Dumbledore

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 177405

Pippin:
 That is the best explanation I have for why Dumbledore was so 
> satisfied that Harry had not defended himself. 
> 
> "But I should have died--I didn't defend myself! I meant to let
> him kill me!"
> "And that," said Dumbledore, "will, I think, have made all the
> difference."
> Happiness seemed to radiate from Dumbledore like light, like
> fire: Harry had never seen the man so utterly, so palpably
> content. --DH ch 35

lizzyben:

LOL, Dumbledore is so creepy! I think he's just happy that Harry
followed The Plan to the letter.

>Pippin:
> This is not a mere bluff as Neville's escape from the body
> bind curse and the Sorting Hat's survival shows. What Harry did
> worked, so even if he had not survived, the WW would have
> gained protection from Voldemort. It shows, further, that
> blood is not the operative factor in the protection, since
> Neville and Harry do not share blood. 

lizzyben:

So what is? What is fueling this magical protection? Harry dies,
Horcrux evaporates, Harry returns (unlike Lily) and suddenly his
supporters can't be hurt by LV's spells. Why? Harry calls it the same
protection as his mother - blood protection. Her blood protection
saved her child; Harry's blood protection saves all who believe in
him. It's a total analogy to Christ. There's no "explanation" at all -
it is a miracle. 

Pippin:
> Dumbledore explains in detail why he sent Harry after the Hallows
> while withholding so much information about them. He wanted Harry
> to have them so that Harry would know there was nothing to fear
> in death, but he was afraid that  if he made it too easy, Harry 
> would misuse the Hallows as Dumbledore had done. He begs
> Harry's forgiveness for not trusting him more.  

lizzyben:

But that doesn't make any sense at all. He sends Harry out on this
"mission" to get the Hallows, even though they're of no strategic use
at all, and even though it will distract him from his REAL mission of
destroying Horcruxes. DD could just say, hey, here's a red herring for
you, but that would be too simple. Instead, he leaves totally obscure
hints that Harry has to figure out through sheer randomness (Sign on
book = sign on Lovegood's outfit, etc.) before Harry can even figure
out what the red herring IS. To, uh, slow him down. Because Harry was
completing his mission too quickly & purposefully - no aimless camping
at all. But Harry actually HAD two of the Hallows all along. He just
needed the wand - couldn't DD just say "I have the Elder Wand"? Why do
the other two matter at all? Shouldn't Harry be destroying LV rather
than tracking down useless objects that he already has? AARGH.
Dumbledore, what a genius.

And the ultimate reward of this red herring, useless, mission - DD's
approval: "You are the true master of death". OK. So what? What does
it mean to be the "Master of Death"? Nothing, apparently. It's a cool
title. DD says that the real "Master of Death" accepts that he must
die... do you really need 3 magical objects for that? And though the
"master of death" accepts that he must die, Harry doesn't actually
have to die at all. And the text says that Harry kept the Invisibility
Cloak, which gives him immortality. DD says "The true master does not
seek to run away from Death, yet Harry should keep the Cloak that
allows him to... run away from Death. Message: Accept death, but
escape it, and hide from it. Mixed messages much?

Pippin:
> As it unfolds, it can really only have been the Stone that Dumbledore 
> wanted Harry to use. Harry already had the cloak. Snape was supposed
to have had the  wand, and, presumably to know what it was, because
otherwise Dumbledore could not have been sure that Snape would take it.

lizzyben:

Expect Portrait!DD never told Snape about the Elder Wand at all. Why
not? Couldn't Snape take the wand from DD's tomb? Since the original
plan failed, couldn't he take Draco's wand just as easily? What was
the point of Snape having the Wand's allegiance if he didn't know it?
So LV would want to kill him? And Harry already had the cloak
& Snitch/Stone from the beginning of DH. If DD was already giving
Harry the Stone, why did he give Hermione the fairy-tale book that
inspired their wild goose chase? Harry would've sacrificed himself
with or w/o the Stone - there was no reason that Harry needed to have
it at all. The whole subplot is pointless.


Pippin:
> Dumbledore's "Poor Severus" remark suggests he didn't
> intend for Snape to die as he did. That this contradicts
> "Don't pity the dead" suggests two intriguing possibilities:
> one, that Snape isn't dead (I wish!) or more likely, IMO,
> at this point Harry has worked out for himself that no 
> one who has not abused their soul as thoroughly as
> Voldemort did has anything to fear from death. 


lizzyben:

DD says "poor Severus" with pity, even though he also says don't pity
the dead. And Harry's not supposed to pity the dead, even though
there's a damned soul writhing in agony right behind him. LV *does*
have something to fear from death - but Harry shouldn't pity him.
Contradictions all over the place. The worst, worst contradiction was
Harry's cheering squad that assured him "Dying doesn't hurt a bit,
It's quicker & easier than falling asleep!" right after Harry
witnessed Snape's painful, long, horrible death. Easy platitudes are
contradicted by the harsh reality. And it creates a sense of profound
dissonance. You get the feeling that JKR is spouting things that she
doesn't truly believe.

Adam:
> I've been thinking about the Hallows, and how strange they are, both
> as items to include as part of a children's fable, and as real
> objects.  
> Fairy tales often encourage people to make the right choice by showing
> what happens when you make the wrong one.  <snip>
 So the moral has to be that the cloak was the correct wish "do not
wish for power, do not wish to bring loved ones back from the dead,
but DO wish to avoid death.
> It's very strange, and not balanced.  

lizzyben:

I *think* the message was supposed to be that the third brother lived
his life w/o thinking about future power (wand) or past losses
(stone), and was therefore content to meet death when it came. But an
Invisibility Cloak that gives immortality is an odd metaphor for
acceptance of death, for sure.

Adam:
In addition, the idea of
> invisibility, as opposed to our other two potential gifts â€" power, and
> resurrection, being the most admirable¦ I find that odd. <snip>  It
is saying the wish that is the
> most admirable is the one that allows you to do things that you might
> be ashamed of.  And, in the way the brother uses it, it is saying you
> must stay hidden your entire life.

lizzyben:

I'm glad you brought this up. Pre-DH, I thought that the ending would
involve Harry giving up his Invisibility Cloak & accepting adulthood
w/all its burdens and responsibilities. Harry was invisible at the
Durselys' - someone who didn't matter, who could be ignored & stuffed
out of sight. And that's a Bad Thing. At Hogwarts, Harry has his own
identity, but he still wants to be invisible quite often. He's an
introvert, so being "invisible" comes easier; being a visible leader
is what's difficult for him. And the Cloak *is* a type of escape from
responsibility & accountability. So I find an ending where Harry
actually *embraces* invisibility quite odd.  

But I think it really comes back to JKR's odd ideas about ambition.
She considers ambition & cunning to be "evil" & Slytherinish; traits
that lead to a desire for power & tyranny. The polar opposite of
ambition & accomplishment is - invisibility. That's why it's a "good
thing" that Harry gives up assertive power (the Wand), and accepts
passive invisibility (the Cloak). Of course, JKR later tells us that
all the heroes were wildly successful in their careers. But not
because they really wanted to be!! It's weird, but if you accept that
ambition=evil, the motif works better. It's not that ambition is a
"good" Slytherin trait - it's a Slytherin trait because it's "bad" in
JKR's world.

Adam:
> And it goes against the way JKR wrote the whole story in other ways â€"
> bravery, facing fears, even death, seem to be what she values highest
> in this world.  Running and hiding doesn't jive with this.  Harry also
> gets to be the big hero, noticed by all, a lot of the time â€" on the
> Quidditch field, at the end of the first two books at least, and JKR
> does not suggest that this is bad.  Harry (to quote ‘Wizard People,
> Dear Reader’) is a glorious god!  How does this match with the best
> wish you can make is to hide?

lizzyben:

It keeps coming back to "having your cake & eating it too" or "Angelic
goodness & devilish fun". Harry is a super-star, but he doesn't *want*
to be. He's fabulously rich, but he was never *ambitious* to become
wealthy. He gets the things he wants, because he is so selfless. Harry
can be famous & powerful, because he doesn't want fame & power. Harry
can escape death, because he accepted death. It's the typical theme -
Harry deserves the "devilish fun" (quidditch, Cloaks, fame) because of
his angelic goodness.

Adam:
<snip>

> I just don't understand the moral I am supposed to learn from the
> story of the three brothers, or the story of the hallows in the
˜real™ world of the books.
> 
> ~Adam (Prep0strus)


lizzyben:

What you're supposed to learn is that JKR is making A Very Important
Statement About Death. The problem is, she's not sure what that
statement is. The messages are totally contradictory & confusing, as
you've pointed out. Should we accept death, or hide from it? Pity the
dead, or pity the living? See death as "easy & painless" or horrible?
I don't think JKR knows. And it makes the novel thematically hollow.

I agree that the treatment of death in DH is totally unbalanced. On
the one hand, we have this endless pondering about the abstract notion
of Death, and symbolic representations of Death, visits from the Dead,
visits to the life after Death, and so on. The novel is positively
obsessed with Death, as a concept. And yet when actual people die,
it's treated in an almost off-hand, casual manner. Oh, Moody's dead.
Fred too. Snape's dead, left in the shack. Oh, by the way, Tonks is
dead - did I forget to mention that? Lupin too, oh well. Dobby was the
only character who got an actual funeral & burial. The dead weren't
honored. It's sort of similar to Sirius' death, actually - he never
received a funeral, either, and Harry went from abject grief in OOTP
to instant recovery in HBP. DH went straight from terrible deadly
battle to "happy! married! babies! 20 years later. There wasn't a
mourning period at all - the novels really shied away from actually
portraying the grieving process at all.

And I think that's why so many fans have such an unsettled
feeling about the end of the series - the book never gave us that
emotional catharsis, the resolution of grief, that people need in
order to heal and move on. And yes, even for fictional characters.
There's a reason why people have these ceremonial rituals - they allow
people to remember the dead, to honor & celebrate them, and to let
them go. JKR, for all her pontificating about Death, couldn't seem to
get the basics of mourning down. So the book ran away from death,
while also obsessing over it. And with all the Important Messages
about Death, there wasn't much wisdom to be found on the subject. 


lizzyben, who wishes she could get over this series already.