I feel that Dumbledore is very much misunderstood, mainly because people insist on trying to pigeon-hole him into one of two camps: perfect or evil. In reality, Dumbledore can only be understood as being the result of two conflicting desires which form the root of his character.

On the one hand, he does not trust himself with power. He hates Grindelwald's philosophy of the Greater Good and would rather remove himself completely from all political concerns. This side of him would have him treat Harry as a regular kid, albeit one he favours, and values Harry's life over winning the war.

On the other hand, despite his attempts to avoid it, he inevitably ends up holding a huge amount of power, by virtue of his intelligence and magical skill. Magical ability in the HP world is important, and when you have it in the extreme people will look to you for guidance. The conflict with Voldemort forces him reluctantly into a position of leadership, because to stand aside would be to allow great evil to occur. This side of him would have him treat Harry as a weapon to defeat Voldemort, and values winning the war over Harry's life.

In applying these two root beliefs, I would suggest that Dumbledore's instinct is the first, but when circumstances grow desperate the second can overrule it. On top of these core attributes, Dumbledore has a number of other beliefs. Among them are:

He values Harry's life over his happiness.

He places high value on freedom of choice.

With these four beliefs and attitudes in mind, I think everything Dumbledore does can be understood. Essentially he's continually compromising, and that balancing act is where he most often opens himself to criticism: sometimes the compromise can be said to be overly cautious, other times it's not cautious enough. Though this is often only clear with hindsight.

For example, some people say Dumbledore should have prepared Harry better, telling him more information and training him to fight. This would fall into the "Greater Good" category: training a child soldier is very much not okay. It would be an immoral act to win the war. So while Dumbledore no doubt considered it, he can't bring himself to do it.

On the other end of the spectrum, some people say Dumbledore should have placed Harry with a wizarding family who would have treated him well, like the Weasleys. But this goes against the ultimate priority of keeping Harry alive, because the Dursley household was the only place he could be sure Harry would be completely safe (as demonstrated by what happened to the Longbottoms days later).

(Also, it's heavily implied* that the Bond of Blood requires the Dursleys' freedom of choice and so Dumbledore cannot apply pressure for them to treat Harry in a certain way. Forcing them to treat Harry well would mean the Bond of Blood would break.)

We can also see the fine line Dumbledore walked in PS. He allowed Harry to learn about the Philosopher's Stone and the Mirror of Erised, and even hints that Harry might come across it again. He gives him the invisibility cloak to aid him. However, he never forces Harry into wandering the halls of Hogwarts at night (whereupon he found the Mirror), nor does he force Harry to go after the stone. Harry chose to do both of those things. In doing so Dumbledore simultaneously tested and prepared Harry, in line with his second core attribute, but at the same time respected Harry's ability to choose (which derives from his care for Harry). Harry could equally have chosen to hide in his dorm, as 99% of children would have done.

I could go on, but I think these are sufficient examples for now.

What I find most interesting about this is that different people criticise Dumbledore from different angles. Some people criticise him for treating Harry too much like a child, others criticise him for not treating Harry like a child enough. Hell, sometimes one person will simultaneously criticise Dumbledore for both at once, which just goes to show what a difficult position he was in. Essentially, both motivations are valid. Dumbledore knows this, and that's why balancing them and reaching a compromise is so hard. No matter what compromise you arrive at, the result will be unsatisfactory, because the situation overall is shitty.

 

You write Dumbledore so well that it's great to read your insights on his character. You have a very good grasp on him. You've mentioned how earlier in the series Dumbledore compromises and, in my mind, defaults regarding Harry and Harry's own choice towards pursuing the stone.

In the later books, like OoTP and HBP where the war has kicked off, how do you feel the equilibrium and conflict in Dumbledore shifts? In a war situation rather than peacetime, do the factors informing his actions change at all, would you say?

 

I would say it's not so much a linear change but rather a U-turn.

At the start of the series, Dumbledore's plan was for him to focus on preparing Harry for Voldemort. He says as much in OotP. This is "reluctant leader" Dumbledore.

Then the "flaw in the plan" intervened: confronted with Harry in person, his "anti-Greater Good" side takes over. He finds himself caring for Harry, and he delays preparing him in favour of trying to preserve his innocence, while still allowing him some measure of freedom of choice and preparation.

However, at the end of OotP we have something of a U-turn back towards "reluctant leader". Crunch time had arrived sooner than Dumbledore had hoped and he found himself with no choice but to include Harry more, treating him less like a child and more like a weapon.

The plan for Harry to die and resurrect is a curious matter. From Dumbledore's extremely specific instructions to Snape, to the "I open at the close" enchantment on the snitch, we can only conclude that Dumbledore miraculously predicted the events of DH almost entirely, and so what happened was more or less his exact plan.

We can see the conflict between his two halves here more blatantly than anywhere else: 1. He needs to win the war to avoid great suffering and evil, so Harry has to die. 2. He cares for Harry greatly and would rather not sacrifice him, so engineers a method of survival, albeit an uncertain one. But given Dumbledore's ability to predict the future so accurately, it is perhaps not as uncertain as you'd think. 3. He respects Harry's freedom of choice above all other things, and ultimately leaves Harry the choice to sacrifice himself or flee. He gives Harry the information that Voldemort can only die if Harry does too, but he can't and won't actually make Harry do it.

In the end, by giving Harry the choice, Dumbledore's final act reveals his true colours. He cared for Harry so much that he gave him the choice to die or flee, and in doing so essentially showed that he valued Harry above the entire wizarding world. But at the same time, he knew Harry well, thanks to the various ways he had tested Harry. He knew that Harry would not choose to flee.

 

There is a contradiction to this in canon. The Order threatened Vernon into compliance after Harry's fifth year. Which was too little and too fucking late. There is no canon explanation for Dumbledore leaving Harry to the Dursley's tender mercies without giving them the incentive to treat Harry fairly.

As for the 'choice' thing, let me put things in a different perspective here:

Are you going to pretend Harry made an informed choice here? Weren't you arguing a few days ago that ten year old kids couldn't consent to have sex because their decision was uninformed? How is the case any different here? Harry knows nothing about Voldemort and yet goes to face him. From any point of view, Harry's chances against Voldemort were next to nil. Quirrell might not have been able to touch Harry, but any spell would have finished him off.

In any case, Harry running off to face Voldemort at eleven is suicidal, stupid and most of all, pointless. Dumbledore had no right to manipulate events in way a that risked Harry's life for no reason at all. It is not much different from handing a suicidal kid a knife and telling him to make a choice.

Eh, I wouldn't really consider that much of a choice. "Die or All of your friends die" isn't much of a choice. Even Voldemort gave Harry a choice : Join or die. He was genuine too. Probably.
To be fair, Dumbledore is faultless here. Probably. It still wasn't much of a choice regardless.

This is another problem with the Dumbledore character in the last couple of books. He seems to know everything. Somehow he knew that the Snake would be the last horcrux (despite common sense contradicting it), that Snape would have the chance to talk to Harry and tell him that he had to die despite the fact that Harry would have killed him on sight, that Harry would get sudden insights to Voldemort's mind, giving him the location of the horcruxes. Did he get a Divination mastery that I missed somewhere?

Another of Dumbledore's eyebrow raising decisions was telling a mere three teenagers about the horcruxes. I mean, Really? Did he suddenly start mistrusting much more qualified wizards like Moody, Shacklebolt and Snape? Objectively speaking, the Trio had next to no chance of locating the horcruxes. Even if they did find them, Dumbledore had not given them the means of disposing them ("Just stab them with the sword, my boy!". Now was that so hard to say?). Plus given the protections on the locket and the stone, Harry had no way of reaching them anyway. So the entire Grand Plan was extremely far-fetched and it would have been better to bring some senior Order members into the loop.

So, No, I still do not understand Dumbledore and I doubt anyone could if you consider all of canon. I do know that the way you understand Dumbledore is probably the way JKR intended to write him, so it can be considered his canon characterization for all intents and purposes. Despite this, there are still parts of canon that don't fit into Dumbledore's "hard choices" persona, which is the entire reason the Manipulative!Dumbledore and Incompetent!Dumbledore cliches exist. Do remember that while characterizing him.

 

'How, oh tell me how, how can Dumbledore know what's going to happen?'

Divination is an entire field of study within the narrative and people still are surprised when prophecies come true?

I'm thinking most people have the wrong impression of Dumbledore when it comes to prophecy and Divination- he's a true believer, he just doesn't give credit to most Diviners as they're usually so immersed in self-deception to tell what matters from what's incidental.

Dumbledore absolutely believes in the prophecy, or else he wouldn't pay any attention to Harry at all. He has a society to 'reluctantly' guide and several avenues of investigation to pursue in finding an enduring solution to Voldemort's resilience. There are plenty of war orphans to dote over, but Harry is Important. If he weren't, Dumbledore would only pay about as much attention to him as he does to Seamus Finnegan.

 

I think I posted something along these lines a few times already, so I'm just leaving the link here.

Might add something more later, as Dumbledore is one of the more interesting characters.

Otherwise, I do not believe Dumbledore believed that the prophesy would come true. He just knew that Tom would put great importance to it, and that would make it and Harry relevant.

 

Obviously I've thought about this sort of thing a lot. That's why I wrote an anti-cliche diatribe disguised as a story. Dumbledore isn't perfect but he still makes sense

 

Dumbledore could have made sure Harry was happy as well as alive. All he had to do was influence the Dursleys. He didn't do a single thing, for 15 years, to protect Harry's childhood.

Even worse is his protection of Snape's abhorrent abuse. It takes a real sadist of a man to torment a boy until you become his greatest fear, as revealed by a bogart. And Neville hadn't even done anything to Snape, hadn't even had parents who had done anything to Snape. Protect Snape's cover? The best spies are those who do not act like they are working for the other side. Snape could have easily told Voldemort that he had to act nice to not cause Dumbledore to get suspicious.

Then we have Umbridge literally torturing children with her blood quill. Dumbledore let her, and didn't interfere, even though a man with his power could have done something. And he should have been aware of it, unless he really didn't keep tabs on his best hope to defeat Voldemort in his own school.

There is no excuse for those failures. None at all.

 

I will have to disagree with you there. Dumbledore knew Harry will sacrifice himself to save the world. His entire plan depended on it.

At the same time I also believe that he knew that the only way to save Harry and the wizarding world was to have him willingly walk into the arms of death. Which in the end resulted in his salvation. It showed Dumbledore's deep grasp of magic and how it worked, something Voldemort for all his genius or maybe because of it failed to grasp. It was this knowledge that he passed to Harry too and by the end of the book it can be safely assumed that Harry's wisdom now rivals Dumbledore's.

 

I see the entire "plot" of Harry sacrificing himself as one contrived piece of stupidity that would be made fun of here if it wasn't canon. It only worked out due to ridiculous coincidences and some "wand lore" that seems like made up on the spot.

 

Good points, but all of them are debatable. I've found in their blind hatred for the Dursleys people fail to see the situation from their point of view.
I know I'm playing Devil's advocate here but lets face it Harry was a kid they never wanted.
You can judge them all you want because of it, but it was a shitty situation for them too.
Dumbledore needed their cooperation to protect Harry, but as much as he wanted to, I doubt he could have made the Dursleys treat Harry, a kid they obviously didn't want, better. So it is understandable he kept his distance as long as things didn't go too bad.

Yes, Snape was an asshole and his behavior isn't acceptable for the most part, but it can be argued that Neville is a horrible student in potions and Snape's frustration with him while not justifiable is definitely understandable.

As for Umbridge, I don't think Dumbledore was as omniscent as you believe. I doubt he knew about the blood quill, as Harry never told anyone.

 

Please note, the contradiction in the bond of blood may not be what it seems. There is evidence in canon that the bond does not actually require total freedom of choice for the Dursleys, but also evidence that DUmbledore believed it did. This is not a contradiction, it merely means DUmbledore was mistaken. The magic is obscure and complex enough that the mistake here is easy to make, even for a great wizard like Dumbledore.

 

I guess simply bribing them was impossible for one of the most powerful wizards in Britain. Or maybe having some muggle authorities pay attention to the Dursleys. Or maybe add some compulsion charms to the house.

Yes, Dumbledore could and should have done something. But he never even tried. Never. He simply setn Harry back to a family that hated the boy - and yet Dumbledore believed in the power of love? That makes no sense at all.

Explaining that Snape is an asshole or his reasons to abuse children doesn't excuse Dumbledore's inactivity in any way. He should have prevent that abuse. Again, Dumbledore's at fault with no excuse.

If Dumbledore didn't keep an eye on Harry when he was in detention with a teacher that had made it more than clear that she hated the boy, then he was dangerously inept.

Dumbledore - inept or evil when it comes to child abuse?

 

Have I been operating under a false interpretation here? My understanding of the first book was that Dumbledore had constructed an elaborate plan regarding the stone and Voldemort that didn't involve Harry *at all.* I thought the whole point was that he would lure Quirrell/Voldemort onto the Third Floor, frustrate them with the Mirror of Erised and then show up to subdue Voldemort (and if possible, save Quirrell?)

My understanding of Harry's first year was always that, rather than being subtly tested, Harry had in fact blundered in and almost fucked the whole thing up, but ended up saving the day through such raw nerve and ridiculous, selfless courage that Dumbledore couldn't help but be so moved that he didn't care about a whole year of planning gone to waste?

Yeah, there is the Christmas discussion about the Mirror, but that may simply have been nothing more than his way of examining Harry's character and desires at an early stage of his long-term plan.

-

Regarding Dumbledore's almost omniscient knowledge of events - besides the theory that has him playing God to Harry's Christ, perhaps he actually was proficient in the art of Divination. (I'm not entirely serious but it might make a good idea for fanfiction, who knows.) Still, otherwise his ability to foresee events in the seventh book amounts to being either frighteningly good at predicting events through analysis or ridiculously lucky.

 

Not to mention that even if Dumbledore had tried to do something about it, it probably would've ended in "Inquisitorial Decree #Whatever: Umbridge is totally allowed to use blood quills on Harry Potter."

 

Dumbledore might have been afraid that bribery or cumpulsion would cause the bond of blood to fail.
Snape isn't really a child abuser. He's unprofessional and plays favorites, but yelling at students who make catastrophic mistakes is perfectly reasonable for a teacher to do. What does he do that is child abuse?
Dumbledore likely didn't think he had to spy on Harry's detention. He frankly has better things to do and likely assumed Harry would tell him of anything serious happening. Normal students wouldn't keep quiet about the blood quill. So... "inept" I guess.

 

Or impotent? Remember, Dumbledore actively avoided getting too close to Harry in that year. He was definitely monitoring him from afar, but there would have been a great cost to Dumbledore and the school if he intervened too early and he was undoubtedly weighing cost against benefit. When he eventually had to act to save Harry it drove him from the school.

Harry, out of a sense of pride or machismo or shame very deliberately hid what was being done to him in those detentions. Personally, I think if Harry had taken it to madame Pomfrey or there'd been a hint of it to McGonagall (who he must have been relying on a lot regarding Harry) then Dumbledore would have come down on her like a herd of erumpents.

EDIT: super ninja'd, but yeah; a lot of us have rationalised it the same way.

 

Thank you. Dumbledore's plan was only valid until Harry sacrificed himself to destroy the horcrux. The Elder Wand Deus Ex Machina wasn't a part of Dumbledore's scheme. So all would have been for naught had it not been for the Deathly Hallows shenanigans anyway. Harry won the final battle due to pure luck and not Dumbledore's manipulations.

 

Again you're exaggerating the abuse angle here. Harry was neglected.... yes but I don't believe he was abused.... not physically anyway. He did go to school, was clothed and fed and had a roof over his head. They were jerks to him no doubt, but the situation could've been worse.

Snape is snide, petty, puts people down and is I'll admit borderline abusive. But I don't think he ever crossed the line where the poor students needed protection from him.

The Umbridge situation is again debatable. I'm sure if Dumbledore had known about the blood quill he'd have put a stop to it. He did have a lot on his plate and I'm sure he can be forgiven for failing to keep an eye on one kid among many. Also you've absolved Harry off all blame here. If only he'd swallowed his pride and simply told Dumbledore or even Mcgonnagall about his predicament something could've been worked out. But alas! Common sense is no match for teenage ego!

 

We all know how Snape treats his students. Verbally bullying and abusing them. Snape becomes Neville's bogart. His greatest fear. If that is not a proof of abuse, then what is?

Dumbledore hasn't anything better to do than making sure Harry is not hexed, charmed, compulsed or otherwise hurt in a detention with an admitted bigot who hates the boy. Especially after Harry's trial. If Dumbledore hadn't cottoned up to the fact that she has it in for Harry and can't think of ways she could use such a detention to further harm the boy - maybe have him compulsed to do something to justify his arrest or expulsion - then he's worse than inept.

---------- Post automerged at 19:31 ---------- Previous post was at 19:29 ----------

You've got a really warped view of abuse. Harry was kept in a cupboard for years! That's abuse. He was psychologically abused daily.

Snape crossed the line with Neville for sure, and with others likely too. His remarks were cruel to the extreme - like to Hermione when she got hexed by Draco in year 4. That's abuse.

And no, Harry was the chosen one. Dumbledore not keeping a clsoe eye on him while enemies roamed the halls of Hogwarts was stupid to the extreme. You do not put your only hope of beating Voldemort at such risks - even less if you are willing to have him abused just to keep him safe.