Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 186913


> > Magpie:
> > And why does Riddle want to leave his past behind? Because it helps him to be Voldemort. So why's it obviously a bad thing to make that difficult? 
> 
> Pippin:
> Because Dumbledore believes the things that people want most are the worst for them. Dumbledore's strategy often consists of encouraging Voldemort to go after things that won't really help him reach his goals, or will at least require stealth, and therefore not  acts of mass murder, to achieve. 

Magpie:
Very true to a point (and definitely a method we've seen Dumbledore use), but when what somebody wants is to terrorize and hurt that many people there's something to be said for other plans than letting him takeover so he'll learn it won't really make him happy. Sometimes throwing a monkey wrench into things can be helpful too. But Dumbledore thinking along these lines *does* actually also fit the way I see him behaving. He's treating it like a battle of wills b/w him and Voldemort--it kind of reminds me of Draco 6th year just a little.

 
> Magpie:
> He's already terrorizing everyone. We know Voldemort doesn't want to be ordinary. He doesn't want anyone to think of him as ordinary or human. That might make them feel less helpless.
> 
> Pippin:
> You seem to be conflating two different parts of Voldemort's career. He did not want to be openly known as a terrorist when he first returned. 

Magpie:
I was talking about the first war. 

In the second war Dumbledore actually did go with the "monkey wrench" idea by saying that he'd returned when Voldemort himself didn't want it known.

> > Magpie:
> > They'd be a lot safer if it was common knowledge, then. Killing them isn't going to kill the secret anymore. Shouldn't there be skads of them?
> 
> Pippin:
> As you say, Voldemort thinks in symbols. He wouldn't care about killing the secret logically, he'd want to kill it symbolically. There are skads of Muggles and Muggleborns too, but does anyone doubt that Voldemort's eventual purpose was to kill them all?

Magpie:
No, he wouldn't think logically. But I was countering the idea that people knowing that Voldemort=Tom Riddle=Voldemort murdering everyone he knew because that would be the most logical, efficient response. I don't think it necessarily is the most logical or efficient response.


> > Pippin:
> > > 
> > > But Dumbledore believes that Voldemort's weaknesses lie in those parts of his history and his knowledge of magic which he has always discounted. 
> > 
> > Magpie:
> > Not with any specifics until quite late in the game, iirc. Without the Horcrux knowledge from CoS is there a plan to ferret out information like this for a real reason? 
> 
> Pippin:
> The knowledge from CoS was that Voldemort had to have made *more than one* horcrux. Dumbledore would have suspected the existence of one horcrux at least since Godric's Hollow. And before that, he was trying to prove to the WW that Voldemort was a murderer. I assumed that was why he had collected the memories of  Morfin and Hokey.

Magpie:
So when the guy's defeated the first time he knows he's got a Horcrux and he has all his information but still hasn't found an object he thinks is a Horcrux. He didn't have to prove to anybody that Voldemort was a murderer. Everyone knew he was a murderer (and had over a decade of safety in front of them). Trying to get Morfin and Hokey out of jail was a side issue. 
 
> Magpie:
> And even if he had developed this hobby earlier, why not let some other people in on it?
> 
> Pippin:
> He did! He attempted to convince people that Riddle/Voldemort had been responsible for the Riddle murders and for the death of Hepzibah, but he didn't get anywhere. 

Magpie:
I was confused by this at first as I couldn't remember when Dumbledore went public with this info. Now I see what you meant is that Dumbledore tried to get them exonerated. Yes, he did-but that's a different context than what I'm talking about. 

Though it does rather undermine the idea that Dumbledore is afraid of Voldemort knowing that he's investigating. Wouldn't getting those two freed by a bigger signal than anything that he was hot on Voldemort's trail? His behavior still seems to fit the psychological reading, where Dumbledore is keeping everything secret because he just compulsively does that and comes up with reasons for it, but when faced with somebody in jail etc. he'll try to get them out even though it would be a red flat to LV that he knew what he'd done.

 
> Magpie:
>  Frankly, it's a bit of a cheat to say nobody studied the guy and wrote an indepth biography in Harry's childhood anyway.
> 
> Pippin:
> I'm sure Voldemort invented a past that was more to his liking, and that's what's in books like The Rise and Fall of the Dark Arts.

Magpie:
Which is why I meant I was surprised somebody didn't write an actual biography. 

> Pippin:
> It's true that he has a deep psychological need to keep secrets, but he also has a deep psychological need to see himself as reasonable and good. As I said, he did try to reveal what he'd found out in order to free Morfin and Hokey. 

Magpie:
Yes, he said he did try to free them, but that's not what I meant.

Dumbledore does of course want to see himself as reasonable and good. But since he also sees himself as smarter than anyone and doesn't have any equal confidantes he relies on his own self to tell him when he's being those things. And sometimes he's just wrong. I see that as motivated throughout the entire series. He isolates himself so he winds up encouraging his own obsessions and weaknesses (all the while thinking he's avoiding them).

Pippin:
> 
> It's not a fan invention that people who knew things about Voldemort  thought they'd be in danger if they talked about it. It's canon. And there are at least two whom Dumbledore would be sorry to lose: Slughorn and Hagrid. 

Magpie:
Yes, and I have never meant to imply that there was no danger in this. I do see the danger. I just don't see Dumbledore muzzled by that. I think his secrecy is far more influenced by himself.

Alla:

You know, I thought about it and I realized that this motivation alone while as you said pretty well established in canon is just too ugly for me if that makes sense? And yes, you are probably completely right and I am just deluding myself, but I still want to believe that there is SOME sort of goodness left in Dumbledore. And to me to keep such secret just for the sake of keeping secrets while so much good could have been accomplished by NOT keeping this secret IMO
is just ugly.

Magpie:
I doubt he actually thought if it that way. He just does this so often! DH has him leaving instructions for people via symbols in fairy tale books.

Alla:
I mean, again I totally agree that it is established in canon, his need to keep secrets, but my thing is Dumbledore is not really a one trick pony, no? 

Magpie:
Well, most people in canon pretty do have their one thing they do--or at least their big stumbling block. Since JKR wants him to do this kind of stuff and sees him as the epitome of goodness I doubt she thinks it's ugly either. Maybe she shares his feeling that he needs to know everything. Nobody in canon ever questions it or suggests he's struggled with it.

Alla:
I mean, not always at least lol. I am just saying why can't he have two or three or more motivations? 

Magpie:
He does. He would never say to himself "I'm going to keep this secret because I love secrets!" He'd have all these reasons if anybody asked. He'd probably defend them really well, and never think of himself as anybody who wouldn't do the right thing for all the right reasons.

And it's not like he *isn't* working hard to find this secret info and everything, or in the end doesn't use it to bring down Voldemort. It's like Voldemort. If you asked him why he made up that stupid plan in GoF he would never see anything stupid in it. It would truly seem to him to be the only plan that truly got him what he wanted. If somebody has any questions about the logic of it he'd get angry and think they were stupid and didn't see the obvious problems with it.

Likewise, I'm sure if anybody said to Dumbledore "Why don't you ever call him Tom Riddle in the press? Why not write his biography?" Dumbledore would look grim and say "That would put many people in danger." And he'd totally believe it. I don't think he'd much be able to entertain a more open plan. It would truly seem dangerous and foolhardy to him, I'd think. He thinks it's terribly important that Harry and his two friends be the only ones who know how to bring down Voldemort and do it themselves.

We all seem to agree he's got a thing with keeping secrets. We all also probably agree that he's smart and always has a good "practical" reason for keeping them. It's just the former always seems to me to be influencing the latter, even when we can see things would have been easier if he (or others) had come clean. He tries to make the best choice, but he's always limited by his usual limitations.

It's like Snape with Harry's Occlumency. Snape really does want Harry to learn Occlumency, and would probably say he did everything he could to teach him and being what many people would describe as "nice to him" would be a terrible idea that wouldn't work etc.

-m