The Seven Harrys (was Re: Dumbledore and other leaders WAS: Moody's death)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 182001

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:

> 
> Magpie:
> Why not? Why is it so important for the characters that they stay and 
> fight? Why not just apparate as soon as the DEs appeared to begin 
> with? The point is to get from one place to another. Why not use 
> their power to do that in the blink of an eye?

Pippin:
If everyone disapparated except the real Harry, the DE's would have known
which one was him. Harry was under orders not to apparate because it would
give him away through the trace. It turned out that the Ministry was not
as ready to arrest him as the Order feared. But they had no way of knowing
that. 


> Magpie:
 It makes perfect sense for Rowling as an author, but for 
> Dumbledore as leader it's ridiculous.
>

Pippin:

In a way, I agree.

 I think we are supposed to see Dumbledore, and Gryffindors in
general,  as a little too keen on sacrificing   for the greater good, 
and a little too arrogant about deciding which goods ought to be 
considered lesser. 

Aberforth says as much, doesn't he? 

Dumbledore expected some Order casualties, since he ordered Snape
not to give himself away to prevent them. Snape's mission and Harry's
life were the greater good.  And Moody seemed to think 
that if Mundungus  got himself killed for the Order, it would be the 
most worthwhile thing he ever did. But Moody and Dumbledore
were mistaken. 

If  Mundungus hadn't saved himself, the locket might never have been 
found, and Voldemort would have remained immortal. 

It's not that Dumbledore *wanted* some of his people to die. But he
was always just a little to ready to see suffering as a price that had to be 
paid, I think. He put his trust in sacrifice as if there was a sort of magic to 
it, which there indeed there is, but only if the victim *chooses*. 

Dumbledore had a tendency to take people's choices for granted, especially 
Gryffindors. 

I think this weakness in Gryffindor is inherent in their strength, and it's  
what JKR was talking about when she said that the Slytherins were needed 
for balance. If everyone was like the Gryffindors, they would all be
willing to bravely fight a losing battle, but no one would have gone to 
Hogsmeade for help.  


But... if everyone saw Slytherins as cowards and traitors, no one would 
have trusted Slughorn enough to come back with him. *That* , to return 
to the subject of an earlier thread, is why it's important that the townspeople 
and the parents of the students who stayed behind followed Slughorn. 

What was remarkable was not that the Slytherin students would follow 
Slughorn, but that other people did.

Pippin