry to the Dursleys, particularly in the light of the blood 
protection, might still be understandable, but not stepping in, when 
they treat him badly, or at least ask them how he's doing is really 
unforgiveable. And no, having a Squib live nearby to tell him how 
Harry's doing is not enough. If he heard, that it's that badly, it was 
his job to do something against it, since he was the one, who placed 
Harry in this situation to begin with. And this is, where the epitome 
of goodness' part really doesn't work, since I do not see him doing his 
best at all. And IMO, though of course I can't prove it, JKR realised 
this as well. Obviously PS was already written and published, and she 
couldn't undo it anymore, but she could give him a better reason for 
his decision (the blood protection) and imply, that he genuinely 
thought, that the Dursleys would treat him better (like she did in 
HBP). Of course I can't prove, that this was an afterthought by JKR, 
but IMO the first chapter of PS hints to this. Because strictly 
speaking, we have Dumbledore lying at McGonagall here, when he does not 
tell her, that his reason for give Harry to the Dursleys is the blood 
protection. And I do not remember him ever lying in any other scene. He 
might not tell something and keep his thoughts or knowledge to himself, 
but he does not lie. This implies to me, that JKR didn't have developed 
the blood protection at this time. (Though she did at the end of GoF at 
the latest, when Voldemort told the Death Eaters, that he couldn't harm 
Harry at the Dursleys). Therefore, yes, I think JKR realised the 
problem and did her best to somewhat redeem Dumbledore's decision in 
the later books (and probably did as much as much as possible), but it 
still wasn't enough to redeem him completely, IMO.

Hickengruendler