(no subject)

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

Am I the only one a little bothered by Dumbledore? Not only with the fact he could end up in the Guinness Book Of World Records for "Most Incompetent Headmaster of All Time" (though I'm sure there's worse. :P), but also because...he just bugs me. I know JKR was trying to write him as the "flawed Yoda", so to speak (and to be fair, he's nowhere near Yoda. XD), but it's also how...preachy he gets. Towards Fudge, for example. You know, in Goblet of Fire, with, "You place too much importance on purity of blood, yadda yadda et cetera et cetera" -- which considering how he treated Tom Riddle and the Slytherins is...slightly hypocritical isn't it? Probably bad writing on JKR's part, though. :/

Anyways, sorry 'bout the rambling. Thoughts?

Comments

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

Am I the only one a little bothered by Dumbledore?

You haven't been here long, have you? :p

only with the fact he could end up in the Guinness Book Of World Records for "Most Incompetent Headmaster of All Time" (though I'm sure there's worse. :P)

It's hard to imagine how anyone could have been worse without actively attacking the students. He's incapable of spotting his old friend is actually a psychotic DE in disguise, he hires Lockhart despite the implication that he knew his secret all along (and despite the fact that Lupin would almost certainly have been available and willing), he hires Hagrid, he lets Draco continue his murder schemes even after Katie almost dies, he didn't realise that Myrtle's death could, as far as we know, only have been caused by a basilisk and that oh look, there's a burgeoning sociopath who happens to be a Parselmouth... actually I'm not sure if incompetent is the right word so much as dangerously negligent. The leader of a vigilante antiterrorist force should not be the headmaster of the only school in the country (not that he was a very good leader of a vigilante antiterrorist force either).

I know JKR was trying to write him as the "flawed Yoda", so to speak (and to be fair, he's nowhere near Yoda. XD)

I'm not even sure she was aware of how flawed he was by the end. I strongly suspect that as far as she was concerned, he made some mistakes when it came to Grindelwald but after that he was perfect and all-wise and spotless (vomits).

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

"
It's hard to imagine how anyone could have been worse without actively attacking the students. He's incapable of spotting his old friend is actually a psychotic DE in disguise, he hires Lockhart despite the implication that he knew his secret all along (and despite the fact that Lupin would almost certainly have been available and willing), he hires Hagrid, he lets Draco continue his murder schemes even after Katie almost dies, he didn't realise that Myrtle's death could, as far as we know, only have been caused by a basilisk and that oh look, there's a burgeoning sociopath who happens to be a Parselmouth... actually I'm not sure if incompetent is the right word so much as dangerously negligent. The leader of a vigilante antiterrorist force should not be the headmaster of the only school in the country (not that he was a very good leader of a vigilante antiterrorist force either)."

*This*, just this! :D

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

I'm not even sure she was aware of how flawed he was by the end. I strongly suspect that as far as she was concerned, he made some mistakes when it came to Grindelwald but after that he was perfect and all-wise and spotless (vomits).

The part that throws me, that makes me wonder if she is, in fact, very aware of how flawed Dumbledore is, is the scene in Snape's memories where Snape says:

I have spied for you and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter’s son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter –

I feel like those few lines summarize very well how Dumbledore has misused and mistreated both Snape and Harry.

Would she have had Snape speak them if she couldn't see the truth in them?

[sunnyskywalker]

I think Snape operates like the voice of her subconscious sometimes. He says things she realizes but can't admit to herself, like, "You've totally screwed up this wise mentor thing to the point where he's probably not redeemable." A kind of signal from Fred, another example being when Ron points out what a waste of time the camping trip is.

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

A very interesting interpretation, really. :)

Can you just picture Snape leaning over her shoulder while she's writing? :P

SNAPE: Um, Jo, are you sure this is a good i --

ROWLING: Go back to bed, Snape.

SNAPE: *Grumbles*

[sunnyskywalker]

SNAPE: This is your Chosen One who's going to save us all with the power of love? Oh, so it's wands calling each other long distance now to see who's their master this week? Better just have rocks fall and everyone die. It'll be more convincing.

ROWLING: LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. BUSY PLANNING YOUR DRAMATIC BUT PATHETIC DEATH.

...Say, I think now we know why Snape had to die! He'd totally ruin the ending by pointing out its problems.

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

XD

New appreciation for Snape? Check. :3

And I'll admit, for some reason, while reading the "dramatic but pathetic death" line, I couldn't help but picture Snape channeling INDIANA JONES after JKR wrote the Nagini chapter:

SNAPE: A snake? Why'd it have to be a snake?

ROWLING: ...um, really meaningless but cool phallic symbolism?

SNAPE: *Facepalms*

[sunnyskywalker]

SNAPE: A snake? Why'd it have to be a snake?

I am convinced that this is exactly what Snape was thinking during that scene. He just couldn't say it on account of the neck wound :D

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

That's very possible. I didn't know that the phenomenon was called a "signal from Fred." Learned something new. :D

If this is true, it seems like Rowling has an unusually high lack of self-awareness for an author. But maybe it's just unusual that a story with such problems made it past the editors.

[sunnyskywalker]

Since she was so secretive about the master plan even to her editors, I can see how they might convince themselves that they were worrying too much and she'd resolve it all in Book 7 somehow, because surely she recognizes these things and won't just leave them dangling. And then once they got the last manuscript, it's too late and they just have to do the best they can...

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

Maybe. :)

Poor editors, though. :( *Hugs them*

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

I'll admit, I think Internet pop culture's infected me so much that when I heard the term "signal from Fred", I first thought of Fred from Youtube. :P (But the other definition sounds good too. :)

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

That's a very good question.

Maybe she was trying to portray Dumbledore as Necessarily Evil, but I think it was more, "Uh-oh, he's coming across like a douchebag to the readers" than it was actually an organic part of the story. (Mr. Plinkett will testify; it's happened! :D)

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

What I have trouble with RE her trying to write Dumbles as flawed or necessarily evil in that scene is her statement that she sees Dumbles as being "the epitome of good." It's one thing to say that the character is basically good but due to circumstances has to commit some morally bad acts (a very short description of my interpretation of Severus for the most part); it's another to call such a character the unqualified 'epitome of good.' Because if those actions get a blanket justification and so don't count against the character's goodness, then one is basically arguing that the ends justify the means, and it's ok when the Good Guys do it because it's not the action that is wrong, its the intention behind it.

Which actually might solve my dilemma. Sadly. :( An ends-justifies-the-means, 'it's not evil when WE do it' morality does rather fit in well with many of the other WTF moments in the series, such as the Harry-Christ-figure engaging in needless torture, come to think of it.

Arg.

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

Ugh, Harry-as-Christ. I think Marauder put it best: "Jesus Christ called -- he's sick of his name being tarnished." Or something like that. Marauder's awesome. :3

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

"Jesus Christ called -- he's sick of his name being tarnished."

Slapdown FTW!

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

THIS.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

I mean at least Jesus really died, rather than living through some convoluted scheme because God couldn't bear to kill him off..

[sunnyskywalker]

She's trying to have her cake and eat it too - oh, he's flawed for teh drama and to explain certain plot holes and because it's writing advice, but he's also the epitome of good! Which might work if they were minor flaws with minor consequences...

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

I know, right? *Facepalms*

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

unless she's really just playing with us when she says he's so good.

Wishful thinking, I know.

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

Well, to be accurate, the impression I got from reading that transcript is that she definitely wanted the reader to *percieve* Dumbledore as the "epitome of good". Which isn't quite the same thing.

Remember that that particular interview took place somewhere around midway through the series. When it was still possible to regard Albus as an unequivocal good guy, even though people were already having their "Hey, wait a minute..." moments regarding what he was clearly doing.

I do *not* believe that at any point in that particular interview she ever claimed that *she* regarded Albus as the epitome of good. We were always supposed to eventually discover his feet of clay. It's just that she has such a poor sense of porportion that the feet of clay rather turned into limbs of mud. Slimy mud, even.

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

*This*, just this! :D

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

Yeah, see, I never paid much of any attention to the interviews or to discussions of fandom until recently, and so, based on my reading of the books, I had thought that she had meant to hoodwink us into thinking that Dumbledore was the prototypical elderly mentor and then pull the rug out from under us in book 7.

Without the train station scene and the epilogue, that is exactly what the story would look like, I think.

I'm still not entirely convinced that that wasn't originally her intent and she just failed to execute it very well. Or maybe she chickened out on doing it in the end.

Rowling's View of Dumbledore

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Well, to be accurate, the impression I got from reading that transcript is that she definitely wanted the reader to *percieve* Dumbledore as the "epitome of good". Which isn't quite the same thing.

Remember that that particular interview took place somewhere around midway through the series. When it was still possible to regard Albus as an unequivocal good guy, even though people were already having their "Hey, wait a minute..." moments regarding what he was clearly doing.

I do *not* believe that at any point in that particular interview she ever claimed that *she* regarded Albus as the epitome of good. We were always supposed to eventually discover his feet of clay. It's just that she has such a poor sense of porportion that the feet of clay rather turned into limbs of mud. Slimy mud, even.


I'm sorry, I can't agree with that. Here's the direct quotation from the interview done July 13, 2000.

E: Do you have more fun writing the evil characters? Because Voldemort [the sinister wizard who killed Harry's parents] is the quintessential evil character.

JK: Yeah, he's a bad one. Do I have more fun? I loved writing Dumbledore and Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness. But I loved writing Gilderoy and I loved writing Rita. Because I just find them comic characters. (Emphasis added.)

That certainly sounds to me as if she's asserting outright that she herself believes Dumbledore is "the epitome of goodness." There are no qualifiers at all in that statement. It's a compound sentence, the first part of which is her feeling ("I loved writing DD"), and the second part of which is a statement of fact she is making about her character ("DD is the epitome of goodness").

I also don't see any references to how she wants the readers to perceive DD. As far as I can tell, she is expressing her own belief about DD's goodness, nothing more and nothing less.