The Life & Lies of Albus Dumbledore (Long)

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 177948

> 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. 
> 

Prep0strus:
Just including that to let you know I laughed out loud at the last
sentence. :)


> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> He also holds back when exercising power would help the ideals he
> claims to care about. <snip> 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.
> 

Prep0strus:
I agree with this, but I interpret it differently.  I think he is
afraid of his desire for power.  He saw what it did to him when he was
young, how it blinded him to the things he truly cares about.  And he
knows there is that temptation in him - he is talented, intelligent,
charismatic - he has the potential to be great, and it scares him. 
And I think he does hold back even when exercising power would help
his ideals, but because he is afraid of giving in that much. I think
we have the answer to why he never became minister of magic - because
he is afraid of exerting that much power.  It is a weakness in him,
and has caused him to be less effective than he could be.  I think
he's torn between wanting to do what is right and wanting to not fall
into the trap of seeking power.  But while I think at his core is
desire for power, he is aware of this, and actively tries to counter
it, to live his life a different way.  I don't see in him the
unfettered desire for power, because I think if that were the case, he
would have more of it.  It is his struggle.



> 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.
> 

Prep0strus:
See, I was kind of with you for a while.  I mean, a lot of what you
say makes sense, but I don't think it's all Dumbledore's fault.  I
think he is the embodiment of authority.  And so is bearing the brunt
of what is natural for the world.  And the reason these things exist
are plot necessities.  Riddle being a Hogwarts student was a
necessity.  So was the whole Marauder/Snape generation.  Again, it's
one of those things where Dumbledore is the ineffective authority
figure so prevalent in children's literature - because a child's
universe is unfair.  So often, everything that happens to Harry is
unfair, on a Dahl-esque level.  Even the way the whole school, as a
unit, tends to glorify or castigate him.  I see where you're coming
from putting some blame on Dumbledore, being the adult JKR has set to
orchestrate this world... but then you lose me when you get into your
description of the Slyths.  I think you're better off not even
bringing them up, because your feelings on this appear so strong and
out of sync with what most of us see, that it sticks out like a sore
thumb.

I don't see as how he encourages the feud more than any other teacher,
student, or parent.  More, I don't see how the feud itself affects
Slytherins more negatively than it does Griffindors.  Before Harry
showed up, Slytherin seemed to be doing just fine - it was Griffindor
in a slump.  And the Slyths themselves don't seem to mind.

Also, your constant references to Gryf favoritism are pretty much
unfounded.  There's some amount of 'Harry favoritism' - but you go on
later to describe all the terrible things DD has heaped on Harry, so
maybe those things balance.  But DD does not favor the Gryfs, and he
especially does not write off Slyths as worthless bigots - as we see
in what he says to Harry about Snape, as well as how he treats Draco.

DD takes 'hands-off' administration to a new level, for sure, but it
is not shown that he takes sides or encourages the feud.


> 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?

Prep0strus:
It is strange. Of course, Slytherin seems to have been a mess from the
beginning. Only Snape shows any cunning (really, Voldy might be a
Ravenclaw aside from the ambition).  But I still think DD does not
show ambition - he has put that part of himself aside.

lizzyben:
> 
> 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. 

Prep0strus:
You're right. But I still don't think that makes them the underdog. 
Because they themselves don't perceive themselves that way.  They are,
by all accounts, rich, privileged, bigoted, nasty, and cruel.  So I'm
not rooting for them, even if everyone else is also not rooting for
them.  It would mean rooting for the bad guy in every single book or
movie or television show or play... because we're supposed to be
rooting against them, and everyone is, including the author.  The
bullies, the villains, the sleazy businessmen, the pompous jerks...
these are the types authors write so people dislike them.  At what
point does it make sense to turn the world upside down to go against
the norm?  When the weak little kid who is bullied and has no chance
to beat the nasty, popular jerk kid at whatever the story is using as
its plot device... the kid is the underdog.  By your definition, the
jerk is the underdog, because according to the writer and audience, he
is destined to fail and have people be happy he failed.


lizzyben:
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. 
> 

Prep0strus:
And again, I think you take the most negative possible view.  Not
necessarily unsupported, but as negative as could possibly be
supported.  I don't think DD is not honest.  I think he DOES care. I
think he believes love is important.  I think when he tries to instill
those values, when he tries to spread joy and happiness, he is doing
it because he believes it is right, it is how he tries to live his
life.  But he, like most of us, fails at always being what he wants to
be.  He has tried to curb his ambition; he has tried to have love in
his life.  He tries to stay away from temptation but still fight evil.
 He tries, when he can, to not place emotional burdens on others that
he can bear himself.  And, he also is still egotistic and too sure of
his own plans.  He still thinks it may be right to expect someone else
to sacrifice themselves for something that matters - just as he
expects it of himself.  And yet it hurts him to think of them making
that sacrifice.  There are ways to view him in which he is not
perfect, but also not satanic.  I don't think he's not being honest
when he makes jokes or treats people kindly.  I think he's trying to
spread joy and be a good person.  Being 'honest' does not mean saying
anything that comes into your head, no matter how mean.  Being
'honest' does not mean expressing every one of your inner demons
through nastiness to others.  Just because DD is himself flawed and
complicated does not mean he cannot try to be civil and good and kind
and funny.  Just like Snape being flawed doesn't mean he has to be
nasty and cruel to children and horrible all of the time.  There is
nothing 'honest' about bullying - isn't it a cliche that bullies are
insecure?  A jerk is not someone who is honest.  A jerk is someone who
 puts no regard on other's feelings.  And someone who smiles and jokes
and talks of love and treats people nicely while still dealing with
other issues and flaws is not a big faker - they're a person who cares
for others and tries to be not selfish.

> 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. 
> 

Prep0strus:

You may be right. But it's a pretty good view of an atheist's view of
god.  I mean, people ask the questions - why does god allow cruelty?
why do bad things happen to good people? why is god asking something
so hard of me?  why do i have to follow these rules without knowing why?

And the faithful answer back with no trace of irony - 'faith'.  They
can accept that God loves them, even though bad things happen to them.
 They can accept their prayers are listened to without evidence.  They
can follow rules without understanding why, based on faith.

It's not really an atheist's view of God.  It's the common view of God
- it's only the spin put on it, whether it's negative or positive,
that will possibly clue someone into whether they believe or not. 
Neglecting people he supposedly loves? Supreme power?  Insisting on
absolute loyalty?  Requiring sacrifices, big and small?  This IS God.
 But with God, there is a 'reason' that is accepted on faith, why
someone might 'seem' neglected.  Why it might 'seem' God doesn't care
or that prayers went unanswered.

I have no idea if this is what JKR intended, and if she did, it's
obvious she didn't inspire everyone to have that faith in her writing,
or in DD.  But you're the one placing the negative spin on everything
he does.  If it were God doing these things, there would be a 'reason'
for it all, albeit unknown.

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

Prep0strus:
Way too long to answer and respond to each.  Yes, some.  But again, I
think you internalize every negative and reject every positive.  And
when a character has struck you a certain way, it makes sense to look
for supporting evidence.  But it's certainly not the only possible
view.  And it seems to germinate a lot from your desire to go against
what the author wants and what the author wants the audience wants. Of
course, it certainly makes for a discussion with a lot more varied
opinions!

~Adam (Prep0strus)