[HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore

[Bart Lidofsky]

No: HPFGUIDX 177389

lizzyben: 
>Snape was used as a pawn until the day he died. First he was LV's 
>pawn, then DD's pawn.

If you know you are not being given the whole picture, but are in agreement with the purpose, are you a pawn? And note that, to the end, Morty considered Snape to be a pawn. Unfortunately, if it weren't for the Elder Wand byplay, Snape might well have survived. However, JKR's morality required that he could only redeem himself in death. 

lizzyben:
>I just want to say one thing re: the DD/Snape relationship. In that 
>first meeting, DD didn't give a d*** about Snape's redemption or 
>making him see the light or whatever. Snape was simply a Death 
>Eater, a potentially useful tool. And he treats him w/customary 
>coolness - until Snape begs DD to save Lily Evan's life. Then DD 
>responds with "You disgust me." It wasn't Snape's evil that 
>disgusted DD. He was perfectly cordial to Voldemort, after all. No, 
>it was Snape's sheer human wretchedness & desperation that 
>disgusted DD. If Snape had come to DD that day w/his plan for world 
>domination, DD would have been perfectly polite. 

That's the point. Have we been shown DD to be that frank with ANYBODY? The only time he is at all honest is when he's talking to someone he actually cares about. "You disgust me" is not something you say to someone you are trying to manipulate into being a pawn; it's someone you say to someone you are trying to change. 

Bart:
>> As far as Harry goes, I would not call the attitude a callousness. 
>Here is the problem, as I see it. Since Harry was not a regular 
>Horcrux, Dumbledore had hopes that the Mortysoul could be removed 
>from Harry without killing him. But it wasn't until Morty insisted 
>on using Harry's blood in his reincarnation that Dumbledore saw how 
>it could be done (if Dumbledore WAS callous, there would have been 
>no "gleam of triumph" in GOF). 

lizzyben:
>So, up till the end of GOF, DD thought Harry would have to be a 
>child sacrifice for his cause. 

Bart:
Or, was actively trying to find a way to keep this from happening. All too often, one hears the phrase, "If it saves only one life." Well, what would the price of saving Harry's life be? Could anybody except for the most selfish be willing to pay that price? How many lives were lost just during DH, considering the persecution of Muggleborns. Once Morty started his conquest of the Muggle world, how many lives would have been lost? And how could DD have KEPT Morty from killing Harry anyway? At BEST, Morty would have kept Harry a prisoner for life, perhaps under IC (note that, while Harry was able to fight it, we are given implications that others can fight it, temporarily, too. Harry had no problem IC'ing several people, but the DE's mentioned difficulty in IC'ing Thicknesse; that certainly implies that Thicknesse had an ability to resist the curse, so they had to catch him alone so that they could make it strong enough to break his resistance.

>Then he sends 
>Harry to face off against Quirrell/LV as... practice. Oh, yeah, DD 
>knew what Quirrel was up to - he set up the entire trap for LV. 

Bart:
OK, that I agree he did; I've noted that he even set up the traps in such a way that the specific group of friends Harry got were able to break them. 

lizzyben:
>Or why he wanted them to 
>get the Hallows at all. 

Bart:
That's an odd one.

lizzyben:
>Or why he didn't just *give* Hermione the 
>Horcrux book before he died. Or why he didn't just *give* Harry the 
>Sword of Gryffindor before he died instead of that convoluted plan. 

Bart:
That's clearly because he didn't expect to die that night; this was the backup plan in case death came unexpectedly. 

Bart