In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer/Campbell myths

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 158768

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <belviso at ...> 
wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> 
> Magpie:
> Sorry, but I think most of us if not all of us ARE blaming JKR 
> here.  But if other people keep jumping in to defend DD as if his 
> actions are perfectly logical and examples of his great goodness 
> we're going to say we don't think they are.  If one can claim 
> Dumbledore did everything right logically and ethically based on the 
> events in canon someone else can argue he didn't on the same level. 

Well, yes, exactly.  Of course we are "blaming" JKR.  Dumbledore, 
after all, is not a real person.  He is a character in a universe 
created by a particular author.  Furthermore, he is a highly symbolic 
and meaning-laden character within said universe.  Most of all, he is 
a character about which the author very much wants to "sell" a 
particular message -- a message that she has, indeed, made blatantly 
direct by making public statements about how said character is 
supposed to fit within her fictional universe -- i.e. that he is "very 
wise" that he is "the epitome of goodness," etc.

Now, a sale is a transaction that has to involve at least two parties, 
one of whom does the selling and one of whom accepts the sale.  If 
both of these things don't happen, the sale cannot be closed or 
considered successful.  Many of us simply don't accept the sale of DD 
on the terms JKR is trying, rather stringently, to impose.  Largely, 
this comes from the fact that we see DD's attitudes and actions as 1) 
a mass of contradictions even when measured by standards of 
consistency internal to the story itself, and 2) as not being 
consistent with the symbolic interpretation JKR wants to sell with 
regard to this character and the metadynamics (the "moral" 
or "morals") of the story.

So, who else is there to blame?


Lupinlore