Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 179486

> lizzyben:
> 
> Well, I'm pretty sure we're meant to see DD as wrong (though 
> probably not EVIL). Kingley's & Snape's statements are reinforced 
by 
> Harry the hero's own actions. Harry doesn't sacrifice people 
> for "the greater good", or see people as expendeble. Instead, he 
has 
> a "saving people thing" - saving people even when it could risk his 
> own mission. He saves the muggle-borns, Draco, etc. when it's not 
> necessary for the overall mission. So, Harry's own philosophy comes 
> much closer to that ideal espoused by Shacklebot. And Snape also 
> comes closer to that ideal when he tries to save Lupin, though 
> saving that life could risk his cover. Or protecting Harry, even 
> though he doesn't even like the kid. Because every human life is 
> valuable.

Magpie:
It's not that I don't think JKR thinks this is the right thing to do, 
but that I don't know if we're supposed to see Dumbledore as seeing 
people as expendable either. I wouldn't be surprised if in JKR's mind 
Dumbledore sees people as just as worth saving as Kingsley does 
(which I would even say is different than Harry's "saving people 
thing" and is put in different terms). I think it was Steve who 
recently talked about how the General has to make the hard decisions 
and while I don't buy that for Dumbledore I'm not convinced I'm not 
supposed to buy it so that everyone who died wasn't Dumbledore's 
intention. 

Lizzyben:
> 
> So, in contrast to all that, are we supposed to look at DD's 
> illogical "Seven Potters" plan, his "sacrificial lamb plan," 
> his "chase-the-Hallows,no-don't" plan, his description as 
> the "master of secrets & lies" and think that this guy has the 
right 
> idea? IMO no. 

Magpie:
IMO, yes. At least in the general sense. Sure Dumbledore made 
mistakes in thinking Harry would be tempted by the Hallows but I 
think his plan was supposed to have been done for the best possible 
reasons. I don't think his flaws necessarily include the ones I would 
see (I thought it was like in OotP where Dumbledore again claims he's 
going to blame himself and own up to his faults and then owns up to 
the faults he allows himself and Harry doesn't challenge him). 

I could totally believe that Moody's death is just supposed to be the 
unavoidable price you pay when you oppose Voldemort and that it was 
all for the Greater Good. I think Dumbledore is still supposed to 
have the right idea for the most part, definitely. That Mundungus is 
pushed into joining the fight isn't Dumbledore's doing but the other 
Order members, right? And it's hard for me to imagine the guiding 
force of the books really having a problem with that. Courage is the 
most important virtue, after all, and it's great when cowards get 
pushed into acting as brave as they ought to be. I think Harry's 
forgiveness is more about not telling him the truth etc. and isn't 
even that big of a deal.

Lizzyben:
> So I'm not sure if the echoes between Shacklebot & Snape are 
> intentional, but they're there. And the contrast between DD's own 
> Utilitarian philosophy is stark. This novel is a moral mess, but 
> every so often a good message sneaks through inadvertantly. 

Magpie:
Oh, I think they're there intentional. I just think Kingsley's 
especially is more like the "right versus easy" message, one that is 
self-consciously put into somebody's mouth because it's what we think 
we should think, but that doesn't mean that any time the books go 
blatantly against it it means the characters or the author would see 
it that way. I would assume she thinks everybody's been choosing 
right versus easy as well, but I never see that anywhere.

-m