A Headmaster other than Albus

[oryx_leucoryx]

So here is an idea for an AU scenario. Anyone is free to develop it into a fic, but we can just discuss the what-if:

Sometime between November 2nd 1981 and July 1991 Albus Dumbledore died suddenly. Maybe in some magical mishap, maybe a sudden heart attack, whatever. The important bit is he didn't expect this to happen and had no time to do any ad-hoc cover-ups nor did he have a chance to influence the choice of his replacement or to incorporate his death into some plot. The permanent replacement is chosen by the Board of Governors. If this happens early enough Lucius isn't yet on the board, if later he is on, but probably still trying to earn a reputation as an outstanding member of society who would have never joined forces with Voldemort willingly so I don't think he'd support anyone blatantly against the inclusion of Muggleborns. Anyway, the replacement turns out to be someone not as outwardly impressive as Dumbles - not so showy, with perhaps average or slightly above average magical performance, but a capable administrator with good organizational and interpersonal skills, but most importantly someone who cares about the students' well-being and education. It can be someone from Slughorn's network or even someone who thought well of Albus as long as s/he didn't have a chance to look too closely at how Hogwarts was run, but definitely not an Order member or any other close associate of Dumbles. Maybe an older, more experienced and less idealistic version of Percy.

The members of the Hogwarts staff are as we know them in PS (Care of Magical Creatures is taught by Kettleburn, Hagrid is still a groundskeeper), except for DADA. Depending on timing, Quirrell might be the Muggle Studies teacher. I think the DADA curse should still be active, so the teachers are still being replaced annually (we don't want the new school Head to have it too easy).

So I think this new person shows up and tries to run Hogwarts like a normal school. Some teachers object because that's not the way it was always done, some are relieved to have a professional in charge for a change. The handling of disciplinary matters changes. The inter-House politics change.

And then in the summer of 1991 Quirrell comes back from a sabbatical with a personally transplant. And one Harry Potter oddly doesn't reply to his acceptance letter to Hogwarts. (I doubt the new Head had a reason to look into Harry's situation of hir own initiative earlier, but maybe someone can make a convincing argument for that?) So what now?

Comments

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of a fan fiction story I read once, post DH, where Harry's brought up short a couple of times by a terse headmistress McGonagall who tells him in no uncertain terms that she does NOT intend the school to become a base for extra-curricular activities as it was under Dumbledore. :-) Harry (and I) are somewhat taken aback by this. BUT THAT'S NOT HARRY POTTER. :-)

It's sort of on topic, so I'll ask ... what is the canon reason for Dumbledore stashing the Stone at Hogwarts under protections that three first-years could circumvent? I've spent the last few years finding so many errors in the books I've forgotten what the party line is supposed to be, what Rowling wanted her readers to believe. That one line in DH that she had Dumbledore trot out about leading Harry on to 'try his strength' might explain the silliness post GoF - which is when Dumbledore realised that Harry was a Horcrux and would then have to die, yes? - but is there a canon reason for the contrived scenarios of the first few years?

In the latest chapter of Fairy Tales by Perceval23 (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/6883400/1/Fairy_Tales) Hermione ruminates:

Upon reflection, the defences Dumbledore came up with for it weren't that good, considering three First Years were able to get past them. Still, Harry saved the day, and Voldemort's plan was thwarted. Dumbledore had the Philosopher's Stone destroyed, after. Hermione was, thinking back on it, wondering why, if Dumbledore was going to have it destroyed, anyway, why he didn't just do it in the first place and keep the students out of danger.

I know the real-world reason is that PS is most definitely a "kids book". A meta reason is that Rowling either (a) didn't care about such logic (as we would see proven by the more 'mature' books later on) or (b) hadn't thought things out yet (like the classic Dumbledore-taking-all-night-to-get-to-London thing, PS being written before portkeys and floos were invented.

But is there an official/canon reason for the whole Stone-being-stashed-at-Hogwarts thing? Just thought I'd ask since it's somewhat on topic. Your non-Dumbledore headmaster is likely not to want the Stone kept at Hogwarts if it is a 'normal school'.

[snapes-witch.livejournal.com]

Very interesting premise. Of course, Harry Potter would only get one letter and he wouldn't even have been allowed to read it so he'd have not knowledge of Hogwarts at all. How does Severus Snape fit into this Hogwarts?

As for the Philosopher's Stone being at Hogwarts, perhaps Dumbledore somehow found out Quirrell was going to try to steal it? Although in that case it seems the best thing to do would have been to destroy it, just as Madderbrad suggested.

[oryx_leucoryx]

In DH we also have Griphook saying the only reason Quirrell was able to enter the vault in which the Stone had previously been was that once the vault was empty the goblins removed all the special protections on it (not such a smart move - sure, there was nothing to steal, but someone might still break in to *plant* stuff - maybe to frame Flamel or Albus with some misdeed). So unless Griphook was lying to save face, there was no reason to think the Stone was not safe enough where it was. Also, why have the Stone moved by Hagrid, and in front of Harry's eyes? And why Albus' heavy hints about Harry running into the Mirror of Erised again? It all stinks of Albus wanting Harry to meet Quirrell there.

(BTW my view is that Dumbles knew all along Harry was a Horcrux, which was why he was convinced Tom would return from day one and why despite expecting there to be an additional Horcrux to the diary he never bothered to search Little Hangleton.)

[oryx_leucoryx]

On second thought, I think the New Head would be alerted to Harry's situation when s/he received Mrs Figg's report. So it is possible New Head changed Harry's arrangement years earlier.

I think Severus would fit in very nicely - he was running a very successful House under Dumbles. He'd be even more successful with a Head who actually appreciated competence and didn't undermine efforts at discipline. The only change Severus would have to make is to tone down personal comments to students.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Goodness, I'd totally forgotten that Griphook quote. Just found it now, given your guidance. Still, while it explains why Quirrell might have found it easy goings to break into the empty vault, it doesn't necessarily mean that the fully-fledged bank protections would have kept him out, that Dumbledore was wrong. The statement doesn't, in fact, change anything; Rowling's Dumbledore withdrew the Stone because he *thought* Quirrellmort was capable of breaching the bank's protections, and that assumption remains untested. Griphook's statement only stops people like Harry from using the successful break-in as *proof* that Dumbledore was *right*. The question is still open, as it was back when Dumbledore made that decision.

Dumbledore knowing all along about the Harrycrux would make the most sense of the whole series, connected to that one single asinine sentence in DH that all along the headmaster was indulging in Harry's little escapades because it was "essential to teach him, to raise him, to let him try his strength". Which is nonsensical, but at least an attempt by Rowling at the very last minute to persuade readers that there was a reason for all of the contrivances of their past 10 years of reading.

So, is that really the pro-Jo party line? A sincere HP fan is expected to believe that Dumbledore set up the whole plot of book #1 deliberately, just for Harry to 'try his strength'? Gah. The weight of the entire series on that one miserable excuse of a line at the very end. Bleh.

I'm honestly getting quite confused these days as to what a 'pure' HP fan is supposed to see in the books, what Rowling wants them to see. There's so many errors, so much bad writing, I've lost track of what the party line is supposed to be. It's a weird feeling. I know I've floundered here on deathtocapslock on this point in the past.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

----I think the New Head would be alerted to Harry's situation when s/he received Mrs Figg's report.

That's assuming that Mrs. Figg was sending reports, which I'm not sure was the case.

I think, though, that Minerva might do something about checking on Harry.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Minerva didn't do anything in canon. The only reason I can think of for anyone to do anything is if New Head starts asking questions.

Hmm. New Head goes over staff members files and interviews them (like Umbridge, but with competence and without cruelty). How much does s/he learn about the circumstances of Severus' hiring? (The fact that Severus was a DE turned spy is a matter of record, though not widely known, so something would be said.) Maybe that information starts the investigation?

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

----Minerva didn't do anything in canon.

She never acted against Albus in canon, but she did have concerns about Harry's placement. She might act on those concerns if Albus were out of the picture.

On another note, Albus was essentially Harry's legal guardian in the WW. Somebody would have to take over that responsibility if he died, I think. I don't know if that would be the new headmaster or if Albus would have designated somebody.

[the-bitter-word.livejournal.com]

I wonder if the Magical World doesn't have a "no child left behind" policy whereby any magical child would be expected to attend Hogwarts unless the child's parents or guardians specifically declined the invitation. Moreover, a supremely special child such as Harry Potter, who was thought to have defeated Voldemort at some 16 months of age, would probably rise to notice as a magical person who should attend Hogwarts, requiring special intervention the school's behalf.

The special treatment of Potter and Gryffindor might have been less under an impartial Headmaster. As is the way with these stories, Harry would have had his destiny to fulfill, but perhaps with less senseless, collateral damage, with less dysfunctional mumbo jumbo in communication. The Headmaster might have shown less favoritism, might have had less tolerance for Harry's out-of-bounds behavior.

I imagine a conflicted and guilt-ridden, but nonetheless determined, Snape would have had to be his mentor. Snape had the most accessible knowledge of the Prophecy, what happened to Harry's parents, and his role in the whole affair.

It could have been a complex, mature story, without the pat, "because I say so" solutions the author offered.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Madderbrad, I don't know if you've read Red Hen on PS/SS? Her theory was that the maze was a deliberate trap for Quirrelmort, because Dumbledore and his trusted staff members (Snape included) knew Quirrel was a hostage to Voldemort, and the whole setup was meant to immobilize Voldemort and make it possible to rescue Quirrell. Under this theory, Harry and the other kids were never supposed to go anywhere near the maze. It suited Dumbledore that Harry did, however, because Dumbledore decided that Harry was not, after all, a budding dark wizard. But Harry's interference caused Quirrell's death and allowed Voldemort to escape the trap, albeit damaged.

Jodel is so smart.

The Bitter Word, I pretty much love everything you have said.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Also: According to DH Albus at the very least suspected Quirrell's involvement, yet he did nothing to change the protections to the Stone, when we know Quirrell set up one of the protections.

OK, I take that partially back: After Christmas he added the mirror to the protections. (Unless the Stone was in the mirror the entire year and he only moved the mirror, with the Stone, outside the dungeon for a few days in order to test Harry and then put it back down.)

So it is possible that Severus figured Quirrell out on his own before Halloween and Dumbles only did so by Christmas which was when he warned Severus off.

In any case, Albus trusted the mirror to withstand Quirrellmort enough that when he knew Quirrell had Fluffy's secret (Hagrid got the dragon egg in Aberforth's bar, of course Albus knew) he didn't change anything.

IMO the purpose of the obstacle course was mostly to slow Quirrell down so that Albus would have time to capture him. Assuming some alarm system went off when anyone went down the trapdoor. Or perhaps the obstacles were there for psychological purpose - to get Quirrell impatient and annoyed, but at the same time over-confident by the time he reached the mirror.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Albus was never appointed legally as Harry's guardian. He assumed that position when Sirius was arrested. (Though for Hogwarts' purpose, the Dursleys are Harry's guardians - they are the ones who need to sign the Hogsmeade permission slip.) And in my scenario he wasn't expecting to die so he wouldn't have thought of a substitute.

I think once Albus is out of the picture someone at the Ministry asks 'who gave Albus the right to make Harry Potter's arrangements anyway, and what was he doing with the key to the Potter vault anyway?' Harry has living relatives on the Black family side (assuming Charlus Potter was his grandfather). Many of them are old and childless, his closest relatives who are of an age to raise a child are either the Tonks family or the Malfoys. Next in line would be the Longbottoms (whether Neville's immediate family or any surviving children of Callidora and Harfang's daughter - the daughter would be Neville's great-aunt, any child of hers would be Frank's first cousin), the various branches of the Weasley family and the Crouches - I doubt Bartemius would be considered, but he had 2 sisters.

All taken together, I think once questions started being asked, Harry would have most likely ended up with the Tonks family.

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

If he'd ended up with them before he started going to Hogwarts, he'd've probably spent time living there while Tonks was still at Hogwartts, only home for summers.

[snapes-witch.livejournal.com]

(The fact that Severus was a DE turned spy is a matter of record, though not widely known, so something would be said.)

That depends on when DD kicks off, doesn't it? Too soon after Godric's Hollow and no one knows about Severus because he's Dumbledore's spy, not the Order's. It's only when the DEs are rounded up (actual date unknown) that Dumbledore speaks up for Severus at his hearing, trial, or whatever the heck it was.

[snapes-witch.livejournal.com]

Even if the tapestry Potters are Harry's grandparents (I'm inclined to think Charlus is his uncle instead) their connection with the Blacks wouldn't have meant Harry would be safe living with any of them. His blood protection is from his mum so Harry has to live with his Aunt Petunia.

[detritius.livejournal.com]

Honestly, going by JK's general attitude and disinclination to reread her own books, I think a 'pure fan' isn't even supposed to be asking these questions. There is no party line, because what she wants is for her readers to accept that things happened the way she said they happened without any explanation. I honestly don't think she put all that much thought into anyone's motivations or who knew what when, at least after book three, and it seems equally unlikely that she put any kind of thought into how things revealed in DH would affect the earlier books, so we're not meant to be thinking about any of it either. We're just supposed to accept that she had a plan, and that the final product was the triumphant realization of that plan. There's a lot in the series about blind, unquestioning faith, and as far as I can tell, that's nothing less than what JK Rowling expects from her readers.

[detritius.livejournal.com]

Well, Dumbledore put a lot of stock in the whole blood protection thing, but as far as I recall, we never saw it actually do anything for Harry, did we? And even if it was doing something, I wouldn't be surprised if whoever started making decisions after Dumbeldore's proposed death thought it was more important to protect Harry from the abuse and neglect that were already happening rather than some nebulous threat that may or may not ever materialize. And that's if whoever took over for Dumbledore even knew about the blood protection, which, considering how many things Dumbledore kept to himself, they very well might not.

[oryx_leucoryx]

The only people who know anything about the circumstances of Lily's death are Severus (who only knows partially and indirectly) and Tom himself (and Harry has memories in his subconscious). As far as Minerva knows, Harry was placed with the Dursleys to protect him from his fame. As far as the greater wizarding society knows, Harry is a weird baby with special powers, possibly.

And if Severus brings up what he knows I think at best the conclusion would be that if there were any signs of Voldemort showing up Harry could be moved to the Dursleys then, with added wizarding support.

[snapes-witch.livejournal.com]

The blood protection came into play when Quirrell attacked Harry, and his hands were burned. Some think it killed him; I'm not sure.

[detritius.livejournal.com]

That's what that was? I do remember that (it killed Quirrell for sure in the movie, but the book left it ambiguous, I think) but what does that have to do with him living at the Dursleys', since it happened at Hogwarts? And didn't Voldemort say he overcame that protection by taking Harry's blood in GoF? If so, why did he have to keep going back to the Dursleys'? I haven't read any of the books in ages, so this may be just me being dense, or it might be one of those side effects of Rowling never clearly defining how any of her magic worked.

[snapes-witch.livejournal.com]

Yes, when Voldemort used Harry's blood he was then able to touch Harry.

Dumbledore added his own protections to the Dursleys' house; I suppose that's the reason Harry had to stay there. Oh, so he could have lived with Andromeda after all???? Now I'm confused!

Yeah, it doesn't pay to look at these books too closely!

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

... of course Albus knew.

Well, do you know that for sure?

IMO the purpose of the obstacle course was mostly to slow Quirrell down so that Albus would have time to capture him.

And then he takes off for London leaving no-one the wiser.

Well, Snape knew ... but Snape never shows up at the end of the book to save the day in Dumbledore's absence, does he?

So ... the position of the canon faithful ends up as one of benign, benevolent but incompetent headmaster? I've been criticising the stupidity of Dumbledore so long it's hard to remember that we're not supposed to see his incompetence.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I really do think you're right. Maybe that's the source of my confusion ... a leftover from the pre-HBP days when I, too, assumed she knew what she was doing.

With the publication of HBP and then DH it was made obvious that she *didn't* ... but I guess I've confined my contempt for Rowling and her lack of storytelling logic to those last two books (which really are an order of magnitude worse than their predecessors). I look back at PS, scratch my head and part of me insists there was something there which I'm forgetting.

But when it comes down to it ... why should an author who showed a complete lack of planning for books 6-7 be any different than the one who wrote books 1-5?

Why, then, did the fandom take off as it did, why were the earlier books accepted as they were? Because of the simple *promise* that there was a plan? That's what you're saying, and I guess you're right. I suppose I'm now asking the same question that pro-Jo defenders throw in my face when I proclaim the series - certainly DH at least - a literary disaster. "A billionaire can't be wrong." With them trying to put the onus back on me to find another reason why the series was so commercially successful, if the actual material was rubbish.

Sigh.

There must be material out there which analyses the (marketing?) phenomenon behind the books just as much as we critique the books themselves. Or are most professionals out there solidly behind the Rowling bandwagon? Like most reviews of DH were positive (critics and writers writing their articles with one eye solidly on the number of books sold before DH even hit the presses)?

Sigh.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Now I'm confused!

I've been confused since Oryx made the post. :-(

Yeah, it doesn't pay to look at these books too closely!

It really really doesn't. After years of looking at the last two objectively and seeing all of the (obvious) mistakes my mind is going around in circles when I now focus on the first. Obvious mistakes there, too, but ... surely it *must* be better material, otherwise why did the whole HP thing take off the way it did? WHAT AM I NOT SEEING?!?!?!?!?

Argh.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Madderbrad, I don't know if you've read Red Hen on PS/SS?

No, I don't think I have. I've spent most of my last few years in the fandom pulling the series - certainly the last two books - to pieces. This intriguing next step of putting it all back together again and forming new theories to make sense of Rowling's flawed canon is relatively new to me. But an intellectual exercise that I'm still marvelling at. :-)

... the whole setup was meant to immobilize Voldemort and make it possible to rescue Quirrell.

But why didn't Dumbledore ... with Snape, McGonagall and half of the Ministry's Aurors ... just walk up to Quirrell at breakfast one day and 'rescue' him there and then? Or knock on the door of his quarters the second day of the school year? Subject him to a magical test, ask him to take off his turban? Why the whole elaborate plan for a trap?

But I'm asking this of the same author who based the entirety of her second-largest (third?) book 4 on a similarly ridiculous plan, aren't I?

It's so hard to go back 10 years (for me) and look again at PS and remember what I though of it back then. But surely most readers must have reasoned that Dumbledore *didn't* know about Quirrell ... because otherwise he'd been deliberately placing all the children in danger, etc (one of the accusations against him in the 'reconstructed' theories voiced here). Yes, surely that was the case.

But then Rowling writes the line in DH showing us that Dumbledore (and Snape) KNEW about Quirrell.

So does this confusion (for me, anyway) all lead back to DH? That makes sense; Rowling clearly had given up on trying to write a proper end game, she just couldn't do it, the last book is a literary disaster. Chalk up the "Keep an eye on Quirrell" thing of DH as a flat-out aberration (like so much of that book) and the rest of the series snaps back to what I do think the official 'party line' was - Dumbledore *didn't* know about the danger that Harry was walking into. Even though he would turn omniscient in the last chapters.

The "it was essential that he ... try his strength" nonsense that suggests that Dumbledore knew about everything would be a second DH error similar to the "keep an eye on Quirrell".

I really do think that Rowling just attempted those twists in DH without thinking at all about what it meant for the entire series.

Okay. "All HP errors lead back to DH". I can live with that. :-)