It really annoys me ...

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 163883

> >>Inge:
> > <snip>
> > Anyone else who's annoyed by something "not logic"? Im sure
> > there must be :-)

> >>Anne Squires:
> Okay, Inge, I'll bite.
> <snip>
> In PS/SS the stone is protected by a series of tests and           
> enchantments that a group of eleven year olds with only one year of 
> training can bypass. 
> <snip>
> (I actually believe the tests were purposely set up not to protect 
> the stone, but rather to test Harry. But it's still a plot hole.)
> <snip>
>
> In CoS Dumbledore and his staff have not figured out that a Basilisk
> is the Chamber's monster.  What? 
> <snip>
> I'll tell you why.  DD wanted Harry to fight young Tom and the     
> Basilisk.  It's still a plot hole though, imho.
> 
> About Sirius, why didn't someone interrogate the man under
> veritaserum?  
> <snip>
> (I actually think DD may have wanted Sirius out of the way for his 
> own purposes. It's still a plot hole.)
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree with all those plot holes: and I find it interesting that the 
most efficient way of filling them is to turn Dumbledore into a cold-
hearted bastard.  I seriously doubt that's how JKR wants her 
readership to see Dumbledore.  (Though I could be wrong, of course. 
<g>)  But she does have some serious contradictions that are hard to 
overlook.

Did Dumbledore set up Harry to run the gauntlet in PS/SS?  If so (and 
unfortunately there's nothing in canon to contradict this senario) 
then Dumbledore was willing to risk Harry's life (not to mention the 
lives of Harry's little friends) to test the mettle of the boy who 
would be hero.  A tiny bit disgusting, yes?

And if Dumbledore was that ruthless with young Harry then it's not 
impossible to make the second leap that Dumbledore set Harry up to 
face down yet another foe in CoS as you theorize, Anne.  Which again, 
risked the life of Harry (and Ginny and any other child Harry pulled 
into the adventure with him).

Which of course makes it easy to conclude that Sirius was packed off 
to Azkabahan because his existence was an inconvenience to 
Dumbledore.  What wouldn't Dumbledore do to further his plans, after 
all?

But the thing is, that view of Dumbledore is very hard (IMO) to tie 
in with the Dumbledore who loved Harry soo much he refused to tell 
Harry that Harry was destined to bring down Voldemort.

There are two ways to deal with that seeming contradiction (IMO, 
again <g>).  (1) Assume Dumbledore is lying.  He's a cold-hearted 
bastard after all, what's one little lie compared to risking 
children's lives?  (2) JKR screwed up her story-telling a tad.  
Dumbledore *never* meant for Harry to risk his life.  Not in PS/SS, 
not in CoS.  And he certainly never meant for an innocent man to go 
to Azkaban in PoA.  Which means his reason for keeping things from 
Harry is valid and true to character.  Just, JKR hasn't done all that 
great of a job in showing us Dumbledore's true character.

I lean towards number (2) myself.  It's annoying that JKR provides so 
little canon support for that version.  (Just one tiny little line 
where Dumbledore says he never meant for Harry to go through the trap 
door in PS/SS would have done it, IMO.)  And I personally think it's 
a place where her inexperience comes through.  

But... In the end it's something that doesn't bother most fans.  It's 
something that bugs me only when we try and get a firm handle on 
Dumbledore's character (what I *think* JKR meant to write versus the 
man actually on paper).  I'm able to shrug it off, personally.  
Though it can annoy at times.

Betsy Hp