HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 177857

> Prep0strus:
> I'm confused as to why so many people HATE Dumbledore at this 
point,
> especially Slytherin lovers. We learned a lot about him, and he is 
not
> perfect, by any means. But he is, by and large, good.  It sounds 
like
> many of his failings are failings we see in Slytherins - ambition,
> arrogance, secrecy, the willingness to use people for his own 
means. 
> But, his means are for GOOD.  Now, well meaning intentions don't 
mean
> you can't still do evil - one could even argue that his intentions
> with Grindelwald had some amount of altruistic intent, at least in 
his
> own mind.  but towards the end of his life, Dumbledore was devoted 
to
> defeating Voldemort - yes, he was willing to sacrifice other people
> for that cause.  But he was also willing to sacrifice himself.  He
> didn't trust other's judgment as much as his own, but how many 
people
> do? He was the most powerful, the one who had defeated a previous 
evil
> dark lord...


lizzyben:

Oh, you've got me started on my favorite subject - Dumbledore. What 
a magnificent megalomaniac he is! In any other story, he would be 
the villian. Here, he's the leader of the "good side", and I accept 
that. But wow, what a leader. Yes, he's working for good, but I'm 
not a fan of "ends justify the means" in general & IMO it doesn't 
excuse many of the things DD does. First off, he displays immense 
callousness in how he uses his supporters. He risked the entire 
Order w/the "Seven Potters" plan. And he told Snape to "play his 
part to the full" in the chase - meaning, pick off a few Redshirts. 
He imprisoned Sirius to get him out of the way, kept the 
Invisibility Cloak when the Potters were in danger. He simply didn't 
care about their welfare, but more about their use to him. IMO.

And you've zeroed in on a key fact - Dumbledore was the "most 
powerful" because he defeated dark lords. Dark Lords give Dumbledore 
power. DD wants power, therefore, in a sense, he needs a dark lord. 
It's a symbiotic relationship. Without a dark lord, DD is just an 
old headmaster - but with one, he is a hero, a powerful man, a great 
leader, adored & admired by the entire wizarding world. Dark Lords 
give DD a meaning & purpose, unlimited power, and *minions* - 
idealistic followers devoted & loyal to him. They get him *pawns*, 
and someone who loves power loves having people to use as pawns. I 
don't think it's a coincidence that DD had a hand in creating *both* 
of the Dark Lords over the past hundred years. They are 
Frankenstein's Monster. 

prepostrus:
> And yet, over and over we have to see this effusive praising of 
Snape.
>  Just as obsessed with secrecy, just as arrogant, no braver.  Why 
in
> the world would Snape be a hero and Dumbledore not?
> 
> People seem truly angry with Dumbledore's character, and make him 
out
> to be 2nd to Voldemort in evil, and I just don't get it.  Is it
> because we were trained to believe he was perfect, and he wasn't?  
Is
> it the reverse effect?  People love to love a guy like Snape, who
> seems bad, but is good, but if someone seems good, and isn't 
perfect,
> they have to be castigated?


lizzyben:

You seem to be phrasing it as one or the other - like people will 
hate flawed DD & love faultless Snape. I don't see it that way at 
all. They're both profoundly flawed & both horrible people in their 
own way. But I'll take Snape's petty meaness over DD's Machievellian 
manipulations any day. Snape acts like a mean & nasty person, and 
actually IS mean & nasty person. I appreciate that level of honesty. 
DD, on the other hand, acts like a kindly, benevolent person, but is 
actually an egotistical power-hungry monster - and that just creeps 
me out. Snape's flaws seem more human, in the end. DD's flaws are 
those of thinking that he is a god. 

Prep0strus:
> If there are two flawed heroes, both who do things wrong, but try 
to
> do the right thing... I'm still going to the like the one who is 
kind
> to children and who makes an attempt to inspire and show love.  Not
> the one who's nasty and bitter and takes it out on the world.
> 
> ~Prep0strus(Adam)

lizzyben:

Oh, DD is *kind* to children, he just doesn't *care* about children. 
Remember, in SS, he lured LV to Hogwarts as part of his brilliant 
plan. He abandoned Hogwarts when the Basilik started attacking 
students - though he was sure to send the Hat to his protege when 
the child took on the monster on his own. He let Draco roam 
Hogwarts, even after two students almost died from murder attempts. 
Always to further "the plan." IMO, DD doesn't truly care about 
protecting students or caring for them. He was very kind to Harry, 
because he needed to earn Harry's undying (or dying) loyalty in 
order to assure that he would follow the plan. Plus, having the 
loyalty of the famous "Boy Who Lived" vastly increased DD's 
influence on the WW. Every agency wants Harry's allegience - but 
DD's got it. 

And DD's record as a caretaker? Not so good. All the people he is 
supposed to care for end up dead - Ariana, the Potters, Harry, 
Sirius etc. So why is he Headmaster? IMO, because he knows that old 
proverb -"the hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world." As 
Headmaster, he plays a large role in shaping children's views & he 
has a large responsibility in how they turn out. Dumbledore pits 
Gryffindors & Slytherins against each other in the first year, 
favoring Gryfs, & alienating & isolating Slyths. He treats Gryfs as 
beloved heros, and Slyths as evil unworthy children. This guarantees 
two things - a supply of Slyths to turn evil/Dark Wizards, and a 
supply of Gryfs to love & obey him. In his role as Headmaster for 
the past 50 years, DD has basically helped shape the dystopic 
dysfunctional society we see. It is split, violent, full of hatred - 
but totally idolizes Dumbledore. The ministry may fall, but DD's 
cult of personality is secure.

Other people have gone into the nonsensical plan of DH, so I won't 
repeat that. Mostly, for me, it's the way DD talks to people that 
makes him so delightfully creepy. He seems incapable of having an 
actual conversation w/someone w/o attempting to manipulate them, 
flatter them, put them down, increase control or exercise power. And 
sometimes he'll say things in passing that reveal a truly 
frightening worldview - like when he says that Merope died during 
childbirth because she wasn't "courageous" & didn't love her baby 
enough. Or when he's just in total awe of Harry because he 
can't understand how someone could simply be uninterested in power.  
I think it'll get even more appalling as people go back through the 
novels. 

DD talks about "love" the way other people talk about God - like 
some mystical powerful force that they can't understand. He 
attributes Harry's lack of need for power to "love." In the Horcrux 
chapter, he seems to keep confusing love & revenge, as if he really 
doesn't understand the difference. I'm not sure that DD knows how to 
love any more than Voldemort does. DD was on the "good side", and he 
did try to bring down LV, but I can't ignore the role DD played in 
allowing Voldemort to rise, or indeed in creating the splintered 
society that allowed him to do so.


lizzyben