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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 163949

> >>Dicentra:
> > 2. It is also no coincidence that the stone was retrieved the day
> > Quirrell broke into Gringotts. Dumbledore must have known what 
> > had happened to Quirrell in Albania and what Voldemort was up to. 
> > <snip>

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > Frankly, especially considering that this was also Harry's 
> > birthday, I'm going with author-convenient coincidence. <snipped 
> > for details> 

> >>Alla:
> Okay, I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. I mean, 
> the reason why Dicentra argues that DD knew is because he retrieved 
> Stone on that very day that Quirrell did.
> Are you saying that it happened just because it happened? Just for 
> plot related reasons?

Betsy Hp:
Yes.  JKR needed to drop a clue for the reader about Quirrell, so she 
set it up so we'd see Quirrell was in Diagon Alley on the same day 
Gringotts was broken into.

> >>Alla:
> I mean, that is possible of course and I myself argued plot based 
> reasons often enough, but if we have two possibilities and one of 
> them has another canon to support it, isn't the plot needs reason 
> gets weaker automatically?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Yes, but I don't see any canon to support the idea (other than the 
coincidence itself) that Dumbledore knew from the beginning that 
Quirrell was working for Voldemort.  So I doubt the suggestion that 
the coincidence *alone* is proof of Dumbledore's knowledge.

And I *especially* doubt it because the reason Hagrid was in Diagon 
Alley that day is because it was Harry's birthday (now officially a 
student of Hogwarts as per his parents' wishes).  That's too many 
coincidences (IMO) for a mere character to achieve, even the all-
powerful Dumbledore.  So I look to the even more god-like author.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I still don't see any reason to think Dumbledore was expecting 
> > *Voldemort* himself to get trapped.  But I do think he was 
> > preparing for an intelligent, powerful, and at this point unknown 
> > Death Eater to enter the scene.  Hence the desire to capture, not 
> > kill nor deter.

> >>Alla:
> The problem with this argument as I see it, or maybe I missed your 
> point is that if you are saying that DD did not expect Voldemort in 
> the back of Quirrel's head, why would he expect a DE to appear?
> If he knows that somebody is after Stone, would he not know who is 
> that person, who is the only person who would want to be after the 
> stone?
> Or at least that this DE would be heavily coached by LV.

Betsy Hp:
>From what I've read we can only be sure Dumbledore knew these facts: 
(1) someone was after the Stone; (2) the person after the Stone was 
able to break into Gringotts.

Based on that information Dumbledore can already presume that this is 
someone working for the greviously injured Voldemort and someone with 
a great deal of magical skill and power.

We know that Dumbledore figures out that Quirrell is interested in 
the Stone.  (He may have started suspecting Quirrell from the 
beginning, but the Halloween Troll incident confirmed it.)  We know 
that Quirrell is young (Harry describes him as such) and untried 
(Hagrid describes him as such).  So it seems logical that Dumbledore 
suspects a bigger power behind Quirrell; Dumbledore may well fear 
that it's Voldemort himself.  But knowing how badly injured Voldemort 
was (enough to barely be alive) I think it's logical to think that 
both Snape and Dumbledore think there's another Death Eater out 
there.  A "Bellatrix" or "Barty Crouch Jr." type, powerful, unknown, 
desperate to bring their master back to power.  Which is why stopping 
Quirrell alone isn't enough.  They need to get to the *real* threat.

And in the end, that suspicion was correct.  I just think it was a 
bit of a surprise for Dumbledore to find out the power behind 
Quirrell was Voldemort himself.

> >>Dicentra:
> > 5. It's therefore no coincidence that Harry found the Mirror of
> > Erised. <SNIP> 

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Again, this is a leap.  For one thing, Harry didn't need to learn 
> > how to "work" the mirror to get the Stone at the end of PS.      
> > <SNIP> 
> > So, Dumbledore talking to Harry about resisting the mirror's pull 
> > isn't written as mysterious, and it isn't necessary.  So I don't 
> > think there's a hidden purpose behind it.  It is what it is.

> >>Alla:
> Ok, I snipped rather arbitrarily, but I lost the argument. Could   
> you tell me again why Dumbledore felt a need to tell Harry about   
> Mirror at all?

Betsy Hp:
Because Harry had discovered the Mirror and was falling under its 
thrall.  Dumbledore only approaches Harry *after* Harry and Ron have 
an argument about the Mirror at the dinner table they share with 
Dumbledore, a dinner at which Harry only picks at his food and yearns 
to get back to the Mirror and his family, a dinner at which I bet 
Harry was showing the effects of his sleepless nights.  Dumbledore 
stepped in because Harry was in over his head and needed help.

> >>Alla:
> I mean, see to me any talk about the mirror and NOT go looking for 
> it would encourage eleven year old boy to do **precisely** that -   
> go looking for it.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But as Pippin points out, Harry *doesn't* go looking for the Mirror.  
After his conversation with Dumbledore, he's done with it.

> >> Betsy Hp:
> > But Harry is already wrong in at least one point.  There was no 
> > purpose to him knowing how the mirror worked.  The mirror worked 
> > with or without Harry knowing about it.  Harry's knowledge       
> > changed nothing.
> > <SNIP>

> >>Alla:
> Is he though? As I said above to me the purpose of conversation was 
> to encourage Harry go looking for it.

Betsy Hp:
But it didn't.  Harry didn't think about the Mirror again.  And Harry 
really is wrong about needing to know how the Mirror worked.  Harry 
didn't *make* himself think: "I want the Stone but not to use it!"  
It's just what he was thinking at the time.  The Mirror did its thing 
with no help from Harry.

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> The main reason why I buy this version as JKR version is because as 
> I mentioned upthread I just do not **hear** Harry in this speech,   
> it does not sound to me as his way of talking at all, but pretty   
> much as JKR talking.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
You mean, Harry sounded out of character in that speech?  He sounds 
fairly true to himself to me.  But I do agree that Harry's 
thoughtfulness weighs more powerfully to me as a reader than 
Hermione's emotional reaction [huh, what an interesting way for each 
character to react...] and I suspect JKR wanted us to leave PS with 
Harry's version of Dumbledore in mind.

*However* I also think that logically, the story makes more sense, 
especially over the time of the series, if Hermione's version of 
Dumbledore is the true one.  I hope I've shown how the story makes 
sense if Hermione had the right reaction, but I do realize that 
Harry's thoughtful statement is very hard to get around.  Which is 
why some in the book confirmation would be nice. <g>

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163928
> >>Quick_Silver:
> Ok I think I see why you want JK to shoot down that version of
> Dumbledore. My one point (since aside from that I agree with you) is
> that I think the version of Dumbledore you mention above
> (manipulative!Dumbledore or whatever he goes by) is, IMO, tied
> inherently with Dumbledore's supposed omniscience. So it could be
> that the whole shooting down of Dumbledore might not happen with a
> bang but a whimper in following with the pattern of Harry seeing a
> more human Dumbledore with each book (or that the series has built 
> to this point perhaps?).

Betsy Hp:
I agree with this.  I had been frustrated because I thought 
the "fully human"!Dumbledore would have been revealed by the end of 
HBP, what with Dumbledore being dead now.  But Pippin pointed out 
(and I think this is what you're saying as well, Quick_Silver) that 
Harry still hasn't let go of omniscient!Dumbledore.  Which, happily, 
makes a lot of sense.  Harry still needs to become a man.

I also agree that it probably won't be (and doesn't need to be, 
really) a big bangy thing, but I hope it is clear enough to fully 
expose the true version of Dumbledore. 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163933
> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> I think Dumbledore would have much preferred to destroy the
> stone immediately rather than attempt to guard it at Hogwarts,
> but that wasn't his decision to make. The stone was Nicholas
> Flammel's property, not Dumbledore's. Given that Flammel didn't
> yet see the need to destroy the stone, Hogwarts was the safest
> place for it. No doubt Flammel was hoping the stone could remain
> there until Voldemort was no longer a threat (Nicholas would
> be used to taking the long view, don't you think?)
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
It's interesting, but I've always seen it as the opposite: that 
Flammel wanted to destroy the Stone but Dumbledore wanted to try this 
first.  I don't know that there's any canon reason (I can't think of 
any <g>), but I always pictured Nicholas as Dumbledore's bearded old 
guy.  So I pictured Dumbledore less willing to let Nicholas go onto 
the next big adventure.  Not that Dumbledore feared death or anything 
of that sort, only it's always easier to face your own death than the 
death of your loved ones.  So I kind of saw the events of PS (and 
especially the aftermath) as a bit of off-page growing for 
Dumbledore.  (Made my heart ache a bit for the old guy.  It left him 
very much alone.)

As I said, no canon, but that's how I've always liked to imagine it. 
<g>

Betsy Hp