The problem with Dumbledore is that he is way OP as a character, and thus when he does nothing it seems like he's acting out of character. It's the same age old argument about why would a benevolent god allow suffering to happen.

Really the many titles of Dumbledore are about as bad as head-of-multiple-families-hyphenated-name-indy-Harry. And he as a way cool special wand with unique qualities and an über-awesome magical pet to boot.

If Dumbledore was an OC in a fanfiction, DLP would tear him to pieces.

 

Those that bad mouthing dumbledore for event in book one should read again the book. Especialy the part in the end of the book when harry wake up in hospital wing and speaking with ron and hermione. Hope somebody here would quote it to clear the talk here.

 

You mean the bit where Ron wonders if Dumbledore set them up, and Harry basically says that he (Harry) thinks that Dumbledore did. But it is alright by Harry because Dumbledore gave him hints and clues but most of all the choice to try and help rather than outright stopping him.

Sorry but reading that section again really doesn't paint Dumbledore in a good light. Maybe not in an evil light, but definitely makes him manipulative.

 

Pro-tip: To let people make their own choice and giving them the tools and information so that they can survive both options =/= to manipulate them.

FFS, it's basically the exact opposite.

 

I've always thought that Dumbledore being manipulative and kind of leaving Harry out to dry was kind of a given in the story, the only question in my mind was whether the decisions he made were still the right thing to do.

I find it difficult to believe that he would not be aware that Harry's letter was addressed to a cupboard, or find out from Ms. Figg that Harry was routinely sent to her for babysitting during events like Dudley's birthday. Figg even states in book 5 that she made Harry's babysitting sessions so boring and tedious for him because the Dursley's wouldn't send him to her if they thought he enjoyed them. If she thought so lowly of the Dursley's and was in the area specifically to look out for Harry on Dumbledore's behalf, then I'm sure she'd have mentioned whatever happened to make her think that to him.

Aside from that, the bars on the window events in book 2 would have got back to Dumbledore and Harry did not make much of a secret that he was treated poorly by his family from the beginning of the books anyway. If the Order had enough foresight to decide to 'warn' the Dursleys in book 4 (or 5?) then it's clear they know what miserable guardians they are.

This is all on top of the fact that Dumbledore is a legilimens with fairly routine contact with Harry in the books and has a responsibility as the person who placed him with the Dursley's and insists he returns to them to at least know what the situation is, especially when I'm fairly sure Harry mentions his relatives not caring about him to his face at the end of either book 1 or 2.

With all that said I don't think Dumbledore is evil or anything and most of the stories painting him as manipulative and controlling are beyond awful (although there is enough in canon that it could probably be done well if properly executed). Most likely he had few options and simply made the best he could of them, although it does strike me as strange that even if Harry had to go to the Dursley's originally when there were tons of Death Eaters on the loose, he couldn't be relocated sometime after for the next decade till Voldemort resurrected.

 

So, can we admit that, for the last page at least, there's been no actual conversation here?

Edit: Apparently this is the new "get in to the WBA" thread.

I've scrubbed most of those posts now. Better late than never. - Yak

 

Goten, perhaps you right, it isn't manipulative. It isn't incompetence either because Harry reckons that Dumbledore knows pretty much everything that goes on around Hogwarts. So is Dumbledore senile, then? I mean knowing that these kids, who at the time knew limited and somewhat weak/useless magic (in terms of being able to subdue a huge, three headed dog, a troll and an almost certainly dark wizard/witch), were roaming around a corridor that Dumbledore had said at the beginning of the year they should avoid unless they wish to die a most painful death.

This isn't like teaching someone not to touch fire because it will burn them, and too be honest if it was to teach them some kind of lesson, they most obviously did not learn it in regards to what happens in the second book.

 

I think Dumbledore is a fairly manipulative old man. As many people have pointed out he seems to know what is going on at almost every turn. But I think he simply tries to set things up the best he can for Harry, though the Dursley living choice seems like his worst idea ever..

 

As many people have indeed pointed out, living with the Dursleys is precisely why Harry survived his first year, let alone so many of the fights to follow. I think many people get confused because Dumbledore is manipulative in some sense of the word, but most of his machinations aren't aimed at getting Harry to sacrifice himself, but rather at ensuring that he survives the experience.

 

While manipulation is a necessary part of fighting a war, I think Dumbledore looked at the forest and forgot the trees. I mean, when you knowingly put an 11 year old into life and death situations, that goes a bit too far I think.

 

Dumbledore did what he had to in order to win the war. Dumbledore said at the end of book five that he had never intended for Harry to meet up with Voldemort at age 11. He also did his best to keep Harry out of the loop until age 16. If Voldemort had left Harry alone he/Harry would not have been aloud to fight until he was a proper adult.

Manipulative is a subjective word. If anything I'd say that quite a few times in the story Dumbledore was not manipulative enough.

 

I don't know if it's been stated before and if so I apologize but I feel like Dumbledore has never really been painted in a fair light. In his youth he was a pureblood prodigy who was motivated by Grindelwad's views. Having that background could taint a person's character yet it doesn't seem to affect him quite as much as it should. He becomes by all accounts a splendid instructor and seemingly treats his students fairly. Yet I think his greatest weakness isn't that he's a manipulative twat, which at times I have to admit he is, but rather he chooses to see the positive in everyone. He chose to believe Riddle wouldn't be mistreated because he assumed those in his orphanage were like him: People who didn't have an inferiority complex. Same thing with the Dursleys I mean who would think that so called "normal people" would treat their orphan nephew so badly. One should also remember that after the Potters' deaths he would have had to either help or participate in the clean up of Riddle's followers. Stack that on top of being the Headmaster of Hogwarts and being the Supreme Mugwump of the Wizengamot + probably having other responsibilities to the ICW and you get an elderly man who is stretched much too thinly over his responsibilities. A man who would rather think people are inherently good then have to put another issue on his plate. This notion of good I think comes from an effort of his to see others not as he and Grindelwad did in their youth but rather as he wished they could be. And if he started to see them in a more realistic light he would probably forcibly correct himself for fear of ending up like his old friend, judge jury, and executioner. Indeed the road to heel is paved with good intentions.

 

Well, not really. As someone else stated, it's a perfectly normal thing for a mother to do to humor her daughter. Not to mention that the Weasley family sticks out like a sore thumb, even in the Wizarding World. You have half a dozen fiery-haired people walking through King's Cross with huge trunks and an owl, it's difficult not to draw attention to yourself.
Also, the chances of Harry not meeting the Weasleys is rather slim. Given that there's only a handful of Gryffindor boys in Harry and Ron's year, it's very unlikely that they wouldn't have hit it off later in the year.
Harry meeting the Weasleys didn't need Dumbledore's help. It would've happened regardless.

 

Don't blame Dumbledore, blame the author.

 

There's a lot of odd logic people use to justify Dumbledore as a manipulative mustache twirler and the majority of them generally come from the first book. One that a lot of people have used in fanfiction is that his warning not to go the third corridor is actually an incentive to get children to go there. I don't recall seeing it mentioned before in this thread (I did actually read through all of it, but it's a pretty lengthy thread).

Personally, I cannot even comprehend the logic. Maybe it's because as a child I took the concept of my own mortality seriously. Most of the other logic I can see being used to justify manipulative Dumbledore in one way or another, even if it requires some fanciful twisting of logic, lack of commonsense, or ignorance of causality or fallacious grasp of basic economic theory. I just can't see it and I've never heard it explained past "curiosity" but even then I would have thought more students would have gone to investigate. Basically, is that a legit argument for anyone?

 

My take on the situation:

"So, yeah, name's Dumbledore. Everyone thinks I'm the best wizard ever, but, well, I did a lot of shit with my life that I'm still trying to atone for. Greater Good things, if you know what I mean. Then we had this student called Tom Riddle, and I feel a bit responsible for him becoming Lord Voldemort. Also, he's fucking powerful and, oh my god, look at everyone dying. What should I do? OH MY GOD PROPHECY! I have a plan, let's do this. Okay, but I feel like this plan is quite similar to the Greater Good things, and maybe I shouldn't do it, but maybe it's the only way, but oh god, I love them all and I don't want them to suffer, but what if Voldemort wins? Then they are going to suffer even more and, damn, time is passing, and right now this is the best option, right? HINDSIGHT: It wasn't. Damn. What about this? Okay, awesome this is a good way, but what about Harry? Dude, I love him. He shouldn't go through this shit, but what can I do? Bla bla bla bla"

I think it was Taure that said, in some other thread, that Dumbledore was always divided between what he believed to be his burden in leading the war against Voldemort and his love for Harry and that 'indecision' should be the glasses through which we should analyze his decisions. I think that's what I believe as right.

I wouldn't call him manipulative. I just think he tried to plan things in advance.

EDIT: Typos and stuff.

 

I've never seen it put quite that way, but it's amusing and I think it rings true to how I see Dumbledore in canon. Good job.

 

We are talking about a school that has people like the Weasley twins, who have explored virtually every secret passageway and break the rules on a regular basis. I'd be amazed if they didn't try to find out what was so dangerous about the third floor corridor.

The Muggle-born students would also likely fail to take Dumbledore's warning seriously. I mean, how many regular British primary schools have potentially lethal dangers lying around in areas accessible by students?

On an unrelated note, I can't help but count the nature of the protections of the stone as evidence in favour of Dumbledore anticipating or wanting Harry to go after it. Other than the protections placed by Dumbledore and Quirrell, each of the traps clearly falls into the area of expertise of one of the first year Gryffindors that Harry is close to. To start with, the devil's snare would have been a piece of cake for Neville to deal with, had he decided to come along. Similarly, the chess trap managed to harness the one thing Ron is unusually good at, the flying keys were simple for Harry, and the logic puzzle was trivial for Hermione. Fluffy is an exception, although Dumbledore sent Hagrid to pick up Harry, and surely knew about Hagrid's complete inability to keep secrets. Hagrid even gave Harry the solution for Christmas.

You can also interpret it as JKR making it that way in order for the protections to seem reasonably difficult, yet still possible for the group to surpass due to narrative necessity, but then she could have at least done a bit better job of disguising it.

 

You know, there exist story like that. Just not with Harry, Ron and Hermione at Hogwarts, but Dumbledore as evil man and puppet of larger organization still stands - Rebuilt by Terrific Lunacy. Totally AU.

I wonder why would Dumbledore love Harry? He was just kid of his long dead aquitances - whatever he felt about it - and 'boy who lived'. As for the first part - I totally agree, but instead of 'love' see there his morals or coscience.

Don't get it wrongly - I don't see Dumbledore as evil or malicious man. But neither he checked Harry at Dursleys nor have much personal contact with him during his first years at Hogwarts. Of course, it doesn't mean anything bad - just that he wasn't some sort of always caring grandfather. So thoughts about loving or caring for HP seems a bit off. He could - but the same way as he cared about the unnamed masses for whom he assumed responsibility for defeating Voldemort and Grindelwald.

As was said - it can mean few things. But that doesn't necessarily vindicate A.D.
1. Snape was misled and thought he would be protecting Potter on behalf of Lily's memory - thus Potter would live. I guess it isn't arguable one, is it?
2. Dumbledore meant he had wanted to give Harry semblance of childhood before he would have to die.
3. Dumbledore needed Harry to be 'prepared' (trained) to defeat Voldemort.
4. Dumbledore meant that he needed Harry to be convinced that he had to be the one to face V. It doesn't say anything about D. manipulating H. into this - just that he let it happen.


And in my opinion it is major flaw of Dumbledore and his 'caring' - I can guess he let Harry make choices because they were corresponding with his main goal - kill V. Hero would be needed and if hero was willing - even better for Wizarding World.

Again - don't get me wrong. I don't suggest Dumbledore would manipulate Harry into encountering V. if he wasn't willing to do it (but look at DH - he orchestrated almost all of it to end war and to not let people withdraw in inopportune time just as with revealing stone moments before supposed death). I just want to tell you that Dumbledore would have stopped Harry from his rash, brave and certainly dangerous endeavors if he hadn't wanted him dead. Quirrell would be enough to kill first year student. And it was told he know about it and let it happen.

As for Dursleys - misguided good intentions and thinking he knows better. It shows some of his flaws - not taking others people opinions under consideration and tendency to making arbitrary decisions in some cases. McGonagall told him they were 'worst sort of Muggles' and Snape also would.

My point - he was able to use people's willingness in his plans without revealing all cost and consequences to them. He was leader and did what was asked about. Whatever he used manipulations or forgotten about age (as far as I know, 11 year olds aren't supposed to make important decisions) of our hero when he decided to fight, he carried hopes of wizarding world out. Not some evil schemes as fanon puts it.

 

It seems to me that it isn't really a question of whether Dumbledore is manipulative or not (seems pretty obvious that it is), but more along the lines of how people value his actions within their (philosophical) world view: Someone who might lean more towards a utilitarian view on ethic is probably strongly inclined to judge Dumbledore as essentially good and approve of his actions.

On the other hand people who lean more towards a deontological or virtue-ethics based perspective, will quickly judge his actions to be wrong.

By dividing it into these 2 perspectives it becomes pretty clear that it shouldn't matter how manipulative Dumbledore really is. Even if he were as manipulative as the worst of the fanfic-theories, it would still weigh only Harry's (and maybe his parents) life and happiness against the future of all of magical britain. There's really nothing wrong with manipulativeness if such a trade is seen as morally acceptable.