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

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 179487

> Magpie:
> Or else it's a contrast between what the books say and what they 
do. 
> Certain speeches sound good being spoken and in certain contexts, 
but 
> that doesn't mean they are intended to contradict Dumbledore. I 
don't 
> remember the contexts for those two lines, but I feel like Kingsley 
> was talking about saving Muggles, which is a chance to make a point 
> about the good guys being not cruelly anti-Muggle like Voldemort 
> (though they certain never consider them equals) and Snape ruefully 
> referencing his own dark past. I'm not sure the author might not 
> consider both those statements as supporting Dumbledore's choices 
> overall. It doesn't work for me, but I'm not sure they're 
> intentionally supposed to be saying Dumbledore was wrong or 
treating 
> people as expendable.
>
a_svirn:
Considering that the Fake Potters episode didn't even rate mentioning 
during the chat at King's Cross, I'd say that from canon's 
perspective it was OK for Dumbledore to decide who is worth 
preserving (Harry and Snape up to a certain point) and who isn't 
(everyone else). He didn't ask Harry's forgiveness for treating his 
nearest and dearest as chess pieces or for raising him like "a pig 
for slaughter", he only carved his pardon for not trusting him 
enough. And Harry accepts this philosophy. At least, I don't exactly 
remember him challenging it. I wonder though would the others agree 
to it as easily? Would Arthur and Molly agree that it was OK for 
Dumbledore to serve their children (not to mention themselves) on a 
silver platter to Voldemort, so that Snape's position as Voldemort's 
favourite wouldn't be threatened?