History Headscratchers / HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsAlbusDumbledoreGoodOrBad

4th Dec '15 7:16:39 PM Discar
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Blatant complaining. Take it to the forums if you just want to vent; that's not what Headscratchers pages are for.
[[folder:Good man, crapsack world]] Generally, I've found that most of the complaints against Albus Dumbledore are based on three general patters: 1) They don't find the magical protections on Privet Drive to be worth Durzkaban 2) They seem to hold Dumbledore personally accountable for the failings of the government Magical Britain 3) They seem to presume that, in the absence of the Dursleys, guardianship would magically devolve to someonw desirable (like Remus Lupin, the Weasley's, or the Tonks's). Alternately, they seem to presume that Sirius's lack of a trial implies a nefarious plot to manage Harry's placement rather than just something unjust. In general though, this misses the fact Harry lives in a pretty crapsac world. It is entirely reasonable that Dumbledore is stuck choosing the least bad of the bad options available (there is good evidence to support the idea). ----------------------------- Lily's Sacrificial Protection ----------------------------- (1) is generally based on a disconnect between Fanon and Canon. This is exacerbated by the fact that, despite the length of the series, we know very little about how magic works in the setting. One of the bits of magic we do know a bit about, however, is the protection which Lily granted Harry upon her death and which Petunia extends by giving him shelter. Most of the details are by implication, but the pattern is fairly overt, and JKR explicitly tells us that we get another example from Harry's walk into the forest at the end of book 7. -The protection requrires an offer of letting someone sacrifice a life to protect others, a person taking up that offer to sacrifice themselves, and the person offering then breaking the agreement. In the first cast. --The first example: Voldemort makes an offer to Lily (let me kill your kid or I'll kill you), Lily willingly dies to protect harry ("no, not Harry" "AK you silly mudblood"), then Voldemort breaks the implied bargin by trying to kill Harry --The second example: Voldemort offers Harry the safety of those opposing him in the battle of Hogwarts in exchange for his life, Harry walks out to his death and Voldemort casts the killing curse at him, then Voldemort breaks the implied bargin by continuing the battle against the students, Order, and teachers. -There are some open questions about some of the mechanics. --Is this, of itself, enough to deal with the killing curse? Or, alternately, did that require interatcion with the horacrux voldemort was attempting to make at the time? --How explicit does the offer need to be? It would seem odd for Voldemort to make an explicit offer to Lily: did he simply use an odd wording, or is an implied equivelence between lives sufficient. -The general outcome, however, is fairly clear (if only because of what JKR tells us in extratextual sources). --Specifically, none of the Good Guys died in the Battle of Hogwarts after Harry's sacrifice. --The protection works like Felix Felicis: it brings about the improbably but technically possible. --All that luck Harry had through the years becomes a bit clearer in this context. -This in turn, clarifies why the staying at Privet Drive matters, EVEN after Voldemort is resurrected with Harry's blood. --Voldemort's inability to touch Harry and the protections on the house at Privet Drive proper are secondary. --The important element is that so long as Petunia continues to give Harry shelter (i.e. chooses to protect her sister's son), she extends the underlying protection from Lily's sacrifice. --When Voldemort used Harry's blood in his resurrection, he demonstrated that he did not understand the true nature of the protection. It's also possible that he gave it a pathway to further influence him. --And thus, something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes. -Dumbledore understood this situation. --He knew the prophecy was going to force a face-down between Voldemore and Harry Potter. He knows this will happen. --Voldemort is a near-immortal evil wizard of immense skill. In the ordinary course of events, Harry will loose this match badly. --Because he understands both Lily's sacrifice and the Prophesy, Dumbledore does not need to be an expert diviner to understand the general shape of what is to come of this situation. Harry's best chance for victory, by far, is the magical protection that works by telling Fate to sit down and shut up because Lily Potter said so. --------------------------------------- The Magical Government of Great Britain --------------------------------------- (2) carries with it 2 presumptions: the government of Magical Britain is just/functional and Albus Dumbledore can control what it does. The first of those presumptions is patently false: the government is blantetly corrupt. Death eaters go free, the administration is openly racist, and the head of Government is blantetly incompetent. The presumption that Dumbledore can control the governmnet is more understandable, but still flawed. This seems mostly to be a matter of the audience not knowing the historical role of the UK legistature in trials (and the difference between some seemingly similar roles present in both the UK and US governments). First off, a history lesson. Historically, the House of Lords still functioned as the High Court for the Great Britain. While the number of cases diminished sharply after reforms by the Gladstone Government in 1873, there were still trials of Peers before the Lords as later as 1935 and trials before the Lords of Appeals in Ordinary until 2009 (when the Constutional Reform Act of 2005 went into effect and created the Supreme Court of the UK). Keeping in mind that the Wizarding World is generally presented in a tone that is about 1/2 a centruy behind the times (at least), it seems safe to assume that most of these reforms are generally not yet a reality for the Wizarding Justice system. The Wizenagamot, the highest court, is likely an explicitly political body (a conclusion reenforced by Fudge presiding) and there is likely not any seperation of powers which would remove it from the Minister's juristiction. If we take that conclusion at face value, we then have a better understanding of both the role of the Wizenagamot and Dumbledore's position as Cheif Warlock. Since the Minister has a seat and no other chamber is referred to, it seems reasonable to view it as a unicameral equivelent of both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. That would mean that the position of Cheif Warlock would likely be equivelent to that of the Speaker of the House of Commons. This, in turn, brings us to the second point of misunderstanding. The UK's Speaker of the House of Commons is very much different from the USA's Speaker of the House of Representatives. -The Speaker of the US House of Representatives is 3rd in Line for the Presidency and arguably the 2nd most directly powerful person in the US Government. -The Speaker of the UK House of Commons is a immensely respected person with almost no direct power and only minimal procedural control. Many readers seem to project the former role on to Dumbledore's role of Chief Warlock, but the later is likely more appropriate: given Dumbledore's stated aversion to political power, a position of significant influence and prestige but little direct power seems the most reasonable option. And it is an option that matches very well with the realities of the UK Government. -Similar parallels can be drawn between the role of the Supreme Mugwump of the ICW and the Secretary-General of the League of Nations (which was also held by a British Gentleman for the majority of the time between wars). -------------------------- Harry's Legal Guardianship -------------------------- This segues nicely into another point: some people seem to hold Dumbledore personally responsible for Sirius not getting a trial. Bills of Attainder may be explicitly forbidden by the USA Constution, but they are still technically on the books in the UK (along with the related Bills of Pains and Punishment). While they have not been used in a couple of centuries, there was very serious consideration of using them after WWII. Though the idea was ultimately defeated because of concerns about appeals, it had a huge number of backers - including Winston Churchill. Such a tool is certainly unjust. But there is no particular indication that it would need Dumbledore's stamp of approval. It's not outrageous that in the significantly more backwards wizarding world, the equivelent did end up being used- perhaps even despite Dumbledore lobbying against the practice. So lets give both history and the author the benefit of the doubt by presuming that Dumbledore was not actively attempting to railroad Sirius black into Azkaban. Who, then, can we assume would be on the list of other guardians if Harry is not sent to live with Petunia? In all likelyhood, the Potters - like most families, even in wartime, only explicitly named one or two godparents. In most situations, should that not be sufficient, the surviving friends and relatives would be asked if they knew the parent's wishes and the situation would be resolved quietly to the best extent possible. Even, however, if they did make a detailed list (they knew the had targets on their backs, after all), it likely would not have come out intact. The Potter's social circle was pretty squarely decimated by the war. -We know Sirius is at the top of the list, but he's in jail (it doesn't have to be just to be legally sound). -They trusted Peter enough to make him the secret keeper, so he's probably on the list. Thankfully, however, the government considers him dead. -Remus could be on the list, but given the prejuidice toward werewolves such a placement would likely not withstand legal challenge. -We could posit several other people we have little to know information about, but remember: Lily and James joined the order right out of school, and many of the Order's families were heavily decimated during the war. It is quite possible the majority of the options could be dead or otherwise unable to take guardianship. In any event, Harry was a celebrity right out the gate. And guardianship is generally a contestable situation under common law. If there was any reasonable case against whoever Lily & James chose other than Sirius (should such a person exist), the prefered choices in most common law systems would be (likely in order): -The immediate family of the child's parents --That is to say Petunia Dursley, nee Evans -The immediate family of the named guardian, Sirius Black. --That is to say, since she was still alive at time, Walburga Black. Only then would we most common law venues seriously consider more distant relations (or, in more modern systems, suitable unrelated foster care). Once again, Petunia comes off as the least-bad bad option available. [[/folder]]
30th Nov '15 3:36:29 PM Hufflepuff8448
Is there an issue? Send a Message
to:
-----------------------------

_____________________________
to:
\n_____________________________-----------------------------

\n_____________________________---------------------------------------

_______________________________________
to:
\n_______________________________________---------------------------------------

to:
--------------------------

__________________________
to:
__________________________ --------------------------
30th Nov '15 3:34:47 PM Hufflepuff8448
Is there an issue? Send a Message
formatting
Generally, I've found that most of the complaints against Albus Dumbledore are based on two general patters:
to:
Generally, I've found that most of the complaints against Albus Dumbledore are based on two three general patters:

Generally, I've found that most of the complaints against Albus Dumbledore are based on two general patters:

#1 is generally based on a disconnect between Fanon and Canon. This is exacerbated by the fact that, despite the length of the series, we know very little about how magic works in the setting.
to:
#1 (1) is generally based on a disconnect between Fanon and Canon. This is exacerbated by the fact that, despite the length of the series, we know very little about how magic works in the setting.

#1 is generally based on a disconnect between Fanon and Canon. This is exacerbated by the fact that, despite the length of the series, we know very little about how magic works in the setting.

#1 is generally based on a disconnect between Fanon and Canon. This is exacerbated by the fact that, despite the length of the series, we know very little about how magic works in the setting.

#1 is generally based on a disconnect between Fanon and Canon. This is exacerbated by the fact that, despite the length of the series, we know very little about how magic works in the setting.

#1 is generally based on a disconnect between Fanon and Canon. This is exacerbated by the fact that, despite the length of the series, we know very little about how magic works in the setting.

-The general outcome, however, is fairly clear (if only because of what JKR tells us in extratextual soruces).
to:
-The general outcome, however, is fairly clear (if only because of what JKR tells us in extratextual soruces).sources).

-The general outcome, however, is fairly clear (if only because of what JKR tells us in extratextual soruces).

-The general outcome, however, is fairly clear (if only because of what JKR tells us in extratextual soruces).

-The general outcome, however, is fairly clear (if only because of what JKR tells us in extratextual soruces).

-The general outcome, however, is fairly clear (if only because of what JKR tells us in extratextual soruces).

-The general outcome, however, is fairly clear (if only because of what JKR tells us in extratextual soruces).

-The general outcome, however, is fairly clear (if only because of what JKR tells us in extratextual soruces).

-The general outcome, however, is fairly clear (if only because of what JKR tells us in extratextual soruces).

-The general outcome, however, is fairly clear (if only because of what JKR tells us in extratextual soruces).

-The general outcome, however, is fairly clear (if only because of what JKR tells us in extratextual soruces).

-The general outcome, however, is fairly clear (if only because of what JKR tells us in extratextual soruces).

-The general outcome, however, is fairly clear (if only because of what JKR tells us in extratextual soruces).

-The general outcome, however, is fairly clear (if only because of what JKR tells us in extratextual soruces).

#2 carries with it 2 presumptions: the government of Magical Britain is just/functional and Albus Dumbledore can control what it does.
to:
#2 (2) carries with it 2 presumptions: the government of Magical Britain is just/functional and Albus Dumbledore can control what it does.
30th Nov '15 3:30:55 PM Hufflepuff8448
Is there an issue? Send a Message
added section
Added DiffLines:
[[folder:Good man, crapsack world]] Generally, I've found that most of the complaints against Albus Dumbledore are based on two general patters: 1) They don't find the magical protections on Privet Drive to be worth Durzkaban 2) They seem to hold Dumbledore personally accountable for the failings of the government Magical Britain 3) They seem to presume that, in the absence of the Dursleys, guardianship would magically devolve to someonw desirable (like Remus Lupin, the Weasley's, or the Tonks's). Alternately, they seem to presume that Sirius's lack of a trial implies a nefarious plot to manage Harry's placement rather than just something unjust. In general though, this misses the fact Harry lives in a pretty crapsac world. It is entirely reasonable that Dumbledore is stuck choosing the least bad of the bad options available (there is good evidence to support the idea). Lily's Sacrificial Protection _____________________________ #1 is generally based on a disconnect between Fanon and Canon. This is exacerbated by the fact that, despite the length of the series, we know very little about how magic works in the setting. One of the bits of magic we do know a bit about, however, is the protection which Lily granted Harry upon her death and which Petunia extends by giving him shelter. Most of the details are by implication, but the pattern is fairly overt, and JKR explicitly tells us that we get another example from Harry's walk into the forest at the end of book 7. -The protection requrires an offer of letting someone sacrifice a life to protect others, a person taking up that offer to sacrifice themselves, and the person offering then breaking the agreement. In the first cast. --The first example: Voldemort makes an offer to Lily (let me kill your kid or I'll kill you), Lily willingly dies to protect harry ("no, not Harry" "AK you silly mudblood"), then Voldemort breaks the implied bargin by trying to kill Harry --The second example: Voldemort offers Harry the safety of those opposing him in the battle of Hogwarts in exchange for his life, Harry walks out to his death and Voldemort casts the killing curse at him, then Voldemort breaks the implied bargin by continuing the battle against the students, Order, and teachers. -There are some open questions about some of the mechanics. --Is this, of itself, enough to deal with the killing curse? Or, alternately, did that require interatcion with the horacrux voldemort was attempting to make at the time? --How explicit does the offer need to be? It would seem odd for Voldemort to make an explicit offer to Lily: did he simply use an odd wording, or is an implied equivelence between lives sufficient. -The general outcome, however, is fairly clear (if only because of what JKR tells us in extratextual soruces). --Specifically, none of the Good Guys died in the Battle of Hogwarts after Harry's sacrifice. --The protection works like Felix Felicis: it brings about the improbably but technically possible. --All that luck Harry had through the years becomes a bit clearer in this context. -This in turn, clarifies why the staying at Privet Drive matters, EVEN after Voldemort is resurrected with Harry's blood. --Voldemort's inability to touch Harry and the protections on the house at Privet Drive proper are secondary. --The important element is that so long as Petunia continues to give Harry shelter (i.e. chooses to protect her sister's son), she extends the underlying protection from Lily's sacrifice. --When Voldemort used Harry's blood in his resurrection, he demonstrated that he did not understand the true nature of the protection. It's also possible that he gave it a pathway to further influence him. --And thus, something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes. -Dumbledore understood this situation. --He knew the prophecy was going to force a face-down between Voldemore and Harry Potter. He knows this will happen. --Voldemort is a near-immortal evil wizard of immense skill. In the ordinary course of events, Harry will loose this match badly. --Because he understands both Lily's sacrifice and the Prophesy, Dumbledore does not need to be an expert diviner to understand the general shape of what is to come of this situation. Harry's best chance for victory, by far, is the magical protection that works by telling Fate to sit down and shut up because Lily Potter said so. The Magical Government of Great Britain _______________________________________ #2 carries with it 2 presumptions: the government of Magical Britain is just/functional and Albus Dumbledore can control what it does. The first of those presumptions is patently false: the government is blantetly corrupt. Death eaters go free, the administration is openly racist, and the head of Government is blantetly incompetent. The presumption that Dumbledore can control the governmnet is more understandable, but still flawed. This seems mostly to be a matter of the audience not knowing the historical role of the UK legistature in trials (and the difference between some seemingly similar roles present in both the UK and US governments). First off, a history lesson. Historically, the House of Lords still functioned as the High Court for the Great Britain. While the number of cases diminished sharply after reforms by the Gladstone Government in 1873, there were still trials of Peers before the Lords as later as 1935 and trials before the Lords of Appeals in Ordinary until 2009 (when the Constutional Reform Act of 2005 went into effect and created the Supreme Court of the UK). Keeping in mind that the Wizarding World is generally presented in a tone that is about 1/2 a centruy behind the times (at least), it seems safe to assume that most of these reforms are generally not yet a reality for the Wizarding Justice system. The Wizenagamot, the highest court, is likely an explicitly political body (a conclusion reenforced by Fudge presiding) and there is likely not any seperation of powers which would remove it from the Minister's juristiction. If we take that conclusion at face value, we then have a better understanding of both the role of the Wizenagamot and Dumbledore's position as Cheif Warlock. Since the Minister has a seat and no other chamber is referred to, it seems reasonable to view it as a unicameral equivelent of both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. That would mean that the position of Cheif Warlock would likely be equivelent to that of the Speaker of the House of Commons. This, in turn, brings us to the second point of misunderstanding. The UK's Speaker of the House of Commons is very much different from the USA's Speaker of the House of Representatives. -The Speaker of the US House of Representatives is 3rd in Line for the Presidency and arguably the 2nd most directly powerful person in the US Government. -The Speaker of the UK House of Commons is a immensely respected person with almost no direct power and only minimal procedural control. Many readers seem to project the former role on to Dumbledore's role of Chief Warlock, but the later is likely more appropriate: given Dumbledore's stated aversion to political power, a position of significant influence and prestige but little direct power seems the most reasonable option. And it is an option that matches very well with the realities of the UK Government. -Similar parallels can be drawn between the role of the Supreme Mugwump of the ICW and the Secretary-General of the League of Nations (which was also held by a British Gentleman for the majority of the time between wars). Harry's Legal Guardianship __________________________ This segues nicely into another point: some people seem to hold Dumbledore personally responsible for Sirius not getting a trial. Bills of Attainder may be explicitly forbidden by the USA Constution, but they are still technically on the books in the UK (along with the related Bills of Pains and Punishment). While they have not been used in a couple of centuries, there was very serious consideration of using them after WWII. Though the idea was ultimately defeated because of concerns about appeals, it had a huge number of backers - including Winston Churchill. Such a tool is certainly unjust. But there is no particular indication that it would need Dumbledore's stamp of approval. It's not outrageous that in the significantly more backwards wizarding world, the equivelent did end up being used- perhaps even despite Dumbledore lobbying against the practice. So lets give both history and the author the benefit of the doubt by presuming that Dumbledore was not actively attempting to railroad Sirius black into Azkaban. Who, then, can we assume would be on the list of other guardians if Harry is not sent to live with Petunia? In all likelyhood, the Potters - like most families, even in wartime, only explicitly named one or two godparents. In most situations, should that not be sufficient, the surviving friends and relatives would be asked if they knew the parent's wishes and the situation would be resolved quietly to the best extent possible. Even, however, if they did make a detailed list (they knew the had targets on their backs, after all), it likely would not have come out intact. The Potter's social circle was pretty squarely decimated by the war. -We know Sirius is at the top of the list, but he's in jail (it doesn't have to be just to be legally sound). -They trusted Peter enough to make him the secret keeper, so he's probably on the list. Thankfully, however, the government considers him dead. -Remus could be on the list, but given the prejuidice toward werewolves such a placement would likely not withstand legal challenge. -We could posit several other people we have little to know information about, but remember: Lily and James joined the order right out of school, and many of the Order's families were heavily decimated during the war. It is quite possible the majority of the options could be dead or otherwise unable to take guardianship. In any event, Harry was a celebrity right out the gate. And guardianship is generally a contestable situation under common law. If there was any reasonable case against whoever Lily & James chose other than Sirius (should such a person exist), the prefered choices in most common law systems would be (likely in order): -The immediate family of the child's parents --That is to say Petunia Dursley, nee Evans -The immediate family of the named guardian, Sirius Black. --That is to say, since she was still alive at time, Walburga Black. Only then would we most common law venues seriously consider more distant relations (or, in more modern systems, suitable unrelated foster care). Once again, Petunia comes off as the least-bad bad option available. [[/folder]]
2nd Nov '15 12:27:58 AM system
Is there an issue? Send a Message
moderator restored to earlier version
1st Nov '15 8:21:46 PM neosspeer
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
**and what if DD noticed the basilisk after some attack, then he noticed that actually that the killing rate of the basilisk was zero and he used a time-turner to arrange the circumstances that allowed everyone of the victims to survive
13th Sep '15 6:14:24 AM MarchVee
Is there an issue? Send a Message
fixed redlinks
** Everything about capturing Pettigrew, I already explained in the [=PoA=] section. In a nutshell: Pettigrew was exempt from the time loop, because his fate immediately after his escape was uncertain, and the timeline couldn't be possibly "messed with" thanks to being invariable.
to:
** Everything about capturing Pettigrew, I already explained in the [=PoA=] ''[[Literature/HarryPotterAndThePrisonerOfAzkaban Prisoner of Azkaban]]'' section. In a nutshell: Pettigrew was exempt from the time loop, because his fate immediately after his escape was uncertain, and the timeline couldn't be possibly "messed with" thanks to being invariable.

** Again, BS. Already elaborated in [=PoA=] section, and have so far yet to receive a sane answer (i.e. '''without''' heedless resort to tropes) why that wouldn't work.
to:
** Again, BS. Already elaborated in [=PoA=] ''[[Literature/HarryPotterAndThePrisonerOfAzkaban Prisoner of Azkaban]]'' section, and have so far yet to receive a sane answer (i.e. '''without''' heedless resort to tropes) why that wouldn't work.

** Also, while time travel does not allow you to undo anything that you already saw happen, our time-travellers in PoA only saw Pettigrew escape from them and scamper out of sight. They did not follow Pettigrew all the way back to Voldemort. So, even the Time-Turner's limitations don't prevent Dumbledore from going back himself, waiting until Pettigrew is out of line-of-sight of the past-time Harry et al, and then shoving a stunner so far up Peter's ass that it comes out his nose.
to:
** Also, while time travel does not allow you to undo anything that you already saw happen, our time-travellers in PoA ''[[Literature/HarryPotterAndThePrisonerOfAzkaban Prisoner of Azkaban]]'' only saw Pettigrew escape from them and scamper out of sight. They did not follow Pettigrew all the way back to Voldemort. So, even the Time-Turner's limitations don't prevent Dumbledore from going back himself, waiting until Pettigrew is out of line-of-sight of the past-time Harry et al, and then shoving a stunner so far up Peter's ass that it comes out his nose.
26th Jul '15 6:55:04 PM Discar
Is there an issue? Send a Message
*** It could be that a large knowledge base would actually hurt someone's chances of working out what was happening because they'd see that many more explanations or possible causes. We the audience only know about the basilisk. Dumbledore the Headmaster could probably list many more explanations (curses, charms, creatures) none more likely than the last. Considering no one died and a basilisk's default attack is the equivalent of an AK it's possible basilisks got ruled out as an explanation. After all, what are the odds every victim would survive?
to:
*** ** It could be that a large knowledge base would actually hurt someone's chances of working out what was happening because they'd see that many more explanations or possible causes. We the audience only know about the basilisk. Dumbledore the Headmaster could probably list many more explanations (curses, charms, creatures) none more likely than the last. Considering no one died and a basilisk's default attack is the equivalent of an AK it's possible basilisks got ruled out as an explanation. After all, what are the odds every victim would survive?
25th Jul '15 8:38:02 AM mariskep
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
** In terms of magical power probably but not political. Being offered government office is one thing if you're a celebrated war hero. Another if you're a radical who's calling for abandoning tradition. We saw how the average wizard would react to his politics in GoF when he confronts Fudge. The Minister insists on the inherent goodness and respect owed "established" families like the Malfoys. And Fudge is perceived as closer to Dumbledore's politics than many.
25th Jul '15 7:33:35 AM mariskep
Is there an issue? Send a Message
to:
*** It could be that a large knowledge base would actually hurt someone's chances of working out what was happening because they'd see that many more explanations or possible causes. We the audience only know about the basilisk. Dumbledore the Headmaster could probably list many more explanations (curses, charms, creatures) none more likely than the last. Considering no one died and a basilisk's default attack is the equivalent of an AK it's possible basilisks got ruled out as an explanation. After all, what are the odds every victim would survive?
This list shows the last 10 events of 165. Show all.