Well, the title of this thread is "How 'Manipulative is Dumbledore Really?"
So, you see, I thought it wise to converse about his own manipulations rather than the manipulations of other characters.

 

I genuinely believe that you have less than 10 posts that aren't bitching about Dumbledore or taking fanon out of context. You refuse to accept direct quotes from canon as proof, and you continue to argue a point that is hopelessly lost in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I know I'm a twat for such a direct post, but I just wish you'd re read this thread and all the other ones you've done this in and explain to me how you could ever continue to believe you were right.

 

Eh, I've only posted about Dumbledore being manipulative in 2 threads.

Believe I was right about what? Dumbledore occasionally manipulating people? No, I am right about that. The books support me.

And I don't think a person who -- believes someone in Dumbledore's position could possibly survive without occasionally manipulating people -- to even be worth talking to.

The enormous amount of lack in intelligence needed -- for someone to think a politician of his caliber and notoriety within his society could possibly survive without occasional manipulation -- is quite staggering. Such an individual would not be worth my time.

But regardless, Albus Dumbledore is my favorite character in the entire series. I hold no dislike for him, nor do I disapprove of his methods. If forced to be in his position, I would certainly be much more heartless. Many people would.

 

So you essentially don't have a point. Everybody manipulates everybody. Every conversation can be essentially described as manipulation if you really want to.
A better point to attempt to make is: Is Dumbledore more or less manipulative than average. That way you won't make asinine points.

 

He's a politician -- of course he's involved in more manipulation than the average person.

How stupid does one need to be not to acknowledge that? And again, I'm not accusing anyone in particular.

We know that Dumbledore was testing Harry throughout the years -- he admitted it. Or have you -- no one in particular -- been so long away from the books that you can't remember that particular conversation he had with Snape?

Severus Snape accused Dumbledore of manipulating him, and Dumbledore did not deny it. Severus Snape accused Dumbledore of manipulating Harry, and Dumbledore did not deny it.

Yes -- Dumbledore did manipulate people.

If you -- no one in particular -- can't see something so obvious, perhaps you should set an appointment with your doctor and get your head scanned.

 

He's pretty damn manipulative. His 'master plan' in so far as he had one consisted of Voldemort going after Snape since he thought Snape had the Elder Wand, Snape telling Harry Harry was a Horcrux and Harry surrendering to Voldemort. His plans were just to complicated involving to many decisions by other people.

The difference if that for every step Dumbledore to took to set up his plans there's one he didn't take because he didn't want to be manipulative. He wasn't decisive in his manipulation.

At least that's my view on it.

 

I don´t think that Dumbledore believes in the "Greater Good" he obviously rejected it in the books. And I totally agree with Taure on his view why Dumbledore didn´t tell Harry the Prophecy.

I just wanted to say it was Rowling´s plan for Harry to meet Voldemort in the forest, not Dumbledores the detention just doesn´t make sense it was only a device to bring Harry to Voldemort and imo Rowling didn´t try to make Dumbledore appear manipulative or as if he planned their confrontation.

And many readers just falesly try to see something in the reason of the detention like a mustache twirling AD planning the whole thing, eventhough Rowling did the detention only for convenience sake.

I mean to say that Rowling occasionally does stuff for plot progression and excitement and no regard to the characterazation of the character or how we perceive them.

For example third year, their is literally no reason at all why Dumbledore just doesn´t take the Time Turner from Hermione in the Hospital Wing and saves Sirius on his own or at least go with Hermione and Harry, if we try to see this logically.

But because this is a fictional childrens story and it would be very boring for the reader to see the protagonist just put to bed while somebody else solves all problems we can assume that Rowling just let Harry save Sirius to make it more exciting and didn´t take into account (or just thought it wouldn´t be necessary in a childrens book) how Dumbledore would appear as a character to many readers letting a 13 year old put himself in danger to save the day while he could have done it with minimum effort. Which was obviously not implied or her intention.

We can´t take many of the early books at face value in regard to characterization because they were more targeted towards children and only the last ones were targeted towards teenagers.

Harry for example, realistically would have been a emotional wreck after living with the Dursleys and never that well adjusted.

Many people just don´t like AD because they think he stopped Harry from becoming a badass or think he could have taught Harry to be one. But lets be honest even if Dumbledore would have taught Harry magic from age 11 to fight Voldemort (which he shouldn't from a morally standpoint). Harry was just a average wizard and he could never become LV's equal magically.

And it is ridiculous to think that he would be at age 17 no matter how many epic summer training montages.

 

Ignoring pretty much everything else in this thread because of the extreme levels of derp:

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the seventh book was that Dumbledore deliberately set Harry up with information that placed him in a situation where he felt as though he had to die to see Voldemort finished.

Dumbledore knew that this would likely not kill Harry (but couldn't sure of this) but didn't tell him for the sake of invoking the same magical protection that Lily bestowed upon Harry for the people Harry died to protect.

Justified or not, this strikes me as manipulative.

So was Dumbledore manipulative? In my opinion, yes. Was Dumbledore a mustachio twirling villain who delighted in Harry's unhappiness. Certainly not.

 

I know I shouldn't but... Oh well.

Could you give a quote from the book for this? I may have been too "long away from the books" cause I don't remember this detail.

What I do remember of the conversation about Harry being a Horcrux, however, is that Dumbledore didn't seem particularly honest in this one -probably the one time in the whole series he didn't look at his interlocutor in the eye. I always assumed he was feigning detachment so that Harry, if/when he saw the memory, wouldn't hope to survive (thus giving a chance to actually survive and granting everyone teh Protection).

 

Deathly Hallows -- Chapter: Prince's Tale

Then Snape said, "I thought...all these years...that we were protecting him for her. For Lily."

"We have protected him because it has been essential to teach him, to raise him, to let him try his strength," said Dumbledore, his eyes still tight shut.

 

I heave a mighty sigh whenever one of these threads pop up. Because come on, really? Really?

But to stay on topic:

I can see how someone would take that to mean Dumbledore was testing and manipulating Harry, but only in the case of a very shallow understanding of the overarching theme of the Harry Potter story itself.

The particular quote you've chosen to prove your point isn't really effective. What it shows me is that Snape is kind of a jerk, as if protecting and raising an orphan should only be done for the sake of a mother who died years ago and who you still want to bone.

On the other hand, I read Dumbledore's part of this quote as coming from someone who cared immensely for Harry. What he said is what every good parent strives to do for their children. You're supposed to protect them, teach them, raise them, and let them try their strength. The only thing Dumbledore is guilty of is probably caring too much. This scene just serves to demonstrate how much it's destroying Dumbledore when he thinks about all the things Harry will have to endure after he dies.

I really don't think you have any evidence to back up Dumbledore manipulating or testing Harry, not in the way you're implying. Unless you consider a parent raising their child as a form of manipulation. Taure has done a very good job of showing that it was Harry's free will that got him into most situations and I won't belabor the point here.

Would it be possible to just blanket ban this topic forever? It's like magnet for all kinds of idiocy.

 

This must be done. For the Greater Good.

...... :awesome

 

Guys, I just thought up of something really stupid. Imagine:

A kind of canon rehash featuring the frustrating life of a manipulative, pragmatic Dumbledore who has to maintain the facade of a kindly old headmaster of a school for children. He is trying to use all the tools (people) at his disposal to defeat Voldemort, the only one to see past Dumbledore's manipulations (but since Voldemort's still an evil monster no one really believes him).

The only problem for Dumbledore is a nosy kid named Harry Potter and his stupid friends who keep blindly stumbling into, and ruining, his carefully laid out plans. Dumbledore can't get rid of Harry directly because he's just too damn famous, and eventually Harry and company get themselves so tangled up in Dumbledore and Voldemort's plots that they become the keys to ending it.

 

That wasn't his plan. He wanted to end the power of the Elder Wand entirely by going willingly to his death, and had no knowledge of the fact that Voldemort would become interested in it (which happens entirely in The Deathly Hallows).

The later parts are too focused on specifics.

 

Would actually be an interesting story if Harry, Ron and Hermione had a normal an uninteresting time in Hogwarts for the first 5 years, and if Ron and Harry were prodigies like Hermione.

Have them stumble upon a conspiracy and travel the world looking for more clues to the plot.

Perhaps Dumbledore would just be a puppet for a group like the Illuminati who are searching for Atlantis, or some other crazy shit.

 

Oh, riveting.

 

No. Just no.

 

=potential for unlimited angst(the whole 'our lives changed so fast/world vs us unwilling 3 musketeers'). I'm doubtful that the "Golden Trio" will have the same connection and trust to one another, meaning that the usual "happy go lucky" trio goes down the drain. With what emotion or background settings will you entwine the story other then angst? After a peaceful life revolving around 13 year old school drama, could our heroes really tackle this monumental and slippery obstacle?