Moody's death / Dumbledore's authority / Dumbledore's portrait

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 179473

Pippin:
<SNIP>
It's not about *trying*. In the immortal words of Yoda,
"There is no try." The Ministry tried -- it tried all sorts of 
things that
didn't work just to show that it was doing something, and it didn't 
do
things that could work because they'd be perceived as risky or
unpopular. I think we're supposed to contrast that with Dumbledore's
methods, and respect Dumbledore because he was willing to do
unpopular things and frankly told people that they would have to 
fight
what seemed to be a losing battle.

He was indeed a flawed leader, but one of the things that canon
shows us is that those who won't respect a flawed leader are only
placing themselves in the hands of leaders clever enough to con
people into thinking that they're flawless. *We* were tricked into
thinking that Dumbledore was flawless--but JKR did that, not
Dumbledore himself. *He* never claimed to be the epitome of
goodness. (And as I've pointed out numerous times, that was a
tricky statement all along. "Epitome" means a typical example, not a
perfect one.)


Alla:

We agree that Dumbledore is flawed leader, I think we again are 
disagreeing about the degrees, no? Or maybe it is stronger 
disagreement about the kind of flaws Dumbledore has and whether he 
deserves respect despite of them?

I mean as I mentioned before Dumbledore's idiotic plans work 
perfectly for me for the most part, when I view them as complete 
idiocy because of their secrecy and complete ruthlessness and lack 
of caring for his soldiers.

But when I am asked to look at this idiocy as something that 
deserves respect? No, sorry. I mean, of course goals are worthy of 
respect, execution - no way in my book.

Nobody can know about horcruxes' hunt? I mean, really? Nobody can? 
Why is that Dumbledore?  Don't you trust the members of the order? I 
mean they seem to follow you blindly to death, etc. You cannot let 
Harry share with them? Eh? IDIOT. Diadem could have been found so 
much faster.

Why do you not bother to at least try to get into the heads of the 
people you lead, Dumbledore? To look at things from their POV, etc.

I find Dumbledore's character very consistent in this regard. And 
share every word Aberworth said about him, but I cannot for the life 
of me to look at it as positive character's trait.

His goals are worth following, I know, but his means? I am so glad 
that Harry realises that he does not want to turn to Dumbledore in 
that aspect and shares information with others. Too bad Dumbledore 
did not do that.

I do wonder what exactly do you mean by saying that the book is not 
about trying?

The book is not about trying to save as many lifes as possible? 
because this was the sort of trying I was talking about and I beg to 
differ, but I think this is one of the things the book is about.

I do not know about you, but I have no idea how the methods of 
ministry and Dumbledore's  are all that different.

Did Dumbledore's methods do the job done? Or is the job being done 
often inspite of them?

For all Scrimgeour's ineffectiveness, I think I respect the way he 
died way more than Dumbledore's. Man died tortured and not giving 
away any secrets **under torture**.

Dumbledore died because he was stupid enough to hurt himself and 
then he was ruthless enough to ask another man to risk hurting his 
soul to advance Dumbledore's plans. Which were towards the good 
goal, I know. Oh and again, I am not sympathicising with Snape much 
here, please do not get me wrong. But that does not stop me from 
saying that Dumbledore was rather jerk here.

You want to die, Dumbledore? Please do everybody involved a favor 
and kill yourself then.

I mean, on the whole I have very little problems with Dumbledore's 
treating Snape the way he did, especially when Snape came to him. I 
thought Dumbledore realised perfectly that Snape came ONLY because 
of Lily and was disgusting DE follower otherwise. I thought his "you 
disgust me" was a shock therapy that was exactly what doctor ordered 
for Snape. I loved that.

But at the end, this is how you treat a man who did so much for you?

Oy. I hate Snape. I will never forgive him that he did not make an 
effort to treat Harry differently, but still...

And you are right, Dumbledore never claimed to be epitome of 
goodness, too bad though that I now sure that JKR did lie to me in 
the interviews by calling him as such. This is actually the kind of 
thing I cannot quite get. I do understand and respect the need to 
protect the plot, but I think it would have been so much more honest 
of her to not give any such characteristics while she could not. IMo 
of course.

As I mentioned before I **can** forgive him and I do, but respect or 
love? Um, no not from me. 

Pippin:
OTOH, if Snape had done nothing, neither informed the DE's of the
Order's plans nor suggested the Seven Potters idea, what would have
been gained? Voldemort would have had spies in the area in any case,
as Moody points out, and canon shows they could have summoned
their master and he in turn could summon other Death Eaters almost
instantly. We're talking about a few minutes at best. Even if Harry
did escape the DE's by dis-apparating, he would then have had the
whole Ministry after him for breaking wizarding law.

Alla:

Who says that Voldemort would have necessarily learned about the 
plan at all had Dumbledore not told Snape to do that?


As an aside. All this talk about Dumbledore's plans and orders Snape 
in DH made me think.

Eh, isn't his portrait way too smart for portrait? Isn't what he did 
looked more like alive person than portrait? Didn't JKR say that 
portraits are only imprint of the person or something and they only 
know stuff before they died?

I do not remember if I asked this question before or not, but DD 
seems way too smart for potrait for me.

JMO,

Alla