Dumbledore’s character in Deathly Hallows; Hello from CA; Owl Post
Part Two of the Racism series will appear in 1-2 weeks!
Pub Menu
- JKR interview in which she talks about portraits
- My initial response to Radcliffe quote about Dumbledore
- See “Read More” for additional thoughts on Dumbledore in Deathly Hallows not included in the podcast!
- Update: John Granger has weighed in with a post that I’ll be writing something up on later today.
I’ve argued in this podcast that Rowling’s statement about Dumbledore giving her trouble in Book 7, even though he’s dead, is not enough to fuel the fires of Dumbledore conspiracy theories. I’ve also argued that her statement is not about Dumbledore’s portrait, because of this quote from an interview:
They [the portraits] are all of dead people; they are not as fully realised as ghosts, as you have probably noticed. The place where you see them really talk is in Dumbledore’s office, primarily; the idea is that the previous headmasters and headmistresses leave behind a faint imprint of themselves. They leave their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some counsel to the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost. The portrait of Sirius’ mother is not a very 3D personality; she is not very fully realised. She repeats catchphrases that she had when she was alive. If Harry had a portrait of his parents it would not help him a great deal. If he could meet them as ghosts, that would be a much more meaningful interaction, but as Nick explained at the end of Phoenix—I am straying into dangerous territory, but I think you probably know what he explained—there are some people who would not come back as ghosts because they are unafraid, or less afraid, of death.
That quote also eliminates a Dumbledore ghost, since that would do absolute violence to Dumbledore’s character (considering all he’s taught us about death). I suggested three ways in which we can continue to feel Dumbledore’s influence in Book 7: (1) Aberforth, (2) Fawkes, and (3) the Pensieve.
I want to press further in this addendum by suggesting why Dumbledore is giving Rowling trouble.
In the first place, I’ve argued elsewhere that Dumbledore is perhaps the most difficult character for Rowling to write anyway. When writing a Dumbledore-type figure, you’re writing someone whom you would want to be your mentor. A mentor must, by nature, be smarter and wiser than you. To write such a character is literally impossible, since you cannot be smarter and wiser than yourself, so you have to introduce a lot of mystery, make the character sort of an enigma, but still believable and flawed. So you’ve got the mysterious Dumbledore, the “epitome of goodness,” and yet flawed enough to be human.
This in and of itself is difficult enough, and it may be all Rowling’s referring to, since she is indeed planning for us to learn more about the late Headmaster and continue to feel his influence throughout Book 7. So we need not press on too much further.
But there is one area of speculation to which we could turn: a potential foreshadowed Dumbledore error. I don’t have the book in front of me right now (I’m in CA!), but in Dumbledore’s first lesson with Harry in HBP, he made the passing comment that when he makes errors, they’re big ones. If she is planning a big Albus error, that can’t be easy to write and still remain consistent with his overall character.
revgeorge on 
Lily Luna on 
Arabella Figg on 
Travis Prinzi on 
Loading ...
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Personally, I don’t believe Dumbledore’s mistake, if there is a significant one, will concern his judgement of character, least of all Snape’s. It is possible, but I feel that it would be a very unsatisfactory revelation.
Other characters Dumbledore could have misjudged are Argus Filch and Mundungus Fletcher, but I don’t think that could be a pivotal case either. (Although I’m sure Mundungus will create some problems for Harry since he has probably stolen the locket Horcrux from Grimmauld Place.)
What I first thought when I heard that Dumbledore was giving J.K. Rowling a hard time was that 1) Harry was going through emotional turmoil with the portrait, or 2) J.K.R. is struggling with Dumbledore either within a memory, a time-turned era, or another form that isn’t a ghost or a portrait.
I can’t pin down any concrete thought on this subject. On a related note, however, I believe that Fawkes will play a more significant role in Deathly Hallows. Perhaps there is a lingering connection between Fawkes and Dumbledore? I could be wrong, but for some reason I recall reading that Harry will “have a new pet” in an interview somewhere.
The quote about a person managing to do magic late in life is from a Barnes and Noble interview in 1999:
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/0399-barnesandnoble.html
Q: Will there be, or have there been, any “late blooming” students in the school who come into their magic potential as adults, rather than as children? By the way, I loved meeting you, and hearing you speak, when you came to Anderson’s in Naperville. I can hardly wait until you tour again.
A: Ahhh! I loved the event at Anderson’s. It was one of my favorites. That is completely true. No, is the answer. In my books, magic almost always shows itself in a person before age 11; however, there is a character who does manage in desperate circumstances to do magic quite late in life, but that is very rare in the world I am writing about.
Related, on JKR’s site, the following appears:
Section: Extra Stuff
SQUIBS
I have been asked all sorts of questions about Squibs since I first introduced the concept in ‘Chamber of Secrets’. A Squib is almost the opposite of a Muggle-born wizard: he or she is a non-magical person born to at least one magical parent. Squibs are rare; magic is a dominant and resilient gene.
Squibs would not be able to attend Hogwarts as students. They are often doomed to a rather sad kind of half-life (yes, you should be feeling sorry for Filch), as their parentage often means that they will be exposed to, if not immersed in, the wizarding community, but can never truly join it. Sometimes they find a way to fit in; Filch has carved himself a niche at Hogwarts and Arabella Figg operates as Dumbledore’s liaison between the magical and Muggle worlds. Neither of these characters can perform magic (Filch’s Kwikspell course never worked), but they still function within the wizarding world because they have access to certain magical objects and creatures that can help them (Arabella Figg does a roaring trade in cross-bred cats and Kneazles, and if you don‘t know what a Kneazle is yet, shame on you). Incidentally, Arabella Figg never saw the Dementors that attacked Harry and Dudley, but she had enough magical knowledge to identify correctly the sensations they created in the alleyway.
Aunt Petunia is another common guess and Jo has this to say:
Section: Rumours
Aunt Petunia will start exhibiting magical tendencies
No, she won’t. Aunt Petunia has never performed magic, nor will she ever be able to do so.
and
Is Aunt Petunia a Squib?
Good question. No, she is not, but—[Laughter]. No, she is not a Squib. She is a Muggle, but—[Laughter]. You will have to read the other books. You might have got the impression that there is a little bit more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye, and you will find out what it is. She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess. Oh, I am giving a lot away here. I am being shockingly indiscreet.
Hi. I enjoyed your recent podcast heaps. Sophia (hope I got her name right) sounds so very cute. I agree with you that Dumbledore’s brother will be the way Harry finds out more about what he needs to know, and maybe forkes has some information. I don’t know, but I both am looking forward to finding out and dreading the end of the series. Yes, I know I need to get a life!
I quite agree that in would be out of character for Dumbledore to misjudge Snape. I believe that, to keep the debate going, JKR has given us two large red herrings. The first is Dumbledore’s self-effacing (yet, simultaneously grandiose!) comment that, when he does err, his mistakes tend to be greater (owing to his exceptional brain power!). This is supposed to be recalled to the reader later, so that we may think it explains his mistaken trust of Snape. In fact, I think Dumbledore’s statement will refer to some revelation of a mistake…some deep regret that Dumbledor harbors (perhaps related to his experience whilst drinking the potion in the cave or perhaps related to his “defeat” of the evil lord, Grindewald). But for the purpose of plot development, it gives Harry (and we, the readers) some way to respond to the nagging internal doubt… the unmitigated implausability of Dumbledore having been hoodwinked. It distracts us from the fact that, this is, ultimately, a book about love being the vehicle driving the goodness and true greatness which always triumphs over evil. It is only Voldemort (and his evil ilk) who think only fools love… or trust in love. I think JKR also added to that bit of sleight of hand when, in an interview, she tried to explain Dumbledore’s social awkwardness by explaining that his mental and magical superiority renders him without equal. Balderdash!! All smokescreen and smelly red herrings! Of course, JKR is his author so, I’m not arguing the truth in her comment, just that it has no bearing on the question of his judgement. As better commentors than I have said, “Snape is Dumble’s man through and through.” If it is not so, I will be so disappointed. I am looking forward to, what I expect (hope) will be poignant, painfully beautiful passages about the real reason for Snapes allegiance to Dumbledore and for Dumbledore’s stubborn conviction of Snape’s loyalty. (Got a box of tissues anyone?)