Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 190835




> Alla:
> >
> > Yes, I am familiar with all these quotes, but that only makes me
> > strongly disagree with JKR, that's all. 
> 
> Dorothy:
>   I understand your feelings, but if you disagree with JKR, and she wrote the books, then there is obvious bias against the whole thing.  Yes?


Alla:

Well, no there is myself reading the character of Dumbledore not as writer intending me to read it. :) That means that writer failed to make me follow her intent, despite the fact that I see what she attempted clearly.  There are a lot of other things and characters for me to like in these books besides Albus Dumbledore even if JKR admitted that he is her mouth piece.

Bookcrrazzzzy:
People can certainly like or dislike characters and respond to the books in
ways that JKR did not intend, but I think it is taking things a bit far to
say that readers' reactions are all valid. JKR knows the back story,
essential character and motivations of the people in her books far more
deeply than any of the readers and those things are facts rather than
opinions. Readers can and do have personal biases, assumptions,
misunderstandings, etc. that lead them to invalid conclusions.

Alla:

As long as readers' conclusions have canon support they are valid IMO, even if those are not what JKR intended. For example, there is canon support for Dumbledore being able to force Dursleys to do what he wanted VERY fast and very effectively, there is also canon support that the whole Order could have easily came out and told Dursleys to stop abusing Harry OR ELSE. Because that is indeed what happened in HBP, there was no more abuse, wasn't it? Now,  some readers (myself) question why the heck Dumbledore and his Order did not stop the abuse earlier.  JKR may have wanted to portray a picture that Dumbledore could not have done anything  to stop the abuse, because he wanted to protect Harry's life (or protect him till he needs to die), but she in my view failed, because she was inconsistent and when plot needs dictated showed that abuse could have easily been stopped. So, no, I do not feel that she convinced me that Harry's sufferings for eleven years  could not have been avoided to save his life. Why did not Dumbledore threaten them before? And the list can go on and on. I did not misunderstand JKR, I can see what picture she tried to portray with Dumbledore and Harry, but for me she failed in that aspect. If the reader is not convinced, the intent exists only in writer's mind. For other reader who was convinced, such intent exists on page.

Bookcrazzy:
Also, the information that DD had regarding the Horcruxes was extremely
dangerous knowledge. To tell others was to put them at considerable risk as
well as risk that Voldemort would find out too soon. He didn't like knowing
those things himself and considered it to be a great burden and thus did not
want to burden others with it unnecessarily.

Alla:

Except that it looks absurd to me when he does not consider it extremely dangerous knowledge for three kids/teenagers and sends them on the merry Quest when members of the Order could have helped and Dumbedore himself admits that his mistakes are graver than others.

Nikkalmati

JKR wrote the books and sent them out into the world, yes. That does not
insulate them from fair literary criticism. (I would not consider it fair to
criticise them because they deal with witchcraft, or because they contain
characters derived from mythology and are therefore not "original", for
example). They also have to stand on their own. She cannot revise them now. 
What she did may not be what she intended. We know she was surprised and
appalled that people actually liked Draco and even Snape, but the readers'
reactions are valid even if she did not expect them

Alla:

I agree as long as there is some support in the books for interpretation, writer may be as surprised as she wants to be, but whatever is on the page has to stand on its own, I mean I  LOVE speculating, and will take her words if I think it has support in canon, but yeah, some of the stuff readers interpret may be as far from what she intended as possible.
Several writers seemed to be surprised that way, that readers saw in their books what they did not intend to be there, well, all I can tell them is to write more convincingly for those readers next time.


Pippin:
The only thing Petunia wanted from the magical world was to be left alone --
what else could Dumbledore offer her to induce her to take Harry except a
promise that, except in case of emergencies, no witch or wizard would enter her
home without permission from her? It's not speculation that in every case but
one, permission had to be given before a fully-qualified wizard could enter the
house. The exception is OOP, where I think we can agree Harry's deterioration is
reaching an alarming state, ie, an emergency exists.

Harry supposes the Dursleys would be tempted by wizard gold, but as we see
Petunia won't accept so much as a glass of mead from Dumbledore. She's had far
too much experience with pockets full of frogspawn and teacups turning into rats
to accept anything from a wizard no matter how appealing it might appear.

Alla:

My point always was that she *listened* to Dumbledore, Pippin. She listened and nothing can convince me that she would not have listened the very same way if say in Chamber of Secrets Dumbledore did not show up and told her not to starve Harry in that room. If JKR wanted me to believe that nobody could come too help Harry, nobody should have showed up IMO when plot needs so demanded and make Dursleys stop the abuse.

Alla:
<snip>
It is because I consider him a hypocritical manipulator, who would IMO
sacrifice anybody's life and happiness to achieve his goals. Even if the goal is
noble, as in to fight against Voldemort, but the way he did it, makes him really
not that much better than Voldemort in my eyes.

Pippin:
I don't know about JKR's ethics, but IMO, you are harder on Dumbledore than
Jewish ethics would be. In Jewish law, any commandment may be broken except
those against murder, idolatry, and sexual crimes, in order to save a life. 
And if it is done to stop someone who is pursuing another to take their life, 
the sacrifice of life is not only permitted but required.

Harry and Dumbledore agree that Dumbledore never killed unless he had to, which
would mean he did not commit murder.

Dumbledore never idolized anyone after Grindelwald, and fanfic aside, I think it
is safe to assume he didn't commit any sexual crimes either.

Dumbledore admits to selfishness, but he only admires himself when his plans
work, and when his plans work they save lives.


Alla:

I am not a religious Jew, Pippin. So yes, maybe I am harder on him than what Jewish law requires. I brought up the child naming custom because this is what I grew up with and had been taught and this was the  canon occurrence we discussed, but if Jewish Law would justify what Dumbledore planned to do to Harry, I most definitely do not agree with it.
Oh also Yahoo!Mort ate my post to you, so let me just say that I do not think it is clear at all that Dumbledore did not want Harry to die. I mean he seems happy that Harry is alive, but I do not see much evidence that it occurred through his help.