Comments on: Dumbledore in Deathly Hallows

By: diners club international pokeris

diners club international pokeris — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:53:01 +0000

diners club international pokeris…

differentiation Atropos civility,reselling …

By: Lone Wolf

Lone Wolf — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:58:02 +0000

“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?”

He was displaying many qualities, and the ability to follow orders is one of them. Not the main one, but one of them.

By: reyhan

reyhan — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:30:45 +0000

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.

By: Lone Wolf

Lone Wolf — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 05:45:40 +0000

“One of JKR’s stated goals was to teach readers to question (or was it challenge?) authority”.

Which is rather ironical thing, because in “Deathly Hallows” the main protagonist does everything on the orders of autority.

“Curses, foiled again!”

And don’t forget the line “I’d suceeded if not for these cursed children”!

By: Mary Jo Neyer

Mary Jo Neyer — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:45:46 +0000

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.

By: Mary Jo Neyer

Mary Jo Neyer — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:42:39 +0000

One of JKR’s stated goals was to teach readers to question (or was it challenge?) authority. I think she does this in a very subtle manner by creating Dumbledore as a character who seems to be so wise, so good and so excellent at everything that some readers thought he was a symbol of God. I once got into a discussion with our pediatrician who had read the first four books and who thought D.was indeed a symbol of God.
Yet, as we Christians know,we all have sinned and have failings. Dumbledore’s failings are particularly interesting because they are not the sort of faults so often found in standard characters, but they are more like those of LeCarre’s spymasters, an analogy I had not thought of before Reyhan brought it up, but it is very good comparison. On one level JKR’s story portrays Dumbledore in a way that children can still see in an admiring way. How many children even know who Machiavelli is?
At the same time, adults can see the darker currents, appreciate the hidden manipulations, and see Dumbldedore as a much more shadowed character. The one authority we thought we could trust turns out to behave in ways that could be construed as sinister.

By: reyhan

reyhan — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:10:21 +0000

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.

By: Travis Prinzi

Travis Prinzi — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:07:12 +0000

Lone Wolf, I think you're actually on to something there. After DH was released, I said at Prophecy 2007 that in many ways, Grindelwald is a much more fascinating Bad Guy than Voldemort. Grindelwald thought what he was doing was right, which makes him a more believable Bad Guy to me. Voldemort only believed in power and selfishness.

By: Lone Wolf

Lone Wolf — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:41:30 +0000

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.

By: reyhan

reyhan — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:35:00 +0000

I think that JKR has Dumbledore say that (“Keep and eye on Quirrell”) to show that he isn’t a complete nitwit. We are meant to see that he suspects something (wise wizard that he is).

To beat a concept to death: the internal logic dictates that DUmbledore not seem to be totally oblivious to what’s behind Quirrell’s turban. The external logic dictates that it has to be Harry who uncovers Voldemort behind the turban.

It’s flimsy. But no flimsier than many other children’s adventure stories which require incredible amounts of carelessness, verging on actual negligence, from otherwise loving and responsible parents, so that the children may have hair-raising adventures.