The Life & Lies of Albus Dumbledore (Long)

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 177947

> 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.

lizzyben:

Oddly enough, I also proposed that DD is meant to be a God-figure. DH
could be Harry's journey of faith - going from doubt, to spiritual
crisis, to literally wandering the wilderness, to finally
understanding and accepting his role in God's plan. It works pretty
well as long as you ignore DD's actual personality. 

Prepostrus:
> 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.

lizzyben:

He also holds back when exercising power would help the ideals he
claims to care about. As MOM, he could actually create laws that
guarantee rights for house-elves, stop discrimination against
werewolves, lessen prejudice against Muggles etc. etc. But he doesn't
do that - instead he creates his own circle of power that gives him
power without accountability or responsibility.

And this is where JKR's essentialism comes back to bite her. If people
can't really change, DD can't really change either. He certainly was
power-hungry at 17, when he dreamed of ruling over all Muggles, and he
was still hungry for power when he keeps the Invisibility Cloak 100
years later. He goes from Muggle-persecutor to Muggle-rescuer, but
both positions are essentially ones of power, & that creates a sense
of "mixed motives" on DD's part. His real attitude towards Muggles is
revealed in the only encounter he has w/them - when DD uses his
superior magical power to knock them in the head and force them to sit
down & obey his demands. And in King's Cross, Dead!DD admits that
power was always his weakness & temptation. DD changes his ideology,
but never really changes his character.

Prepostrus:
> 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.

lizzyben:

When I say that DD thinks he is a god, I'm mostly referring to the way
that he seems to think he has the right to deal out death to people in
furtherance of his plans. HE might think it's all for the "greater
good", but he doesn't have the right to sacrifice other people for his
own goals. He does treat people as pawns, & that's a "god-like" view
of the world. Also, the way he wants his supporters to display total
personal loyalty to Him, as opposed to his ideals. In COS, for
example, he says that Harry earned the sword for his incredible
loyalty to Dumbledore - not for, you know, saving the school. Or when
he tears up when Harry says that he's "Dumbledore's Man". Or the way
that all the other Order adults (former students) seem to obsess on
what DD would think, whether DD would approve, etc. instead of just
being independent agents. In the end, you get the sense that it's all
about DD's ego. Creepy! 

It's like JKR was *trying* to make DD into the embodiment of your
typical cult leader. And here's where I start to wonder if it is some
Andy Kaufmann-esque trick. If we were truly expected to admire Harry's
devotion to DD, why would she expose DD as a fraud in the last book?
Why have his own brother call him the "master of secret & lies"? Why
have many so characters point out that DD's plan makes no sense?

Prepostrus:
> 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:

He's supposed to be a genius, right? I would think that DD would at
least know that caring for children involves, for example, not leaving
them on doorsteps, or abandoning the school when Basiliks and mad
Umbridges are on the loose, etc. 

> 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.  <snip> There is no
'pitting of
> Slytherins against Gryffindor', especially that Dumbledore could
> control.  

lizzyben:

I'm not sure how I can be a Slytherin defender if I've agreed that
they're supposed to symbolize everything JKR doesn't like & argued
that they are meant to be the "House of the Damned".  But the thing
is, you can't confuse the meta & the text. Sure, on the meta level,
Slytherins are "traits JKR dislikes", but within the text, they are
real people, real students, and real children in DD's care.

My point had really nothing to do w/the "slyths as scapegoats" view,
but with "slyths as real children" view, which is the vast majority
view. As real children, DD has a responsibility to these kids that he
utterly fails. DD brought a psychopathic Riddle to Hogwarts, never
warning teachers or students of the danger, let him learn magic, &
turned him loose on the world. In the Maurader's generation, Death
Eaters were actively recruiting Hogwarts students, & DD did nothing
about it. In Harry's gen., DD focuses his efforts on Harry & co &
doesn't seem to care much about cultivating other students. These
children are raised at Hogwarts. If DD truly cared about ending
bigotry, he'd do something to educate these kids, teach them a
different way - mandatory Muggle studies, mixing House dinners,
SOMETHING. Instead, he is more than content to allow the Gryf vs.
Slyth feud to continue unabated, to actively help the feud w/Gryf
favoritism, and to write off Slyth kids as worthless bigots. DD stays
isolated in his office that no student can reach. He seems to have
little to do w/the day to day operation of the school. DD as
Headmaster is largely a failure.

> 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:

That's why I ignored DD's non-plan in DH - I don't know whether to
blame him for it, or to blame bad writing. But we've got to interpret
the text that's given to us. And I think it is possible to see the
non-plan as consistent from a character point of view. To DD,
knowledge is power, and he wants to keep that power for himself. So
doesn't allow Harry or Snape to know about the Hallows, he doesn't
give the book on destroying Horcruxes, doesn't tell Snape about the
Elder Wand, doesn't tell other Order members to assist in the Horcrux
search, etc. It's worth noting that if things had gone according to
DD's plan, LV would have won. DD risked the lives of many people on a
totally flawed, over-elaborate, dumb, plan. And I think we're meant to
know that. 

Aberforth (voice of reason) points it out right before Harry makes his
noble self-sacrifice. Aberforth says that DD was "master of secrets &
lies", that people he cared for tended to end up dead, that he
neglected & used people for the "greater good," & that Harry himself
might be a dispensable pawn in a clever plan. So Harry (and we) *know*
this at the moment when Harry decides to die because DD had said that
he must. Are we meant to cheer Harry's faith in DD or be horrified
that Harry has agreed to drink the Kool-Aid? I think *both* reactions
can be justified by the text. The dissonance is created by the text
itself - if we were supposed to admire Harry's loyalty, why would the
book spend so many pages establishing that DD could not be trusted? If
it were a test of faith, why did DD admit that the charges were
basically true in King's Cross? Harry himself asks DD why he made the
plan so difficult - and gets a lame answer (to slow him down). DD then
flatters & praises Harry as "the better man". It's like.. a journey of
faith where the seeker realizes he is better than god at the end. And
that's just odd.

> 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.  

lizzyben:

And why would JKR make the leader of the Gryffindors the embodiment of
Slytherin traits? Cunning, ambition, using any means necessary -
that's all DD. Meanwhile, actual Slytherins like Goyle & Draco don't
really display those qualities much at all - they're just unpleasant
people. Goes back to that Kaufmann-esque thing: if Slyth is all evil &
Gryf is all good, why make the leader of the good side an example of
the traits of the evil side?  Why are we told to admire the "good"
leader who has the same traits we're supposed to hate the "bad" side for?

Since I tend to like underdogs, I can't help but root for a group that
has the entire school, the author, and the universe itself against
them. And yeah Snape is a jerk. But your question wasn't "why do
people defend Slytherins" but "why do people dislike Dumbledore?" And
I've explained why I do. Leaving aside possibly extreme
interpretations, the callousness, lies, manipulation, egotism, & love
of power is all canon. And even that wouldn't be so bad if we weren't
told to admire him anyway. Possibly the scariest thing about DD is
that he seems to express JKR's own views on the world. I enjoy DD as a
character - as a role model, no way.

And some is just personal preference - I'd prefer an honest person to
someone who "seems to care", and doesn't. I could handle a
conversation w/Snape or Draco or Goyle - w/DD I'd be afraid of being
sucked into handing over my life savings! I could understand DD's plan
to sacrifice Harry, if he didn't also manipulate him, control him &
want Harry to love him in spite of it. 

> 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. 
> 
> 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.

lizzyben:

But isn't that crazy? JKR views god as a manipulative bastard who
throws peoples' lives away, never tells the truth, yet demands
absolute loyalty to him? Sounds more like an atheist's view of god.
And "love" is embodied in a character who neglected & may have killed
his sister, dreamed about domination & power, browbeats Snape,
imprisons Sirius, & uses Harry as a sacrifice? No, just no. 

Prepostrus:
> 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. 

lizzyben:

It's because DD wasn't hoodwinked that he alone had the responsibility
to do something about it. If Durmstrang could expel Grindewald,
certainly Hogwarts could've expelled Riddle. When Riddle came looking
for a job, why didn't DD call a couple Aurors? It seems like DD did
nothing effectual to stop LV the first time at all, besides possibly
leaking the prophecy. (Again, he caught a Death Eater outside the door
- call Aurors!) And if he knew that Quirrel had LV in his turban (as
now seems likely), why didn't he, again, call a couple aurors instead
of creating this elaborate Rube Goldberg plan involving three
eleven-year-old kids? It's just weird. It contributes to my
(admittedly unorthodox) view that DD kind of needed a LV around.
DD couldn't (wouldn't) gain power the usual way, but found power
instead in his own cult of personality. Just coming out with it -
I think DD is evil, more evil than LV in some ways. I think he's a
narcissist & possibly a psychopath. Maybe they're both stuck in hell
in King's Cross.

Just for interest - profile of a cult leader. How much of DD do you
see in this description?

"The Master Manipulator

Let us look for a moment at how some of this manifests in the cult
leader. Cult leaders have an outstanding ability to charm and win over
followers. They beguile and seduce. They enter a room and garner all
the attention. They command the utmost respect and obedience. These
are "individuals whose narcissism is so extreme and grandiose that
they exist in a kind of splendid isolation in which the creation of
the grandiose self takes precedence over legal, moral or interpersonal
commitments."(l8) 

Harder to evaluate, of course, is whether these leaders' belief in
their magical powers, omnipotence, and connection to God (or whatever
higher power or belief system they are espousing) is delusional or
simply part of the con. Megalomania--the belief that one is able or
entitled to rule the world--is equally hard to evaluate... In
any case, beneath the surface gloss of intelligence, charm, and
professed humility seethes an inner world of rage, depression, and fear.

The Profile of a Psychopath

In reading the profile, bear in mind the three characteristics that
Robert Lifton sees as common to a cultic situation:

1. A charismatic leader who...increasingly becomes the object of worship
2. A series of processes that can be associated with "coercive
persuasion" or "thought reform"
3. The tendency toward manipulation from above...with
exploitation--economic, sexual, or other--of often genuine seekers who
bring idealism from below(20)


Cultic groups usually originate with a living leader who is believed
to be "god" or god-like by a cadre of dedicated believers. Even after
leaving the group or relationship, many former devotees
carry a burden of guilt and shame while they continue to regard their
former leader as paternal, all-good, and godlike. This same phenomenon
is found in battered women and in children who are abused by their
parents or other adults they admire.

The Authoritarian Power Dynamic

The purpose of a cult (whether group or one-on-one) is to serve the
emotional, financial, sexual, and power needs of the leader. The
single most important word here is power. The dynamic around which
cults are formed is similar to that of other power relationships and
is essentially ultra-auhoritarian, based on a power imbalance. The
cult leader by definition must have an authoritarian personality in
order to fulfill his half of the power dynamic. ...

The Role of Charisma

In general, charismatic personalities are known for their inescapable
magnetism, their winning style, the self-assurance with which they
promote something--a cause, a belief, a product. A charismatic person
who offers hope of new beginnings often attracts attention and a
following. ... Weber's charismatic leader was "a
sorcerer with an innovative aura and a personal magnetic gift.[He]
held an exceptional type of power: it set aside the usages of normal
political life and assumed instead those of demagoguery, dictatorship,
or revolution, [which induced] men's whole-hearted devotion to the
charismatic individual through a blind and fanatical trust and an
unrestrained and uncritical faith."(7) Thus it is the psychopathology
of the leader, not his charisma, that causes the systematic
manipulative abuse and exploitation found in cults.

Based on the psychopathy checklists of Hervey Cleckley and Robert
Hare, we now explore certain traits that are particularly pertinent to
cult leaders. The 15 characteristics outlined below list features
commonly found in those who become perpetrators of psychological and
physical abuse. 

1. Glibness/Superficial Charm

Glibness is a hallmark of psychopaths. They are able to use language
effortlessly to beguile, confuse, and convince. They are captivating
storytellers. They exude self-confidence and are able to spin a web
that intrigues others and pulls them into the psychopath's life. Most
of all, they are persuasive. Frequently they have the capacity to
destroy their critics verbally or disarm them emotionally.

2. Manipulative and Conning

Cult leaders do not recognize the individuality or rights of others,
which makes all self-serving behaviors permissible. The hallmark of
the psychopath is the _psychopathic maneuver_, which is essentially
interpersonal manipulation based on charm. The manipulator appears to
be helpful, charming, even ingratiating or seductive, but is covertly
hostile, domineering... [The victim] is perceived as an aggressor,
competitor, or merely an instrument to be used ... The manipulation
inevitably becomes the end-all and is no longer qualified by the
reality principle. In other words, there are no checks on the
psychopath's behavior -- anything goes.

3. Grandiose Sense of Self

The cult leader enjoys tremendous feelings of entitlement. He believes
everything is owed to him as a right. Preoccupied with his own
fantasies, he must always be the center of attention. He presents
himself as the "Ultimate One": enlightened, a vehicle of god, a
genius, the leader of humankind, and sometimes the most humble of the
humble. He has an insatiable need for adulation and attendance. His
grandiosity may also be a defense against inner emptiness, depression,
and a sense of insignificance. Paranoia often accompanies the
grandiosity, reinforcing the isolation of the group and the need for
protection against a perceived hostile environment. In this way, he
creates an us-versus-them mentality.

4. Pathological Lying

Psychopaths lie coolly and easily, even when it is obvious they are
being untruthful. It is almost impossible for them to be consistently
truthful about either a major or minor issue. They lie for no apparent
reason, even when it would be easier and safer to tell the truth. This
is sometimes called "crazy lying". Confronting their lies may provoke
an unpredictably intense rage or simply a Buddha-like smile. These
manipulators are rarely original thinkers.  For them, objective
truth does not exist. The only "truth" is whatever will best achieve
the outcome that meets their needs.

5. Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt

... Whatever the emotional or psychological source, psychopaths see
those around them as objects, targets, or opportunities, not people.
They do not have friends, they have victims and accomplices -- and the
latter frequently end as victims. For psychopaths the ends always
justify the means. Thus there is no place for feelings of remorse,
shame, or guilt. Cult leaders feel justified in all their actions
since they consider themselves the ultimate moral arbiter. 

6. Shallow Emotions

While they may display outbursts of emotion, more often than not they
are putting on a calculated response to obtain a certain result. They
rarely reveal a range of emotions, and what is seen is superficial at
best, pretended at worst. Positive feelings of warmth, joy, love, and
compassion are more feigned than experienced....They are bystanders to
the emotional life of others, perhaps envious and scornful of feelings
they cannot have or understand. In the end, psychopaths are cold, with
shallow emotions, living in a dark world of their own. He can witness
or order acts of utter brutality without experiencing a shred of
emotion. He casts himself in a role of total control, which he plays
to the hilt.

7. Incapacity for Love

As the "living embodiment of God's love," the leader is tragically
flawed in being unable to either give or receive love. Love
substitutes are given instead. The leader's tremendous need to be
loved is accompanied by an equally strong disbelief in the love
offered him by his followers; hence, the often unspeakably cruel and
harsh testing of his devotees. Unconditional surrender is an absolute
requirement.

8. Need for Stimulation

Thrill-seeking behaviors, often skirting the letter or spirit of the
law, are common among psychopaths. Such behavior is sometimes
justified as preparation for martyrdom: "I know I don't have long to
live; therefore my time on this earth must be lived to the fullest."
Cult leaders live on the edge, constantly testing the beliefs of their
followers, often with increasingly bizarre behaviors, punishments, and
rules. 

9. Callousness/Lack of Empathy

Psychopaths readily take advantage of others, expressing utter
contempt for anyone else's feelings. Someone in distress is not
important to them. Although intelligent, perceptive, and quite good at
sizing people up, they make no real connections with others. They use
their "people skills" to exploit, abuse, and wield power. Psychopaths
are unable to empathize with the pain of their victims.

10. Poor Behavioral Controls / Impulsive Nature

11. Early Behavior Problems / Juvenile Delinquency

12. Irresponsibility / Unreliability

Not concerned about the consequences of their behavior, psychopaths
leave behind them the wreckage of others' lives and dreams. They may
be totally oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they inflict on
others, something which they regard as neither their problem nor their
responsibility.

Psychopaths rarely accept blame for their failures or mistakes.
Scapegoating is common, blaming followers, those outside the group, a
member's family, the government, Satan -- anyone and everyone but the
leader... Blame is a powerful reinforcer of passivity and obedience,
producing guilt, shame, terror, and conformity in the followers.

14. Lack of Realistic Life Plan 

...  Psychopaths also tend to be preoccupied with their own health
while remaining totally indifferent to the suffering of others. They
may complain of being "burned out" due to the burden of "caring for"
their followers, sometimes stating they do not have long to live,
instilling fear and guilt in their devotees and encouraging further
servitude. This of course is another guru trick.

... Demystifying the guru's power is an important part of the psyche-
educational process needed to fully recover.(2) It is critical to
truly gaining freedom and independence from the leader's control. The
process starts with some basic questions: Who was this person who
encouraged you to view him as God, all-knowing, or all-powerful? What
did he get out of this masquerade? What was the real purpose of the
group (or relationship)?

"Captive Hearts, Captive Minds" - Madeleine Landau Tobias and Janja
Lalich, PhD.