I suppose it's because of all the problems seen in canon (specifically the attack, or supposed attack, every year). If those people were to actually think about it in depth, there were probably some ways Dumbledore could have been seen as doing better (like being extra cautious and making Hogwarts a protected school, but not specifically doing it to just Harry - protecting everyone), but the extremes seem worse than it actually happened.

I'm not sure it's literally a choice between canon, über-helicopter parent (or headmaster), and war general, but I definitely don't think Dumbledore chose the worst path at the time. Again, hindsight bias makes a lot of people (including me) think they could have done better (and perhaps they could have), and then there's the whole "the grass is always greener" aspect, but (you know, if this actually happened) it would have been quite difficult to do better with his limited information if you're trying to work for the good of the future (though starting with "not hiding (or supposedly hiding) a really highly-coveted object from a mass murderer within a school" would probably be a good first step).

 

When people mention that First Years were able to get past all the protections before the Mirror, I just take that as greater evidence of the defenses having been designed as a trap. In fact, if you look at all the challenges (except, perhaps, the troll), they are all different traps, with the Mirror being the most insidious/ingenious.

And, even though they made it through, they barely made it through, and only as a team. For any adult wizard, that kind of trap would only be more effective. For a trap to work, the rat has to get close to the cheese, has to feel like getting the cheese is possible in the first place.

The part in DH where Albus implied that he might have known the truth of who or what Quirrelmort was, and allowed him to remain, under Snape's supervision, also supports that it was a trap. Albus knows he might be there, and doesn't let on so that Quirrell doesn't hide himself better, until he can eventually catch him red-handed.

 

I don't get why people consider the Philosopher's Stone to have been shoddily defended. Sure, the defences set up by the teachers were fairly lacklustre, but the mirror itself was a perfect defence against Voldemort. If Harry hadn't turned up Quirrell would still be standing there wondering what he had to do to get the Stone.

 

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

I suspect that Dumbledore counted on that and somehow knew if the mirror was being interacted with.

 

Fluffy was a pretty good defense too. The only real weakness seemed to be Hagrid's inability to keep his mouth shut on the matter.

 

Or the words 'Avada Kedavra', but then that would have spoiled half the fun.

 

Would people say Gandalf is manipulative? Because Dumbledore is Gandolf. He's the wise old man that gives the hero the tools he/she needs in order to complete his quest. And since our hero is 11 years old in Philosopher's Stone, the zone of competence is going to geared towards 11 year olds than towards the adults.

That's why if you judge the adult characters' actions out of that context then they look completely retarded/sinister. There's nothing even remotely manipulative about Dumbledore; he's just a gear in the storytelling cog.

However if people keep insisting that Dumbledore is manipulative, then they also have to ask themselves why anything happens in Harry Potter the way that it does. Why does Dumbledore guard a precious object like the Philosopher's Stone in a school of all places? Why does Harry live in a cupboard but still feels like he can banter with his aunt/uncle like they weren't awful abusive people? Why is Snape so childish and petty? And they can't because then the story falls apart.

TL;DR Shit's weird cuz it's a children's story. Don't look into it too much.

 

Pretty sure that spell doesn't work on everything, and if it were that simple, I doubt they would have bothered going through all of that trouble to get Hagrid to talk about it. He had to get a dragon egg which can't be easy or cheap, meet Hagrid in a bar, get him drunk, 'lose' the dragon egg in a game of cards, and get him to talk about Fluffy.

 

If that were true then Harry wouldn't have been special.

On the other hand, there's a decent chance that Quirrell simply couldn't cast it or didn't want to do so. If I were to rationalise it a bit, then Voldemort would not have wanted the Killing Curse to be thrown about so casually if he was in such a weakened state. There's a good chance that he wanted to sneak in, grab the stone and be gone before anyone else was any the wiser. Perhaps even remaining at Hogwarts til the end of the year, if he got around any protections that would alert Dumbledore to the mirror being tampered with.

 

Not true. Harry was the only person who survived the Killing curse. If, say, a dragon or Fluffy or a three-toad lizard-frog could survive the Killing Curse, it doesn't make Harry any less special.

Just because some cockroaches can survive 10,000 rads doesn't mean the one human being who could survive it would be any less special.

 

A lot of the series would have the fun spoiled if the villains hid behind a curtain for a few hours and shouted 'Avada Kedavra'

 

We should keep in mind this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Dumbledore was not being manipulative for greed or power, it was for the benefit of everyone, and his actions played a huge role in Voldemort's defeat, even if he wasn't around personally to see it. So yes, he was manipulative, but definitely a good guy.

 

The problem comes when even Hermione seems to think that maybe Dumbledore intended for Harry to square off against Voldemort at the climax of the first book.

There is also no excuse for not so much as questioning Sirius Black before imprisoning him for 12 years. Nor for allowing the Dursleys to neglect and abuse Harry his whole life (which Dumbledore admits to knowing would happen).

But I don't like to think of him as this ruthless mastermind. He's old, and his mind is going. The Dursleys don't seem so bad if viewed from the perspective of someone who grew up a hundred years ago. If Harry is encouraged to seek out danger, it's only to toughen him up in a sink or swim kind of way. "Back in my day..." and so forth.

 

I always thought Dumbledore gave the most accurate description of the situation with the Dursleys during HBP. He essentially said, 'yeah you treated Harry pretty poorly, but it's nothing compared to what you've done to Dudley.'

And that always rang true to me. Were they nice to him? No, but they didn't do such damage that he couldn't be well adjusted, which is not even too uncommon in the real world with actual parents.

 

Two things here. First, Hermione is what 12 years old? I'm not exactly sure that's the best source for someone predicting what Dumbledore intended to happen. Second, Dumbledore wasn't the only one running the show back then. People were trying to clean up the mess and the fallout associated with the war. Loads of bribes were being passed around, people were trying to turn other Death Eaters in for their own freedom, etc. Sirius didn't exactly do a lot to help himself either. Being the person everyone assumed was the secret keeper combined with the fact that he was standing in the middle of an exploded street laughing didn't do him any favours in that regard.

 

I didn't mention Hermione because she's the "smartest witch of her year", but because she idolized authority at the time. If even she was willing to believe that he intended Harry to face Voldemort, then the evidence must be pretty compelling.

It's true that Dumbledore wasn't the only one involved with the Sirius screw-up, but he was the head of the judiciary body. He certainly had the power to ensure that Sirius got a trial, and he failed to do so.

 

I mean his DADA professor did just try to kill him, and earlier that year, she thought that Snape was attempting to curse his broom and actually set the man's robes on fire. I think fanfiction goes a bit overboard on how much Hermione idolizes professors. It certainly exists as part of her character though just not to the extent people try to make it out to be.

 

Both of you have good points.

As to Hermione, it seems like a YMMV thing. She was more worried about being expelled than killed (unless you believe Hermione might have a sense of humor; I have seen no evidence of this). That, plus her thing for Lockhart being (I think) mostly related to his being a published author, and her snitching Harry's broom out to McG, seems to paint her as the authority lover (also, this is the only time Hermione ever criticizes Dumbledore in any of the books, I think). But I can see why you would argue against that.

And I hadn't considered what it might mean that Dumbledore didn't preside over the trials of the Lestranges and Karkaroff. I guess it just seems weird to me that Dumbledore didn't accrue most of his power until after Voldemort was disembodied. Maybe he can't live so-long as the other survives?