Dumbledore in Deathly Hallows

I was very surprised but very pleased by what Rowling did to Dumbledore in book 7. Dumbledore could have remained the unblemished mentor but she humanized him. It’s incredible to me the standard that people want to hold Dumbledore to. He was 18 and the brightest and greatest wizard of his age. And he contemplated creating a new order with himself as it’s leader. Despicable? Yes. And I guess you never had any despicable ideas when you were 18 either, right?

But as Dumbledore kept emphasizing, it is not who you were born that matters, what matters are the choice you make. People are not good and bad. We all have good and evil within us. It is how we choose to act that matters. And from the death of his sister, Dumbledore choose to act as the wisest, kindest wizard of his age. And therefore he WAS the wisest, kindest wizard of his age.

Thanks Travis,
I posted my thoughts about the use of “unforgivable” curses on the “disappointed” thread.

What’s the story with Aberforth and goats?! Is he really a goat fiddler and why, Just comic relief?

I think there is so much to be said for Dumbledore. How few of us know our flaws and then keep ourselves away from their temptations? We tend to make ourselves walk as close to edge as possible when it comes to our flaws.

There’s something in that for me!

Matthew

Points well taken on Aberforth and his grudge, but… perhaps his rather late involvement shows a sign of his own repentance? Though he was still vocally against his brother, he had picked up his cause–first evidenced by wanting to keep an eye on Harry. Change comes slowly, sometimes. We’re seeing what may be a very brief glimpse, right at the beginning. Just a thought.

Oooh, good point Juggling Freak. It’s sort of foreshadowing for Voldemort not really owning the wand either.

Two quick comments:

1. The Unforgivable Curses: I think the notion that the Ministry has deemed these “unforgivable” is the most helpful suggestion. If we follow out the Christian logic for a moment, the only “unforgivable sin” is a sin against the Holy Spirit, and everyone has their favorite notion of what that is. But it’s not clear that any one “sin” would touch on all four curses and be “unforgivable.” So could it be that they are unforgivable in conventional terms, and so we’re here in the realm that Rowling has shown herself interested in with the Dursleys, and even with Harry himself: the confusion between what is conventional, respectable, and normal with what is good? (Reading Book 1 to my daughter, I had to pause at Hermione’s lie about the troll and why Harry and Ron were there, because my daughter (8) was wrestling with whether that was OK… “She did lie, but she did it to save her friends, who had done something undeniably brave and good… So was that OK?”) Harry’s perpetual “rule-breaking” would seem “bad,” but it’s even considerably different from James’s use of the Cloak, eg.

In my mind, that fits with another thing I’ve wondered over the last couple books. It seems to me that Cruciatus is not quite as bad as it seems. I know, I know, it drove Neville’s parents insane, and for that reason I think I had built it up into something, but when Harry gets “cruciated,” it never quite seems as bad as all that. Even the suggestion that Harry thinks he can still pretend to be dead under the Cruciatus curse (before he discovers that V.’s curse has “lost its sting.”) suggests that what drove the Longbottoms mad was the duration of the curse… and long enough exposure to pain will do that. So, e.g., how is Cruciatus “unforgivable” and Sectumsempra not?

BTW, are there other “killing curses” besides AK? Does Molly Weasley AK Bellatrix? And, within the press of the narrative, how are we not supposed to cheer when that happens? Most Christian traditions, eg., would argue that there are justifiable uses of lethal force, and thus not all killing is murder. Bellatrix (and Voldemort, for that matter) had to be taken down. Is it the case that anyone who did this would be tearing her/his soul?

It doesn’t seem so. Dumbledore’s comment to Snape when he asks S. to kill him suggests that the intent of the curse-thrower matters…. I don’t have the text in front of me… my wife’s turn to read, but in “The Prince’s Tale” he says something like, “only you know if sparing an old man humiliation will damage your soul.”

2. On Aberforth. Look, Aberforth and Albus patched things up here and there for a while, right? Aberforth is an original member of the Order (he’s in the picture), but he’s somewhat reluctant throughout. So when push comes to shove, he’s there on Albus’s side, but he’s never really happy about it. His reluctance in the end is, I think, a potent mix of bitterness and mourning for Albus himself — anger that Albus’s foolishness has finally gone and killed him… But, again, in time of need, he’s there. Aberforth is the kind of guy who just can’t admit that he cares as much as he does… After all, he’s checking in on Harry in the mirror all the time, throughout the book. We all know he won’t sit this one out. But it doesn’t mean he’s let go of all his years of anger and resentment. And that’s OK. It takes a lifetime (or, if you’re RCath, maybe more than a lifetime…)

Harry uses the Cruciatus on Amycus after Amycus spits on McGonagall. This is the same Amycus who has just threatened to crucio the childen of Ravenclaw House because of what happened to his sister. The same Amycus who, with his sister, hurts children for refusing to practice the Cruciatus on other children. Neville and Seamus bear the marks of his mode of “discipline”.

That is evil. And although I don’t usually believe in the “eye for an eye” principle of justice, I’ll make an exception for Amycus. He earns what he gets.

I get worked up just thinking of what he’s done. I would have used the AK, myself.

As for Harry’s use of the imperius, well, he Imperiuses everyone at Gringotts because there is no other way they’re going to get out of there with or without the cup. And just as with the “eye for an eye” principle, I don’t think that the end justifies the means. But in that particular situation, the harm caused by the use of the Imperius is far less than the harm that would be caused if Harry and co. didn’t steal and destroy the cup.

The thing I have been finding hardest about the DH Dumbledore is his succumbing to the temptation of the Resurrection Stone so late in life. The rest I’ve come to terms w/ fairly easily, but that one piece I find difficult–b/c it would seem that after 130 yrs of making amends, and substantial study of alchemy, he might have reached a bit more peace. As he said to Harry in front of the Mirror in Bk I, “it does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.” For a moment he forgot his own advice.

I think “remorse” is a huge theme in DH. I wrote much the same as you did re Dumbledore and remorse to another Dumbledore fan:

“For whatever reason, Albus was never able to be free of the guilt and remorse he felt over Adriana. Defeating Grindelwald and devoting his life to justice and peace didn’t seem to be sufficient to heal his soul. He says that he so wanted to express his sorrow to Adriana and their parents that that’s what led him to still be tempted by the Resurrection Stone. Perhaps it was his inability to forgive himself, to accept that 100+ years of repentance was perhaps sufficient, which led to his final temptation.” (And to his death.)

Aside–since so much depends on folks’ actions being motivated by deep remorse, the plot would be shot all to heck if this were the case , but for the sake of the inner lives of Albus and Severus, it’s a shame the Fat Friar didn’t carry on his previous vocation after becoming a ghost. Albus and Severus both could have used a good and wise confessor! One of the functions of sacramental confession in the Catholic traditions is to make forgiveness real and tangible and present to the penitent and help them not be trapped in their sense of unworthiness. Even if the Friar had set Albus the exact same penance as he set himself–devote your life to eradicating prejudice and truly Evil wizards; avoid power–he would have been freed from the crippling guilt and grief which led to his final temptation.

Seriously, this does point to something else relevant to how some folks will balk at seeing HP as a representation of the Gospel, nitpicking various issues like Harry using the Unforgivables, etc. ….I firmly believe that Rowling is writing Christian myth, that we are to see the Gospel message of sacrificial love freeing us from death writ huge over her pages. But as anyone who preaches regularly (or teaches!) knows, you cannot present the whole Gospel in any one sermon, lesson, or work. Even the Bible is 60-some books. You can only ever present one very small facet at a time. It takes a lifetime of discipleship to appreciate anywhere close to all the facets of what God has done/is doing for us.

Rowling has done an excellent job of rendering the classic “Christus Victor” model of the Atonement, where Christ’s death is a triumphant victory over the powers of sin and death pictured in macro-, battle-like terms. What she has not attempted to do is show the more personal, existential dimensions of atonement. Harry and the wizarding world are freed from the evil powers and principalities. But they, or at least the Vold I generation, are not free from the inner agony of sin and remorse. Even on the other side of the grave, Albus is still keenly aware of his faults and doesn’t seem to have reached full spiritual healing, even if his hand is healed. If the Potterverse were a perfect *and complete* mirror of how Christianity works, he would be. (The only counter-argument is that perhaps he is, but in order to provide Harry the resolution and guidance he needs at the moment, Albus re-presents his now-finally-healed remorse as still active and sharp in Harry’s presence. Possible, but I don’t think the reading Rowling intends.)

This is NOT NOT NOT a criticism of Rowling. As I said, no one sermon, not even one 7 vols long , can depict the whole Gospel. She has done an excellent job of presenting one huge facet of what it is God has done and is doing in Christ.

Sorry about the last comment. I went off on a tangent. I really meant to write about Dumbledore.

Travis, you describe Dumbledore as a

‘flawed but forgiven, repentant and restored man’

Well, maybe. But I think you’re being a little too quick to say he’s forgiven, repentant and restored. I think we need to explore the depths of his flaws a little longer.

I have floated a theory (on the Professor’s site) that Dumbledore is a better fit for Machiavelli’s Prince than the original candidate, Snape.

I’m not saying that he’s a perfect fit. Obviously, he has incredible amounts of compassion, love, mercy and forgiveness. Overall, he is a good man. He certainly is a formidable fighter on the side of good. But he is also manipulative, and deceptive. And this is the crucial point: his compassion and love are not as strong as his distrust. Dumbledore doesn’t trust others to be any stronger than he is.

His main act of deception, to me, is not telling Harry or Snape the truth about what Harry has to do in order for Voldemort to be destroyed.
He also doesn’t tell Harry about the Deathly Hallows.

He explains why he didn’t tell Harry about the latter – he didn’t trust him, he thought Harry was as weak as he himself had been. He doesn’t explain why he never told Harry about the fact that Harry would have to be willing to die, and might, in fact, die, if Dumbledore’s guess about the blood was wrong.

What kind of general sends his men into battle without the facts?

A general who doesn’t believe the troops would go if they knew the truth?

There is an argument to be made that Harry had to get there by himself, that being told would not have helped. But if you loved someone, wouldn’t you at least try to warn them? And the homily back in book 4 about the need to do the right thing vs. the easy thing just doesn’t seem strong enough.

He also has this thing for power – which fortunately he recognizes and deals with, by removing himself from temptation. A Prince-like quality, nevertheless.

Repentant? Well, he repented of his adolescent let’s-dominate-the-Muggles thing with Grindelwald. But has he repented about witholding information from his closest lieutenants – Snape and Harry? Has he repented about letting Snape believe for 16 years that they had a shared goal: to keep Lily’s son alive?

I think that he’s sorry that he did these things because they hurt the people he loved – well, Harry anyways – but he wouldn’t have done it differently. The end still justifies the means.

Forgiven? Well, that depends on who needs to forgive him. Aberforth doesn’t. Snape wasn’t asked, but I don’t think he did. Harry does, but Harry loves him. Always did. Even when he is most angry with him, he loves him:

“Dumbledore patted Harry’s hand, and Harry looked up at the old man and smiled; he could not help himself. How could he remain angry with Dumbledore now?”

I’d amend my original statement: Travis isn’t Dumbledore’s greatest apologist; Harry is.

But does Dumbledore forgive himself?

I don’t think so.

I’m not criticizing him. I’m not saying he’s less than I thought him to be. He’s different. He’s actually more interesting to me, as Machiavelli’s conflicted Prince, than as the epitome of goodness.

But not, perhaps, the man you want him to be, Travis.

Now let loose the dogs of war.

I am torn on Dumbledore, but I think I am coming around. It was such a shock to me that I think I need a couple of weeks and a reread to really come to grips with and accept the new image of Dumbledore. With the Rita Skeeter article, I thought Harry was insane for believing a word of it, other than possibly the claim that Grindelwald and Albus were friends in their youth. Finding out that there were many half-truths in the article really shocked me, and I tend to take a while to recover from that sort of shock, especially since Dumbledore was by far my favorite adult character.

I also have the same concern as Andrzej. Though the mistakes Albus made in his youth were presented as just that, mistakes, his decision to engage in what seems like assisted suicide was not presented as a mistake. I had convinced myself, before the book, that Dumbledore was not the sort of man to kill himself or to ask anyone else to do that, no matter what the reason.

This act could get into the very deep philosophical question of whether the end justifies the means (“the greater good”). For me, the end does not justify the means unless you are omniscient and omnipotent (aka God). To act as if the end does justify the means is a bit like playing God. So I was initially very disappointed to see Dumbledore participate in plotting his suicide. I am coming to grips with this idea, though. I am trying to remember that my stance is only one opinion.

Even more disappointing was the reason that Dumbledore gave Snape when asking Snape to kill him: he didn’t want a potentially more painful death from Voldemort or Bellatrix. That hardly seems a good enough reason to kill oneself and to have someone else’s soul damaged in the process. Of course, other motivations may have been present. Dumbledore did originally say he was protecting Draco’s not so damaged soul. However, Draco would never have gone through with killing Dumbledore even if Snape had not stepped in. One more reason that comes to mind is what Harry said about the Elder Wand: Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him so that no one could be the master of that wand. But, as we know, this part of the plan failed as plans often do, which is why I believe that only God should act on the ends justifying the means.

Thank you for the article. I do agree with most of what you have said, and it is helping me work toward resolving my issues. I appreciate any feedback you have on Dumbledore’s pact with Snape.

Reyhan,
When Dumbledore and Snape first ally, AD doesn’t know that HP will have to die. All he knows is that he is the one prophesied to have the power to vanquish the Dark Lord. So they are at least at that time both united in the same goal of keeping him alive, although AD has different motives than does Snape. Remember AD doesn’t finalize his theory about LV even having made horcruxes until after the Chamber has been reopened and the diary behaves as it does. Even then he may not yet be absolutely sure Harry himself is a horcrux, and LV is not yet back in a body, so the danger is not yet as acute. The full horror of what Harry will have to do is not apparent to anyone til at least after Goblet–when Voldy is re-embodied. Maybe Dumbledore only puts 2 and 2 fully together at the time of the attack on Arthur Weasley. I think AD did love Harry, and so would be loathe to reach the conclusions he eventually had to–he would have hoped against hope until the evidence Harry was a horcrux was too great to ignore. By which time he already knew: a) Harry was willing to die to defeat Voldy–he proved that in Goblet; and b) there was the strong possibility of the blood link providing him an escape hatch.

At the end of Phoenix AD makes sure Harry knows it’s his *choice* to go after Voldy, even if he’s already in essence made that choice through his love for his parents. But the prophecy doesn’t dictate it. Harry chooses to continue onwards, knowing he might well die, but that the risk is worth it.

All AD w/holds from him is that the odds of his ultimate survival are tilted more steeply against him than he thought, in that he must submit to death in order to succeed. But I think that is not as huge a step from where he leaves Harry at the end of Phoenix as others do, esp if AD believes the blood link can save Harry, and Harry is already willing to die. Which he is long before hearing the prophecy even.

As far as AD doubting Harry–Harry does almost succumb to the Hallows. He comes very very close, up until the moment in Dobby’s grave. So Dumbledore does know him well. If while still alive, he had come totally clean, told Harry the full truth about his own background, his own weaknesses, his own temptations in order to warn Harry away from them, he would also have had to tell him about the death curse on himself and *greatly* complicate the possibilities of his own death being able to accomplish good. How would the Harry we knew near the beginning of HBP have reacted to a) knowing his mentor was tragically flawed; b) knowing Dumbledore was going to die? Could he have kept all the secrets required? Maybe, but I think the odds were sufficiently low to justify Dumbledore’s caution. Plus perhaps AD didn’t want to rob Harry of his one last parental figure in any more abrupt or horrible a manner than he had to. Maybe he just couldn’t bear to humiliate himself to Harry–either for the sake of his own pride, or for concern at how Harry would take it. He hadn’t reacted well to intimations of Sirius’ flaws, remember!

Reyhan,

I think that you’ve brought up some very good points, but I think that we ought to leave room for the possibility that, at least in some respects, Dumbledore is *right* not to trust others to be stronger than he is. Which is not to say that he is stronger in every respect. He confesses his belief that Harry is the better man. And yet there is a wisdom that, contrary to first appearances, perhaps, is fully in keeping with humility. That is, acknowledging one’s own excellence without being attached to it in pride might just be a deeper gesture of humility than simple self-deprecation.

Yes, one is in dangerous waters when one decides that he/she knows when another is ready to hear something or not. But it is a burden we have to accept… Parents face this all the time, in greater or lesser degrees. And note, when Harry will finally go into the final battle, Dumbledore (through Snape) has made sure that he knows very well exactly what he is facing. In this case, he has precisely what he needs when he needs it. Dumbledore’s error before, admitted in OotP, was not withholding information, but withholding information too long.

Bottom line, parents don’t (necessarily) deceive their children when they decide to withhold information, and Dumbledore’s actions are more like that than Machiavelli’s Prince.

I agree completely with Cigar95 on Molly’s examination of conscience. Good insight from the Orthodox perspective, and the same is true in the west for RCs. In fact, there’s a great tradition in the medieval west of a ritual period of penitence for returning warriors, whether in victory or defeat, justified war or not, that involved stripping down the armaments of war, washing and re-clothing in the vestments of peace (common clothing, usually white), prayer, fasting, etc. As an aside, it’s something we might want to revisit in our own time…

To think that it has come to this: we debate how Dumbledore betrayed Harry and used Snape!

I bow to JKR, the mistress of misdirection, and her doppelganger, Albus Dumbledore.

I was appalled at how Dumbledore told Severus “You disgust me.” I literally GASPED when he said that, and Dumbledore lost a great deal of cool points in my mind for that. He was condemning Severus for basically the same failing he himself had fallen victim to. I was actually pleased with Dumbledore’s backstory until that moment.

I think Dumbledore’s disgust at Severus was a good thing for Snape to hear. If Dumbledore had said “It’s ok, I understand. I’ve done something similar myself.” It would not have brought home to Snape the magnitude of his despicable actions and thought. That’s not hypocritical of Dumbledore. I’m sure he had the same disgust of his own actions as a young man.

I really liked how skilled Dumbledore was when he disabled Snape on the windy hill top. We had a picture of how fast Snape is when he defended himself from Minerva and Dumbledore had it all over him.

Truely formidable!

Matthew

I find myself wanting to put on the gloves on and go in to bat for Dumbledore.

He seems to be copping it from so many sides.

Myself, I can take more excellent stuff away from Dumbledore in this book to apply in my life than from any of the previous books.

Matthew

Great comments – your terrific points summed up well why I, too, esteem Dumbledore even more highly than before. Lovely post.

Absolutely. Perhaps he’ll throw in the towel after all he will be expected to do in HBP. I can’t imagine him doing justice to the role in either movie, as he hasn’t managed to do it up to now.

I’m also thinking it’s a darned shame that Christopher Lloyd isn’t British, because who better to portray Xenophilius Lovegood?

Happy Anniversary Travis and Tricia.

I was just looking back at the early comments on this thread, and I realized that my post that got lost in cyberspace also contained a comment regarding comment #4 above.

I’m not a Harry hater, but it does bother me, a lot, that Dumbledore actually asked Snape to kill him. I don’t think it was exactly just unstoppering death, either, as DD knew he would die eventually, but not right then. With the Stoppered Death theory, I believe that death was considered imminent, and as soon as you take the cork out, it comes. I didn’t feel really comfortable with that either, but what really happened makes me feel worse.

To ask someone on your side to kill you – I don’t know. It’s certainly not the same as St. Maximilian Kolbe stepping in to take the place of another man in a Nazi death camp. Kolbe was handing himself off to the enemy so a father could rejoin his family. But DD was asking someone he trusted to kill him outright, even though Snape protested. I do think it would harm someone’s soul “to help an old man avoid pain and humiliation.” That’s what euthanasia is – and it’s wrong. But perhaps maybe Rowling doesn’t think it is.

Mrs Weasley, I’ve been going back and forth on this issue myself. While I was reading your post, something occurred to me, however. I propose that we don’t look at it as euthanasia, but as sacrifice. Obviously Dumbledore did not view it as murder, or he wouldn’t have asked Snape to do it. It was a sacrifice, and in sacrifice there must be a victim and there must be “priest” to perform the sacrificial rite. This sacrifice ultimately brings about Draco’s “salvation” not to mention paves the way for Harry to become the sacrifice for the entire Wizarding World. Just thinking out loud. I’d like to hear some response.

I am not opposed to euthanasia in general – although I think the slippery slope argument certainly applies to it – but I do not admire Dumbledore for convincing/browbeating Snape into killing him. The argument he uses is a specious one, and it shows a great disregard for Snape:

‘If you don’t mind dying,’ said Snape roughly, ‘why not let Draco do it?’

‘That boy’s soul is not yet so damaged,’ said Dumbledore. ‘I would not have it ripped apart on my account.’

‘And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?’

‘You alone know whether it will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humiliation,’ said Dumbledore.

It seems to me that Dumbledore is arguing that if you kill someone with good intentions, it won’t damage your soul. Interesting. Sounds like another slippery slope to me. Also sounds like he’s using pity to get Snape to do something they both know may be goood for Dumbledore, but won’t be so good for Snape.

I am one of those who believes that a book, once written, stands alone, and nothing that the author says about it can change what the book says. But Dumbledore is one character whose motives I’d dearly like explained. The questions we asked so endlessly about Snape come back to me: Is Dumbledore good? Is he Machiavelli’s Prince? Is he a flawed man, but more good than evil?

I don’t know if I’ve read the story wrong or inattentively but I havn’t had the same issues with the story that others seem to have.

I took Dumbeldore’s line “You alone know whether it will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humiliation” to be reminding Snape of his past actions and that he’d almost certainly done murder before. His heart was therefore scarred and hardened (somewhat) to the task of killing compared to Draco’s. Snape was not an innocent. Snape,one of the most trusted Death Eaters was more than likely a casual killer. The others were. Dumbeldore knows he is capable of killing him. Whereas Draco is still a child and not as damaged. He’s asking if Snape can justify it in his own mind. If he can, do it. If not, leave him to Greyback or Bellatrix.

Snape’s “And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?” really is a bit pathetic. He done so much worse that but courageously does what’s requested of him.

Matthew

Mia,
To me, Snape’s “what about my soul?” is childish.

Dumbledore has just said that he wants to protect Draco’s soul from the damage of murder then Snape come’s out with the “what about me?” I think Dumbledore is annoyed that he has to spell these things out to a grown man who he has mentored for about 15 years.

Ok, maybe not a casual killer but casual to the deaths of other. It didn’t concern him that a child or a family would be killed when he passed the prophecy on. It only concerned him when it was the woman he loved.

Obviously Snape had changed into a courageous and determined man but was also a bully of children, an abuser of his position as a professor at Hogwarts and who was still capable of sending Sirius to the Dementors even though he knew he wasn’t guilty.

Snape had complained with the “What about me?” a number of times through the series. “WHat about my evidence?” “What about my soul?”.

I think Dumbledore needed to talk to Snape in this manner to get him thinking about someone other than himself and shift him out of the “woe is me” attitude.

So I disagree with you, Mia that Dumbledore’s actions were “cruel and unjustified” considering the man he was dealing with.

Matthew

Rena, you may very well have a good point about chipping away at Dumbledore in order to make Harry the “better man.” In fact, you’ve given me an idea to write on that very subject, so that will be what I do after the Evil post and the Snape post.

In any case, I don’t think Dumbledore’s trust in Snape and his refusal to tell him about horcruxes are a contradiction. I think Dumbledore’s statement has more to do with Voldemort’s unpredictability than any mistrust in Snape. If Voldemort ever became suspicious of Snape or was given reason to believe he truly was on Dumbledore’s side, it would be really important for Snape to not have knowledge of the horcruxes floating around in his head for Voldemort to extract.

Sorry, should be “since most wizards don’t even know what horcruxes are.”

I agree, Mia. We found out there is much more to Dumbledore, and some of it makes us (me) uncomfortable.

Though I firmly believe that Harry was right to have trusted Dumbledore, I cannot help but see Dumbledore’s request of Snape to end his life as morally wrong, at least in my opinion. The defense that Dumbledore did this for Draco is not enough for me because Jo tells us, “Harry is correct in believing that Draco would not have killed Dumbledore, which I think is clear when he starts to lower his wand, when the matter is taken out of his hands.” (Melissa and Emerson interview, Part 2) So Draco had already made his choice not to damage his own soul before Snape killed Dumbledore.

I am glad that I am not the only one concerned about Dumbledore’s request. And it is possible that Jo feels that the request was a mistake, as well. I really hope she addresses this issue.

No he didn’t, he knew Harry would have to know about the horcruxes, and harry had absolutely no idea. It would be very stupid of Dumbledore to conciously let the secret of Voldemort’s horcruxes die with him.

Those who are mad at AD re what he asked of Snape…what were the other possible outcomes?

1. AD says nothing to Snape, doesn’t ask anything of him. Snape doesn’t make Unbreakable but does know LV wants him to back up Malfoy. Tower scene comes. Malfoy wimps out. Snape either has to kill AD or later surely be killed by Voldy for betrayal, and Malfoy will be tortured or killed. AD either dies at Snape’s hand, or Fenrir’s, or dies shortly thereafter from curse. Gains: nothing. Losses: Snape’s cover, very possibly Snape’s life, probably Malfoy’s life too. Elder Wand passes to whoever kills AD and they truly own it.

2. Same as 1, but Malfoy doesn’t wimp. He ends up w/ a torn soul. AD still dead, but only a month sooner than he would have surely been anyway, and at the cost of Malfoy’s soul. Snape still undercover. As it turns out, thanks to the cave potion and his weakened condition, w/o Snape’s help Albus probably would have died w/in hours or days anyway, so the gain really would have been minimal, though that couldn’t have been forseen. Elder Wand passes into Malfoy’s power but his soul is torn.

3. Same as 1, but Snape allows himself to be maneuvered into Unforgiveable. Malfoy wimps. Snape either kills AD w/o having agreed to or dies. Deatheaters kill AD if both Malfoy and Snape wimp. Malfoy dies too. Wand goes to either Snape or DEs.

PLUS, Once Voldy figures out about the Wand, whoever has it dies at his hand–so if either Malfoy or Snape has survived this far, they still die.

Basically I don’t believe there was any way AD was getting off that tower alive. Plus whoever killed him would in turn eventually die at Voldy’s hands b/c of the Wand, and he knew it–knew it since the Graveyard scene.

So Albus’ best hope was that he could avoid Malfoy’s machinations long enough to teach Harry all he needed to, and then die ‘naturally’ from the curse. Failing that, which would have required really perfect timing, his next best hope was to in some way kill himself.

We do not know that *if he had in fact managed to finish teaching Harry all he needed to know*, and he was still alive, that he might not have done exactly that. Not likely, but can’t be ruled out. It’s not too far off what Flamel did, so it’s possible.

However, knowing that Malfoy was trying to kill him, and had Voldy breathing down his neck and his family’s neck, and that he himself had a curse of imprecise timing and power ticking away in his body, Albus couldn’t count on either of those scenarios coming to pass.

None of the options was cost-free or risk-free. Albus didn’t want Malfoy’s soul on his own conscience. Or on Snape’s conscience, for that matter. Maybe what he urged Snape into wasn’t the only outcome, or the absolute best, but it was far from the worst, and none of them was good. And it did achieve at least two, and possibly more,three goods–preserved Malfoy’s soul and life; preserved Snape’s cover for a time, put the wand into Snape’s hand. Basically either Snape or Malfoy had to die or Albus had to kill himself quite early, w/o having told Harry nearly enough, before any of the other scenarios came to pass. Of those several evils, which was the lesser?

esoterica1693, like Mia I have problems with how Dumbledore appealed to Snape. As you have explained, Dumbledore chose the one option that did the least harm to other people. And I accept that he (meaning JKR) believes that killing as an act of grace does not harm the killer’s soul. I even accept most of the interpretation of korg20000bc, because it is conclusive. But to say something like “don’t make such a fuss about killing me” is contemptuous, arrogant and cold, I believe. And calling Snape a “basket that spends so much time dangling on the arm of Lord Voldemort” is much, much worse than not addressing him as “Professor”. I would say it is “out of character” for Dumbledore if it wasn’t the real book, written by JKR herself. So, I have to say it is a character flaw, at least from my point of view.

I agree with Mia and Rena. It’s the fact that DD asked Snape to kill him so far in advance, without knowing when or if it would be necessary. And, as Mia says, that DD wouldn’t let Snape say no.

I wonder – what if DD hadn’t been cursed by the ring? What if they were just having this conversation in DD’s office about Draco’s “job”, and DD was still well and whole, and asked Snape to kill him? Would people feel more uncomfortable with his request if these were the circumstances? Either way, it’s asking a heck of a lot of Snape.

Plot-wise, at least the curse mitigates the circumstances of the Unbreakable Vow that Snape later makes with Draco. Snape can agree to that, because he’s already been asked to do that very thing. But it’s all still very unsavory.

Is it possible that AD spoke the truth to SS, even though he maybe flunked ‘Sensitivity 101′ in his tone? That it really did make a difference, or at least AD suspected that it did, what motive SS had for killing him? That if he did it out of pity or compassion for a friend it wouldn’t harm his soul, while if he did it out of mere tactical calculation between the two of them it would?

Or perhaps AD wanted, on some level, to know that SS was acting out of care and compassion, either for SS’s sake, or b/c somehow it made a difference to AD what was going thru SS’s mind when he killed him?

Another reason it had to be SS rather than any other DE–only if it were SS would it be plausible that AD would not fight back. It was known he trusted Snape completely, so it would be utterly believable that Snape got the drop on him and killed him, adn that even if he suspected at the last second he would not have struck at Snape b/c he would have been in shock. Whereas if they left it to anyone else to do it would be obvious that AD *let* them kill him. And AD was clearly not willing to risk Malfoy’s soul.

I don’t believe Dumbledore asked Snape because he thought that his soul was impure anyways. That the damage was already done and killing more or less wouldn’t matter. After all, he’d accepted Snapes repentance and acknowledged publicly that Snape was no more a Death Eater than himself. He didn’t charge him with his past.

What he did believe was that the killing would affect Snape’s soul less than Draco’s, because it wasn’t murder but some kind of mercy killing. But still, it was very, very much to ask of him and he could have expressed it better.

I wonder if Dumbledore would have done the same for Snape and I think the answer is yes. He wouldn’t have asked anything of his people that he himself wouldn’t be willing to do if necessary.

I’d like to know whether Dumbledore knew about the Unbreakable Vow, if Snape ever told him. Because when Snape was having second thoughts and there was this argument between the two in the forest, Snape’s refusal ultimately would have meant his death. Would he have died rather than killing Dumbledore and was Dumbledore aware of this?

Matthew, exactly, and that explains why Snape made the Unbreakable Vow in the first place.

But I’m curious whether Snape told Dumbledore he’d made the Vow. This changed things dramatically. Because if anything would have gone wrong… Snape having second thoughts, which he obviously had, or Snape arriving too late on the tower – if Flitwick hadn’t alerted him, Snape would never have been there… he would have died. He wouldn’t have fulfilled Draco’s task.

Did Dumbledore know this? During their argument in the forest, when Snape said that perhaps he wouldn’t do it… Dumbledore reminded him of the promise Snape had given him, not of the Vow he’d made to Narcissa. And when Draco told Dumbledore that Snape promised his mother… Dumbledore seemed to think that Snape was just pretending.

So did he actually know at the time that if Snape wouldn’t show up, they’d both end up dead?

I think in HBP we are to understand that AD does know about the Unbreakable Vow, at least by the winter of that year. Harry reports the conversation he overheard between Draco and Snape and AD doesn’t seem the slightest bit surprised.

I think Dumbledore only knew about Snape’s Unbreakable Vow after Harry had told him about the conversation he overheard. I have no idea what else Dumbledore could have referred to:

“Yes, Harry, blessed as I am with extraordinary brainpower, I understood everything you told me,” said Dumbledore, a little sharply. “I think you might even consider the possibility that I understood more than you did. Again, I am glad that you have confided in me, but let me reassure you that you have not told me anything that causes me disquiet.”

If I guessed right, Dumbledore knew about Snape’s UV when he urgently asked for him after they returned from the cave, but did not know when this conversation took place:

“You refuse to tell me everything, yet you expect that small service of me!” snarled Snape, and real anger flared in the thin face now. “You take a great deal for granted, Dumbledore! Perhaps I have changed my mind!”

I see two possible motives for Snape:
1. He had scruples and would rather die than kill Dumbledore.
2. He was angry because Dumbledore withheld information from him, and thus blackmailed him.

Before I read Book 7, I was very sure the first one would turn out to be true. But now I would go for the second. Obviously, a sacrificial death was never an option that JKR had in mind for Snape. He was loyal to Dumbledore, but he was not compassionate and not a hero.

About HP using the cruciatus curse: That does not trouble me (and I was deeply troubled when HP taunted Dudley at the beginning of HBP, so that is saying something). I’m thinking of Narnia, where Aslan himself claws a young girl riding quickly to escape him. He’s letting her know what that kind of pain is, as she was so cavalier about hurting another. It taught her something.

I think in this case, Harry is justified in using this curse. It doesn’t go on forever. And God knows the Carrows used it so often themselves that they seem to have no clue how it feels. Perhaps it was a “teachable moment.” Or perhaps Harry’s hot head got the best of him. Either way, I do not find his brief use of that curse troubling in the least. Those two needed a taste of it. Perhaps it would cause them to think twice about using it on others.

I wonder what those dispicable Muggle boys did to Ariana. Maybe they fixically abused her, like twisted her arm around, yanked her hair, and watched her cry and laughed.

“shiver” Jerks.

Mia,

That’s interesting. Thanks. I was obviously not aware of that from Rowling. Can you tell me where to find that discussion?

I realize we’re dealing with fiction here, but it’s a little odd to think that someone’s memory of an event would be more objective and accurate than the person’s actual perception of the event when it was happening. That’s some astonishing magic.

One of the striking accomplishments of the Harry Potter world (to me) is that if you suspend disbelief initially, the magical world created by Rowling makes sense. That a device could extract a memory from someone and allow you to see it is believable. That the memory would be more “objective” than the perception of the event is not so believable.

Thanks Mrs. W. very interesting.

To be frank, I was quite disappointed in Albus’s character after reading the seventh book of HP saga.

Personally, I have no problems with his past. I realize that we all can make serious mistakes at the age of 18. But I still feel that his present, (so to speak) was quite questionable.

Firstly, Dumbledore says that he avioded positions of power and that’s why he refused to accept the post of Minister for Magic. But look at the power he had over the Order of Phoenix – it was pretty autocratic.

And I am not to happy with his use of power.

If it wasn’t for the accident of Voldemort using Harry’s blood, Harry would have had to die. He would have raised him, as Snape said, like a pig to the slaughter, all for the “greater good” of course. I think he did treat Snape unfairly, he got him into his service and he exploited him.

I agree that, while Harry was Dumbledore’s pawn, Albus really cared about that pawn and felt really bad about him needing to sacrifice that pawn. But he sacrificed it anyway.

“Although Dumbledore seems to be so benign for six books, he’s quite a Machiavellian figure, really. He’s been pulling a lot of strings. Harry has been his puppet. When Snape says to Dumbledore, ‘We’ve been protecting Harry so he could die at the right moment’ — I don’t think in book one you would have ever envisioned a moment where your sympathy would be with Snape rather than Dumbledore.” – J. K. Rowling.

Well, actually, when an autor begins talking about book after the it was published he/she is more of a literary critic then an autor. So those who think that Albus is “the epitome of goodness” and Severus in the True Hero of the Story will righfully (in their own way) continue to think so.

Another case of Albus’s machinations is the fact that he knew that Voldemort will search the Elder Wand and that Voldemort will think that Snape is the true master of it, sine the Dark Lord of course does not know that Snape’s murder of Dumbledore was prearranged. Therefore, Albus, being a great mind, can realize that Voldemort will possibly want to murder Snape to take control of the wand. However, Albus did not give all these facts to Snape, which greately increased the probability of Severus’s death.

Another one: the 7 Potters. Albus took measures to ensure that Voldemort and Co. will know the exact time of Seven Potter’s leave from the Dursleys, putting the lives of all people involved in “7 Potters” operation in danger. In fact, Dumbledore is partly responsible for the death of Alastor Moody.

Travis,

Harry didn’t have to die. There was a choice, which Dumbledore explained to him – and to us – at the end of OotP: Harry’s happiness versus the lives of the people who would die if Voldemort lived. He said happiness, but I make the assumption that Harry’s life would go hand in hand with his happiness.

So Dumbledore could have chosen to keep Harry safe, at considerable cost. He need never have let Harry know the truth. He chose to let him know the cost, and let him make his own decision, as you say.

Perhaps I’ve been unclear about what I meant by sacrifice. Dumbledore wanted to defeat Voldemort. He also wanted to keep Harry safe because he loved him. The two things he wanted most in the world were not mutually compatible. He had to choose one or the other. He chose the first.

I use the word sacrifice in the following sense:

‘3 a: destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else b: something given up or lost ‘(from Merriam-Webster)

Dumbledore gave up something he loved for the sake of the greater good. For the second time in his life.

Lone Wolf,

If you want to feel even more uncomfortable, think about how Dumbledore used Harry as bait to recruit Horace Slughorn in HBP.

I make the a priori assumption that Slughorn’s interest in Harry was completely due to his lifelong passion for attaching himself to the famous, the talented, the special people – sort of like Andy Warhol – without any kind of sexual overtones.

But still. It’s using people in the crudest sense.

He’s a wily planner and plotter and schemer, is Albus Dumbledore. Sometimes too clever – as with the debacle of Snape’s murder – and sometimes putting things off too long – as with his failure to let Harry know he was the seventh horcrux and had to die. But all that is human, isn’t it? And very realistic, because in real life the best laid of plans do not go off as foreseen.

Mary Jo, of course I agree with you, but I have to add that loving someone for almost all of your life, loving them even after they die, facing death and ultimate evil for their sake, and dying thinking only of them, that has to count for some kind of highpoint in the history of true love.

“But all that is human, isn’t it? And very realistic, because in real life the best laid of plans do not go off as foreseen”.

Actually, yes, it is. What bugs me is that no one calls Albus on the capret for these flaws. He was quite manipulative, but it was not percieved as flaw by the text or buy any characters(except Snape’s “you have used me” comment). Instead, the text seems to think that Dumbledore was flawed not for his manipulativeness, but for his friendship with Grindewald and trying to use the Resurrection Stone.

(Actually, I dislike the way death was treated in Deathly Hallows, but this is a theme for another thread).

Lone Wolf,

I have to disagree about your comment that we don’t see any re-evaluation from Harry about Dumbledore’s flaws.

Much of DH is about Harry re-thinking his evaluation of Dumbledore. The obituary by Doge, the biography by Skeeter, Aunt Muriel’s bits of old gossip at the wedding, plus his own frustration at how little he’s been told about his quest, these are all the pieces of the puzzle he has to put together to understand Dumbledore. But obviously his quest – to destroy the horcruxes – can’t wait until he knows the truth about Dumbledore. At a certain point – after Dobby dies – Harry makes up his mind to have faith in Dumbledore and proceed with the horcrux hunt despite the contradictory evidence. He goes with his intuition that Dumbledore was on the right side and that therefore the quest is right, rather than letting the dismaying evidence of Dumbledore’s human frailties change his course.

The negative evidence continues to pile up: Aberforth’s condemnation, and Snape’s memories which conclusively show Dumbledore’s manipulative side, as well as the fact that he witheld the most crucial bit of information from Harry. But at this point the quest is no longer dependent on Dumbledore’s trustworthiness or lack thereof. Harry is thinking and deciding for himself, and he continues on his course: to destroy the horcruxes, including of course himself.

Someone, I think it was the reviewer from Newsweek, said that DH was about growing up, becoming an adult, which meant, amongst other things, outgrowing your parents, not being dependent on them, learning to walk without them. Growing up means recognizing that your parents are not perfect but are flawed human beings, and still accepting them, and loving them.

I think this is what happens with Harry. He wrestles with Dumbledore’s imperfections throughout the book. He decides ultimately that the right thing to do is not dependent on Dumbledore’s character, but is the right thing in and of itself. And at King’s Cross he is given the chance to speak with his beloved father figure and to hear his confession. And decides ultimately to forgive him because he loves him. This is the passage where he comes to terms with Dumbledore and becomes an adult:

‘Dumbledore patted Harry’s hand, and Harry looked up at the old man and smiled; he could not help himself. How could he remain angry with Dumbledore now?’

The adult Harry accepts that people are imperfect and there isn’t too much you can do about it, but you can still love them.

His decision to name his child after Snape and Dumbledore is a confirmation of that recogntion: both are flawed people (and we have argued interminably about which is the more deeply flawed!). But their flaws don’t prevent them from being admirable, heroic and courageous people.

“There’s just no evidence of this. What was Dumbledore going to do, exactly? Restrain Snape forever? Lock him up somewhere?”

Since he knew that Snape was a Death Eater at that time, of course he should have had Snape locked up!

I still don’t believe that Dumbledore leaked the prophesy on purpose. At that point, he didn’t know how much Snape had heard, how Voldemort would interpret the information and that it would eventually lead to his downfall. He wasn’t omniscient and he didn’t know until Snape came and told him. He had to ask Snape how much he had told Voldemort and then he did everything in his power to protect the Potters.

So I don’t think that the lives of innocent people didn’t matter to him. On the contrary, he was rather disgusted that they didn’t matter to Snape.

“Did he, though? Did he know this for a fact at the time?”

I’m not sure myself. How much time did pass between the Prophesy scene and the scene in Snape’s memories when he comes to Albus with the plea to save Lily?

“How do we know that in the moment’s pause after the door crashed open that Snape didn’t disapparate?”

And Trelawney failing to mentoin that colourful detail?

“Looked at another way, the story doesn’t require Dumbledore to be obscurely Machiavellian on this point”.

I agree that it doesn’t. However, the way it was presented it leaves the room for interpretaion.

In my opinion, from Dumbledore’s first appearance in chapter one and his conversation with McGonagall to his final appearance in Kings Cross and his conversation with Harry, it is clear that Dumbledore didn’t leak the prophesy. Everything that Dumbledore said would have been a lie and Lily’s sacrifice would become almost meaningless.

Because I think, the very point of the story is that Voldemort was defeated by love and not by manipulation. Otherwise the bottom line would be that Dumbledore was simply a better schemer than even Voldemort, and it just doesn’t make sense.

Dumbledore did not know the full import of the prophecy, and he did not know how much Snape had overheard. There are such things in life as accidental happenstance which shape important events in history, and I think, given the lack of any smoking gun, as Reyhan correctly states, we must consider Dumbldore as innocent on the charge of manipulation in this case.

I believe the prophecy was „true“ in the sense of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Like in the classic stories of Macbeth or Oedipus. According to Wikipedia “a true prophetic statement — a prophecy declared as truth when it is not — may sufficiently influence people, either through fear or logical confusion, so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the false prophecy.”

I think, that’s exactly what happened in HP. The prophecy wasn’t a prediction of future events, but when Voldemort heard of it, it appealed to his deepest fears that someone more powerful than himself would appear and defeat him. In trying to prevent it, he ultimately fulfilled the prophecy.

I’d say that this could only be known in retrospect and not in advance. Dumbledore said something to the effect that not all prophecies come true and that their fulfilment is a matter of human decisions. If prophecies cannot predict the future, neither could he and he couldn’t possibly have planned everything that would happen, especially since the events in Godric’s Hollow were supposed to be unprecedented in history.

Another interesting phrase is Dumbledore’s “keep an eye on Quirell”. I wonder how much Dumbledore knew and what did he only suspect in the events of Harry’s first year.

“know that Sirius Black was innocent and that Scabbers was Peter Pettigrew”

I actually fail to realize how he could have known that.

And I enjoyed you external vs. internal logic argument, but them the question arises: why include that “keep an eye on Quirell” phrase in the story?

“I don’t support those arguments because there are too many reasons against them. First, they require that Dumbledore be able to predict the endpoint of events with God-like accuracy”.

I agree with you here. Besides, having one character as Master Uber-Manipulator and all the other characters as his puppets makes the story just, well… uninteresting.

Actually, I tend to agree with you on that one, Reyhan.

And still, what a pity that Albus has (at least, partially) repented and stopped believing in elitist wizard – superiority views. He’d make a great villain – far better then that mediocre fellow caled Voldything.

Well, he at least appears to have been engaging and charming, which always makes for a more enjoyable villain, I find.

But people who believe what they’re doing is right can be very scary, e.g. Hitler and Pol Pot and Milosovic and from the other side of the aisle, our old friend Calvin and the Pope who ordered the Inquisition. And didn’t a lot of Kings and Queens order the deaths of people they consider heretics (but whom nowadays we’d consider Protestants) for the best of reasons? To save their souls?

And don’t be knocking old Snake Eyes. What I find fascinating about him is that one of the things which drives him – maybe the most important thing which drives him – is fear of death. How human is that?

But I like what Lone Wolf is suggesting too. Dumbledore would have made a great villain. And I don’t think he’d have that far to go. Imagine that he was one step ahead of Voldemort every step of the way. Imagine that he was the consummate puppet master, and deliberately let all those things we’ve mentioned happen on his watch. Imagine that he allowed Quirrell/Voldemort into Hogwarts, let Ginny use the diary to waken Tom Riddle, let Sirius Black spend 13 odd years in Azkaban, let Cedric Diggory die, etc, etc. All for a noble end, a good end: the defeat of Voldemort.

That would take us into pure LeCarre territory, where the spymasters on either side are more alike than not, and the spies are left wondering what is the cause they are fighting for when everything around them is cruel and corrupt.

Travis, I agree with you that Grindelwald was a very interesting villain, more so than Voldemort, who reminded me at times of Snidely Whiplash-anyone remember him? He would wrap his cloak about himself and say something like, “Curses, foiled again!” I always felt that Lord V. sounded like Snidely when talking about Harry.

Lone Wolf,

I don’t think Harry did everything on the orders or authority. Rather, he thought about those orders long and hard (remember the interminable hanging around in tents? digging Dobby’s grave by hand?) and eventually decided that he was going to accept the course of action laid out for him by Dumbledore.

And as for the walk in the forest to his death, come on! A man reaches down into himself and finds the strength to walk alone to his death because it is the right thing to do and you say he was following orders?

No.