Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 179631

Mus:
> It helps (for me, at any rate) because it is manifest good sense, and
> it's true in our world.
> 
> But for me, it's simply not true of the Potterverse.  One of the first
> things we learn (and are meant, I think, to admire) about DD is that
> he has powers he's too noble to use (though by the end I was kinda
> wondering what they might be), and this contrasts him with Evil LV.  

Pippin:
Dumbledore blushes when McGonagall says he's too noble to use
his powers. He says he's embarrassed, and we think he's being
modest. But he's ashamed. 

He does have powers he won't use. He won't use the Elder Wand to kill. 
He won't rule  as Minister of Magic, not because he's too noble to want
to but because he doesn't trust himself with such powers. Canon is utterly 
explicit about that. 


And *that* is what makes him different from Tom Riddle. 

Mus:
>  In other words, we're set up initially to expect that there are
> objectively admirable properties in this world, but the rest of the
> series makes it clear that "admirable" can be summed up in one word:
> Gryffindor. 

Pippin:
Then why is Snape,  whose courage never falters and who uses
his cunning only to protect the weak, a Slytherin? Why is  
Dumbledore, who would have sacrificed all that he loves to achieve  
his ends, a Gryffindor? 

Albus Severus will become a Gryffindor, and he'll be very proud,
but if his bratty older brother hasn't made it bloody obvious that
being a Gryffindor isn't all it's cracked up to be, what can Harry
possibly say that would convince him? He'll have to learn it for
himself.  Or not.

And that's okay. Because -- but you can guess the moral.

Can't you?  Wait for it...

Mus:
> I certainly agree that a very interesting story could have been told
> where the Trio (at least) reflected on their moral choices and tried
> to learn from them.  

Pippin:
The characters in a fable do not always learn from their choices.
Sometimes they do, like the lion who was set free by the lowly
mouse. The dog, on the other hand, never reflects on the 
wickedness of hogging the manger, and the fox learns nothing
from his encounter with the grapes. But *we* do. The object
of  morality fiction is the reader, not the characters.

I agree it would be unsatisfying if the Trio had learned nothing
from their choices. They did. But they don't *reflect* on it.
Harry is not a reflective character -- he does not tell us what he's
learned, he shows us. That's what a well-written character is
supposed to do, right?

The epilogue poses  a riddle: what did Harry learn that allowed 
him to  recognize and honor Snape's courage, forgive Dumbledore's 
machinations without becoming a machinator himself, show patience 
with his children and live serenely in a world that is *almost* as 
imperfect as it ever was? 

I think the answer's in the story, and the answer not only speaks 
to achieving tolerance, it's  even heartwarming enough to excuse the 
fluffiness of the epilogue. 

Here it is...

Last chance to guess...<g>

"Nobody has to be perfect."

It fits, it really does. Sure, the world isn't as good a place as we would 
like it to be, but that's okay, because we aren't as good as we would 
like to be either.

I really don't understand how any one can say it's rotten to the core: 
There's  love, there's honor,  and above all there is courage. Few are as 
brave as Snape, but we can all dare to believe that we're braver than 
we think we are. Those who can't see those things probably aren't  
looking in the right places. YMMV.

Mus:
For example, when she tells us that goblins have different
> ideas about ownership than wizards do, she evokes the notion of many
> native peoples' different ideas of ownership in our world, and once
> she has done so, the reader (or this one at least) thinks "Hang on -
> the goblins have a *point*".  

Pippin:
Yeah, they do. But there's a bigger point -- you can't negotiate with a 
fanatic. And to be fair, she made Harry a fanatic too. He didn't  need the 
sword to destroy the cup, he just thought he did. There's no applause
for fanaticism on either side as far as I can see. 

Neville saved goblin as well as wizarding lives by killing Nagini: 
should the world be deprived of a beautiful and useful thing 
because in the minds of a few fanatics it never should have been 
made? And if the sword is so precious because goblins cannot
make another just like it, does that not suggest that wizards 
had a hand in its making too?

Where does a treasure belong?  Per canon, where  it will do the most 
good -- but who says  Goblins won't be  Gryffindors some day? 

As I said, it's naive to suppose there are simple answers to the
problem of good and evil. Freedom is good, but what can you do, 
consistent with that, to force a person who's been trained out 
of wanting freedom to embrace it?

Isn't it  cultural imperialist to say that any situation that invokes
the (false) conditions of American slavery can't refer to anything
else? 

Aren't there  a great many wives in this world who 
have vowed to obey their husbands, think that's the natural order,  
consider themselves happy, and would rather die than break that vow?

You know the etymological derivation of "husband" don't you?
It's supposed to come from Old Norse --  "master of the house."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=husband

Pippin
agrees that baking bread smells good