Natural language also has rules (grammar) yet it does not have a fixed form which cannot be broken. It is perfectly possible - and seems to line up best with canon to do so - to consider the so-called rules of magic to be like those of natural language: convention. We've seen this time and time again, when rules of magic are broken by enterprising wizards who find a new way top do something previously thought impossible.

Or maybe, in the middle of a fight, you don't have much time to engage analytical cognition - especially a fight you're losing.

 

With respect to rules of magic, fair enough. I suppose you could view it that way. It still seems a little odd to me, but not improbable.

With regards to the other point however, Shezza's Voldemort was renowned especially for his ability to quickly analyze actions in a battlefield. I would think that this sort of fight time deductive capability would be an essential skill for someone of his caliber, especially someone who would have experience in battles against multiple opponents who are not very easy to predict. There is only so far instinctive reaction can take a fighter, after all, and - again, presuming we have not underestimated him - Voldemort is one of the most feared duelers in the series, if not the most feared. I would expect him to do better than what you are suggesting.

Although you could make an argument that losing the fight made him angry because of his pride and whatnot, and so he didn't pay as much attention to it as he should have. However, we see in his fight with Dumbledore (who he hates) that he is clearly capable of keeping his head and having good situational awareness as well as thinking up plans on the fly, so...

 

'm pretty sure there were a lot of people who disagreed with Dumbledore in the political world. Purebloods seem to fit the bill quite nicely, and with all of his jobs, it would be idiotic to believe that no one ever questioned the actions of Albus Dumbledore. How many order meetings, staff meetings, ICW meetings, etc. did we get to read about in the books? I'm almost positive plenty of people disagreed with Albus Dumbledore. Alas, this is not Albus Dumbledore and the Philosopher's Stone; it is Harry Potter so we see very little of the day to day life of one Albus Dumbledore.

As for your point about McGonagall not questioning him...I ask you reread chapter 1 of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. She clearly questions and disagrees with his decision about the placement of Harry as well as sending Hagrid to go fetch the boy. If this is any indication, I'm sure she questions him quite often, but we don't get to see it since the books are about Harry.

 

Yeah, again, this would be more of a confrontation and less of a discussion. I meant disagreement in the sense 'Hey, this plan doesn't really make sense, but you make some good points. How about we think about this aspect, and factor in that issue...' Again, like I said, people like Malfoy are unlikely to actually do this kind of thing with Dumbledore, being more interested in their own wants rather than having a different opinion on a shared agenda. I don't really know if there is any proof in the Order or anything of anybody challenging Dumbledore and not just backing down after a single reassurance.

As for it being the story of Harry Potter, well, that is if you look at it in the context of it being fiction. As someone said (I think it was about Naruto, but the point holds), we can either look at fiction as being fiction, and so stop analysing it in terms of reality, or we can treat it as something real and act as if we are looking at events from within that universe. If we wish to do the former, then this discussion is pointless, as Dumbledore is whatever Rowling says he is. If not, then this doesn't really apply. I agree that many of the problems I find in his character are due to plot holes and inconsistencies, but that does not make them less irritating.

McGonagall in chapter 1 of Philosopher's Stone is an excellent example of what I am talking about. What, exactly, makes her drop the points she is making? Simply Dumbledore telling her to drop it. Does she pursue the issue until she is satisfied? No. She lets it go just because. None of the problems she has with leaving a baby with the Dursleys are resolved or properly answered, are they?

We did not need to have that answer in the books if it would be a spoiler or anything, or if Rowling had not thought it up and wanted to leave it open. There could have been some sort of backstage discussion - anything, really, to show that Dumbledore convinced McGonagall rather than telling her to do as he said.

Edit: Just reread the first chapter, and while he does give her an answer, it is merely this : "Can't you see how much better off he would be growing up away from it all?", which in no way addresses the point McGonagall had been making earlier, about them being rather unsuitable parents. I agree about him growing up away from fame, but that doesn't mean anything about growing up with a family that doesn't really seem suitable to raising someone like him, which is what McGonagall seemed to be arguing. And, again, once Dumbledore says this, despite it not addressing her concerns, she drops the point.

 

The reason she drops it has more to do with the fact that it is his choice as to where to place Harry. She isn't related to Harry nor is she in position in the ministry where she would be given a say in where an orphan is placed. She is a teacher nothing more, and the law is the law discussing it will do nothing to further your point especially when the one man with enough influence to perhaps get around the law has already made up his mind.

You will also find that Dumbledore gained the respect for his position for a reason. Look at President Bush, when in a time of crisis his approval rating shot up to 80% and the press no longer questioned his decisions. They didn't ask the tough questions and as such we ended up in a complete fiasco. It is that way with leaders during times of war where citizens are truly afraid; they tend to believe those who are most inspiring are right which enables them to make big blunders.

You seem to have missed my main point though.

It isn't about looking at it like fiction. It is about looking at it from a viewpoint. We are told the story of Harry Potter not that of Albus Dumbledore. If we were told his story, then you might see more people disagreeing with him because we would get more than little snippets of his life when he happens to cross roads with Harry Potter. You make assumptions you cannot make given how little information we know of Dumbledore's day to day activities.

 

I always got the impression that McGonagall was close enough to Dumbledore to question him on his decisions regardless of the law, rather like a friend questioning another. I don't know what the law said about Harry's placement, but McGonagall could have pushed the point of any misgivings she had about the issue, in order to either convince Dumbledore or have him convince her.

And I suppose you are right about the whole 'faith in leader' thing - but that is exactly what I don't like. I would like it no more if it happened in real life, but this treating of Dumbledore as though he always knows what to do, while it may be realistic, is still annoying to me.

And, yes, I am sorry about misinterpreting what you initially said. That actually is a valid point, and maybe if we knew more about Dumbledore then we would have a better idea. As it happens, though, I can only make assumptions based on what happens in the books. That is actually part of the reason I don't hate him anymore as a character, merely dislike him.

I fully acknowledge that perhaps he did receive and take into account a lot of constructive criticism. However, in the absence of any examples, I don't know if such was the case, and so am forced to base my opinion on what Harry sees of him. And within that, the opinion I have formed is that everybody treats Dumbledore as though he is always right. Perhaps all the scenes where everybody's issues with him are resolved are simply not shown to us, but not having seen them...

 

Yep. In fact I think we got hints of what the Dumbledore opposition think of him, mostly through Draco. Every once in a while Draco would say something negative about Dumbledore that I suspect he cribbed directly from his father (and by extension, from most of the anti-Dumbledore types in politics). Unfortunately I don't remember the exact quotes, but I believe he'd occasionally say something about Dumbledore being "out of touch" or perhaps even senile.

But even the biggest of Dumbledore-haters would have hesitated before challenging him directly. Remember Harry's trial in OotP? Dumbledore rather easily turned the Wizengamot in Harry's favor despite the hostile Minister of Magic running the session. That scene suggests to me that Dumbledore is very good at playing the political game. In more normal political contexts, I can see him deflecting attacks on his character, and causing damage to the attackers instead.

Dumbledore's enemies had to wait until he made a political "mistake": declaring Voldemort's return. If he had no opposition, he would not have lost all his political posts; as it is, I can imagine them using his declaration as a rallying point.

The placement of Harry seems to have been treated as Order business, and Dumbledore is the boss of the Order. Assuming he ran the organization well, I think that means he had enough respect with the other members to get the final say on a decision regarding Harry's placement. McGonagall had no veto powers there.

 

This actually doesn't bother me. To Harry, Albus Dumbledore is a hero. As was stated in the story Harry Potter is Dumbledore's man, and people like that are either never exposed to the other side of their hero or naturally skew things to make their hero look a certain way.

Although I realize the story isn't told from Harry's perspective, I feel that the way Harry looks at Albus in the books also reflects the way JKR thinks of Albus Dumbledore given some statement she has made about him.

 

Dumbledore has always been VERY difficult to figure to me.

When I first read the serie (the first 2 at the time), I saw him like a overly protective, a bit patronizing, old man. A bit biaised toward Harry.

During the 5/6, I saw him the same, but too as a control freak, and a man who was'nt abble to do what was necessary.
Seriously, why not push the Wizenmaggot for an hearing under veritaserum to confirm the retour of the Dark Lord, or Pettigrew, or anything else? And these pitiful lesson about the nature of Voldemort.

At the end of the 7, he was an outright manipulative bastard.

I settled for a man who was confied too much power (Headmaster, Suprem Mugwump, Head of the Wizenmaggot, Represantant à l'ICW, never heard of the separation of powers?),
who was haunted by his past (Grindelwald and the episode with Arianna. Am I the only one who think that he saw what could have happened to him in Riddle if he had continued in the same path? And he made the childhood of Harry way too similar, perhaps to rassure itself that it was'nt his fault that Voldemort was who it became?),
and who has'nt been able to make what was necessary (Why not submit harry under veritaserum to confirm the return of Voldemort? Then push to interrogate all known or suspected DE?).
The fact that he spit all this non-sense about doing what is right and not what is easy, while himself is not able too go against what is moral was, is pretty laughable.


In short, while I don't see like the evil overlord that some authors made him to be, he is not in the list of person I like the most. A bit like the Sandaime hokage in fact.




Btw, why did he not mind rape Slugghorn for the horcruxes memorie? A little obliviate afterward and it was all perfect

 

Wizenmaggot? Really??

You *really* need to work on your grammar and spelling. I'm hoping you're not a native English speaker - because that would be a travesty - and even if you're not, there's a goddamn spell-checker built into the Reply box. For fuck's sake, use it.

And Dumbledore explained pretty clearly why he didn't try to use Legilimency on Slughorn - Slughorn is apparently an accomplished Occlumens, probably carries Veritaserum antidote with him, and Dumbledore attempting any of that underhanded shit so overtly would've driven Slughorn away from the school and likely into Voldemort's hands. Sure, Dumbledore might've been able to force the knowledge out of Horace, but at least he gave his reasons for not doing so.

 

I am French.
And I started to learn English not too long ago, so...
And I tried to use the spell-checker --'


Okay for Slugghorn, forgot the passage. Not that I was very careful reading the 7.

 

I think that Veritaserum is not very widely used in the Wizarding World, certainly not to it's full potential. This could actually have a very real reason. I doubt that people like Lucius Malfoy and his ilk would prefer to allow common use of such a powerful truth serum, as this would no doubt be highly detrimental to their own goals of being considered innocent, and also to their objectives of taking over the government. Veritaserum, when used in court, could potentially damn them in trials and could also be used to prove the return of Voldemort as you said, among other things such as Sirius' innocence and so on.

For this reason, I think that Malfoy would have probably put a lot of effort into discrediting the use of Veritaserum (encouraging the thought of it as mind-controlling, or infringing upon free will or so on), and when you consider that people like Umbridge would probably support this (I think that she would much prefer to restrict its uses to unofficial ones, in order to prevent any unexpected embarrassment) it is easy to understand why such actions were not taken.

And indeed, with the ease and swiftness with which he was removed from his posts in OotP, I think that he is probably not all that strong politically, certainly not stronger than Malfoy, and so I doubt that any push to interrogate known or suspected Death Eaters would really get through the government. I also think this shows that he was not given too much power, just too many posts, if you see the difference.

I doubt that he set Harry on a similar path as Riddle simply to alleviate his own guilt, but I will not comment on that beyond stating my opinion because it is really just that.

Overall, though I do not have much respect for Dumbledore and do consider him to be a rather average wizard in terms of everything but knowledge (not wisdom) and power, I would disagree with thinking of everything he does as having a sinister motive. He is certainly manipulative (and to those who say everything worked out, it likely wouldn't have in real life) and not as competent as he is made out to be, but certainly not deliberately immoral.