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: 2014-11-18 04:41 am (UTC)World domination is a lot messier and more work than it sounds like when you're just scheming with your buddy. The fight that killed Ariana might have demonstrated that. All he wanted was to convince his brother that he could too drag their sister around Europe like luggage and he couldn't even manage that without things blowing up in his face; world domination would probably be a never-ending nightmare of those dratted Other People not cooperating and getting blown up left and right. That would be super-frustrating and would really cut into his free time, you know? (Which isn't to say he couldn't have felt remorse about the incident and decided it was a bad path; it just isn't incontrovertible evidence that he did and there's a more cold-hearted possibility.) So, was the goal really worth the effort? Nah... Maybe he should try being vaguely influential in politics. Or shaping young minds, yes, that might be nice. Especially if he could get high enough in the administration not to have to bother with actually teaching anymore.
Who knows about the Birdbath of Doom. Maybe he had enough conscience to feel remorse once he had absolutely no choice, but not enough for it not to be nicely squashable when convenient for the rest of his life. Or maybe the effects are temporary. Or, as suggested, he had an antidote, or was faking it.
The big possibility I see is that he put a stop to whippings at Hogwarts. Now, iirc you thought of a thoroughly selfish reason for him to have done that, and another possibility is that with changing Muggle attitudes, he made some adjustments to avoid any problems from younger kids who might write home to their parents before they'd been thoroughly assimilated and complain about the barbaric treatment. Probably the parents wouldn't be able to do anything, but why make Muggle parents harder to handle than necessary--and more importantly, if a few tweaks can make it easier for the Muggleborn kids to feel comfortable and get sucked in early on, why not do that?
But it is at least possible that he had a genuine ethical objection to whipping children. Eventually, possibly over 10 years after becoming headmaster judging by Arthur's scars. But hey, sometimes it takes a while to reevaluate a practice which has been a common and expected part of one's life for over a century. He might deserve some credit here.
There is also the infamous Gleam of TriumphTM when he realized that Harry might not have to die after all. Was that just about not even giving Voldemort the satisfaction (yet again!), or was he genuinely happy that Harry might live, either because he did kind of like the kid in particular or because he didn't like people to die in general or both?
On the negative side, if one can believe Pottermore, he suspected what Lockhart was up to with all the memory wiping, and offered him the DADA job specifically to bring his schemes to light somehow. Which means he deliberately invited a known callous mind-wiper into a position of authority over children. Was there really no other way to stop Lockhart? Surely a few anonymous tips to a certain yellow journalist would have sufficed? After a Skeeter expose, surely he could have pulled a few strings to get a proper investigation started? (Hey, if you have a corrupt media and a corrupt government, might as well make them work for a good cause for a change...) Seriously, if Ron's wand hadn't conveniently malfunctioned, Ron and the Chosen One would have been drooling in the closed ward at St. Mungo's, and then where would we be?
no subject
Date: 2014-11-18 03:03 pm (UTC)As for the Chosen One - a drooling Chosen One is even more convenient to set up to be killed by Tom.
no subject
Date: 2014-11-18 07:00 pm (UTC)