I prefer that Dumbledore, like Snape and Voldemort, for that matter, is individuated. He is not merely A Good Wise Wizard, but rather a genius and flawed man who has made many mistakes. In this wise, he does have a tremendous kinship with Snape.
I would contrast the scene in Fellowship of the Rings where Gandalf turns in pain when Frodo says he will take the ring. Gandalf knows what a harrowing Frodo will suffer for that choice. In many ways, Dumbledore makes that choice for Harry by denying him knowledge of the Horcrux on his forehead.
Harry is crushed and feels utterly betrayed when he realizes that he must die for Voldemort to be destroyed. Of course, Dumbledore suspects
but does not know for sure
that the blessing magic of Harry's mother will protect him because Voldemort arrogantly used Harry's blood to be resurrected.
To his credit, Dumbledore does suffer grievously as he tries to eliminate the horcruxes, first taking the curse into his hand which is fatal, then drinking the water to get the false Horcrus in the lake of the Infiere, and finally dying to try to save Malfoy's soul. And ultimately, Dumbledore's plan is borne out. Voldemort is defeated and Harry survives.
But he's a lot more like a devious spymaster willing to sacrifice pawns than your standard issue graybeard.
I don't really "get" the Harry Potter books
waits to be ejected from the board
I don't really "get" the Harry Potter books
Well, if you listened to Jim Dale reading them you'd enjoy it anyway as he's just that good.
But he's a lot more like a devious spymaster willing to sacrifice pawns than your standard issue graybeard.
I'd agree with that characterization. He's got a master plan, and Harry's immediate emotional welfare is not going to be allowed to interfere with it.
David,
I generally agree with you, but I wish that Dumbledore had seen to it that Harry had some kind of emotional support. I would have tolerated his action/inaction a bit better if I thought he provided HP with any kind of emotional net.
He literally had NO support except for Hermione and Ron (and perhaps most of the Weasleys). I know that is the standard setup for young adult/children's lit to not have proper adult support and guidance, but it drives me up a wall.
Especially in Order of the Phoenix when Dumbeldore's distancing from Harry is purposeful, but really doesn't make much sense.
It kind of reminded me of Giles leaving.
The narrative requires that the mentor leave the hero so that the hero can grow up and take charge, but in both cases the motivations for Giles and Dumbledore leaving are very flimsy.
The narrative requires that the mentor leave the hero so that the hero can grow up and take charge, but in both cases the motivations for Giles and Dumbledore leaving are very flimsy.
And I'd argue that Giles left because he honestly thought that would be for the best and not part of some grander plan, flimsy as the excuse was. Dumbledore's reason for leaving was entirely tactical.
But the narrative didn't require Giles leave. Didn't he only leave because of meta reasons?
But the narrative didn't require Giles leave. Didn't he only leave because of meta reasons?
ASH left for meta reasons.
Let me make the distinction in the narrative. There's the plot portion of the story as it exists in Buffy's world. But there's also the metaphorical narrative which is different, and has to clear a space in the story for Buffy to grow without her mentor.
My complaint is that these two narrative elements are not well reconciled. The plotty reasons for Giles to leave are ill-conceived compared to the fact that Buffy has risen from the dead and lost her mother and has to take on the adult responsibility of raising her sister.
But saying Giles "had to leave" for any narrative reason is mis-stating things. Was there any intention for him to leave if ASH hadn't?
