Knave or Fool?
Nov. 14th, 2014 06:59 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
terri-testing.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslock“Tell me honestly . . . do you think me most a knave or a fool ?’” asked John Willoughby of Miss Dashwood, and I think it’s time we addressed that question directly with regards to our friend and mentor Albus.
Just because I love Jane Austen (and so, allegedly, does Rowling), here are two quotes in which a heroine is trying to figure out the true nature of a man of her acquaintance.
First, Lizzie Bennett abour Willoughby:
“As to his real character, had information been in her power, she had never felt a wish of enquiring. His countenance, voice, and manner had established him at once in the possession of every virtue. She tried to recollect some instance of goodness, some distinguished trait of integrity or benevolence, that might rescue him from the attacks of Mr. Darcy; or at least, by the predominance of virtue, atone for those casual errors, under which she would endeavour to class what Mr. Darcy had described as the idleness and vice of many years continuance. But no such recollection befriended her. She could see him instantly before her, in every charm of air and address; but she could remember no more substantial good than the general approbation of the neighbourhood, and the regard which his social powers had gained him in the mess. “ (Pride & Prejudice)
Second, Anne Elliott about her cousin:
“Though they had now been acquainted a month, she could not be satisfied that she really knew his character. That he … talked well, professed good opinions, seemed to judge properly and as a man of principle, this was all clear enough. He certainly knew what was right, nor could she fix on any one article of moral duty evidently transgressed; but yet she would have been afraid to answer for his conduct. She distrusted the past, if not the present…. The names which he occasionally dropt of former associates, the allusions to former practices and pursuits, suggested suspicions not favourable of what he had been. She saw that … that there had been a period of his life (and probably not a short one) when he had been, at least, careless in all serious matters; and, though he might now think very differently, who could answer for the true sentiments of a clever, cautious man, grown old enough to appreciate a fair character? How could it ever be ascertained that his mind was truly cleansed?
“Mr. Elliot was rational, discreet, polished, but he was not open….” (Persuasion)
(“Not open” as an indictment!—chokes on tea….)
So. Is our friend Albus in truth a heartless, even soulless villain like Tom, with the primary difference being that unlike Tom, Albus was “a clever, cautious man grown old enough to appreciate a fair character”?
Or can we find "some distinguished trait of integrity or benevolence," that might rescue Albus from the attacks of marionros, oneandthetruth, the_bitter_word, and, er, me, among others; or at least, by the predominance of virtue, atone for those casual errors, under which we might endeavour to class what JKR has depicted as the idleness and vice of many years continuance?
I seriously don’t know the answer here. I look forward to the discussion.
I’ll start the ball rolling by saying that I see two things (and two only) that I don’t see how to explain by the “knave” theory.
One is Albus’s giving up both Gellert and the pursuit of world domination after his sister’s death. Why, unless continuing to pursue that shared dream had become impossible to reconcile with his own image of himself as a decent (ish) man? Even if he shook off Gellert only in disgust for Gellert's having abandoned him to the mess of hushing up their mutual murder, why abandon his grandiose dreams if he hadn’t had a change of heart—and therefore, a heart to change?
The second is the Birdbath of Doom. What was Albus sniveling about after drinking Tom’s potion, if he wasn’t feeling remorse or something like it?
Can anyone else find any irreducible attestations to virtue in his behavior, or conversely, unarguable evidence of his villainy?
I look forward to your responses!
Just because I love Jane Austen (and so, allegedly, does Rowling), here are two quotes in which a heroine is trying to figure out the true nature of a man of her acquaintance.
First, Lizzie Bennett abour Willoughby:
“As to his real character, had information been in her power, she had never felt a wish of enquiring. His countenance, voice, and manner had established him at once in the possession of every virtue. She tried to recollect some instance of goodness, some distinguished trait of integrity or benevolence, that might rescue him from the attacks of Mr. Darcy; or at least, by the predominance of virtue, atone for those casual errors, under which she would endeavour to class what Mr. Darcy had described as the idleness and vice of many years continuance. But no such recollection befriended her. She could see him instantly before her, in every charm of air and address; but she could remember no more substantial good than the general approbation of the neighbourhood, and the regard which his social powers had gained him in the mess. “ (Pride & Prejudice)
Second, Anne Elliott about her cousin:
“Though they had now been acquainted a month, she could not be satisfied that she really knew his character. That he … talked well, professed good opinions, seemed to judge properly and as a man of principle, this was all clear enough. He certainly knew what was right, nor could she fix on any one article of moral duty evidently transgressed; but yet she would have been afraid to answer for his conduct. She distrusted the past, if not the present…. The names which he occasionally dropt of former associates, the allusions to former practices and pursuits, suggested suspicions not favourable of what he had been. She saw that … that there had been a period of his life (and probably not a short one) when he had been, at least, careless in all serious matters; and, though he might now think very differently, who could answer for the true sentiments of a clever, cautious man, grown old enough to appreciate a fair character? How could it ever be ascertained that his mind was truly cleansed?
“Mr. Elliot was rational, discreet, polished, but he was not open….” (Persuasion)
(“Not open” as an indictment!—chokes on tea….)
So. Is our friend Albus in truth a heartless, even soulless villain like Tom, with the primary difference being that unlike Tom, Albus was “a clever, cautious man grown old enough to appreciate a fair character”?
Or can we find "some distinguished trait of integrity or benevolence," that might rescue Albus from the attacks of marionros, oneandthetruth, the_bitter_word, and, er, me, among others; or at least, by the predominance of virtue, atone for those casual errors, under which we might endeavour to class what JKR has depicted as the idleness and vice of many years continuance?
I seriously don’t know the answer here. I look forward to the discussion.
I’ll start the ball rolling by saying that I see two things (and two only) that I don’t see how to explain by the “knave” theory.
One is Albus’s giving up both Gellert and the pursuit of world domination after his sister’s death. Why, unless continuing to pursue that shared dream had become impossible to reconcile with his own image of himself as a decent (ish) man? Even if he shook off Gellert only in disgust for Gellert's having abandoned him to the mess of hushing up their mutual murder, why abandon his grandiose dreams if he hadn’t had a change of heart—and therefore, a heart to change?
The second is the Birdbath of Doom. What was Albus sniveling about after drinking Tom’s potion, if he wasn’t feeling remorse or something like it?
Can anyone else find any irreducible attestations to virtue in his behavior, or conversely, unarguable evidence of his villainy?
I look forward to your responses!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-11-15 03:48 pm (UTC)I think it's precisely that.
That DD have always seen himself as a good man. Yes, he wanted to rule, but that would be for best of all! Any sacrifices that had to be made, while regrettable, would be for greater good. He was just so much smarter and more powerful then anybody that it would be only natural for him to be the one to make all decisions.
Still, he would be a benevolent, White / Light wizard and in time all shall love him. (and despair)
And he was able to believe all that ... until he or his grand plans killed his sister.
At my more cynical (which is most of the time) I think that what truly hit him wasn't so much loss, grief and gilt over his sister death but the loss of his ability to see himself as perfect.
While I doubt his ability to truly feel and understand what makes people good, I don't doubt he was aware that good people don't kill their little sisters.
And that that was what made him change.
In essence; I think he was very very similar to Tom. But that the main difference was that Tom didn't care about people seeing him as evil, nor did he even believe in good / evil. He just wanted all kinds of power and cared nothing as to how will he get it.
While DD wanted to be loved and seen as good. To go down in history as the next Merlin. And a great force for Good.
He even wanted to be able to see himself as good. So, just pretending to be good and ensuring you get good PR wouldn't be enough.
He had to mind the letter (if not the spirit) of those laws that determine is somebody good.
I even think that, in time, he came to like the mental image of himself as a sadder, wiser man atoning and sacrificing (others) for past mistakes (that naturally, were mostly the fault of somebody else).
When I was first reading the last book I even expected to see Ariana's portrait or some other memento. Something that JKR will show us as a proof that DD was suffering over the past and as something that he was keeping to remind him of it and of prices of power.
We did get a portrait but Albus wasn't the one dwelling on the past.
So, yeah. It all looks very much like DD only caring about the way he see himself.
What was Albus sniveling about after drinking Tom’s potion, if he wasn’t feeling remorse or something like it?
Eh, if there are potions that can induce "love" or feelings that look like love?
Why not a potion that forces remorse or something like it? I even imagine that ingesting something like that would be much harder to somebody who never felt true remorse before. To a psychopath that would be a torture worth sniveling about.
no subject
Date: 2014-11-15 04:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-11-15 05:53 pm (UTC)I don't see DD as a full psychopath (such as Tom) but I do think he was very self-deluded, devoid of empathy, narcissistic, incapable of admitting (even to himself) to any wrongdoing or guilt, in love with his own myth and not even close to being as smart as he though he was.
He probably had many grand plans before meeting Gellert but I can't say were any of those world dominance ones.
Not that I think that Grindelwald was the one to blame for everything. I'm absolutely not buying "the love made him blind/evil" drivel Jo and fans are forking on us.
Hell, I'm not even sure that DD actually was in love with Grindelwald.
I buy him being in lust, happy to find a "intellectual equal", and fascinated with everything Gellert was talking about.
But mostly I think he was "in love" with the plans they were making and the idea of Grindelwald.
By "idea of Grindelwald" I'm talking of the way "should have been Ravenclaw but sorted himself into Gryffindor" Albus must have seen Gellert.
He was much closer to a true Gryffindor. Brave, disregarded rules so much he got kicked out of school, ready to take the world by storm. All those things "wait and see" Albus lacked.
I wonder just how much projection did DD do. And how much of himself (or idealized Gryffindor version of himself) did he see in Gellert?
no subject
Date: 2014-11-15 09:48 pm (UTC)I tend to think he would be rather Tom-like, but with more self-delusions. Go into politics, raise a militia if that didn't work out, and ultimately end up declaring himself a
DarkLIGHT Lord and attempting to take over England because the fuddy-duddy society wouldn't listen to his brilliant ideas. (Even if the title of Light Lord doesn't exist in the HP universe, he'd probably invent it. Delusion springs eternal.)Gellert knew what he wanted and didn't have to dress it up in delusions of it being 'for so-and-so's own good'. I think Albus rather received a bad shock from looking into a more honest, more bold mirror of his true self.
And, no matter what House he landed in (after all, you can always bargain with the Hat), Albus always was a coward.
no subject
Date: 2014-11-16 11:39 am (UTC)That DD have always seen himself as a good man. Yes, he wanted to rule, but that would be for best of all! Any sacrifices that had to be made, while regrettable, would be for greater good. He was just so much smarter and more powerful then anybody that it would be only natural for him to be the one to make all decisions.
Still, he would be a benevolent, White / Light wizard and in time all shall love him. (and despair)....
In essence; I think he was very very similar to Tom. But that the main difference was that Tom didn't care about people seeing him as evil, nor did he even believe in good / evil. He just wanted all kinds of power and cared nothing as to how will he get it.
While DD wanted to be loved and seen as good. To go down in history as the next Merlin. And a great force for Good."
I agree completely. Dumbledore definitely seems like the type who would THINK he was good--bearing in mind that this in and of itself does not MAKE him even remotely good.
Like, in my Abridged series I keep joking about how the heroes are totally different from the bad guys because they do one insignificant little thing different from them in a scheme that's otherwise virtually identical. Only that's what Dumbledore really believes.