Why down on all the characters?

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 179374

Steph:
Were we really supposed to accept Dumbledore (who I assume you're
talking about, a_sivrn) as the epitome of goodness? My interpretation
is that JKR set up Dumbledore that way in the previous six books
deliberately so that we, along with Harry, would be shocked at the
reality of DD, rather than the facade he was showing to everyone for
most of his life. Up through HBP the reader only got Harry's
impression of Dumbledore, which was that of a kindly, wise, powerful,
and totally good wizard. I took this as a message that even the
people who are on the side of good have ulterior motives that might
not be completely honorable, which is of course how life really works
unless one is a saint, which of course few people are. The scene when
Harry takes Snape's memories and puts them into the Pensieve asked the
question, "does the end justify the means?"

a_svirn:
Yes, I think we were supposed to accept Dumbledore if not as the 
epitome of goodness, then at least as full of goodness. Personally, I 
had my doubts about Dumbledore even before DH, especially after HBP, 
but that was my problem – as per canon he certainly was good then. 
Yes, throughout DH his image has been thoroughly unraveled, and I 
must say I enjoyed that very much – Rita Skeeter's biography, and 
Harry's quest for Dumbledore's past is what I like best about DH. But.

In the end Dumbledore has got another chance to justify himself. In 
the Kings Cross chapter he rewrites the whole story once again, and 
we are left with the impression that ends do justify means after all 
(even if the ends themselves aren't clearly discernable). And 
obviously Harry accepted this philosophy – otherwise why call his son 
Albus?

As for the message about not entirely honorable people with ulterior 
motives on the side of good, exactly what it has to do with 
Dumbledore? Ok for Snape, his "ulterior" motive was atonement, but 
what was Dumbledore's? You can't count "The Greater Good" as ulterior 
motive. In fact, I'd have liked him better if he *had* one – I have 
an allergy to the Greater Good. 

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.

a_svirn:
I hated it too. 

Mike:
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?

a_svirn:
No, it wasn't. On the contrary, the determined iconoclasm of DH 
proved to be a sleight of hand in the end. Dumbledore got his last 
word in the Kings Cross chapter and explained everything to Harry's 
satisfaction. And if Harry is satisfied – to the point of naming his 
son after Dumbledore – by the end of the last book, then, apparently, 
so should we. Only I wasn't.