Agreed. I think it is undeniable that Dumbledore, to one extent or another, is manipulative. One can simply use as proof his manipulations regarding both Harry and Snape.

But it's not like Dumbledore was dead set on manipulating Harry, as can be seen at the end of OotP. He himself was constantly walking the line of whether to reveal everything, or let Harry have a "normal" childhood. At the end of the day, Dumbledore did care about Harry.

Thus, Dumbledore has definitely got a manipulative personality, but it is seriously reaching to use his extreme characterizations in fanon.

 

Except that by keeping Harry ignorant rather than turning him into a child soldier, Dumbledore frequently puts Harry's interests above those of the wizarding world. Like I said in my first post, Dumbledore runs a balancing act and does not consistently place Harry's interests above the world or vice versa. He tries to balance the two. He keeps Harry ignorant of uncomfortable truths, but allows Harry the freedom to discover them for himself. He doesn't push Harry to confront danger (as he would if he was training a soldier), but permits Harry to seek it out.

Going by the fandom's absurd definition of "manipulative" (which basically amounts to "influence or control"), all parents are manipulative. Dumbledore is essentially Harry's parent (due to in loco parentis) and those actions of his which are called manipulative are typical of good parenting (e.g. withholding uncomfortable truths until the child is old enough to deal with them). The problem with Dumbledore, from a traditional parenting perspective, is actually that he's not manipulative enough. From the parental perspective, he allows Harry too much freedom to seek out danger. That's where he's compromising his duty to Harry to satisfy his duty towards the wider world. But he does it selectively and within limits, not completely. He still mostly puts Harry's interests first.

With regards to Dumbledore's conversations with Snape, everyone seems to forget that Dumbledore is telling Snape what he needs to hear, not the truth. The truth is that Dumbledore was planning for Harry to survive the forest encounter with Voldemort, but he also needed Harry to enter the forest fully believing that he was about to make a genuine sacrifice. So Dumbledore lies to Snape about sacrificing Harry in order for Snape to believe it fully and then pass that belief on to Harry.

It's just one of those things you have to accept about Dumbledore that he had an inhuman level of foresight. Dude is like the Emperor from Star Wars.

 

not manipulative

I wouldn't say Dumbledore is manipulative, but maybe that's just because of the negative connotations of the word. I'd say he's a very intelligent, very odd old man and as such he understands/knows a lot more than those around him and doesn't feel the need to share. I think he's strategizing on a much wider picture and while he withholds information, I don't think he's actively manipulating anyone.

Besides I don't like fics where they completely disregard his grandfatherly nature, I think that's integral to his character, especially seeing as he came to that in with all the stuff that happened with grindenwald.

Anyway, Dumbledore was a Gryffindor wasn't he?

 

So Gryffindors can't be/aren't manipulative?

 

From the very start, Dumbledore knew that Voldemort was going to return, and he knew the contents of the prophecy. Despite this, he places Harry with the Dursleys, a muggle family. The result is that Harry starts at Hogwarts with a significant disadvantage, in terms of both general wizarding knowledge and experience with magic, relative to his non-muggleborn peers. He then proceeds to provide Harry with virtually no assistance or instruction, despite Harry going through many life threatening situations. Even after Voldemort's return at the end of GoF, Dumbledore does not provide him with any training or instruction in how to defend himself, despite Harry's obvious importance as a target.

Wouldn't it really be in Harry's best interest to be able to protect himself from the masked madmen who are trying to kill him?

Choosing this middle ground is even more irresponsible, in my opinion. If he's going to allow Harry to get himself involved in dangerous situations, he should have at least taught Harry how to defend himself first. Instead, Harry almost dies half a dozen times in his first few years of schooling.

And why doesn't Harry have guardians who are able to make informed decisions about his welfare? Ah yes, because Dumbledore placed him with a muggle family who couldn't care less about him. The end result is that Dumbledore effectively placed himself in the position of the person with the most influence over Harry in the magical world, with his "kindly grandfather" role.

My knowledge of DH is a bit rusty, but from what I recall, Dumbledore was certainly hoping that it would remove the Horcrux without killing Harry, but that outcome definitely wasn't guaranteed. He didn't even know that Voldemort would kill Harry with an Avada Kedavra; a piercing or blasting curse would have done the job just as effectively. Even after Harry sacrificed himself, there wasn't a guarantee that things would turn out well. This whole sequence was highly unlikely, to say the least.

Considering the vast number of things Dumbledore bungled over the course of the series, I'm far more inclined to believe that the success of his absurdly complicated plan in DH was mostly luck. After all, that's the one thing that Harry seems to consistently have going for him.

To answer the question of whether Dumbledore is manipulative, I would agree to a certain degree. He clearly influenced events in Harry's life, from the age of 15 months onward, but the more damning fact in my eyes is that he did a poor job of it. Being manipulative carries negative connotations, but Dumbledore did sincerely want the best for people, including Harry. The issue is that he screwed up far too often in those manipulations, resulting in the Dursleys, Quirellmort, etc. Then again, if Harry didn't have an ongoing series of problems every year, the plot of the series would be far less interesting.

 

Do people actually still make this argument with a straight face?

Fanon fantasies of super "independent" badass Harry aside, there is literally no amount of [normal] training that would have put Harry in a position to defeat Voldemort by skill alone. Unless you're proposing that Dumbledore lock him away from the outside world and force him to use a Time Turner to add twenty extra hours to each day all of which are spent reading up and practicing spells. I don't see how that is good for Harry's health.

Dumbledore spent his time teaching Harry to understand his opponent and the much more powerful forces he had to rely upon (such as the twin cores, and his mother's protection) instead of turning him into some sort of robot child soldier, and apparently that was the horrific choice?

Not to mention, why would any half-intelligent general spend time and resources training someone whose job is to die? It's a testament to how much Dumbledore cared for Harry that he stalled for so long looking for a means that would let him live rather than be destroyed like any other Horcrux.

Edit: and let's not even get into the clusterfuck of Dumbledore leaving Harry with the Dursleys so that he could have control of him. You do realize he could have, I don't know, taken custody of him as a baby and literally no-one would've made a peep? Or even realized that he'd done so, given that no-one seemed to know Harry's whereabouts prior to his first year at Hogwarts.

 

One of the big "Dumbledore is manipulating Harry from the start" theories goes that Dumbledore placed Harry with the Dursleys so that he would have low self-esteem and a desire to save others in order to ensure Harry would decide to die to save everyone else.

Impossible.

Dumbledore did not even suspect Voldemort had used a horcrux until Harry was in 2nd year and the diary, so he could not know Harry needed to choose to die at Voldemort's hand until at least that point. He hadn't started making plans for Harry to beat Voldemort until Voldemort's resurrection, when the method of Voldemort's return gave him the final pieces he needed to actually make the plan.

As for any idea that Dumbledore placed Harry with the Dursleys knowing they would treat him horribly, there is no canon evidence that is true. Everything Rowling writes about the man leads you to think she intended for his decision to be for 1) his protection and 2) a genuine belief that growing up away for his fame would be good for his upbringing. Everything in the narrative indicates that Dumbledore's failing in this matter was in believing the best of others.

Dumbledore's final plan was a manipulation. He did need Harry to go act in a way that he expected and arranged for him to have the information he needed just before he would go in to confront Voldemort. He was confident Harry would make the choice he wanted, having seen him grow up over the years. He didn't make him that way, but he knew how Harry would choose and used that.

Other than that, however, he was not manipulative of Harry or any of the students.

He was manipulative of others, though, particularly Severus Snape and Cornelius Fudge. He leveraged Snape's love of Lily for all it was worth. He handled Fudge at times (but to be fair, only to see the right thing done in spite of the minister's ineptitude). And Dumbledore manipulated events in anticipation of Voldemort's actions.

But by and large, he worked with informed consent and on the basis of his follower's faith in him or his knowledge of their character and personalities. And that includes Harry Potter.

 

It's like they haven't met Harry Potter. Even before he learned he was a wizard he was casually insulting the Dursleys like no-one's business, and he had a very firm if average opinion of himself. Then again to some people anyone who isn't an arrogant self-aggrandizing douchebag has low self-esteem.

He doesn't have a saving people thing, he just tries to protect his friends (like, you know, most normal people). There are several instances when he watches and even laughs at other people getting hurt (for varying degrees of "hurt").

And again, Dumbledore could simply have raised him by himself. I mean, it's not like this evil manipulative version would have any concern for blood protection...

 

You're misinterpreting what I said pretty significantly here. Obviously, no one would expect Harry to be able to beat Voldemort in a fair one on one fight, but after fourth year, it's obvious that Harry is at risk of being attacked or kidnapped by Death Eaters. He's already quite talented at defense, so how hard would it be to get him reasonably proficient at self defense with the dueling champion Flitwick or an off-duty auror?

Because obviously the only two choices here are to teach him nothing or to turn him into the Terminator...

Maybe because there is a prophecy that he plays an integral role in? Really, how hard would it be to get the DADA professor or an order member to give him some extra lessons? He wasted most summers at the Dursleys anyways, so it's not like he didn't have time.

Yup, because Dumbledore would have raised a toddler in addition to holding two of the most prestigious political appointments in the wizarding world, as well as running Hogwarts... I'll agree that the whole Dursley issue is a clusterfuck, but Dumbledore must have been either willfully blind or astonishingly incompetent to leave a baby on their doorstep without checking up on him, particularly after McGonagall's advice.

 

And after fourth year, it's obvious (to Dumbledore) that Harry's role is to die. Somehow you seem to not get that.

He was a Horcrux, just like the ring or the cup or Nagini. For Voldemort to be defeated Harry was supposed to die. Like I said, it's a testament to the fact that Dumbledore cares about him that he didn't just let him die without a means of surviving. I mean, what is the life of one boy weighed against thousands of lives?

A prophecy that only had weight because Tom Riddle gave it weight. I don't know why there's this fandom idea that only Harry could have killed Voldemort. Without his Horcruxes (of which Harry was one) he was as mortal as anyone else. (See Eowyn and the Witch-King for more about the descriptive rather than prescriptive nature of prophecy).

I'll repeat it: Harry's role was to die. To be a sacrifice, not a conquering hero.

Because Dumbledore is the only person in the world who's extremely busy. I've known people with effectively over fifteen hour working days who somehow managed to achieve the apparently impossible task of raising children, without the convenience of magic to boot. It's not like this hypothetical Dumbledore is looking to raise a well-loved and well-adjusted child.

It's so strange, how Dumbledore is supposedly sinister enough to leave a toddler in a bad home situation for nefarious purposes but clearly must be aiming for World's Best Dad if he chooses to raise the kid himself.

 

I think this is where the underlying difference of opinion is. My point a couple of posts above was basically wondering why Dumbledore didn't do more to prepare Harry when he is described as the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord in the prophecy. It's clear that Voldemort was at least threatened by it, which painted a pretty huge target on Harry's back, and Dumbledore knew that Voldemort would return. It would be odd for Dumbledore to discount this interpretation entirely, especially due to Voldemort's belief in it. The interpretation of the prophecy is an open question in my opinion, since we will never know whether it was possible for someone other than Harry to kill Voldemort.

Prior to the end of book four, Dumbledore has no idea that Harry is a horcrux, so it's surprising that Dumbledore isn't at least hedging his bets by giving Harry some preparation for the future. This is when you get into the whole child-soldier debate, but my opinion was that especially after Harry's multiple near death experiences in first year, it would have made a lot of sense for Dumbledore to arrange some supplemental training for him. You're right that the situation changed after fourth year, when Dumbledore likely realized that Harry was a horcrux, but that doesn't explain his lack of action before that point.

 

Its like people haven't even read the books. The only reason Dumbledore left Harry with Dursleys was because of his mother's protection. As long as he was there he couldn't be hurt by Voldemort. How difficult is that to understand?
And the fact that Harry could hold his own against adult death eaters is proof enough that he didn't need training beyond what he had already gotten. Dumbledore prepared Harry in the way that mattered. Revealing Voldemort's secrets and weaknesses.

 

The blood wards as described in the books are definitely powerful, but the description is rather vague as to how effective they are. As described, they only protect against Voldemort specifically and possibly his death eaters, but not dark wizards, dark creatures, or imperiused muggles. The protection also only extends to the home itself, not the nearby park, school, etc. It would have been more effective to just put Harry's home under a Fidelius.

 

I hardly think the Dursleys would have been okay with being put under something like the Fidelius. And it's impossible to adequately train a child to handle the variety of potential problems that could come his way, hence Mrs Figg, not to mention whatever precautions the Ministry had against such problems in any Muggle location.

 

My point was that a Fidelius charm would have been more effective than the blood wards, so Harry could have been placed with a wizarding family and been just safe, if not safer, than at the Dursleys.

Also, Ms. Figg is a squib, making her virtually useless in any emergency situation. When the dementors attacked Harry after fourth year, Ms. Figg could not even see them, let alone assist in driving them off.

 

The Fidelius charm might have protected him when he was with them, but then he would have died in the first year itself when facing Quirrell. His mother's protection, reinforced by living with Petunia, was what saved him then.

Also, the dementors were arguably an edge case, since Dumbledore clearly hadn't predicted the extent to which Fudge and co. turned against him and Harry - that's why I mentioned the Ministry above, since it stands to reason that there are extensive measures to ensure that dark creatures don't run amok in Muggle areas, and Dumbledore would have been expecting those to at the least provide some form of warning.

 

This is incorrect, his mother's sacrifice was what protected him from Quirrell. The blood wards are based on his mother's sacrifice but they are separate, and only protect Harry from Voldemort (and possibly the death eaters, this is unclear) while he is at home.

If I remember correctly, the dementors sided with Voldemort in the previous war, so I don't think they are that much of an edge case. I doubt Ms. Figg would have fared much better against a werewolf or a mercenary dark wizard either. Also, I think you are vastly overestimating the competency of the Ministry here. We don't really know what measures they have in place, but the fact that Umbridge was able to order such an attack and that the dementors were able to travel to Surrey without being noticed does not reflect well on the Ministry.

 

Can you give a source on the first part? On my phone right now, but I could swear that 'blood wards' are a fanon extension of the mother's protection, which is all that Harry was at the Dursleys' for.

As for the second, it actually does reflect well on the Ministry, at least as far as competence in handling such affairs his, since Fudge abd Umbridge were the highest executives of it. Them displaying such a fine degree of control to the point where they could release Dementors into a populated Muggle area and keep them focused on a single target is actually evidence that the Ministry has pretty good control over the Dementors. We don't know what measures have been instituted since the previous war, but don't the Dementors only join Voldemort this time around after the Ministry falls?

 

My interpretation of the two quotes below is that the protection on Harry's home is some sort of additional charm placed by Dumbledore based on the his mother's sacrifice. This is then distinct from the original sacrificial protection, which caused Quirrell to be burned by his touch.

 

As far as we know, there is no protection on Privet Drive the building. As the quote from OotP says, the bond of blood Charm, fuelled by Lily's sacrifice, is on Harry, not Privet Drive. Privet Drive is only special in so far as it's where Petunia lives, whose proximity makes the Charm stronger.