Evil Dumbledore(GoF Spoiler)
Hans W. Uhlig
long gone. I have just finished reading the fourth book and a couple of
lines Keep Sticking their little noses out at me.
<snip>
"He said my blood would make him stronger then if he'd used someone
else's," Harry told Dumbledore. "He said the protection my - my mother left
in me - he'd have it too. And he was right - he could touch me without
hurting himself, he touched my face."
For a fleeting instant, Harry tought he saw a gleam of something like
triumph in Dumbledore's eyes. But the next second, Harry was sure he
imagined it, for when Dumbledore had returned to his seat behind the desk,
he looked as old and weary as Harry had ever seen him.
<snip>
Ok So is it possible Im reading this right and possibly Dumbledore is
working twards similer goals as the Death eaters or is there something I am
very much missing.?
David Sander
My reading of this is that through a multitude of nudges, plottings,
wheelings and dealings, Dumbledore has manipulated things to make V a
weaker adversary than V may realize.
To whit: D has from the very beginning manipulated things so that Harry
winds up where and how he is (using the Dursleys for character building
as much as protection for example). I'm not for a moment suggesting D is
some omniscient godlet, rather someone with a very firm grip on things,
people, and how they work (although we are continually denied an
explanation of how he knows as much as he knows about the goings-on
around him).
D recognizes only too well the powers latent in Harry, and my reckoning
is that D's triumphant gleam represents the realization that in using
Harry's blood, V has made himself as *vulnerable* as Harry. Harry and V
have tended to share so many things (wand makeup, Parseltongue, what
else?) and yet there are differences too. In becoming ... well ...
*solid* (mortal?) again, V has used Harry's blood to make up himself.
This is also after living off unicorn blood, too (with its inherent
penalties). IOW V has made himself more vulnerable than Harry in some
ways, something D is only too well aware of (but is also not going to
blurt out, either - knowledge is also power).
I believe D's weariness as he sits is due to his own feelings of shame
and guilt using Harry as he has to achieve this result. After all, it's
a huge ask to have Harry face V knowing what he knows, to say nothing of
the tragedies Harry has had to face along the way. AFAICT the
differences between Harry and V are now to the level of V simply knows
more than Harry having lived and experienced more, and their respective
inherent magical powers are pretty much evenly matched (witness the duel
between them near the end of GoF).
The fact that V now has this level probably won't take V long to
discover, though he might be reluctant to openly acknowledge it. My
guess is he's going to rely on cunning, devious plotting and
manipulation throughout his followers to do his bidding. Much like D has
done. What V doesn't have that D does is a Harry Potter by his side.
David
Klaus Opel
just a flash of an idea:
wands sharing the same core make it impossible for their owners to
perform a serious magical battle.
Could it be that sharing blood results in making the "Avada Kedavra"-
spell impossible between those sharing blood? Impossible in the way that
it will go off like a fire cracker instead of an atomic bomb.
Could it be that after overseeing that the self-sacrifice of a mother
protects against Avada Kedavra Voldemort now oversees that sharing blood
does something equivlent?
Different point of view:
In the end of PoA Dumbledore tells Harry that saving someones life
creates a magical band forcing the saved to be protective to the one who
saved him.
Harry didn't save Voldemorts life but by giving his blood (even against
his will) he helped him to regain a real life.
Could it be that while he now is able to touch Harry he will not be able
to do something against Harry which really endangers his life?
Klaus
--
http://www.klaus-opel.de ~ 200 Bilder der Kanaren
lord leto
with love which makes him a less perfect villain. Remember when Vader
threw the Emperor down that bottom-less pit?
"Hans W. Uhlig" schrieb:
David Sander
>
> In the end of PoA Dumbledore tells Harry that saving someones life
> saved him.
>
> Harry didn't save Voldemorts life but by giving his blood (even against
> his will) he helped him to regain a real life.
>
> Could it be that while he now is able to touch Harry he will not be able
> to do something against Harry which really endangers his life?
A good question. The other person saved is of course V's immediate
servant Wormtail. This too could indeed be the result of manipulation by
D (given the circumstances at the end of PoA and D's knowledge of
Harry's attitudes).
Being thwarted this way may mean neither V nor W can directly assault
Harry, but there's nothing to suggest one of V's willing minions
couldn't try it (think: the movie "Demolition Man" (Stallone, Snipes)
where Snipes' character is unable to bump off his villainous mentor
(Hawthorne) because of subconscious pre-programming, but is finally able
to do it simply by tossing a gun to one of his subordinates who easily
accomplishes the deed).
David
Weird Beard
news:9GdR8.1497$Ci1.26...@news.inreach.com:
> Ok I know this has prolly been discussed but all the threads about it
> are long gone.
Ria Heeringa
>
> I believe D's weariness as he sits is due to his own feelings of shame
> and guilt using Harry as he has to achieve this result. After all, it's
> a huge ask to have Harry face V knowing what he knows, to say nothing of
> the tragedies Harry has had to face along the way. AFAICT the
> differences between Harry and V are now to the level of V simply knows
> more than Harry having lived and experienced more, and their respective
> inherent magical powers are pretty much evenly matched (witness the duel
> between them near the end of GoF).
There is also the reversal of the end-result.
After regenerating himself with Harry's blood, Voldemort is able to
touch Harry without any noticable side-effects. To Harry however, this
touch has become pain almost beyond endurance.
So the triumph may point to the fact that indeed Voldemort has become
more vulnerable, or more 'good', or easier to conquer, or whatever, now
he's sharing Harry's blood.
The realisation that it's taken a very strong defense (and indeed weapon
in book 1) from Harry, and put it into Voldemort's hands, may account
for the weariness.
Ria
Frank White
death...@yahoo.com says...
>
>Ok I know this has prolly been discussed but all the threads about it
are
>long gone.
Using Google or looking for a Harry Potter newsgroup FAQ can
save you from a major flaming...
>I have just finished reading the fourth book and a couple of
>lines Keep Sticking their little noses out at me.
Here it comes: The gleam of triumph question, for what
may be the thousandth time.
><snip>
>"He said my blood would make him stronger then if he'd used someone
>else's," Harry told Dumbledore. "He said the protection my - my mother
left
>in me - he'd have it too. And he was right - he could touch me without
>hurting himself, he touched my face."
>For a fleeting instant, Harry tought he saw a gleam of something like
>triumph in Dumbledore's eyes. But the next second, Harry was sure he
>imagined it, for when Dumbledore had returned to his seat behind the
desk,
>he looked as old and weary as Harry had ever seen him.
><snip>
>
>Ok So is it possible Im reading this right and possibly Dumbledore is
>working twards similer goals as the Death eaters or is there something I
am
>very much missing.?
I am still suspicious this is a troll who keeps asking the
same question over and over just to see us jump.
However.
The general speculation is that Voldemort screwed up somehow
using Harry's blood and gave himself a vulnerability he
didn't have before; that he doesn't realize this but
Dumbledore does; but that it's a weakness that can only
be exploited at terrible cost, hence Dumbledore's sadness
the next moment.
As for WHY so many people leap immediately to the idea
that Dumbledore is evil, I blame TV and comic books for
ruining people's grasp of consistant characterization.
I also blame John Ashcroft.
I don't think he's responsible, I just blame John Ashcroft.
^_^
FW
Hans W. Uhlig
> Here it comes: The gleam of triumph question, for what
> may be the thousandth time.
>
Sorry... I dont use google cause they only stock about half my newsgroups
> I am still suspicious this is a troll who keeps asking the
> same question over and over just to see us jump.
>
I am NOT a troll thank you... Just a semi new reader
Peter Murray
"Hans W. Uhlig" <death...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>For a fleeting instant, Harry tought he saw a gleam of something like
>triumph in Dumbledore's eyes. But the next second, Harry was sure he
>imagined it, for when Dumbledore had returned to his seat behind the desk,
>he looked as old and weary as Harry had ever seen him.
><snip>
>
>Ok So is it possible Im reading this right and possibly Dumbledore is
>working twards similer goals as the Death eaters or is there something I am
>very much missing.?
New theory: Dumbledore is bored, and not paying any attention. He's
just remembered where he put his bag of Lemon Sherbets.
But then he realises Snape will have found and eaten them by now, so he
goes back to looking old and weary.
--
..Peter Murray pe...@table76.demon.co.uk
Sean: She has skin like milk. I'm lactose-intolerant, but I still find
that attractive. -- [Cybill "Cybill with an S"]
NadsNIN
hearing V used Harry's blood, because now some of the defenses that were set in
place to keep Harry safe at the Dursleys are weakened and may even be broken
now.
So after V goes and tries to get Harry at the Dursleys, after realizing that he
can, Dumbledore will take him away from that awful place and put him with the
Weasley's that have Arthur, Molly, Bill, Charlie, and Percy to look after him.
And while he is there, he will be able to get the love and attention that he
needs and maybe do more learning and questioning about the Wizard world to
better his knowledge and grow stronger.
Just something that I wanted to add in.
Nina
Frank White
death...@yahoo.com says...
I sincerely apologize.
But can you tell me, please, WHY people keep coming up with
this idea that the gleam in his eye means Dumbledore is
secretly evil? It's THAT that drives me wild, not so much
the question about the gleam itself. I mean, Dumbledore
has been consistantly benevolent - if manipulative - in
his actions, and his behavior past and present gives us
nothing to justify any suspicions. So WHERE does this
idea keep coming from????
(People who want to see what evil REALLY looks like should
watch the anime "Neon Genesis Evangfelion". Gendo will
chill your socks off.)
FW
Michael Abdelmalek
> that Dumbledore is evil, I blame TV and comic books for
> ruining people's grasp of consistant characterization.
I think to be fair, however, Jo has given us more than one occasion where a
supposedly good character turned out to be evil and vice versa. Sirius and
Quirrel both come to mind... that more that anything is why the point is
even up for debate... i fully expect Draco to take some part against the
death eaters.. and i think that's as likely as dumbledore being evil.
Richard Sliwa
send the following to alt.fan.harry-potter:
>> As for WHY so many people leap immediately to the idea
>> that Dumbledore is evil, I blame TV and comic books for
>> ruining people's grasp of consistant characterization.
>
> I think to be fair, however, Jo has given us more than one occasion
> where a supposedly good character turned out to be evil and vice
> versa. Sirius and Quirrel both come to mind... that more that
> anything is why the point is even up for debate...
Actually, they are not fair comparisons.
We know next to nothing about Quirrell before he's unmasked. All we knew
was that he was a valued member of the teaching staff until he went on his
field trip to study vampires which changed him (that he behaved differently
after that trip is a big clue). He gets about 3 lines of dialogue before
his unmasking.
We never even met Sirius until he did one "bad" thing - breaking Ron's leg
- until then, we have nothing to go on but the suspicions of the wizarding
world. His true nature is made clear within a dozen pages. He is a classic
case of the misunderstood character.
This is VERY different from what we know about Dumbledore. He's Harry's
mentor, he's saved him (or been instrumental in saving him) at least twice.
We know that he was instrumental in Grindlewald's downfall and that he was
one of the rallying points (if not *the* rallying point) in the fight
against Voldemort last time around. He is so close to Harry that if
Dumbledore is evil, then Harry must be too.
There is some doubt about just what Dumbledore knows and whether or not
he's manipulating Harry, but if he is, it is ultimately to the benefit of
"good" and for Harry's own long-term benefit. We can't have *every*
character fluctuating in their allegiances. If we assume that Harry is
always good, then we must also assume that Dumbledore is ultimately always
good as well.
I hate to use this example, but Luke and Obi-Wan in Star Wars are a well-
known classic model. The chances of Dumbledore turning out to be evil are
exactly the same as Obi-Wan's.
If you want to make a comparisons with *any* character who it isn't clear
whether they're good or bad, take Snape. But again, Snape is such a well-
rounded character that we see him behaving both for the good, and the bad.
Each time, he has his reasons. His *personal* reasons are to hate Harry and
to do him bad. But his over-all allegiances are for the side of good.
Otherwise, Dumbledore is lying and so Dumbledore is bad, Snape is bad, and
the whole series loses any kind of consistent logic, because ultimately
Harry must be bad (or at least, be a tool for evil) too. *Somebody* who is
driving the story forwasrd must be telling the truth!
> i fully expect
> Draco to take some part against the death eaters.. and i think that's
> as likely as dumbledore being evil.
Not necessarily. There is a story-telling convention as long as human
story-teling itself of the character "born to be bad" redeeming themselves,
but it is by no means certain that it'll happen in every story. There is
therefore doubt about where Malfoy's ultimate allegiances will lie, and he
could very plausibly go either one way or the other. His character has 3
books in which to grow in one direction or the other, and which direction
that will be depends on JKR. My own reading is that he's currently drawn as
very redeemable and it would only take one event to turn him one way or the
other. This does NOT mean that he will grow to befriend Harry, of course.
The question is, whether or not Snape's past redemption is to be a model
for Draco in this story, or a case of "it's happened once, it's not going
to happen again".
Chris Share
(pe...@table76.demon.co.uk) said...
>In article <9GdR8.1497$Ci1.26...@news.inreach.com>,
>"Hans W. Uhlig" <death...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>For a fleeting instant, Harry tought he saw a gleam of something like
>>triumph in Dumbledore's eyes. But the next second, Harry was sure he
>>imagined it, for when Dumbledore had returned to his seat behind the desk,
>>he looked as old and weary as Harry had ever seen him.
>><snip>
>>
>>Ok So is it possible Im reading this right and possibly Dumbledore is
>>working twards similer goals as the Death eaters or is there something I am
>>very much missing.?
>
>New theory: Dumbledore is bored, and not paying any attention. He's
>just remembered where he put his bag of Lemon Sherbets.
>
>But then he realises Snape will have found and eaten them by now, so he
>goes back to looking old and weary.
Now *that* is the best theory I've heard in a looooong time :)
chris
TheShef
> In article <9GdR8.1497$Ci1.26...@news.inreach.com>,
> "Hans W. Uhlig" <death...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >For a fleeting instant, Harry tought he saw a gleam of something like
> >triumph in Dumbledore's eyes. But the next second, Harry was sure he
> >imagined it, for when Dumbledore had returned to his seat behind the desk,
> >he looked as old and weary as Harry had ever seen him.
> just remembered where he put his bag of Lemon Sherbets.
> But then he realises Snape will have found and eaten them by now, so he
> goes back to looking old and weary.
Nah... Snape hates Sherbet Lemons. His favorite candy is Cockroach Clusters.
Shef
Toon
wrote:
>Otherwise, Dumbledore is lying and so Dumbledore is bad, Snape is bad, and
>the whole series loses any kind of consistent logic, because ultimately
>Harry must be bad (or at least, be a tool for evil) too. *Somebody* who is
>driving the story forwasrd must be telling the truth!
Technically, with Harry's blood in V, Harry was used as a tool for
evil. A tool for reviving V.
David P. Robin
> As for WHY so many people leap immediately to the idea
> that Dumbledore is evil, I blame TV and comic books for
> ruining people's grasp of consistant characterization.
>
> I also blame John Ashcroft.
>
> I don't think he's responsible, I just blame John Ashcroft.
Interesting, I tend to blame Newt Gingrich.
David P. Robin
Potthead
whatsoever! Thought of that?
Tony
> (People who want to see what evil REALLY looks like should
> watch the anime "Neon Genesis Evangfelion". Gendo will
> chill your socks off.)
The way he always hides the lower part of his face behind his hands is
bloody creepy... Gotta agree with you, possibly the most evil character in
anime...
Tony (trying to put the images of lots of broken Ayanami body parts
floating around out of his head)