It may be touch of insanity, after all Percy said in the 1st book that Dumbledore is a bit crazy.
Lemon drops could be a calming medicine preventong him from going on violent rages.

Dumbledore is manipulative, he have to be. For the greater good.

 

i've always wondered...what is the greater good? I mean if the normal good is helping people, saveing lives and so on. what would the greater good be?

 

The big picture.

 

He is. adsasdasds
\

 

Is it just me or does Rowling have an eye fetish.


Hagrid's crinkle.

Snape's are like tunnels.

Dumbledore's twinkle.


Then there's the piercing, boring, burning, and shining going on.

Lets not forget the flashing.

 

I think that dumbledore was manipulative as hell, but he was trying to do what he thought was right and how can he be faulted for that. Yes he was wrong and he might no a little bit more then he knows a lot of the time. He would have had to figure out it was a basilisk but not knowing where it was and not wanting to cause a huge panic he didn't tell anyone.

Power of love though I think he was smoking some serious drugs with that one. If i wanted someone to destroy the nastiest bastard going around I'd sure as hell want to train him with some decent battle magic.

He manipulated and screwed it all up but it doesn't matter now because he's dead.

 

Pah, 'Power of Love' is just an excuse that will be used to justify Harry becoming a magical suicide bomber to take out Voldermort. I'd bet money he doesn't realize that he has NO chance until Voldie kicks his ass, and then 'like magic' the answer will come to him and he will play human bomb / use mutally lethal magic attack. I think it is that, or Hermione will dig up a spell that no one has heard of that uses 'love' as its power. I'm hoping for bomb...

 

i think that we all read into this to much, jk just wanted to create a good story, and lets face it it would suck if he didnt go on all the adventures. overall she did pretty well, i meen we r like the .001 % that actually think about what we are reading.

While dumbles isnt met to be manupulative, if u do give it a grain of thought then he is a master manipulator, and if you give it more thought then youd realize he would have to be b/c he is the head of the wizarding world. basicaly my point is that while dumble is manipulative he isnt meant to be b/c its a kids club.

 

yes, good job, its called adding details into a character, creating imagery for the reader.

as for whether or not Dumbledore is manipulative, I would have to say no. Bad guys have to get it in the end, its a childrens book rule, Dumbledore didn't get anything but death from the bad guys, which shows that he is a good guy. As simple as that explanation was, it shows what I feel.

Although in fanfiction I perfer for Dumbledore to be at least a little bit manipulative, it adds to the story.

 

I'm sorry if I like it more if authors use subtlety to create character and imagery. Show don't tell and all that.



Also, my opinion is that Dumbledore is manipulative, but only to an extent.
He seems more to guide events in a certain direction rather than micro-manage.

 

I don't think Dumbledore was made to be manipulative, but JKR needed a plot. So after all of those books, it seems as if he was a manipulative bastard.

 

She still could have planned further ahead to anticipate things like this. I mean, a bunch of 1st Years get past defences that are supposed to hold off some of the greater dark wizards and witches? That's a tad silly.

Though, I'd say she didn't mean to make Dumbles seem manipulative. Only naive.

 

Largely Story Consistancy

I believe if you look at the canon strictly, you'll find yourself concluding things that are:

- Solid and can be backed up by evidence throughout the text
- Reasonable and plausible

However, we cannot fully immerse ourself into Rowling's world because the Suspension of Disbelief is always snapped by her out-of-book explainings of the text. Rowling fails at showing the reader what she wants us to know in her books. She has to have people field her questions and when she answers them, she explains things you may not have even caught a whiff of.

For instance - and I know this is a sore spot for many - the Ginny Love thread. For two books, perhaps even three, we anticipated what Heron shippers called "One Big Humongous Weasley Family" (OBHWF for short and what I like to call One Big Horrendous Waste of Fiction). Oddly enough, if you think about it though, why did we anticipate it? Was it the canon? Because you could draw lines for any character with any other character and you wouldn't get far. You could establish good ground but they were virtually even, no matter what you put up there. There are over one-hundred thousand posts at the Chamber of Secrets Forums that will attest to that notion, alone.

Then why did we anticipate it? Because Rowling, in her interviews, said that:

- Harry and Hermione were platonic (non-sexual) friends
- She always thought it was oh-so romantic to find your love at a train station (Ginny ran after the train in Year 1)
- That there was some unresolved tension between two main characters (and, frankly, the bicker bitches Hermione and Ron had been going at it strong from Day One).

Low and behold, we still didn't expect to get duped. HBP came and Ginny and Harry hooked up still without any real canon foundation to their relationship. We expected it - we dreaded it but we could deal with it because we're not fucking slash-writers. Where then, did the foundation come from? Interviews. And she further proved this by talking to Emerson (of MuggleNet fame) in an interview that took place hours after the release and that is largely regarded as the shittiest interview ever attempted in the history of man.

In it Rowling had to explain Ginny and Harry's relationship - that they were meant to be. She didn't actually show this, anywhere, really.

Sorry mam, you're sitting with Harry Potter fanatics, talking to them. You don't god damn need to explain something so controversial as the romance thread, ever, in any story. It's usually the most looked at part of a book. But she had to, because there was nothing in what mattered - the books.

This connects with Manipulative Dumbledore in the same way and the Snape the Half-Vampire, Nicolas Flamel/Ron Weasley time thread and every theory under the sun that can be backed by some degree of evidence that doesn't seem entirely stupid or was fielded at the Dark Mark forums.

The fact is: Rowling is not consistant in her story.

The first book was a shot in the dark for her and those who are intelligent enough knew she was bullshitting - just like George Lucas was so he could make two sequels and three 'prequels' - when she said she had the entire story planned out.

If Half-Blood Prince was the setting for Book II, originally, then why Book III through VI? Why invent Portkeys, Floo Travel, Apparation and all these things that are so fantastical and inconstant and ruin the story excessively when you try reading them in one sweep? Why not portkey the pillow, Deathers; why not have had one at the ready (since it can evade Apparation wards [see Dumbledore, OOTP and Hogwarts]) when Lily and James went into hiding in 1981.

The truth is, once more, Rowling is no Tolkien when it comes to creating a universe. She can't make it so you can move through it and immerse yourself in it; she can't create a world where you don't feel duped and where you retain the Suspension of Disbelief that is a must for fantasy.

She's inconsistant and as the years have moved on, she's lost care - you see it in her writing and in how she holds herself in public. When an author with the Magnum Opus that eclipses Magnum Opuses wants to move onto another story instead of revising and providing editions that are in-line with one another, you need to stop investing so much time sleuthing threads in the story and enjoy it for what it is - a cheap, Airplane Thriller Novel.

You move through it quick, get the plot and move on to other things like Fanfiction or your daily activities. Rowling has no twists or plot-turns and she holds us till the Seventh Book with a few scant things:

- Hiding what the Scar means
- Hiding who his parents were
- Keeping a shroud over things like Harry's eyes and Dumbledore and Petunia's past.

As for Manipulative Dumbledore? Dumbledore is the iconic Gandalf/Merlin figure that can be found in Arthurian-like stories. He serves as a mentor. But he fails miserably because he doesn't show human characterstics like Gandalf (caring deeply for the Hobbits and being tricked by Saurman). Rowling calls him human but that's not being human - that's being dumb.

Dumbledore makes big, stupid mistakes that allow the plot to continue. That's what he's there for - to help the story get from point A to point B because he carries the keys and the power. If Tom Riddle couldn't fool Dumbledore, then how could any lesser evil manage it?

Because the plot needs to go on.

Dumbledore is a second Hermione and a second Rowling's voice that gets the plot going. His mistakes are blindingly dumb and exceedingly unbelievable and because of that, manipulative Dumbledore has become a part of fanon and an easy one to orchestrate into any fanfiction that is half-heartedly trying.

In closing, don't dig too deep and happy sleuthing.

 

Aye, and I got his alterego, ixazncha0six

bye bye. Wha... you think I was gonna let Vash steal my evil!

 

on a side note, I actually forgot I made this thread, it's been so long, heh.

 

Dumbledore is manipulative to the extent that he lets Harry fight all of the battles that should potentially be his as Headmaster of the school but makes sure that theres no probability of him failing (except perhaps GoF) and in turn uses Harry's adventures to his advantage as leader of the light.