A cutting examination of the character of Dumbledore first posted in a small private forum I frequent by a member. It was so apt I got permission to repost because everybody should have a chance t...
(#) crftyspider 2010-02-14 08:38:33 AMThank you!
Finally someone has elequently put into words what I have been saying about Dumbledore for years!
They didn't even say a word about Dumbledore putting Harry into an abusive situation for most of his life.
Either the man was an a fool or he was incredibly evil. I say he was a manipulative evil man.
Thanks for posting!
- Permission from whom? In situations like this, you're supposed to attribute it to the actual author. Either amend your story-post to add a disclaimer to credit the actual author of the words and disclaim ownership for yourself, or post such a credit here in the review stream.
Not arguing at all with the substance. I'm taken to calling the overall seven-book series "Harry Potter and the Triumph of Evil", because, from the epilogue, it's clear that a predatory status quo is back firmly in place, and Harry and Hermione are too doped up and disabled to fight it.
Author's responseI amended my note and moved it to the front of the piece and added to the description. It showed up in a private fanfiction group I frequent and the original poster (Xagyg117 on that site) doesn't put his fiction on public sites but let me repost this since it was basically just his thoughts on Dumbledore.
(#) Uncle_Buck 2010-02-14 11:53:31 AMAh but you failed to include
arianna's death was not an accident but a ritual to remove or bind her power as to prevent her accidental discharge.
second: Dumdum's supposed to be 80 or so years old well read and wise in the world. When Tom has shown his nature in his interview, sending him to another school would have been my steps considering the magical world would not consider his actions against non magicals a crime.
- I agree but I don't think you went nearly far enough. I actually believe Dumbledore is the epitome of evil. Not only for the abuse he encouraged against Harry but for the actions and inactions he's taken for the rest of the wizarding world.
Dumbledore's arrogance has caused more problems for the British wizarding world than all the actions of both Grindelwald and Voldemort put together. Throughout his reign, he has constantly paid lip service to the 'light' while all the while, employing the darkest methods of the lowest of criminal minds...the politician.
You mentioned Ariana. It's convenient, is it not, that Dumbledore's disabled and mentally damaged sister, who was no longer an asset to either her family or to any potential alliance, was killed in the fight between brothers.
According to canon: "no one knew who cast the fatal curse..."
What were they doing using lethal curses in such a squabble in the first place, especially in the presence of a mentally challenged bystander?
Not only is Dumbledore partially responsible for the crimes committed by Gellert, he is wholly responsible for the thousands of deaths, muggle and magical, caused by Voldy and the Voldettes. In fact, he takes on the very slogan Grindelwald used. He still believed that the wizards should rule the muggles an that she should rule the wizards.
I believe he actually created Voldemort.
Given the canon timeline, I believe that Riddle didn't 'just happen along'. I believe Dumbledore was actually instrumental in his conception. After all, Merope was a barely capable witch. How did she manage to brew a tremendously finicky 'love' potion?
Alchemy isn't that far removed from potions, is it?
I believe he realized that he needed an expendable weapon to use against Grindelwald, who was by then, a superior wizard, and so he 'arranged' for one to be born.
Though not supported, I believe he was also directly involved with Merope's decision to discontinue the potions, and the second Riddle was clear of them he said 'adios'.
It wouldn't, after all, be conducive to Riddle's martyrdom if he was raised in a loving environment.
Instead, I believe Dumbledore 'directed Merope to that orphanage, and as soon as she had birthed Riddle, 'induced' heart failure. I believe he ensured Riddle was placed in an institution where he could 'influence' how his pawn was treated. He knew even then that a child raised in adversity and then shown some inkling of concern would automatically latch onto the source of that concern.
Riddle entered Hoggy's in Sept of '38,(No cut-off date then, I suppose.) and finished in spring of '45, and if Germany hadn't surrendered in May of that year, he would have found his way into the front lines. Remember, estimates showed the war continuing for another two to three years. Hitler's suicide and Germany's surrender came as a shock to almost everybody.
I believe Riddle discovered his intended fate early and decided to do something about it. To become stronger than the one he knew was going to sacrifice him, he turned to the one branch of magic Dumbledore refused to allow, because he had no skill in that area.
The dark arts.
Having been both a police officer and a Marine, I have killed in the line of duty.
Do I feel guilty? Yes. Am I evil? No.
I had a job to do, and in each case, the individual in question was doing his utmost to kill me, or someone nearby.
~~...and furthermore allows a talking hat to place him in Slytherin the psychopath factory.~~
At the time, Slytherin was not considered to be any more 'evil' than any other house. It was only after Dumbledore began teaching there that they developed the reputation of being Dark lord wannabe's.
Co-inky-dink? I think not.
The best way to create a unified nation is to give them an element they can unify against. Ask any dictator.
I don't condone Riddle's methods, of murder, but I wonder if some of that reputation was driven by a certain twinkly-eyed meddler, to establish himself. How better to present an enemy than to portray him as a soulless psychotic.(See "Faces of the enemy' by Sam Keen. Harper & Row, 1986.) How better to present one's self than as an omniscient figure with the good of the world in mind?
Harry Potter: Dumbledore realized A) He'd lost control of his weapon and B) that said weapon was now too powerful to destroy on his own, and so, he decided to recreate the experiment with slightly altered parameters. This new weapon would be carefully watched and any sign of independence would be beaten out of him.
The order of incompetence.(With apologies to Fawkes.)
Dumbledore's 'order' is effectively worthless as a fighting arm and nearly so as an intelligence gathering agency. His penchant for keeping all information to himself prevented what he claimed the order was for. Moreover, the single 'defection' is highly suspect.
The Prophesy: It was Dumbledore who set the prophesy in motion, not Voldemort. How any general could have a meeting with a potentially invaluable intelligence source outside a secure environment, an environment with a higher concentration of criminal lowlifes than Knockturn Alley, and yet taken exactly zero prevention measures, against leaking said information, is beyond comprehension.
He had to know the Death Eater was listening. It makes no sense not to. This is where Harry Potter comes into the picture.
Was the prophesy real, or was it something he made up?
If Snape really was a spy for Dumbley, he would have been killed when Voldemort regained a body. Karkaroff was, and he only refused to continue in Voldemort's service. I believe Voldemort ordered Snape to seed disinformation, or give factual information with insufficient time to act on it.
Dumbledore cheerfully looked the other way as his minions were slaughtered at the behest of the disaffected baby boomer.
Worse, Snape tried to make a deal with Voldy. Said dark lord could kill the husband and baby, if Snape could have the woman...as a sex slave.
Love? I don't think so.
Your assertion states that Dumbledore allows these things to happen. In fact, he forces them to happen. He encourages and facilitates Harry to his stupidity and if someone is hurt, or dies, he puts on his 'Disappointed grandfather #3' face, to make the kid feel as guilty as possible.
Sirius: Dumbledore arranged for Sirius to go to prison because Sirius could have legally removed Harry from the dubious 'care' of his relatives, derailing Dumbley's plans. As before, growing up in a happy, loving home is not conducive to martyrdom.
~~Wanna know what kills him?~~
His own greed, stupidity and carelessness. Actually, it's Darwinism drawn to it's logical conclusion.
~~Magic 101 that you DO NOT TOUCH EVIL RINGS OF POWER.~~
I believe it's also somewhere in 'The Handbook of Rules for Evil Overlords.'
Crapilogue. "The differenter things get the samer they stay." The entire effort was a complete waste.
Despite the battles fought, the lives lost and the damage done, the Death Eaters are released without penalty. Malfoy is still spouting that purist crap, and by the way, had anybody called my wife a 'mudblood', I'd have knocked him on his arse! Why didn't Ron? Why didn't Harry, or Neville, for that matter?
Well, them's muh thoughts.
- Its nothing less then the facts of the fiction. The whole series started going of the track from 5 forward . And the great horror of the one big weasley family was forced downn our throats . Comarinbg to LOTRs even Frodo atr least at a happy childhood. Harry got kicked around from begining to end with the dark headmaster at the source.
(#) brian_mithran 2010-02-15 07:27:53 PMNO!
Where to start, I'm tempted to say something like "grow up" and leave it there but that doesn't really explain anything.
You have to realise that you are reading a story, you see things the other characters don't for example though we see that Harry is going to fight Voldemort in the first book no actual character would suspect the two having to kill each other until they hear the prophecy and Dumbledore in particular did not believe it.
1. Dumbledore never planned to rule the muggles and though Grindelwald certainly become more and more evil from questionable morals to start with he was not Hitler. There is no mention of death camps only political imprisonment which is typical of any dictator and Grindelwald certainly was a dictator. I'm not defending him I'm just saying the Hitler comparison adds nothing to your argument, argue about what Grindelwald himself you can't just say Hitler and assume that makes an argument.
2. Grindelwald is a Swiss name, google it.
3. He did the only thing he could when Riddle was a kid, you want him to deny a child any education because of one incident of which the details are unclear. You can't do that in the real world, you are confusing the perspective you have as the reader knowing that he will become a killer later in life. If we follow your advice no one from a broken home is allowed to go to school.
4. Just because they don't go into detail about what the order of the phoenix did in the first war doesn't mean they did nothing. Going back to your Hitler analogy there were a number of organisations in WW2 smuggling Jews away from the Germans. They didn't stop Hitler and you may not know the details of their operations that doesn't mean they did nothing, they saved lives.
When we get to the start of the story Albus has made only 1 real mistake: not recognising the problems with Grindelwald when they were friends. Again if you are in the real world you have no right to demand he go and kill Grindelwald. Going back to Hitler again you can't blame every sniper who was alive at the time for not immediately heading to Germany and shooting Hitler. The fact that Dumbledore did go and defeat him counts in his favour.
5. Slytherin house is required for literary purposes but we know for example that Lucius Malfoy is on the board of governors and that the ministry has a strong undercurrent of bigorty, it would have been impossible for Dumbledore to do anything about it.
6. The last battle in the last book is joined by a number of other races, trying to get support from other races is what the order was trying to do. I don't see how you can blame Dumbledore for Sirius' death, he was chased from the school, turned up at the ministry and saved everyone.
7. He recognises the mistake he made keeping Harry at the Dursleys they treated him bladly but not as badly as many fanfics have him being treated. You don't mention this but I thought I should. It's the one thing I really disliked about Dumbledore, he suspects early on that Harry must die and says he is going out of his way to give Harry as much of a life as he can but he leaves him with the Durdleys. I understand that there are literary reasons for this though.
Dumbledore is not evil and cannot be blamed for everything you have tried to pin on him. He is a flawed character but he is a good character.
- "I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years, Harry, but there were _literary reasons_--"
"Literary what?" broke in Harry. "Sir, that's bollocks, that doesn't make any more sense than your 'Greater Good' did, and that was just something you cobbled together with Grindelwald."
"It means, Harry," bore down Dumbledore with unbroken placidity, "that, as it's in a book, it doesn't _have_ to make sense. The Muggles know this, in fact their organized religions are built around this fact."
"Which means you're worshipping Rowling as a demigod, doesn't it."
"Correct. She is our Author Pendragon."
"I knew I wouldn't escape punnishment somehow," muttered Harry.
The elderly Wizard peered over his spectacles with his usual all-knowing, all-powerful twinkle. "One outbreak of absurdity deserves another, don't you think?"