Joining the posting dots (was Re: Manifesto?)

[Jen Reese]

> Jo:
> <snip>
> > I leave until last of course the strongest contender, 
> > Dumbledore: understanding, educating, supportive, caring,
> > talented, respected, powerful, wise. Are we to believe then that
> > Harry's search for a father will bring us right back to the 
> > beginning. The king is dead, long live the king!
 
> Anne:
> Actually, I don't think so.  Well, in a way, yes, in that
> Dumbledore will do his best by Harry as he attempts to bring about
> the downfall of Voldemort.  But if Harry comes right back to the
> beginning, I think he will find that his father dies again.  I'm
> betting Dumbledore doesn't literally die, but that Harry finds DD
> can not actually give him all he needs to vanquish Voldemort.  The
> son grows up and leaves the nest, and has to make his own way in
> the world.

Jen: I can't see Dumbledore as a contender for the father role 
because of the construction of their relationship. Unlike Arthur or 
Lupin, whom Harry has grown to know and trust gradually, there's a 
limit to how well or how naturally Harry can grow in a relationship 
with DD. Some people call DD's distance neglect or the like, but I 
view it as a necessary function of his role as the one who heard the 
prophecy.

He cannot take the same liberty Arthur or Lupin can to chit-chat 
with Harry, take him into his home, or share personal thoughts and 
feelings; he's not parenting a child in other words. 

The best description I've read of his role with Harry is master and 
apprentice. Dumbledore is there to observe, to offer advice, to 
answer questions (or not) when asked. This form of relationship 
precludes familial intimacy out of necessity, although there is the 
closeness shared of being in an endeavor together that no one else 
can ever completely understand. No one else heard the prophecy and 
attempted to shape this boy's life, and no one else is prophecy boy. 
Their bond is unique.

> Jo:
> > Does JKR really want us to accept that there is 
> > nothing wrong with benign dictatorship as long as the right
> > dictator rules? At the conclusion will Harry inherit DD's 
> >(invisible) mantle and lead the world forward ever improving but
> > fundamentally unchanged? 

Jen: I think you're referring to Plato's idea of the Philosopher 
King or something similar? That a 'divinely' inspired ruler (so to 
speak) has more power than an ineffective ruler elected by the 
people. And can't be ousted from his position as he's not elected.

Even so, if Dumbledore is supposed to be a benign dictator he's done 
a very poor job. He's managed to assemble a motley crew of WW 
outcasts and idealists who, if OOTP is any indication, are hampered 
by personal interest over Order ideals. In the first war there is 
every indication DD & Co. were on the losing side and convincing 
only a handful of witches/wizards to support the cause.

Perhaps Voldemort fears him, and Fudge thinks he's out to get his 
job, but those views don't seem to actually stop either one of those 
guys from getting on with business. And Lucius has no qualms about 
undermining DD at every turn.

Rather than benign dictator, I see one man trying to make a 
difference in a very unusual world where rules & laws are open to 
interpretation for the most part. Dumbledore's opinions and his 
quest carry very little weight in the wider wizarding world. And the 
irony is, most of the people and creatures he's convinced of his 
cause are too independent to blindly follow his lead!

Jen