Dumbledore and Harry WAS: Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 164465

> Magpie:
> > I'm not furious on Harry's behalf that Dumbledore dares 
criticize 
> > Sirius to him because Harry needs him to be perfect, and it 
would 
> be 
> > very out of character for Harry to think about Dumbledore's 
words 
> > the way I do; he just doesn't think the way I do most of the 
time. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Oh, could you clarify that part, please? As I said many times this 
> part I find one of the most despicable parts of Dumbledore's 
speech. 
> And **not** because he criticises Sirius, but because he 
criticised 
> the man, who just died and the man whom Harry loved.
> Are you saying that you are Okay with that part of his speech?
> Or are you saying that you are not okay even if Harry is?

Magpie:
I think objectively, he's being insensitive. This is just Grief 101. 
It's not uncommon for people who have lost someone to complain later 
of people who felt they could give their judgment of the person to 
them soon after they died. You have to be very careful in these 
kinds of situations--sometimes something you think is sensitive and 
kind infuriates the bereaved. I can't think even Hermione would 
start analyzing a person's character this way hours after he died. 

But that isn't at the center of how I read the scene, maybe because 
it doesn't seem central to what Dumbledore is doing--it's not like 
he hates Sirius and can't wait to start tearing him down, that's 
just a side effect of whatever he is trying to get across. Maybe it 
doesn't bother me as much in itself because Harry calls Dumbledore 
on it. When someone in canon voices the objection it feels like it's 
been respected and said for you. Dumbledore's not being the 
perfectly sensitive person who says exactly what Harry needs to hear 
and makes him feel better--but that's okay. It's more interesting, 
probably, that he fumbles the ball here. JKR probably really prefers 
to keep Harry off-balance here, and not give him a soft moment of 
closure.

I have, however, never been convinced by arguments that Dumbledore 
*needs* to cut Sirius down to size, that he's doing it for Harry. 
There's nothing in this book or this scene that points to Harry 
having too much regard for Sirius being a problem. OotP is the book 
where some of Harry's "heroes" get cut down, yes, but it happens 
organically as part of the story. It's not something Dumbledore has 
to explain to him. He sees James in the Pensieve. He sees Sirius 
falling apart at Grimmauld Place. If anything I'd say Harry's view 
of Sirius is perhaps at its most accurate in this moment--he was 
brave and miserable and all too vulnerable. Harry completely 
understands his hatred of Grimmauld Place and Kreacher and how 
insurmountable it felt to him.

I don't have a problem with a lot of the conclusions Dumbledore 
draws about some of the people he's talking about. Though as I said, 
I think he's view of the Kreacher/Sirius connection is totally 
flawed. (Kreacher was not driven by Sirius hating him, but his love 
for the Black family. Sirius and Kreacher were both locked together 
in different kinds of pain symbolized by that house that went beyond 
Sirius having a disdain for Kreacher he could have overcome etc.) 
Harry is wrong in blaming Snape for Sirius leaving the house so I 
agree with Dumbledore there--though one would have to be careful in 
talking about that with Harry because you have to tiptoe around the 
issue that Sirius left the house for Harry and you don't want to 
make it seem like it's Harry's fault. (And as we see in HBP, 
Dumbledore's own spin didn't keep Harry from blaming Snape at all.)

But it comes back to Dumbledore creating his own problems by 
launching into his "If Sirius had been nicer to Kreacher it wouldn't 
have happened and that's what we should do with House Elves" angle 
in response to a throwaway angry line of Harry's. He decides he has 
to defend Kreacher when Harry blames him for Sirius' death and hates 
him for it. He defends him by saying that Hermione was "quite right" 
to say Kreacher should have been treated with respect, and how he 
warned Sirius and how Sirius treated him badly and, well, look what 
happened. He doesn't say, "Hermione was right that Kreacher should 
have been treated with respect. But giving him presents while 
tearing away everything he loved isn't respect. We should have taken 
Kreacher's alliances more seriously. I thought his hatred of us and 
love for the Blacks couldn't be enough to hurt us, and I was wrong. 
I didn't respect his feelings or his mind enough to respect the 
threat he posed." That's looking at his own responsibility instead 
of saying what Sirius should have done. 
  

> > Magpie:
> > This is one of the things I actually never get about the whole 
idea 
> > that Harry knowing about his fame would put him in danger of 
this 
> > kind of arrogance. Because the Dursleys' type upbringing holds 
just 
> > as much if not more danger for the same thing. If a kid grows up 
> > despised, and then suddenly finds out he's the Savior of the 
World, 
> > he would potentially be much more vulnerable to having his head 
> > turned by going from one extreme to another because his self-
esteem 
> > is already screwed up. My instinct if somebody was asking me 
what I 
> > thought would be the best way would be to have the kid raised by 
> > people who didn't treat him special, but cared about him. 
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Magpie, we are on the same page again, yes. But what I do not get 
is 
> not only the argument that Dumbledore somehow gets a right of 
telling 
> Harry about the dangers of being extremely pampered, after he 
stuck 
> the kid with Dursleys, but also where exactly are the dangers for 
> Harry to be pampered now?
> 
> Suddenly after sixteen years Dursleys would start pampering him?
> 
> I doubt it.

Magpie:
Heh--maybe Harry should go home and tell them how important it is 
that he not be pampered. Perhaps they'd start just to spite him.

-m