Dumbledore: Puppeteer

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 166034

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > And see, IMO, it makes *so* much more sense if Dumbledore        
> > *didn't* mean for Harry to go after the Stone.
> > <snip>

> >>Bart:
>  From HPSS, Hardcover, 1st American edition, page 297:
>
> "...As for the Stone, it has been destroyed."
> "Destroyed?" said Harry blankly. "But your friend --- Nicolas      
> Flamel ---" 
> "Oh, you know about Nicolas?" said Dumbledore, sounding quite      
> delighted. 
> "You >did< do the thing properly, didn't you?"
> 
> It was reading those lines that I realized that harry was          
> manipulated into protecting the Stone, and Dumbledore knew exactly 
> what he was doing when he hired Quirrel.

Betsy Hp:
I interpert those lines differently. <g>  Dumbledore is pleased that 
Harry was thorough, but it doesn't necessarily mean that he's pleased 
that Harry was *thorough in a task Dumbledore set*.

Because honestly, Harry didn't *protect* the Stone; he *exposed* it.  
Without Harry, Quirrel!Mort could never have released the Stone from 
the mirror.  And once Harry had the Stone, Quirrel was able to take 
him down.  Harry sank into a three day coma (IIRC) and it's only 
Dumbledore's arrival that kept disaster at bay.  

Which is why I really hope this wasn't some grand plan on 
Dumbledore's part. (Though yeah, the text is maddingly ambiguous.)

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I also have issue with Dumbldore creating a soldier!Harry.
> > <snip>

> >>Quick_Silver:
> I don't think that Dumbledore is trying to build a soldier!Harry or
> Warrior!Harry...I'd say that he's trying to build a Great Wizard!
> Harry. The problem is that what makes Dumbledore a great wizard    
> isn't what makes Voldemort a great wizard which isn't what makes   
> Snape a great wizard, etc... <snip>
> However by allowing Harry a relatively normal Hogwarts education
> Dumbledore is ensuring that Harry's foundation in magic is solid.
> <snip>
> Although I am disturbed that Dumbledore hasn't taught Harry at the
> same time I think that it is the right decision. Dumbledore had 50
> years to deal with the threat of Voldemort, he didn't, and if he   
> were to teach Harry there's a risk that whatever held him back     
> might be passed on to Harry (it could be anything...maybe even his 
> prohibition against Dark Arts isn't always a good thing).
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I had a hard time snipping here, because I so totally agree with you! 
<g>  IMO, Harry *isn't* supposed to be this sort of superhero, 
Spartan warrior, uber-wizard. (Though golly, I likes me some Spartan 
warriors, *if* you know what I mean *and* I think you do. <g>)  Gosh, 
he's not even supposed to be a sainted love muffin.  In some ways I 
think his very ordinariness may be his secret weapon.  It certainly 
makes a nice difference to Tom "I AM LORD VOLDEMORT" Riddle and his 
abhorrence of all things ordinary.  

(Huh.  Might bring new meaning to a Tom who hates his ordinary name, 
being beaten by a Harry who doesn't.  Does this mean Harry's kid'll 
be called Richard?) 

And I also agree that Dumbledore is probably highly aware that he's 
been unsuccessful in stopping Voldemort, himself.  Which may explain 
some of the free rein he gives Harry. Not so much manipulative as 
realistic, I guess.

Betsy Hp