More on Albus Dumbledore_

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Hi, everyone. This will be quite short, but something sunnyskywalker said in a previous discussion rang bells with me. What if these books aren't quite what we think they are?


I am thinking of an interview with Rowling some years back, when she answered a question about her faith with words to this effect: "I struggle to keep believing". If anyone has the exact quote, I'd be grateful!

Because, you see, that is quite moving to me. It is hard to keep believing in God when you witness truly evil things happening to people you love. At least, you can't go on believing, like a child, in the wise old man with a beard who will make everything all right. That's so obviously not what God is.*

But, in these books, we have a wise old man with a beard. And he is very, very imperfect. Rowling's depiction of Dumbledore does, indeed, seem like an indictment of sorts.

But Dumbledore is obviously not God. He is just the headmaster of a wizarding school. Harry, despite some of the imagery surrounding him, is just as obviously not Jesus. Who is he? As I said on my blog some time back, he is an everyman character - specifically, he's Percival, the fool.

And - I think there is some kind of sense there, lurking deep down. I can't quite put my finger on it, but sometimes I think it's there.

Because, if there is a Christ figure at all in these books (but I don't think there is), that is definitely Severus Snape, in spite of his obvious imperfections. If Harry is Percival, Snape is the Fisher King; the wounded king of a wounded land. And what heals the Fisher King? Compassion and curiosity. Percival is supposed to ask a question. We all know that Harry never does that, don't we?

But, if Snape is the Fisher King and Harry Percival, who on earth is Dumbledore? Because he's not God. Not consciously, anyway. And - it's interesting that one of his names is Percival. What I'm getting at is that I sometimes think that the 'lost boys' of Hogwarts are all facets of him.

Rowling is playing with some very powerful archetypes in these stories, I think, and that's why we are still struggling to find meaning in them.

My two cents!

* As those who know me know, I'm a devout Catholic. To me, God is nothing like Dumbledore.

Comments

[lissa2.livejournal.com]

"As those who know me know, I'm a devout Catholic. To me, God is nothing like Dumbledore."
To me, the biblical god is even worse:

"2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Sam. 15:2-3).

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Well - probably better not to get into a theological debate here. I actually agree with you (and Helen Keller), that the Old Testament God, in particular, seems monstrous if you take him literally. I've read the Bible in its entirety twice, and it was pretty hard going.

Let's leave it at that. Whatever you think, or don't think, of God, the problem with Dumbledore is what Lynn outlines below. He's not God; he's just some guy, and yet blind obedience to him gets rewarded, while questioning is punished. He also never shows mercy to anyone, certainly not to a repentant sinner. And that is very unlike the God of the New Testament.

Getting back to Dumbledore, and my original post - what if we are not meant to like or admire him? What if we are meant to see that the entire wizarding world is acting out his psychic conflicts? That would be interesting, wouldn't it? But I am not sure it's possible to read the books this way. I'm wondering if it is, and, if so, what Rowling could have meant by it.

I also have a lot of sympathy for her if, in the figure of Dumbledore, she was expressing her anger at God. It's okay for a believer to be furious at God sometimes! What gets me is her insistence that he is "the epitome of goodness". I can't manage to follow her there.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

I talked about this some in the other post. I never paid much attention to either Rowling's interviews or fandom discussions until recently, so I formed my interpretation of the story in a bit of a bubble.

I had thought that it was her intent to lull her readers into believing that Dumbledore was the prototypical benevolent older mentor with the long white beard... and then to catch us by surprise in DH by revealing his true colors. Why else, I thought, would she devote so much much of book 7 to Dumbledore's background story and his involvement with Grindelwald? I wrote in another essay (http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/254529.html) about how we could even interpret the evidence we have, including Snape's memories, in a way that suggests that Dumbledore intentionally leaked the prophecy to Voldemort.

As I said in the other post, I thought that Snape summarized Dumbledore's true character quite well.

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.

Harry, of course, is still faithful to Dumbledore at the end of the story, and even names his son after him. But I'm not entirely sure if we as the readers are supposed to agree with his feelings. Time and again we are shown that what Harry believes to be true turns out to be entirely wrong. And Harry certainly hasn't reached anything resembling enlightenment by the end of the story.

Why should we trust Harry's opinion that "All was well" at the end of the story?

But then, apparently what she has said in her interviews belies this interpretation. It's confusing to me that what she has said in her interviews about Dumbledore and Harry being the "good guys" and the "heroes" is not at all what she's actually shown in the text. It makes me wonder if she is doing some kind of performance art in her interviews, where she tries to stay "in character" as the narrator inside Harry's head when she answers questions.

I can't tell if she's truly that screwed up that she can't see the blatant moral problems in the story or if she's playing some kind of post-modern game with us.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

Then again, other aspects of her story are so sloppy that it makes it hard to believe that she was intentionally being so clever.

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

You basicly put everything I have a problem with into this post.

I originally read the books up to OOTP without really being in the HP universe. It was only after I read OOTP that I started looking online for discussion.

I think once I got into fandom and tried to discuss the books I sort of saw a bias, It tended to be difficult to discuss the story objectively sometimes. I wasn't particularly any characters fan. Even after reading up to OOTP, I didn't really have a favorite.

The fandom is actually formed my opinion of Snape more than canon did; I guess I wanted to be a little stubborn. I saw so much hatred that it made me question if I was reading a different story.

After HBP came out and I read that, so many were pointing the finger and it was apparently proof that Snape was the bad guy. Yet from my own personal opinion it didn't prove anything and I pretty much believed that this was some kinda setup JKR was creating.

And then you start reading the JKR interviews and her comments about canon and character; it makes you again, thing we're talking about two totally different book series.

She created all the characters, you'd expect her to be able to have the ability to speak objectively about every character. From Snape to Voldemort and Harry to Dumbledore. Yet, when you read the interviews you really get the sense that the author is just as bias as the fans.

Using Snape as an example, after Deathly Hallows, if a person has read all the interviews. I've watched quite a few but I tend to like to read them. When asked if Snape was a hero, and you see the word typed out that JKR (gasps) at the question.

How the hell as a reader are we supposed to react to a (gasp) from the author?

I mean, she wrote the book right? She does know what she wrote? So why the hell would it be a surprised to her that some people would see that Snape played a big roll in the downfall of Voldemort and also read it as he was heroic.

It's like you have to drag it out of her. Finally in one of the last interviews I read she sort of agrees he's an anti-hero.

My problem is, IF she is so in agreement that Dumbledore is good and deserves her praise - then why doesn't Snape? Why isn't she just as objective in her comments?

I can't tell if she's truly that screwed up that she can't see the blatant moral problems in the story or if she's playing some kind of post-modern game with us.

Yes, exactly. Thats sort of what I wonder as well, that she's putting on a front, that she is just playing a part. A majority of fans I'm assuming are die hard Harry/Hermione/Ron fans. And Dumbledore seems to still be held up to some kinda 'godline' status as a good guy. So, in some way I also wonder if she's just playing this roll of favoritism just becasue tahts what most of the fans seem to agree with.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

The fandom is actually formed my opinion of Snape more than canon did; I guess I wanted to be a little stubborn. I saw so much hatred that it made me question if I was reading a different story.

After HBP came out and I read that, so many were pointing the finger and it was apparently proof that Snape was the bad guy. Yet from my own personal opinion it didn't prove anything and I pretty much believed that this was some kinda setup JKR was creating.

I was vaguely aware of the Snape hate back then and the strong beliefs that he was a villain after HBP. My guess before DH was that he was a good guy, mostly because I thought it would make for a more interesting story. ;)

She created all the characters, you'd expect her to be able to have the ability to speak objectively about every character. From Snape to Voldemort and Harry to Dumbledore. Yet, when you read the interviews you really get the sense that the author is just as bias as the fans.

Yeah, I also have trouble imagining how an author could have so little understanding of her own characters. I don't know how you can write characters without understanding them. But maybe that's fairly common for authors.

A majority of fans I'm assuming are die hard Harry/Hermione/Ron fans. And Dumbledore seems to still be held up to some kinda 'godline' status as a good guy. So, in some way I also wonder if she's just playing this roll of favoritism just becasue tahts what most of the fans seem to agree with.

That could possibly explain what she's doing.

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I also have trouble imagining how an author could have so little understanding of her own characters. I don't know how you can write characters without understanding them. But maybe that's fairly common for authors.

I can only speak for myself, but I doubt that the majority of authors don't understand the characters that they create.

What I can say is that each character reflects aspects of the author's own psyche, their emotional makeup, their mentality and their personal psychology. This is true whether creating totally original characters, or borrowing characters from another author...IOW, even tho Severus Snape is a creation of Jo Rowling, the Severus Snape in my own fanfiction reflects my own psychological makeup, not Rowling's.

Over the many decades that I've written short stories, I've created characters that were pretty dark, psychologically damaged, or just outright confused! LOL

But I had a complete understanding of each dark/damaged/confused character; if a character was supposed to be unlikeable, and/or a "villian", then they were clearly so. My story may provide an explanation for why that character is the way he or she is, but I don't waffle about the character and their motivation(s).

Ditto the good guys; my good guys are rarely perfect, in fact I can say that they are almost always damaged in some way (I actually had a college professor criticize me on this). "Perfect" characters are boring, so I continue to write leading characters who are generally "good", but who have definite flaws, with resulting problems.

So if I was a creator of a character who, thru out the story, has ambiguous motives, who on the surface comes off as possibly a villain, but at the end if revealed to actually have been a hero who martyred himself, I as the creator of said character wouldn't have any problem in accepting that said character is really a hero. Period.

Heroes can have major flaws (indeed, that is the basis of most great literature); Rowling seems to have a problem in understanding that -- or more pointedly, in coming to terms with those aspects within herself.

Ditto her villains; the most frightening villains are the ones who are actually good-looking and have pleasing personalities, not cartoon caricatures.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

Yes, your relationships with your characters sounds far more like what I would expect.from an author.

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Yes, your relationships with your characters sounds far more like what I would expect.from an author.

They're my babies, and good, bad, or ugly, I love 'em all! LOL

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

That's about how I treat my characters too. I think that an author should be able to sympathize just as much with the villains, to an extent, since that seems to make for much more interesting, realistic ones.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

But I am not sure it's possible to read the books this way. I'm wondering if it is, and, if so, what Rowling could have meant by it.

*engages pedant mode*
It's most definitely possible to read it that way, regardless of what Rowling may or may not have intended.
*exits pedant mode*

And I think the reading holds up - certainly Dumbledore's influence is all over wizarding Britain's culture at least since he aided and abetted Tom back in the early days of his career (and exacerbated by his defeat of Grindelwald and becoming Headmaster of Hogwarts). The main conflicts in wizarding Britain by the time of the books are between Albus, the Ministry, and the bloodists (didn't swythyv come up with something like this?), and since the main force behind the bloodists is Tom, we have Albus effectively directing one and a half sides (it's debatable how much of Voldemort's personality was developed in reaction to Albus and how much was just Tom's sociopathy), not counting whatever shifting influence he had in the Ministry*. This three-way combat model does, however, ignore the goblins (as did the books, but what reason is that to shut down analysis?), and since I can't see them getting on with any of these factions in the long run**, maybe they'd provide a constant destabilising force regardless of how many factions there were.

*How influenced by Albus' issues do you suppose Lucius was? It would be interesting to see how things would have developed had he been allowed to continue his political career without Voldemort's return.
** It's noteworthy that Dumbledore, that champion of non-purebloods and respecter of non-humans, only suggests Fudge send envoys to the giants, and never once comments on the injustice of forbidding non-humans to carry wands. The poor goblins don't have any champions in the human-dominated political world.***
*** Not that there's any real reason for it to be human-dominated, given that they control the bank, but I can't at the moment see any canon-compliant way to give them the political influence they really should have.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes - my sister was enormously amused by the contradiction of the rebellious goblins controlling the entire wizarding economy! Thus, she founded the Gringotts Grrls.

Things like this, actually, make me think I'm probably wrong in trying to find meaning in the books. Rowling is enormously gifted and facile; she's a natural storyteller, but she really doesn't think things through at all. At least, not on the surface.

Your comment about Lucius: I wonder what Draco is doing for a living at the time of the horrid epilogue?

[sunnyskywalker]

If the series actually followed things to logical conclusions, as soon as Voldemort was dead, the goblins would take advantage of the chaos from the growing population of rogue Dementors to rebel again (possibly using getting the sword back as a rallying point).

Well, Draco does like to perform - maybe he wrote a best selling tell-all about growing up in a Death Eater household, his struggle to overcome everything he's been taught once he realizes he doesn't have the stomach for all this killing etc., and his time as near-prisoner in his own house with the Dark Lord and Aunt Bellatrix trying not to participate or get killed. With poetry.

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Well, Draco does like to perform - maybe he wrote a best selling tell-all about growing up in a Death Eater household

I feel another poll coming on....

;-)

[oryx_leucoryx]

Either he's an actor (or other kind of performer) or he's in the furniture business, selling and repairing cabinets.

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Yes, I definitely feel another poll coming on...

;-)

WWDD? What Would Draco Do? (yet another poll)

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Yep, I couldn't resist!

Vote here:

http://majorjune.livejournal.com/33111.html

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

What happened to all the Dementors, anyways? I don't remember any mention of them after Voldemort died.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Oh, there was a fic where the goblins were manipulating the exchange rate between Galleons and pounds and by that the economical power of the Muggle-borns. (And a post war Severus was the contact person between the bank and the Ministry - he was all supportive of the goblins.)

Your use of footnotes within footnotes is at Pratchett-levels!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Oh - as to your pedant mode, I am entirely with you. I strongly believe in the "death of the author", since, if a text is to endure, we can't count on the author always being around to explicate it for us! What I meant was just this: I'm not sure there is any interpretation of these books that can make sense of them without running into a contradiction somewhere.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure there is any interpretation of these books that can make sense of them without running into a contradiction somewhere.

Magic is a semi-sapient parasitic entity that makes its hosts stupid but arranges matters so that its hosts aren't driven to extinction. Simple.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

That is amazing. Please write this story.

The Psychodrama of Albus Dumbledore

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

More thoughts this morning....

I know very little about Arthurian legend, so I can't compare HP to it.

However, I think I see what you're saying about Albus using other characters to carry out his own personal psychodrama. Albus suppresses and splits off the aspects of his psyche that he dislikes and ends up projecting them onto other boys that remind him of himself.

Tom is Albus's shadow self; the parts of Albus that desire power and immortality; the parts that are angry and want vengeance; the parts that believe that he is superior to everyone else and deserves to be worshiped. Tom represents all the aspects of Albus's personality that Albus sees as "evil."

Filch is another kind of shadow self for Albus. Filch represents aspects of Albus's psyche--impatience, grumpiness, a dislike of children, feelings of helplessness--that Albus sees as "weak," and which Albus therefore despises about himself.

Severus is basically Albus's wounded child. Severus represents the feelings of grief, pain, betrayal, extreme guilt, and regret for which Albus has never allowed himself healing and forgiveness.

In Sirius, Albus sees feelings of wildness and impetuousness that he feels bubbling within himself and longs to express, but which he believes must be contained at any cost for fear of the consequences of unleashing them.

Remus may represent, for Albus, inherent limitations that Albus is unwilling to accept in himself.

Hagrid may play out Albus's ambivalent feelings about having to be responsible for the welfare of others.

Swythyv wrote an essay on Dumbledore (http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/243418.html) a few years ago that might be relevant to this discussion. Among other things, she suggested that Albus may have been sorted into Slytherin. She wrote:

After Ariana's death, when Albus decided to curtail his dangerous ambitions by merely teaching at Hogwarts where he'd be "safer," he set out to throttle that internal Slytherin.

This is a hideous development in a Headmaster.

When the Hat sang of unity, it was not singing to bad little children, or even about their bad little parents' bad little upbringing of them. It was singing to Albus Dumbledore, and he was not listening.

An organization whose parts are at war with each other is acting out the internal conflicts of its executive: this is a fish that rots from the head down. I've seen it in real life, and it is creepy beyond my powers to describe.

Re: The Psychodrama of Albus Dumbledore

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes! I thought Swythyv's essay brilliant, and agree with it - and also with what you're saying here. To give just one example, Albus's unconscionable cruelty to Severus in the hilltop scene, and also later in the office, are almost understandable if he's rejecting parts of himself and not even seeing the suffering boy in front of him.

The one thing that's clear is that there is something very, very wrong with Albus Dumbledore.

Re: The Psychodrama of Albus Dumbledore

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

The one thing that's clear is that there is something very, very wrong with Albus Dumbledore.

Indeed! But it's still not clear if the author sees it. >:|