Redressing our Injustice to Albus Dumbledore

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

All of us who have blamed Albus for reneging on his promise to Severus to protect Lily in exchange for Severus’s “Anything” must own ourselves to have grossly wronged the man.

He never made any such promise.

Severus begged him, “Hide them all, then….Keep her—them—safe. Please.”

“And what will you give me in return, Severus?”

He never technically agreed to do it, see? Just acknowledged the entreaty and asked for Snape’s best offer.

No, “I will. But what will you give me in return?”

Not even, “If I do, what will you give me in return?”

So he didn’t fail to keep his word.

Any more than he later actually said that he would be protecting The-Boy-Who-Must-Die-At-The-Right-Moment.

“Make sure it [Lily’s death] was not in vain. Help me protect Lily’s son.”

See? Twinkles didn’t actually commit to anything himself. If Snape chose to believe Albus was planning to protect rather than abuse and sacrifice the child, that was Snape’s interpretation.

So all of us who ever criticized Twinkles on the grounds that he’d failed to keep his promises to Severus to protect Lily, and later Harry, can just take it back.

Comments

[oryx_leucoryx]

Back in the day there was a fan who said Dumbles' position as Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot should imply that he has legal skills and that he often speaks as a lawyer would. That was before DH came out. I think she was more insightful than she knew.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Brilliant! You're quite right. Alas, this doesn't help me to like Dumbledore any more than I did previously-

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes, and there was someone who pointed out that one possible reason why the Shrieking Shack, while accessible only from the Hogwarts grounds, was situated in Hogsmeade--to allow Albus to say truthfully that he never allowed a transformed werewolf on school grounds.

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

But I doublechecked, and there is one promise which Snape asked him to make to which Twinkles at least SEEMED to assent:

"My word, Severus, that I shall never reveal the best of you? If you insist..."

And Albus did keep THAT promise, now didn't he?? He kept it PERFECTLY. He did everything he could not to reveal the best, or even the good, of Snape.

I feel so embarassed for having dissed Albus before....

Actually, it was really my essay on Snapedom about how Severus goaded Narcissa and Bella into demanding the Unbreakable Vow of him that suddenly made Albus's behavior click. But Severus had deliberately previously portrayed himself to the Black woman as an unreliable, selfish bastard who would give empty reassurances but "slither out of action" (no matter how desperately important the promise) if given any opportunity to do so. He was giving Narcaissa equivocal non-promises deliberately to drive her to enough desperation to demand that Vow.

Albus, conversely, traded on his reputation as an honorable man to cheat his auditor.

Severus exploded in TPT when he found out that Albus had never seriously intended to "protect Lily's son."

I don't think he ever realized that Albus had never actually considered himself bound to protect Lily and her family in exchange for Snape's obedience, body and soul.

When Albus stole that invisibility cloak from James that might have allowed a beseiged family (or at least the wife and child) to escape an attack unharmed, he was able to maintain a crystal-clear conscience regarding Severus's expectations that he protect Lily.....

Aren't we happy his conscience could be clear?

(Oh. You said you weren't. But isn't keeping one's word important? Verifying that Albus had done so should surely redeem him in our eyes!)

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

On the contrary, this makes Scummywhore look even worse! He took advantage of a desperate young man who was too distraught to think straight, then he didn't even deliver on what he implicitly promised. Your analysis (and oryx's first comment) reminded me of two things:

1) When Bill Clinton was being grilled about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, he said, "There's nothing going on between us," then explained, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

As a normal, i.e., non-lawyer person, when I heard that, my immediate reaction was, "What the hell does that mean?" But I very clearly remember reading an article that quoted a prominent lawyer as saying something like, "OMG, that is so brilliant! That shows what a great lawyer Clinton is!" Truly, lawyers do not think like normal people. (Reading Clinton's words over again, I can see the fiendish cleverness of them now.)

2) Stephen Vincent Benet's classic story, "The Devil and Daniel Webster." For those who haven't read or don't remember it, it's about a farmer, Jabez Stone, who has a life similar to Snape's: He's poor, miserable, desperate, and everything he does ends up disastrously. One day, he loses control and yells he wants to sell his soul to the devil. Of course, Satan shows up and guarantees Stone several years of prosperity and success in exchange for his soul. When it's time to pay up, Stone runs to Daniel Webster and begs for help. (Although the story is fictional, Webster was real, one of America's greatest statesmen and orators in the first half of the 19th century.) Also of course, Webster gets Stone off.

But did you notice the difference between Benet's story and Rowling's? In Benet's story, Satan actually gives his victim what he promised! Unlike Scummywhore, who implicitly promises everything but gives nothing, Satan promises everything and delivers it. That's right ladies and gentlemen: Satan, Lucifer, the Prince of Darkness, the Great Deceiver--is more honorable and trustworthy than that "epitome of goodness," Albus Dumbledore.

That's true, not just in this story, but in any story I've ever read or seen in which people sell their souls to the devil. Unlike Scummywhore, the devil always keeps his end of the bargain. He may trick people in some clever way (e.g., into turning over their souls earlier than they expected), but people never sell their souls, only to get nothing in return. That kind of manipulative dishonesty is the province only of monsters like Moldyshorts and Scummywhore.

Your analysis also made me imagine a fanfic called, "Dumbledore and Daniel Webster." Knowing how sneaky and dishonest Dumbledore is, and having read Benet's story years earlier, Snape brings the ghost of Daniel Webster with him to his meeting. Webster negotiates with Scummywhore to get Snape everything he wants, with the best part being that Snape owes Dumbledore absolutely nothing in return! Ah, fanfic is indeed the best revenge against bad stories!

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Scumblewhore even worse? How can you say so?

(I'm reminded of Marianros's statement that she'd rather expose her children to a serial pedophile than to Albus....)

And if wasne't just Snape's desperation he took advantage of here--it was his own reputation for being "too--well--noblle" to use Tom's methods.

Snape DIDN'T trust Tom's promises, or non-promises, whatever. That's why he went to Twinkles in the first place.

His mistake was believing that Albus was any different.

And he paid for it with his life. And worse (from his standpoint), Li'ly's.

But after all, where do we imagine that ickle Tommy LEARNED to negotiate? Makes me want to re-read those Albus-Tom scenes in CoS and HBP really, REALLY carefully.

The problem with the fanfic is that when Severus approached Albus, he imagined tht he was dealing with an honorable man, and so didn't realize he needed a negotiatot, or at least to examine Albus's every word and pin him down inexcapably.

Very fortunately, Albus cut short Tom's lessons before Tom fully absorbed what an advantage it is to be popularly held to be above suspicion.....

[oryx_leucoryx]

Oh, where would Tom have ended up had he managed to be above suspicion... Most popular Minister ever, re-appointed repeatedly, I suppose. And Albus as headmaster and Chief Warlock would have had to work with him.

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

This is all true. Of course, in most stories where a guy goes around not exactly lying but omitting information in order to deceive or mislead, he would usually be the bad guy of the work....

But this is something that's even come up before, on Snapedom, isn't it? Apparently in Rowlingland, forcing someone to do something is bad, but tricking them into doing it is good.

[hwyla.livejournal.com]

Hence the reason James considers it okay to lie by omission to get Lily to marry him. Now, if he had 'forced' her, like Merope did TomSr with the love potion, THEN he would be evil and so would their child Harry (like Voldy). But since he merely neglected to mention a few things, he's a hero instead.

Of course, I doubt Albus was terribly happy to learn later that the Marauders had managed to omit telling HIM a few things. Being animagi could have come in handy for the Order.

[nx74defiant.livejournal.com]

"My word, Severus, that I shall never reveal the best of you? If you insist..."

And Albus did keep THAT promise, now didn't he?? He kept it PERFECTLY. He did everything he could not to reveal the best, or even the good, of Snape.

Albus is willing to promise something he can use to his own benefit. Never reveal the best or the good of Snape - he can use that to make himself look good in the process.

Albus warned Harry about Slughorn. Slughorn offers the Slytherin deal of a quid pro quo. I help you - you help me. With Albus it is you help me and I might help you, if it is convenient for me, or helping you will benefit me.

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's why Albus recruits the sacrificial sorts, who don't demand payback for what they give him.

No wonder he and the Marauders were on uneasy terms--the Order was the only game in town if James and Sirius wanted to play war with the Death Eaters without becoming Aurors and submitting to Ministry training and rules, but really obeying or trusting Albus like the other Order members mostly did---nah. He was a killjoy, and he didn't put them first.

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

See my answer to Ny74defiant, above, about no wonder Albus and the Marauders were on uneasy terms.

None of the Marauders really fully trusted or obeyed Twinkles--James and Sirius were just using him for cover in their attacking-Death-Eater games. Better the D.A. with Albus' covering for them, then the training, discipline, and rules of being an Auror under Barty.

But--oh, my goodness. This is the other reason why James and Sirius distrusted Remus and decided HE was the traitor in their ranks. Remus DID trust and obey the head of the Order---we saw that in HBP! So obviously, if he obeyed Dumbledore ahead of them, that made him the untrustworthy.one among they four....

"Thou shalt put no other God before me" is the First Commandment. And the Marauders (3 of them) put James in that place, and ther rest of the Order put Albus there.

Yet another reason for Albus to destroy James and Sirius--wouldn't want their attitude to spread, now would you?