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

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 190848



.> > Alla:
> > 
> > Yes,and? Even events that lead to that famous gleam occurred with no help of Dumbledore, to say that this unequivocally means that Dumbledore wanted Harry to live, I do not know about that.
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> Yes, and. :)
> The gleam shows that Dumbledore considered it a triumph that Harry would be able to live after he'd "died" at the right moment. Does it mean that unequivocally? Well, AFAIK, you are the only person who's asked, so I'd say, yeah, it does. 
> 
> DD's contribution was everything he did to keep Harry alive up till  then, including allowing him to face dangers so that when Harry finally did meet a Voldemort who had recovered his full strength, he was able to defend himself and not freeze like he did when he faced Quirrell. 


Alla:

Okay, confused even more right now. Dumbledore's gleam in GoF means for you that Harry would be able to live after he'd "died" at the right moment? If so, I most certainly have to disagree, to me this gleam was and always will be the most frustrating, vague and open to so many interpretations moment. I suppose if you believe that Dumbledore really wanted Harry to live and not die, this is one of the interpretations, but I do not remember any definite pointers to that. Or are you talking  about different gleam? Are you talking about Dumbledore's happiness at the end?



.> > Alla:
> > 
> > I think there is plenty of canon when Harry before Kings Cross disagrees and dislikes Dumbledore's actions, but I most certainly agree with you, Harry after Kings cross as IMO Saintly figure does not think that Dumbledore's actions are evil and forgives him for everything. No argument from me here at all.
> 
> Pippin:
> ::has read Alla's post amending this::
> Um, I'm confused. King's Cross DD is an evil person who didn't repent, but got forgiven anyway because Harry was too saintly to see the evil in him, or DD is a saintly person whose evil has been forgiven because he repented of it and sinned no more? 

Alla:

I did not realize that I explained myself so badly, so let me try again. Yes, IMO King's Cross DD is an evil person who certainly got completely forgiven by Saintly Harry, who was too saintly to see evil in him. Did DD repent? I would say somewhat he did, but not  in all of his crimes, and actually in the least significant  one. I mean he repented of course in the crimes of his youth, but no, I do not consider his apology to Harry to be true apology at all. I actually remember well being so happy initially when I read that apology for the first time and then thinking oh wait, he is still not understanding what he  did wrong or does not want to say it.


> 
>   
> > Alla:
> > 
> > I certainly hope that there are values that Harry has that are different from Dumbledore, like I doubt it is in Harry to become a God of WW and wanting to decide people's fate the way Dumbledore did, I hope Harry will be content to be left alone and let people exercise their free will and not manipulate them so mercilessly. But again I definitely agree that there are a lot of values they have in common.
> 
> Pippin:
> So, um, ....if DD intervenes, he's playing god, and if he doesn't intervene, he's letting evil go on when he could have stopped it. Just what is it that you think he should have done and how should he have known that it was okay to do it? It seems to me Harry will intervene when it is an emergency and he thinks he can influence events for good, and that is just what Dumbledore did.

Alla:

I do not see  what the confusion is actually. I do not want him to MANIPULATE people's lives, no matter what the reason is. However when he already started doing wrong (IMO) to Harry by placing him with Dursleys, he IMO owed Harry a duty of interfering and keep Dursleys from abusing him. In other words (and as always a disclaimer, I do not want a different story, just speculating what I would have wanted to happen if I think of characters as "real people"), I would have been quite happy if he kept his hands OFF Harry as a kid, but once he put his hands on him and took him under his erm patronage, you better believe I want him to stop abuse from going on.

And I wanted him to fight Voldemort of course, but fight and manipulate people really could be two separate things sometimes. I thought he had no right to treat the fight as his personal agenda, and actually had to involve other people. Does this clarify what I think?


Pippin:
>  Harry has grown to be a more honest person than Dumbledore ever was-- for one thing he's discovered that he's not that good a liar. But he still trusts the earthly Dumbledore, or what's left of him, because he asks the portrait if he did the right thing about the Resurrection Stone. It's not that he's still  Dumbledore's man, IMO.  But now he's Dumbledore's friend. 

Alla:

I almost cried when I remember of this moment, I was DYING to hear Harry that he is his own man, but no, he just as poor pathetic Snape has to consult Dumbledore's opinion and hear  his approval. I only hope taking care of his family helped him to become his own man.


Pippin:
> I agree that it would have been a fine thing if the WW had united behind DD or Harry and fought Voldemort together from the start. But we're shown that they  couldn't. Despite the Hat (or maybe because of it) they didn't have a culture of putting their differences aside for the common interest. They couldn't even agree that they *had* a common interest, so every time they tried  to unite they were betrayed, or else they shut out the very people who could have helped them. 

Alla:

No, I do not think we are showed that, I mean, we had been shown that it is not easy, but Battle of Hoggwarts IMO showed that they are perfectly capable of uniting if only given a chance.


Pippin:
> What's worse, Grindelwald (and DD, alas!)  had poisoned the whole concept with  that hypocritical slogan about the greater good. <SNIP>

Alla:

Yes.