What HP Character Scares You Most?

[nikkalmati]

No: HPFGUIDX 191911



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat4001" <zarleycat at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
>> >
> > 
>Mirianne
 
> I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but afer reading the entire series, Dumbledore has creeped me out. Certainly I can see why Umbridge or any of the "bad guys" would send a chill up people's spines, but they're supposed to do that. I've come away from the series as seeing Dumbledore as a puppet master - controlling Harry's early life, isolating himself, supremely confident in his own wisdom, not sharing important information with his allies, setting up puzzles to be solved and secrets to be ferreted out, rather than telling people everything he knows (what was the point of the Order??? Follow anything DD says without question?))
> 
> And conveniently being brought back into the story to continue the wise, old mentor act even after death. For someone who was held in such wide regard in the Wizard world, who could have asked for and been given any position he wanted after the first war with Voldemort, doesn't it seem odd that he wouldn't have gone to Azkaban to ask Sirius what the hell happened with the Potters?  But, why bother, since now he could control Harry's childhood, without any interference from a potentially pesky godfather?  Better to control everything he could and eliminate any potential obstacles.  
> 
> The bad guys are supposed to be bad. It's comfortable, and even pleasurable in a weird way, to be disturbed by them.  It's much more unsettling to find the chief good guy, the leader of the forces of light, to be morally suspect.

>
Nikkalmati

As the story unfolded the number of readers disturbed by DD's character increased, i suspect.  I am not talking about decisions that could be attributed to "in war, generals have to make hard choices" kind of decisions, or indications of weakness of character or even childhood mistakes, but more sinister types of decisions.   I will list some.  1. Some were disturbed by his leaving Harry at the Dursleys' or failing to check up on him to be sure he was all right.  2.  As far as we can tell Sirius Black was never punished for attempting to sic Remus on Snape.  There is an air of injustice in sweeping the whole incident under the rug even though Snape could have been bitten and Remus would have been expelled or worse.  In addition, through an inquiry the fact that the Mauraders were unregistered antimagi might have come out.  3. He failed to question Sirius after the Potters' deaths to be sure he was guilty.   He abandoned Sirius to the "legal" system. 4.  When Snape, a boy just out of achool and clearly distraught and terrified, came to meet DD to ask him to protect Lily,  DD took the opportunity to extract from Snape a promise of obedience in return for an action (protecting his own order members), which DD was obliged to do anyway.  5.  When Lily died and Snape was again distraught, DD extracted another promise from Snape which amounted to an oath to follow DD's orders in order to protect Harry.  6.  DD didn't tell Snape that Harry would have to die by LV's hand whenever it was he first knew it, but let Snape continue thinking he was acting to protect Lily's son. 7. DD allowed Draco to roam freely at the school after he had nearly killed two students in his attempt to kill DD. Add to this the strange fact (to me) that he and his brother apparently just let Snape go after discovering him listening to the prophacy, leading some to speculate that DD wanted LV to hear it; the speculation by Harry that DD arranged for him to go after the Sorcerer's stone in his first year; his inability to resist putting on the ring with the Resurection Stone in it; and altogether you have a very dubious character, in some people's eyes.

Nikkalmati