History Headscratchers / HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsAlbusDumbledoreGoodOrBad

24th Dec '16 6:08:34 PM TheMysteriousTroper
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** This wasn't just any old foster arrangement with any old kid. Set aside the fact that Harry is going to be super famous; this is taking place at the most TWO DAYS after Voldie's defeat. Death Eaters are still running around, Sirius Black blew up a street block, and the wizarding world is generally in a state of confusion. I'm sure we can all agree that priority should be given to Harry's safety and well being. In my mind, the wizarding world would not be safe for Harry at this point! If I were a Death Eater, I wouldn't mind getting ahold of that little twerp to deal out some cold, hard revenge. Give him to someone in the Order of the Phoenix? Even if it was a secure enough location that Death Eaters wouldn't find him, might I remind you that they were just given some bad news about Sirius Black, that traitor. Might Dumbledore's confidence in his fellow members of the order be a little diminished? Putting him in the Muggle world was kind of a genius move, I thought. 99% of wizards are so out of touch with the Muggle World that they couldn't operate a standard telephone. Track down Harry Potter in the Muggle world? Fat Chance! The move was probably made quickly, so that Harry could be put somewhere safe before the confusion died down and all eyes were on him (including the eyes of assassins). The fact that there is a perfect little house that will give him magical protection, within owl distance of Hogwarts, was a total bonus. I suspect that (A) by the time McGonagall delivered her report on the Dursleys, Dumbledore felt that it was too late to change plans, and that (B) Wizards have little understanding of social sciences, particularly the psychological effects of violence and abuse.

to:

** This wasn't just any old foster arrangement with any old kid. Set aside the fact that Harry is going to be super famous; this is taking place at the most TWO DAYS after Voldie's defeat. Death Eaters are still running around, Sirius Black blew up a street block, and the wizarding world is generally in a state of confusion. I'm sure we can all agree that priority should be given to Harry's safety and well being. In my mind, the wizarding world would not be safe for Harry at this point! If I were a Death Eater, I wouldn't mind getting ahold of that little twerp to deal out some cold, hard revenge. Give him to someone in the Order of the Phoenix? Even if it was a secure enough location that Death Eaters wouldn't find him, might I remind you that they were just given some bad news about Sirius Black, that traitor. Might Dumbledore's confidence in his fellow members of the order be a little diminished? Putting him in the Muggle world was kind of a genius move, I thought. 99% of wizards are so out of touch with the Muggle World that they couldn't operate a standard telephone. Track down Harry Potter in the Muggle world? Fat Chance! The move was probably made quickly, so that Harry could be put somewhere safe before the confusion died down and all eyes were on him (including the eyes of assassins). The fact that there is a perfect little house that will give him magical protection, within owl distance of Hogwarts, was a total bonus. I suspect that (A) by the time McGonagall [=McGonagall=] delivered her report on the Dursleys, Dumbledore felt that it was too late to change plans, and that (B) Wizards have little understanding of social sciences, particularly the psychological effects of violence and abuse.



** Yes, but HE didn't know parsletongue. He might have suspected a basilisk but he had no way to verify it and Harry didn't mention to anyone but Harry and Hermione that he was hearing voices and they told him that was weird and to not tell people about it.

to:

** Yes, but HE didn't know parsletongue.parseltongue. He might have suspected a basilisk but he had no way to verify it and Harry didn't mention to anyone but Harry and Hermione that he was hearing voices and they told him that was weird and to not tell people about it.



** They don't just automatically know everything everyone else knows, they have to actually enter the minds of the person and locate the infomation. It's not exactly a subtle thing and Harry would have certainly realized something was up. I'm also fairly certain it requires eye contact and while Harry might maintain that with Dumbledore while feeling intruded upon he certainly would not have with Snape. Also, even if he knew it was a basilisk and he knew Harry wasa parsletongie, which everyone knew after the duelling club, there's still the matter of finding the Chamber of Secrets, figuring out how to open it witout being able to speak the language (and Dumbledore certainly wouldn't have brought Harry along at this point), figuring out who's controlling the basilisk and destroying the diary, assuming he even figured out what it was. Could Dumbledore have done that? Maybe, but it's not what happened.

to:

** They don't just automatically know everything everyone else knows, they have to actually enter the minds of the person and locate the infomation.information. It's not exactly a subtle thing and Harry would have certainly realized something was up. I'm also fairly certain it requires eye contact and while Harry might maintain that with Dumbledore while feeling intruded upon he certainly would not have with Snape. Also, even if he knew it was a basilisk and he knew Harry wasa parsletongie, which everyone knew after the duelling club, there's still the matter of finding the Chamber of Secrets, figuring out how to open it witout being able to speak the language (and Dumbledore certainly wouldn't have brought Harry along at this point), figuring out who's controlling the basilisk and destroying the diary, assuming he even figured out what it was. Could Dumbledore have done that? Maybe, but it's not what happened.



*** Does Dumbledore actually have any control over the students' curriculum? Everything I've read implied that the teachers were the ones who put lessons together. What evidence is there that the Hogwarts portraits act as some sort of spy network? (If they did, Umbridge probably would have let them stick around). WHY would Hagrid go along with fake-leaking such dangerous information? WHY would the other teachers go along with Dumbledore's bizarre plan? After all, it was explicitly stated that each of the professors constructed one of the obstacles. I seriously doubt McGonagall, at least, would stand for it.

to:

*** Does Dumbledore actually have any control over the students' curriculum? Everything I've read implied that the teachers were the ones who put lessons together. What evidence is there that the Hogwarts portraits act as some sort of spy network? (If they did, Umbridge probably would have let them stick around). WHY would Hagrid go along with fake-leaking such dangerous information? WHY would the other teachers go along with Dumbledore's bizarre plan? After all, it was explicitly stated that each of the professors constructed one of the obstacles. I seriously doubt McGonagall, [=McGonagall=], at least, would stand for it.



** This one is based on hindsight more than anything else. The readers understand that Harry charged in, resulting in Sirius' death, because he felt that his mentors had abandoned him. That's hindsight. At the time, Dumbledore knew that he was alienating Harry in a way as some misguided sort of protection: not physical protection, emotional. We are upset at Dumbledore for withholding information, not because (at the time) we think it will provide him some way to defend himself, but because we feel Harry has a right to know this information. Dumbledore also knew that Voldemort might try to manipulate Harry, which he warned Harry about. Emotional reactions, like Harry charging into the Department of Mysteries after the fake!vision, are not as predictable as some of you might make it out to be. Having warned Harry about the visions, one might have expected him to report it to Dumbledore, or one of the Order members, perhaps McGonagall or Snape. In hindsight, Dumbledore apologizes, realizing that the risk of opening Harry to sensitive information might have been worth his emotional health. Just because he is responsible for it does not make him inept or malicious.

to:

** This one is based on hindsight more than anything else. The readers understand that Harry charged in, resulting in Sirius' death, because he felt that his mentors had abandoned him. That's hindsight. At the time, Dumbledore knew that he was alienating Harry in a way as some misguided sort of protection: not physical protection, emotional. We are upset at Dumbledore for withholding information, not because (at the time) we think it will provide him some way to defend himself, but because we feel Harry has a right to know this information. Dumbledore also knew that Voldemort might try to manipulate Harry, which he warned Harry about. Emotional reactions, like Harry charging into the Department of Mysteries after the fake!vision, are not as predictable as some of you might make it out to be. Having warned Harry about the visions, one might have expected him to report it to Dumbledore, or one of the Order members, perhaps McGonagall [=McGonagall=] or Snape. In hindsight, Dumbledore apologizes, realizing that the risk of opening Harry to sensitive information might have been worth his emotional health. Just because he is responsible for it does not make him inept or malicious.
2nd Oct '16 4:06:48 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** At the end all these is very subjective (I almost finish all the Potter-related headscratchers) and yes, some readers clearly think Dumbledore was evil, Harry was a self-centered moron, Hagrid and idiot, the wizard racists bartards, Rowling a terrible writer, etc. (and I guess they really didn’t enjoyed the books, and that’s OK, they also have the right to express their frustration about the narrative), and of course some other tropers (myself included) and probably most readers did enjoyed the books and have a good opinion of Harry, Dumbledore and the rest of the characters. That’s how good books work, they make you think, won’t have bland characters like Twilight. I do have to respect Rowling for not making her characters just unidimensional “good vs evil” characters but on the contrary by trying to make even the good guys complex and morally ambiguous with shades of gray, as is real people in real life. GRR Marti does something similar.
2nd Oct '16 3:51:39 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** About the protection that brings Private Drive, was discussed before but the assumption that he is protected while in the house is very literal. He is protected as far as he considers the place home [as in permanent residence] and is protected everywhere. With the Dementors' attack was sent by Umbridge who is not a DE nor acting on behalf of Voldemort (and the protection is specific from Voldermort and his servants). About the rest, yes seems to be some contradictory argument here about Dumbledore’s evilness as two opposite actions are pointed ad proof; whether he neglected Harry or he favoured him, which one is it?
2nd Oct '16 3:39:09 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Just for the record this page is call “Dumbledore; good or bad?” not “Dumbledore the bad, as we told you so” (though some probably would like that), so the issue is not settle, is open to debate.
2nd Oct '16 3:20:14 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

***Doesn’t evacuating the school might put the students in even more danger? They don’t know what is causing the petrifications, it could be something that they could carry with them to their houses or even a contagious disease that could spread as an epidemic.
2nd Oct '16 3:16:50 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** The problem with siding with an idea [in this case be convinced that Dumbledore is evil and trying to convince everyone else] is that no matter what Dumbledore does, supports the theory. If he is active about something then is his fault because he caused it, if he is passive (like not using legilimency) then is his fault because of negligency, if the scenarios where the other way around then they’ll be using the “he MindRape students” as prove. But, to be honest, same logic is use by the “Dumbledore is good” supporters, though inverted, because that’s how human mind works.

to:

*** The problem with siding with an idea [in this case be convinced that Dumbledore is evil and trying to convince everyone else] is that no matter what Dumbledore does, supports the theory. If he is active about something then is his fault because he caused it, if he is passive (like not using legilimency) then is his fault because of negligency, if the scenarios where the other way around then they’ll be using the “he MindRape students” as prove.proof. But, to be honest, same logic is use by the “Dumbledore is good” supporters, though inverted, because that’s how human mind works.
2nd Oct '16 3:15:40 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** The problem with siding with an idea [in this case be convinced that Dumbledore is evil and trying to convince everyone else] is that no matter what Dumbledore does, supports the theory. If he is active about something then is his fault because he caused it, if he is passive (like not using legilimency) then is his fault because of negligency, if the scenarios where the other way around then they’ll be using the “he MindRape students” as prove. But, to be honest, same logic is use by the “Dumbledore is good” supporters, though inverted, because that’s how human mind works.
2nd Oct '16 3:04:28 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Alright, definitely some people did read different books or maybe some fanfics. Sorry but the books (the real, official ones) made clear that the Dursleys were always careful enough that their abuse of Harry never brought them legal problems. They never physically abused him or malnourished him, he also has glasses so they took him to the eye doctor, he has normal teeth so they pay for regular visits to the dentist, etc. They only became meaner as the books continue and several circumstances embittered them against him even further, and then yes they started to do things like lock him in his bedroom and deprive him of food after several magical incidents cause them trouble (which was a common gag in the books). The pan to the head case was a very obscure reference from a memory of Harry being a child and could easily be just a treat that he remembered different (though still ethically questionable) but, call me naïve, I never ever thought Petunia would ever hit Harry. Vernon, maybe, but even he doesn’t seem the kind of person that would beat a child. And as said before, even if Vernon’s abuse would be enough for him to be jailed (very doubtfully by the way, sadly even in real life you need to do a lot worst to a child to be put in jail) as other tropers said then what? Petunia doesn’t have a job, how is she gonna raise TWO kids? \\\

to:

** Alright, definitely some people did read different books or maybe some fanfics. Sorry but the books (the real, official ones) made clear that the Dursleys were always careful enough that their abuse of Harry never brought them legal problems. They never physically abused him or malnourished him, he also has glasses so they took him to the eye doctor, he has normal teeth so they pay payed for regular visits to the dentist, etc. They only became meaner as the books continue continued and several circumstances embittered them against him even further, and then yes they started to do things like lock locked him in his bedroom and deprive deprived him of food after several magical incidents cause caused them trouble (which was a common gag in the books). The pan to the head case was a very obscure reference from a memory of Harry being a child and could easily be just a treat that he remembered different (though still ethically questionable) but, call me naïve, I never ever thought Petunia would ever hit Harry. Vernon, maybe, but even he doesn’t seem the kind of person that would beat a child. And as said before, even if Vernon’s abuse would be enough for him to be jailed (very doubtfully by the way, sadly even in real life you need to do a lot worst to a child to be put in jail) as other tropers said then what? Petunia doesn’t have a job, how is she gonna raise TWO kids? \\\
2nd Oct '16 3:00:23 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Alright, definitely some people did read different books or maybe some fanfics. Sorry but the books (the real, official ones) made clear that the Dursleys were always careful enough that their abuse of Harry never brought them legal problems. They never physically abused him or malnourished him, he also has glasses so they took him to the eye doctor, he has normal teeth so they pay for regular visits to the dentist, etc. They only became meaner as the books continue and several circumstances embittered them against him even further, and then yes they started to do things like lock him in his bedroom and deprive him of food after several magical incidents cause them trouble (which was a common gag in the books). The pan to the head case was a very obscure reference from a memory of Harry being a child and could easily be just a treat that he remembered different (though still ethically questionable) but, call me naïve, I never ever thought Petunia would ever hit Harry. Vernon, maybe, but even he doesn’t seem the kind of person that would beat a child. And as said before, even if Vernon’s abuse would be enough for him to be jailed (very doubtfully by the way, sadly even in real life you need to do a lot worst to a child to be put in jail) as other tropers said then what? Petunia doesn’t have a job, how is she gonna raise TWO kids? \\\
As for the protection that Private Drive gives and the Dementor attack, you’re forgetting something: Harry actually survives the Dementor attack! We don’t really know if the Dementor was gonna be able to give him the kiss, as far as we know the Dementor would have been destroyed before he could do it, but we don’t know cause never get to that part (Dudley on the other hand was in real danger).
2nd Oct '16 2:45:31 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Jeez some people really never get over the “binding magical contract” thing. First is not a sentient thing, is not like a lawyer saying “Ok, here are the terms and conditions” and “the fulfillment of the signing parts agree to the following exceptions…” is A SPELL, is something MAGICAL that probably works under very ambiguous and abstract terms. Essentially: if your name is selected by the cup you have to compete or dare grave consequences. Really, guys, let it go, that’s the definition of nitpicking.

to:

** Jeez some people really never get over the “binding magical contract” thing. First is not a sentient thing, is not like a lawyer saying “Ok, here are the terms and conditions” and “the fulfillment of the signing parts agree to the following exceptions…” is A SPELL, is something MAGICAL that probably works under very ambiguous and abstract terms. Essentially: if your name is selected by the cup you have to compete or dare grave consequences. Really, guys, let it go, that’s the definition of nitpicking.
This list shows the last 10 events of 189. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsAlbusDumbledoreGoodOrBad