Chapter Eighteen -- The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

In which Rita Skeeter dishes serious dirt, Dumbledore goes in for what he considers semi-benevolent despotism, Aberforth suspects DD of murder, Harry finally realises that Dumbledore Is Not What He Seemed, Rowling is cavalier about World War II, and I nearly lose my lunch.

Chapter Eighteen -- The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore

I'm going to be honest with you lot; there were occasional bits I liked here. The chapter is short, lucid, emotional without being emo and informative without drowning us in exposition or lack of continuity. It's rare to find such a chapter in Rowling. I don't know how to explain it. Perhaps she wrote it when the moon was in the seventh house and Jupiter had aligned with Mars.

Regrettably, Dumbledore is odious in this chapter. More odious than usual, I mean. And there's one sentence where the sheer insensitivity of the wizarding world (and Rowling) made me physically sick.

As the chapter begins, Harry has just awakened from unconsciousness after very nearly being killed by Snake! Bathilda. Rowling describes Harry gazing out on a cold, glittering winter world devoid of color, not knowing what to do next, or how to feel. His wand is irreparably damaged and, since he doesn't know how to do wandless magic, he feels utterly helpless.

He managed to get Hermione to loan him her wand in the previous chapter, but it's not the same. Considering all the emphasis on the wand choosing the wizard, I imagine that losing a wand is losing an arm or a leg; it's that much a part of you. [I am not using the Penis Analogy because witches lose their wands in this book, too, and it seems to distress them no less than the male wizards.] Consequently, simply borrowing someone else's wand seems rather like borrowing a prosthetic. One for which you haven't been fitted. And that doesn't feel quite right. And that doesn't do everything that your own limb could. And that's constantly chafing and reminding you that it IS a prosthetic.

So yes, I do feel a little bit sorry for Harry here. That does not mean, however, that I can ignore the following:

Simply to be alive to watch the sun rise over the sparkling snowy hillside ought to have been the greatest treasure on earth, yet he could not appreciate it: his senses had been spiked by the calamity of losing his wand.

OUCH. What a swag-bellied sentence. "Simply to be alive" instead of "being alive", a colon instead of a full stop or a semi-colon, and...what are "spiked senses"?

He looked out over a valley blanketed in snow, distant church bells chiming through the glittering silence.

Now, this would normally be where I'd protest that silence doesn't glitter, and that if church bells are chiming, the world can't be silent.

But I've lived through a thousand or so winter mornings where there's just snow, and the sun glistening on snow. No sand, no salt, no shoveled-out driveways, no tire tracks in the snow on the road, no signs of any plowing. Just snow. And the world is hushed; you almost find yourself straining to hear something in the silence. And if it's a Sunday morning, the automatic carillon starts in the church down the street. So you can hear bells....but the sound only serves to emphasize how quiet the world is.

So...yeah. I think I know what she means here.

Harry then itemizes his scars:

He had spilled his own blood more times than he could count; he had lost all bones in his right arm once;

Well, yes, Harry, but that wasn't something you did deliberately. It's not even something you did, period. That was due to Gilderoy Lockhart trying to fix your broken arm and screwing up.

this journey had already given him scars to his chest and forearm to join those on his hand and forehead,

I'll go along with the scar on the chest—the locket Horcrux did, after all, burn "a scarlet oval over his heart"—but the marks on Harry's forearm were described as "half-healed puncture marks" about ten minutes ago, book time. I really think that a wound has to have healed before it can be called a scar.

but never, until this moment, had he felt himself to be fatally weakened, vulnerable, and naked, as though the best part of his magical power had been torn from him.

It must be difficult to feel that you can't even put up a hopeless fight. Moreover, Harry's upset not only because he lost his wand, but because his wand and Voldemort's had tail feather cores from the same phoenix, which meant that they couldn't successfully cast spells at each other. Now that invulnerability is gone. Understandably, he's not best pleased.

He puts the bits of his wand in the Mokeskin pouch, which he realizes contains nothing but junk and broken stuff. For a minute, Harry is tempted to throw away the Snitch DD left him because it's singularly unhelpful, which would be understandable but dumb. The seemingly useless, broken, worthless junk that any sane person would throw away is always the stuff you need to keep. Geez, Harry, read a few fairy tales, why don't you? That way you might recognize the tropes.

Then Harry gets mad at Dumbledore. All right. I can get behind that. The problem is that Harry's not blaming the Dumb One for the right reasons:

Out of sheer desperation they had talked themselves into believing that Godric’s Hollow held answers, convinced themselves that they were supposed to go back, that it was all part of some secret path laid out for them by Dumbledore: but there was no map, no plan.

The key words are "talked themselves" and "convinced themselves." Dumbledore is guilty of a great many things. He gave an Invisibility Cloak to an eleven-year-old boy, knowing that Harry would use it. He sent two children onto Hogwarts grounds to play with the space-time continuum, knowing that the kids would risk being infected, maimed, killed or eaten by a hungry werewolf, captured or killed by two suspected Death Eaters, both of whom had wands and one of whom had an executioner's axe, or rendered soulless by a hundred or more starving Dementors. He didn't even attempt to cancel the Triwizard Tournament or find a loophole that would render the magical contract null and void, even though he had reason to suspect that someone was using the Tournament to set Harry up and that all the students at Hogwarts, as well as all the champions, might be in danger. He kept secrets from Harry. He utterly failed to stand by Sirius after the Potters died—even if Sirius HAD been guilty, he would have deserved a trial and actual evidence, rather than just being banged up in prison on the Minister's say-so. And he brought Tom Riddle to Hogwarts himself...despite knowing that eleven-year-old Tom Riddle was an evil little sod who killed pets, tortured small children into madness,and could make people hurt if he wanted to.

(I don't know about you, but I'd wonder about a kid like that. The wisest wizard in the world, however, completely missed these little tells, failing to grasp that they might indicate that Tommy-boy wasn't such a nice fellow.)

So yes, there is plenty to blame DD for.

Blaming him for Harry's and Hermione's bad decisions, however, simply isn't on. Harry and Hermione chose to go to Godric's Hollow despite the fact that they suspected that it was a trap and that the Death Eaters were watching the place. Considering that they spent a couple of chapters debating this and chose to go there anyway, I can't really blame Dumbledore, much as I'd like to.

Dumbledore had left them to grope in the darkness, to wrestle with unknown and undreamed-of terrors, alone and unaided:

Okay, see, that I can blame him for.

Nothing was explained,

Knowing the way that Dumbledore works, I was certain on the first read-through that everything would be explained in vast detail once we were at the close of the book and didn't care anymore. Dumbledore is such an Author's Darling that I knew Rowling would find a way to have him bore us from beyond the grave.

nothing was given freely, they had no sword, and now, Harry had no wand.

To be fair, they haven't got the sword YET.

Hermione brings Harry some tea, because tea makes everything better. She also gives him a copy of The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore, which contains a copy of the photograph that Harry just dropped in the debacle with Bathilda. Apparently Rita Skeeter gave Bathilda Bagshot one of her author's copies. An autographed copy:

“ ‘Dear Batty, Thanks for your help. Here’s a copy of the book, hope you like it. You said everything, even if you don’t remember it. Rita.’

I don't know about you, but if I were Bathilda, I don't think I'd appreciate being called Batty. Especially since she's presented before this as being semi-senile. Can you imagine being called Batty Batty?

Harry looked down upon Dumbledore’s face and experienced a surge of savage pleasure: Now he would know if all the things that Dumbledore had never thought it worth telling him, whether Dumbledore wanted him to or not.

And it only took you seven books to get to this level of curiosity!

After reassuring Hermione, who thinks, correctly, that Harry is still mad at her, Harry opens the book. He finds the photograph he's looking for almost instantly.

He came across the one he sought almost at once, the young Dumbledore and his handsome companion, roaring with laughter at some long-forgotten joke.

Harry's been checking out that photograph for several chapters. Each time, the unidentified male has been described as handsome, as well as having long gold hair and a merry face that reminds Harry of the Weasley twins. This is also, incidentally, the same guy who stole the Elder Wand from Gregorovitch the Wandmaker. Harry never gets particularly upset by the theft, though. I guess bad things are only bad when they're done by Slytherins or ugly people, rather than Gryffindors and people who are hot.

Harry dropped his eyes to the caption.

Ewww, Harry! Why don't you put your eyes back in your head? Maybe then you won't drop them!

Albus Dumbledore, shortly after his mother’s death, With his friend Gellert Grindelwald.

I know it's possible to roar with laughter shortly after someone dies and still be sincerely grieving. Nevertheless, this is not creating the most wonderful of impressions.

Oh, and "Gellert" is a name. It's Hungarian for "Gerard." A Hungarian first name and a Swiss last name? Probably not what Rowling was going for.

The next section can be summarized thus:

Harry: Grindelwald?

Hermione: Grindelwald?

Harry and Hermione: GRINDELWALD?!

Harry searches for mentions of Grindelwald. He hits the jackpot in a chapter called "The Greater Good."

Now approaching his eighteenth birthday, Dumbledore left Hogwarts in a blaze of glory --- Head Boy, Prefect, Winner of the Barnabus Finkley Prize for Exceptional Spell-Casting,

This last being something that we've never heard of before. Isn't it kind of odd that Hermione didn't win this?

British Youth Representative to the Wizengamot,

Which we've also never heard of before.

Gold Medal-Winner for Ground-Breaking Contribution to the International Alchemical Conference in Cairo.

Third thing that we've never of before. This is the first and last reference to alchemy that I've ever seen in these books. I swear she tossed it in just to throw a bone to the readers who spent so much time inventing convoluted alchemic theories about the novels.

Dumbledore intended, next, to take a Grand Tour with Elphias "Dogbreath" Doge, the dim-witted but devoted sidekick he had picked up at school.

Oookay. So Albus is planning on traveling all over Europe, unsupervised, with another young man stated to be devoted to him. Is it just me, or does she not recognize the implicit slashiness?

Also, Doge is pronounced like the first syllable of "dojo", not like "dog." That's the problem with using nicknames based on the way a name looks rather than how it sounds.

The two young men were staying at the Leaky Cauldron in London, preparing to depart for Greece the following morning,

I bet they were.

Skeeter's book has a few things to say about DD going back to Godric's Hollow to take care of his younger brother and sister. Aberforth is described as being crazy, running wild and throwing goatshit at the head of one Enid Smeek. As we're not told when DD was going off on his Grand Tour, we don't know if this is accurate. Aberforth could easily have been back at Hogwarts, studying for his OWLs. And I can't really imagine a fifteen-year-old throwing goatshit for days on end as an amusement. It sounds like something a kid would do. A real, real little kid.

The book says that DD was "imprisoning" his sister, even after their mother's death. There are a lot of references to Airhead's—I mean, Ariana's—illness, frailty and delicacy, all of which Skeeter admits to doubting strongly. There's also a lot of talk about Bathilda Bagshot, and how Rita Skeeter deduced enough from talking to her to learn DD's most closely guarded secrets.

Some of Rita's lines re: Bathilda are odd.

Kendra, of course, had rebuffed Bathilda when she first attempted to welcome the family to the village.

Why "of course," Skeeter?

Several years later, however, the author sent an owl to Albus at Hogwarts, having been favorably impressed by his paper on transspecies transformation in Transfiguration Today.

I'm not exactly sure why a magical historian would be interested in a fourteen-year-old's article on how to Transfigure one species into another. It doesn't seem to have much to do with history.

(And yes, he'd have been fourteen. Several is generally construed as three or four. DD was eleven when the family moved to Godric's Hollow, plus several years later = fourteen. Fifteen at the oldest.)

At the time of Kendra’s death, Bathilda was the only person in Godric’s Hollow who was on speaking terms with Dumbledore’s mother.

Gee, even Kendra's children weren't talking to her!

After more talk about Bathilda, Skeeter starts talking about Gellert Grindelwald...who, the summer that Kendra died, was visiting his Great Aunt Bathilda in Godric's Hollow.

Grindelwald, it develops, went to Durmstrang (no surprise there, since Viktor Krum saw his mark carved in the wall). Like the Dumb One, Gellert was very good at school, though he didn't dedicate himself to winning prizes. Perhaps he couldn't. I mean, what kind of award would you give a teenager who was good at the Dark Arts? The Clothilde Kleinhuffer Cup for Covalvent Cursing? The Anselm Adelbert Award for Astonishing Avada Kedavras?

Anyway, Gellert, whose name I keep wanting to pronounce as Jello, eventually gets expelled for being a bad 'un.

At sixteen years old, even Durmstrang felt it could no longer turn a blind eye to the twisted experiments of Gellert Grindelwald, and he was expelled.

I did not know that Durmstrang was both a school and a sixteen-year-old human. Amazing, the things that go on in the wizarding world!

Anyway, Bathilda introduces sixteen-year-old Gellert to seventeen-year-old Albus, and the two get along famously...

“Yes, even after they’d spent all day in discussion --- both such brilliant young boys, they got on like a cauldron on fire --- I’d sometimes hear an owl tapping at Gellert’s bedroom window, delivering a letter from Albus! An idea would have struck him and he had to let Gellert know immediately!”

Spend all day together, and then send each other letters. Ah, young love. Seriously, I think that at this point the subtext, as Rupert Giles would say, is becoming text.

Then we get a letter from the Dumb One to Grendel:

Your point about Wizard dominance being FOR THE MUGGLES’ OWN GOOD --- this, I think, is the crucial point.

Or the crucial rationalization.

Yes, we have been given power

Given by whom? Certainly not God, though that's implicit in the line. Generally wizards are not especially religious; their celebration of Christmas, Easter vacation and Hufflepuff's ghost, the Fat Friar are virtually the only signs of religion this world has.

(I don't think we can count Sirius and Harry being godfathers, as neither Sirius nor Harry show the slightest awareness of anything related to any religion. Presumably, then, christenings and godfathers are a cultural thing.)

and yes, that power gives us the right to rule,

No, Dumb One. Magical power gives you the ability to seize political power. It doesn't give you the RIGHT to do it. Unless you're willing to concede that superiority in numbers, weaponry and technology gives Muggles the RIGHT to take over the wizarding world. That baaaaaad case of entitlement you've got cuts both ways.

but it also gives us responsibilities over the ruled.

Please note that the Dumb One doesn't seem to feel that one of those responsibilities is finding out if the ruled need, or indeed want to be ruled in the first place.

We must stress this point, it will be the foundation stone upon which we build.

To be technical—and when was I not?--that comma after "point" should be a semi-colon or a full stop.

SNIP!

We seize control FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

Isn't it amazing how much "the greater good" looks like greed, overweening ambition and a paternalistic attitude toward others that borders on contempt? You know, Dumbledore, you'd have made a wonderful Death Eater. I refuse to believe that you weren't in Slytherin.

And from this it follows that where we meet resistance, we must use only the force that is necessary and no more.

Of course, just how much force might be considered necessary is rather open to interpretation, isn't?

(This was your mistake at Durmstrang!

So does this mean that a sixteen-year-old wizard tried applying unnecessary force to all of the Muggles in attendance at Durmstrang? Wait, didn't it say earlier that he was expelled for "twisted experiments"?

SNIP!

Astonished and appalled though his many admirers will be, this letter constitutes proof that Albus Dumbledore once dreamed of overthrowing the Statute of Secrecy, and establishing Wizard's First rule over Muggles.

Now, I know that Rowling doesn't intend me to believe this line, because Skeeter is trash-talking Dumbledore. It's supposed to be all tense and suspenseful and how-could-anyone-think-that-of-Dumbledore! But the thing is, I have no problem believing it. How many times does he not tell Harry something for what Dumbledore claims is his own good? How many times does he put clues to the path of danger in Harry's way for the greater good? How many times do people suffer and die in these books because DD is committed to "the big picture"? Not to mention that in this book, DD is dead, and Harry and Snape are STILL dancing to the old twit's tune.

No, Dumbledore never really gave up that attitude of "what I am doing is for the greater good." Which is a pity, because so much of what he did for the greater good ended up being for someone else's bad.

Anyway, Skeeter continues to point out just how bad this makes Dumbledore look—because we couldn't POSSIBLY notice this without Skeeter saying so, could we, Rowling?--and then tells us that:

1)Ariana died under Mysterious Circumstances.
2)Grindelwald high-tailed it out of Godric's Hollow the day after she died.
3)Aberforth blamed Albus for Ariana's death.
4)Aberforth broke Albus's nose at Ariana's funeral.

Now, I was expecting a murder investigation which nearly ruined DD's career. But no, there wasn't. A little girl dies, a person guilty of "twisted experiments" known to have been there when she died flees the country—and the wizarding world does NOTHING. No questioning of the one remaining witness. No asking Aberforth just why he suspected his brother. Not even so much as a paragraph-long background sketch indicating that some town watchman, some sheriff, some Auror even considered that there was anything even vaguely wrong with what happened.

I could accept a cover-up by the family. I could accept that the circumstances looked bad but in fact weren't. What I can't accept is that no one, looking at those circumstances, suspected a thing until Skeeter.

Because, of course, it's Dumbledore.

Riiiight. Pardon me while I spit fire.

Neither Dumbledore nor Grindelwald ever seems to have referred to this brief boyhood friendship in later life.

Oh, I bet they didn't. Especially since I wouldn't use the term "friendship." It flared up briefly and ended just as quickly. I'd call it a "crush."

However, there can be no doubt that Dumbledore delayed, for some five years of turmoil, fatalities, and disappearances, his attack upon Gellert Grindelwald.

Presumably this means that Dumbledore could have attacked and defeated Grindelwald in 1939—and thus prevented World War II, and all of the hideous deaths that took place as a result.

Think about what that implies.

More than six million Jews died. One or two million Catholics. Three million gypsies, and I don't know how many disabled people or trade unionists or Communists or twins died. Somewhere between fourteen and seventeen million, I read.

All were labeled nonhuman.

And experiments on the "nonhumans." How much pain or fire or cold they could bear. Or breeding experiments to see if these people they called inhuman could be interbred with animals.

Seventeen million people.

And that was just in the death camps.

Forty-four million MORE died for the Allies. England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Yanks, France, Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Australia, New Zealand, and so on.

Sixty-one countries fought over three-quarters of the world.

More than sixty-one million people. (That's not even counting the eleven million or so who died fighting for the Axis Powers.)

Maybe it's me, but I'm absolutely furious at Rowling for minimizing the consequences of Dumbledore's actions. At the same time, I'm mad that millions upon millions of people could be suffering, fighting and dying for their families, friends and freedom, both in various armies and in resistance movements...and that none of it matters in Rowlingland. Because in Rowlingland, saving the world in World War II, as in 1998, is the job of a white Anglo-Saxon male. No other saviors of the world need apply—even if said white Anglo-Saxon male can't be bothered to get up off his fat arse and save close to a hundred million lives by fighting a former friend.

Okay. I am in a "TROGDOR SMASH!" kind of mood. I'll be back later when my stomach isn't roiling.

::::::

Back now.

Was it lingering affection for the man or fear of exposure as his once best friend that caused Dumbledore to hesitate?

I'll take "Fear of Exposure" for $2000, Alex. (Is there any other choice? Dumbledore is a manipulative old codger who has never loved anyone but himself.)

Was it only reluctantly that Dumbledore set out to capture the man he was once so delighted he had met?

Don't know, don't care. What I DO care about is that Dumbledore faffed about, delaying going after the then-Dark Lord for more than five years for no reason that's ever given, costing wizards and Muggles alike their lives. The why doesn't matter to me. I don't give a damn whether he delayed because he was helping Edward Elric Nicolas Flamel create the Philosopher's Stone, or because he was mourning for Ariana, or whatever. It's the delay itself I can't get past. I'm really not seeing doing nothing as millions die as the act of "one of the bravest men Harry ever knew."

There is more speculation on why Ariana died, all couched in questions. This is a trick that I remember from a Dick Francis book. All the unfavorable speculation was in the form of questions so that the British press couldn't be accused of saying anything that wasn't true.

The chapter ended here

YAY!

and Harry looked up.

Oh, drat. Wrong chapter, then.

Hermione closes the book for Harry:

She tugged the book out of Harry’s hands, looking a little alarmed by his expression, and closed it without looking at it, as though hiding something indecent.

Hermione Granger—-future employee of Six Apart.

Harry is devastated.

He had trusted Dumbledore, believed him the embodiment of goodness and wisdom.

How did this kid get to be seventeen years old AND grow up with the Dursleys, and yet never once experience a moment of doubt about the adults in his life?

All was ashes: How much more could he lose? Ron, Dumbledore, the phoenix wand...

Notice that his parents and Sirius are not on this list. Nor is Mad-Eye Moody, who risked and gave his life to save Harry. Nope. It's all about Ron, a dysfunctional wand, and the Harrydore.

Hermione protests that this is about what you could expect from Rita Skeeter. Harry brings up the letter. Hermione provides more exposition dump.

'For the Greater Good' became Grindelwald's slogan, his justification for all the atrocities he committed later. And . . . from that . . . it looks like Dumbledore gave him the idea. They say 'For the Greater Good' was even carved over the entrance to Nurmengard."

Nurmengard. Sheesh. Is this the world where the German-Soviet Alliance actually took?

And is anyone but me hearing about a slogan over the entrance of a prison and thinking about Auschwitz? And does anyone else wish that Rowling would stop doing this?

Harry, of course, doesn't know anything--what a surprise!---so he has to ask Hermione what Nurmengard is. She tells him it's the prison that Grindelwald built, and that he was imprisoned there after DD defeated him.

Anyway, it's --- it’s an awful thought that Dumbledore's ideas helped Grindelwald rise to power.

I fail to see why it's any worse than anyone else's ideas helping him rise to power.

Hermione then protests that Dumbledore and Grindelwald were very young and didn't know better. Riiight. Because there's such a vast difference between being eighteen and being sixteen or seventeen. Even Harry calls her on this, which is amazing.

They were the same age as we are now. And here we are, risking our lives to fight the Dark Arts, and there he was, in a huddle with his new best friend, plotting their rise to power over the Muggles."

Saying she's not defending Dumbledore, Hermione continues to try to defend Dumbledore:

But Harry, his mother had just died, he was stuck alone in the house ---"

Because parental deaths and solitude plainly cause desire for world domination. And Harry points out another fact:

"Alone? He wasn't alone! He had his brother and sister for company

Hermione protests that she doesn't believe that Ariana was a Squib. She says that the Dumbledore she knew wouldn't have done that.

"The Dumbledore we thought we knew didn't want to conquer Muggles by force!" Harry shouted, his voice echoing across the empty hilltop

Hermione then starts playing fast and loose with the facts:

Dumbledore was the one who stopped Grindelwald,

Well, he defeated Grindelwald in a magical duel. I'm not sure that constitutes stopping all of Grindelwald's forces.

the one who always voted for Muggle protection and Muggle born rights,

No, he didn't. Wizards don't have a legislature, or an electoral process. There's just the Minister of Magic—who's appointed, not elected. He and his staff issue what "decrees" they like (See also: Umbridge). How do you vote for something when your form of government makes no provision for voting?

who fought You-Know-Who from the start,

And who brought him to Hogwarts too, despite knowing that eleven-year-old Tom liked killing other children's pets, torturing small children until they weren't right in the head, and making other people hurt if he wanted them to. I don't think Dumbledore deserves much credit for opposing Voldemort when, if it weren't for him, there would be neither a fully trained Voldemort nor any Horcruxes in the first place.

and who died trying to bring him down!"

Oh, rubbish. Snape killed an old fool who was dying of poison and an curse. Euthanasia is not the same thing as noble self-sacrifice!

Hermione then says that Harry's mad because DD never told him any of this. Harry explodes, and in a fairly sane manner:

"Look what he asked from me, Hermione! Risk your life, Harry! And again! And again! And don't expect me to explain everything, just trust me blindly, trust that I know what I'm doing, trust me even though I don't trust you! Never the whole truth! Never!"

Geez, Harry. It only took you seven books to notice this, but you finally got there. Congratulations.

Hermione tries telling Harry that DD loved him, which, in view of the rest of this book and the six preceding it, is such a blatant lie that I expected her to be struck by lightning. Harry, displaying an unusual amount of sense, refutes this:

"I don't know who he loved, Hermione, but it was never me. This isn't love, the mess he's left me in. He shared a damn sight more of what he was really thinking with Gellert Grindelwald than he ever shared with me."

APPLAUSE!

Harry tells Hermione to go back in the tent, which she does. As she exits stage left, he "hated himself for wishing that what she said was true: that Dumbledore had really cared.

And I hate Rowling for trying to convince us that despite the Dumb One being a lazy, negligent, manipulative incipient dictator-world conquerer, he's really a good guy.

Comments

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I agree with you, its one of the better chapters, but god almighty she really doesn't see that she makes us hate DD the more she tries to make us love him.

*stabs him *

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

She honest-to-God does not GET it. And she should.

I don't mind DD being a manipulative bastard. Good grief, I read George R.R. Martin. I'm quite accustomed to characters that are manipulative bastards. What I mind is that:

1) Dumbledore's manipulation is presented as a virtuous thing.

2) Dumbledore's do-nothingness during wartime (both during Grindelwald's war/WWII and during the wars with Voldemort--he never seems to get out there in the trenches with the Order, does he?) is presented as a virtuous thing.

3) Just in case we had any doubts, Harry tells us in the Crapilogue that Albus Dumbledore was not only one of the bravest men he's ever known, but also so admirable that he named his younger son after the man.

It makes no sense to me. Rowling does nothing to make the man lovable, but she clearly thinks that lovability is his default setting.

[dancesontrains.livejournal.com]

Hermione Granger—-future employee of Six Apart.

&hearts

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

Heh. I had to say that. I just had to.

Nice sporking.

[elanor-x.livejournal.com]

Presumably this means that Dumbledore could have attacked and defeated Grindelwald in 1939—and thus prevented World War II, and all of the hideous deaths that took place as a result.
No, he couldn't. Imo, in Rowling's universe there were 2 different wars at the same or nearly the same time - one in the wizarding world & another in the Muggle world. Wizards have stayed hidden from Muggles for centuries, so they couldn't/didn't take part in Muggle wars. Dumbledore could have prevented deaths of wizards, not of Muggles. And much less wizards were killed than Muggles, since the total number of wizards seems to be less than the people killed in the World War 2.

And is anyone but me hearing about a slogan over the entrance of a prison and thinking about Auschwitz? And does anyone else wish that Rowling would stop doing this?
Yes, it got on my nerves too. I hated chapters, like Magic is Might, which were full with that. Rowling isn't able to properly handle such material, or at least, hasn't shown the ability in HP.

Dumbledore faffed about, delaying going after the then-Dark Lord for more than five years for no reason that's ever given
It's given in the chapter 35 King's Cross. D didn't know who killed his sister and was afraid to hear from G that he did that. *have just checked the book, it's explicitly stated*

Re: Nice sporking.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

It's given in the chapter 35 King's Cross. D didn't know who killed his sister and was afraid to hear from G that he did that. *have just checked the book, it's explicitly stated*

Actually, there's not much doubt that DD killed his sister, as Aberforth tells us there were four people in the room at the time, and three of them were doing the following things:

1) Grindelwald was torturing Aberforth with Crucio.
2) Aberforth was, well, being tortured.
3) Ariana was getting upset about the fighting and the torture.

And then there's Dumbledore.

I mean, I don't see who else could have killed her. The other two wizards were otherwise occupied at the time.

And DD certainly had a motive for wanting Ariana dead; she was in his way. He couldn't take care of a mentally ill sister AND grab the political power he and Grindelwald wanted so badly.

So I don't think there's much doubt about who killed Ariana--whatever DD later admitted.

Imo, in Rowling's universe there were 2 different wars at the same or nearly the same time - one in the wizarding world & another in the Muggle world. Wizards have stayed hidden from Muggles for centuries, so they couldn't/didn't take part in Muggle wars. Dumbledore could have prevented deaths of wizards, not of Muggles.

It's pretty clear from the text that Grindelwald's war is intended to parallel the Muggle one. And she has said repeatedly that the Death Eaters and their predecessors were based on Nazis. Some of the DE ideas--racial purity, the perceived inhumanity of those considered to be of a lesser species, the planned genocide of perceived inferiors, the enforced registration of said "inferiors" with the government bureaucracy, the Mengele-like twisted experiments of Grindelwald--it's just too close.

And, based on Grindelwald's backstory and DD's letter, we know that wizards didn't pick up the ideas from the Nazis. They were thinking of the same things...only decades earlier.

Therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that the ideas of one group fed into the ideas of another, and influenced them heavily.

It's an odious idea, precisely because Rowling handles the notion so clumsily. But I think that it fits the world.

Yes, it got on my nerves too. I hated chapters, like Magic is Might, which were full with that. Rowling isn't able to properly handle such material, or at least, hasn't shown the ability in HP.

No, she hasn't. It's disturbing.

[nixitall.livejournal.com]

I guess bad things are only bad when they're done by Slytherins or ugly people, rather than Gryffindors and people who are hot.

I think you nailed the entire series with that one.

And I cannot speak of the WWII nonsense. Ergh!

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

Thank you. Both the favoritism and the WWII nonsense bugged me no end. As you say, eurgh.

[berseker.livejournal.com]

And is anyone but me hearing about a slogan over the entrance of a prison and thinking about Auschwitz? And does anyone else wish that Rowling would stop doing this?

Totally.

Now, I have nothing against nazi-like villains in fiction, because, hey, they make for some pretty nasty villains. But she’s so heavy handed and incoherent that I just wish she would give it up. By now everybody knows that wizards don’t give a shit about muggles safety or rights and the good guys are also convicted of their superiority. It would have been smarter to create a villain who threatened only the wizards, so this kind of thing wouldn’t come up.

But the problem is that the whole series is made up like that. At least, that’s what’s implied in my books – and since I´m here anyway, let me ask: what does the word Muggle means? It’s a made up world, right? What does it sounds like in English? I’m asking it because here in Brazil the word they use it is slang for stupid people. Was that what Rowling intended?

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

what does the word Muggle means? It’s a made up world, right?

Not exactly. Here's a site that tried to deduce the etymology of the word (http://www.takeourword.com/TOW136/page2.html).

What does it sounds like in English?

It sounds like MUH-g'll, to rhyme with "Bug'll." It's not a pleasant sounding word.

I’m asking it because here in Brazil the word they use it is slang for stupid people. Was that what Rowling intended?

The above site found the following quote from Rowling.

J.K. Rowling on the invention of the term Muggles: "It is a twist on the English word mug, which means "easily fooled". I made it into Muggles because it sounds gentler."

So there you have it. The very term "Muggle" is a racist slur. Muggles, it is implied, are dumb and easily fooled--even though their ignorance of magic is something that the wizards themselves bring about through concealment and Memory Charms.

Another writer used the term "Muggles" in a book written in 1984 (http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/muggles.htm), though the Muggles in Stouffer's book weren't normal humans, and the term wasn't an implicit insult.

[professor-mum.livejournal.com]

Dumbledore had left them to grope in the darkness, to wrestle with unknown and undreamed-of terrors, alone and unaided:

And for what reasons, what end? Did Dumbles think Voldemort was listenening to all of Harry's private thoughts? Well, he certainly wasn't in B7, otherwise he'd have joined them, Deliverance style, on the trio's long camping trip.

The two young men were staying at the Leaky Cauldron in London, preparing to depart for Greece the following morning,

I bet they were.

Snapity, snap snap! :)

Presumably this means that Dumbledore could have attacked and defeated Grindelwald in 1939—and thus prevented World War II, and all of the hideous deaths that took place as a result.

Well, you know, hiding your man-crush from the world is worth the death of millions of innocents. I think is the chapter when Jo decided to nail any remaining fan love of Albus, into it's coffin and toss it into a dumpster.

[asphodeline.livejournal.com]

I hear you regarding the WWII references. How she felt any of that was appropriate is beyond me. Whatever she made DD do or not do, simply making allusion to the war in the way she did and with all the anti-racist, race cleansing ideas it was totally out of order.

I liked the idea of the book telling all about DD but it didn't tell as much as it could have and I *was* left wondering just why we were suddenly supposed to believe that Rita Skeeter was writing the truth.

[cleverthylacine]

You do know that JKR has since this was written publicly acknowledged that Bumblebore is gay, and that Gellert Grindelwald was his only serious love (though it was Tragic and possibly Unrequited)?

The Edward Elric joke is amusing, but Bumblebore couldn't possibly have been helping Flamel create the Philosopher's Stone in the 1940s.

Nicolas Flamel was a historical figure (a real alchemist) and he lived in the Middle Ages and wrote a book in which he claimed to have created it THEN--long before Bumblebore was ever born.

[professor-mum.livejournal.com]

I hate how Jo effectively turns Albus into either (1) virgin-gay DD or (2) perpetual anonymous partner gay DD. He can't possibly love anyone else besides Gellert?

[smurasaki.livejournal.com]

"Look what he asked from me, Hermione! Risk your life, Harry! And again! And again! And don't expect me to explain everything, just trust me blindly, trust that I know what I'm doing, trust me even though I don't trust you! Never the whole truth! Never!"

Geez, Harry. It only took you seven books to notice this, but you finally got there. Congratulations.

Don't worry. It doesn't last. -_-

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

The one valuable thing he learns and he forgets about it.

[puzzlement.livejournal.com]

Story external, I very much dislike this authorial technique where World War II and the Holocaust are being used to add a tiny amount of shadow to Dumbledore's character. The most minor point is that it's incredibly lazy. How shall I imply that there might have been darkness in his soul? Hrm. I know, I'll take one of the most deadly, frightening, well known and well analysed events in history, one involving a uniquely industrialised genocide, and I'll kind of mention it, and that will add the mild, childish, forgiveable touch I need.

And from there it's so lazy that it's a moral issue. I have seen more than one argument that the Holocaust shouldn't be used to add moral depth to any fictional work (no matter how seriously its treated, how central it is to the plot, or how realistic the treatment is) and I've also seen more than one saying that it shouldn't (or sometimes simply can't) be treated fictionally at all. I don't agree with the absolutes here, but I understand the argument and I think it's reprehensible Rowling is invoking it in order to do some trimming of Dumbledore's personality.

On a completely different matter, Rowling's adult world is a failure of imagination: it runs just like a boarding school with a bad administration. Someone stole Johnny's lunch/murdered James and Lily and they gave me detention/life in Azkaban without trial just because I happened to be standing there! SO UNFAIR! Dumbledore stood up to Grindelwald who was BULLYING (the world), even though they used to be BEST FRIENDS. HERO.

It would be possible to do something quite clever with using a dysfunctional adult world in a children's story as a metaphor for the small unfairnesses of childhood. In fact, I'm sure someone's already done it, but it wasn't Rowling.

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

have seen more than one argument that the Holocaust shouldn't be used to add moral depth to any fictional work (no matter how seriously its treated, how central it is to the plot, or how realistic the treatment is) and I've also seen more than one saying that it shouldn't (or sometimes simply can't) be treated fictionally at all

Speaking as someone who decided to write a story set during the Holocaust, read up for six months and then gave up is despair. I word everything you say. I now hate JKR with a passion of her lazy, clumsy and frankly insulting attitude in this book. The pamphlet in the Muggle Born Registration Act was the last straw for me. M'am? there's an austrian bloke with a stupid haircut and little mustache outside, he's considering a lawsuit.

[dracasadiablo.livejournal.com]

Fabulous spork.
This is chapter in which I start liking Rita Skeeter. Yes she's malicious, she's vicious, she's evil she's yada yada yada. But, give credit where credit is due: Rita Skeeter is smart. And closest thing to a detective in the Wizarding World.
She actually use logic. She finds information and use what facts she have to make good theories. The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore is actually pretty good book. And high time somebody had the guts to show/write/tell what kind of man DD really was.

[smurasaki.livejournal.com]

You know, maybe she's so vicious because she is the only wizard with brains. She can't have had a happy life surrounded by these idiots. Damn, now I feel sorry for her.

[arcanetrivia]

*dies at your "Producers" lj-cut text*

This is also, incidentally, the same guy who stole the Elder Wand from Gregorovitch the Wandmaker. Harry never gets particularly upset by the theft, though. I guess bad things are only bad when they're done by Slytherins or ugly people, rather than Gryffindors and people who are hot.

I wonder what House Grindelwald would have been sorted into if he had gone to Hogwarts. And, hey, this puts the lie again to Hagrid's line about "all the bad wizards were in Slytherin" -- Grindelwald wasn't in any House at all! (Not that Hagrid is very worldly, but he was alive at the time, and old enough to know what was going on.)

The two young men were staying at the Leaky Cauldron in London, preparing to depart for Greece the following morning,

I bet they were.

Cue Alan Rickman saying "catamites".

Hufflepuff's ghost, the Fat Friar

I always wondered if he's any relation to Friar Tuck.

establishing Wizard's First rule over Muggles.

LOL. Well, you can't argue with it. People are stupid.

I don't give a damn whether he delayed because he was helping Edward Elric Nicolas Flamel create the Philosopher's Stone

Now we know where all those moving suits of armour at Hogwarts come from.

And is anyone but me hearing about a slogan over the entrance of a prison and thinking about Auschwitz?

Nuremburg was my first thought, but it's not so much an allusion as a sledgehammer.

and who died trying to bring him down!"

Oh, rubbish. Snape killed an old fool who was dying of poison and an curse. Euthanasia is not the same thing as noble self-sacrifice!

To be fair, Harry and Hermione don't know that yet.

[guardians-song.livejournal.com]

I'll speak in defense of JKR here, because I think her attitude is not the same as you think it is about THIS PARTICULAR PART. (Though Gad knows, the INTERVIEWS... *facepalm*)

Young!Albus is SUPPOSED to be EVULLLLL. I don't care WHAT Dumbledore says about "closing his eyes to Gellert's true nature", what the TEXT shows and what the SUBTEXT implies is that Young Albus was merrily chorusing in and giving suggestions. And I don't think Grindelwald = Hitler - they're analogous, and JKR says they're interlinked, but WWII =/= Grindelwald-war. Otherwise, we would have seen Mussolini-analogues and the Wizarding equivalent of an atomic bomb.

As for Hermione's claims...

1) I'm so goddamn tempted to go by Lightning on the Wave-canon and claim that how wizards and witches act IS determined by who has the greatest ("Lord-level") power, and so the defeat of Grindelwald DID mean the end of his forces, because then the Light Lord Albus would be the strongest player on the battlefield, and the Dark Lord Grindelwald would be being forced to grab a magic-draining artifact until he became essentially a Squib, and then get locked up anyway. I am SO goddamn tempted, because it makes SENSE.

It seems to work that way in canon, too (though some remain loyal to their masters anyway) - remember how Voldemort's Death = End of the War? It also explains why Britain folded to Voldemort so quickly - the Light Lord Albus Dumbledore was dead, Long Live the Dark Lord. (As a note, in the Sacrifices AU, "Light" and "Dark" have many different definitions, ranging from "Order" and "Wildness" to "Free Will" and "Compulsion". Yes, those two different definitions DO seem to be contradictory. Definitions can be that way. But point being, "Light Lord" is not necessarily a compliment, just as "Dark Lord" is not necessarily an insult...)

2) I think this is a case of JKR having a very clear idea of what IS happening in her world behind the scenes, but not realizing that her world doesn't permit for that. :P

3) Oh Gad, this is RIDICULOUS how much I want to take Lightning on the Wave's explanations for canon. In her/his AU, Dumbledore (who is even MORE manipulative than in canon) tells Harry that he was tempted to kill Riddle, but thought of what if somebody had decided to smother HIM in HIS cradle because they feared his power, and so let Riddle survive... Part of the canon in that world is that magical power is inborn, and so (for example) how effective your Finite Incantem is depends on your power. It's not all wand-waving (and wandless magic is all over the place in that world). I'll take her/his explanation, please. Better than anything JKR would say in an interview.

4) ...This is a case of JKR speaking through Hermione. _JKR_ knew at this point that Dumbledore was weakened as a result of destroying two Horcruxes, and died indirectly (well, due to his OWN plans, but I'm putting it into JKR POV) as a result of that. But Hermione SHOULDN'T know that at this point... More points to Suemione! It's all about JKR's POV. Remember, dying for the Greater Good is only noble if you INTEND to die for it, and don't want to live! :DDDDDDDDDDD *is ill*

----

As for the lack of investigation... look. There's something entirely creepy about the Wizarding World, as you've mentioned in the previous sporks. They don't view people without magic as human beings, not really. Ariana was thought to be a Squib. So - and this is pretty chilling for me - the attitude was probably

"WHO GIVES A FUCK?"

The Squib was dead. Oh, how horrible. The Dumbledore brothers had lost their house pet. Say, what's up with that crazy grand-nephew? Ah, who's going to pry too much into the personal affairs of the famous historian? He probably just got called back home abruptly to face charges. Or maybe he hexed a Muggle and is running away. Who gives a damn? And that Aberforth boy is crazy anyway. He always liked animals a bit too much...

*spits on the entire Wizarding World*

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

You might like this--Dan Hemmens' Afterword (http://ferretbrain.com/articles/article-149.html) on DH. The discussion of Harry the Passive Invisible Hero is about a third of the way down; "Dulce et Decorum Est: Rowling on Death" follows it.

A quote from each rant:

Throughout the series, the most noble reason for any course of action is no reason at all. Harry seeks the Deathly Hallows because he thinks it might maybe be what Dumbledore was expecting him to do. And according to Dumbledore, had he sought them for any other reason, he would not have been worthy to find them. When Dumbledore tried to unite the Hallows, he was actually trying to achieve something, and therefore proved himself unworthy.

***

[T]his is what gets me. It is not courage which Rowling praises, it is not struggling, or striving, or fighting. It is not defiance in the face of evi. It is the very act of dying which she glorifies.

[guardians-song.livejournal.com]

*realizes that the bolded part in that quote was part of your spork*

Wizard's First Rule. XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD *standing ovation* No, no, the MUGGLES should establish that over the WIZARDS. Because Wizards demonstrate so much better the Wizard's First Rule. XDDDDD

(For those who haven't read Terry Goodkind:

Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid.

One of the few good things about his books. XD)

[solar-type-star.livejournal.com]

I hope somebody can help me with this now that we are on the subject. I've never understood what the relationship was exactly between WWII and the Dumbledore/Grindelwald war.

Was Grindelwald behind Hitler(Imperiusing him, taking advantage of his rule, whispering ideas to him disguised as a Muggle, behind the scenes...?)? Was Churchill in touch with the Minister for Magic and how much cooperation between them was there? Did wizards participate in the Normandy landing? To which extent were those two wars running in parallel, or interweaved?

I really want to know how much of it can be pinned down on Dubledore's denial of aid, exactly. Because there's some hard stuff JKR could have addressed here.

The War With Grindelwald, World War II and Rowling

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

Well, Rowling said in HBP that every Prime Minister is in touch with the Minister of Magic. So Churchill would have been in contact with whoever was in charge, starting when Winnie became P.M. in 1940. (How much cooperation there was, I don't know--Fudge and Scrimgeour were pretty patronizing--but I can't see Churchill putting up with patronizing contempt for long. (Or going into meetings with wizards without some way of protecting his mind and memories, come to think of it. The man was NOT stupid.)

As for Hitler, it's never been said what kind of influence Grindelwald had. Fan theories have varied from Hitler being Grindelwald's overly ambitious apprentice to being his Muggle puppet (someone Grindy was using as a front who was implementing his policies) to someone who had heard the attitudes of the wizarding world toward Muggles and decided to apply those attitudes to racial, religious and social groups that he hated and feared. Rowling has never said.

That there is a connection between the two wars, she made clear in HBP. The wizard's war with Voldemort necessarily means death and destruction for Muggles as well; it's reasonable to conclude that Grindelwald's forces would be no more considerate than Voldie's at destroying people who could not, magically, fight back.

Furthermore, there's also this (http://www.eveningprophet.com/faq/view/198):

6.10.2 Do Muggle wars and Wizard wars feed off each other?

According to JKR, yes.

And this (http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview3.shtml):

ES (Emerson): You don't have to answer but can you give us some backstory on him?

JKR: I'm going to tell you as much as I told someone earlier who asked me. You know Owen who won the [UK television] competition to interview me? He asked about Grindelwald [pronounced "Grindelvald" HMM...]. He said, "Is it coincidence that he died in 1945," and I said no. It amuses me to make allusions to things that were happening in the Muggle world, so my feeling would be that while there's a global Muggle war going on, there's also a global wizarding war going on.

[N.B. Obviously she changed her mind about Grindelwald dying in 1945. But I think the rest still applies.]

:::

MA (Melissa): Do they feed each other, the Muggle and wizarding wars?

JKR: Yeah, I think so. Yeah. Mmm.

MA: You've gone very quiet.

[All laugh; JKR maniacally]

***

So...yeah. It seems clear that Rowling intended WWII and the War with Grindelwald to be intertwined.

I just don't think she thought out all the implications of that.

But it could make an outstanding AU.

[serriadh.livejournal.com]

The thing I never really got about DH was that the accusations levelled against DD in this chapter - by Rita and Harry - never get properly answered. Oh I know DD appears from the beyound the grave and blah blah blah, but still. Are we supposed to think he was evil, but he got better and Harry's just cross about later actions? Or what?

"Gellert"

[sigune.livejournal.com]

I'm enjoying the sporkings immensely, though they are almost as depressing as they are amusing :/...

This is perhaps not very relevant, but I thought I'd share this tidbit about the name "Gellert". It can be Welsh as much as Hungarian, actually - it immediately reminded me of the Celtic fairytale Beth Gellert (http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/cft/cft24.htm), in which a Prince Llewellyn has a faithful dog called Gellert. I have no idea whether Rowling intended the name to be Welsh rather than Hungarian, but it could put an interesting twist to Grindelwald's identity, and it is not completely odd in view of the fact that he has family in Britain.

Re: "Gellert"

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

Oh, cool! I didn't know that. Thank you.

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

>Isn't it amazing how much "the greater good" looks like greed, overweening ambition and a paternalistic attitude toward others that borders on contempt? <

Even Kipling was a bit more honest when he dubbed it the "white man's burden" to rule the world to best serve his own interests. Kipling however never really lost sight of the fact that however "other," the non-white man was still human and potentially a better man than his ruler.

And of course this whole issue was taking place contemporary with Kipling's writing. And Kipling was hardly voicing radical philosophy.

Ariana died in 1899. Albus would probably have been spouting exactly the same kind (if not quite degree) of bilge even if he had been a Muggle.

Rowling's utter dismissal of historical context gives me the pip.

I'm not altogether convinced of the theory (which I do grant that SHE intends us to believe) that Grendelwald was behind the Muggle WWII. He may have been carrying on his own activities under cover of it, but if he could be stopped by a single one-on-one duel with Albus it doesn't sound very plausible. I mean, didn't he have any supporters who weren't ready to beat their wands into plowshares (or tent pegs)? Kind of hard to take over Eastern Europe and build prisons for your enemies all by *yourself*.

I'd say that it makes just as much sense to claim that his whole movement had gone south those five years earlier and that no one was able to take *him* down, thanks to the Elder wand.

Which raises the question of why did everyone come begging a random British High School teacher to come and catch their Dark Lord for them? GG never even attacked *Britain*. (I think we now know why.) Did GG announce that they'd never take him *unless* Albus Dumbledore came and did it? (Which would at least give us some context for Rita's innuendos.)

I am in perfect agreement with the person online who pointed out that Rowling doesn't insert Real World details into the Poterverse to point out connections and apply th dynamics of her world to ours. SHe does it to *validate* her world, and she does it by completely trivializing the tidbits she invokes. It's dishonest and it's disgusting.

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

Nurmengard. Sheesh. Is this the world where the German-Soviet Alliance actually took?

And is anyone but me hearing about a slogan over the entrance of a prison and thinking about Auschwitz?

Not just that, but am I the only one thinking that if Nurmengard is supposed to be an allegory of Auschwitz, there is something seriously, seriously wrong with the fact that people are STILL KEPT THERE?

I swear, I'd hate this book so much less if I hadn't started Holocaust studies last year and it became so clear JKR had NO idea what her WW2 parallels really meant.
I hate her soooo much now.