Truth or consequences

[Talisman]

Talisman: Oh, dear.  Now we have anti-attorney propaganda in the 
mix, too.  Tsk, tsk.  Well, there's nothing for it but to go on 
being the evil woman attorney who's trying to take away everyone's 
perfect daddy.

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> 
wrote:
>If DD is a liar, he can deceive us very easily about huge parts of
>the mystery, for which he is our single or main source. DD lying to
>us about many of the important things would go against the 5% - 95%
>rule I suggested above, and IMHO would make JKR a bad mystery 
writer.

Talisman:
I am bemused to hear that DD is your single, main, or even 95% 
source for "huge parts" of the HP series mystery.  If others are in 
the same boat, it's no wonder there is so much angst. 

As far as I am concerned, the whole tableau is played out before me, 
for my examination.  I explore every facet, and nobody gets a free 
pass.  Try it, and I think you'll find your reading more fruitful.

Neri:
 <snip> As I see it, the only way out of this dilemma without 
>developing a serious headache is simply assuming that DD always 
>tells us the truth.

Talisman:
Alas, DD never tells me anything.  I can only observe him telling 
things to other characters, and in that context, he most certainly 
does lie.

To repeat what I've noted so often before, there is no difference 
between omissive and comissive lying. Oh, and asking subordinates to 
lie for your purposes? That's culpable, too.  

Certainly there is proof sitting cold on the page that DD lies as it 
suits his purposes.  There will be more proofs coming, but there are 
many instances where we already have everything we can reasonably 
expect. 

Avoiding a treatise on the entire series (which must, perforce come 
in installments) or even the final debriefing in OoP (which warrants 
a longer post of its own) we are clearly shown DD's willingness to 
depart from the "truth," throughout Book 5.

I have a feeling this is part of why some people don't like the 
book.  I'm very encouraged to hear that Rowling expects some people 
to dislike Book 6, because I`m betting she`s referring to the same 
ones who are fussed now. (JKR Site/F.A.Q. /About the Book /"Do you 
Like Half Blood Prince?" )

For the nonce, let's just get on with a few of DD's deceptive 
escapades.

Early on, we get to see DD suborn perjury. (OoP pp 143-145 ) It is 
made plain in the text by Figg's hesitancies and inexactitudes, 
coupled with what we as readers have previously "experienced" of  
Dementors via the narrative, and confirmed by Harry's reaction, as 
well as that of Madame Bones (whom we are introduced to as a fair 
but competent judge).

Nonetheless, the "DD is our perfect Daddy" crowd went all out to 
defend Figg and insist that she really did see the Dementors.

Alas, along came Rowling who told us quite 
unambiguously: "Incidently, Arabella Figg never saw the Dementors 
that attacked Harry and Dudley, but she had enough magical 
knowledge to identify correctly the sensations they created in the 
alleyway." (JKR's Site/Extra Stuff /Misc./SQUIBS.)

Now I suppose the last resort argument contra is that DD didn't know 
that Figg didn't see the Dementors. His formidable knowledge of the 
WW, his penchant for employing squibs, and his advanced abilities in 
Legillimens, notwithstanding.  But, I hope you can see that this 
would be an inferior argument.

Moreover, this event "matches up" with characteristic "mirror 
symmetry" to the scene in DD's office where, with his approval, 
Kingsley prevents a witness for the Ministry (Marietta) from giving 
true testimony regarding DA activities. (OoP 615-16, 612 ) This 
structural completeness is further validation regarding the reading 
of the earlier Figg incident.

I don't believe any further evidence is necessary to show that DD 
suborns both perjury and witness repression in order to achieve his 
ends.  In the (highly)unlikely event that Rowling makes further 
reference to either of these events, it will be to point up another 
such occurrence of DD's  departures from truth. 

Bring on Books 6 & 7, I have no qualms whatsoever predicting that 
there will be no further explanation forthcoming that will change 
the character of these acts.

Again, DD instructs McGonagall "
Minerva, go and head her off--tell 
her ANY STORY--" ( OoP 474, my emphasis)  to prevent Umbridge from 
interrupting before the kids can be transported to Grimmauld Place. 

Any lame suggestion that McG might have been able to tell Umbridge a 
true "story," is both incredulous and beside the point.  The clear 
reading is that DD is quite satisfied that she should lie.  

To instruct a subordinate to lie on your behalf, is equivalent to 
lying for yourself.   

Of course DD also tells Harry to lie.  Back we go to DD's office 
where Harry is on the verge of admitting that he knows why he is 
being brought in front of Fudge, et al.  Harry clearly knew the DA 
meetings had been outlawed, and understood perfectly well that he 
had been busted by the Inquisitorial Squad.  We, the readers, know 
this as well.  

Therefore, when DD caught Harry's attention, and "shook his head a 
fraction of an inch to each side," (OoP 611) Harry understands, as 
we do, that DD has just instructed him to lie.  Harry changes his 
answer in mid-word: "Yeh--no."  In case he, or we the readers, have 
lingering doubts that DD wanted this result, Rowling then has DD 
communicate his approval via  "the tiniest of nods and the shadow of 
a wink." (id.)

Harry goes on blatantly lying to the leader of the British WW, in 
conformity with DD's direction. 

Fast forward: Marietta's testimony is suppressed and finally 
Umbridge produces the list of names entitled "Dumbledore's Army."

Now--in a final blow for those gymnastic enough to hang on to the 
undifferentiated distinctions of lying by ommission, lying by proxy, 
and lying in fine--DD lies flat out.

First, he agrees to confess that the group is his, not Harry's-- 
which is patently untrue. 

Then DD goes on to "admit" that he, himself, organized the DA.  
Again, the reader knows from their own observations that this is not 
true.  

Even if apologists want to give DD's statement a "secret" true 
meaning (which would not negate its status as a dishonest statement 
within the context in which it is given) they can only do so by 
admitting that DD has, in fact, organized the overarching events of 
Harry's fifth year, so as to induce the formation of the club. <veg>

The fibbery goes on:  "Tonight was supposed to be the first 
meeting," said Dumbledore, nodding.  "Merely to see whether they 
would be interested in joining me.  I see now that it was a mistake 
to invite Miss Edgecombe, of course." (OoP 618)

The reader knows from a plain reading of the text that all of these 
statements are unequivocally lies.

If you are hoping that some revelation will be made in either of the 
two remaining books that will change past events so as to make these 
statements true, I fear you are in for bitter disappointment.

Of course, I think DD did the right thing, if that makes you any 
happier.  But, he certainly did lie.

There is lots more, but it will have to be explored later.

Talisman, noting that Rowling catches DD in yet another dissemblance 
when (in reference to the  Atrium scene where Voldmort asks "You do 
not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?") our author allows: "Although 
Dumbledore gives a KIND of reason to Voldemort, it is not the REAL 
reason." (JKR Site/Rumors/Edinburgh interview, my emphasis)

In other words, it is Bullshit. 

Heck no, he's not trying to kill LV; he created the blighter.