ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 182526

CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Chapter 18,
The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore
<snip unique chapter summary. Thanks, "Harry"!>
 
> 1. Harry hasn't been this mad at Dumbledore since OotP. Was this 
worse? Compare and contrast this anger with Harry's rage from a year
and a half ago.

Carol responds:
It certainly reminds me of Harry's anger in OoP, but the chief
difference is that he was angry at others in OoP besides Dumbledore,
first at his friends (and DD) for keeping information from him and
then at Umbridge for her various atrocities (and at Snape for being
Snape). The twice-felt urge to bite Dumbledore when he looks at him
more or less makes Harry realize that DD has good reason for avoiding
 eye contact with him. Here, however, Harry (who, of course, has good
reason for feeling frustrated and scared, having just lost the
phoenix-feather wand that he'd been counting on to protect him from
Voldemort and who may be influenced by the Horcrux as he seems to have
been influenced by his own bit of Voldie soul in OoP) seems to be
channeling his anger at Hermione (which he knows is unfair because she
just saved his life) and at Ron for leaving them into anger at the
dead Dumbledore. (How dare he die? could be part of it, too.) Just as
he scapegoated Snape when Sirius Black died, he seems to be
scapegoating Dumbledore, believing all of Rita's inferences and
insinuations along with the undeniable evidence of the photograph and
the letter (and Bathilda's testimony, obtained using Veritaserum). The
Snitch seems useless and the Sword of Gryffindor might as well be in
Siberia since they have no access to it and no idea where it is. The
best that can be said is that Harry's very understandable anger here
is better controlled than in OoP--no shouting at Hermione, no breaking
the furniture--and it's only for one chapter, not the whole book. He's
at the nadir of his adventure, nowhere to go but up.
> 
> 2. Dumbledore calmed Harry in OotP by launching into the whole 
prophecy story, and he started it by saying "I am going to tell you 
everything." In light of this DH chapter, did he?

Carol responds:

Well, like "is" if you're Bill Clinton, "everything" doesn't have its
usual meaning if you're Albus Dumbledore. By "everything," he meant
"everything about Harry and Voldemort that relates to the
Prophecy"--everything he'd been concealing that school year--except
the small matter of one Severus Snape. He didn't, of course, tell him
Tom Riddle's background or inform him of the Horcruxes until HBP, he
left it to Snape to tell Harry that he himself was in effect a
Horcrux, and he said nothing about himself at all. Even the "thrilling
tale" of the injury to his hand was sketchily and belatedly told. No
doubt Dumbldore meant what he said: he was telling Harry "everything"
that he needed to know at the moment, but "everything?" Why would
Harry need to know about Ariana or DD's friendship with Grindelwald,
anyway? (And can you imagine DD saying, "Oh, by the way, Harry, did I
ever tell you how I broke my nose?")

> 3. Is Harry right about Dumbledore not trusting him with the whole
truth? We all know about Dumbledore's penchant for secrecy, but was he
withholding any information regarding the Horcrux hunt from Harry? 
Was he withholding any information that Harry needed to confront
Voldemort? (Let's leave out the soul bit in Harry's head for this
discussion, shall we?)

Carol responds:
That's an interesting question, especially since Harry's explosive
reaction is so similar to Snape's similar accusation in "The Prince's
Tale" ("You have used me, Dumbledore!" etc.) Obviously, Dumbledore
can't tell Harry the truth about Snape, but Harry doesn't know that
yet (except for the eavesdropping, which DD did conceal from him until
Trelawney let slip her version of the story), and DD can't give Harry
the Sword of Gryffindor directly or explain in the will what the
Snitch, the Deluminator, and the book are for (he doesn't know who
will read it or whether DEs will have taken over the Ministry). As for
Horcruxes, he doesn't know when he writes his will which Horcrux is in
the cave, much less that it's fake, and he doesn't know what or where
the Ravenclaw Horcrux is. He doesn't know where the cup Horcrux is,
either. So I'd say he's told Harry everything that he knows or guesses
related to the Horcruxes, trusting Hermione to figure out that the
Sword of Gryffindor has absorbed Basilisk venom and can be used to
destroy them once they're found. (I suppose he could have said, "Don't
wear the locket or drink out of the cup," but that's common sense.) I
wish he could have said, "Take them to Professor Snape when you find
them and he'll remove any curses before you destroy them," but Snape
doesn't know about the Horcruxes and Harry doesn't know that Snape is
on his side. Under the circumstances, really, I think DD did the best
he could, and his friendship with Grindelwald once upon a time is just
an excuse for Harry to be angry. Or that's all it is at this point,
until Harry finds out about the Elder Wand. Same with the Greater
Good, which meant something different to the aging Dumbledore than it
did when he was seventeen. (See question 6.)
> 
> 4. Did Harry have a right to know about Dumbledore's past,
especially his friendship with GG? Harry admits he may only be mad
because DD didn't reveal it himself, but how would that knowledge have
helped Harry?

Carol responds:
A right to know? It's hard to say. How would it have helped Harry? He
wasn't curious about DD's past. It surprised him to see an
auburn-haired Dumbledore in the diary memory and again in the
Pensieve--a boy Dumbledore is probably beyond his comprehension until
he sees the photographs. He feels that he never got to know the real
Dumbledore, but that's partly a reaction to the contrasting responses
to DD's death that he's been hearing ever since he first read Elphias
Doge's tribute followed by Rita Skeeter's insinuating interview. But
what teacher confides in a student the deepest secrets of his
childhood and youth? It isn't just Grindelwald that DD's concealing;
it's Ariana. And, really, there's no reason for Harry to know about
her--at least until Rita starts accusing DD of imprisoning his Squib
sister, at which point Harry does need to know the truth. 
 
> 5. How much do you think Rita was stretching the truth in the part
of her book we read? It was obvious where she put in her own opinion,
but on the rest did you think she was telling it honestly, adorning
the truth a little, or stretching the truth beyond acceptable boundaries?

Carol responds:
She does present the evidence of the photograph, the letter, and the
unethically obtained testimony of Bathilda Bagshot and she does quote
other people. (We can decide for ourselves whether people who say of
Aberforth "he were a headcase" are reliable witnesses.) She does
inform us correctly that Aberforth broke Albus's nose at Ariana's
funeral (all this time, I just thought he was born with a crooked
nose!) and the detail from Bathilda of Albus sending Gellert messages
in the middle of the night rings true. So does Bathilda's view of
Gellert as a charming boy. I'll bet he was, more so than the young Tom
Riddle because he was inclined to laughter and intellectual conversation.

It's the speculations regarding Kendra, whom we later learn was
protecting her daughter, not imprisoning her, and the insinuations
that Ariana was a Squib of whom Albus was ashamed ("the first victim
of the Greater Good?") that go beyond acceptable boundaries and border
on sensationalism. (BTW, I thought the whole chapter, I mean Rita's
chapter, not JKR's) was compelling reading. I'd read the book if it
were real. But I'd read it critically, separating "fact" from
inference and insinuation. Really, it's not that different from real
biographies I've read, especially those intended to undermine the
reputation of respected figures, except for those Skeeterish asides to
Dumbledore's admirers, which I could have done without.)
> 
> 6. With regards to "For the Greater Good", Hermione said Dumbledore
changed. Did he? Though Dumbledore rejected Grindelwald's 
interpretation of that phrase, did Dumbledore reject his own
interpretation?

Carol responds:
Oho. We could start a whole thread with this question. Certainly, DD
rejected the Magic Is Might interpretation (I don't think that his
interest in Muggles, even down to Muggle sweets, was hypocrisy; I
think it was a reaction against his own earlier views). As for what he
now meant by it in his old age, I think it meant doing whatever was
necessary to save the WW from Voldemort, including sacrificing himself
and risking the lives of those who were willing and able to
fight--including Harry, who had to be prepared to confront Voldemort
because of the Prophecy and the Horcrux. But that doesn't mean that he
didn't love Harry, just that it was all the harder to prepare him,
just in case the drop of blood didn't mean what he thought it meant.
But he's still taking a utilitarian approach, IMO; the greatest good
for the greatest number and the good of society over the good of the
individual, which sounds callous until you turn it around: "What did I
care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were
slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now you were
alive, and well, and happy?" (OoP Am. ed. 839) sounds a lot worse, at
least to me. Snape's fears for Lily's safety amidst indifference to
Harry's and James's pales by comparison. Which is more important,
Harry's one life or "the lives that might be lost if [Dumbledore's]
plan failed? Which is more important, the person we love or the
greater good? That's Dumbledore's dilemma, and he knows the
consequences of choosing wrongly, having let the European WW suffer
for five long years beforetaking action against Grindelwald. (Good
thing for the WW that he never felt that way about Tom Riddle!)
 
> 7. Rita had her own speculation. What do you think happened to 
Ariana? Was it Albus's fault, as Aberforth contended when he broke his
nose, or was Albus taking the blame because he allowed the 
circumstances that led to her death to occur?

Carol responds:
We're jumping ahead a bit, but I'll state my opinion, any way. :-) JKR
has deliberately left that question unanswered, IMO. However,
Gellert's flight seems to indicate that, if wasn't responsible, he
suspected that he might be. Aberforth blames Albus, not necessarily
for casting the spell so much as for ignoring Ariana and placing his
friendship with Gellert and their intellectual discussions above the
welfare of his sister. And Albus fears that he may have killed her,
which indicates that he, like Gellert, was probably casting some
powerful spells (I don't think either of them cast an AK, however, or
they'd have known who did it. I rule out Aberforth, who was younger
and less accomplished. None of the three seems to consider the
possibility that he did it. (If Gellert knew that Aberforth had done
it, he would probably have stayed and accused him.) So I'd say there's
a seventy-five-percent chance that Gellert killed her (with a spell
intended for Aberforth), possibly a twenty-percent chance that Albus
did it 9with a spell intended for Aberforth, or, less likely,
Gellert), and only a five-percent chance (or less) that Aberforth did
it. But, yes, Albus was at fault for placing a friendship and his own
intellectual interests (even if they weren't plans for world
domination) above the welfare of the younger brother and sister for
whom he was responsible. Ariana's death was an accident, but it was a
preventable accident. If they were going to duel at all, they should
have made sure that she was safely out of the way.
> 
> 8. As Harry asked above: if Grindelwald hadn't fled, would
Dumbledore have changed his ways? Would Dumbledore have necessarily
chosen his brother over Gellert? Do you think Aberforth did something
that showed Albus the error of his ways, and what could that have been?

Carol responds:
It's really impossible to say. Since Albus so readily excused whatever
Gellert did that got him expelled, I think it would have taken
something as dramatic as the death of Ariana to change his mind, just
as it took putting Lily in danger to change Severus's and the
tormenting and near-death of Kreacher to change Regulus's. Albus was
clearly an ivory-tower intellectual more concerned with ideas than
people, and Muggles (despite his Muggle-born mother and Muggle
neighbors) were a mere abstraction. (The tormenting of his sister by
Muggle boys could not have helped to make them human in his eyes.) I
don't think that Gellert's flight was the catalyst; it was his own
irresponsible behavior that opened his eyes. And I don't think that
anything Aberforth did or said could have made any difference, either.
Just like Severus and Regulus, he had to live with the consequences of
his own mistake, and do what he could, after the fact, to remedy it,
whether that meant giving jobs to Squibs and werewolves or being kind
to House-Elves or passing bills for the rights of Muggle-borns in the
Wizengamot.
> 
> 9. This is the only place where we see Dumbledore interacting with
Grindelwald. Did you see enough, were there enough hints to indicate
that Dumbledore may have loved Grindelwald for more than just his 
mind? What about those five years it took DD to finally confront GG?
Did you think DD was gay and in love with GG after this chapter?

Carol:
it never occurred to me that he was gay and in love. It seemed to me
(and still does) very much the sort of intellectual friendship that
boys at Eton and Oxford used to form. Of course, Gellert's being
charming and handsome and merry would just add to the pleasure of
being in his company. The boys who followed Tom Riddle around probably
weren't gay; they were just glad to be in his company because he was
handsome and intelligent and talented (and descended from Slytherin).
No doubt Elphias Doge tagged along with Albus in the same way at
school (a kinder, gentler Wormtail). But in Gellert, in contrast to
Elphias or his own eccentric little brother, Aberforth, he found for
the first time an intellectual equal. Look at the content of the note
he sent Gellert in the night. Yes, he expresses happiness that chance
enabled them to meet--good coming out of bad, Albus thinks--but what's
important to him is their plans and ideas. And that impression is
reinforced by "King's Cross," where Dead!DD says: "You cannot imagine
how his ideas caught me, Harry, inflamed me. Muggles forced into
subservience. We wizards triumphant. Grindelwald and I, the glorious
young leaders of the revolution" (716). They sound like a pair of
young Bolsheviks--or fanatics of some sort, anyway. (Nazis if you
prefer, but the Nazis were neither the first nor the last to hold
similar views.)

> 10. OK, what's with Aberforth and the damn goats? And where is Mike
 Gray <Aberforth's Goat> when you need him?

Carol:
Erm, I'm really afraid of this one. I'll just say that Aberforth's
pub, minus the goats, reminds me of an ale house from the middle ages
in terms of cleanliness or the lack thereof, just as Hog's Head seems
to be simultaneously a nod to real inns with names like the Boar's
Head or the White (Blue) Boar, with a nod to the Hogsmeade/Hogwarts
hog/flying boar motif and a pun on hogshead (a large cask or barrel).
But goats? I think of Pan and satyrs and, well, I'd rather not go on,
except that I can't think of anything less Dionysian than Aberforth.
Maybe "scapegoat" or sacrificial goat has something to do with it?
> 
> 11.  Rita had a lot more to say in her book, stuff that Harry wasn't
that interested in. Was there anything in there that particularly 
interested you? Like the quotes from "Dogbreath" Doge, Enid Smeek, or
 Bathilda Bagshot, including how she got the quotes out of Batty 
(veritiserum)? Or the insinuations Rita made for the reason behind 
the "coffin-side brawl"?

Carol:
All of it. It was interesting to see Rita's considerable talents as a
biographer turned to something besides the latest angle on Harry. I
was especially interested in her use of Veritaserum (better than
Voldemort's forced Legilimency, but not by much). I doubt that Doge
was ever really referred to as "Dogbreath"--Rita was just being unkind
because he refused to talk to her. But Enid Smeek was mildly amusing
(Skeeter's use of such an illiterate and biased witness, especially
with regard to the less-than-scholarly Aberforth, was a bit ironic and
seemed to show that she was desperate for witnesses--reminded me of
her use of Slytherins in anti-Harry interviews during the TWT). But,
yes, I was interested in the whole story, and my reaction was wholly
different from Harry's--mild shock, curiosity, and wondering where the
truth lay--somewhere between Doge and Skeeter, but could Rita actually
be nearer than Doge? (As it turns out, I think she could.)

Admittedly, though, on a first reading, I was less interested in DD's
backstory than on rereading. I really wanted them to get on with the
Horcrux hunt (and Ron to return).

Carol, thanking the Elves for the very interesting discussion
questions and "Harry" for the unusual perspective for the summary