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

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 177862

 
> 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:
You do seem to take everything in the worst possible light for him,
though.  It's not that I can't see your interpretation, but it just
doesn't come across that way to me.  I wrote a post recently that went
fairly unnoticed (considering how some relatively innocent things get
jumped on - I can just never tell what is controversial) in which I
compared Dumbledore to God.  As a God stand in, I think he still fits
pretty well, even after DH  Perhaps we are not meant to understand
everything he does, but still accept that he loves and cares for people.

Of course, taking away a metaphorical view like that, Dumbledore is a
very flawed human.  But really, I still think he's at worst a very
successful Slytherin type.  I don't think Dumbledore is
'power-hungry'.  And I don't think he really exercises the power he
does have.  If anything, he ineffectually holds back his power at
times when exercising him would bring him more acclaim, more glory,
more power.

I don't think Dumbledore thinks he is a god at all - I think he is
tortured by his childhood, lonely, and with strong ideals that he is
unsure of the best way to follow.  Her certainly does things in a
weird way - but perhaps not as weird for the wizarding world as it is
for our world.  There are many things simply accepted by everyone in
their world that would not be accepted in ours.

I think Dumbledore truly is concerned with equality, with stopping
evil, and with caring for children. But he's flawed in how he attempts
to reach his goals  But I don't believe those flaws are because of
self-aggrandizement, but simply because he does not know the
appropriate path. 


> 
> lizzyben:

> 
> 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.
> 

Prep0strus
But this is entirely your rather unorthodox view of the world.  You
and other espouse this 'poor-Slytherin' universe which I think is
completely wrong.  I don't think he alienates and isolates Slytherins
at all. I think they do that for themselves.  How are they any more
segregated than any other house?  For years before Harry, Slytherins
have won the Quidditch cup.  The sons and daughters of rich,
influential members of the wizarding community, they think the world
of themselves and have no problem asserting their superiority over
other students.  Dumbledore gives his heads of houses pretty free
reign - and Minerva, with the exception of letting Harry on the
Quidditch team, is a strict and fair teacher, not afraid to punish her
own house.  Severus is biased and cruel, letting Draco run wild while
using any excuse to pull down a Gryffindor.  There is no 'pitting of
Slytherins against Gryffindor', especially that Dumbledore could
control.  If they are against each other, they do it themselves. 
Slytherins are not treated as evil and unworthy (even though you know
my personal opinion that many of them ARE, and the rest are just nasty
little gits).  And the only Gryfs Dumbledore treats as heroes are...
well, the heroes!  The rest of the time, he's pretty hands-off - maybe
TOO hands-off.  But he is by no means setting the tone that you
somehow see in Hogwarts.  If anything, he is too lenient on the school
policies on racial slurs - he could crack down on Slytherins there.

And out in the world, opinion on Dumbledore seems pretty mixed. 
Eccentric appears more prevalent an opinion than personal god, IMO

lizzyben:
> Other people have gone into the nonsensical plan of DH, so I won't 
> repeat that. 

Prep0strus:
Seriously. Sometimes I think I have to simply ignore DH in order to
have a discussion that makes sense about any of these characters -
well, at least the plot.  I try to keep in the character
'development'.  This is one of those cases where, even though it is
Dumbledore's plan in the story, my brain has a hard time blaming him
for it, because it's too busy blaming JKR for orchestrating the whole
convoluted mess and putting it into his mouth.  It's so weird.

Lizzyben:
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. 
> 

Prep0strus:
You may be right, but all it does for me is make him more
Slytherin-like when I look at it that way.  Which is why I get so
amused that people who love Slytherin and see their positive traits
and goodness have a vitriol for Dumbledore.  Is it because he's
successful at it? Or just because he's not a jerk while doing it?  I
reiterate, I would rather have someone who at least seems to care.  He
may do things wrong, he may be weird and ridiculous, and twisted.  But
I do think he is trying, in his own way, to make kids care about love
and fairness.  And he attempts to benevolent and kind and spread joy,
despite the horrors his own life has contained.  And I, unlike you,
appreciate that more than the 'honesty' of Snape's petty, cruel behavior.

Lizzyben:
> 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.
> 


Prep0strus:
I think maybe JKR views 'love' and 'god' as the same thing.  And may
even view faith in Dumbledore the same as faith in god.

But Dumbledore's instinct is to protect, rather than destroy.  To
teach rather than seek more power.  I don't think DD plays any greater
a role in allowing Voldy to rise than any other individual member of
society.  Voldemort was a charismatic, talented youngster, who
everyone was hoodwinked by, except for possibly DD.  The issues
dividing the WW existed long before either was born.  DD never had the
kind of power you imply to stop his rise, and I do not see the kind of
 influence you see on the school that 'creates' these Slytherins that
would go to him.  I think your view of Gryfs and Slyths subverts your
view of what is going on.  I don't want to get back into the Slyth
discussion, since I tend to go in circles, but in this book I think
Slyths are bad eggs. I do not think Dumbledore creates them.  He did
not create the house system, or the hat.  He is not the first
headmaster.  And he does not encourage bigotry of any sort.  All he
really does is show up at the end and praise the people who fought for
things that are good.  I think, if anything, it shows Dumbledore to be
amazingly more ineffectual than it shows him to be powerful and
influential.

~Adam (Prep0strus)