We’re not yet done with chapter 4 of Half-Blood Prince. Before Dumbledore leaves Harry with the Weasleys, he has a few matters to discuss with him in a “smelly, spidery broom shed.” This is one of those moments which convinces me of my idealistic reading of Dumbledore, though I’m sure Manipulative!Dumbledore advocates have their take on it as well. This, to me, is Dumbledore showing authentic concern for and knowledge of Harry. Nothing is a game in this discussion, nothing a plot. It does lead to the set-up of the private lessons, where there’s far more room for debate, I think. But I believe this scene is the old man genuinely caring for the boy who has lost so much.
There’s a bit of interesting foreshadowing here. Harry, regaining his voice and growing adamant, swears that if he’s killed, he’ll take as many Death Eaters with him as possible, “and Voldemort too if I can manage it.”
Dumbledore replies with admiration at Harry’s words. In the past, that struck me as an almost inappropriate response from Dumbledore, who always seemed an icon of forgiveness and the hope of redemption. To praise Harry’s wanting to take as many Death Eaters to the grave as possible?
But knowing what we know now, the scene is both understandable and chilling. Dumbledore knows that Harry will have to sacrifice himself. So, of course he is encouraged by Harry’s brave willingness to die in the fight against Voldemort, and take Voldemort with him, if possible. And of course, he will praise that bravery in Harry, because it’s precisely the bravery needed to complete Dumbledore’s plan to take down Voldemort once and for all.
What was I saying about there being no room for debate about Dumbledore in this scene? Nevermind.
Of course, Harry essentially does exactly what he says here. When he “dies,” he takes Voldemort with him – in one quite literal sense, by destroying the soul-piece in his dead, and in another sense, by making Voldemort one soul-part weaker, enabling his final death the next morning.
Charlie on 
Tom on 
Moe W on 
Steve Morrison on 
Moe W on 
Arabella on 
Red Rocker on 
Loading ...
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
I don’t see Dumbledore-in-the-closet as either compassionate Dumbledore or manipulative Dumbledore. While something could be made of the fact that Dumbledore takes Harry into a closet – or woodshed – with him for a secret meeting, I give that scene the most neutral kind of interpretation possible:
Last we saw the two protagonists alone together, one was throwing around furniture while the other was weeping crocodile tears. Here they are again. Some sort of acknowledgement of the past is necessary before they can move on. JKR properly throws us into the middle of the story – the wonderfully abusive scene with the Dursleys, the seduction of Slughorn – but before she takes the plot any further, she has a quiet moment with her principals to bring us up to date and to resolve any leftover business from the last book. Plus, of course, now that DD is being (more) open with Harry, he has to give him his marching orders for the book. The orders are: no more lessons with Snape (since they’ve fulfilled their purpose, see my comment above); let Hermione and Ron know what’s been happening; join me in a little pensieve surfing so you can learn what it will take to destroy Voldemort.
Looking at it from that perspective, the wood shed scene is nothing more than JKR doing a mini recap of OotP and telling us what to expect in HBP.
Red Rocker,
I’ll just make another quick comment since I’m still out of town & rushing through things. I really think you’re taking an entirely too cynical view of DD. You’re certainly right to be skeptical of him & to parse what he does & says. But again just because he’s still a slave to his old vices & ways of doing things doesn’t mean there isn’t also nobility in him & also love for Harry, even though that love doesn’t always measure up to what it should be,
I really think that neither Rita’s entirely cynical way of reading DD nor Doge’s hagiography of DD is the right way to go.
revgeorge, the most interesting thing about Dumbledore is that he does love Harry – and is still willing to let him walk to his death. These two seemingly contradictory motives make for an entirely fascinating character. Much more fascinating than if he used Harry without loving him; or if he was unwilling to use him because he did love him.
Is there nobility in him? Well, he certainly has class: the way he faces his would-be-murderers; the way he drink the green potion of awfullness, knowing what it will bring; the way he orders his own death; his gift of understatement, his self-effacing charm, his ability to be at home and in control in any situation, no matter how desperate or hopeless. He has courage and wit and power and oodles of charisma. But nobility?
I looked up the word in the dictionary. There are different meanings of the word “noble” to which “nobility” refers.
1 a: possessing outstanding qualities : illustrious b: famous, notable
2: of high birth or exalted rank : aristocratic
3 a: possessing very high or excellent qualities or properties b: very good or excellent
4: grand or impressive especially in appearance
5: possessing, characterized by, or arising from superiority of mind or character or of ideals or morals : lofty
I’d say that Dumbledore fits almost all of these definitions. The only one I’d quibble on is in the matter of ideals or morals. He fights for the good, it’s true. But the very fact that he is fighting a war means he has to use some ignoble methods.
True to my New Year’s promise, I will read along (haven’t started yet–I was teaching–have no life when that happens. My tenure is up so I will begin.)
Just like to make one quick comment–A teacher NEVER! NEVER! goes into a closet with a student! We spend 25% of our energy to make sure we’re not alone in a ROOM with one, unless the doors are open, another teacher is present, the windows face the public, we invite the media, etc. to protect us against false accusations. But a closet????????????? (or shed)
(I do remember being totally creeped out by the spiders in the closet. I hate spiders)
My original ‘Team Manipulative Dumbledore’ started with this book. A 16 year-old orphan, eager to please his father-figure does not have the tools to combat a man like Dumbledore when he turns on the ‘I- need- you- to- do- this’ mode.
I must add that I am completely biased being a teacher. There are lines we do not cross in real life. I will try on re-reading to get into the Wizard world where parents sign the most vague release form in the history of humanity.
Dumbledore is that he does love Harry – and is still willing to let him walk to his death. These two seemingly contradictory motives make for an entirely fascinating character.
I wouldn’t consider these two things contradictory.
I did say “seemingly”, Travis.
At the least of it, if you love someone, you don’t want them to die and you do your utmost to prevent it. There are some circumstances under which you might have to let them – if they were an adult, for example, and fully capable of making their own decisions. But as Professor L says above:
A 16 year-old orphan, eager to please his father-figure does not have the tools to combat a man like Dumbledore when he turns on the ‘I- need- you- to- do- this’ mode.
Is it a coincidence that Harry turns 17 before he does the death walk thing? I believe that age 17 is the earliest age many armies in the civilized world let youngsters sign up to die in combat.
Granted, DD doesn’t tell Harry he needs him to let Voldemort kill him – Harry has to put the pieces together himself. But DD certainly points him in the right direction.
My real point is not so much that love and the willingness to let the person you love sacrifice himself are contradictory, but that these two motives would produce internal conflict – which is always fascinating in a character, especially in one who seems so confident and certain most of the time. This hypothesized conflict lends a lot of interest to the character, for me.
I could, of course go the other way and assume that Dumbledore’s feelings towards Harry are empty, in the sense that they don’t cause him any qualms as he raises him “like a pig to slaughter”. But that would not be as entertaining a reading of the character.
I, too, was thinking about the closeness/cramped quarters of the meeting in the broomstickshed on the latest reread, but I don’t think we can judge it by the standards of what muggle teachers must do to prevent accusations or lawsuits, since those don’t seem to be an issue in the wizarding world. As I mentioned in the other comment thread, the shed complete with spiders seems meant to recall Harry’s cupboard under the stairs at the Dursleys. We might also contrast it with the vast open whiteness of Kings Cross where Harry talks with Dumbledore almost two years later.
It seems plain to me that Dumbledore loves Harry, knows he will have to ask him to sacrifice himself, but also suspects that as long as Voldemort is the one to “kill” Harry, Harry may not actually die because Voldemort took some of Harry’s blood and his mother’s sacrifice into him at his rebirth.
I agree with the entirety of Red Rocker‘s last post about Dumbledore. Put it on your calendars!
Lily Luna, I think you’re quite correct that this Dumbledore/Harry meeting can’t be judged by usual teacher/student relationship standards. This is Dumbledore inviting Harry into the war against Voldemort, into the Order of the Phoenix, and into the final stage of his hero’s quest.
I just can’t be all that offended by Dumbledore’s manipulativeness and secretiveness. He is, after all, the head of a secret society. Literally, he has a responsibility to be both secretive and manipulative. Not being so could get people killed.
And the fact is Harry is by no means trustworthy. He tells everything to Ron and Hermione, can’t resist Legilimancy and Voldemort has a direct pipeline into his brain. It is a real risk telling him anything, let alone a dangerous secret like Dumbledore knowing that Voldmort has horcruxes.
Dumbledore is playing a long, deep game for high stakes. Of course he is being secretive. Of course he is being manipulative. It is the only way to win.
As for the broom shed, I think it is there primarily for the comic effect of the spiders. But given the ease of eavesdropping in the Wizarding World, it is probably prudent to get out of the open whenever discussing secrets. In addition to bringing back thoughts of the Cupboard Under the Stairs, it might also recall the broom closet Rita Skeeter cornered Harry in during GoF.
For me, one of the great charms of the wizarding world is how archaic it is in many ways. Certainly Dumbledore is unconcerned about going into a broom shed alone with Harry. Why should he be? Students at Hogwarts are in constant danger from all sorts of nasty potions, plants, blast-ended skrewts, and flying brooms without airbags. All with virtually no adult supervision. Nobody seems concerned. And where are all of the things that you would think go on among hormonal, unsupervised teenagers? Not much that we can see, at least from Harry’s perspective. Are the mores that different among witches and wizards, or are we just not being told?
I’ve taught in the public schools almost thirty years, and earlier in my career (much earlier, actually), I didn’t hear any warnings about being alone with students, and don’t recall it being mentioned in college either. Now of course, that has changed to say the least…
It’s funny that I had no qualms about DD & Harry in the broom shed but I was deeply uncomfortable with Slughorn and the ‘gifted and talented’ in his room.
Picking up on Red Rocker’s earlier thoughts, it is (to me) one of the deep mysteries of Christianity that God the Father loves his Son and delights in him (Luke 3:22) and yet sends him deliberately as a sacrifice (‘Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer’ Isaiah 53:10). And because of his love for his Father, Jesus was willing to go through with that plan so with his death he would ‘destroy the works of the evil one’ (1 John 3:8). It’s hard to look on that kind of love without hurting the eyes or breaking the heart.
I don’t know how closely Rowling wants us to draw comparisons, but I find it hard not to. At least there’s no manipulation in the Father/Jesus relationship.
I think that the message in the Bible is that there are things more important than loving your child. It always seemed a little harsh to me what God expected from Abraham, vis a vis Isaac. And more than a little odd that Abraham was willing to obey without the least bit of resistance.
I’m a little reluctant to compare DD with God for many reasons; Abraham does seem to be a more acceptable comparison. I can’t understand him myself; and maybe it’s for the same reason that I have a hard time with Dumbledore’s “love”.
In the same vein, what do Lily and James know when they come back to Harry when he uses the resurrection stone? They seem to have been watching, to know that Harry is going to sacrifice himself. Do they also know that he likely will survive? If not, aren’t they also offering their own son up as a sacrifice, encouraging him and protecting him as he makes his way to Voldemort? Now, Harry is of age, not a child like Isaac, but an adult like Jesus. And they know that Harry would not want to be told to run, but instead needs their love and support, but still they don’t seem the least fazed by the plan (Lupin and Sirius, too). (Perhaps they know he will live and that explains it.)
Abraham and Isaac are a good comparison, Red Rocker. I’m reluctant to compare DD with God as well. From here on in the books we get to know a decidedly flawed Dumbledore, though noble.
And thanks Lily Luna for the reference to the dead walking with Harry in the forest. I’ve always had a sneaking suspicion that life finally makes sense from the perspective of heaven. Harry’s parents and mentors can see the bigger picture, that some things are even more important than dying. Well they (especially Lily) knew that before they died and their conviction has been vindicated. All of them realised that love and sacrifice go together.
Just to follow up on the Harry/Isaac analogy — some Bible scholars argue that Isaac was not a helpless child at the time of his sacrifice, but that he was an adult young man. In that event, Isaac — like Harry — went to his sacrifice knowingly and willingly. He and Abraham did so because they had confidence in God’s promise that Isaac was the child that would father the nation Israel and that God never broke a promise. The Dumbledore/Abraham analogy suffers because Abraham’s anguish and fear in sacrificing his son was allayed by his confidence in God. Dumbledore — to our knowledge — is relying only on his own intelligence in believing that Harry’s sacrifice would not necessarily mean his death. Thanks to all of you for making re-reading HBP so much fun.
carriek9, I like your take on Isaac. I hadn’t heard that before.
This is rather speculative on my part–but since Dumbledore put the verse “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” on James and Lily’s gravestone, I tend to think of him as having some confidence in God himself. That’s certainly not explicit. But one of the intriguing things about Dumbledore is his confidence regarding death as seen throughout the books.
The Abraham/Dumbledore comparison is a really good one that I hadn’t thought of. Scholars reading the Bible on below-the-surface levels usually see Abraham’s sacrifice as a ‘type’ or symbol of what God would do with Christ. I think Dumbledore’s story could be read in the same way.
Lily Luna and Black Angus, I loved the points about the dead walking with Harry. I very much agree!
We also see the evil inversion of this analogy in Bellatrix’ comment that if she had sons she would gladly give them up to the service of the Dark Lord. She would have no anguish about it nor any expectation that the Dark Lord would spare them. She’d just sacrifice them if that’s what Voldemort wanted.
Library Lily — Thanks! I appreciate your observations on Dumbledore. I would like to think that he was relying God as well — hence his calm and confidence. But I guess that goes back to whether you think he is a manipulator or a hero. I agree that Abraham/Isaac is a precusor to Christ on the cross — there’s actually a pretty compelling argument that the mountain on which Isaac was taken to be sacrificed actually was Golgotha. I think I will end up having a more favorable opinion of Dumbledore as I mull over the Dumbledore/Abraham connection further.
To assume that Dumbledore and Harry are an anti-type of Abraham/Issac, we need to answer the question of who is sacrificing whom. In Genesis, it is clearly Abraham sacrificing Issac. While there are plenty of arguments that Issac is an adult and does not resist, these are all based on the dubious proposition that Issac must be 37 yrs old. And that he does not ‘resist’, despite the fact that Abraham seemingly lies to him.
Rowling, on the other hand, shows us clearly that it is Harry’s choice to sacrifice himself. This is a significant difference. In fact, it seems clear to me now that the reason Rowling made the age of adulthood in the Wizarding World 17 was precisely so that Harry would be an adult when he sacrificed himself. She seems to be making a great point of absolving Dumbledore from the charge of “sacrificing” Harry.
This is one of those areas where thematic similarities don’t necessarily mean the comparison is the best interpretation. I think there are some thematic similarities between the Abraham/Isaac story and Dumbledore/Harry story, but I think Mike A. is correct to point to where it breaks down as well.
Abraham/Isaac works, perhaps, as an illustration that love and a willingness to let a beloved one die are not contradictory (though it’s important to remember that the Abraham/Isaac story is in many ways a very odd one, intended very much to set up a typology of later events in salvation history); and I think all agree with that point, anyway, though Red Rocker is quite correct in pointing out the internal conflict caused by such a scenario.
I don’t think there’s a direct parallel, especially not allegorically, between the two stories, as though Dumbledore/Harry is a retelling of Abraham/Isaac.
From a simple text-based point of view, I think it’s also quite difficult to determine that Dumbledore “trusted in God,” since the story contains no God figure. I highly recommend the essay by Danielle Tumminio, “Reflections on God and Harry Potter,” in the forthcoming Hog’s Head Conversations, Volume 1, for an interesting look at the subject.
Dumbledore trusted in himself, of course, and no one else. He trusted his calculations that Harry would survive Voldemort. And was quite willing to let Harry take the risk that he might be wrong. Great man, Dumbledore.
But Travis is correct: I only brought up the Abraham analogy to show, by way of an exception proving the rule, how sacrificing someone you love must cause some hesitation. And yes, Bellatrix would be another exception that would prove the rule. I can imagine her having children just so she could sacrifice them for Master.
Abraham/Issac is a very odd story. Pehaps it is this very oddness, the almost sleepwalking horror of it, that makes it such a powerful episode.
Travis, point taken on the comparison of Abraham/Isaac and Dumbledore/Harry.
As to the idea of whether Dumbledore trusted in God, I won’t waste time attempting to prove what is at best a private hypothesis.
Perhaps I was out of line in bringing up something that cannot be proven textually. But in defense of having such an idea myself (and without having yet seen Ms. Tumminio’s essay, though I’ll look forward to reading it), I’ll just say that while there is no direct reference to characters’ wholehearted religious participation in the books, there are several open pointers to characters’ participation in at least some of the rites and study of religion. This seems to imply recognition of a God figure, whether believed or disbelieved. (I’m thinking, in case anyone wonders, of Mrs. Weasley’s “Thank God” in DH, James and Lily making Sirius godfather to Harry, and Dumbledore’s use of Scripture–two lines which he clearly believed, though he may have lifted them from their original context in order to do so). In a modern British sense, all of this means little, but I think it leaves the door open.
I’m most definitely not attempting to make Dumbledore into the perfect Christian, though. I’m Catholic, and he certainly didn’t take everything in our catechism seriously (*cough*euthanasia*cough*). As I said earlier, it’s “certainly not explicit.” Pardon my fondness for understatement.
Library Lily, it wasn’t out of line in the least! I welcome with open arms all theories of reading (whether people realize they’re reading according to a certain theory or not). I just tend to come at reading from a textualist point of view, so my responses will generally be geared toward analysis of the text, over and above Rowling’s intentions or reader’s response to the text – though I have to admit that my “reader response” to Dumbledore might take the driver’s seat over textualism. (In reality, I’m fairly convinced it’s the best reading of the text as well, but I certainly need to admit the possibility that the catharsis that comes for me in imagining a more loving/forgiving, idealistic, rather than cold and manipulative Dumbledore might obscure my vision at times.)
Not to be picky, but Snape killing Dumbledore at Dumbledore’s request (which Dumbledore renews right before Snape does so) is an assisted suicide, not euthanasia. While one can argue, as prosecutors and religious leaders have, that both are murder, there is a difference in the victim’s intent. Euthanasia is performed whether the victim has indicated consent or not (a la Holland), assisted suicide by definition is with the consent of and at the behest of the victim (a la Kevorkian). Whether Kevorkian went too far and placed undue pressure on those he “helped” is another issue.
I also like to think that there is at least a hint of characters in the books believing in God. There’s the celebration of Easter and Christmas (complete with a smattering of religious carols) – though that still may be more cultural than religious. One of the strongest hints for me is the business of godparents. This seems to be very important, both to the Potters and the Lupins. I find it hard to extract that entirely from religious connotations.
Although Dumbledore has the upper hand in this chapter, with Harry not entirely aware of what he’s up to all of the time, I like the way they seem to be transitioning from a teacher-student relationship to peers working toward the same goal. The sense of that comes full circle when Dumbledore utters my favorite line in the book – “I am not worried, Harry; I am with you” – in a reversal of his telling Harry in this chapter, “I do not think you need to worry about being attacked tonight… You are with me.”
Nice pickup, Erin, on the you are with me/I am with you circle. I hadn’t noticed that.