Disappointing DD (Was: Villain!Dumbledore)

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 177716

Montavilla47 wrote:
> 
> I don't think of arrogance as a Slytherin trait so much as a 
Gryffindor trait.  I may be somewhat subversive in thinking that way.  

Carol responds:

I think arrogance is pretty well distributed among the Houses, or at
least between Slytherin and Gryffindor. All of the Blacks (with the
possible exception of Andromeda, whom we only see after Harry has
insulted her and when she's in desperate fear for her daughter's
safety) are arrogant. That includes Gryffindor Sirius. So was James
Potter. I'm not sure whether "arrogance" quite describes Dumbledore's
high opinion of his own intelligence, but certainly he was arrogant in
his youth. And Snape, though I can't recall the adjective being
applied to him in canon (as it is to Narcissa, Bellatrix, Sirius, and
James) no doubt qualifies as arrogant on occasion as well. As do both
Tom Riddles, one of them a mere Muggle. IIRC, we even find Zacharias
Smith's presumably Hufflepuff father described as arrogant. So was
Helena Ravenclaw (I'm not sure about Rowena) even though the adjective
is not directly applied to her. The WW as a whole is arrogant in its
treatment of Muggles, IMO. Arrogance may not be a universal wizarding
trait, but it's a common one.

Montavilla47 wrote:
Ambition and secrecy, yes, I associate those with Slytherin.  

Carol responds:

And yet, oddly, Albus Dumbledore had both traits in spades. The
ambition he suppressed, but the secrecy was one of his defining
characteristics, taught him at his mother's knee, according to
Aberforth, and for which he had a natural aptitude. And DD encourages
secrecy, at least, in Harry, and the very specific ambition to defeat
Voldemort. Snape, of course, excels in secrecy, but he, too, has
suppressed whatever ambition he once had (unless we really believe
that he wanted to be DADA teacher, hardly the pinnacle of fame and
wealth he could have achieved had he not ruined his life by becoming a
DE). Percy and the Twins are as ambitious in their way (one wanting
success, the other two money) as any Slytherin (but without the
secrecy). Tom Riddle epitomizes those two traits at their worst, but
he is not a typical Slytherin, being obsessed with his own immortality
and using his charisma (and, later, his power) to lead others into
evil. Draco, who probably will never have to earn a living, is,
AFAICT, neither ambitious nor secretive. Arrogant, yes, until the
reality of being a DE slaps him in the face. And I see little ambition
in Crabbe or Goyle until Crabbe suddenly exhibits the ambition to be a
DE (with Goyle dutifully along) in DH and only their surprising
mastery of the "disslusionment charm" to indicate a penchant for secrecy. 

Which is not to say that JKR does not engage in stereotypes, with
Crabbe and Goyle as thugs and the Slytherin Quidditch team as
cheaters. The Gryffindor tactics, unfortunately, are only marginally
less bad. Draco, however, starts out as a stereotype and develops into
an individual, however flawed. Snape has always been a distinct
individual, but with his loyalties and better feelings disguised. It's
a shame that we don't get to see much of the clever loner Theo Nott,
who strikes me as similar to the young Snape, who fortunately did not
make the mistake of joining the DEs.

I'm not sure what my point is here except to say that I think your
generalizations aren't always applicable and characters in both Houses
have their faults, not necessarily those typically associated with
their House, and at least some Slytherins have virtues. Snape is not
just courageous (more so than most Gryffindors); he works extremely
hard and is loyal to DD beyond the call of duty (both Hufflepuff
virtues); and is exceptionally intelligent (a Ravenclaw trait, which
admittedly can't be called a virtue but is certainly highly
desirable). And Regulus' sacrifice shows how greatly his brother
underestimated him  and suggests what he might have become had he not
been seduced by Voldemort's propaganda and raised in the belief that
his blood made him a superior being.

Montavilla47 wrote:
> 
> And yes, Dumbledore's aims are good. <snip> What bugs me about
Dumbledore is, I suppose, his utter lack of humility and that he does
talk as though he's taking responsibility when he really isn't.

Carol responds:

That and his underplaying of the contributions of others, especially
Snape: "Had it not been--forgive me the lack of seemly modesty--for my
own prodigious skill and for Professor snape's timely action when I
returned to Hogwarts, desperately injured, I might not have lived to
tell the tale" (HBP Am. ed. 503). His own "prodigious skill"? what,
putting on a cursed ring after de-Horcruxing it with the Sword of
Gryffindor in the vain hope of seeing the sister whose death he was
partially responsible for? Professor Snape's restoring him with a
potion presumably of his own making and trapping the curse in his hand
reduced to "timely action"? *Might* not have lived to tell the tale?
Professor Snape gave you an extra year of life, you arrogant old
ingrate, and could have done more if you'd summoned him sooner--and
then to act as if your own "prodigious skill" had some part in keeping
you alive! And how stupid can you be to put on the ring in the first
place? the presumption of it makes me want to shake you! Why not tell
Harry what you told Snape himself, that you're fortunate, very
fortunate, to have him?

So, yes, Montavilla, I agree with you that sometimes DD lack of
humility can be annoying. Not only does he seem to take responsibility
without actually doing so (for example, near the end of OoP), but he
takes credit away from other people or plays down their contributions.
I was aware of that (to me) annoying tendency, which really comes to
the fore in HBP (when he's in too big a hurry to assume his
twinkly-eyed, benevolent persona because he's dying), but I was
nevertheless unprepared for the extent of his manipulativeness and,
well, coldness, in DH. "King's Cross" seemed to me like a return to
the "real" Dumbledore, the familiar benevolent, mostly wise
mentor--more flawed than he seemed in earlier books but
well-intentioned, fond of Harry, and genuinely regretting the flaw in
the plan that resulted in the death of Snape.

Montavilla47 wrote:
<snip>
> 
> I bought that Dumbledore had his reasons for alienating himself from
Harry in OotP, but it made me very uncomfortable that he made Snape
teach Harry Occlumency.  Not because I think Snape was using it as an
excuse to torment Harry--although if that was an issue, it should have
addressed.  But because I didn't see how it wasn't putting Snape into
an impossible situation.  Dumbledore knew that Voldemort could look
out through Harry's eyes.  He'd seen it.  How was Snape supposed to
maintain his cover in that situation? <snip>

Carol responds:

I'm not sure that Voldemort could always see through Harry's eyes. For
example, we don't have his feeling that he's a serpent about to strike
when he's in Snape's presence, only in DD's. I think that DD trusts to
Snape's abilities as a superb Occlumens and actor to cover his
teaching of Occlumency if LV finds out about it. What I don't like is
his making it seem as if the end of the Occlumency lessons is Snape's
fault for not being able to get past his dislike of James. Possibly,
DD knew why Snape had put that particular memory in the Pensieve and
was keeping quiet about Lily, but still, it's Harry's fault that he
invaded the memory in the first place and Harry's fault for not
studying. I suppose that DD doesn't want to remind Harry of his own
culpability because Harry has just lost his godfather, but still,
Snape gets short shrift as usual. At least DD tells him about the Fake
Veritaserum and reminds him that Snape sent the Order to the MoM.
Anyway, I don't see having Snape give Harry Occlumency lessons as a
problem, but making him keep silent about the real reason for doing so
(the Prophecy) is probably a mistake, one that DD doesn't, IIRC, take
full credit for. (Plenty of blame all around, I realize. Snape's own
secretiveness and unfairness have given Harry no reason to trust him.
So is JKR attacking secretiveness as a personality trait in all three
good guys? Harry, who eavesdrops, conceals information even from his
friends, and occasionally lies, doesn't seem to learn this lesson
until DH, when he finally lets the DA give him a bit of help looking
for the Ravenclaw Horcrus, and even then doesn't tell them why he's
looking for it.)

Montavilla47 wrote:
> Then at the end, he throws in the bit about Harry not getting a
prefect badge.  Does it really matter at this point? Who cares?  But
apparently Dumbledore felt the need to make sure Harry knew that he
was just that much better than Ron Weasley that he would have gotten
the badge if he wasn't needed for saving the world instead.

Carol:
I didn't like that bit, either. I thought he'd given the badge to Ron
in part because Harry had other concerns and obligations but in part
because Ron had potential as a leader which he just needed to develop,
and being given the badge would boost his confidence and help him to
rise to his potential. I also thought that he'd chosen Ron for his
loyalty to Harry and because he had more nerve than the equally loyal
but timid Neville. And then to shed a tear because he hadn't given it
to Harry, as if Harry needs any more status (or time-consuming duties
like helping to decorate for Christmas)--I think it was JKR shedding a
tear for poor insufficiently honored Harry, champion Seeker, TWT
champion, nemesis of Voldemort, next-year's Quidditch captain, who
somehow deserves an apology for not being made Prefect, too.  I liked
it better when Harry was happy for his friend and thought that maybe
Ron had some quality that he didn't have. The ability to come in
second, maybe? But Ron likes to win as much as Harry does, even if
it's vicariously, through Harry. 
> 
Montavilla47 wrote:
> When Dumbledore really started grating on my nerves was in HBP.  It
starts with Dumbledore lecturing the Dursleys on their poor parenting
skills while knocking them in the heads with glasses of mead.  Okay,
tip number one in making friends and influencing people:  If you want
 someone to listen to what you are saying, try not to distract them by
knocking them about the head at the same time.  ,snip>

Carol:
Except that he wasn't trying to make friends or influence the
Dursleys, just reprimand them for their ill treatment of Harry. He was
also gently reprimanding him for their lack of hospitality. Possibly,
he didn't know what had happened on their various other encounters
with wizards--a pig's tail, a demolished living room, a four-foot-long
tongue. It was meant to be humorous, but I do think that he should
have reassured them that it was safe to drink the mead and if they
were still afraid, he should have vanished the glasses sooner or moved
them to the coffee table. He didn't grate on my nerves there, but he
was certainly high-handed. The only excuse I can make for him is that
he knew he was dying and that Harry's danger was increasing by the
moment, but as usual, his needs and priorities took precedence over
everyone else's. 

Montavilla47 wrote:
> Then there's that bizarre remark about Merope not having Lily's
courage.  Okay.  Again, what's the point of that comparison?  It's
like the prefect line.  Don't be too hard on her, Harry. She wasn't
Lily.  Instead of:  Don't be too hard on her, Harry.  She was STARVING
and it was the dead of winter and she was dressed in rags and she
still managed to do something way harder than you will ever do in your
life.
> 
> Oh, and yeah, pregnant women with no education, skills, looks,
money, or self-esteem can't really take care of themselves that well. 

Carol:
I agree with you here completely. I would add that magic can't conjure
food, a point that DD should have made in response to Harry's question
about Merope's keeping herself alive through magic.

But DD isn't the only character to start out with what seems like a
reasonable assertion and then give very odd reasons to back it up.
(Snape, of course, has to give reasons that aren't his real reasons to
get the DEs to stop Crucioing Harry and get out of Hogwarts or
convince Bellatrix that he's loyal to LV, but that's different. DD
isn't folling anyone here. Did he use the Lily line specifically to
appeal to Harry?) It reminds me of Hermione arguing against Harry's
use of Sectumsempra because it landed him in detention and kept him
from playing Quidditch (a reason jumped on as weak by Ginny, who
*approves* of his use of the spell). What about the *valid* reasons
for not using an unknown spell? What about the fact that it nearly
killed a classmate? So it's not just Dumbledore who gives really odd
reasons to support his arguments. Maybe it's JKR? Or maybe we're
supposed to see the flaws in the arguments and mentally shake the
characters for their moral obtuseness?
> 
Montavilla47 wrote:
> On the other hand, while I don't necessarily agree with allowing the
needs of <snip> Draco Malfoy to supercede Kate Bell or Ron Weasley, it
really warmed my heart to see Dumbledore reach out to save Draco. 
Because it seemed that if Dumbledore cared enough to save Draco, then
he truly must care for all his students--not just the remarkable Mr.
Potter.
> 
> That was mitigated in DH, when Dumbledore says he prefers that Draco
not tear his soul on "my" death.  As if it would okay with Dumbledore
if Draco tears it on someone else's.  But I might be too picky there.
<snip>

Carol responds:

I do think you're being too picky. He doesn't want Draco to murder or
be murdered, and he does get Snape to talk to Draco (which results in
his no longer resorting to dangerous stunts like the necklace. it's
too late to stop the poisoned mead, but he does at least confine his
efforts to the Vanishing Cabinet after that). And he puts every
conceivable protection on the castle, checking for Dark artifacts,
anti-flying charms, etc. It's impossible to know that Draco is working
on the Vanishing Cabinet and actually has a way to get DEs into the
castle, but DD has the teachers and Order members standing by just in
case, and Snape as his ace in the hole. And he provides Snape with
humanitarian reasons (Draco's welfare, DD's own wish to die with as
much dignity and as little pain as possible at the time of his own
choosing) for killing him when the time comes. He doesn't tell him
about the wand, but that's secretive DD again. And when the time
actually comes, he has the additional reason of not wanting Snape to
die from the UV to beg Snape to kill him even though the wand plan has
gone out the window. He needs Snape to carry out the rest of the plan,
including protecting the students without their knowing it (which
would entail his using his considerable talents to persuade LV and the
soon-to-be corrupted Ministry to make him headmaster). Sorry--off on a
tangent again. I do think that saving Draco's soul (and life) is among
DD's considerations in having Snape kill him, but it's only one among
many, and one that he knows will help persuade to do a deed he really
does not want to do. 

Montavilla47 wrote:
> I could forgive him setting Snape up for murder, except... he also
charged Snape with telling Harry about the sacrifice.  How was Snape
supposed to do that after being killed for the Elder Wand? <snip>

Carol:

He certainly set Snape up to "murder" him, but I don't think he set
him up to *be* murdered. Obviously, as you say, he needed Snape to
tell Harry about the soul bit in his scar and the need to sacrifice
himself, which Snape couldn't do if he were dead (and that he could do
it while he was dying in such a desperately dramatic way, or that he
would be killed by Nagini rather than an AK, which would have made the
revelation impossible, not even DD could anticipate).

I take "poor Severus" and "that bit didn't work out" at face value.
Somehow, Snape was supposed to get custody of the Elder Wand, which,
in any case, would have lost its powers. whether it would be just
another wand or a "poor stick" with no powers at all is unclear, but
evidently, his having it would have kept it out of Voldemort's hands
(and prevented it from being found in DD's tomb).

Dumbledore knew or, rather, suspected that Voldemort would eventually
go after the Elder Wand, especially, no doubt, after he kidnapped
Ollivander, but looking for the wand and finding it are two different
things. Dumbledore could not have anticipated Harry's wand going off
on its own to attack Voldemort and destroy the wand he had borrowed
from Lucius Malfoy, which sped up the process by revealing to
Voldemort that just any wand would not work against Harry's holly and
phoenix feather wand, which knew him as an enemy. Nor would Voldemort,
even having kidnapped and tortured Ollivander to discover the
existence of the Elder Wand, have necessarily known how to find it.
Once he found Gregorovitch, Legilimensed him to discover the theft,
and killed him (needlessly), he was stymied. DD had kept his
possession of the wand secret, and had it not been for Rita Skeeter's
biography and the photo of the young Grindelwald that Harry tried to
take and dropped when Bathilda!Nagini attacked him, LV could still
have been fruitlessly trying to determine the identity of the thief
when Harry's Horcrux hunt was revealed to Voldemort. So LV could have
placed Nagini in her bubble without even having the Elder Wand in his
possession, or without figuring out that it didn't work properly for
him (despite creating Nagini's bubble and killing all those people)
because he wasn't its master. That he happened to arrive at the
(false) conclusion that Snape was its true master just after he had
found out about the Horcruxes and placed Nagini in her bubble was an
unfortunate coincidence and no part of DD's plan. (If Snape had had
the wand, using his Occlumency to hide that fact from LV, he wouldn't
have been killed at all. Or, at least, that seems to be DD's original
plan.)

You could forgive DD for setting Snape up to be murdered if the plan
had made sense? Not I! Fortunately, the original plan can't have
involved Snape's death because he had to be alive to carry it out.

Carol, who thinks that not even the manipulative DD would sacrifice
his most loyal and useful follower for a plan that had already gone
awry with the Expelliarmus on the tower