[HPforGrownups] Re: Cruel, Mean, and Nasty/Follow the Owls: Hedwig/JKR's comments

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 158855

> Mike:
> I realize I butchered your post, sorry :) I wanted to draw attention
> to what seems to be a disparate way of viewing things. People are
> perfectly willing to scrutinize DD's every action and to draw
> inferences on the part to paint the whole. This points up what Ken
> was arguing against, and IMO Ken is correct in his reading of the
> thread's thrust.
>
> For instance, calling out Dumbledore for his treatment of the
> Dursleys in 'Will and Won't' (which I found hilarious, not at all
> mean) *is* an attempt to disparage DD on the whole. These are most
> definitely attempts to use single incidents to paint DD as a *Muggle-
> baiter*, and many have claimed exactly that. The author clearly was
> going for a little humor and *we* are instead inferring mean-
> spiritedness from this passage. Nobody defending DD is claiming
> flawlessness of character, but your defense of "not a study of
> Dumbledore as a whole" rings hollow. People are taking his *flawed*
> actions and inferring a *flawed* whole.

Magpie:
Oh.  I see what you mean.  I fully admit that I think Dumbledore acts like a 
total jerk in that scene and I don't consider him always to be that good of 
a guy.  Some scenes he comes across better to me.  Sometimes he's just 
neutral.

But then my question is...what do we do?  If one reads a scene that the 
author intends as humorous but one doesn't find it funny and just wants to 
smack Dumbledore, why shouldn't one describe Dumbledore as flawed?  Why is 
the reaction where one finds Dumbledore's actions funny the more correct?  I 
mean, I know that it's more correct in terms of it perhaps being what the 
author intends. If someone said they were waiting for Dumbledore's 
comeuppance for that scene I'd probably say they were mistaken, that the 
scene was meant as humor.  But their reaction would be perfectly reasonable. 
Viewing Dumbledore as a complete jerk all the time, even, isn't *wrong,* 
even if it's not what the author expected. Fandom is full of people who like 
and dislike every character.

> Mike:
> Case in point. DD has to go into a Muggle orphanage to offer a
> position to a school of magic and not run afoul of the secrecy
> statutes. He tries to explain things in general terms while not
> stepping over the line. Mrs. Cole is "inconviently sharp" and not
> going to let things happen easily without a better explanation from
> DD. What would you have him do? Did you perceive Mrs. Cole in some
> kind of distress from DD's *mind zap*? That's not the way it reads
> to me. It was more like a genle nudge in the right direction.>
> This is the paradigm that JKR has set up, this is what wizards do.
> You seem to want to condemn this wizard for using magic to protect
> his world and hers. DD is not torturing Mrs. Cole, yet you accuse
> him of *mind zapping* her. Am I incorrect in interpreting your
> position as one of distaste for DD's use of magic in this instance?

Magpie:
So we have different reactions to mind zaps.  Isn't that part of what one 
would expect in discussing a book with a lot of people?  I see that JKR has 
set this up as an accepted fact of her world, but why shouldn't I give my 
honest reaction to it?  It's a perfectly valid reaction to the scene, one 
that many readers share.  As a Muggle myself I don't give "good" wizards a 
blank check to use magic on us to effect good outcomes.  Since JKR rarely if 
ever has this kind of magical "nudging" used on her good characters (and in 
fact often makes a point about people being free to make choices after being 
given information) I wonder if she doesn't sometimes have a problem with the 
concept too.

I think your reaction is valid too, but if we're going to step outside the 
reactions and start arguing that what Dumbledore did was fine, then I'm 
going to counter with my saying it's not fine.  At that point we leave 
author intention behind and are just discussing a hypothetical ethical 
situation and whether the scene is funny or not doesn't matter. That, imo, 
is why so many people in the thread said they thought *less* of Dumbledore 
reading the defenses of him, because he wasn't being defended on the grounds 
that it wasn't real and these things were intended as humor.  He was 
defended on the grounds that what he did was great.

Mike:

> Oh, and JKR carefully explained that Mrs. Cole was no stranger to
> Gin. DD didn't pour the drinks, didn't even offer her the drink, she
> offered DD a drink that DD secretly provided. I wouldn't call him
> getting her drunk, it looks like any attempt to get someone drunk
> was the other way around. Besides, she didn't seem drunk when she
> stood up. Being a little overly dramatic here, aren't you?

Magpie:
I don't see what's overly dramatic about it.  Dumbledore's provided the gin 
and it made things easier for him.  It's not like I suggested he poured it 
down her throat or slipped it to her without her knowing.

-m