The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes...

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 176361

> Betsy Hp:
> Heh.  True. <g>  Though I don't give him any points because, IMO,
> it just meant he used his fear as an excuse to duck out of work.
> Working for a government body doesn't mean you're out to control 
> the world (see the Founding Fathers, again).  But it's the perfect
> place to challenge the status quo and set forth some new ideals.

Jen: Government is one place to challenge the status quo, which is 
why it's a good thing the better man for the job, Kingsley, took over 
as Minister.  Running a school is also a place to set forth new 
ideals.  So Dumbledore wasn't shirking his duties, he just didn't 
choose the MOM as the place to make a difference.  

> Betsy Hp:
> He got people to sacrifice their lives, the lives of their 
> children, and their own souls for him.  He also succeeded in having
> the children under his power form a group that encouraged members 
> to turn on their families and viciously retaliate against any
> breach of loyalty.  Dumbledore did all right. <g> 

Jen: How exactly did he make people do these things?  I never saw any 
Crucios, no Unbreakable Vows, no threats against lives or families, 
no Veritaserum in pumpkin juice, etc. etc.  Take Snape for example, 
he could have said no and been done with DD, left when Karkaroff did, 
except his life was never his own:  he belonged to Voldemort, the 
little axiom about 'lifetime of service or death' turned out to be 
completely true.  Severus made it longer and did much good during his 
borrowed time but his end was pretty much foretold unless LV was 
defeated before he died. 

Psychological or emotional manipulation is as bad as physical force, 
right?  I'm guessing that's the next argument; might as well save a 
post and address it now. ;)  I won't argue Dumbledore used 
manipulation to get what he wanted, a desire which happened to 
coincide with what he thought was best for the WW:  Voldemort's true 
and final demise.  Given his past, how he trumpeted the 'greater 
good' to defend pretty much the same message the Ministry had in 
DH: "Magic is Might," plus his own weakness for seeking power, 
Dumbledore wasn't set up as the most morally shiny individual to take 
on the ousting of Voldemort.  However, he was also the only one who 
volunteered for the job in the second war (and likely the first), so 
sometimes the dirty jobs are left to those willing to apply instead 
of the morally perfect individuals who have more important things to 
do with their time.    

Where you see a man manipulatively forcing others to get his way, I 
see a someone who recognized the strength residing in others, "My 
word Severus, that I shall never reveal the best of you?"[1] Someone 
who manipulated circumstances in order to give people a little room 
to choose their own way, even if fate or life choices severely 
limited the options.  When Snape came begging on the hill, Dumbledore 
had the constricted option of refusing Snape or aiding him to make 
more of his life while helping prolong it.  Then in a role reversal, 
Snape's option was to allow Dumbledore to die or prolong his life to 
fight LV a little longer after DD foolishly put on the cursed ring.  

Dumbledore's the Magician in the Tarot, immensely powerful, 
intelligent, manipulative, with the unique aspect of revealing to 
others what is already inside of them, something echoed several times 
in DH: "Explain," said Harry.  "But you already know," said 
Dumbledore." [2];  "He understood and yet did not understand.  His 
instinct was telling him one thing, his brain quite another.  The 
Dumbledore in Harry's head smiled, surveying Harry over the tips of 
his fingers, pressed together as if in prayer..." [3]

The shadow side is what Aberforth nailed him on, when DD chooses 
not to reveal things - to his detriment - or makes huge mistakes by 
believing his intelligence and power will always win out:

"My brother Albus wanted a lot of things," said Aberforth, "and 
people had a habit of getting hurt while he was carrying out his 
grand plans." [4]  

"I knew my brother, Potter.  He learned secrecy at our mother's 
knee.  Secrets and lies, that's how we grew up, and Albus...he was a 
natural." [5]

In the end, I'm trying to say Dumbledore is a duality, the series is 
a duality, to me anyway.  It's about the capacity for good and bad 
within each person that becomes a mirror for the good/bad in the 
larger world.

> Betsy Hp:
> I *know*.  It was so... petty.  We are gathered here today to 
> destroy this guy.  Really?  That's your entire purpose of being? 
> What an utter waste.  All those books, all that time spent in Harry-
> agnst, and his entire purpose is to destroy Voldemort.  Take down
> one man.

Jen: Well yes, that *was* the story. ;)  Orphan kept in the dark 
until he finds out he has a Real Life and destiny waiting for him, 
which includes an evil Lord who murdered his parents and tried to 
kill him for some unknown reason... let the story commence. 

BetsyHp: 
> I mean, the WW is exactly as it was when Voldemort came to power,
> so it's not like Dumbledore, Harry or the Order have achieved 
> anything to slow down the next Evil Overlord when he or she pops 
> up. Harry is a happy slave owner, the Houses are still ranked and 
> at each other's throats, magical creatures are still on the bottom
> of the pile.  Probably about the only thing that's changed is it's
> a bad thing to be a pure-blood (as per Ron's little remark).  Which 
> just means a change in fashion, not a change in outlook or
> understanding.  So, yeah... petty. 

Jen:  I don't get the implication that the destruction of Voldemort's 
version of the WW was a waste and not even worth the effort.  The 
logical end to that conclusion is that every character who acted 
toward the end of Voldemort shouldn't have bothered if they couldn't 
bring about complete transformation.  Or to say it another way, JKR 
shouldn't have written the story if she wasn't going to write 
the 'better' ending? <g>  


[1] DH, chap. 33, p. 679, Am. ed.
[2] DH, chap. 35, p. 708
[3] chap. 24, p. 483
[4] & [5] chap. 28, pps. 561-562