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.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-01-26 03:30 pm (UTC)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.