Villain!Dumbledore (was: re:HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House)

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 177705

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:

Sistermagpie:
> But in DH, frankly, I got a completely different impression, 
> especially based on the conversation with DD and Snape. I didn't 
> think, as others did, that the problem was that DD was just saying 
> he didn't want Draco to tear his soul on him but didn't care if he 
> did it on somebody else, exactly, but I think that reading comes 
> from the same feeling that I got in the scene, which was that 
> Dumbledore did not actually care about Draco. He seemed to see him 
> as basically as much of a hapless pawn as Voldemort did, though this 
> led to much better treatment of him on Dumbledore's part of course. 
> It made Dumbledore far smaller than I assumed he was in HBP (which 
> goes along with my general feeling about DH). Draco not killing him 
> fit in with his plan; Snape killing him did. 

Montavilla47:
Yes, that's a better way of putting it.  In HBP, it seemed like 
Dumbledore wanted to save Draco.  Post-DH, it was more like
Draco was an inconvenience.  

I really thought Dumbledore had a plan with Draco.  I thought 
he was trying to make in-roads with the DE power base by
winning over Draco, Narcissa, and eventually Lucius.  

I really thought that was the point behind the Unbreakable
Vow.  

It's not like it couldn't be that--and we just didn't get to 
hear that part.  But, like Draco's role in the RoR, we have 
to imagine it.  According to what's on the page, Draco's
soul wasn't worth saving for its own sake.  

Neither was Snape's.

I try, but I can't separate Dumbledore from the idea of 
a higher power--because there is no higher power in 
Potterworld--unless it's Love.  Or possibly Harry.

And wow--a higher power that loves only one person
in the world.  That's so bleak and depressing.

> I think Adam is right in that Slytherin represents the baser forms 
> of humanity--even their supposed house traits imo only exist in 
> Slytherin in their negative form (good examples of ambition and 
> cunning are found in Gryffindor). But I don't particularly like 
> watching them just get cleverly manipulated by good guys or just 
> used by the author to good ends.

Again, I agree that that's the message.  But I have the hardest
time dealing with that.  I'm wracking my brain to think of a
piece of children's literature that does anything similar.  I can't
think of a single example.

Roald Dahl is mentioned as an author who can successfully
create unpleasant, nasty comic villains.  But those villains are
always individually awfully--not awful because of any group
affiliation (although I suppose he probably has awful "families").

Am I being blinkered by the U.S. culture?  The closest thing I 
can think of is how in Movies and T.V., school "soche" groups
are pitted against each other.  Nerds vs. Jocks.  The Jocks are
always unpleasant bullies.  Odd girls vs. In-girls.  The In-girls
are always mean and petty.

But in those stories, we're usually supposed to see these
divisions as childish--painfully important to the participants,
but something you outgrow.

I can't imagine a principal saying to the drama teacher, 
"I'm starting to respect you.  What a pity you ended up sitting
with the drama kids all those years."

Well, I can imagine it.  But I'd think he was a real jerk.

Montavilla47