Dumbledore and the MOM (Re: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes...)

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 176574

> Betsy Hp:
> Why?  All I'm saying is that key members of the MoM were willing to 
> fight Voldemort, did their best to do so, and Dumbledore did not 
> work with them.  It's what JKR wrote.

Jen:  I was responding to the part about why Dumbledore made a 
complete split with the MOM in WWII.  After re-reading sections in 
GOF, now I'm not so sure it was entirely principles about the justice 
system so much as what Dumbledore believed would defeat Voldemort.  
Some of his principles coincided with beliefs about what would defeat 
Voldemort, just not exactly how I remembered it *sigh*.

Responding to the actual events, Dumbledore did appear to be working 
with Crouch; at least, he's sitting beside him in all the Pensieve 
scene trials.  The underlying reasons for his complete split with the 
MOM in WWII are already brewing though:  The MOM is vulnerable to 
infiltration and Dumbledore has a problem with the Dementors: 'Ah I 
was forgetting...you don't like the Dementors, do you, Albus?' said 
Moody, with a sardonic smile.  'No,' said Dumbledore calmly, 'I'm 
afraid I don't.  I have long felt the Ministry is wrong to ally 
itself with such creatures.' (GOF, chap. 30, p. 511, UK ed.)

There's no exact information why Dumbledore started the Order in WWI 
other than it was a secret society of people fighting Voldemort.  My 
conjecture is it had to do with the state of the MOM in 'disarray' 
and in danger of takeover.  Sirius said Voldemort's first goal when 
he returned was to build up his army again because: 'He's certainly 
not going to try to take on the Ministry of Magic with only a dozen 
Death Eaters."  It makes sense to me that was also LV's goal in the 
first war since they expect him to do that in WWII, and that 
Dumbledore started the Order as a back-up resistance should the 
Ministry fall.  


Magpie:
> The Dementors, iirc, left Azkaban to join Voldemort--again, he got
> rid of them, not Dumbledore or society. Dumbledore worked with them
> as guards of Azkaban. Do we know they're not guards at Azkaban
> anymore? They're working at the MoM in DH, maybe they still are
> afterwards, only not under DEs. I don't recall getting rid of them
> being any main objective of Dumbledore's.

Jen: I was including the information from the Bloomsbury chat: 

Steph: Will azkaban still use dementors?
J.K. Rowling: No, definitely not. Kingsley would see to that. The use 
of Dementors was always a mark of the underlying corruption of the 
Ministry, as Dumbledore constantly maintained.


> Betsy Hp:
> Right.  The WW is brutal and dark.  Of course the MoM is too.  But 
> where was Dumbledore?  For quite a while we're told that Fudge was 
> wrapped around his little finger (as per PS/SS) and we have nothing 
> to show that Dumbledore put much effort into questioning the above 
> behaviors.  (Their continued existence either meant Fudge wasn't
> all that well wrapped or that Dumbledore just made little comments
> from time to time.  I suspect the latter.)

Jen:  Mr. Weasley's take on it is Fudge 'in the early days of his 
Ministry was forever asking Dumbledore for help and advice' because 
he saw DD as the more clever and powerful wizard. (OOTP, chap. 5, p. 
89, UK)  As Fudge became more confident and seemingly 'fond of power' 
he convinced himself he had better ideas than Dumbledore.  I took 
that to mean Dumbledore's advice followed his general principles on 
the best way to operate the Ministry and Fudge started to disagree.  

BetsyHp:
> Again, the MoM is brutal and dark, just like the world they serve.  
> But we are given glimmers that suggest, to me anyway, that if 
> Dumbledore had *channeled* his ambition, rather than fled from it,
> he could have achieved a great deal.  Been more of an Abe Lincoln 
> than a John Brown.  (Though of course, Dumbledore was neither of 
> those men as he was quite happy with the human pecking order of his
> world.)

Jen: I agree with the part about channeling his ambition but don't 
really read that he was happy with the human pecking order.  Or maybe 
I don't understand that part - you mean the pecking order of humans 
over beasts/beings or the pecking order of humans with each other?  
If you're coming from the perspective of the Slytherins being on the 
bottom of the human pecking order,  I don't read that intepretation 
and don't see that Dumbledore did either, given the evidence in the 
story for why he believed Voldemort gained power both times.  

I think that's your point, that DD was wrong not to see that the 
Sorting and Slytherin house were the real problem.  It's just that we 
don't see eye-to-eye on that one.

BetsyHp:
> He's the proverbial good man who, doing nothing, allows evil to 
> flourish.  (Literally, where Tom Riddle is concerned.)

Jen: I forgot to address this part last time.  There wasn't anything 
wrong with Dumbledore giving Riddle a chance to turn over a 'fresh 
leaf' as DD called it, when Riddle became part of the magical 
community.  Especially since 'he showed no sign of outward arrogance 
or agression at all...he seemed polite, quiet and thirsty for 
knowledge.  Nearly all were most favourably impressed by him.' (HBP, 
chap. 17, p. 337, UK)

I felt like Dumbledore was proving there that he thought Riddle could 
change, especially once he found his rightful place in the magical 
world and received proper training.  In retrospect it's easy to say 
DD should have told more people about what he saw at the orphanage or 
handled the situation differently, but there's nothing wrong with 
giving the boy a second chance to change if he appears to be taking 
that chance seriously, imo. 

> Betsy Hp:
> Heh.  Yes, in these books the best thing you can do for your cause 
is die.  Nice message, JKR.  Though wasn't Dumbledore's vacuum filled 
> with the stumbling Harry Potter?  Wasn't that why Harry insisted on 
> not getting help from anyone but Ron and Hermione (though he wasn't 
> all that forthcoming with them either)?  Because only he, Harry, 
> could do anything?  Anyone else would just screw things up?

Jen:  As I see it, she's saying the best thing you can do when your 
time is up is leave behind those who will take up the fight in your 
absence.  That's repeated from the beginning, when James/Lily die to 
keep Harry alive; when DD dies and leaves behind Snape, the Order and 
the Trio; when Harry 'dies,' leaving behind R/Hr, Neville, and 
everyone fighting inside the castle.  

As to the second part, lol, well no surprise I don't agree.  
Dumbledore left behind everyone who believed in what he believed in, 
including Harry with a mission that he believed Harry was uniquely 
qualified to finish.  DD also left Snape behind carrying out his 
mission, which was crucially important for protecting the students at 
Hogwarts and secretly helping the Order and Harry.  He left behind 
the teachers, members of the MOM who believed as he did, Order 
members, etc., with their own various missions pertaining to their 
expertise. 

Magpie:
> The differences of culture were put aside very momentarily to kill 
> Voldemort--there's no indication anybody was putting any effort 
> into building a new society after that. A temporary "we love Harry" 
> moment doesn't actually address any other issues that keep them 
> apart in peacetime.  Voldemort gave them a common enemy. Some 
> groups sided with him, and some against him.

Jen:  I guess again this is how one reads the story.  It ended on a 
high note, the defeat of Voldemort, but the only reason Voldemort was 
defeated in the end was that people came to believe it was possible 
to stand together, something that didn't occur in the first war or 
with Grindelwald or presumably if there were other Dark Lords back 
there.  That was a new occurence, a unity brought about by common 
cause but also a belief that even those who are oppressed have power 
if they band together rather than sticking safely within their own 
groups.  

> Betsy Hp:
> There's that big tree again. ;-)  It's impossible for me to
> overlook the exclusion of Slytherin house.  Not after Dumbledore
> has witnessed the evil that either its presence at the school 
> (going with  the "Slytherins *are* bad" view of the books), or its 
> designation as Hogwarts' scapegoat (going by how my personal view
> still insists on subverting the text) caused so much pain in the WW.

Jen:  This is a simplicfication but I see it pretty much the same as 
you talking about Dumbledore channeling his ambition in the right 
way: if Slytherins choose to channel their ambition and money (since 
at least the most prominent ones we met have that resource) into true 
good deeds rather than offering bribes, or backing good legislation 
rather than something like Muggle-hunting (Black relative), then they 
can change from the inside out.  There's no more chamber to be 
associated with now, Voldemort isn't around to infiltrate the house - 
the opportunity is there.