He simply could have killed Harry himself if that was the case. He had theory Harry would survive and it worked. He explained it in the Kings Cross chapter.

 

Hahahahaha (Your post has made me laugh multiple separate times now that I've realised what it is actually saying).

But now I'm just confused on who is joking around...

Before his edit it read: "Why didn't he just Confund the Dursleys or put them under the Imperius? If he couldn't cast them himself he could have had his Death Eater pet Snape do it."

I thought this clearly referred to Voldemort, so my reply made sense. But he edited it to talk about Dumbledore, which doesn't make any sense! Why does Dumbledore want to put the Dursleys under the imperius curse?

Dumbledore wanted Voldemort dead, but he realised that he couldn't do it himself since he was going to be dead by the end of the year, and wouldn't be around to destroy all the horcruxes - which he didn't even know the locations of.

So he left the job to Harry. He had a the theory that he would survive when Voldemort 'killed' him. But he didn't tell this to Harry so that that the love-armour-thing could come into play which would ensure that the survivors could kill Voldemort.

He didn't send Lupin, Kingsley and Moody off to do the hunting (because he was stupid), because he believed in the Prophecy and thought that Harry was destined to do it himself. Consider that Harry is the only one who had successfully destroyed a horcrux without dying up to that point. Dumbledore tried and he had a death curse placed on himself. He probably thought that the prophecy meant that Harry was the only one who had the ability to the job without dying, or to do the job full stop.

I'd love to hear better reasoning for why Dumbledore didn't have anyone else help the trio. Did he think the secret would get out about the Horcruxes, or back to Voldemort if too many trustworthy people knew? Did he simply not have a way to incorporate other people into his grand plan for Harry before his death?

 

To make the Dursley treat Harry better. Warlocke said Dumbledore knew Harry was being abused. So I asked that.

 

Ah okay. But he had many, many other options open to him from simply talking to them to threatening them. I don't think Dumbledore would use unforgiveables on people either regardless of the circumstances, let alone on muggles.

Why Dumbledore didn't do any of these other things is beyond me. I'd love to get an explanation. There is a difference between pampering a child Harry and making sure he is fed three times a day and having an actual bedroom. [Edit: regardless of if you take a cartoonish or realistic view. I actually think that the bedroom issue makes their mistreatment of Harry serious.]

On the confundus charm part though. It does seem reasonable to use it when talking and threatening doesn't work. I think it doesn't work cleanly though? It makes people go a bit loopy?

 

It's probably some not alltogether consistent ethical stuff (why Dumbledore didn't mindfuck the Dursleys to make Harrys life more pleasurable).

All he needed was a bloodrelative in the same home as Harry. He could have made them move into a flat next to Harrys, if not through magic then plain blackmail.
He could have kidnapped Dudley, faked his Death and memorywiped him so he would grow up as Harrys squip brother.

But he didnt. Maybe he felt it unethical to change the Dursleys live when it wasnt strictly needed, maybe he didn't want to get involved; he did say that he shoudn't be trusted with power.

And someone looking in from the outside, like Mrs. Figg, woudn't see Harry sleeping in a cupboard or doing all the chores. All they would see is a bullied boy. Who has no friends. And whos parents would rather never see him again.

Ok, so it doesnt look that good, but Harry doesnt look traumatized or anything. If I would live in that kind of enviroment, I woudn't ask questions, I woudn't tell the Dursleys about my dream with the flying motorcycle and I woudn't taunt Dudley.

(I would close my eyes and hope they go away. Or ignore them as possible. Or grow spiteful)

 

It seems like Petunia taking Harry willingly was an important part of the magic. Aside from the ethics of the thing, using magic to force her treatment of Harry in a particular direction would probably not count as willing acceptance.

 

In addition I suppose had Dumbledore pressured the Dursleys then they could have turned around and said they didn't want him there anymore, and that wasn't a risk worth taking.

 

I always wondered how Harry would have turned out had Dumbledore just said 'fuck it' and decided to make an attempt at raising the boy himself. I mean, he'd never been a father but look at how damn good he was at planning everything else out.

A Harry raised on the grounds of Hogwarts, allowed to play as he liked?

 

Or, I may simply not be covering everything, because that would be a Read The Books fic*... and I don't do those. ← *Joke

I'm not really sure where you're getting all of this from. I sure don't remembering saying that much about either the Dursleys or Dumbledore in my last few posts.

Though, I will grant you, it can sometimes be difficult separating when I'm being dead serious, from when I'm using hyperbole for comedic value, from when I'm just flat out joking; maybe that was the source of some confusion.

My only references to the Dursleys, here, were initially to point out that there were notable occasions where Dumbledore certainly didn't let Harry have things his way. Later I mentioned them to point out that A: Harry's life at #4 stunk and B: Dumbledore knew, from the start, that Harry's life there would stink. Well, A: Harry did think that life with the Dursleys was shit, and B: Dumbledore stated in the books that he knew this would be the case.

I made no references to the severity of the abuse Harry experienced, so I couldn't very well have been applying cartoonish nor realistic standards to them.

My post implying that Dumbledore wanted to kill Harry was, obviously, an opportunistic joke, based on some edit-induced unfortunate implications. However, it is canon that Dumbledore thought Harry would have to die to destroy the scar horcrux, and that Harry's survival was, in no way, guaranteed.

One could also make the case that Dumbledore chose to have this information revealed to Harry only at the very last moment, so he wouldn't have time to get cold feet.

I think you may have been barking up a tree that was never planted... or I missed a post, somewhere.

 

I thought it was pretty clearly implied that tearing his soul into the better part of a dozen pieces had a direct effect on his sanity. He clearly wasn't operating with a full basket in the last two books. You can call it a plothole, or you can go with the idea that maybe ripping your fundamental essence to shreds multiple times and scattering it to the four winds in a bid for immortality might have some possible negative side effects.

 

Yeah he'd have to be at least semi-competent even if he was diminished somewhat.

For example; why didn't he ever just take Ginny in the 7th year? Kidnap the hero's girlfriend is pretty much the go to move for bad guys. Did he just like...go and gossip with Parvati and Lavander and find out they broke up and just threw up his hands yelling "Curses! Foiled by his Nobility again!"?

I mean the Weasley's went into hiding but he had like a whole castle filled with "people who Harry Potter knows and likes" and he did nothing with them.

I don't really think you can write off Voldemorts incompetence as mental instability. JKR just couldn't write a clever enough bad guy.

 

Really? You should go write an indy!fic about it. It’s sure to be an original smash hit.

The only time Harry was attacked by hostile wizards was when the protections fell at the beginning of DH. Seeing how there was literally an entire crowd of Death Eaters waiting outside for exactly that to happen, I think we can safely say that yes, the protections worked, and yeah, they were pretty well justified.

Harry would have been a whole lot happier living elsewhere. He also would have been a whole lot more dead.

According to Dumbledore’s conjecture at King’s Cross, Harry’s wand imbibed part of the power of Voldemort’s wand when they were crossed. This was Dumbledore’s explanation for why, when Harry’s wand went into direct contest with Lucius Malfoy’s, Malfoy’s wand fucking exploded. It’s because Malfoy’s wand, for all intents and purposes, faced both Harry and Voldemort at the same time. To paraphrase him, “your immense courage and impeccable heart stood shoulder to shoulder with Voldemort’s own immense knowledge and skill. What hope did Lucius Malfoy’s poor wand even have?”

So on top of all the things you mentioned, Harry’s wand has also canonically copied/eaten/borrowed the power of not just other wands, but the traits of the people who wielded those wands.

Because then they aren’t accepting Harry on their own. Dumbledore explained that already. I can even half remember the words he used. “Yes, reluctantly. Grudgingly, angrily, dragging her feet. But still, she took you.”

If the Dursleys aren’t putting Harry up in their home of their own free will, then the system doesn’t work.

You’re an idiot.

When he shows actual signs of being mentally unstable, I most certainly can. Even ignoring the fact that you need a few fruits loose to actually believe you can take over the world and usher in a new world order that you personally rule with an iron fist, let’s not forget that not only did Voldemort have his entire physical body (including his brain) vaporized and put back together again, he was also systematically tearing his own soul apart over the course of several decades.

Riddle was clearly at least somewhat insane when he was whole and un-Horcruxed. He not only spent his childhood torturing other kids with his nascent magical powers, but when he became a young man and went to school, he leapt into the Dark Arts and first-degree murder with almost reckless abandon and casual skill. He thought nothing of killing people, framing others for their deaths, and tearing his soul to pieces to get what he wanted. Murder wasn’t a crime; it was a tool. He showed the ability to casually use all three of the Unforgivables without even blinking, which by definition would require a form of mental instability all on its own. And let's also not forget that at some point, he must have convinced himself that he wasn't a Halfblood, or that it somehow didn't matter for him even though it mattered for everyone else, so you can add "rampant self-delusion" to the list as well.

And then he started tearing his soul apart. And then he kept on tearing his soul apart. And then he died. His brain was vaporized. He was rebuilt out of snake venom, and then made a new body out of Pettigrew’s hand, Harry’s blood, some old dust, and boiling water.

I most certainly fucking can write off Voldemort’s lategame incompetence as mental instability. He was clearly never all that stable to begin with, and that was before he started ritualistically shredding his immortal essence to pieces and had his brain splattered across Lily Potter’s drapes by the Power of Love and then scraped back together again by Pettigrew with snake spit.

If I take anything away from Voldemort in his endgame incarnation, it’s that actions always have consequences. You can’t just shred your soul into a dozen pieces and then put your body back together after it’s been blown up without having some side effects. It’s don’t do drugs kids, but the drugs are obscure Dark magic that mutilates your soul. And explosions.

That’s a piss-poor excuse for not wanting to think things through.

 

And this was also 'Harry's' Dumbledore, which makes that scene even better with Perspicacity's points. Dumbledore is not really Dumbledore there so much as Harry's residual image of him, so that's kind of Harry explaining extremely innovative and esoteric aspects of wandlore...to himself.

Unless it really was Dumbledore.

 

Honestly, your way it's not better. You're mixing too much fanon when you explain your point of view.

 

Yes, but none of that mental instability is related to basic planning. He clearly has various mental disorders, however, none of which should affect all his simple problem solving abilities.

The reason he has stupid plans like - I'll enter Harry in the triwizard tournament, have someone help him win, have him touch a portkey that will teleport him to me, have my cowardly helper engage him in 1 on 1 combat, hope he wins, then resurrect myself from his blood - isn't because he's mentally unstable. He could of just had Crouch stun Harry and carry him off.

The reason he does those things is becauseit makes it good drama. The mystery, the build up, the climax. It's all very interesting, but it's still fucking contrived.

Although I don't know why I'm arguing with you. You've clearly shown that you think everything in canon has some clear awesomely orchestrated reason from JKR instead of just being her shoddy writing.

 

I'd rather overthink things than not think at all.

Also, what part of Voldemort being insane is fanon? Name one thing I listed that isn't objectively true.

It was probably Dumbledore. His dialogue suggests as much, at any rate.

 

OK.

Tell me where in the books it says that the horcrux process and have your body destroyed affects your psychic. Before all those transformations, he was already insane.

 

I don't think you're understanding what I'm asking you.

You said I'm making things up and using fanon.

What part of what I claimed in regards to Voldemort is fanon?

Voldemort did torture kids at the orphanage with his nascent magical powers.

Voldemort did loose a Basilisk on Hogwarts, get one person killed, tried to get more killed, and blamed the lone death on an innocent to cover his tracks.

Voldemort did demonstrate the ability to use all three Unforgivables with extreme ease, which itself is demonstrative of mental instability.

Voldemort did fracture his soul, and he did continue to do so, well beyond the point that even the Darkest wizards of centuries past would have dared to attempt.

Voldemort did at some point manage to convince himself that he was either a Pureblood or that for some reason his own personal purity of blood did not matter. The idea that he was manipulating the Purebloods by using their rhetoric to get them on his side with the ultimate goal of discarding them is an entertaining and plausible concept, but also a fanonical one.

Voldemort did have his entire body vaporized in the backlash on the night he attempted to kill Harry. There is no burial site for Tom Marvelo Riddle, nor does anyone ever speak of a body or remains being found, and the books clearly state that there was a massive explosion.

Voldemort did have a proto-body built for him out of snake venom by Pettigrew.

Voldemort did then have a more permanent body build out of a potion comprised of Pettigrew's flesh, his father's bones, and Harry's blood.

Voldemort did display his most unstable and irrational tendencies near the end of the series, as opposed to the few depictions we see of him early on in his life, when he seems much more calculating and in control of himself.

At what point does any of this veer into fanon? Even you admit that Riddle was clearly some degree of insane even before he became Voldemort. What are you even trying to say? That you agree with me but still think I'm wrong?

 

Well, in HBP Dumbledore says that the instability of Voldemort's soul makes him more dangerous, not less, so that's something to count against the "Voldemort was defeated by his own soul pieces" idea.

 

It's likely that the proto-body we saw for most of GoF wasn't only snake venom, but we do know that it was somehow sustaining him and that Nagini was being milked. I think Bertha Jorkins was either pregnant when captured or raped by Wormtail, the consequent fetus then being possessed by Tom.

That or they kidnapped an infant from somewhere else.