Dumbledore - Good as Written?

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 179351


> a_svirn wrote:
> 
> It is the books I feel dissatisfied with, or rather, the book – DH.
>  -<snip>-
> What I find objectionable in DH is (a) a crudely cobbled up plot

Mike:
There is really no response to ones feelings regarding plot. Either 
you liked it or you didn't, and you obviously didn't. I agree with 
you insofar as the Hallows go. I didn't like their addition to the 
plot (you mean that was the whole reason for the power behind the 
spell DD cast against LV in the MoM atrium? Because he cast it with 
the Elder Wand, though LV was able to counter it, still.) I suppose 
JKR had always intended to use the Hallows, but I'd much rather she 
had gone in a different direction.

That said, I didn't find the plot short-comings enough to ruin my 
enjoyment of the book. To each his/her own, I guess.


> a_svirn:
> and b) highly questionable morality which we are supposed to accept
> as "the epitome of goodness" almost Good Tidings, in fact." 

Mike:
I agree with Steph's response to this part, I'll just add a few 
points. In PS/SS, Harry thought that DD let him go after the stone 
(and taught him enough to make it a legimate attempt) because he 
deserved his shot at Voldemort. It seems that is partly true. In 
hindsight, it seems this was a training exercise for Harry.

In PoA, Harry was devestated when DD said he couldn't do anything 
about the situation at hand. Then he sends Harry and Hermione back in 
time to right the situation themselves. (Of course, he already knew  
the outcome, he knew Buckbeak was saved and that the Dementors were 
repelled.) Another training exercise. Would DD have chanced loosing 
Harry to the Dementors if he didn't already know they were going to 
survive it?

The DD back breaker for me was the speech at the end of OotP. DD 
admits he has a plan for Harry, and admits that plan didn't include 
any room for affection for Harry. It became a problem he had to 
overcome, which he seemed to do in HBP. He got everything back on 
track. And though Harry seemed to accept his training, he was none 
too happy with DD during the OotP speech, and was downright 
argumentative with DD in many places during HBP. By DH, Harry 
seriously questions DD's "goodness" status.

My point is the same one Steph was making. The pedestal Dumbledore 
was standing on was steadily eroded from the first book on. It wasn't 
as obvious in the first 3 or 4 books, but by book 5 I thought JKR had 
given enough clues, then hit us over the head with the speech. So, 
was he really suppose to be the "Epitome of Goodness" or was that a 
big, fat slight of hand?

One more thing about DD: He is not a strategist, nor a tactician; 
he's a tech guy. He should never been the 'leader' of the anti-LV 
movement. Mad-Eye would have been much better in that role. After 
Mad-Eye decides on a strategy, DD would have been perfect at figuring 
out the particulars, what spells and who casts them, where to set up 
their trap/defence/attack, personel and where to use them. But I 
don't think JKR knows anything about military strategy/tactics. So 
she has both DD and LV making stupid choices while they are at the 
same time supposed to be the most brilliant men of their time.


> Then Magpie wrote:
> -<snip>-
> Like you describe with Dumbledore, a person can think he's 
> problematic given what he's supposed to be without feeling 
> strongly about him one way or another. 

Mike:
And like I said above and Steph said in her post, might you consider 
that the problematic reading is not in what JKR wrote but in the way 
you have interpreted it? I could be missing something in your use of 
the term "problematic".


> Magpie:
> To me it just so happens that there's a lot of things I had 
> problems with in DH that I actually want to discuss -<snip>-

Mike:
What else you got? :D


--<snip of Steph's response which I totally agree with>--


> Steph:
> -<snip>-
> Voldie always seemed to be a fictional construct, because his 
> errors went beyond arrogance, they were just stupid.  Harry became 
> more of a fictional construct in DH in the last part of the book.  
> He went from ordinary kid put in extraordinary circumstances to
> The Hero. 

Mike:
I agree with you on Stupid!Voldemort. But Harry, I thought Harry was 
destined for great things from the time he cast his Patronus in PoA.  
If anything, I thought Harry was going to be a more magically 
powerful than he turned out to be. He was groomed to be the Hero by 
DD and he finally accepted the mantle in DH.


> Steph:
> By the way, I really hated the Kings Cross chapter.  Not because 
> Harry thought he was dead, nor because he "went back," but because 
> DD was fawning over Harry like some fangirl.  Ewww.

Mike:
Me too, to this and the rest of your post. :)