Let’s be clear: I’m quite willing to be wrong in my defense on Dumbledore, if Rowling writes him a different way than I’ve imagined; but until Book 7 is published, I’m not going down without a fight, and I think there remains plenty of evidence for his goodness (not flawlessness, of course, but goodness). But in interest of of fairness, I want to take up one of the more plausible Manipulative!Dumbledore theories: The theory that when Albus heard Trelawney make the prophecy, he was the one to act on it first, not Voldemort. It works something like this:
In 1980, Albus, who has the defeat of Grindelwald under his belt, has been trying, unsuccessfully, to bring down Voldemort. Obviously, he’s not getting much help from the bungling Ministry of Magic, and after all these years of terror, he’s ready to do whatever it takes to finish the Dark Lord off and stop him killing all these innocent people.
On the night he visited Trelawney to interview her for the Divination position, he hears the prophecy – and sees in that prophecy an opportunity to bait Voldemort, force him to make a big mistake, maybe draw him out, and destroy him – or at least create the weapon who can. To that end, Dumbledore himself leaks the first part of the prophecy, most likely through Snape, who was already on Dumbledore’s side, working as double agent, at the time. We can obviously establish his presence that night with both Albus and Sybill as witnesses. But there is that kind of funny glitch in the two stories about how much Snape heard. And Aberforth’s being the bartender and all makes the scene a little suspect.
Now that Albus has been presented this opportunity, perhaps he can make the prophecy happen, i.e., have a hand in creating the “one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord.” Or maybe he thought he could keep a close watch on the Potters and Longbottoms, draw Voldemort out at the births of Harry or Neville, and ambush him in his attempt to kill the baby.
There are a lot of strengths to this theory. In the first place, it gives us a much more palatable view of Dumbledore than “Evil” or inherently “Manipulative,” one that might even fit Rowling’s description of him as the “epitome of goodness.” He’s still a great man; but he made a gigantic mistake out of desperation that led to a long series of necessary actions that Dumbledore otherwise would never have taken. Or, as Joyce Odell puts it:
Turning loose a Prophecy was one of the biggest mistakes that Dumbldore ever made in his life. It locked him into a course of action which was out of character, and at which he did not excell. The gamble seems to be paying off, but the price has been way too high. He trapped himself every bit as much as he trapped Tom Riddle. (Loyaulte Me Lie)
[Note: Rowling has recently abolished any possibility of what constitutes a significant portion of Joyce Odell's theory, namely, that Dumbledore faked his death, and is still alive. This does not automatically negate the "prophecy plan" portion of the theory, which is able to stand without the "faked death" theory, in my opinion.]
This theory has a lot of strengths as well as some canon evidence. Let’s take a look at just some of the mysteries it makes sense of, in no particular order:
Dumbledore’s trust in Snape: If you’re not a “Good Snape” advocate, you hate this theory. But if Snape were in league with Dumbledore, this explains, far better than the “remorse over the Potters’ death” story, why Dumbledore trusts him – in fact, in adds to the “remorse” story, by making it the biggest regret of their whole plan that the Potters ended up dead.
It also explains how Snape got a teaching job so soon after his repentance. It seems even Albus should know better than that.
Dumbledore’s “plan” talk in Order (ch. 37): Just what was that all about, anyway? And linked to this, don’t we learn in that very same chapter (“The Lost Prophecy”) that Dumbledore would be willing to sacrifice lots of nameless and faceless people in order to protect Harry’s happiness? And isn’t that exactly what he did if he took a chance on the prophecy – put lots of nameless and faceless people at risk?
Dumbledore’s favoritism of Harry: Nothing like the guilt of orchestrating the death of a kid’s parents to make you want to treat the kid extra special.
Dumbledore’s reluctance to tell Harry the whole story: If this is the real story, who can blame Albus for not being all too quick to spill it to Harry?
Dumbledore’s lie: The man who claims not to lie (PS/SS), and that “the truth is generally preferable to lies” (GOF), most definitely lied to the Ministry about “Dumbledore’s Army” (OP). Maybe the “old coot” isn’t as honest as we thought, and maybe he is capable of lying when he thinks the cause worthy enough.
The Prophecy Problem: It is, indeed, one potential solution for the two odd accounts of the prophecy overheard.
There are more, but let’s move on for now; you get the idea that some interesting and important plot points can be tied together with this theory.
There’s a lot that needs to be explained. The “Prophecy Plan” (I’ll call it that for the remainder of the essay) fills in a lot of holes, and it may be a fairly good explanation. After all, there are a lot of links to Greek mythology in these novels, and Greek tragedies almost always centered around somebody fumbling a prophecy.
Before we get all breathless with excitement about this theory, though, we need to take a serious – I mean good, hard, serious – look at the conclusions to which it leads. Follow me now on a trip through Hogwarts history, 1992-1997. Let’s assume the Prophecy Plan; Dumbledore let loose the prophecy in order to orchestrate the downfall of Voldemort. Temporarily, it worked better than he possibly could have imagined; Voldemort was defeated. But, of course, Dumbledore would agree with Hagrid – it was “cadswallop,” the idea the Voldemort wasn’t still out there, trying to regain his power. And Dumbledore would have to be ready with his “chosen one” for the time when the Dark Lord succeeded in returning. So, invoking the ancient blood magic (Narnia, anyone?) over the Dursley house to keep Harry safe, let’s fast-forward to 1992.
Little Harry Potter has just managed his second defeat of the Dark Lord, and he has some questions. Dumbledore explains the wonderful and dangerous nature of truth, that it must be treated with caution, and then tells Harry there may be some questions he cannot answer. But he finishes it with this statement: “I shall not, of course, lie.” Harry’s first question, “Why does Voldemort want to kill me?”, alas, cannot be answered. But Dumbledore, who has confessed the importance of the truth and his unwillingness to lie to Harry, has promised a full explanation in the future.
Now let’s fast-forward again. Four years later, same time of year, Harry still has not gotten his answer. Now, after having been through so much, Dumbledore is finally prepared to tell Harry everything he knows, everything he withheld from him all those years. Assuming the Prophecy Plan to be true, let’s evaluate Dumbledore over the course of the conversation, and recall that Albus was quite clear: “I shall not, of course, lie.”
Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 37: The Lost Prophecy
After a long discussion about Kreacher, Sirius’s death, and the debacle at the Ministry, Dumbledore decides it is finally time (long past time, in fact) to answer Harry’s question from five years ago: “I shall tell you everything,” he assures Harry.
Dumbledore most certainly does not tell “everything.” “Everything” would include the fact that he himself had let the prophecy loose, but as we shall see, he entirely avoids this. It also means that he radically trivializes his “mistake” (see immediately below).
As the conversaton progresses, Dumbledore, much to Harry’s frustration, gives a general overview of Harry’s first four years at Hogwarts, and explains his bad reasoning for not telling Harry the whole truth prior to that very moment. In short, his reason for not telling him – indeed, the great flaw in his “plan” – is as follows: “I cared about you too much.”
Now, even with the prophecy plan in place, and the great flaw being his not telling Harry the truth early enough, this would be a manipulative cover on Dumbledore’s part. Deflecting his own culpability in the deaths of Harry’s parents by not telling him everything, as he promised, and talking instead about his great love for Harry – well, that’s really calculating and cold, especially from a man who has taught Harry so much about the “truth” and “love.”
From here, Dumbledore explains the prophecy to Harry, and how the first part of the prophecy is leaked to Voldemort: a snoop overheard the first part, but was apprehended before being able to hear the second. The snoop went and told the Dark Lord.
This, of course, is a flat-out lie if the prophecy plan is true. If Snape was listening in, and then leaked the first part of the prophecy on Dumbledore’s orders, the whole “thrown from the building” part is a lie, and Dumbledore lies quite baldly when he calls the catching of the eavesdropper “My…one stroke of good fortune.” It wouldn’t have been a “stroke of good fortune,” but a calculated plan.
Half-Blood Prince
Chapter 10: The House of Gaunt
Just a brief stop here to note that Harry presses Dumbledore on the question of whether or not he told him “everything,” and Albus strongly affirms that he did. A second lie on the same subject, if the prophecy plan is true.
Chapter 23: Horcruxes
Things get really, really ugly for Dumbledore’s character in this chapter, if the prophecy plan is true. After the discussion on horcruxes, the conversation turns to the prophecy, and Dumbledore is to the point of agitation at trying to convince Harry of one point in particular: “…what the prophecy says is only significant because Voldemort made it so.”
He simply will not let Harry get away without understanding this properly. He tells Harry, “You are setting too much store by the prophecy!” This is the height of hypocrisy if Dumbledore was the one who initially set too much store by the prophecy, and his accusation that it was Voldemort’s “grave error” to act on it, causing this whole chain of events, is a lie and more hypocrisy. This is more than manipulative; it’s flat-out evil, in my opinion. The whole discussion is rubbish, if Dumbledore was the architect behind the whole plan.
Chapter 25: The Seer Overheard
Then we have to deal with Harry’s discovery of Snape as the one who overheard the prophecy. Confronting Dumbledore about this, Harry is seething with anger. Dumbledore’s reply?
Professor Snape made a terrible mistake. He was still in Lord Voldemort’s employ on the night he heard the first half of Professor Trelawney’s prophecy. Naturally, he hastened to tell his master what he had heard, for it concerned his master most deeply.
Once again, huge lie if the prophecy plan is true and Dumbledore is the master manipulator behind the leak of the prophecy and ultimately the death of the Potters. By the time prophecy plan theorists are done, it seems Dumbledore tells nothing but lies.
Sorting it All Out
It does not seem reasonable to me, in light of all of this, to believe the Manipulative!Dumbledore theories, because, ultimately, they result in an evil, lying Dumbledore. Not evil as in “on Voldemort’s side.” But evil in a different way, nonetheless. To be caught in so many lies while proclaiming the importance of truth, love, and loyalty is the worst kind of hypocrisy imaginable. Albus Dumbledore, quite frankly, would have to be an unfeeling monster for this to be true.
If you’re committing to a Manipulative!Dumbledore theory, then this is what you’ve got to sign onto. He may have meant well at the time the prophecy was “set loose,” but he’s become downright awful ever since. The little house cup trick at the end of Book 1 isn’t enough to merit “evil monster” status, or even indicate that potential in someone, is it?
Rowling simply has not written Dumbledore as an unfeeling monster. Re-read his conversations with Harry, his actions towards him and for him. I know…we’ve been fooled by Rowling too many times on whether or not a person is good or bad. We’re all determined not to get fooled again. But Manipulative!Dumbledore theorists are reading far too much into certain details. This is not a man who is cold and calculating.
What about the identity of the eavesdropper?
This is an important question, of course. I’ve just complained that Dumbledore becomes a liar if he didn’t tell Harry “everything” at the end of Order, but we know for a fact that he held back information about the identity of the eavesdropper – Severus Snape. But I think we can understand this in another way. Consider the following points:
(1) The identity of the eavesdropper was not crucial to understanding “everything,” nor did neglecting to reveal Snape as the snoop result in a long chain of lies like everything else about the prophecy plan does. Dumbledore told the truth about what happened that night; he didn’t reveal the snoop’s identity for good reasons. If the prophecy plan is true, our whole list of manipulations, deceptions, and hypocrisies remains.
(2) There are at least two good reasons for Dumbledore’s not revealing Snape. (a) Dumbledore quite obviously loves and protects Severus Snape; it is in Snape’s best interest that Harry not know, especially since Dumbledore believes wholeheartedly in Snape’s repentance. Indeed, to re-open that wound, especially at this time, would be a dishonor to Snape’s repentance and Dumbledore’s forgiveness. (b) Dumbledore thinks it of the utmost importance that Harry learn to trust and respect Snape as well, because Snape is so valuable to the war against Voldemort, as is Harry. They need to be on the same side. But this is already an uphill battle. If Harry needs to know the identity of the eavesdropper – and eventually, he does – one can’t blame Dumbledore for thinking it best to delay that revelation until the war is over, and Voldemort defeated.
Dumbledore’s lie to the Ministry
Of course, we did catch Dumbledore in a lie, didn’t we? When the Ministry asked him about “Dumbledore’s Army,” he baldly lied, did he not? Isn’t this the man who said he wouldn’t lie?
Well, no, not really. He said he wouldn’t lie to Harry, and he believes the truth is “generally preferable to lies.” But he’s not a moral absolutist on the question of lying (on some questions, he is). Set the lie in context. The clueless, bungling Ministry is not only not helping, they’re hurting themselves and the entire wizarding world by their actions. One small group of students at Hogwarts, led by the “chosen one,” is preparing themselves for a war that they and Dumbledore know is coming, but to which the Ministry has turned a blind eye. The Ministry’s action is the height of irresponsible use of power, and Dumbledore’s lie is protecting the good side.
You’re hiding an innocent person, or a good person who has broken an unjust law. The inquisition comes to your door to ask if you’ve seen the person; you know these folks will kill him unjustly. What do you do? You tell the lie, and it’s the right thing to do. Even the Judeo-Christian God is fine with this, by the way; there’s that whole issue of the prostitute Rahab being justified by faith because she hid some spies and lied about their location. So let’s not get all in a tizzy about the evil of all lying. This one lie in no way proves that Dumbledore frequently lies or thinks that deception is a good idea.
Conclusion
Put simply, Manipulative!Dumbledore theories prove too much. You can’t really have it both ways. Theories that posit a well-meaning Manipulative!Dumbledore are a fantasy, because they inevitably result in a deceptive, unfeeling, arrogant, hypocritical old man who cares nothing about anything but his own plans while pretending to love.
Certainly Dumbledore has his faults, and certainly he’s good at getting his way. But his position toward Harry has been loving, gracious, and kind, and he is a worthy mentor for our hero. Thank goodness Harry is “Dumbledore’s man through and through.” I don’t know who would be better to emulate than Albus Dumbledore.
Tom on 
Ashley on 
Arabella Figg on 
Helen on 
Lily on 
Loading ...
{ 99 comments… read them below or add one }
Notice that DD is “touched” by the fact that Harry claims to be DD’s man through and through.
Another cogent commentary, Travis. Much appreciated.
It’s curious that some folk have argued that DD is cuplable because he claimed he would tell Harry everything but then omitted a detail. As you say, the detail in question (identity of the snoop) was not necessary to understand the importance of the events. DD didn’t tell Harry about quantum mechanics in that conversation, but that doesn’t make his claim to have “told him everything” false either.
You’re also correct that the suggestion that “DD is not to be trusted is proven by his lie to the ministry” is simplistic and flawed. It woudl have been far less admirable in that situation if DD had simply stepped back and allowed the Ministry to succeed.
seriously_black, I appreciate the comments! There’s a big attempt out there to make Dumbledore out to be quite the monster. I’m not buying it, and I’m glad others aren’t either.
I just recently discovered your site, following a link from Hogwarts Professor.com. I’m enjoying reading through your essays.
I think you make some good points here about exactly where Dumbledore would have to deceive Harry, if he originally allowed the prophecy to reach Voldemort’s ears. I quite agree with you that Dumbledore is not written as an unfeeling monster, and we should be very suspicious of any theory that paints him in that light.
That said, I want to ask two questions of your essay…
1) What happened at the Hog’s Head?
We have it from Sybil Trelawney that just as she regains awareness after delivering the prophecy, Snape and Aberforth burst into the room with her and Dumbledore. Why was Snape allowed to leave the room in the first place?
Dumbledore knows that Snape has heard something. Dumbledore is an excellent Legillimens, and Snape (only 21 or so at that point, not the hardened Occlumens we know in the present) is probably not able to lie to him about what he has heard. And as he shows by congratulating Kingsley in OOTP, Dumbledore is not squeamish about the occasional well-timed Obliviate. How can Snape leave that room with memory intact, without Dumbledore making a decision to allow him to do exactly that?
2) Would Dumbledore lie to Harry to protect Snape?
We see him flat-out lie to the ministry in OOTP to protect Harry. I’m willing to believe that he would deceive Harry to protect another one of his agents – Snape.
Up through HBP, Dumbledore has NEVER entrusted Harry with his reasons for trusting Snape, despite being asked multiple times. I’ll point out that most of the “lies” you raise in the essay also concern Snape. The “thrown from the building” story is the story Snape told Voldemort, when he repeated the prophecy. I can easily see Dumbledore deciding that, to protect Snape, no other version of that story can ever be allowed to reach Voldemort’s ears. As you note, Dumbledore was willing to, ah, elide the truth with Harry as to the eavesdropper’s identity. Wouldn’t he do the same on any subject involving Snape’s cover with Voldemort?
I agree with you that “Manipulative Albus” doesn’t really work. But I submit instead “Remorseful Albus” flows pretty nicely. He did allow the prophecy to escape – who knows, maybe Snape and Aberforth talked him into it – but is filled with regrets as the human cost of that decision have become clear. As he admits, his affection for Harry was the flaw in his plan. Even though he had planned to train the “marked” child to fight Voldemort, and even though he believe that plan represented the best chance of defeating Voldemort, he liked Harry too much to want to lay the burden of it on him.
drank, glad you found the site and that you’re enjoying the essays.
You bring up some good points, and here are my responses:
In the first place, this essay argues that “Regretful Dumbledore” necessitates “Manipulative Dumbledore.” Even if Dumbledore let loose the prophecy and regrets it, he still needs to maintain the same lying and manipulation with Harry in order to keep it a secret. I completely agree that Dumbledore is willing to keep things from Harry in order to protect Snape. But he doesn’t lie.
We’ll learn why Dumbledore trusted Snape in Book 7, and then we’ll know why he didn’t tell Harry his reasons.
I’m not convinced that Snape would be such a lousy Occlumens at age 21. Snape is also an accomplished Legilimens, we can be sure, yet a 16-year-old Draco was able to block Snape’s attempts at Legilimency after only a summer’s practice at Occlumency.
Given Dumbledore’s propensity for trust, and, I assume, Snape’s ability as an Occlumens even at 21, AND Dumbledore’s sense of justice (I don’t think he’d render judgment where there was not enough evidence), I just don’t think Albus had enough to do anything with Snape in that moment…especially if Aberforth was convinced he got to Snape early enough.
“Things get really, really ugly for Dumbledore’s character in this chapter, if the prophecy plan is true. After the discussion on horcruxes, the conversation turns to the prophecy, and Dumbledore is to the point of agitation at trying to convince Harry of one point in particular: “…what the prophecy says is only significant because Voldemort made it so.â€
He simply will not let Harry get away without understanding this properly. He tells Harry, “You are setting too much store by the prophecy!†This is the height of hypocrisy if Dumbledore was the one who initially set too much store by the prophecy-”
I agree with everything drank has said, and disagree with you here. I think this scene does not show a cold and manipulative Dumbledore, but a warm, emotional man who (like Snape) can see that Harry has a tendency to *repeat the very mistakes the older man has made*. That is my interpretation.
I think a remorseful Dumbledore who cannot tell Harry the whole truth because Harry (being the last horcrux) in a sense, *is* Voldemort, and would unwittingly betray Snape to the Dark Lord, is not evil. He’s just in an awful trap, but can see that, if Harry avoids the mistakes he and Snape have made, he will win through.
Sorry – that’s a horrible sentence, but I’m writing in a hurry. More later-
There can be little doubt that Dumbledore does *not* have a continuing concern (after the events at the ministry prior to the end of OotP) about Voldemort eavesdropping through Harry.
If he did, then he could not have shared the full detail of the prophecy with Harry – knowing that the detail it contained was crucial to the Dark Lord and was the very thing that Voldemort had been narrowly prevented from gaining (and at great cost) after a year of trying.
Not only does Dumbledore show Harry the prophecy in full, but he discusses it with him in detail on several subsequent occasions. Unless someone wants to contend that the whole prophecy as we’ve understood it to be to date is a fiction that Dumbledore is presenting as a ruse to mislead Harry and (though him) Voldemort, then I believe the theories that hinge on Dumbledore regarding Harry as a direct line to Voldemort are all deeply flawed.
Beyond that, it’s likely that there is a simple reason why Dumbledore would not have bothered to use Obliviate on Snape when he overheard part of the prophecy.
Dumbledore knows that Voldemort is a sufficiently accomplished legilimens to be able to detect a memory that has been tampered with (as he has done on other occasions) and to extract the information regardless. It is likely that Dumbledore would have concluded that to use Obliviate would merely increase the importance that the Dark Lord would place on the information once he had extracted it – IOW that it would at best be ineffective and at worst counterproductive.
Seriously_black? Some very smart person on livejournal (cmwinters, I think) pointed out that, after the events in the ministry, Voldemort undoubtedly *knows* the full text of the prophecy. He did not hear it, true, and the sphere broke, but several of his Death Eaters, including Bellatrix, were in the room when it broke, and Voldemort is a skilled Legilemens. He may even have a pensieve.
The thing that (almost)convinces me that Dumbledore is certain Voldemort has cut off the connection is that he discusses the HORCRUXES with Harry. But it is Voldemort, not Harry, who is “in charge” of that connection, and he can pop back into Harry’s head whenever he chooses. Harry *has* to know about the horcruxes, because he is the only person who can destroy them, so this is a risk Dumbledore must take. At least, that’s the way I see it. Dumbledore is still giving Harry information on a “need-to-know” basis, rather like Aslan in “The Horse and His Boy”. And Harry absolutely does not, at this stage, need to know anything about Severus and his motivations. Dumbledore will take considerable risks to give the boy information he must have, but he will not endanger another agent by giving him more information than necessary.
mary, I can see that reading. But there’s far, far too much other evidence against the prophecy plan, in my opinion. I really don’t think we can talk about Dumbledore letting lose the prophecy without turning him in a cold, manipulative person, even if Chapter 26 of HBP is “remorseful Dumbledore.”
I can’t possibly read that chapter that way, though, and I’ve read it over many, many times.
Mary, whether or not cmwinters is very smart, it seems to me highly unlikely that Voldemort’s skill as a legilimens – or even a pensieve, if he has one – would have given him access to the copy of the prophecy that was destroyed in the Ministry.
In Chapter 35 of OotP, we are specifically told that when the prophecy smashed, Trelawney’s mouth could be seen to be moving (though only Harry and Neville were watching) but nothing she said could be heard over the din of crashes, screams and yells from the fighting going on all over the room.
Though they were present in the room, we were explicitly told that none of the Death Eaters saw or heard the prophecy, so their memories will not have aided the Dark Lord. Moreover even if Voldemort were to have used a pensieve to examine the scene in detail, it seems likely that all it would reveal to him is that the words of the prophecy were comprehensively drowned out by the din that his Death Eaters were creating trying to save themselves from the members of The Order.
However as you say yourself, Dumbledore shares other even more sensitive information with Harry during the course of the following year. I find your suggestion that Dumbledore considers that “this is a risk [he] must take” unconvincing. If that were the case, Dumbledore may well have shared some essential details with Harry, but he’d have been most unlikely to have taken Harry to the cave with him, since to do so (if Harry’s mind is still open to Voldemort) would be to greatlky and unnecessarily increase the risk that Voldemort would join them in the cave to protect his precious Horcrux. On the contrary, Dumbledore’s words and actions betray no hint of a concern of this kind.
We haven’t been specifically told, but I think a reasonable guess – supported by the facts available – is that Voldemort’s defeat when he tried to possess Harry in the Ministry was so complete that it made further attempts to encroach on Harry’s mind untenable for him.
Dumbledore’s actions certainly seem to indicate that he has concluded along these lines. Moreover Harry experienced very specific symptoms every time the Dark Lord invaded his mind and, by the end of OotP had come to recognize them – and there is no hint of any recurrence of these symptoms during the course of HBP.
Dumbledore may have had *other* reasons (eg loyalty to others or a desire to honour obligations of confidentiality etc) for being selective in what he shared with Harry (and when) during the course of HBP, but the suggestion that it was due to a persistent link between Harry’s mind and Voldemort’s appears to be unsupported by canon.
Well said, seriously_black.
Interesting about the defeat of Voldemort at the Ministry. I wonder if the blood transfer in the book before played a role in the securing of that particular defeat.
That’s certainly an intriguing point, Travis.
We were given to understand that the Dark Lord expected the blood transfer to prevent a further occurrence of the kind which occurred when Quirrell suffered fatal burns on touching Harry in the final confrontation in PS/SS. However that was physical touching and blood is the essence of the physical being of a person. We were given to understand that the effect of Lily’s sacrifice gave this protection to Harry.
Possession or invasion of the mind is a different thing – non-physical – so we might suppose that different principles apply. And in fact that appears to be the case because though Voldemort may now be able to touch Harry physically, he could not wholly inhabit his mind.
One thing about that which is interesting is that at the Ministry, Voldemort was able to possess Harry briefly, until Harry began to think of seeing Sirius again. So on that occasion it seems it was the effect of Harry’s own capacity for love rather than his mother’s love, which saved him. Moreover the fact that Voldemort departed the scene immediately afterward seems to suggest he may have been severely hurt or depleted by the encounter.
On the whole, it seems to me that the defeat at the Ministry was in spite of rather than because of the blood transfer – and that it was the first proof of Harry himself having “power the Dark Lord knows not” – rather than relying on the lingering protection provided by Lily or the happy chance effect of Priori Incantatem.
Whilst this is mostly conjecture, based on a reading of the various comments Dumbledore made, I think we can assume it’s one of the things that it will be clarified for us in Deathly Hallows. I hope so!
I hope so, too. And what you’re saying makes a lot of sense. It probably was in spite of, rather than because of, the blood transfer the Voldemort’s attempted possession failed.
Seriously_black, read my essay! I, and a woman called beyond_pale whom I quote, came to exactly the same conclusion. This is actually the first time Harry has *defeated* Voldemort on his own, and he has not, as of the end of HBP, fully realized what happened. But I hope and expect he will -
oh – a bit more on the contradiction between the stories. They *are* irreconcilable as it now stands. In OOTP, Dumbledore tells Harry the eavesdropper was caught and ejected from the building when Sybill was half-way through the prophecy. In HBP, Sybill herself says she felt strange and sleepy and then, (when she came to herself) saw Aberforth and that pushy young man stumbling into the room.
Either this is poor editing, or Dumbledore lied.
The pensieve, and how it works: 16-year-old Snape did not have access to such an instrument, nor did he know how to use it. If he had, he would have known *exactly* what was waiting for him under the whomping willow shortly afterwards. The pensieve memory picked up *everything* that was happening within a short radius of him that afternoon, including things he did not actually see or hear! Magic! Isn’t it wonderful?
Therefore, although I agree with you about how and why Harry defeated Voldemort at the ministry, we can’t entirely rule out the possibiltiy that Voldemort does know the prophecy now. It would definitley make him more cautious about attempting to kill Harry if he did know the whole thing, wouldn’t it?
mary, still don’t see a lie there. There’s a detail left out, but Albus’ wording does not necessitate that the snoop was ejected from the building immediately. He was caught halfway through the prophecy and ejected from the building. Albus just left out the middle part, where he was revealed.
Reading it any other way is not even possible, since timewise, it is not possible to discover, stop, arrest, and eject a person from a building all at the halfway point of the prophecy.
Well, Travis, this is another point on which we are going to have to differ. I see a clear contradiction here, and you do not. As with the scene on the astronomy tower, the conflicting stories of the prophecy bug me; it feels as if there is something we don’t yet know. I have some guesses as to what that might be, but I also have a sinking feeling that Rowling herself may never tell us. This is one of the things that makes me apprehensive about DH, actually. There are a *lot* of dangling threads, and I have no confidence that Rowling is even aware of how many there are. I’m not at all sure that her idea of a satisfying and logical conclusion is the same as mine. (Of course, she’s a genius, anyway;))
I have to agree with Travis. There is no contradiction.
Dumbledore said that the snoop was apprehended halfway through the prophecy, but there is no reading of his words that requries that he was marched down the stairs and ejected in under 30 seconds – and as Travis says, common sense dictates that it woudl not be possible to get him out of the building that quickly.
Again, I’ll allow that Dumbledore omitted a detail – but it is in my view an irrelevant detail.; As I said previously, he also omitted to men tion what Madam Pince had for lunch that day – but that omission doesn’t make his statememt a lie either because neither fact is required in order to understand the significance of the event – ie knowing either fact does not change the meaning or significance of the facts he did disclose What he said was true whether Madam Pince had sandwiches or soup (and whether Snape was exposed prior to being ejected or not).
As for the pensieve contention, I do not disagree that the magic of the penseive enables the user to observe things that those present overlooked. Rowling has said as much. However that is immaterial. We are told that the prohecy was drowned out by the din, so it simply wasn’t audible. Snopping around inside the “penseive version” of the event seems hardly likely to change that.
So I continiue to believe it extremely unlikely that Voldemort woudl have been able to discover the prohecy in that way. Even if he did, Dumbledore could not have been certain of that outcome – so he’d have been unlilkely to take a risk that might give it waya anyway.
In any case, the point is moot because as I also pointed out previously, the prophecy is not the only thing – nor the most sensitive thing – that Dumbledore revealed. And while the prophecy and even the Horcrux information may have been essential information for Harry, the trip to the cave was not.
I disagree with you, seriously_black, that the trip to the cave was not essential. How can you think that? Dumbledore fully expected to find a live horcrux there; he was *teaching* Harry what might happen during the horcrux hunt – the sorts of obstacles he might encounter, the dangers of handling/disarming one of these evil objects, the places Voldemort might use to conceal them – this is all stuff Harry desparately needs to know. And Dumbledore knows Harry is a hands-on learner. Would it really have been better to leave the boy behind and then expect him to cope without any instruction at all? (I am going, here, on the theory that Dumbledore knew his time was limited, and he wanted to teach Harry as much as possible, as soon as possible.)
And I disagree with you about the pensieve, also. If you can glean from a pensieve things you couldn’t hear or see at the time of the memory – well, you can glean from a pensieve things you couldn’t hear or see at the time. At least, that’s the way it strikes me. Rowling hasn’t really cleared up the ‘rules’ of the pensieve, (which means either one of us might be right at this point)and we also don’t know whether Voldemort (1) has one, and (2) knows how to use it. So, even if I’m right, it’s not certain he would have that knowledge. But I do think he might.
I agree with you that Voldemort may actually have been frightened to enter Harry’s head after the defeat at the ministry. That certainly fits what we know about the Dark Lord, who is a coward, and who can’t comprehend love. But I’m still waiting for *Harry* to figure out what happened there – hopefully he will in DH.
Well Mary, it seems we are at least in agreement that we don’t agree. I’ve given some specific examples – which I still consider valid – but quite frankly, I don’t see a single thing that points to Dumbledore having any ongoing concern that Voldemort may be eavesdropping on Harry’s thoughts throughout HBP. On the contrary I see many things throughout HBP that seem to indicate to the contrary. It’s all a matter of interpretation, of course, and you’re very welcome to interpret events in the way you do – however I’m afraid I am not persuaded at all.
Another of the things we don’t agree about is that while one may indeed be able to glean from a penseive things that one couldn’t hear or see at the time of the memory, I see no reason to suppose that one can glean from a penseive anything that *couldn’t* be seen (or, as in this case, heard) at the time.
Nothing we’ve been told about the pensieve suggests that it is able to *change* what happened – merely display it faithfully. If the prophecy was drowned out (as we have been told), I see no earthly reason to suppose that a pensieve will “undrown-it-out”. That would be attributing to pensieves a power to change events that goes beyond anything we’ve seen or been told about them.
If we’re going to start basing theories on imaginary extra powers that objects in the series *might* have (but which aren’t mentioned in canon), then there’s really no end to what is possible – and indeed, Voldemort would not have needed the MoM copy of the prophecy at all because he’d have used a penseive to go back to the Hogs Head and listen to the part of the original prophecy that was drowned out in the corridor when Snape scuffled with Aberforth.
Moreover, if pensieves have the power to *change* an event that they show, then we can no longer rely upon anything Harry has seen in them. If audibility (or inaudibility) can change, who knows what else could change when viewed/heard in a penseive and we’d have to conclude that it’s not a medium that can be trusted to reveal what really happened. That would have far-reaching implications – if indeed there were any canon to support it. But I’m afraid I don’t think there is.
So, in short, no. I’m not buying it at all. Sorry.
Okay. No problem.
You have not explained, though, why you believe Dumbledore’s taking Harry on the horcrux hunt was unecessary. I see it as absolutely necessary. Just wondering-
Oh – an addition to the above:
I never said that pensieves had the capacity to change the past. Nor are pensieve memories biased by the individual’s pov. They are objective records of *all* the events that took place in a given area at a given time. This is why, for example, Harry was able to ‘hear’ the werewolf conversation even though young Severus never heard it, and why Harry (and Dumbledore?) could understand Morfin Riddle even though the ministry wizard (sorry; forgot his name!) couldn’t, and would therefore have no *conscious* memory of anything but hissing and spitting. Both of these things show us that a pensieve memory can reveal things that the person whose memory it is *never* saw, heard or understood. Fascinating.
Of course, as I said above, you might be right. There are many unanswered questions about Voldemort and what, exactly, happened to *him* during that battle. For example, does he now know that Harry is his last Horcrux? That he has (apparently) ordered his Death Eaters not to harm the boy makes this seem possible, but we don’t know. Was he injured, as you suggest, by Harry’s burst of love for Sirius? Maybe – it’s an intriguing idea, and I like it, especially since it goes along with my own take on that scene. But, again, we don’t know.
What’s fascinating about HBP and Rowling’s achievement is how little we know for sure about anyone or anything at this late point in the story. Quite a trick! As I think I said elsewhere, she has left so many threads dangling that I’m not hopeful she can tie them all up neatly, and, in HBP particularly, this lack of knowledge became irritating. Harry ought to be asking more questions than he does! But I am quite sure she is going to have several surprises for us. Whether they feel like honorable, well-crafted surprises is another question, but I’m hoping for the best.
Happy Easter to all here. No more from me till after the Holiday.
Mary, talking within the Headmaster’s office at Hogwarts and an adventure outside it are very different propositions. The instant Dumbledore and Harry left the grounds of Hogwarts, they could be confronted at any moment (via apparation) by Voldemort himself, or a legion of his Death Eaters – or both.
If Dumbledore thought there was a risk that Voldemort was listening in on Harry’s mind during HBP, then he *may* have considered that telling him about Horcruxes was nevertheless a necessary risk. The Dark Lord would presumably immediately begin intensive action to protect and further conceal his Horcruxes (which would rapidly expose the fact that that he was eavesdropping, BTW) but that is all.
However if Dumbledore believed Voldemort was listening in, he’d have assumed that if he took Harry to the Cave with him, Voldemort would instantly apparate to the cave to confront them and defend his soul-fragment. Not only would this defeat the stated purpose of the mission (ie making it *much* less likely that they would have a chance to retrieve the Horcrux), but it would put Harry – and Dumbledore himself – into mortal danger. A radically risky misstep whichever way you look at it.
Conversely, if Dumbledore went alone (as he apparently did when retrieving the ring) or took someone other than Harry, there would be no such risk – and he would be able to tell Harry about it in detail afterward (or even show him in vivid detail via the pensieve) to serve the educational purpose.
Hence my conclusion that if Dumbledore thought there was a significant risk that Voldemort was listening, he’d have assumed that taking Harry to the Cave would most likely bring them both face to face with Voldemort and into dire peril. Since it was optional and there were other ways to achieve the desired outcome(s) that would not have carried that risk, it is, quite simply, not something he’d have done unless he was confident that Voldemort was *not* listening.
JKR has shown that Dumbledore can make massive *emotional* mistakes, and she has said as much – “immense brainpower does not protect you from emotional mistakes†(LeakyMug Interview, Part 1, 16 Jul 2005). Moreover Dumbledore can be caught out by an improbably twist of events. However Dumbledore is not at all prone to such obvious strategic errors as this would have been. I don’t find it remotely credible.
Mary, the point you’re arguing regarding pensieves is not the point of my contention. I have never disupted that a penieve can reveal things that the person (whose memory is being examined) did not hear, see or understand at the time. In fact Rowling has said that they can.
My point was that a pensieve cannot reveal things that *could not* be heard or seen (eg they were *drowned out*) at the time.
As I already pointed out, if they could, then the whole plot of OotP would be flawed and superfluous because we can assume Voldemort would already have used a pensieve on Snape’s memory of the Hogs Head incident to access the full prophecy way back in 1980, before he even went to Godric’s Hollow.
But, as I’ve also said, I see nothing in canon that suggests a pensieve can change what happend (eg undrown out something that was comprehensively drowned out at the time). Nnothing at all.
Notwithstanding that, BTW, it’s my guess that Snape *did* hear the werewolf comment. I’m inclined to suspect that that was what sent him off tailing Lupin to the Shrieking Shack at the Full Moon. Possibly hoping for an opportunity to retaliate for the humiliation he felt at having his appalling personal hygiene (ie filthy-grey underwear) put on display. But that is beside the point in relation to the contention I was making about pensieves.
Meanwhile, regarding another point you make, I believe there is viable alternative explanation for Voldemort’s instruction to his Death Eaters that Harry is not to be harmed.
We can assume that Voldemort considers his failure to kill Harry (on several occasions now) a source of public humiliation and the greatest slur on his reputation to date. He effectively said so at the end of GOF.
It’s highly probable that he wants to to kill Harry in person and to do so in a way wich is very public in order to forever set to rest the rumors about Harry being his equal.
If someone else is able to best Harry in battle or even kill him, not only will Voldemort’s supremacy be forever in doubt, but it may weeaken his control over his own Death Eaters (the one who *was* able to kill Harry when the Dark Lord could not would instantly become a focus for the rallying of mutinous opposition from within the ranks of his minions).
On the other hand. issuing an explicit instruction that Harry is not to be touched serves him in two ways:
1) it reduces the likelihood that he will be deprived of the opportunity to vindicate himself by publicly discrediting Harry as “The Chosen One”, and
2) In the unlikely event that one of his Death Eaters disobeys him, he can immediately punish that individual with death for their disobedience, thus elimiating the possible threat to his authority and control.
It therefore makes perfect sense that Voldemort would instruct his minions that Harry is not to be harmed. It fits perfectly with what we know of him and with what he said at the end of GoF – and we can assume he would have done it *whether or not* he thought Harry was a Horcrux.
So I don’t believe it sheds any light at all – in either direction – on the question as to whether Harry might be a Horcrux.
Oh, I disagree with you very strongly about young Severus having heard the werewolf comment. As man and boy, after all, Severus has a reasonably strong sense of self-preservation; and he was clearly utterly traumatized by what happened to him that day. I don’t think he would have walked into a trap like that knowing what awaited him.
Other, minor, bone of contention: the marauders did not stop with showing his underwear. They stripped him naked. And greying underwear, to me, signals poverty and neglect far more than it does appalling personal hygiene.
But, as to the way Voldemort’s mind works, I am impressed that you are so in concord with him!
No arguments from me – but *you* were the one who said he had been severely damaged at the ministry. It will be interesting to find out if you are right. As I said before, I think it’s possible, but we have no definitive proof as yet.
Oh – your point above? That Voldemort has access to Harry’s mind does *not* mean that he is listening in all the time. It never did. I think Dumbledore knows, or is reasonably certain, that Voldemort is blocking Harry through occlumency. The reason is that, whatever he has been planning throughout book 6, he is much more concerned that Harry not know *his* plans than that he know Harry’s. He’s underestimating Harry again (and Dumbledore, and, in my opinion, Severus. And EVERYONE is underestimating the loathsome Peter Pettigrew.) Because Dumbedore is certain Voldemort is being arrogant and blocking Harry out, he can take the risk of going to the cave. BTW, Voldemort *is* going to be present there – that is the point! The Horcruxes *are* Voldemort, and are every bit as dangerous as that facet of the Dark Lord Jodel calls the simulacrum. I think the whole point of the trip is that Dumbledore and Harry were to confront a horcrux together. But things went badly wrong.
Speaking of badly wrong, while Dumbledore believes, correctly, that the connection between Harry and the Dark Lord is (mostly) closed, I think Severus continues to believe it is mostly open, and that Harry is a budding Dark Lord. He misjudges Harry every bit as much as Harry misjudges him, and with rather less excuse. This is a big part of the tension between them that must be resolved in the last book.
Oh – just a brief addenda to my former post on the pensieve. Not only did young Severus not hear the ‘werewolf’ conversation, in real life, when it was happening, he could not have heard it. We’re talking about a mob of at least 40 teenagers all starting to talk at once. You do know what that sounds like? And he was, in the memory, paying no attention at all to the marauders; he was focused on the exam, and looking for a quiet place to review the questions. *Harry* was the one who was paying attention to the marauders; once he noticed them, *he* basically paid no attention to Severus. Just my two cents.
Mary, at no time did I suggest that Voldemort may have been “severely damaged” at the Ministry.
What I said is that he may have been hurt or depleted. It is an important distinction because “damage” carries the connotation of permanent or at least lasting consequences. Hurt or depletion may be something that one could recover from in days or hours.
I was suggtesting he may have left the Ministry because he was in no state to continue fighting Dumbledore after his encounter with Harry. But a couple of plates of corn flakes may have seen him back on top form.
As for my being in concord with him, hardly. One doesn’t have to agree with him in order to note his propensities. I merely read the books and noted what he said. It’s really not that difficult.
Meanwhile, I doubt that Severus was paying attention to his exam paper at all. Too much of a coincidence that he “just happened” to remain within twenty paces of the Marauders all the way from the exam room to the lake. I’d guess it was no accident that he “settled himself on the grass in the dense shade of a clump of bushes” right near where the Marauders were sitting. More likely he was *pretending* to read whilst actually tailing the Marauders to eavesdrop on them. I suspect, among other things that we’ll find that he did that routinely – which would go part way to explaining why they targetted him (note I said explain, not excuse).
BTW #1: Severus was *not* stripped naked in the scene Harry witnessed. What happened afterwards we don’t know, but he was still fully clothed when Harry was interrupted.
BTW #2: I myself grew up in extreme poverty, but I *never* had filthy greying underwear. You seem at great pains to find excuses for Severus. However I fear that he is not worthy of you.
To your first addenda – it is quite clear he was stripped naked after the interruption. Who was about to stop James, after all? Lupin? I don’t think so! Also, the degree and intensity of Severus’s emotion suggests it. I may be too optimistic about him; I think you are too pessimistic. Your vision is of an incredibly petty and limited man, and I just don’t see that. Messed up, certainly; terribly unfair to Harry, certainly, but I just don’t believe he is so extremely limited as your interpretation would suggest. In fact, what I said in another conversation – I think on the Barnes and Noble Board – is that HBP proved conclusively that Snape was a wizard of almost breathtaking courage, discipline and power. Those are not petty qualities. Again, he is a pretty messed up individual, but that doesn’t mean he can be summed up by his worst behavior. Can any of us?
To your second, I was relying on information from June Diamanti on livejournal, who grew up in a home very like Severus’s, about a decade earlier. These houses had no hot water (sometimes, I believe, no water at all) no electricity, and no indoor plumbing. This made washing of all kinds a challenge. Her words, not mine! What she actually said about this scene is that the underwear was clearly not dirty; dirty underwear is usually yellow or brownish, but underwear that has been washed umpteen times may look grey.
However, I am willing to concede the poor hygiene, and give you my take on it. To me, young Severus seems to be suffering from low-level, clinical depression. And I have grounds in canon for thinking so. Harry is definitely depressed when the Dursleys confine him to his room at the beginning of OOTP – and do you remember what that room looked like? “Most of the books he owned were strewn over the floor —Hedwig’s cage needed cleaning out and was starting to smell . . .” (OOTP, page 51) Add to this the food Harry has often hidden under the floorboards, and it’s a wonder every mouse and roach in Surrey hasn’t descended on his room. In a child (and in adults, too, I’ve noticed), lack of grooming can indicate depression – and in teenage boys like Harry and Severus, sadness often manifests as rage.
But you see, I tend to base my surmises on Severus’s character on a combination of the clues we are given and what we know about Harry’s. Because one of the major clues we are given, especially in HBP, is that Severus and Harry are very alike. It’s no wonder they can’t stand each other!
As to the pensieve scence, and whether Severus was spying during it, we will again have to agree to differ. 20 paces is not all that close; it’s around 50 meters, and there is absolutely no evidence in the text to prove he heard anything the marauders were saying.
Hey people,
Fithy underwear is not a symptom of evil, any more than clean underwear is a sign of virtue.
The point is, James and Sirius were the alpha males, and Severus was not. But unlike most betas, Severus would not quietly accept his social status, and kept taking potshots at the alphas. They retaliated.
Some years later, the alpha-plus son of James comes to Hogwarts where Severus has at last achieved the status denied him as a student. Not only does the kid look exactly like his obnoxious father, he’s defeated the baddest, meanest wizard of the century before he was even toilet trained.
Think about it: Snape wants to teach DADA; Harry mastered DADA in his crib.
If I were Severus Snape, I’d be pissed too.
Mary, “petty and limited” are *your* words, not mine and frankly I do not consider them appropriate. Perhaps sadistically cruel and outrageously self-indulgent would get closer to the mark. Moreover I don’t regard that as a “pessimistic” view, (quite the contrary – to argue that behavior such as we’ve seen from Severus is either acceptable or justifiable you’d have to have an extraordinarily bleak view of human nature and pessimistically low standards for acceptable behavior) – but you’re entitled to your opinion, of course.
Meanwhile let’s not get too hung up on the underwear thing, but I can assure you that I have seen items of underwear washed until there was nothing left of them and at no point in the process did they turn grey – but I have also seen items soiled to the point where their original color was scarcely detectable and they *did* indeed appear grey.
Last but not least, 20 paces (by any definition) is nowhere near 50 meters. I’ve always understood a pace to be 30 inches, by which count 20 paces is about fifteen meters. I understand that in the ancient Roman military a pace was regarded as being 60 inches (two steps rather than one) – but even by that reckoning, 20 paces is not much more than half of 50 meters.
Hi – new to this site, but some very interesting articles and discussions here, so I think I will very likely come back here more often!
A note on Snape: we don’t know that he was poor as a kid. There is no canon evidence of that fact, even if a lot of fans see it as fact. Spinner’s End is in a more or less deserted factory area, and the way it is described in the book, you get the impression that it was once inhabited by rather poor factory workers, yes. But there is nothing in canon that says this was Snape’s childhood home. Why should it be, why should he still live there when he is poor no longer – surely, Hogwarts wages can’t be that low? To me, that place suggested a hideout – adult Snape does not care about “creature comforts” – he probably never did – but he does care about not being found, about nobody knowing where he lives. Spinner’s End is the perfect place to live in hiding, as it were..
The grey underwear does not automatically mean poverty either. Harry does not notice anything special about Snape’s school robes in that pensieve memory- I think he would have if Snape was so poor they couldn’t give him proper underwear from home. His robes would have been graying too, worn and threadbare – Harry notices this in Lupin when he first comes to Hogwarts, surely he would have noticed the same thing in Snape?
I think these greying underpants does show a neglect in personal hygiene, surely, as in keeping them on for too long, not leaving them for the houseelves to wash often enough. This interpretation is backed up by Lily’s cruel remark: I’d wash your pants if I were you, Snivellus. She doesn’t say: I’d get myself a pair of new pants, Snivellus….
The always greasy hair of the adult Snape shows the same trait. But of course, personal neglect does not suggest moral flaws. It may, as you say Mary, suggest depression – we did see that in Sirius too, when he was forced to stay incarcarated once again after only one year of freedom after Azkaban. He stopped grooming himself as well…and I think he is the clearest depiction of a clinical depression in the books.
As for the understandable reaction Snape has to his arch enemy’s achievment in the Dark Art’s department as a baby, Reyhan – I wholeheartedly disagree. I think this reaction to Harry you describe is not understandable at all – his loathing, hatred, unfairness and cruelty to Harry on no other grounds than him being his father’s son is petty, and does show a certain limitation moralwise – no matter how great an achiever he is in the potions department. “Breathtaking discipline, courage and power” would not be my words to describe him, Mary – even if his notes in the potions book were brilliant, and Harry loved to follow them. It was also in this potions book, remember, that it was revealed how Snape was the one who had created the hex James used against him in the pensieve scene – while Snape used the horrible Sectumsempra against James in return – also a curse he had created at the early age of fifteen. This information kind of changed the meaning of the pensieve scene somewhat for me…
But anyway – even if someone is a decorated war hero, who showed a lot of discipline, courage and power in a war situation, they may still be described as petty and limited in the way they deal with other people, and how they handle their personal issues. When it comes to the latter, Snape is petty and limited, the way he hangs on to his old grudges, nurtures his old wounds and defeats, enough to attack the innocent with glee in order to relieve himself of the bad feelings they evoke in him….
I am sorry, but I will never become an admirer of Severus Snape, no matter what he may be proven to have done in the war against Voldemort. Only if he truly repents and makes some moves to heal the hurts he has done to Neville and Harry, will I see the beginnings of something that can be described as a good Snape.. But so far, we have seen no signs of this whatsoever…..
Torrill – I have an essay coming, when I feel better, on Snape in contrast to Sirius. In the meantime, some clarification:
I think Snape is a very imperfect person. In particular, I cannot see any justification for the way he treats Neville (and, to a lesser degree, Hermione). Reasons, yes – I, and others, have noted a couple of valid reasons, but those are *not* excuses. There is no excuse, IMHO, for the way he treats Neville. As I think I actually said above, he is truly nasty. That does not make him the less a hero, nor does it invalidate the courage, discipline and power I noted in him. If I am right about him, what Rowling is doing with this character is rather subtle. And I hope I’m right. As to what I think Rowling is doing with him, I’ve gone into that at length in the essay I’ve mentioned before, which is up at my livejournal.
His social class – I am one of four people, online*, who came separately and independently to the conclusion that Snape was working class long before we saw Spinner’s End. There is plenty of evidence in the text that he is not upper class, at any rate. For more, you can visit the Red Hen’s essay, “the family Snape” (she has a link to June Diamanti’s essay within hers.) One of Borolin’s is here: http://borolin.livejournal.com/342.html. Elsewhere (but I couldn’t find the link) she points out he always came across as lower middle class, at best, to her. This, btw, is another reason I’ll be very upset if Rowling makes him pure evil. Snape is AMBITIOUS; he’s a social climber, and, in English lit, social climbers are ALWAYS morally flawed (well, in Dickens, anyway.) Not a very democratic message, IMHO. (* a lot more offline, obviously. For instance, my sister agrees with me, and both of us had him as one of the top three for the half-blood prince, too. I never really bought into the pureblood Snape thing.)
But can we leave Snape for awhile? Please? Gettting back to the prophecy, I still don’t see Dumbledore as evil even if he did release it deliberately. For one thing, there may be more to that prophecy than we yet know. I’m expecting a bombshell or two in that regard. For another, Snape may have talked him into releasing it, against Dumbledore’s better judgement. In any case, interestingly, Voldemort did *not* act on the prophecy immediately. The Potters did not go into hiding until the week before Halloween, 1981, so, for whatever reason, Voldemort delayed anywhere from 16 months to two years, depending on when you believe the prophecy was made. This is curious. I wonder if we’ll find out why?
Oh – the robes? It’s a school uniform. There’s nothing strange about Ron’s robes, either, and the Weasleys are quite poor. Neither Ron nor young Severus were ripping their clothing to shreds every full moon, and both could afford (on scholarship money, perhaps) at least decent used robes. Lupin, poor guy, has to pay for all his own clothing himself and cannot keep a job. Quite different.
See, this is exactly why I can’t do the whole “Dumbledore released the prophecy” thing. It just builds fanciful speculation upon fanciful speculation, all of which point to Dumbledore being more of a liar than ever, and then insisting that lying and manipulating the development of a young orphan destined to fight the most awful wizard of all time doesn’t make one evil.
“There may be more to that prophecy” once again means Dumbledore lied to Harry.
The more I think about Snape as an educator, the more I dislike him (though am still fascinated with him as a character) – and the more I see some version of Evil!Snape as at least a credible potential (even if I still lean against it).
No – “there may be more to the prophecy” doesn’t mean Dumbledore lied to Harry, because Dumbledore would not necessarily have *known* that there was more to the prophecy. He may not ever have known. I don’t think any of us will know, for sure, until we read the seventh book. Until then, isn’t all speculation wild speculation? We do not have all the facts. So any speculation we make is based on incomplete or contradictory evidence.
in any case, I think that 20-year-old Severus was something of a loose canon, and quite capable of acting (as he thought) against Voldemort on his own, without Dumbledore’s permission or knowledge. Didn’t Regulus do the same, at an even younger age? That much we do know for a fact.
Snape as an educator, and disliking him – I am not going to argue about that. Because, in fact, he shoots himself in the foot continually because of his attitude, and it’s a great pity. As a couple of my acquaintances have said, he’s potentially, by far, the best teacher in the school*, and I don’t think anyone could claim he lives up to that potential. (*Depth of knowledge, passion for his subjects – particularly defense, which strikes me as his real field – insistence that the students know the ground rules and *think* about the principles, observational ability, classroom management skills, verbal skills – what a motivational speaker he could be if he didn’t insist on dropping remarks about “dunderheads”! He could be a brilliant, brilliant teacher, and, as matters stand, he’s just not. OTOH, we do need to remember that we see him only through Harry’s eyes. Who knows what he’s like when he’s not dealing with Gryffindors and Slytherins?)
But, Travis, I don’t think you’ve considered his essential role in the books? As Jodel says, he has never been willing to just settle down and be the mean teacher. Did you read my Snape paper yet?
Happy Easter, btw!
A few crucial insights (hard-won, though not original) that I’ll share here, FWIW:
1) The single best test (by far) of a person’s true character is how they behave towards those over whom they have complete power.
2) The most violent and unreasoning protest against an accusation is almost always against an accusation that is true (but unacknowledged by the accused), rather than one that is false (false accusations beget strident but *reasoned* responses, not violent reciprocity).
3) Deeply evil individuals are generally the most deeply confusing (courtesy of M.Scott Peck – People of the Lie).
Snape’s character is made profoundly clear when you consider how he behaves toward the innocent and defenceless charges entrusted to his care, whom he treats with contempt and vicious sadism. He does not have the basic self-discipline to restrain himself, even when his own emotional desires (in all their ugliness) are set against needs and welfare (emotional and educational) of the children entrusted to him.
If Snape were not all-too-aware of his own cowardice, he would not have felt the sting of Harry’s words and retaliated in blind rage as he did with Harry at the end of HBP (Ch28, Flight of the Prince). Ironically, his response – to violently flay a teenager – is in itself a further cowardly act, moreover to do so in blind rage is a deplorable failure of self-discipline (the very thing he had been taunting Harry about).
Snape is the most deeply confusing character in the series. He puts himself forward as an educator, yet mocks and undermines his own students, he saves students from physical danger on occasions only to treat them with sadistic cruelty and grievous disregard on others, he lathers about rule-breaking yet has a shameless disregard for rules himself and abuses his own power repeatedly and openly, he aids Dumbledore to the point where Dumbledore trusts him implicitly yet he also aids Voldemort to the point where he is the Dark Lord’s most trusted servant, he heals Dumbledore’s hurt (apparently) only to subsequently kill him. And so the confusion goes on.
However, the betrayal of the most fundamental trust of his position as a guardian of the welfare and development of minors throws his nature into sharpest relief – and the books are *full* of such moments.
If Snape is indeed the double-dealing unrepentant Death Eater that some think he is, can we agree that he is as slimy as his unwashed hair and his soul is as filthy as his underwear?
But if he turns out to be on the side of the angels, can we agree that his proclivity for humiliating children (in addition to his hygiene habits) is part of what defines him as an anti-hero?
And S_B, I’m never sure, when I read your comments, whether you’re arguing that Snape is on Voldemort’s team, or just that the arguments we raise are not sufficient to prove that he is not. Which is it?
How did you vote on the poll? Good? Other? or Bad?
I’d say the one thing Snape is definitely *not* is a slimy unrepentant Death Eater. It doesn’t fit his actions in the text. If he’s evil, he’s out for himself. (Though I have no doubt at all that he is Dumbledore’s man.) Good posts, though, Reyhan!
Seriously-black, of course I disagree with you. For one thing, I have read “People of the Lie” and was (after some thought) not all that impressed with it. But I’m mostly concerned that you are stripping Snape even of the humanity the text clearly gives him. To show you what I mean, I am going back to one of your earlier comments.
You insisted that, in the pensieve memory, Snape was spying on the other boys and was therefore not (in that instance) an innocent victim. Here is what the text actually says: “Harry looked around and glimpsed Snape a short way away, moving between the tables toward the doors into the entrance hall, still absorbed in his own examination paper. . . .A gang of chattering girls separated Snape from James and Sirius, and by planting himself in the middle of this group, Harry managed to keep Snape in sighr while STRAINING HIS EARS (emphasis mine!) to catch the voices of James and his friends.” (OOTP, p 643) From this, it’s quite clear that young Snape could not possibly have heard what the other boys were saying, and was not even listening to them. He was in front of Harry, and several conversations were going on at the same time, which is why Harry himself – in a better position – still had to strain his ears in order to hear.
And, when they attack him a couple of pages later, it’s equally clear he is taken by surprise. If he had been listening attentively, as you suggest, I believe he would have had his wand out already, as the other boys do. He doesn’t.
Your comment about his being within twenty paces of them all the time – I had Latin in high school, so I’m well aware of the measurement of a Roman mile. I just checked it in the Britannica almanac, and it’s 5,000 feet approximately. So a Roman pace – two steps – is five feet, and a normal pace is 2 and 1/2 feet. So, as I said, 20 paces is about 15 meters. Not all that close – though I am not sure where you got this 20 paces from, anyway?
About Snape being a deeply confusing character, the most confusing in the books – no, he’s not. As I read him, he is a complex, rather messed up, but entirely believable human being. His role in the story makes perfect sense of his character (which is essentially good, IMHO). But Reyhan is right – he is a flawed person, because of his proclivity for vengefulness. These books are about flawed people. EVERY character is confusing, on that level, and (getting back to the original argument) that includes Dumbledore. Dunbledore is not God, not an angel, not superhuman; he is an elderly man who has made some serious mistakes in his lifetime. I think it is very possible that his handing of the prophecy, his neglect of the child Severus, and his handling of Harry, will all prove to have been mistakes. Then again, maybe not. We don’t know yet.
Just one more thing, because I can’t resist, but then you will hear no more from me: If you insist Severus is evil because of the way he treats those who depend on him (I’m assuming that includes his Slytherins, who seem to love him – are they all evil, too?) – well, if you insist that, what do you make of Sirius and his treatment of Kreacher?
No – “there may be more to the prophecy†doesn’t mean Dumbledore lied to Harry, because Dumbledore would not necessarily have *known* that there was more to the prophecy. He may not ever have known.
Um…what? Dumbledore was in the room with Trelawney when it was made. Can you explain this?
Until then, isn’t all speculation wild speculation?
Well, there’s speculation based on good canon evidence and clues (setups), and then there’s fanciful speculation where we’re reading way too much into things and straining – or even contradicting – evidence from the text and Rowling interviews to the contrary. I think this whole prophecy thing is the latter.
Travis, I don’t think you’ve considered his essential role in the books? As Jodel says, he has never been willing to just settle down and be the mean teacher. Did you read my Snape paper yet?
If there’s one thing I don’t do, it’s underestimate Snape’s essential role in the books. Haven’t read the Snape paper yet, but will soon.
I do want to clarify that I’m not really arguing from a particular position (Snape is good or evil) at the moment; I’m taking in the argument and tossing a few comments in here and there. I’m evaluating my position on Snape at the moment.
For one thing, I have read “People of the Lie†and was (after some thought) not all that impressed with it.
Just one nit-picky point here. It doesn’t matter so much what you think of People of the Lie. I’ve argued on this site and in podcasts that Rowling is probably influenced by it, and thus far, I stand by that assertion.
Mary, you contradict even your own assertions. In post 28 of this thread (final para) you state that “20 paces is…around 50 meters”. Whether you’ve studied Latin or not, your statement was wildly inaccurate.
Meanwhile, your devotion to Snape is admirable, if misguided. I agree that he is human (very human) in all his failings, but that is no recommendation. A key to his character is that his abuse of the children in his care is not merely vengeful, as you seek to portray it. Vengeful requires a pre-existing greivance to be avenged. Notwithstatnding the fallacious nature of Snape’s perceived grievance against Harry (who wasn’t even born when the events Snape is avenging took place), what legitimate grievance do you imagine he has against Neville, Hermione or the many other children he bullies?
You let Snape off far too lightly when you casually characterize his sadistic preoccupations as a mere “proclivity for vengefulness”. It may be, as Reyhan says, that he is simply a bad-boy anti-hero – maybe Rowling is indeed offering us a shallow stereotype, but I doubt it. In fact I would contend that it is not *what* Severus does when relentlessly bullying the innocent, but *why* he does it that matters. Clearly he us consumed by something deeper and darker than a mere desire for vengeance. Which reveals that whatever else he may be, he is most unlikely to be Dumbledore’s man “through and through”. IOW if he is (or ever was) Dumbledore’s man at all, it is surely by the slenderest of threads.
So, let’s talk for a moment about Snape’s treatment of the Slytherins, who he apparently favors. The fact is that favoratism (lack of *appropriate* loving discipline) is a form of abuse just as much as bullying is. Dumbledore makes this point when he speaks to the Dursleys of “the appalling damage you have inflicted upon the boy sitting between you”. Likewise, Snape does the Slytherins no favors with his “favoratism” – quite the contrary. Not to mention the appalling example he sets for them to follow. So whether or not they “seem to love him” is entirely beside the point.
So, you’ve asked whether I consider all the children of Slytherin to be evil. No, I don’t. A few of them may be evil already, others may be on a path toward evil. Most if not all of them still have a choice – their fundamental disposition is not fixed – and I believe that is crucially important to the plot and the way it is unfolding. We have already seen evidence of that with Malfoy’s wavering on the tower.
Thank you, S_B, for answering my question.
I disagree, however, that the thread which might (or might not) have attached Snape to Dumbledore is that slight. If it exists, it has to have survived both the (surely counter-intuitive) task of keeping Harry from harm, and the threat from Voldemort. We don’t know how Snape feels about death, but surely the example of the Longbottoms must be in all the Death Eaters’ minds.
Wouldn’t call him a bad-boy myself. Nothing boyish or preposessing about him. He’s a cold, sarcastic, unpleasant and unattractive s.o.b. I don’t see a mystery in what consumes him. It is the eternal envy of the have-not, the outsider, for those inside the charmed circle. We all know people like Snape. Competent, bright even talented people, who alienate themselves from the world because of their sense of victimization, of not being given their just deserts.
The interesting thing to me is the possibility that Snape was well on his way to becoming like Voldemort when Dumbledore interfered and turned him from his path. He didn’t change entirely and remained a miserable s.o.b., but chose to follow a different path. Which is very cool.
Seriously_black, i have a double ear infection, sinusitus, and a bad cough. Ease up a bit on the assertions, will you? I meant 50 feet, and that is accurate. Fifteen meters is about 50 feet.The fact is, I have conclusively proved that your reading of the pensieve memory is not possible.
Okay -i go into greater detail about this in my Snape paper, but to summarize: I think it is false that Severus picks on Harry because he reminds him of James. To be more accurate, that is only part of the reason. I think at least three things are happening with Harry – maybe more. The main ones are these:
Snape really, truly thinks Harry is arrogant and a budding dark wizard. He reminds him of James, yes. AND, i think, he reminds him of himself. This, btw, is my wild surmise about what is happening with Neville and Hermione – I think both of them, for different reasons, remind him of something about himself he rejects. Of course, poor Hermione is also Harry’s friend, and therefore comes in for even more abuse. And Ron sometimes gets abused for the same reason. Is this bad and wrong? Of course it is. Does it mean Snape is bad to the bone? No. He is a sinner, there is no doubt about that. To me, he represents the sinner on a long and difficult path to redemption. There are obstacles in the path, reversals, habitual sins, things he constantly stumbles over – but you seem to want to sum him up by the worst of his actions. I could do the same for Sirius Black, whom I consider an awful person, but I won’t. It’s obvious there is more to Sirius than his worst characteristics, and, as I said before, it’s clear to me why many fans like him. I don’t, but I can understand why others do. His good qualities are as obvious as his bad ones, and I find the same to be true of Snape. But I don’t think you will ever agree, so let’s not argue about it any more. Let’s just agree to differ, and drop it, please?
Travis, I think you misunderstood what I meant. When I said there was more to the prophecy, I did *not* mean that there was a part we didn’t hear. I meant we did not fully understand its meaning yet. I sure don’t! Heck, we’re all still debating what “marked him as his equal means”, with some of us insisting it means Harry is a horcrux and others denying it just as adamantly. I think theere may be a lot more to learn about that prophecy. And, even though there is nothing as yet in canon to support it, my surmise also contradicts nothing in canon. And I think it lets Dumbledore off the hook – if you think he is on one. I actually don’t.
Mary, I’m sorry, but you have “proved” nothing – conclusively or otherwise.
The fact that in the pensieve scene, Harry accepted Snape’s apparent fascination with his DADA paper at face value does not tell us *anything* about what was really going on.
Moreover your selective quote from OotP is just that. The whole passage tells a quite different story. The fact that Harry, on the preceding page, (while the Marauders and Snape were still in the exam room), Harry had positioned himself in the midst of a gaggle of girls – whose voices inches from his ear meant he had to strain to listen – tells us nothing about what Severus could hear. It tells us even less about what Severus could hear some moments later, after they had moved out into the Entrance Hall (as is stated in the book, prior to the werewolf conversation) and on through it.
Let me quote the actual salient lines from the following page:
” ‘How thick are you Wormtail?’ said James impatiently. ‘You run with a werewolf once a month -’
‘Keep your voice down,’ implored Lupin.
Harry looked anxiously behind him again. Snape remained close by…”
I offered a tenable theory. You have yet to say anything that makes it less tenable.
As for the rest of your comments, I’m afraid they don’t hold up. Harry is outrageously abused and ridiculed by Snape during the first moments of the first Potions lesson in his first year. Your suggestion that Harry is deserving of the treatment he gets from Snape, shows, again, that *you* have an inclination to play “blame the victim” – but it reveals nothing useful about Snape’s ethics. There is *no* form of student behavior that even begins to excuse Snape’s abuses of his power. Moreover he terrorizes Neville and others almost as savagely as he does Harry – and I’ve yet to hear your argument that Neville deserves all he gets.
Hi Reyhan. I agree that it would indeed be very cool if Severus *had* chosen to follow a different path. However my earlier point was that his mistreatment of students and consistent abuse of power makes it clear that his fundamental orientations are still as you’ve described them, throughout.
For most of the series to date, Severus walks a fine line. In all the things that are given weight by the people who have power over his fate (including Dumbledore), he is careful to be *seen* to do the “right” thing. So, for instance, he retains Dumbledore’s good opinion by saving Harry from falling off his broom and he helps to protect the Stone in PS/SS. He is aided throughout by the fact that Dumbledore chooses to be indulgent of his failings.
In all other matters, however – when the power people are not involved and in matters in which (he assumes) they are unlikely to intercede – his behavior is appalling. His treatment of those over whom he has complete power is routinely atrocious, ranging from neglect to outright contempt and abuse. So one might see a pattern of self-interest to his seeming contrariness. He may have adopted a *semblance* of goodness (and it has served him well) but it is belied by a deep abiding malice.
So Snape’s seeming “good” deeds are entirely consistent with a view of him as either self-serving (aligning himself with power people for the protection they offer) *or* as Voldemort-serving (ingratiating himself to Voldemort’s enemies in order to be a more effective spy and agent for the Dark Lord). Conversely his abuse of the innocent is *not* consistent with a view of him as loyal to the fundamental thing (love) that Dumbledore stands for. He remains immersed in bitterness and hatred even while representing himself (when and as it suits him) as virtuous and committed to the side of love.
Seriously-black, I disagree. Rowling describes the situation clearly: Snape is in front. Then some girls. Then Harry, in the middle of them. Then the rest of the girls. Then his father and the others. If *Harry* has to strain to hear, and Snape is in *front* of him, I don’t see how it’s humanly possible that Severus could have heard anything.
What you are doing, here, is denying that Snape could *ever* , at any point, have been an innocent victim. Everything that has happened to him, as well as everything he has done, must be his fault. Because he is bad, and the good guys are good. But POA clearly states Sirius *told* Severus how to get under the Whomping Willow. Told him. He certainly didn’t hear anything about that in this conversation.
I maintain, with Reyhan, that every single character in these stories, with the exception of Voldemort, is a mixture of good and bad, just as we all are. I heard Rowling say in NY that every character, with the exception of Voldemort, was redeemable. Severus Snape is not evil incarnate. Nor is he motivated solely by hate and bitterness, nor does he merely bully the helpless. It’s much more complicated than that. I have suggested, several times, that you read my paper. It’s fairly clear that you are not going to – which is okay – but I’ve said everything I have to say about Snape as a teacher in it. And no, I’m not blaming Harry for the way Snape treats him. What I said (both here and in the paper) was that Snape had *reasons* for what he does, but reasons are not excuses. And I also said that there is a lot more going on between Harry and Snape, IMHO, than is clear on the surface. That, too, is not blaming Harry. If Snape were more mature, he might *talk* to the boy about what is eating him – or at least talk to Minerva or Dumbledore. That would be reasonable. He’s not reasonable, and that’s not fair. But he is not *just* being a bully.
Oh – you might want to read Helen Ketcham’s paper, too, if you haven’t done it already. As I said before, I do not expect you to change your mind. But I would like you to realize that, at this stage of the story, there may be several equally valid interpretation. We are judging based on an incomplete set of facts, and only Rowling herself knows the full story or what she means by it. But I still maintain that, if she makes Snape evil, she will have told a deeply immoral and harmful tale.
And he’s not Voldemort’s man. If he is, he is the stupidest, most incompetent agent ever written. I just don’t believe Rowling is that sloppy a writer.
But, as I said, I don’t expect you to change your mind. And I don’t want to argue about this any more; it doesn’t seem productive, does it? So you won’t hear from me again.
Mary I read your paper some time ago, but I was neither impressed nor persuaded by it. You make it sound as though you suppose that the only reason that anyone would not agree with you is if they haven’t bothered to read your words of inestimable wisdom. You are mistaken about that.
As it happens, however, you mis-characterise my words. I have never contended that Snape is irredeemable. His character is portrayed as no more irredeemable than various other deeply conceited, self-serving, cowardly and malicious folks I’ve known of. But that very fact makes his ongoing failure to exercise self-discipline and his recidivistic sadism all the more heinous. Rowling has remarked upon this – her words:
“Q. Has Snape ever been loved by anyone?
JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even than Voldemort.”
Somehow I suspect that the author herself may have a deeper insight into the character of Snape than you do, Mary. Strange though it may seem.
Meanwhile, as regards your further repetition of your view regarding the pensieve episode, it’s curious that you yet again re-assert your view that the position Snape was in (on the other side of some girls) in the exam room is relevant to what he was able to hear a page later, after we are told that everyone had left the exam room. As I’ve already pointed out, the assumption you are choosing to make is not valid – you are taking one situation (the exam room) and claiming it has implications for another (the entrance hall or the outdoors). It doesn’t advance your argument, yet you are of course at liberty to keep repeating it if you feel compelled to do so.
Notwithstanding that, the vigor of your efforts to whitewash Snape are rather worrying, Mary. He is a character that the author herself has described as “sadistic” and (as per the above) “more culpable than Voldemort”. Yet elsewhere on this site, I see you are now asserting that if Snape turns out to be bad you will consider the whole series immoral.
Wow – that’s a big statement. However I believe you are wrong to suppose that your arguments have the weight of absolute morality behind them. Sorry.
All other arguments, though compelling, aside, I see Snape as someone who has had a tough road to hoe, and is constantly at odds with himself and everyone around him to portray a certain character. He was an abused child (he, at least, witnessed abuse by his father against his mother), he was brutally picked on by James and the Marauders in his socially-formative years, and now he has to be the bad guy in front of the DE’s and their children, yet still remain the good guy in front of DD and the other teachers at Hogwarts. Whew! No easy task. There are times when I find myself completely hating Snape, and those times tend to be when he is abusing Harry and his friends for no apparent reason. But there are other times, such as when he protected Harry at the Quidditch match and, most significantly, when he threw himself in front of Hermione, Ron, and Harry when Lupin transformed into a werewolf in PoA, when I am surprised to find myself liking him. He is a bitter, miserable person, no doubt about it…kinda like the grumpy old neighbor that yells at the kids for walking on his lawn (Dennis the Menace’s Mr. Wilson comes to mind). But there is more, undoubtably, than what we see–a damaged, vulnerable man who is alone and can really trust no one. How terrible a life like that must be! Who can blame him for the way he acts? I don’t excuse it, but I understand it.
JKR is fantastic at giving us characters that are dealing with demons from their past, just as we all do. It gives us characters that we can relate to. I really think that redemption is in the cards for Snape in this last book, and I think that it will be profound.
“…most significantly, when he threw himself in front of Hermione, Ron, and Harry when Lupin transformed into a werewolf in PoA”
I’m afraid that was an invention of the film makers. It doesn’t happen in the book and therefore JKR did not write it.
Yeah, I was wondering about that. It would have been definitive had it been true.
On the other hand, it could still be indirect evidence. We know that JKR has some oversight over the movies, and that the staging of one scene in that movie was changed because of her input (I can’t remember the details, you’ll know this better S_B, something about a cemetary not being on the grounds). So can we conclude that if Snape’s stepping in front of the children had definitely been wrong for the character, JKR would have said something?
It is a bit of a reach, but this is what we are reduced to, as we bite our fingernails and mark off the remaining days.
Reyhan, as much as I’m hesitant to take anything from the movies as evidence one way or the other, I’ve read that Rowling has taken more control over Snape in the movies than anyone else, and has spent extra time with Rickman discussing Snape, because his role is so important to the series. So it’s at least correct, I think, to say that standing in front of the students to protect them from Lupin was “in character” for Snape.
I believe that it’s true that Rowling has had some discussion with Rickman, but my understanding is that it was about the character in general terms, not about specific actions or specific scenes. Moreover there are a number of reports (including from Rowling herself) to the effect that she has taken a “hands-off” approach to the action sequences and most other aspects of the movies.
In light of this, it was not until the premiere, for instance, that she saw the touching of hands between Ron and Hermione (and their subsequent awkwardness) in the Hippogriff (COMC) class scene (which foreshadowed the developing attraction and relationship between them in books 4 thru 6).
The key exception is in relation to the overall geography of Hogwarts – and it is in this context that JKR discouraged the use of a cemetery in PoA – on the basis that there is a cemetery coming in a different location in a future book. However it remains unclear whether this was a reference to Dumbledore’s yet-to-be constructed tomb by the lake, or to something that is still coming in 7.
Notwithstanding that, I think it would be reasonable to conclude that the representation of Snape at that point – and at a number of other points in the movies – represents the interpretations of the actors and director to a significant degree. I don’t regard the films as canon.
FWIW, I consider that the portrayal of Snape throughout the films is considerably more sympathetic than the description of him in the books. Rickman is a gem and it is hard not to warm to him in the role. The books tell a somewhat different story.
Speaking from the heart, then I wish that she would take Gambon to one side and discuss Dumbledore with him.
Do you suppose she’s tried and given up?
I am reduced to the eternal plea of the helpless: “Why doesn’t someone do something?”
Great essay. Dumbledore wouldn’t have offered Minerva a sherbet lemon after the Potter’s just died, had he been guilty. That alone disproves Manipulative Dumbledore, I guess. For all we know, he never lied to Harry. He didn’t tell him literally everything, because everything would have included revealing the identity of the spy. But he didn’t tell a blatant lie.
I also don’t see how this great plan (if it existed) could have worked. If it was meant to draw out Voldemort and ambush him, where was the ambush when he actually set out to kill Harry? Creating the One who to vanquish Voldemort can’t have been the plan because what happened in Godric’s Hollow never happened before. It was Lily’s sacrifice that saved Harry, and I doubt that it would have worked had it been calculated.
After all, the story is supposed to be about sacrificial love, not manipulation and lies.
I am afraid that you and I are coming at this topic from opposite viewpoints. It matters little to me what the author thinks of a particular character. If the author were to insist that character X is `good’ while his actions are contrary to the insistence, I would still label that character differently. The character’s actions have to do the talking, not the insistence of the author. Since when is it necessary that one should agree completely with the author’s visualisation of a particular character? The critic is expected to visualise a particular character from as many different characters.
As for Dumbledore, I am afraid I have to ask a different question. It is not what Dumbledore did wrong that bothers me; it is the answer to what Dumbledore did `right’ that worries me. Have you a single instance where he actually did something right and it resulted in a fruitful outcome?
The only instance I can recall off the top of my head is the place when he advises Hermione and Harry to rescue Sirius using the time-turner. Even here, he actually does nothing, but the bit of advice is certainly useful in saving Sirius’ life.
We have the author’s insistence that Dumbledore is the `greatest/wisest’ wizard and yet every year his school has to be saved from obloquy and infamy by a teenaged kid. With no assertion that mine is the only way to read Dumbledore’s character
1) The death of the Potters – how did Dumbledore know about the death of the Potters at all? It occurred in the night (a very sensible thing for Voldemort to do, considering he wanted to surprise the Potters), and Sirius Black went immediately to check on the Potters once Pettigrew had disappeared (Sirius, PoA). How then did he know of the deaths of the Potters and immediately send Hagrid to grab Harry Potter? How did he even know that Harry Potter had survived?
2) The Potters did not know of the Fidelius charm (Dumbledore told them of the Fidelius charm(Flitwick, PoA)), and so it is unlikely that they performed the charm themselves. From my understanding of the Fidelius charm, it is an immensely complicated charm (Flitwick, PoA), implying that there are not many wizards who can perform it. It would have been a light side wizard (or witch) who performed it for the Potters, and anyone who performed it would have told Dumbledore that it was not Sirius who was the secret keeper. Why did Dumbledore give evidence to the ministry that it was Sirius who was the secret-keeper (Dumbledore, PoA)? Considering how easily he believes Sirius at the end of PoA, why did he at least not interrogate Sirius before the latter was chucked without a trial in Azkaban? Further, was it not his job, as head of Wizengamot, to demand that Sirius be given a trial (many, if not most, death eaters did get at least a travesty of a trial in that kangaroo court, which behaves more like a lynch mob – remember the sentencing of young Crouch and Lestranges). Is it a far-fetched supposition that Dumbledore wanted Sirius Black out of the way because Sirius, being the godfather of Harry, would have got custody of the child?
3) Then Dumbledore puts Harry in an unpleasant, if not abusive, environment with the Dursleys and forgets all about it. Is there any evidence that the protection prevented anyone from attacking Harry? On the contrary, the Umbridge’s dementors were able to attack Harry without any problems. If the wards did indeed protect Harry, how could they have got through? In fact, in PS, the protection does not figure at all. Dumbledore says that he is putting Harry with the muggles because `Harry will get a swollen head otherwise’ (conversation with Minerva). Gods help us! Are we to believe that raising him in a wizard family is sufficient to `turn Harry’s head’? Is there no wizarding family sufficiently disciplined to raise Harry fairly and decently? Or is Dumbledore shunning Harry for reasons of his own?
Next – the abusive environment itself. Is this what would be expected of a man who was responsible putting a child there in the first place? In fact, he is even aware of it since Harry’s first Hogwarts letters are addressed to `the cupboard under the stairs’. Why is a kid who is expected to play such an important role in the Wizarding world (Hagrid, Ollivander, Diggle, Quirrel, etc, PS) not even told of its existence until the Hogwarts letter? It is not as if Dumbledore is unaware of the Dursleys detestation of magic (Hagrid, PS). In fact, poor Harry is suddenly thrown into a world where he is a celebrity, and he knows nothing of how to behave in it. Why is he not eased slowly into the wizarding world and prepared for the responsibilities he will have to shoulder?
4) Does it not strike you as suspicious that he sends Hagrid to `rescue’ Harry. I wonder if this is common procedure – whether Hermione and other muggle-borns were also graced with Hagrid’s visit with the Hogwarts letter. It is hardly trust-inspiring for muggles to have a rather wild half-giant on their doorstep. Also, Hagrid subtly prejudices him against Slytherin (a place where the sorting hat wanted to put him, and one he would have likely chosen if he had not been biased against Slytherin), something which McGonagall or Flitwick would be unlikely to do.
5) The meeting with the Weasleys also strikes me as very suspicious – why would Mrs. Weasley seek to know the name of the platform (Platform 9 3/4) in the middle of a bunch of muggles. It is not as if she has not been there before. In fact, she has been going to the train station for at least the past 8 years and yet we are to believe that suddenly, in Harry’s hearing range, she conveniently forgot the platform number? Why did she get Ginny to mention the name of the platform at King’s Cross?
6) Dumbledore’s overlooking Quirrel/Voldemort was nothing short of criminal. Also, he has an artefact as priceless as the philosopher’s stone, and how does he protect it? With two bit games, and crossword puzzles! In fact, it is no exaggeration to say he deliberately meant for Harry to go after Voldemort when Harry, possibly Ron, and Hermione as well, had no clue what they were getting into. His showing Harry the Mirror of Erised is indicative of this. And what does Harry get in return for risking his life? A bit of polite applause, and a return to his hellhole with the Dursleys, without even being told why he has to return there.
But this is to overlook an even more serious breach. Ask yourself – what is the purpose of Hogwarts? It is a school, not a vault for guarding artefact level treasures. Dumbledore knows that Voldemort is after it (after all, he told Hagrid to remove it from the vault). Then he brings a treasure that has one of the darkest wizards after it into a building where there are defenceless kids. If this is not a crime against all ethics, I do not know what is. What if Voldemort, in his attempt to get hold of the stone, ended up killing a dozen kids?
Instead, he turns up after Quirrel is dead and the stone is saved, somewhat like the police in Hindi movies (they invariably turn up after the hero has killed off the villain).
7) A further interesting observation is that Dumbledore has never allowed Harry to visit Hermione’s parents – every summer, it is the Weasleys who reward him for his good behaviour in obeying the headmaster and going back to the Dursleys. For someone who is so supposedly muggle-friendly, is it not strange that Harry should never be allowed to meet Hermione’s parents? The Weasleys are all fanatically loyal to Dumbledore, and they routinely drill into Harry’s head that Dumbledore is not to be questioned. Maybe it is my law-enforcement background, but Dumbledore’s activities smack too much of the good-cop-bad-cop technique, with a subtle hint of brainwashing. Harry sees and hears what Dumbledore wants him to see and hear – nothing more, nothing less. Dumbledore has total and uncontrolled powers over Harry.
9) Even if he did not know about the monster, or the entrance, he should have warned at least McGonagall about the connection between Voldemort and the Heir of Slytherin, when he was suspended, judging that she would be left to deal with the mess he left behind. He does not do so (this I infer from the reaction of McGonagall when Harry tells his story to McGonagall, the Weasleys, and Dumbledore). Is it not criminally careless of him?
10) He actually colludes in the crime of having Hagrid sent to Azkaban, even when he knows that the half-giant is innocent. In fact, as head of Wizengamot, should he not have asked Hagrid to be tried of any crimes he was accused of? After making but a token resistance, he agrees to Hagrid being thrown in Azkaban indefinitely. (Rhetorical Question: Would Hagrid have been released or Dumbledore helped him if Harry had not killed the basilisk?) However, this summary justice is only for lesser mortals and does not apply to our noble wizard – he flees the school when he is to be thrown into Azkaban in OotP.
11) A possible addition to the list of idiocies of the year would be hiring the utterly incompetent Lockhart, but I am willing to give the benefit of doubt to Dumbledore (Hagrid says Lockhart was the only applicant, so maybe the Board simply endorsed him, based on his reputation, with Dumbledore having no say in the matter).
12) In Book 3, he knows Sirius Black has escaped, and it is at this juncture that it happens – I say that it happens – that hires Lupin, who was a friend of both James Potter and Sirius Black, when neither before nor after the year any of the Order members have been DADA teachers. Curious coincidence, is it not?
But coming back – Pettigrew has been in the castle for at least 3 years (possibly 7 years, if Percy Weasley was bringing the rat to the school every year), and yet the all wise wizard has no idea that an animagus is running loose in his school. Black also infiltrates the school – the safest place in the wizarding world, under the guidance of the greatest wizard – with contemptuous ease and breaks in and out at will, but our greatest wizard has no clue how it is all being done. It is rather like Treasure Island, is it not – where the heroes are going to a `secret island’, but everyone on the ship except the captain knows the latitude and longitude of the island in question.
In the end, when Sirius’ innocence is trusted, he cannot prevail upon the minister to give him a trial (something that was Sirius’ right), and Sirius is conveniently banished away from Harry, so that poor Harry can be transported to his summer prison.
13) The fourth book is the place where we see atrocious stupidity from the wisest wizard. There is a death eater pretending to be our noble Headmaster’s close friend (Dumbledore and Moody are very close friends according to one of the adult Weasleys – cannot remember if it was Bill or Charlie, or even Arthur) for a complete year, and yet our wise Headmaster has no clue at all that he is being outsmarted. Yet the moment, Voldemort has returned, reason and wisdom, which had hitherto been conspicuous by their absence, suddenly return to our Headmaster and he saves Harry in a melodramatic fashion.
But then again – his investigations after Harry’s name appeared mysteriously are completely barren – in fact, we have no evidence that he even conducted any investigations. Yet he is aware of the connection between the disappearances of Crouch, Bertha Jorkins and Frank Muggle, but he can do nothing. Pffft! Give me a break! The question is – if he is indeed aware of the connection between these disappearances – what prevented him from conducting more thorough investigations on his own initiative? When Barty – a notorious workoholic stopped coming – what stopped Dumbledore from verifying the reasons for Barty’s mysterious absence from work?
Are we to believe that he noticed nothing of young Crouch cursing Harry’s obstacles out of the way (Barty’s confession), right in front of the judges? Is the world’s greatest wizard so idiotic that he cannot see one of the supposed assistants casting unforgivables in front of his eyes (remember the imperious curse on Krum)?
If Dumbledore did no wrong in the book, at least, he did no right.
14) Dumbledore says that all contact Harry has with his friends has been curtailed, ostensibly for `Harry’s good’. This is a very ridiculous statement – the ignorant person is most likely to do something stupid, especially given Harry’s penchant for activity.
13) Is it just me or does anyone else find the appointment of fifth year prefects very suspicious? I allude to the Slytherin prefects. Dumbledore has deliberately appointed students with death eater sympathies (Malfoy and Parkinson – Malfoy at least has made no secret of his sympathies), and put them under the supervision of a supposed death eater (Snape). Considering that the head of House and prefects are supposed to be role models for students, is the headmaster deliberately encouraging the Slytherins to go over to Voldemort? If not, his actions are stupid; if yes, they are reprehensible.
14) On that note, does anyone else find Dumbledore appointing teachers for extraneous considerations? Dumbledore seems to see Hogwarts as his power base, rather than a place where he has to teach his students to the best of his ability. His Defence against Dark Arts disasters apart, he seems to have appointed only incompetent teachers during his tenure as headmaster. At least, Professor McGonagall ([In OotP, she says he she has been teaching for 39 years at Hogwarts, and in PoA, Lupin says, he thought it was unlikely he would be able to come to Hogwarts until Dumbledore became headmaster. Considering that Lupin is not yet 39 at the time of OotP, the inference is obvious)] and (very likely) Professors Flitwick and Sprout (given their age – both seem elderly at the very least) predate Dumbledore’s appointment as headmaster. His known appointments are, with very few exceptions, invariable blunders. His known appointments include Professor Hagrid (whom he prefers to the more capable and (most likely) better qualified, Grubbly Plank). Hagrid may be nice, but as a teacher, he does not seem to shine any greatly. Professor Trelawney, another appointment of Dumbledore, is a nightmare of epic proportions. Professor Snape, another retained for extraneous reasons, may be a great potion maker, but his teaching skills are suspect (bullying students is hardly teaching) and his professional ethics are conspicuous by their absence. He is retained because `he spies on Voldemort’. That Snape is Head of Slytherin and encourages Dark Lord supporters is another problem. Professor Binns, another he has retained, is notable for his soporific skills, but does not seem to have anything else to recommend in him. In fact, considering that Hogwarts is `the best wizarding school’ and the quality of the staff there, one shudders to think what the worst might be like.
I will not go over the other points which have already been remarked elsewhere, but to me at the very least, Dumbledore feels like a `real world evil’. The man who abuses his powers, who puts his needs over his professional ethics, and finally, a Machivellian, who manipulates people with little regard to their will/desires. In contrast, Voldemort’s evil is cartoonish – a carciature. All Voldemort seems to do most of the time is sit in a throne, scheme and crucio his minions. The three `real world evil’ characters I found in the HP series are Dumbledore, Lucius Malfoy, and Barty Crouch Snr. There are three possible interpretations of Dumbledore that I find reasonably acceptable:
a) Absent minded professor Dumbledore – a great wizard without an iota of commonsense.
b) Dumb as a dodo Dumbledore – a fool who has no clue what he is doing, or what the results of his actions will be.
c) Manipulative bastard Dumbledore – a man who has put himself above all authority and humanity and views people as pawns in his great game against Voldemort.
I am perfectly aware that my interpretation is open to challenge and does not harmonise with JKR’s vision, but there is too much disconnect between her vision and what transpires during the books. In five books, if most of his decisions go wrong every year, his students’ lives are threatened/lost and he and his school have to be rescued annually by a schoolkid, then there is something wrong with the authority and/or the decision making in question.
Wow! That was a long rant – sorry if I upset any of you, but I have put my humble opinion here.
Regards,
Maidros
I haven’t read all of your post, but after the first few points I already have enough objections to your theory.
You seem to see the actions and interactions of Dumbledore’s that Harry observes to be the total of his charater. You are correct that the character’s actions speak louder than an author’s insistances but surely it is a good guide in interpreting the available evidence. To me, your interpretation seem clever and a twisting of what I see as prima facie evidence. We are not given exhaustive information on Dumbledore’s actions and thoughts. You mention numerous times that as head of the Wizengamot that he should have much more than he did. … We don’t really know any of his actions as head of the Wizengamot and to assume that this equates with inaction is unfair.
I also seem to remember that Dumbledore also mentioned that he was unable to order the Ministry to do his bidding. Dumbledore is part of the wizarding community and under authority. Sure, he doesn’t always agree with them and sometimes is deliberately disobedient. But it’s not his way to clash head-on. He works from within to bring gentle change.
“Wow! That was a long rant – sorry if I upset any of you, but I have put my humble opinion here.”
Sorry, but I disagree with you here. Your tone and writing seems anything but humble. It seems beyond a normal beef that you have with Dumbledore. Why has it upset you so much? Is it a deliberate flame?
Matthew
Perhaps Maidros just wanted us to know that he (or she) didn’t enjoy the books.
In that case, a shorter comment would have sufficed.
Seriously, the stories are for us to enjoy, Maidros. We do some deep speculation in here, but it, too, is for our enjoyment. We accept some of the miscues by the author and just get into the story.
In a nutshell–you’re nitpickin’!
Maidros, if your interpretation of Dumbledore is directly contradictory to JKR’s vision of the character, as you freely admit…erm…doesn’t that make you second-guess your interpretation? And if not, doesn’t it stand to reason (at least your reason) that JKR is an abysmal writer for failing so miserably? And if that’s the case, then that’s a heck of a long post and a heck of a lot of attention given to a bad writer, isn’t it?
“You seem to see the actions and interactions of Dumbledore’s that Harry observes to be the total of his charater”
The problem is that we have precious little knowledge of Dumbledore’s actions from a third party pov. We simply have to judge by the evidence available. Can you point to places where there is an independent view? Even worse, especially in regard to Harry, his actions seem to aggravate the problems, rather than ameliorate them. When it happens consistently, one tends to question the motive behind those mistakes.
“but surely it is a good guide in interpreting the available evidence”
I am afraid I simply cannot agree with this statement. A critic is in no way bound to take the author’s point of view. Looking at the evidence from a different point of view is a perfectly acceptable method of criticism.
“what I see as prima facie evidence”
Can you please point to the prima facie evidence?
“We are not given exhaustive information on Dumbledore’s actions and thoughts”
Quite true. Which is why we have to simply go on what evidence is available. Like I said, if you have other evidence, I would be happy to debate with you. I am simply analysing the text per se.
“I also seem to remember that Dumbledore also mentioned that he was unable to order the Ministry to do his bidding”
He was able to interrogate Morfin (at least that is what I remember the guy’s name to be – the one Riddle framed for the murder of his family) using legilimency, with the Ministry approval. So why could he not interrogate Sirius?
“sometimes is deliberately disobedient”
His disobedience is, shall we say, deliberately skewed? I see a pattern to his disobedience that does not harmonise with the guilt or lack thereof, of the accused.
“It seems beyond a normal beef that you have with Dumbledore. Why has it upset you so much? Is it a deliberate flame?”
I am simply analysing Dumbledore from a different point of view. Like I said, if you have any evidence about the fallacy of my interpretation, I would be glad to debate it with you.
Regards,
Maidros
“Perhaps Maidros just wanted us to know that he (or she) didn’t enjoy the books.”
That is a rather bold extrapolation. I have analysed one particular character. There are plenty of other characters in the books and I have never stated my opinion about JKR or her quality of writing.
“We accept some of the miscues by the author and just get into the story.”
The problem about Dumbledore, as I said, is not what he does wrong. It is what he does right. And the lack of evidence in the latter category that bothers me. We can always discuss on the basis of available evidence.
Regards,
Maidros
maidros, there are a lot of reasons no one is going to take up your challenge to “debate” these points about Dumbledore. The first is that your comment is so long, one wonders where to begin! The second is that the presentation of the points sound like such a radically skewed reading of Dumbledore, it’s hard to even know how to argue with them…
Let’s take your question, “Why could he not interrogate Sirius?” That’s easy – we know wizards can modify their own memories. Legilimency is not a reasonable way to prove matters of justice.
While I agree you’re perfectly free to criticize Rowling’s work from your own point of view, it’s quite a thing to say, “Rowling says such and such about this character, but I disagree with her.” You have to either conclude, in that case, that Rowling is (a) deluded, or (b) a lousy writer – and in both cases, I can’t figure out why you’d want to spend so much time on the matter. If I think a writer is that bad, I don’t read him or her.
“if your interpretation of Dumbledore is directly contradictory to JKR’s vision of the character, as you freely admit…erm…doesn’t that make you second-guess your interpretation?”
No. I see no particular reason why I should approach a particular character from the author’s point of view. I simply look at the available textual evidence and try to analyse from there, based on what we actually know of the fictional world.
“And if not, doesn’t it stand to reason (at least your reason) that JKR is an abysmal writer for failing so miserably?”
Just because I happen to disagree with the author on one character does in no way imply that I am commenting on the quality of her writing, or the series in general.
Regards,
Maidros
“Let’s take your question, “Why could he not interrogate Sirius?†That’s easy – we know wizards can modify their own memories. Legilimency is not a reasonable way to prove matters of justice.”
There are plenty of reasons to interrogate Sirius – let me give a few reasons in no particular order.
1) Sirius is *not* trained in occlumency. If he were, he would be the one to teach Harry and would certainly not have allowed Snape to do it. So his ability to lie convincingly to Dumbledore (or any other well trained legilimens) is questionable. Snape says you need to be a decent occlumens to lie convincingly to a good legilimens.
2) While he does not interrogate Sirius when he was first chucked in Azkaban, he has no problems believing Sirius (purely on his own word, and much before he corroborates the evidence with Harry/Hermione) when he is captured in PoA. What occurred to change his opinion so drastically in one short session with Sirius?
3) The next problem is that it is most unlikely that the Potters themselves cast the Fidelius charm (They did not know of it and Dumbledore told them of it – Flitwick says so in PoA). Would it not be convenient to question the caster of the charm who the secret keeper was?
4) One more coruscation – the secret keeper has to tell the person/s of the place protected by the Fidelius charm. If Dumbledore could send Hagrid to Godric Hollow, he should have been told of it. Since Sirius was not the secret keeper, he could not have told Dumbledore of it. It had to be Pettigrew who told Dumbledore (or anyone else, for that matter) how to find the Potters in Godric’s Hollow. If Pettigrew told Dumbledore and/or Hagrid of how to get there, why did Dumbledore suspect Sirius of being the secret keeper?
I hope you see what the problem is -there are simply too many loose ends to be wished away. And Dumbledore’s role seems to be on very shaky grounds.
That is what first encouraged me to take a look at Dumbledore from a very different point of view.
Regards,
Maidros
See? This is why I’m not doing this.
That Sirius doesn’t know occlumency is pure speculation. So much for “evidence.” That Sirius would have taught Harry occlumency if he knew it is absolutely impossible, given that they were only together over Christmas break, not long enough to do weekly occlumency lessons as was clearly needed.
I could do this with all the rest of your points, but I don’t want to. We look at the same series, and you think there are “simply too many loose ends” based on “evidence,” and I entirely disagree.
“That Sirius would have taught Harry occlumency if he knew it is absolutely impossible, given that they were only together over Christmas break, not long enough to do weekly occlumency lessons as was clearly needed.”
There are several reasons to believe that Sirius was not proficient in occlumency.
1) When Snape tells Harry that he will be getting lessons in occlumency, Sirius says “Why cannot Dumbledore teach it?”. He does not say,”I will begin teaching Harry before he comes to you.” Do you seriously believe that Sirius would have sent Harry to Snape to learn something he was capable of teaching himself?
2) From what Remus says, “Snape is a good occlumens – you should learn from him”, he indirectly implies he is not going to be teaching himself. Knowing Harry’s antipathy for Snape, would not Sirius and/or Remus not teach him if they were capable?
3) Harry had two sessions per week and a sum total of 22 sessions with Snape, before he was kicked out. Harry had roughly the same amount of time to practise occlumency with Sirius if the latter were capable of teaching it (from 18 December to 13 January) (this I gather from the HPL timeline). So – `Sirius had no time to teach Harry’ does not work. Can you conceive of a more possible reason why Sirius would not teach Harry occlumency?
4) Occlumency, from the definition, is the art of blocking out external influences on the mind. When Sirius is asked how he survived Azkaban with his sanity intact, he attributes it to his animagi skills, and not to occlumency. Is it a far-fetched supposition that Sirius would have used occlumency in Azkaban if he were capable of it?
5) Occlumency seems to be a rare branch with not many experts in the area. From what we know from textual evidence, only Snape, Dumbledore, Bellatrix, and Voldemort are reasonably good at it (This can be inferred from the Snape’s conversation with Draco in HBP). The chances that Sirius did know occlumency and yet did not teach it to Harry seem pretty small.
Dumbledore knew the truth once he’d spoken (briefly) to Sirius in PoA, probably without using Legilimency. It doesn’t really matter if Sirius could do Occlumency, I guess DD could have found out the truth, if he’d just talked to Sirius and listened to his story.
It always seemed a bit odd to me that Sirius never spoke up in his defence for 12 long years and that Dumbledore never did any inquiry. He was obviously convinced of Sirius’s guilt like anyone else. He believed him to have been the Secret Keeper and therefore the traitor. He was in error about that, but based on the information he had at that time, it’s understandable, I believe.
“He was in error about that, but based on the information he had at that time, it’s understandable, I believe.”
The basic problem for the author was – she started with the theme of a child fighting an evil overlord. To give credit to the kid/s, she had to reconcile the problem that Harry and his friends would have to be essentially `punching above their weight’; consequently, the role of the others, including older people, had to be minimised. Personally, I think she would have been better off without the continual insistence about Dumbledore’s greatness and/or goodness. There was simply no need to emphasise that point – Dumbledore could have been a mentor and advisor to Harry without being the `greatest wizard’ – in fact, had his flaws been emphasised, he would have been a much more sympathetic character. As it is, the mistakes of Dumbledore stand out in jarring contrast to the reverence he is accorded by other characters, and it sounds too much like `Brutus is an honourable man’ of Antony’s speech in Shakespeare’s `Julius Caesar’.
At Dumbledore’s level, it is particularly important not to make such glaring errors as he makes (if indeed they are errors). As Aramis says in `The Man in the Iron Mask’
`On an elevation flooded with light, every stain appears a blemish, every glory a stain.’ This is where Dumbledore comes off badly. His continued mistakes (as the author interprets them) can be recast as deliberate mischief and inhuman manipulation.
Regards,
Maidros
TRAVIS, this is a waste of time. Maidros has stated his/her point. With all due respect to you, let’s accept it as his opinion and move on. I don’t think his intent is to inflame (at least, I hope not.) His points are interesting, however, since the majority here seem to accept JKR’s view of the characters, any further comments would be argumentative.
Maidros, I wasn’t seriously saying that you didn’t like the book. I was being facetious. However, after reading (and reading) your comments I knew where this was going. How about commenting on some other topics here? Try to keep them brief, please, as the long speeches are difficult to rebut. By the way, welcome to this forum. You certainly have a way of introducing yourself!
Hey Maidros, I’ve never heard anyone quote Aramis before. I didn’t even know he ever said anything quotable. Cool.
I’m going to pick up the gauntlet you’ve thrown down.
I looked through your 16 objections and sorted them into categories, or bins.
Bin 1 consists of things DD should have known about, but did not: Sirius’ innocence, that Quirrell was channelling Voldemort, the fact that there was a Basilisk roaming the halls, that Peter Pettigrew was not only not dead, but roaming around at Hogwarts, that Lockhart was a fake, and that Moody was Crouch.
Bin 2 consists of things DD should not have known about: the death of the Potters
Bin 3 consists of things DD should have done but did not: doesn’t brief McGonnogal adequately before deserting Hogwarts, doesn’t let Harry visit Hermione’s parents
Bin 4 holds things he shouldn’t have done: put Harry with the Dursleys, sent Hagrid to bring him to Hogwarts, appointed Slytherin Death Eater prefects, kept Harry’s friends from contacting him over the summer, appointed Lupin as the DADA teacher the same time Sirius Black escapes from Azkaban. Also, generally, appointed incompetent teachers at Hogwarts.
And Bin 5 is not actually about DD, but more about things which are too opportune to be the coincidences they are presented to be: Harry meeting the Weasleys on Platform 9 3/4
Of these five bins, the only one that holds items of substantial significance, for me, is bin 1: stuff DD should have known about, and did not.
I agree that it’s implausible that DD didn’t pick up on the Basilisk, Quirrell/Voldemort, Scabbers/Peter Pettigrew, and Moody/Crouch if he is indeed the greatest wizard ever. The way I’ve dealt with this is to accept that writing a near-omniscient character is difficult, and give the author a little bit of leeway in selectively blinding the omniscient character as needed in order to write a suspensful story. I mean otherwise, everytime a danger reared it’s head, DD would hold an assembly and explain what it was, and how it was going to turn out, and everyone back to your lessons. Boring. Also, over time, I’ve come to accept that Dumbledore’s greatness lies not so much in his power – which is limited – but in his goodness.
I’m assuming, btw, that you’re not seriously proposing that DD did many of these things deliberately in order to torment Harry, punish Sirius Black, and bore the students witless as they had to suffer under the incompetent teachers DD appointed.
“writing a near-omniscient character is difficult”
I absolutely agree with you here. It is extremely difficult to write a near-onmiscient character since the very term requires, at least, near perfection. Perfect characters tend to be extremely boring and there would be no need of Harry and Co. at all. However, the author tends to emphasise his `greatness’ at least as much as his goodness (the Ministry seeking his advice on all and sundry matters, his alternate appointments, his titles, etc – none of which serve any plot purpose (at least until now), but make him at least as much a `man of the world’ and simply give him power that serves no purpose as opposed to an academician). It would have been far more easier to forgive Dumbledore if he had been simply the Headmaster of Hogwarts, since his experience with the responsibilities of Harry in the days to come would be more limited.) On a humourous note, does any one find the titles `Albus Dumbledore, Order of the Merlin, First Class, Grand Sorcerer, Supreme Mugwump, Chief Warlock, etc’ sounding somewhat like `Field Marshal Dr. President Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, etc’?
Okay, back to the point – the problem as I see it is none of these actually do anything to help the plot, but actually call into question his goodness. Without these, as a simple Headmaster of Hogwarts, he would have been a `lesser being’, so to speak, and consequently his errors would be more forgivable, because he would appear to be a more fallible mortal.
“I’ve come to accept that Dumbledore’s greatness lies not so much in his power – which is limited – but in his goodness.”
If only this had been emphasised in canon ….. Unfortunately, it is not, and therein lies the problem for me.
“I’m assuming, btw, that you’re not seriously proposing that DD did many of these things deliberately in order to torment Harry, punish Sirius Black, and bore the students witless as they had to suffer under the incompetent teachers DD appointed”
I do not think the author actually intended it that way – that Dumbledore be seen as an evil genius. But the evidence on text is ambiguous at best, and it leaves open a chance for someone who wants to investigate the character to develop a completely believable `manipulative Dumbledore’.
As for the faults of Dumbledore, it is the ones you have sorted in bin 4 that worry me most. (Dumbledore’s appointment of incompetent teachers, Slytherin Death Eater Head (at least he poses as one – we do not know Snape’s real loyalty yet) and prefects, and his actions with Harry). These are errors in continuum, so to speak. He makes them every year, and continues making them for purposes of his own. `Errare humanum est, persevarare diabolicum’
So – Dumbledore can be interpreted either way believably.
Regards,
Maidros
“However, after reading (and reading) your comments I knew where this was going. How about commenting on some other topics here? Try to keep them brief, please, as the long speeches are difficult to rebut. By the way, welcome to this forum. You certainly have a way of introducing yourself!”
I have a habit of overanalysing characters and the text, so it would help to keep that in mind while reading my comments. Thanks for the welcome, and I will definitely comment on other topics.
Regards,
Maidros
maidros, I see your point, but I don’t think that Dumbledore’s errors call into question his goodness or make him believable as a manipulative character. They simply prove that he’s not inerrant, but not that he isn’t good. In my opinion, his moral integrity and honesty are emphasized throughout the book.
On the contrary, if Dumbledore would have been presented as an all-knowing, all-powerful person, his decisions would seem much more questionable, because then we’d have to assume that may indeed have lied to Harry or acted against better knowledge. But he’s only human, and therefore bound to make mistakes.
Dumbledore may have been the most powerful wizard of his day, but he wasn’t perfect. Power doesn’t equate perfection or else VM would be without faults, too.
“They simply prove that he’s not inerrant.”
He makes too many mistakes to be forgiven, and worse, continues making the same mistakes. In fact, he does far more things wrong (at least with regard to Harry) than he does right. You can construe his `mistakes’ as genuine, or you can see it as deliberate manipulation. What is more, he has an unhappy penchant for meddling in Harry’s affairs more than is warranted for a Headmaster. Take the case of his stopping Harry’s friends writing to him in OotP. Does he even have a right to stop them from doing so? I do not think so. So – while you simply waive off his `mistakes’, I see no reason to be so forgiving. They do not even feel like errors.
” his moral integrity and honesty are emphasized throughout the book”
Hmmm – I cannot agree with you. Take the case of the first year’s Cup award in the ending feast. Did Harry and his friends really deserve those points? Quite possibly. After all, they had just stopped the shade of Voldemort, so I guess that it is justified that they get the points. What is not justified is that Dumbledore waits until the last minute, lets the Slytherins think they have won the cup and then virtually snatches the Cup from their hands. After all, Dumbledore had three days to announce the points. So why did he not announce it before hand? Is it fair to let the Slytherins be humiliated in front of the entire school by having their victory snatched away at the last moment? I am not so sure – it is too much a case of playing `Nanny nanny boo boo’ with a bunch of students who are already none too liked in the school. I do not think the author wanted to make the headmaster seem like one who deliberately spoiled the fun of the Slytherins. Most likely, it was a craving for a `dramatic finish’, where Harry’s actions snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. But when you look at the same thing from the Slytherin point of view, you will see that *no one* deserves to be made to think they have won and then have all their hopes dashed.
So – the bottom line is – Dumbledore’s actions can be interpreted either way. You can simply think of him as a great man who makes a *lot* of mistakes (yes, he made a lot of mistakes), or you can visualise him as a manipulative creature, who has no hesitation playing any card as long as it suits him.
Regards,
Maidros
Agree with the former and not the latter.
Of course the reason DD interfered in Harry’s life was that he knew the prophecy and what was ahead for Harry. He made that his business, I suppose, to the save the world from Voldemort.
I can understand why you think as you do. All very interesting, too. I just don’t agree with it. Can’t give any good reasons–just the way it is. I guess I’ve allowed the author’s bias to become mine, too.
Dang…and I always thought of myself as an independent thinker.
maidros,
Dumbledore could not give the points earlier. If he had done so, another teacher would have been able to change overall result; therefore Dumbledore had to be the very last person who gave the points.
maidros, allow me to join the others in welcoming you and also to apologize for starting with a rather bombastic response to you right off the bat!
I’ll hardly be able to keep up with this discussion, given the length of your comments and the work I need to do for Prophecy, but I will drop in occasionally to give a few responses.
I think one key difference between your reading of Dumbledore and mine (as well as others) is that you see LOTS of mistakes where others see better explanations than calling it a “mistake.” They way you’re framing this discussion is, “Here’s the list of mistakes. Now how do we interpret those mistakes – genuine or manipulative?” Your comment here:
So – the bottom line is – Dumbledore’s actions can be interpreted either way. You can simply think of him as a great man who makes a *lot* of mistakes (yes, he made a lot of mistakes), or you can visualise him as a manipulative creature, who has no hesitation playing any card as long as it suits him.
is not accurate in my opinion. You’re finding mistakes around every corner and under every rock, and I disagree with several of your “mistake” interpretations. So this most certainly is not the “bottom line.”
I’ve read the complaint about the awarding of points many times. I just don’t see it. It’s dramatic storytelling on Rowling’s part, nothing more. It’s a sort of fairy tale ending to the fairy tale sort of feel of the first book (which certainly fades as the series progresses). I just don’t buy that it’s evidence for an evil, callous, manipulative Dumbledore. And Martin is correct – Dumbledore was awarding those points in honor of the bravery of 4 Gryffindors, 3 of whose efforts saved the school and the entire Wizarding World from the return of the most dangerous, evil wizard ever. Their actions delayed the return of a wizard who would have killed vast numbers of people. In order to preserve this high honor, Dumbledore had to be the last one to award points, so that Gryffindor house could receive its award for producing such bravery.
Maidros,
I think that Dumbledore awarding points to the Gryffindors at the end of year feast was excellent! It spoke of reward for bravery, that if you cheat you will not succeed for ever (Slytherins), after 7 years of Slytherin dominance the goodies will win and be rewarded (pointing to the conclusion of the series- Neville being the one who finially tips the balance in the Goddies favor?). Now if you take those points to equate with Dumbledore being harsh and cruel and the Slyhterins being humiliated then, I feel, it speaks more about your outlook than about the story writing. Not winning the cup does not mean humiliation, it means glory for the winner. Boo hoo, Slytherins didn’t win… again… for eight years in a row…
You say Dumbledore’s actions can be interpreted either way. That’s true, but I think you are trying to interpret Dumbledore’s with a deliberately predetermined mindset.
Unlike your namesake, you don’t have the silmaril in you hand with this argument.
Matthew
“Dumbledore could not give the points earlier. If he had done so, another teacher would have been able to change overall result; therefore Dumbledore had to be the very last person who gave the points.”
Let us analyse your argument here. What happens in the last week or so of the term? Nothing important. Exams are over, the quidditch and other extra-curricular activities are over, it does not appear that classes are held either (McGonagall, in fact, tells Harry and Co. when they go to warn her of the attack on the Philosopher Stone that they should be *relaxing* – considering McGonagall’s attitude to schoolwork, this is a telling argument that the last week is for unwinding from the exam stress). So the chances that some other teacher would give points is not a particularly valid excuse. There are not many opportunities to give points in the last week. The only way someone could give the points would be by being deliberately unfair or something extraordinary occurs.
Now in this case, nothing extraordinary occurs. So who would give points to Slytherin at the end of the term deliberately? Why, old Severus, of course! The others are unlikely to do anything so. So, in order to make sure that Gryffindor gets the cup, all Dumbledore had to do was award the points a day or two before hand, and tell Severus not to unfairly boost the points on the last day. The Slytherins would have muttered darkly when they saw Gryffs getting 170 points on one day, cursed in secret and been still annoyed. In fact, Dumbledore could even have used the feast to give the reasons why he awarded the points to the Gryffs. Remember the emotional ending feast scene in Book 4, where he honours Harry in the context of Cedric, without any of the assortment of points and last minute changes to cup winners. It would have made for a much more emotionally effective way to make his point, and it would have been a lot less unfair to the Slytherins.
But this is to overlook an even more important point. In the context, Slytherin were 160 points above Gryffindor. Dumbledore awarded 170 points to Gryffindor to help them win. Let us assume that the Slytherins were 200 points above – would you agree to Dumbledore giving 210 points to Gryffindor? Or if the Gryffindors were only 100 points behind, would it be okay to award 110 points to the four Gryffindors? Considering that the entire points system seems to be arbitrary and there is no scheme in place, one must ask oneself if giving Gryffindor enough points to (just) beat Slytherin was the goal. If the objective was to give Gryffindor the cup, he could simply have awarded all 4 Gryffindors 100 points apiece a day before, and explained his rationale in the feast. In fact, he adopts just such a method in Book 2, where he gives Harry and Ron 200 points apiece. This does not give Slytherins the impression that they have won, only to have it snatched away at the last minute.
But instead what does Dumbledore do? Let us analyse the text:
The Hall is decorated in Green and Silver, indicating that Slytherins have already won the Cup. This seems to be the normal procedure – to decorate the Hall in the colours of the winning House. Did Dumbledore not know that he was going to award points (and the Cup) to Gryffindor before the feast? Of course, he knew. So why did he give the Slytherins that they had won the Cup, and created the air of anticipation? Consider that we are talking about potentially 12 year old kids, who prolly wanted to bask in the glory of the Cup win.
Then let us go on to Dumbledore’s actual words, “In the first place, with 472 points is Slytherin. Yes, yes, well done Slytherin”
In other words, he even announces the final points, and just changes enough to snatch away the cup – the proverbial distance between the cup and the lip, if you will pardon my pun. Now it is probably the author’s intention to create a bit of a dramatic climax for a Harry led Gryffindor victory. But it is extremely unfair to Slytherin – you do not play `Nanny nanny boo boo’, especially not with young kids.
Regards,
Maidros
The colours in the hall were Slytherin because they were already holding the cup not because they had won the current year’s competition.
Matthew
maidros, if Dumbledore had given Gryffindor the points the day before and told Snape not to award any Slytherins any points, you’d see that as every bit as unfair and manipulative.
Dramatic ending. That’s the point. I just don’t think we’re supposed to be taking that scene quite that seriously. Dumbledore is not so trite. In my opinion, it’s an overanalyzation. It might have been a minor flaw on Rowling’s part, but it’s not something that can be used to impugn Dumbledore’s character, in my opinion.
“You’re finding mistakes around every corner and under every rock, and I disagree with several of your “mistake†interpretations. So this most certainly is not the “bottom line”
If you have evidence that the `mistakes’ I have listed are not supported by canon, I will be happy to debate it with you. But let us stick to canon and in text evidence, not the author’s or anyone else’s intentions.
“It’s dramatic storytelling on Rowling’s part, nothing more.”
Quite true – in fact, I did mention that the dramatic climax was probably the author’s intention. But dramatic finales need not be fair. There is no need for the two to be conjoined in any manner.
“Dumbledore was awarding those points in honor of the bravery of 4 Gryffindors, 3 of whose efforts saved the school and the entire Wizarding World from the return of the most dangerous, evil wizard ever. Their actions delayed the return of a wizard who would have killed vast numbers of people. In order to preserve this high honor, Dumbledore had to be the last one to award points, so that Gryffindor house could receive its award for producing such bravery.”
There are two separate arguments in the paragraph above. First is the awarding the points, the second the timing of the award. If you read my previous post, you will observe that I have never questioned Dumbledore’s right to award any number of points to anyone. The whole point system seems completely arbitrary, so it is fine. It is the second part I am questioning. Did Dumbledore need to let the Slytherins believe they had won the Cup (he even lets the Hall be decorated in green and silver) and then snatch it out of their hands? I see no reason to. And it is this letting last minute change of Cup winners that is unfair.
If giving the Gryffindors the Cup was the object, why not award them more points than others could gain in three days (or the Gryffs lose in three days) and ensure it?
“if Dumbledore had given Gryffindor the points the day before and told Snape not to award any Slytherins any points, you’d see that as every bit as unfair and manipulative”
I did not say `not award any points’ – I said not award `unfair points’ or `subtract points unfairly’. Why does Severus get away with adding and removing points unfairly anyway? Is it not Dumbledore’s job to ensure fairness in the school?
In fact, I did mention that Dumbledore could have given more points than Snape (or anyone else) could manipulate in three days, if giving Gryffindor the cup was the goal.
Regards,
Maidros
“The colours in the hall were Slytherin because they were already holding the cup not because they had won the current year’s competition.”
Can you point to canon evidence for this statement? I certainly cannot remember that the previous year’s winner’s decorations are the ones that are present in the Hall.
Regards,
Maidros
maidros, I think I’ve already noted that I don’t have the time or energy to “debate” the mistake points; nor do I think I’d be able to do so without abandoning charity, because I find these sorts of arguments maddening.
But I think it’s quite a mistake to set the rules as, “stick to canon and in text evidence, not the author’s or anyone else’s intentions,” because…erm…the author wrote the canon. You wouldn’t think of analyzing Scrooge without reference to Dickens, Mr. Darcy without reference to Austen, or Raskolnikov without reference to Dostoevsky. Their intentions for the character are key to understanding that character.
Furthermore, even “canon evidence” gets interpreted differently by different people. It’s not like “canon evidence” is some objective set of facts that we can’t go wrong about when considering. So, in essence, we’re all discussing our opinions of canon evidence. To say, “We can discuss our own opinions about the characters, but not the author’s,” is kind of insulting to published authors, don’t you think?
“that if you cheat you will not succeed for ever (Slytherins), after 7 years of Slytherin dominance the goodies will win and be rewarded (pointing to the conclusion of the series- Neville being the one who finially tips the balance in the Goddies favor?)”
Now this is a whole can of worms. Let us analyse your statement.
1) The House cup is awarded to ALL Slytherins. Do ALL Slytherins cheat? We have no evidence for it. In fact, how much of Nott’s or Daphne Greengrass’s or Tracey Davis’s cheating have we seen in the books? Almost none. It is quite true that Draco Malfoy and his cronies `cheat’ as you put it. And If they are indeed cheating, it is for Dumbledore and the teachers to catch the cheating and punish the specific acts *NOT* assume they have cheated and cheat in return. Two thefts cannot be considered justice.
2) `the goodies’ and the `baddies’ – ah now, this is clever. How did you determine that the Slytherins are `baddies’? Some Slytherins are certainly `baddies’, but how are the rest to blame for that? You seem to have a strange concept of justice – that collective punishment is acceptable because some of them are rotten.
Sure Draco and his buddies are unpleasant, but Slytherin also has a lot of decent people – how about Andromeda Black-Tonks? Or Horace Slughorn?
Finally, one last question about the `cheating’ which allows the Slytherins to get away with it. Who helps the Slytherins cheat? Who unfairly awards to points to Slytherins and removes points from others? Severus Snape, of course. And who has placed him in a position that allows him to help his Slytherins unfairly? Who allows Severus to get away with his cheating and unfairness?
Think about it – do we have evidence that Slughorn, the previous head of Slytherin, allowed his House students to cheat?
“Unlike your namesake, you don’t have the silmaril in you hand with this argument.”
Can we keep off personal remarks? We are arguing on the basis of existing canonical evidence.
Regards,
Maidros
“We can discuss our own opinions about the characters, but not the author’s,†is kind of insulting to published authors, don’t you think?”
Quite frankly, I do not. But we will leave it at that, since you and I are not likely to agree on this point.
The whole point about author’s intentions has been discussed in great length in many contexts. I do not know if you play DnD games, but this `author/creator’s intentions’ vs `canonical evidence’ is a huge debate there as well, and while many believe that it is the author’s intentions that are supreme, there are plenty who see no reason to interpret characters in consonance with the author.
Anyway, we will leave it at that.
Regards,
Maidros
maidros, no reason to interpret characters in consonance with the author.
No reason? None? How ’bout these reasons: This character would not exist without the author. This character came from this author’s mind. This character is a product of this author’s thinking. This character serves a particular role the this story written by this particular author.
I’m really at a loss here.
And one more thing: there is a balance between treating the author’s intention as “supreme” and letting it have an important say in how we read the character. Above, you allowed for only three reasonable readings of Dumbledore, none of which are even close to Rowling’s intentions. At the very least, her intentions should be one of the options!
As I’ve argued before, if Rowling set out with a particular purpose for Dumbledore, and the options you’ve presented are really the only viable ones (which I greatly disagree with), then Rowling is a lousy writer.
Maidros,
If you cannot see that the Slytherins are the “Baddies” of Hogwarts and Gryffindor are the “Goodies”- especially in the first few books (ask any kid and they’ll be able to identify them) then your outlook and mine are so opposed that I don’t see how we can communicate meanfully. I see Dumbledore’s actions as very good- though flawed at times. You see maniplulation and evil in the same actions. Sure, you don’t have to interpret a character as the author intends but if you do, you are wrong!
“Can we keep off personal remarks? We are arguing on the basis of existing canonical evidence.”
Sure! It wasn’t a personal remark- I just find your argument fundamentally flawed and un-shiny.
Matthew
It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me for the House Cup to be awarded to the House that defeats Voldemort. Heck, I’d have given it to them in perpetuity.
Wouldn’t you?
“This character is a product of this author’s thinking. This character serves a particular role the this story written by this particular author.
I’m really at a loss here.”
This goes deep into the theory of criticism. I will try to keep this brief and this is not a topic we can discuss like this. Some critics argue that it is necessary to keep the author’s intentions in mind, while others do not. If you want a fuller perspective of what I have been trying to argue, I would suggest looking up the works of Roland Barthes (Death of the Author) and W. K. Wimsatt, who argue that the authorial intent is irrelevant to understanding of the text. Further, Barthes argues that the critic’s will and intent are superior to the author’s intent. To quote Barthes, “To give a text an Author and assign a single, corresponding interpretation to it “is to impose a limit on that text.â€
Consequently, we are most unlikely to agree since we are criticising the same text from completely different angles.
Regards,
Maidros
“t doesn’t seem unreasonable to me for the House Cup to be awarded to the House that defeats Voldemort. Heck, I’d have given it to them in perpetuity.”
No – it is definitely not unreasonable to award Gryffindor the Cup (at least for the year). But what is unreasonable is the way the Cup is awarded.
Regards,
Maidros
“If you cannot see that the Slytherins are the “Baddies†of Hogwarts and Gryffindor are the “Goodiesâ€- especially in the first few books (ask any kid and they’ll be able to identify them) then your outlook and mine are so opposed that I don’t see how we can communicate meanfully”
The problem is – overgeneralisation. Are all the Slytherins `baddies’? Of course not! What I see is a few Slytherins being `baddies’. And if a quarter of the school is `baddies’, I really despair of the fate of the Wizarding World.
Regards,
Maidros
Regardless of who those that argue about the authorial intent being irrelevant to understanding of the text, the story still belongs to the author. Our interpretation either agrees or does not. Apparently, yours does not.
Of course, in my humble opinion, many critics are presumptuous twits. The only book that transcends its authors is the Word of God–who gave them the word.
maidros, I’m fully aware that it’s a strain of literary criticism. And since literary criticism is what we do here, it’s a subject that’s fair game on this blog.
I’m simply questioning both its validity and your application of it. There’s a difference between limiting our criticism to solely what the author says he or she intended and completely disregarding the author altogether on the basis of some abstract principles of postmodern literary criticism.
To seriously hold that “the authorial intent is irrelevant to understanding of the text” is patently absurd and, in my opinion, represents some very unfortunate extremes of current trends in postmodern literary criticism.
Who actually believe that texts should be unlimited? What crime has been committed in “imposing limits” on the text, which is, by nature, a limited thing? This is some of the stuff about postmodern literary theory that baffles me.
maidros, allow me to offer a bit more clarification, so we can proceed.
In the first place, let me say again: literary criticism is not out of bounds here. I’m interested in taking a very academic look at these books, and I’m not interested in people coming along with a, “I’ve studied literary criticism, and this subject is too deep for most of you, but here are a few quick quotes from [insert impressive names] that will show you what I mean.” That only serves to perpetuate misunderstanding and elitism, which, ironically, is rather contrary to the spirit of the work of post-structuralists like Barthes.
My point of view on this is rather simple: the post-structuralism of Barthes (and others of his ilk) swings the pendulum too far in the wrong direction. I can grant that works of literature are, at least in part, the products of cultural construction rather than solely the product of the mind of the author. I can also accept that there is an extent to which the meaning of a text is generated by its readers. I am sensitive even to some of the points you’re making; after all, I am a big T.S. Eliot fan
What I cannot accept is a theory of literary criticism that relegates the actual author and her/his intentions to complete irrelevance, while elevating the readers’ perception to supreme. It remains irrefutably true that the text would never exist in the first place apart of from the thinking and work of the author. If nothing else, out of respect for the author, her “intentions,” whether always clear to her or not, should be taken into consideration when thinking on the meaning of a text.
“I’m not interested in people coming along with a, “I’ve studied literary criticism, and this subject is too deep for most of you, but here are a few quick quotes from [insert impressive names] that will show you what I mean.†That only serves to perpetuate misunderstanding and elitism, which, ironically, is rather contrary to the spirit of the work of post-structuralists like Barthes.”
I am sorry that it came out like that – I was not trying to imply that literary criticism is beyond the audience. Maybe I am just a little defensive here, but the point is that the correctness of the views of Barthes (and others of his school of thought) has been discussed in the philosophy of criticism ad nauseaum and the only answer to it is – there is no answer. It is just a school of thought and my view of the various schools of philosophy is that the only requirement for a coherent one is consistency. If you start with a certain set of rules at the beginning, you should keep them until the end and apply them in all cases. It is rather like asking `why is a particular set of rules valid for tennis’?
“My point of view on this is rather simple: the post-structuralism of Barthes (and others of his ilk) swings the pendulum too far in the wrong direction.”
Actually, the `post-structural’ school of Barthes is just one facet of it. I do not know whether you are familiar with criticism in other languages, but in both Sanskrit and old Persian, people took it to even greater lengths. The authors would not even mention their names in their books – the authorship of many, if not most Sanskrit and old Persian literature, is merely based on guesswork, or secondary sources – because they felt that their attitudes would colour the perception of how their works were received. `Let the book do all the talking’ was the motto. I see nothing right or wrong in the attitude – it simply is.
“. If nothing else, out of respect for the author, her “intentions,†whether always clear to her or not, should be taken into consideration when thinking on the meaning of a text”
I do not see any disrespect. Heck, if I wrote a character that could be interpreted in half a dozen ways, I would be proud, not annoyed. All multi-faceted, well-written characters can (and very likely, will) to be interpreted in a number of ways. It is more a credit to the author that a character can be believably interpreted in a number of ways, than a sign of disrespect. The characters in the books do not exist – looking at them in new ways, possibly even contrary to the intentions of the author simply proves the depth and complexity of the character, not a desire to somehow denigrate the author. Criticism is (or at least, should be) always impersonal, and to ascribe to it the author’s intent is to weaken the disconnect between the author and the work. As for Dumbledore, have we not had enough Gandalf/Merlin clones (right from the various attitudes to the pointy hat and beard)? To break from the stereotype and interpret him to be something else using the canonical evidence is a sign of respect to the author, not a sign of disrespect.
To give you an example – is `Edmond Dantes’ in `The Count of Monte Cristo’ the hero or the villain? It can be argued both ways – he is probably both. Is it a sign of disrespect to Dumas to argue that Dantes is a villain? I do not think so – it only argues the brilliance with which the character has been imbued with various, possibly even contrary, qualities.
To give another example, take `Caroline Crale’ in Agatha Christie’s `Five Little Pigs’. The lady means five different things to five different people when she is being investigated – and it can (and has been) argued that she means another half a dozen things to readers. Is it a sign of disrespect to Agatha Christie to develop her differently? I do not think so.
I am afraid I cannot simply accept the idea `to interpret a character differently from the author’s intentions’ is a `sign of disrespect’ to the author. It leads to what Barthes calls `interpretational tyranny’.
“Who actually believe that texts should be unlimited? What crime has been committed in “imposing limits†on the text, which is, by nature, a limited thing?”
Texts are, and in my opinion, should only limited by the interpretation of the reader/critic. This encourages creativity in the reader and breaks free of the shackles imposed by one set of views. The question is `who imposes those limits’? What is the authority you appeal to in imposing those limits? If you say, `the author’, it is, in my opinion, a most unfortunate limitation because it has already crippled several possible interpretations.
The basic question is `does the meaning of the text belong to the author or the reader?’ This has been argued in length, and the only answer is `there is no answer’.
Regards,
Maidros
maidros, thanks for the clarification! I get where you’re coming from now, and you’re right – there probably is not much further you and I can go, as we’re both deliberately approaching this from different interpretive lenses, according to what we think is the best way to read a book. While I disagree with your sentiments about what it means to include the author in the discussion of the text, we’ll allow this discussion to rest here.
I’d only clarify that I’m not arguing for the author’s intentions to be a form of tyranny over what we can and can’t say – again, there’s a difference between letting the author’s view be supreme and letting the author’s voice be added to the interpretive framework when addressing a text. I think the “tyranny” you’re critiquing is an extreme to be avoided, but I also think completely disregarding the author altogether is equally an extreme to be avoided.
maidros,
I have something again you case.
If there had been a Gryffindor running to fast, Snape would have taken points from Gryffindor and Dumbledore could hardly have contradicted.
Dumbledore wanted to reward Neville braveness. No one would have said a single word, if Dumbledore had given Harry, Ron and Hermione two hundred points apiece. Obviously he decided to give them just enough points to equal Slytherin. Neville manage to resist his friends; I could not imagine better way how to highlight his braveness then to reward him with cup winning points in front of all students.
Martin, yes, I also think Dumbledore wanted to reward Neville in front of the students and I liked that, it was a kind thing to do (though it was a bit disappointing for the Slytherins, of course).
Regarding the interpretative lenses, while I’m not familiar with the different theories, in my opinion there’s simply no evidence for Dumbledore as a manipulative character, let alone “evil genius†in the text as such, irrespective of the author’s intention.