Dumbledore in Deathly Hallows

• Spoiler Alert!

If you’ve been following this blog over the past year, you probably thought I’d really hate what Rowling did with Dumbledore in Deathly Hallows. I don’t. I hate what I know Fandom is about to do to him, but I’m quite pleased with what we learned in Book 7.

The Dumbledore backstory was the best and most unexpected aspect of Deathly Hallows, apart from Harry’s death/resurrection, of course. I was quite pleased with the way Rowling handled this. I’ll discuss the development of the backstory a bit, and then do some analysis of who Dumbledore truly was, and why I esteem him even more highly than before.

Hagiography vs Slander: Elphias Doge vs Rita Skeeter

Doge’s article in the Daily Prophet is what we might call “Hagiography.” He was writing a perfect saint out of Dumbledore, when indeed the man was quite flawed. One cannot be too harsh on Doge: it was a memorial article in the newspaper. Not the place to drag old secrets out of the closet and skewer the poor old man. But it’s fairly obvious that Doge was completely enamored with Dumbledore, to the point of ignoring his flaws and idolizing him.

Skeeter, on the other hand, did her typical hatchet job on Dumbledore. While she uncovered some facts, her (un)trusty “Quick Quote Quill” spilled its spin onto the page, twisting facts and creating scandal, ready the ruin the reputation of a great man. I have to admit to a private pleasure in watching Rowling put the old “Manipulative!Dumbledore” line, so often repeated by folks in fandom, into the hands of “that cow.”

I was quite shocked to realize, reading these two misguided versions of Dumbledore in chapter 2, that this book really was going to center around the character of Dumbledore.

Dumbledore’s Flaws and Harry’s Development

The central crisis for Harry was the character of Dumbledore. If Harry had spent all of the previous year becoming “Dumbledore’s man through and through,” did he still want to be? The answer to this is significant, and it needs to guide our analysis of what Rowling was doing with Dumbledore: The answer was, yes, after learning everything about Dumbledore, at the end of the story, Harry wanted to remain Dumbledore’s man through and through.

That’s significant, because Dumbledore’s critics are going to feel vindicated by Deathly Hallows, and I don’t think that will be the best reading. But we’ll get back there.

Harry wrestles throughout with the question of Dumbledore, and the decisive moment comes at Dobby’s death. This is incredibly significant, because it was Dumbledore, back in Chapter 37 of Order, who insisted that house-elves have been mistreated by Wizards for centuries. The Kreacher and Dobby subplots highlight the fact that Harry finally took this lesson to heart. It is while burying Dobby that Harry decides to go through with Dumbledore’s plan, to see it through to the end, to trust Dumbledore. Two key quotes come to mind that I believed, after the release of Half-Blood Prince, were an interpretive key to the series:

• “If we can’t trust Dumbledore, who can we trust?” ~ Hermione
• “It comes down to whether or not you trust Dumbledore’s judgment. I do; therefore, I trust Severus.” ~ Lupin

And it really did come down to whether or not Harry trusted Dumbledore. After severe doubt and anger, Harry chose to trust Dumbledore, and everything Dumbledore set into motion was the right move. Only one part, the passing of the Elder Wand to Snape, failed – and that, by the way, highlights just how surprised Dumbledore was to be forced to finish his part of the plot on the Tower. It was earlier than he had expected. This is helpful in understanding why there were certain bits of information that Dumbledore had not yet passed on to Harry, such as how to destroy a horcrux. He planned to show him how to destroy the locket.

We may also be able to draw some parallels between Harry’s flaws and Dumbledore’s flaws. They are different, to be sure. Harry was never tempted in the same way Dumbledore was; but it was mentioned a few times by Dumbledore that the potential was there. Leaving the Resurrection Stone in the forest was a good idea, after all.

I’m grasping for an explanation for the use of unforgivables by Harry. Could it be that Rowling wanted to show us that the best of the good guys are deeply flawed? Harry went on and on about how Dumbledore was “our age” when he began flirting with an oppressive worldview, but Harry instinctively fired several Unforgivable curses at the same age.* Harry and Albus: our flawed heroes.

Dumbledore and Grindelwald

This was tremendously done! I think it’s probably fair to say that, hagiography or not, Doge was right to have called this battle one of the greatest wizarding duels of all time. Dumbledore, the most skilled wizard of the age vs. Grindelwald, owner of the Elder Wand. I wish we knew how Dumbledore did it; I thought the Elder Wand was unbeatable. But one does wonder whether or not Dumbledore’s love for Grindelwald played a role in his defeat, and subsequently a role in Dumbledore’s belief that love is the greatest imaginable power against the Dark Arts.

Grindelwald was a wiser man that Voldemort, and watching Grindelwald taunt him and tell him how little he knew was a particularly joy. I get the impression that after his defeat at Dumbledore’s hands an many years in prison, Grindelwald may have been possessed of some degree of remorse.

Dumbledore’s Repentance

Dumbledore did not remain, for the rest of his life, the same man he was as a young wizard. He did not maintain the same ideas of Wizard domination; indeed, he actively fought against them for the rest of his life. In the words of Bob Dylan, his “repentance his plain.” There are several key indicators here:

• He gave up his quest for the Hallows.
• Even at 157 years old, when faced with his worst memory, he had to relive the death of his sister.
• He avoided the position of Minister for the very purpose of staying as far away from his own sins as possible, to avoid the temptation to go there ever again.

Dumbledore remained a flawed man, and made many mistakes, some of which I’ve documented at this site in in the Hog’s Head PubCast before. His isolation was, in many ways, a problem: while he did trust people in their repentance and goodness, the brilliance of his own plans made it difficult, if not impossible, for him to trust others in the execution of those plans. [I do think we can find plenty of good reasons, however, that Dumbledore withheld information from certain people...but the lack of an "equal," as Rowling said, is what ultimately led to his "old man's mistakes" regarding his underestimation of Harry as young boy, which eventually resulted in Sirius's death.]

The most significant result of Dumbledore’s repentance is his ability to forgive others. “He who has been forgiven much, loves much,” Jesus said. Why did Dumbledore trust Snape? Well, yes, of course – because he believed in the overcoming power of love. But also because he knew, from his own experience, that it is possible to go from having very foolish, very dark, very evil ideas to a place of repentance and restoration.

Albus, Aberforth, and Ariana

Albus’s critics are going to be big fans of Aberforth. I am not. (Aside from the fact that he lets me use his pub for the podcast, of course). Many will see confirmation of their views in Aberforth’s words to Harry about Albus: “Secrets and lies, that’s how we grew up, and Albus…he was a natural” (p. 562, US). Well, sure, he was, and in many ways, our faults continue to tempt us and haunt us throughout our lives. Albus is good at lying when he needs to. He’s also brilliantly trustworthy if you have a secret that would destroy you. We simply can’t criticize Albus for keeping secrets about Snape from Harry; it was the right thing to do, because he had given Snape his word. But I don’t see Albus as a Master Manipulator.

The problem I have with Aberforth is that after almost 150 years, he continues to hold his grudge against Albus. Aberforth was absolutely correct about the awful things Albus did that resulted in Ariana’s death. But Albus knew it, too. Aberforth’s inability to forgive, his refusal to recognize Albus’s repentance, is troubling. Bitterness will cause despair, will eat someone alive. This is what has happened to Aberforth: “The Order of the Phoenix is finished. You-Know-Who’s won, it’s over, and anyone who’s pretending different’s kidding themselves” (p. 562).

The rest of the conversation is brilliant. Aberforth sets the record straight about Ariana, contradicting Doge’s silence and Skeeter’s spin. But Harry steps in and confronts Aberforth’s bitterness and what it’s done to him, arguing that Dumbledore was “never free” of guilt over Ariana’s death, and pushing Aberforth’s bitter pessimism right back in his face.

And it’s true that Albus was never free. It was his guilt over the death of Ariana that killed him, ultimately. When faced with the Resurrection Stone, a moment of weakness took over, and he wanted to see his parents and sister again. It was his deep remorse for what had happened that killed Albus Dumbledore that day. Good thing Severus was nearby.

Aberforth does come around, by the way, and joins in the final battle.

The Life and Love of Albus Dumbledore

For the life of me, I can’t figure out how not dragging all his family’s secrets out into the open is a lie.  It’s not a lie to not divulge information that is not asked for.  The Dumbledores’ family history is tragic, and it involves some pretty rough moments of sin, revenge, and pride.  But “love covers a multitude of sins,” and we all have a multitude that we would prefer covered.  Dumbledore is no different.  Perhaps there were moments in which Dumbledore actually lied about his family, but we never read about them in canon as far as I can remember.

Do you announce the failings of yourself and your family everywhere you go?  Or do you move on, trying to make things right, make a better future?

The Gleam of Triumph

The argument against Dumbledore usually has something to do with his being manipulative and callous about Harry, using him, even. I can’t imagine anything further from the truth. Dumbledore was resigned to the fate that was thrust upon Harry by Voldemort’s actions. Dumbledore cared very, very deeply for Harry, and saw nothing but tragedy ahead for the poor boy.

Put yourself in the shoes of Dumbledore at the end of Goblet of Fire. For 14 years, you’ve been watching over the boy whom you know will one day have to face Voldemort. For two years, you’ve known that in order to defeat Voldemort, Harry will have to die. Harry returns from the tragic rebirth of the Dark Lord, and he explains the manner of the blood transfer.

Hope rises in your heart. All is not lost: Harry may not have to die! Or, more accurately, death will not have a hold on him. After two years of carrying the burden of the knowledge that this innocent, suffering boy will have to die in order to rid the world of Voldemort, you now know that the distinct possibility, even probability, exists that Harry will survive. Gleam of triumph, indeed!

The Death of Dumbledore

The revelation of the “Stoppered Death” plot (or something very close to it) solidified the Christ-like truth about Dumbledore: He died for the protection of his would-be killer, Draco Malfoy. He died for his own enemy. Yes, he was going to die anyway, but he was prepared to be killed at a moment’s notice – taken by surprise on the tower, even – in order to save Draco. Perhaps one of the greatest lingering questions of Book 7 is, “What happened to Draco Malfoy?” Clearly, after the Tower in Book 6, his heart was no longer in service to Voldemort. I think Dumbledore’s mercy was a transforming factor in Draco’s life.

There’s so much more to analyze, and I’m certain the comments will be full of insightful observations, questions, and declarations of heresy, all of which will shed more light on the subject of Dumbledore and correct any errors I’ve made. The King’s Cross chapter deserves its own essay, but for now, I will conclude. I am thoroughly pleased with what Rowling has done with the character of Albus Dumbledore, the portrayal of him as a flawed but forgiven, repentant and restored man, and I look forward to your thoughts.

*I wish Rowling had provided some commentary on their use, some measure of regret, or a better explanation of what it means for a curse to be “unforgivable.” I disagree that the use of Imperius or Cruciatus tears the soul like the Killing Curse. It is specifically murder that tears the soul, not any unforgivable. So we could possibly conclude that the other two Unforgivables are named such by the Ministry, but their true evil lies in how and when they are used, just like any other curse, spell, jinx, or hex. I’m planning an essay on this issue for the near future.