JKR's Dumbledore: Harry or Hermione (was:Re: It really annoys me ...

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 163921

> >>montims:
> the ironic thing is that if Harry hadn't gone down there, the stone
> would never have materialised - he was the only one pure enough of
> heart to get it, and his being there in fact jeopardised the
> situation...  If he had remained in his dorm, Quirrell would have   
> been down there fruitlessly looking for the stone...

Betsy Hp:
Exactly.  Which means Harry's Dumbledore is both ruthless and 
stupid.  Not a good combination. <g>

> >>Quick_Silver:
> But doesn't the book make it quite clear then Dumbledore was the one
> that gave, and then returned, the invisibility cloak to Harry?
> Granted Dumbledore might have felt some duty to return it as Harry
> had been using it in an effort to cover for Hagrid (who is quite
> clearly Dumbledore's man). Yet the cloak plays an important role in 
> a number of Harry's "adventures" and Harry with a cloak seems more
> likely to into trouble (and thus risk his "innocence") then a cloak-
> less Harry. Or perhaps does Dumbledore believe that the only       
> mischief that Harry can get into with the cloak is of Fred and     
> George sort
 that's hardly a reassuring thought and that's leaving 
> aside the whole issue of what James managed to do with the cloak.

Betsy Hp:
Actually, I do think Dumbledore expected Harry to get up to 
relatively "innocent" mischief. But I also agree that the 
invisibility cloak was involved in a sort of character test.  I just 
don't think it had anything to do with the Stone.

I think Dumbledore knew that Hagrid had an illegal baby dragon.  
Hagrid wasn't doing his work and I'd be shocked if Dumbledore didn't 
realize something was going on.  Plus, we have Ron showing up in the 
hospital wing with a "mysterious" injury... I can't see Dumbledore 
missing those clues.

So IMO, Dumbledore knew Hagrid had a dragon, knew Harry knew about 
it, and I think he deliberately sat back to see what Harry would do.  
That Harry came up with a plan that took into consideration the 
protection of both the dragon and Hagrid, that Harry was willing to 
face detention, point loss and the anger of his house-mates, and that 
Harry never thought to give Hagrid up, I think pleased Dumbledore 
immensely.  Which is why Dumbledore returned Harry's cloak.  Harry 
showed he was able to use the cloak for good purpose.

If Draco were suddenly under constant attack from an invisible foe, 
if test papers went missing from the teacher's lounge, if Harry was 
spotted at the Three Broomsticks, then I suspect the cloak would have 
been confiscated and held until Harry showed himself mature enough to 
get it back.

But in the end, there's not a lot of danger in Harry having an 
invisibility cloak.  Dumbledore knew he had it and could keep an eye 
on the sort of use it was put to.  Not at all like encouraging a boy 
to face a life and death challenge that very nearly killed him.

> >>Quick_Silver:
> I wonder if part of the reason that JK hasn't put Harry's view of
> Dumbledore out to pasture is that it reflects that "evolving" view 
> of Harry in Dumbledore's eyes.

Betsy Hp:
The issue I have with this is there isn't much evolving going on.  If 
Dumbledore expected Harry to go through the trap-door he was throwing 
Harry in amongst the sharks at the start.  If Hermione hadn't come 
along (and Harry discouraged her) he'd have strangled to death at the 
very first obstacle.  There wasn't any coach waiting in the wings to 
call off the plant.

> >>Quick_Silver:
> By PoA Dumbledore seems confident enough in Harry to send him back 
> in time...

Betsy Hp:
A *giant* step backwards in danger level though.  He sent Harry back 
within a very limited time period, with an experienced time-traveler 
and a fairly specific gameplan.  All Harry had to do was rescue 
Buckbeak and then pull Sirius from his locked room.  No facing down 
desperate and dangerously skilled Death Eaters.  Just a simple rescue 
mission.  Heck, Time-traveling Harry and Hermione weren't even 
confronted by Dementors.  (Their adventure was so boring, danger-
wise, the movie version had to spice it up.)

> >>Quick_Sliver:
> ...and by OotP he's dropped most of the pretenses and is having     
> Harry be tutored in Occlumency by Snape.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, there are still pretenses.  Dumbledore still couldn't bring 
himself to talk to Harry about the existence of a prophecy (and boy, 
wouldn't *that* have changed things!).  Very odd behavior for a man 
so *sure* Harry needs to be the consummate solider he sent an eleven 
year old Harry to confront a Death Eater all by himself.

And again, as per Dumbledore anyway, sending Harry for some private 
lessons with Snape certainly wasn't sending Harry into deathly 
danger.  (No matter what flavor of Snape turns out to be true, 
*Dumbledore* trusted him completely.)

IMO, the Occlumency lessons were on par with making Harry return to 
the Dursleys.  Nothing that will give Harry pleasure, but a necessary 
step to keeping Harry protected (in Dumbledore's view at least).

> >>Quick_Silver:
> Most of Dumbledore's tasks in HBP seem designed to encourage and   
> further train Harry and develop his skills.

Betsy Hp:
Right.  Harry's skills of observation, knowledge of his foe, and 
ability to get help or information from others.  Nothing martial or 
deadly or really even death-defying about it.

> >>Quick_Silver:
> Having Harry wonder (and not be shot down) in PS/SS and CoS (with   
> the whole thing in Hagrid's hut) provides a base for that          
> Dumbledore of later books.

Betsy Hp:
But I'm not talking about Dumbledore turning a blind(ish) eye to 
Harry wandering the castle after hours, or probing the library for 
information.  I'm talking about Dumbledore allowing, or even 
encouraging eleven year old Harry to trap himself in a room with, at 
the very least, a highly skilled and intensely loyal Death Eater.  
What does that set the foundation for?

To my mind that version of Dumbledore is quite willing to sacrifice 
the life of the littlest Weasley to further test his weapon's 
mettle.  That Dumbledore is quite willing to sacrifice an innocent 
man's sanity to tie his weapon to his cause.  But is that really the 
Dubmledore JKR is wanting us to see in the end?  I doubt it.    

But I don't think JKR has made her version of Dumbledore all that 
clear.  That so many readers think Dumbledore *wanted* Harry to go 
through the trap door in PS/SS proves my point.  There's no way to 
explain a Dumbledore willing to put a child to that sort of risk 
without allowing for a certain amount of monstrosity in his 
character.  But that version of the events in PS/SS, Harry's version, 
still stands.  JKR needs to shoot it down.  IMO, anyway. <g>

Betsy Hp