You know, no matter how many times you claim I'm bad because you said so and my points are bad because you said so and yell what amounts to """your opinions aren't facts""", it won't make you any better.

Right now, you're a child throwing shit at me because I made a better argument than you.

I'm tired of being called the ignorant one here. Shape up and make an argument better than "You're just misrepresenting everything!" or "But he wasn't INTENDED to be an asshole, and I've never heard of 'Death of the author'!" or I block you.

 

And you've obviously not understood the concept you're advertising. I'd ask for a passage where canon clearly conveys the idea that Dumbledore is stupid or ill-intentioned and not revokes that statement later (note: That doesn't mean: When he does something JohnnyKing personally does not approve of), but I already got that you're not willing to provide proof.

You're looking for a justification of every single action Dumbledore took and every single action you think Dumbledore could maybe have taken and didn't, and as long as you don't get that (and you know you'll never get that), Dumbledore must be evil or stupid in your mind. Therefore, this is absolutely pointless.

Have a nice day.

 

-) It can work but only if show Dumbledore makes mistaked and not just willingly ignorant (like in the story when Dumbledore created magical devices to monitoe Harry's health but somebody sabotaged them so Dumbledore believes nothing wrong with BWL).
-) Making it clear that Dumbledore's posts in the Government are mostly ceremonial so he can't just demand the trial of Sirius Black without undeniable proof or force the suspected Death Eaters to answer questions under Veritaserum.
-) Show that Dumbledore is getting on in years and nowhere as powerful as he was when he defeated Grindewald. So a lot of people see him as a has-been, living on past glories.
-) Making pro-Muggle fraction in the government a minority, so Dumbledore has an uphill battle every time he tries to change things for better.

 

This is the problem with narratives in Harry Potter, but it's unavoidable. Books 1-3 were intended as fiction for children - hence - cartoonish villians, inexplicable mistakes, one dimensional characters.

By the time Goblet of Fire came out, the demand meant it had had to become a young adult book to keep up with its audience. This meant fewer black and whites, and more shades of grey. This is actually why (against popular opinion) OotP is my favorite book. Harry's portrayal becomes very human. He isn't just tje bold/defiant/loyal Chosen One, he is shown as petulant, impulsive (not in a good way, for once), angsty, making mistakes and for once, suffers as a consequence of one of his hitherto completely helpful traits.


And so is Dumbledore. His decision-making isn't infallible. Dumbledore, as Dicra outlined, made an executive decision with limited information. Under the circumstances there are not very many better + practical decisions. Isolated Harry Potter (from the pitfalls of the magical world and its expectations), muggledom (hence no idea for the Death Eaters whatsoever where he might be), and most importantly, blood wards - remember, Dementors were (from what we know), solely in Azkaban, and it was away from home where he was attacked. Did other death eaters know where he lived? No. Did the ministry? Yes. Could death eaters have pried the ministry for information? Possibly, but a risky maneuver. There is no mention of the Hogwarts records/who else knew admission information. Why not attack McGonagall? Too big a target. Assassinating a formidable witch such as her was too big a move without creating a huge uproar and possible unification against the alleged Death Eaters. If you notice, the deaths of big players happen after the end of OotP (eg. Amelia Bones) when maneuvering behind the scenes is no longer worth the consequences vs. getting aggressive.
I digress, but my point is - there are a million things that could have been possibilities, but story context and plot context rule most of these out.


If it isn't obvious, Umbridge was a bit of a loose cannon. Blood quills and dementors on Privet Drive were her ideas alone (as far as we can gather from canon) - not Fudge-approved.


Dumbledore is not Zero from CodeGeass (who IMO has the best planning in any fiction IMO). He is preternaturally strong, incredibly smart, and very well connected, but NOT omniscient.


The problem with most manipulative Dumbledores is that they change the narrative by cherry-picking facts without context. Context makes Dumbledore's behavior understandable.
With only the abandonment, left Sirius to rot, had his vault key features, I can join these dots with a GreaterGood!Manipulative!Dumbledore - which is a humongous strawman, or I can add in the remaining characteristics for a 3-D, believable Dumbledore. This IMO is a mark of the best writers - getting Dumbledore's whimsies right AS WELL AS his motivations.

 

Let's imagine for a moment that canon Dumbledore didn't exist, and that someone came up with the following OC in fanfiction:

-He has five first names
-He is described as the most powerful wizard in the world
-He is described as the smartest wizard in the world
-He is the only one the current Dark Lord has ever feared
-He personally defeated the previous Dark Lord in single combat
-He has a unique, special wand that's bigger than all other wands
-He is the Headmaster of the best school in the country, the Chairman of the Supreme Court and the Secretary General of the UN
-He is tall, and despite being "like super old" still athletic enough to keep up with all the younger people around
-He has the most awesome beard ever; think Gandalf times 2
-He has a quirk where he dresses in outrageous clothes and no one calls him out because he's so awesome
-He is gay, and had a tragic love story with that Dark Lord he defeated

No matter how well the story was written, most everyone here would stop reading the story after being introduced to such obvious Mary Sue character.

Dumbledore has the same problem all those Indy!Harry Potter-Black-Gryffindor-Slytherin-Peverells do: he is described as too awesome, and when he can't flex all that awesome muscle he supposedly has because that would break the narrative, he just looks stupid.

And just like that Indy!Harry, Dumbledore would work just fine - and better - without all those ridiculous attributes that are never further explored in the story anyway.

 

No matter how well written? I don't agree with that. And: That's the point.

 

Really have to disagree with this, Dumbledore is probably the smartest wizard in the HP world which naturally leads to all his other accomplishments, you seem to forget that in the HP world intelligence and magical prowess correlate and it's not like he just magically got all his skills which is the mark of a mary sue, we know that throughout his life he was studying extensively in all areas of magic.

So being the smartest and dedicated makes him the most powerful which naturally leads to Voldemort fearing him because he is the only one superior to him.

Beating Grindelwald also seems perfectly logical since he was the most powerful who else could win and the elder wand is just a item that he obtained, thats like saying Harry is super special because he has a super Cloak.

Being Headmaster, Mugwump etc. is also perfectly logical he is the smartest character of course he and others want him in demanding positions of power because he is the most qualified what else did you expect, the smartest and most powerful man to be a Janitor?

Being tall, having a long beard and being gay makes him a mary sue because? And being athlectic in his old age has probably to do with his magic so him being powerful probably keeps him fit.

In fact many people do believe him to be crazy to which his clothes probably add but again what do you expect he is the headmaster and defeater of a dark lord so of course he gets respect. He is older than almost anyone around and was probably the teacher/headmaster of most characters we see so they probably think it just don't say it to his face. Even than I can still see Mcgonagall or Moody occasionally throwing a snark at him off screen.

The tragic love story thing was also well implemented in the story and not just some unexplored trash to gain sympathy for Dumbledore.

You could atleast have mentioned Fawkes which seems kind of a bit super and I can't really argue with the 5 names thing but otherwise his intelligence and dedication lead naturally to everything else and it's not like he is the only one profitting from these skills like Voldemort and Grindelwald who build armys, taking over goverments etc.

Besides you seem to completely forget every flaw of Dumbledore like his manipulative side, keeping almost everything close to his chest and not informing people of vital information when he deems it appropriate, his arrogance while diminished with age, experience, the past we still see hints of it sometimes.

Not to mention how much more flawed he was in his youth with his selfishness, thirst for power and the whole enslaving muggle thing.

Dumbledore imo is the most fleshed out and 3 dimensional character in the series who went through a well developed character arc in the past was still flawed in the present but allaround intelligent,cunning,caring,kind,cheerful and funny so he felt the most human to me with many traits which I personally admire.

Not like Snape who I think is the second most fleshed out character and who always added a interesting dynmaic in the story but was a bitter, immature,pathetic unlikable cunt.

 

Logic has nothing to do with it. It's all about storytelling: MoR is logical but it's a bad story. Dumbledore having the character traits of being super and the character flaws of not using those traits is just bad storytelling.

Dumbledore's character traits have all hallmarks of shoddy writing: he is the Chekhov's gun that's never fired; he is the ultimate example of telling, not showing.

The thing is, Dumbledore doesn't need to be the most powerful wizard in the world, being competent is enough for everything he does in canon. Same for intelligence. Dumbledore doesn't need to be feared by Voldemort, and really what the canon shows he really isn't. Dumbledore doesn't need to have defeated Grindelwald, as we don't even know who Grindelwald was. Dumbledore doesn't need to have the Elder Wand. Dumbeldore doesn't need to be the Supreme Mugwump or the Chief Wizard, as those are two positions that are never explored.

Dumbledore doesn't need any of that shit to be "the most fleshed out and 3 dimensional character in the series" who's "allaround intelligent, cunning, caring, kind, cheerful and funny". The fact that he has and doesn't use any of it, makes him look stupid and manipulative, which I'm pretty sure he isn't supposed to be.

 

Sure, Dumbledore doesn't seem to tend to use his many powers, political or otherwise. But that's because he's supposed to be the wise mentor character. He's supposed to save the day in certain ways throughout the protagonist(Harry's) younger years, leaving Harry to learn, grow, and succeed on his own. But he's not there to put on Harry's diaper and directly teach him how to walk, talk, pee, poop, fly, lift thirty thousand tons, become invulnerable, avoid green rocks, and shoot lasers out of his eyes.

He comes in to rescue Harry and co. in the DoM, where Voldemort doesn't seem to openly fear him. Yet Voldemort is somewhat wary and doesn't seem very confident of his chances of victory. Fear doesn't necessarily need to be pants-shitting, cowering, wand-dropping-from-nerveless-fingers, flat out terror. Voldemort is hesitant to face Dumbledore in a straight up, one on one duel, and instead resorts to trickery, distracting him by first attempting to murder Harry, and then possessing him(Harry).

From this, it can be deduced that Voldemort fears Dumbledore at least a little, even if he doesn't scream shrilly and instantly apparate away when faced with his number one obstacle. The DoM fight is the only 'fair' duel that we ever see Dumbledore and Voldemort engage in, both at 'full power,' in the entire series, so it must be what we base our inferences about the two genius wizards' comparative power on.

His many positions, his power, his background- all of this helps set him up as the most infallible 'good' wizard in the series. So that when he dies, there's a ton of suspense, a chance for the protagonist(Harry) to develop in character, and a sense of (how in the hell is Harry supposed to beat Voldemort without Dumbledore to help him, with six horcruxes still out there, and with only two not-yet-graduated friends to find them with) that adds more intrigue to the story.

He doesn't necessarily need to use the positions. Rather, they help make him look like what he was presumably intended to be- a wise, powerful mentor, who, nonetheless, isn't perfect. He knows it and is afraid to abuse his power(because he knows that he easily could if he wanted to) so he misses some opportunities, fumbles a couple plays, and his inaction and/or mistakes does/do make things a bit more difficult for Harry.

This helps keep him from devolving into the Mary Sue OC that was mentioned above. Without these many titles, his backstory, and his genius, there would be no logical reason for him to be as powerful and 'wise' as he is. He'd truly just be an extremely boring and poorly written character. It's much less a case of a failure to fire Chekhov's gun, and much more a case of the gun being fired with a silencer.

This also isn't a play or movie, so that rule isn't entirely applicable. Some things mentioned or shown just aren't better off used. Harry's snowball fight with the Weasleys one year has no bearing on pretty much anything. Yet it happened.

Next, are you going to say that Harry being abused is a case of Chekhov's gun because he didn't use it to garner sympathy, 'manipulate' the ministry, or 'make friends' with Snape? Are you going to say that Hermione's being isolated from her peers when she was younger is another case because she doesn't use it as motivation to make friends with the entire school?

I highly doubt it. Both of these showed in the respective character's personality and actions. It's the same deal with Dumbledore. He didn't directly use most of his political power, but it showed in his actions, as did his backstory. It came out in his speech, personality, and choices.

On a related note, JKR could have added all that political stuff, but I, along with a number of people I know, and most likely tons of people that I don't, would have dropped the series right away. I've read a number of fanfictions that do go deeply into the politics of the wizarding world, and none of them do it well enough to justify ruining the mystery of magic, the intrigue of the wizarding world, and the simple fun of canon. To put it plainly: politics is boring, more so when it's politics that don't pertain to me in the slightest. So Dumbledore could have thrown around his power, but who would have wanted to read about it?

And I get what you're trying to say about it being a waste that he had all of those titles and didn't really get anything done- but I don't agree that that means that he shouldn't have had them at all. Like I said, they manifested themselves more subtly, and heavy focus on politics would have been boring as hell.

Dumbledore is not a case of a failure to do with Chekhov's gun. All of the things that you mention that he could do without are present in his personality and image. They were in there for a reason, and it's not because of a lack of proper planning.

 

While I'll give you that Dumbledore generally shows less than he explains (even though JKR tried to change that in HBP), I don't think that he's generally poorly written. In the first three books, I'd say you're correct, he really seems to be operating below his own level there, but after that? Especially in OotP that Chekhov's gun is definitely fired.

You maybe could rewrite OotP and HBP and the backstory of Grindelwald in a way that doesn't require Dumbledore to be a genius. But would that be a good thing? I doubt it. Dumbledore is the tower of strength, he can't be wiped out, he seems infallible in the first books. And then (that's where it gets quite ingenious) this seemingly-all-knowing-entity-status gets some cracks, especially in OotP. Because even if he is able to do things no one can, even if he is more intelligent than everyone around him, he does make mistakes.
And imagine if he was just another of those "competent, but not more" ones - would his death have had nearly as much of an impact as it did? After Dumbledore died, the tower of strength was suddenly gone, and the reader knew exactly how dire the situation was when even someone like Dumbledore was no longer a guaranteed safety. You'd miss out on the impact it has whenever Dumbledore isn't there (another example'd be CoS).
So, I think the story wouldn't really gain excitement and it would lose the brilliant spin of someone that seemed perfect for more than three books turning out not to be perfect at all.

And if you want Dumbledore to be less intelligent, then you have to rewrite the entire seventh book.

What you're saying here is basically that Dumbledore shouldn't be Dumbledore. No backstory with Grindelwald, no brilliance, no brilliant magical abilities. Instead, you are proposing a regular headmaster that has no special background, nothing more than another version of Flitwick - without the low size.
I don't think your proposal even remotely reaches the fascination a character like Dumbledore could create in the books. You seem to see him as a plot tool, when he really was much more (as evidenced by his thorough character arc in the seventh book).

He needs "all of that shit" to be Dumbledore. Without that factor of nearly everyone looking up to him, especially book 6 and his story in book 7 would have had far less impact.

Sorry if the post is slightly chaotic, it's too late to formulate coherently.

EDIT: Oriks basically said most of the things I wanted to say.

 

Actually, Dumbledore HAD to be that impregnable to make his death that much bigger.

As long as Dumbledore is alive, you basically have a force field around his presence. No one dares siege Hogwarts while he's around, Voldemort is scared of him and his control and power are nigh-unmatched. Draco Malfoy in book 6 is just generally screwing around and as long as AD is on the ball you get a it-is-taken-care-of vibe and you can pretty much trust that.

When the titanic sinks, things change. Not just a little, but continental-shift levels of change. Like a President being assassinated for the first time ever. Everything you have believed about your position in this war is now changed. The scales just tipped MASSIVELY in favor of the other side. Hogwarts is no longer a solid-titanium wall between you and the enemy.

If anyone's played Warcraft, this is why the death of Uther the Lightbringer was such a big deal. As the death of Hector in the Trojan war showed - if the leader of the Paladins could fall, anyone could. All bets are off.

There's now a lot more minor stuff that AD had handled, that is up in arms - such as whatever influence he had vs the board of governors/ICW/Wizengamot/general political connections/school protections. Worst comes to worst, in a straight 1v1 Voldemort, who's your point man? All of this was taken for granted till now, and can no longer be.

As much as I loved AD, his death was necessary.

 

Can not even begin to explain how much I agree with this. It is seen throughout many books that mentors must make way for the hero.

In Eragon, Brom had to die.

In Percy Jackson, the gods could not interfere.

In Harry Potter, Dumbledore had to move out of the way for Harry to be the hero of the series.

 

For other fanfic authors, Shezza must die.