Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 190899



> Pat: Alla, I know that you have strong anti-DD feelings :o) but I am really confused here. Can you show me canon that says that DD could have gotten Harry out? I was under the impression that since Harry's name came out of the Goblet, it was presumed to be a magical contract. The contract part I get - the other kids put their names in, which indicates their willingness to participate, no matter what the events were. Yes, I understand that Harry did not put his name in, that was Fake!Moody, but nobody knew that at this point in the story. DD specifically says -
> 
> GOF, Am. ed, p. 256
> 
> > <SNIPS quote, please read UPTHREAD>
> Barty Crouch Sr. and Ludo Bagman, the two *in charge,* are sitting behind DD at the staff table when DD makes this pronouncement. Neither one disputes anything that DD says. My conclusion from this is that there is no way for Harry to back out. Both Crouch Sr. and Bagman are there in the room afterward when DD questions Harry and McGonagall is anxious for DD to find a way to let Harry out of it. But again, no way is mentioned. I have to think that JKR means it when she says there is no way out for Harry - nothing DD or anyone else can do. He must participate. Canon seems very firm here. 

Alla:

Ah, but thats the whole point though, isn't it? Yes, nobody knows that Fake Moody put Harry's name in there, but doesn't it make the "magical contract" invalid by definition since one party did not *enter* into it?

No, of course there is no canon that Dumbledore could have gotten Harry out, of course not. My point is that Dumbledore should have tried IMO. He at the very least suspects false play, or should suspect it, since Goblet spit out four champions instead of three and he just lets it be? Dumbledore breaks rules left and right when it suits him and here he does not even attempt to do so? 

However, having said all that no, I do not think that Dumbledore deliberately gave Harry to Voldemort, if you look at my post, I said that not even as a joke I would speculate that he went along with Cedric's death, I do not think he knew that this is what would have happened . The rest of  the post *was* meant as a joke, or at least a part where Dumbledore wanted to deliver Harry to Voldemort was, I do think that he should have tried to get Harry out. Just look at how uncertain supposedly strong "magical debt" rules, who owes whom a life debt and who does not and Harry *never* entered into such a contract. If Dumbledore tried and failed, that would be a different story, but per Harry, Dumbledore let eleven year old take a stab at Voldemort, so I would not put it past him at all that he saw it as just another test and was secretly pleased that Harry will try it, even if he was worried.

But let me stress, because I really do not want to explain myself again on this point, I do not think Dumbledore predicted the outcome of the Tournament, that *was* a joke.


Pat:
You are free to dislike DD as a character. :o) But let's be careful to make sure
that canon backs us up when we're throwing stones at his character.


Alla:

For me canon shows us plenty of DD's actions that show him as darker character, however of course canon's intent is never going to back me up lol. It is my interpretation of canon actions, not that JKR would ever agree with any of those interpretations, but that's how it is coming out to me. JKR pegged the man as "epithome of goodness" after all, of course her intent was to portray radically different character from what I see. I realize that.



Pippin:
That's movie contamination...in the book it is clear that both Madame Maxime and
Karkaroff wanted Harry withdrawn and would have insisted on it if it was
possible. Since they are judges of the tournament, they are familiar with the
rules.

Alla:

Confused again. Granted I have not reread GoF for quite some time, but are you saying that in the book nobody is suggesting that Harry should be withdrawn? In other words, I am just not sure which part is movie contamination. 

Pippin:
More broadly, the only canon we have for what Dumbledore can and cannot do is
what Dumbledore says. If he's lying about that (though I do not remember any
instance where he says he cannot do something and it's later shown that he
could) then there's simply no basis for a canon-based discussion. The reason we
have that rule, after all, is to keep the discussion from degenerating into 
"did so" "did not" .

Alla:

Technically this is true and I have held this position for a very long time that facts that characters are giving us should be taken as truth unless they are shown to be a liars in canon, otherwise how could we debate facts?. However I do not see why Dumbledore should be granted such exception and that his words should not be held to some extra support, if we at one point or another doubted the facts from the mouths of many characters who were never ever shown to be liars in canon. Dumbledore is actually shown to be a liar by omission and more than once, like not telling Harry why Voldemort is after him, who sold his parents to Voldemort, etc, etc. I do not see why after lies by omission the statements of what he can and cannot do should be held as true automatically.