Sirius and Snape parallels again - Sirius' death (LONG) Posted by: "jkoney65"

[jkoney65]

No: HPFGUIDX 185127

> Julie:
> My problem is that Dumbledore is supposed to be the greatest--and  
presumably
> the wisest--wizard alive. He's supposed to be perceptive about 
people. He  is 
> a
> Legilimens (not sure if this is directly stated, but one presumes 
he has  
> some 
> talent at it). Yet we are supposed to believe he is truly unable 
to  
> recognize the
> dangers the string of idiots who teach DADA each year bring to 
Hogwarts  and
> to Harry (the personality-altered Quirrel, the conceited and inept  
Lockhart, 
> the
> wishy-washy Lupin--sorry but he was protecting a Sirius he still 
had reason  
> to
> believe was a killer, the impersonator of one of his closest 
friends--who  
> also 
> happened to be mad!). And if it seems unbelievable that Dumbledore  
wouldn't
> see something amiss and take some proactive steps to protect 
Harry,  then we
> have to assume that he is being deliberately obtuse and oblivious, 
willing  
> if not
> actually pressuring Harry to face all these dangers on his own.   
(And I do 
> know
> Dumbledore sometimes does step in to help--Fawkes, at the MoM--but 
even  he
> isn't always able to do so--Shrieking Shack, the Graveyard.)
>  
> Of the two, I have great difficulty seeing Dumbledore as completely 
stupid  or
> unaware. It's unbelievable to me that he is really unable to figure 
out  that 
> his
> friend Moody isn't his friend Moody. What is more believable for a 
man of 
> Dumbledore's age, experience and intelligence is that he doesn't 
WANT  to 
> look too closely, that he deliberately ignores the signs, that he 
prefers  to 
> take a position of non-interference and allow matters to "take 
their  course."
> I can even understand the concept of allowing Harry to face these 
growing 
> dangers--accepting the chance that if he is incapable or not the 
chosen  boy
> of the prophecy, then he'll die early and allow Dumbledore time to  
come up
> with another plan to save the Wizarding World--against the hope 
that  Harry
> will learn via "trial by fire" and will ultimately  defeat 
Voldemort. 
> Dumbledore's
> own words about the unexpected emergence of concern for  Harry's 
welfare
> complicating his plans supports this scenario. He planned to be a  
distant,
> uncaring general, sacrificing his individual soldiers in battle so  
that he 
> might
> ultimately win the war. It just didn't work out that way with 
Harry, though  
> it
> did with everyone else including Snape, Sirius, Lupin, and the 
occasional  
> student
> in the crossfire (Cedric). I'm sure Dumbledore felt a moment of  
sadness at 
> each
> of their deaths, but he deliberately avoided caring too much about 
any of 
> them--except Harry, inadvertently--as to avoid any personal 
anguish  over 
> their
> deaths.
>  
> In some ways, I think Dumbledore was quite a coward. And perhaps 
what he 
> said to Snape ("Sometimes I think we sort too early") applied as 
much to 
> himself as anyone. Methinks he should have been a Ravenclaw (meaning
> no disrespect to that house, as cold, clear logic is an asset in a 
war  
> leader).

jkoney
Dumbledore did suspect something wasn't right with Quirrel. He told 
Snape to keep an eye on him. I believe it is more than possible that 
Voldemort was able to protect Quirrel from any attempt at legilimens. 
If Dumbledore didn't try, I would bet that Snape tried, especially 
while he was confronting him.

Everyone including Dumbledore knew Lockhart was a fraud. 
Unfortunately, he had no other choices to fill the position. So he 
ended up being stuck with a fraud in the position.

I think he recruited Lupin because he knew he would protect Harry 
from Sirius, the criminal. Apparently, Lupin did keep a look out for 
Sirius once he had the map. That is how he found them in the shack.

As for Moody, I also have a tough time with this. Moody was 
considered "mad" so the behavior of the imposter didn't seem that 
odd. There was also a tournament with other schools keeping 
Dumbledore busy.

What Dumbledore is fighting is a guerrilla war. You can't expect to 
fight any type of war without casualties. That doesn't mean the ones 
in charge don't care, they just can't let themselves be distracted 
from the ultimate goal of winning. Blaming him for people dying in 
war is unfair to him. If it was up to him there wouldn't be a war, 
but Voldemort won't let that happen.

Dumbledore a coward? How so? He came charging into the MoM and 
captured the DE's. He went after Harry and faced Voldemort in a duel, 
knowing he couldn't destroy Voldemort and win the war. As a leader he 
organized a resistance to Voldemort, when he knew the ministry was 
incapable of stopping him. He faced his own mortality quite well, 
asking Snape to kill him to further the plans for defeating Voldemort.


> 
> 
> jkoney
> DD took Harry away to protect him. Sirius  was the number one 
suspect. 
> He was supposed to be the secret keeper.  Getting Harry away from 
him 
> is logical.
> 
> The charges got cleared  because Voldemort and his people were 
seen, 
> some where captured and Sirius  was fighting against them. Of 
course 
> the minister is going to do  everything possible to put the best 
spin 
> on it and get back in DD &  Harry's good graces.
> 
> I still have a problem with the great manipulation  that DD did to 
> Harry. DD may have set the pieces up, but Harry made the  final 
> decision
> 
> Julie:
> That is the method of manipulation, isn't it? Setting the pieces  
up in the 
> most
> attractive way, appealing to your subject's weaknesses (Harry's 
desire to  
> save
> people, Snape's desire to atone to Lily, etc), and then watching 
while they 
> succumb to your bait. They don't HAVE to do it, you aren't FORCING  
them, 
> but if it is deliberate and in service to your ultimate goal, then 
it is  
> manipulation, 
> whether it is for good or bad. And no one was better at it than 
Dumbledore, 
> though almost every other character had their moments ("The way you 
get  into 
> the Whomping Willow is..."). 
>  
> Julie 
>

jkoney
I guess we are disagreeing on the term manipulation. I don't believe 
that you can make me do something I already want to do. You can try 
to use it to your benefit but to me that is different than outright 
manipulation. To me, that would be you convincing me to do something 
I don't already want to do.

There are always people willing to fight and die for a cause. That 
doesn't make the leaders manipulative if they send them out to fight.

JMO
jkoney