#Albus Dumbledore meta

[wisteria-lodge]

Manipulative/Morally Grey Dumbledore? An In-Depth Canon Analysis

So when I look at Harry Potter, my goal is to separate what I think the books are intending to say, from what they actually say, from what the movies say… and what the common fan interpretation is. So today I’m interested in Dumbledore, and specifically in the common headcanon of  Manipulative/Morally Gray Dumbledore. Is that (intentionally or unintentionally) supported by the text?

PART I:  Omniscient Dumbledore

“I think he knows more or less everything that goes on here”

In Book 1, yes Dumbledore honestly does seem to know everything. He 100% arranged for Harry to find the Mirror of Erised, publicly left Hogwarts in order to nudge Quirrell into going after the Stone, and knew what Quirrell was doing the whole time. It is absolutely not a stretch, and kind of heavily implied, that the reason the Stone’s protections feel like a little-end-of-the-year exam designed to put Harry through his paces… is because they are. As the series goes on this interpretation only gets more plausible, when we see the kind of protections people can put up when they don’t want anyone getting through. 

Book 1 Dumbledore knows everything… but what he’s actually going to do about it is anyone’s guess. One of the first things we learn is that some of Dumbledore’s calls can be… questionable. McGonagall questions his choice to leave Harry with the Dursleys, Hermione questions his choice to give Harry the Cloak and let him go after the Stone, Percy and Ron both matter-of-factly call him “mad.” The “nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak” speech is a joke where Dumbledore says he’s going to say a few words, then literally does say a few (weird) words. I know there are theories that those particular words are supposed to be insulting the four houses, or referencing the Hogwarts house stereotypes, or that they’re some kind of warning. But within the text, this is pure Lewis Carroll British Nonsense Verse stuff (and people came up with answers to the impossible Alice in Wonderland “why is a raven like a writing desk” riddle too.) 

This characterization also explains a lot of Dumbledore’s decisions about how to run a school, locked in during Book 1. Presumably Binns, Peeves, Filch, Snape are all there because Dumbledore finds them funny, atmospheric, and/or character building. He's just kind of a weird guy.  He absolutely knew that Lockhart was a fraud in Book 2 (with that whole “Impaled upon your own sword, Gilderoy?” thing after Lockhart oblivates himself. ) So maybe he is also there to be funny/atmospheric/character building, or to teach Harry a lesson about fame, or because Dumbledore is using the cursed position to bump off people he doesn’t like. Who knows.

(I actually don’t think JKR had locked in “the DADA position is literally cursed by Voldemort” until Book 6. )

Dumbledore absolutely knows that Harry is listening in when Lucius Malfoy comes to take Hagrid to Azkaban, and it’s fun to speculate that maybe he let himself get fired in Book 2 as part of a larger plan to boot Lucius off the Board of Governors. So far, that’s the sort of thing he’d do.  But in Books 3 and 4, we are confronted with a number of important things that Dumbledore just missed. He doesn’t know any of the Marauders were animagi, he doesn’t know what really happened with the Potter’s Secret Keeper, doesn’t know Moody is Crouch, and doesn’t know the Marauders Map even exists. But in Books 5 and 6, his omniscience does seem to come back online. (In a flashback, Voldemort even comments that he is "omniscient as ever” when Dumbledore lists the specific Death Eaters he has in Hogsmeade as backup.) Dumbledore knows exactly what Draco and Voldemort are planning, and his word is taken as objective truth by the entire Order of the Phoenix - who apparently only tolerate Snape because Dumbledore vouches for him:

“Snape,” repeated McGonagall faintly, falling into the chair. “We all wondered . . . but he trusted . . . always . . . Snape . . . I can’t believe it. . . .”  “Snape was a highly accomplished Occlumens,” said Lupin, his voice uncharacteristically harsh. “We always knew that.”  “But Dumbledore swore he was on our side!” whispered Tonks. “I always thought Dumbledore must know something about Snape that we didn’t. . . .”  “He always hinted that he had an ironclad reason for trusting Snape,” muttered Professor McGonagall (...) “Wouldn’t hear a word against him!”

McGonagall questions Dumbledore about the Dursleys, but not about Snape. I see this as part of the larger trend of basically Dumbledore’s deification. In the beginning of the series, he’s treated as a clever, weird dude. By the end, he’s treated like a god. 

PART II: Chessmaster Dumbledore

“I prefer not to keep all my secrets in one basket.”

When Dumbledore solves problems, he likes to go very hands-off. He didn’t directly teach Harry about the Mirror of Erised - he gave him the Cloak, knew he would wander, and moved the Mirror so it would be in his path. He sends Snape to deal with Quirrell and Draco, rather than do it himself. He (or his portrait) tells Snape to confund Mundungus Fletcher and get him to suggest the Seven Potters strategy. He puts Mrs. Figg in place to watch Harry, then ups the protection in Book 5 - all without informing Harry. The situation with Slughorn is kind of a Dumbledore-manipulation master class - even the way he deliberately disappears into the bathroom so Harry will have enough solo time to charm Slughorn. Of course he only wants Slughorn under his roof in the first place to pick his brain about Voldemort… but again, instead of doing that himself, he gets Harry to do it for him. 

Dumbledore has a moment during Harry’s hearing in Book 5 (which he fakes evidence for) where he informs Fudge that Harry is not under the Ministry’s jurisdiction while at Hogwarts. Which has insane implications. It’s never explicitly stated, but as the story goes on, it at least makes sense that Dumbledore is deliberately obscuring how powerful he is, and how much influence he really has, by getting other people to do things for him. But the problem with that is because he is so powerful, it become really easy for a reader to look back after they get more information and say… well if Dumbledore was controlling the situation… why couldn’t he have done XYZ. Here are two easy examples from Harry’s time spent with the Dursleys:

1. Mrs. Figg is watching over Harry from day one, but she can’t tell him she’s a squib and also she has to keep him miserable on purpose:

“Dumbledore’s orders. I was to keep an eye on you but not say anything, you were too young. I’m sorry I gave you such a miserable time, but the Dursleys would never have let you come if they’d thought you enjoyed it. It wasn’t easy, you know…”

It’s pretty intense to think of Dumbledore saying “oh yes, invite this little child over and keep him unhappy on purpose.” But okay. It’s important to keep Harry ignorant of the magical world and vice versa. fine. But once he goes to Hogwarts… that doesn’t apply anymore?  I’m sure when Harry thinks he’s going to be imprisoned permanently in his bedroom during Book 2, it would’ve been comforting to know that Dumbledore was sending around someone to check on him. And when he literally runs away from home in Book 3… having the address of a trusted adult that he could easily get to would have been great for everybody. 

2. When Vernon is about to actually kick Harry out during Book 5, Dumbledore sends a howler which intimidates Petunia into insisting that Harry has to stay. Vernon folds and does exactly what she says. If Dumbledore could intimidate Petunia into doing this, then why couldn’t he intimidate her into, say - giving Harry the second bedroom instead of a cupboard. Or fixing Harry’s glasses. In Book 1, the Dursleys don’t bother Harry during the entire month of August because Hagrid gives Dudley a pig’s tail. In the summer between third and fourth year, the Dursleys back off because Harry is in correspondence with Sirius (a person they fear.) But the Dursleys are afraid of all wizards. Like at this point it doesn’t seem that hard to intimidate them into acting decently to Harry. 

PART III: Dumbledore and the Dursleys 

“Not a pampered little prince”

JKR wanted two contradictory things. She wanted Dumbledore to be a fundamentally good guy: a wise, if eccentric mentor figure. But she also wanted Harry to have a comedically horrible childhood being locked in a cupboard, denied food, given broken glasses and ill fitting/embarrassing clothes, and generally made into a little Cinderella. Then, it’s a bigger contrast when he goes to Hogwarts and expulsion can be used as an easy threat. (Although the only person we ever see expelled is Hagrid, and that was for murder.)

So, there are a couple of tricks she uses to make it okay that Dumbledore left Harry at the Dursleys.’ The first is that once Harry leaves…  nothing that happens there is given emotional weight. When he’s in the Wizarding World, he barely talks about Dursleys, barely thinks about them. They almost never come up in the narration (unless Harry’s worried about being expelled, or they’re sending him comedically awful presents.) They are completely cut from movies 4, 6, and 7 part 2 - and you do not notice. 

The second trick… is that Dumbledore himself clearly doesn’t think that the Dursleys are that bad. During the King’s Cross vision-quest, he describes 11-year-old Harry as “alive and healthy (...) as normal a boy as I could have hoped under the circumstances. Thus far, my plan was working well.”  

Now, this could have been really interesting. Like in a psychological way, I get it. Dumbledore had a rocky home life. Dad in prison, mom spending all her time taking care of his volatile and dangerous sister. Aberforth seems to have reacted to the situation by running completely wild, it’s implied that he never even had formal schooling… and Albus doubled down on being the Golden Child, making the family look good from the outside, and finding every means possible to escape. I would have believed it if Molly or Kingsley had a beat of being horrified by the way the Dursleys are treating Harry… but Dumbledore treats it as like, whatever. Business as usual. 

But that isn’t the framing that the books use. Dumbledore is correct that the Dursleys aren’t that bad, and I think it’s because JKR fundamentally does not take the Dursleys seriously as threats. I also think she has a fairly deeply held belief that suffering creates goodness, so possibly Harry suffering at the hands of the Dursleys… was necessary? To make him good? Dumbledore himself has an arc of ‘long period of suffering = increased goodness.’ So does Severus Snape, Dudley‘s experience with the Dementor kickstarts his character growth, etc. It’s a trope she likes.

It���s only in The Cursed Child that the Dursleys are given any kind of weight when it comes to Harry’s psyche. This is one of the things that makes me say Jack Thorne wrote that play, because it’s just not consistent with how JKR likes to write the Dursleys. It’s consistent with the way fanfiction likes to write the Dursleys. And look, The Cursed Child is fascinatingly bad, I have so many problems with it, but it does seem to be doing like … a dark reinterpretation of Harry Potter? And it’s interested in saying something about cycles of abuse. I can absolutely see how the way the play handles things is flattering to JKR. It retroactively frames the Dursleys’ abuse in a more negative way, and maybe that’s something she wanted after criticism that the Harry Potter books treat physical abuse kind of lightly. (i.e.  Harry at the hands of the Dursleys, and house-elves at the hands of everybody. Even Molly Weasley “wallops” Fred with a broomstick.) 

PART IV: Dumbledore and Harry

“The whole Potter–Dumbledore relationship. It’s been called unhealthy, even sinister”

So whenever Harry feels betrayed by Dumbledore in the books - and he absolutely does, it’s some of JKR’s best writing  - it’s not because he left him with the Dursleys. It’s because Dumbledore kept secrets from him, or lied to him, or didn’t confide in him on a personal level. 

“Look what he asked from me, Hermione! Risk your life, Harry! And again! And again! And don’t expect me to explain everything, just trust me blindly, trust that I know what I’m doing, trust me even though I don’t trust you! Never the whole truth! Never!” (...) I don’t know who he loved, Hermione, but it was never me. This isn’t love, the mess he’s left me in. He shared a damn sight more of what he was really thinking with Gellert Grindelwald than he ever shared with me.”

Eventually though, Harry falls in line with the rest of the Order, and treats Dumbledore as an all-knowing God. And this decision comes so close to being critiqued…  but the series never quite commits. Rufus Scrimgeour comments that, “Well, it is clear to me that [Dumbledore] has done a very good job on you” - implying that Harry is a product of a deliberate manipulation,  and that the way Harry feels about Dumbledore is a direct result of how he's been controlling the situation (and Harry.)  But Harry responds to “[You are] Dumbledore’s man through and through, aren’t you, Potter?” with “Yeah, I am. Glad we straightened that out,” and it’s treated as a badass, mic drop line. 

Ron goes on to say that Harry maybe shouldn’t be trusting Dumbledore and maybe his plan isn’t that great… but then he abandons his friends, regrets what he did, and is only able to come back because Dumbledore knew he would react this way? So that whole thing only makes Dumbledore seem more powerful? Aberforth  tells Harry (correctly) that Dumbledore is expecting too much of him and he’s not interested in making sure that he survives:

“How can you be sure, Potter, that my brother wasn’t more interested in the greater good than in you? How can you be sure you aren’t dispensable (...) Why didn’t he say… ‘Take care of yourself, here’s how to survive’? (...) You’re seventeen, boy!”

But, Aberforth is treated as this Hamish Abernathy type who has given up, and needs Harry to ignite his spark again. There’s a pretty dark line in the script of Deathly Hallows Part 2:

Which at least shows this was a possible  interpretation the creative team had in their heads… but then of course it isn’t actually in the movie. 

So in the end, insane trust in Dumbledore is only ever treated as proper and good. Then in Cursed Child they start using “Dumbledore” as an oath instead of “Merlin” and it’s weird and I don’t like it.

PART V: Dumbledore and his Strays

“I have known, for some time now, that you are the better man.”

So Dumbledore has this weird relationship pattern. He has a handful of people he pulled out of the fire at some point and (as a result) these people are insanely loyal to him.  They do his dirty work, and he completely controls them. This is an interesting pattern, because I think it helps explain why so many fans read Dumbledore’s relationship with Snape (and with Harry) as sinister. 

Let’s start with the first of Dumbledore’s “strays.” Dumbledore saves Hagrid's livelihood and probably life after he is accused of opening the Chamber of Secrets - and then he uses Hagrid to disappear Harry after the Potters' death, gets him to transport the Philosopher’s Stone, and he’s the one who he trusts to be Harry’s first point of contact with the Wizarding World.  Also, Hagrid's situation doesn’t change? Even after he is cleared of opening the Chamber of Secrets, he keeps using that pink flowered umbrella with his broken wand inside, a secret that he and Dumbledore seem to share. He could get a legal wand, he could continue his education. But he doesn’t seem to, and I don’t know why. 

So, Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality is a well known fix-it fic that basically asks “What if Harry Potter was a machiavellian little super genius who solves the plot in a year?” I enjoyed it when it was coming out, but the only thing I would call a cheat is the way McGonagall brings Harry to Diagon Alley instead of Hagrid. Because a Harry Potter who has spent a couple of days with McGonagall is going to be much better informed, better equipped and therefore more powerful than a Harry spending the same amount of time with Hagrid. McGonagall is both a lot more knowledgeable and a lot less loyal to Dumbledore. She is loyal, obviously, but she also questions his choices in a way that Hagrid never does. And as a result, Dumbledore does not trust her with the same kind of delicate jobs he trusts to Hagrid.

Mrs. Figg is another one of Dumbledore’s strays. She’s a squib, so we can imagine that she doesn’t really have a lot of other options, and he sets her up to keep tabs on (and be unpleasant to) little Harry. He also has her lie to the entire Wizangamot, which has got to present some risk. Within this framework, Snape is another very clear stray. Dumbledore kept him out of Azkaban, and is the only reason that the Order trusts him. He gets sent on on dangerous double-agent missions… but before that he’s sort of kept on hand, even though he’s clearly miserable at Hogwarts. Firenze is definitely a stray - he can't go back to the centaurs, and who other than Dumbledore is going to hire him? And I do wonder about Trelawney. We don’t know much about her relationship with Dumbledore, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she was a stray as well.

I think there was an attempt to turn Lupin into a stray that didn’t… quite work. He is clearly grateful to Dumbledore for letting him attend Hogwarts and then for hiring him, but Lupin doesn’t really hit that necessary level of trustworthy that the others do. Most of what Dumbledore doesn’t know in Book 3 are things that Lupin could have told him, and didn’t. If had to think of a Watsonsian reason why Remus is given all these solo missions away from the other Order members (that never end up mattering…) it’s because I don’t think Dumbledore trusts him that much. Lupin doubts him too much. 

“Dumbledore believed that?” said Lupin incredulously. “Dumbledore believed Snape was sorry James was dead? Snape hated James. . . .”

 We also see Dumbledore start the process of making Draco into a stray by promising to protect him and his parents. And with all of that… it’s kind of easy to see how Harry fits the profile. He has a very bleak existence (which Dumbledore knows about.) He is pulled out of it by Dumbledore’s proxies. It’s not surprising that Harry develops a Hagrid-level loyalty, especially after Dumbledore saves him from Barty, from his Ministry hearing, and then from Voldemort. Harry walks to his death because Dumbledore told him too. 

Just to be clear, I don’t think this pattern is deliberate. I think this is a side effect of JKR wanting to write Dumbledore as a nice guy, and specifically as a protector of the little guy. But Dumbledore doing that while also being so powerful creates a weird power dynamic, gives him a weird edit. It’s part of the reason people are happy to go one step farther and say that the Dursleys were mean to Harry… because Dumbledore actively wanted it that way.  I don’t think that’s true. I think Dumbledore loves his strays and if anything, the text supports the idea that he is collecting good people, because protecting them and observing them serves some psychological function for him. Dumbledore does not believe himself to be an intrinsically good person, or trustworthy when it comes to power. So, of course someone like that would be fascinated by how powerless people operate in the world, and by people like Hagrid and Lupin and Harry, who seem so intrinsically good. 

PART VI - Dumbledore and Grindelwald

“I was in love with you.” 

I honestly see “17-year-old Dumbledore was enamored with Grindelwald” as a smokescreen distracting from the actual moral grayness of the guy. He wrote some edgy letters when he was a teenager, at least partly because he thought his neighbor was hot. He thought he could move Ariana, but couldn’t - which led to the chaotic three-way duel that killed her. 

One thing I think J. K. Rowling does understand pretty well, and introduces into her books on purpose, is the concept of re-traumatization. Sirius in Book 5 is very obviously being re-traumatized by being in his childhood home and hearing the portrait of his mother screaming. It’s why he acts out, regresses, and does a number of unadvisable things. I think it’s also deliberate that Petunia’s unpleasant childhood is basically being re-created: her normal son next to her sister’s magical son. It's making her worse, or at the very least preventing her from getting better. We learn that Petunia has this sublimated interest in the magical world, and can even pull out vocab like “Azkaban” and “Dementor” when she needs to.   She wrote Dumbledore asking to go to Hogwarts, and I could see that in a universe where Petunia didn’t have to literally raise Harry, she wouldn’t be as psychotically into normalness, cleanliness, and order as she is when we meet her in the books. After all, JKR doesn’t like to write evil mothers. She will be bend over backwards so her mothers are never really framed as bad.

And I honestly think it’s possible that J. K. Rowling was playing with the concept of re-traumatiziation when she was fleshing out Dumbledore in Book 7. We learn all this backstory, that… honestly isn’t super necessary? All I’m saying is that the three-way duel at the top of the Astronomy Tower lines up really well with the three-way duel that killed Ariana. Harry is Ariana, helpless in the middle. Draco is Aberforth, well intentioned and protective of his family - but kind of useless, and kind of a liability. Severus is Grindelwald, dark and brilliant, and one of the closest relationships Dumbledore has. If this was intentional, it was probably only for reasons of narrative symmetry… but I think it's cool in a Gus Fring of Breaking Bad sort of way, that Dumbledore (either consciously or unconsciously) has been trying to re-create this one horrible moment in his life where he felt entirely out of control. But the second time it plays out… he can give it what he sees as the correct outcome. Grindelwald kills him and everyone else lives. That is how you solve the puzzle.

If you read between the lines, Dumbledore/Grindelwald is a fascinating love story. I like the detail that after Ariana’s death, Dumbledore returns to Hogwarts because it’s a place to hide and because he doesn’t feel like he can be trusted with power. I like that he sits there, refusing promotions, refusing requests to be the new Minister of Magic, refusing to go deal with the growing Grindelwald threat until he absolutely can’t hide anymore, at which point he defeats him (somehow.) I like reading his elaborate plan to break Elder Wand’s power as both a screw-you to Grindelwald, the wand’s previous master, but also as a weirdly romantic gesture. In Albus Dumbledore’s mind, there is only Grindelwald. Voldemort can’t even begin to compare. I like the detail that Grindelwald won’t give up Dumbledore, even under torture. And, Dumbledore doesn’t put him in Azkaban. He put him in this other separate prison, which always makes it seem like he’s there under Dumbledore authority specifically.  Maybe Dumbledore thinks that if he had died that day instead of Ariana…he wouldn’t have had to spend the rest of his life fighting and imprisoning the man he loves.

And then of course, Crimes of Grindelwald decided to take away Dumbledore's greatest weakness and say that no, actually he was a really good guy who never did anything wrong ever.  He went all that time without fighting Grindelwald because they made a magical friendship no-fight bracelet. Dumbledore is randomly grabbing Lupin’s iconography (his fashion sense, his lesson plans, his job) in order to feel more soft and gentle than the person the books have created. Now Dumbledore knows about the Room Requirement, even though in the books it’s a plot point that he's too much of a goody-two-shoes to have ever found it himself. He loved Grindelwald (past tense.) And Secrets of Dumbledore is mostly about him being an omniscient mastermind so that a magical deer can tell him that he was a super good and worthy guy, and any doubt that he’s ever felt about himself is just objectively wrong and incorrect. Also now Aberforth has a neglected son, so he’s reframed as a bit of a hypocrite for getting on his brother’s case for not protecting Harry. 

So to summarize, I think Dumbledore began the series as this very eccentric, unpredictable mentor, whose abilities took a hit in Books 3 and 4 in order to make the plot happen. He teetered on the edge of a ‘dark’ framing for like a second… but at the the end of the series he's written as basically infallible and godlike. I’ve heard people say that JKR’s  increased fame was the reason she added the Rita Skeeter plot line, and I don’t think that’s true. But I do think her fame may have affected the way she wrote Dumbledore. Because Dumbledore is JKR’s comment on power, and by Book 5 she had so much power. In her head, I don’t think that Dumbledore is handing off jobs in a manipulative way. She sees him as empowering other less powerful people. That is his job as someone in power (because remember - people who desire power shouldn't wield it.)

Dumbledore’s power makes him emotionally disconnected from the people in his life, it makes him disliked and distrusted by the Ministry, but it doesn’t make him wrong. That’s important. Dumbledore is never wrong. Dumbledore is always good. That’s why we get the Blood Pact that means he was never weak or procrastinating. That’s why we get the qilin saying he was a good person. It’s why we get the tragic backstory (because giving Snape a tragic backstory worked wonders when it came to rehabilitating him.) And that is why Harry names his son Albus Severus in the epilogue, to make us readers absolutely crystal clear that these two are good men. 

[maxdibert]

Dumbledore was not raising child soldiers. The youngest people in the Order we know of (in the 1st war) were the Marauders and Lily and they obviously joined after they graduated. So this argument doesn't apply to first war Dumbledore. 2nd war was different, he did groom Harry to be his child soldier but Harry is an entirely different case. He was a weapon. But to your comment about him and Tom... I do not think he is responsible for what became of Tom. Yes he could have guide him, but why put that job entirely on his shoulders? Dumbledore didn't know what will become of Tom. He simply knew he was a troubled kid. But was it his job to bear the guiding? I believe it was Slughorn's job as every other teacher around him. Dumbledore was acting decent and polite, just like he would with any other child, the first time they met, so he didn't ostrazice him. And through Tom's student years we only saw them interact after the Chamber of Secrets incident where Dumbledore had some suspicions he couldn't prove. Tom was failed by every single adult around him. In the orphanage and by his teachers. His environment that fueled his ambitions for power and control (both at the orphanage and among his peers) connected with his antisocial personality traits and the authority figures failing to help him just made him the way he is and shaped him into the violent man he was. I don't know if some actions on Dumbledore's part could have prevented that. Dumbledore might have helped but Riddle was doomed from all of his environments and a simple figure would probably not change much. After all he created his first Horcrux (the most evil act in the books) when he was a teenage student. That shows that he was beyond fucked up and how do you think a man like Dumbledore (busy with his job and occupied with Grindelward war) could have handled all the burden? Dumbledore is not the man for the job. It's not in his personality. He had a lot to do with the war already. Raising an orphan and trying to mold him into a decent person is simply not the task for him, especially at that time. Riddle is the product of neglectful caregivers, poor financial situation, being raised in constant survival state, growing up during the war, being ostraziced and maybe even bullied, having no support system, having noone that loved him, trying to survive in Slytherin and being in an environment where only power could get him recognition and control and having some sort of mental disorder that made all of these situations much worse to cope with. Yes Rowling said he was psychopath but the main theme of her story is that he WAS capable of love and remorse/change but his choices and upbringing made it incredibly hard, almost impossible for him. So she didn't say he is incapable of love. Just that he is an evil person who made shitty choices. Mostly due to how he grew up. But blaming Dumbledore is silly. Riddle needed a strong support system and he simply never got it and Dumbledore was not in the best situation or state of mind to provide what Tom needed.

So don’t be a teacher. My problem with Dumbledore is that being a teacher comes with responsibility, especially if you’re eventually the Headmaster of the school. This isn’t just Dumbledore’s fault, it’s the fault of all the adults at Hogwarts, who for the most part are completely incompetent when it comes to dealing with children. But my problem with Dumbledore is that I find him hypocritical for judging the actions of certain characters who were literally under his care (because if you have children in your charge at a boarding school, you’re the closest thing to a legal guardian they have, and they are your responsibility, including their well-being), and he left them to their own devices because, well, he didn’t care, or they didn’t serve his purposes, or he already considered them lost causes, or who knows what.

The other day I was revisiting one of the shows from my childhood (a horrible, very problematic soap opera, but well, you know, those things that mark your childhood and you have affection for) and it was also set in a boarding school with rich kids. In that school, there was a secret society of very rich kids who tried to kick out the scholarship students because they believed the school shouldn’t accept lower-class people (does that sound familiar?). The thing is, they got caught, were exposed, and were reported. When they were reported, one of the adults said that those kids should go straight to a reform school or be judged and pay for their crimes. Then, a teacher comes forward and says, “Stop, no, no, these kids are clearly not well. These kids need support and psychological help, and we need to understand why they’ve reached this point and why they’ve developed these attitudes.” And it really moved me because that’s what a good teacher is. That’s what someone dedicated to educating young people should be. That’s the mindset, the attitude, and the way to confront kids who take the wrong paths.

And yes, that’s what Dumbledore should have done. And if he couldn’t do it because it wasn’t part of his personality, because he had his own problems or issues, because he was involved in a war, or whatever excuse it was, then he shouldn’t have taken a position of responsibility that involved children. Especially in a pretty hostile environment where many were likely to end up on very twisted paths. And he shouldn’t have waited until some came crying to him as adults, or until some were on the brink of committing homicide, or until some ended up in a cult to intervene. And his way of intervening shouldn’t have been condescending, manipulating them, or even blaming them for their actions. That’s not what a good teacher does, that’s not how a good educator behaves, that’s negligence, and negligence with children and teenagers is terrible to me. Because we’re talking about children and teenagers who spent most of their lives at that school, who were with him more than with their own parents. It was his damn job, I’m sorry, he should’ve chosen something else.

[bi-harrymort]

yesterday i listened to the order of the phoenix audiobook while doing some chores and i was stuck on a thought about dumbledore i've had for a while but couldn't really articulate...

when i was a kid i liked him - he reminded me of my grandpa.

when i was a teen i became more critical of him and started to appreciate him as a more grey-area character, rather than what he was (i imagine) intended to be - the good and wise, albeit flawed in some ways, mentor figure.

now each year with each re-read of the books i begin to feel more and more irritated whenever he enters a scene... and i couldn't put my finger on why i felt that way (i put the blame of my irritation on fanfiction - reading about different renditions and interpretations of characters influences how we see them, especially since most of the fanfics i read in the hp fandom are, in the least, dumbledore-critical, if not outright dumbledore bashing)

but yesterday a thought struck me, when i was listening to the chapter of harry's hearing at the ministry, and the thought was that dumbledore, in canon, truly seems extremely cold and emotionless...

(many people have already talked about it, but I guess I wanted to maybe touch on some stuff that is not talked about as often?)

albus dumbledore is always kind, pleasant, composed, and presented in a way that is supposed to give us an impression of a very wise, experienced by life and its sorrows, man.

but i think what happened was that his character ended up becoming the opposite of this image.

for example, let's take his first ever scene in the series:

he meets with mcgonagall, and as they wait for hagrid to arrive with harry, they talk...

"My dear Professor, surely a sensible person like yourself can call him by his name? All this 'You- Know-Who' nonsense - for eleven years I have been trying to persuade people to call him by his proper name: Voldemort." Professor McGonagall flinched, but Dumbledore, who was unsticking two lemon drops, seemed not to notice. "It all gets so confusing if we keep saying 'You-Know-Who.' I have never seen any reason to be frightened of saying Voldemort's name."

this is the first instance in which my teeth started to grind. of course, the dialogue serves as an intoduction: mcgonagall has to tell us - the audience - who and how significant dumbledore is; in the same scene showcasing voldemort's significance.

the powerful and frightening dark lord, and the powerful, benevolent opposing figure of the story.

but, at the same time, when done this way, it presents a very... strange character... for when we look at this scene through the lenses of the fictional world dumbledore is damn well aware why he was never afraid of voldemort, and should understand why everyone else is, right?

this line paints his modesty in a fake light... (not to mention a lack of empathy to understand why people may be afraid of voldemort) a way for him to show how unremarkable he is, while clearly knowing that he isn't, all to get the points for modesty as well.

it's one thing to be modest while being aware that you may be in some ways special, its another to be 'modest' without acknowledging it, in which case you're either really oblivious or not really honest. and given the story, i wouldn't say that dumbledore is presented as an oblivious character - quite the opposite actually, given how he always seems to know everything - more than any other character. so that would leave us with the option number two...

"I know you haven't, said Professor McGonagall, sounding half exasperated, half admiring. "But you're different. Everyone knows you're the only one You-Know- oh, all right, Voldemort, was frightened of." "You flatter me," said Dumbledore calmly. "Voldemort had powers I will never have." "Only because you're too - well - noble to use them." "It's lucky it's dark. I haven't blushed so much since Madam Pomfrey told me she liked my new earmuffs."

why am i rolling my eyes? oh dumbledore, you're so different and awesome and special and noble and good! excuse me i have to throw up.

this happens over and over and over again; save for one or two instances...

but even this i always lumped into a bit of a biased and irrational dislike of a character, and so i didn't think it a sufficient reason to ever bring it up. what did persuade me to write this post is the constant, constant calmness of albus dumbledore.

now, i don't mind passive, calm, composed or, in a similar way, depressed characters. it's all about who they are, what's their backstory, their role in the story, etc.

dumbledore's calmness coupled with all of those other aspects make him into someone very emotionless; emotionless that is veering into ruthlessness. and this trait, we are told and 'shown', is supposed to be the exact opposite of his percieved personality...

he constantly keeps vital information from other people (even if the information pertains to the matters of life-and-death); allows for others (especially children) to fight his battles; shows up only in very critical moments, when he would have had the power to actually prevent some of the events from happening; and is so calm and collected throughout all of the chaos that ensues that he comes off as if he didn't really care about anyone or anything...

he preaches about love and family, and he certainly believes in it to an extent, but his actions and reactions do not fully confirm the truthfulness of his words. he's more like a general of an army - he hates to see his soldiers die, but he's got to let it, he's the only one who knows about the horcruxes - he's the only one who knows how to defeat voldemort once and for all! so he's got to stay in control...

whilst also, in the same breath, preaching about how dangerous having such control is.

telling everyone how he rejects power, claiming he doesn't have it...

whilst being in the position of absolute control.

control that he gained through his knowledge. his intelligence. his fame. his standing in the wizarding world.

he may not be the minister, but the minister heavily relies on him for most of the story... to such an extent that some people don't respect the minister himself. instead they give this respect and power to dumbledore - other witches and wizards treat dumbledore in a way dumbledore claims to reject.

because power isn't only what you do and say. power comes from other people as well. hell, maybe even more so... people give individuals their power.

you may be the smartest and the strongest person in the world and never gain even an ounce of the power that the renowned and celebrated people of the world have.

most of dumbledore's flaws are part of the writing itself - it's a children's book with a child protagonist. he and his teen friends have to save the day...

so, like with voldemort, dumbledore ends up in the limbo between made claims and the 'reality' of the story.

voldemort is powerful, brilliant; a great wizard - whether they love or hate him, other characters always admit that he was great.

dumbledore is also powerful and brilliant; a good man - most characters will confirm it every once in a while, reminding us of this fact.

but that's the issue i guess... or maybe a blessing... the story is what it is, and so when we - the fans - wish to dig deeper, we'll all end up with a thousand different interpretations of the same character, all fuelled by our own, personal understanding of the text, our own personalities and life experiences and our own ways in which we end up interacting with the source material.

so we'll always create unique explanations. some centered solely on the fictional world's perspective, and some combining fiction with the reality of the written book: its genre and possible real-life influences.

the post was supposed to be shorter, but I couldn't leave some of this stuff out... in the middle of writing i considered taking more time before updating and doing more research (maybe even make it into a much bigger project and go through all of dumbledore's scenes in all of the books)... but i decided to table it for another time.

[iamnmbr3]

#dumbledore is one fucked up person#imagine telling a sixteen year old#that the guy who murdered his parents was fucked up#not because of the later murders#but because he had the sheer audacity#of being a pretty kid while poor and lower class#or a pretty adult later#but he doesn’t see a difference#why exactly is that you might ask via @perilousraven

Tom: *gets creeped on by an older woman of higher social standing*

Dumbledore: Ah yes. As you can see he remained the the same corrupting seductor, using his good looks to lead the innocent astray and conceal his inherently depraved nature, that he was at 11.

Me: There is definitely someone here giving off extremely off the chart rancid vibes right now and it's not Tom Riddle.

I find it incredibly creepy how Dumbledore views Riddle as being this sort of inherently seductive 'femme fatale' type. In book 6 he implies that Tom used his looks to endear himself to his teachers when he started school and hide his supposedly inherently evil and corrupt nature.

Like. Albus. DUDE. Tom was ELEVEN. Why would you assume that teachers would be swayed by or even paying attention to the attractiveness of an eleven year old?! WTAF?

And then he portrays the Hepzibah Smith memory as another example of Tom using his seductive charms for evil. But although he does bring her flowers he doesn't do anything else to encourage her and in fact seems uncomfortable and determined to keep the conversation focused on work.

She is actually the one who is being creepy here given the power differential between them. I mean, yes, Tom is putting up with her because it suits his designs for the moment and could and would kill her in a second if provoked. But even though we know that she certainly doesn't. As far as she knows she's creeping on this young store clerk without wealth or connections whose job depends on keeping her happy.

And certainly while she enjoys his looks and his attention she also seems quite happy with the persona he puts on where he addresses her in a highly respectful manner, not as an equal. She's certainly not complaining about how he calls her Miss Hepzibah or asking him to drop the honorific. She likes that. She likes that he addresses her not much differently than how her House Elf does. She likes his whole "I am only a poor assistant, madam, who must do as he is told" thing. And as far as she knows he is just that, with no particular special power or talent other than his good looks which she evidently appreciates. This is not him leading on and taking advantage of an innocent sweet old lady.

And yes he brings her flowers, presumably to keep her happy, but other than that he tries to keep the conversation professional and steer the discussion towards the purpose of his visit. He doesn't say anything overtly flirtatious or even try to prolong their discussion by asking to see some of her other things.

She brings that up on her own. Nor is there any indication that he is the one that decided to move their relationship in this direction. It seems more like she saw a young and good looking man, apparently far below her in terms of station and magical power, and made her move. He probably isn't the first.

The way she casually touches him is just so creepy to me. And though he tolerates it, he did nothing to encourage or solicit it. Riddle is someone who is in general quite averse to touch. We only see him voluntarily touch one person in 7 books and that's when he touches Harry, just for a second in book 4, just to show that he can. I don't think he enjoys this kind of attention. He was probably glad to kill her for more than just the purpose of getting the cup and the locket.

And yet none of her creepiness is acknowledged. Instead, Dumbledore draws our attention to how Riddle cruelly seduced and murdered a nice old lady whose affections he sought and then betrayed:

[hollowed-theory-hall]

Hello!! So, I saw an argument about Harry's uhm looks? I guess. A lot of people basically headcanon him as someone buff. I digress, I'm part of the uhm more realistic? group. Harry's been starved and abused his entire life. I doubt he'll gain the weight and the height everyone else wants him to have. Years later. maybe. But in 6th year? While on the run? 3 years after the war? Doubt. do you think he would be able to get super tall and buff? Also, do you think its possible he used the same methods the dursleys used to punish himself?

I mean, anyone can headcanon whatever they want, but, I'll try to explain via quotes, what Harry's height and muscle situation is likely to be. I believe the reasons some headcanon him as buff and tall are:

Harry had pinned Mundungus against the wall of the pub by the throat. Holding him fast with one hand, he pulled out his wand.

(HBP)

He lifts Mundungus by his throat with one hand easily, and he practices Quidditch like 3 times a week at least. This implies that Harry has some muscle on him.

And he's mentioned to be James' height when he's 17:

James was exactly the same height as Harry.

(DH)

Which was supposedly tall, according to both, Harry:

tall and untidy-haired like Harry, the smoky, shadowy form of James Potter

(GoF)

And Voldemort:

the tall black-haired man in his glasses

(DH)

Now, let's put Harry's height in the context of other character heights. Particularly of interest are characters taller than him, to get an image of how tall is "tall." And some shorter characters to help figure out his exact height.

Sirius, Ron, Voldemort, and Dumbledore are all taller than Harry and exceptionally tall in general. They are each likely to be over 6 feet tall, making Harry likely less than 6' (183 cm). Supporting this is this quote:

Once the painful transformation was complete he was more than six feet tall, and from what he could tell from his well-muscled arms, powerfully built.

(DH)

This means Harry is less than 6' and isn't super buff. But, I want to get to his specific height, because I have a lot to say about character heights.

Like, Dumbledore is probably the tallest character who isn't a half-giant because he's towering over everyone except Hagrid and Maxime. In book 6, he's literally taller than all the inferi in the cave:

Dumbledore was on his feet again, pale as any of the surrounding Inferi, but taller than any too,

(HBP)

And Abeforth (who's as tall as Dumbledore) is taller than Ron, who's one of the other tallest characters in the books:

Ron looked slightly sick. Aberforth stood up, tall as Albus, and suddenly terrible in his anger and the intensity of his pain.

(DH)

Making the Dumbledores really tall. My estimate is around a whooping 6'5 (195 cm).

Sirius is mentioned to be taller than Snape, and the tallest Marauder:

said Sirius, standing up. He was rather taller than Snape

(OotP)

To Sirius’s right stood Pettigrew, more than a head shorter

(DH)

A head, in height, should be around one foot (30.48 cm). As the average height of a man in England in 1998 was around 5'8 (174.4 cm), this would make Sirius around 6'2 (188 cm), therefore taller than average, and Pettigrew around 5'2 (157 cm), shorter than the average, but still both at a reasonable height.

Ron is almost as tall as the twins at 11:

“Shut up,” said Ron again. He was almost as tall as the twins already and his nose was still pink where his mother had rubbed it.

(PS)

And, just, really tall in general:

He stepped forward. Not as tall as Ron, he had to crane his neck to read the yellowish label affixed to the shelf right beneath the dusty glass ball.

(OotP)

So I estimate Ron at around 6'3 (190 cm).

Voldemort who grew up on war rations is still described very consistently as tall, regardless of childhood malnourishment:

He was his handsome father in miniature, tall for eleven years old, dark-haired, and pale

(HBP)

tall, pale, dark-haired, and handsome — the teenage Voldemort.

(HBP)

Taller than Bellatrix (who's taller than Harry). Voldemort is also considerably taller than Pettigrew, as he has to bend to reach Pettigrew's arm when both are standing:

Voldemort bent down and pulled out Wormtail’s left arm; he forced the sleeve of Wormtail’s robes up past his elbow

(GoF)

I usually place Voldemort at around the same height as Ron, so 6'3 (190 cm).

Fred and George, though, are mentioned to be shorter and stockier, more similar to Molly's build:

Charlie was built like the twins, shorter and stockier than Percy and Ron, who were both long and lanky.

(GoF)

but are mentioned to shrink to become Harry in book 7:

Hermione and Mundungus were shooting upward; Ron, Fred, and George were shrinking

(DH)

I actually place the twins around 6' (183 cm) so they could be taller than Harry, but shorter than Ron. The twins are likely taller than Charlie.

Bellatrix, as a woman, should also be shorter on average, but considering how tall Sirius is mentioned to be, it appears the Blacks are just considerably taller than the average, even the women:

a tall dark woman with heavy-lidded eyes, who had stood at her trial and proclaimed her continuing allegiance to Lord Voldemort

(OotP)

She was taller than he was, her long black hair rippling down her back, her heavily lidded eyes disdainful as they rested upon him;

(DH)

So I place her at around 6' (183 cm) as well, as an exceptionally tall lady.

So where does this place Harry?

During the first 4 books, Harry is short and small for his age. When he's 13, he and Hermione are bit shorter than Pettigrew:

He was a very short man, hardly taller than Harry and Hermione.

(PoA)

(Ron, noticeably, is taller than Pettigrew at 13)

So, so Harry at 13 was around 5'1 (155 cm). And so was Hermione.

Then in between books 4 and 5 puberty kicks in and probably causes a slight growth spurt that makes him more attractive to girls around him:

Parvati Patil and Lavender Brown, the last two of whom gave Harry airy, overly friendly greetings that made him quite sure they had stopped talking about him a split second before. He had more important things to worry about, however:

(OotP)

And then he has another, larger growth spurt between books 5 and 6:

“You’re like Ron,” she [Molly] sighed, looking him up and down. “Both of you look as though you’ve had Stretching Jinxes put on you. I swear Ron’s grown four inches since I last bought him school robes.

(HBP)

“And it doesn’t hurt that you’ve grown about a foot over the summer either,” Hermione finished, ignoring Ron. “I’m tall,” said Ron inconsequentially. [Ron is objectively correct]

(HBP)

Post book 6 growth spurt, we know Harry is below 6' (183 cm) but close enough to 6' to be above the average of 5'8 (174.4 cm) and be considered "tall", and grow "about a foot" after said growth spurt.

I personally place his height at 5'11 (180 cm), to make all of the above make sense.

And while he is physically fit, he is likely very thin from years of malnourishment. So, he likely has some muscle on him, but he's very lean with little to no fat during his Hogwarts years (he'd likely gain more weight as an adult living peacefully with regular meals). So, Harry in the books isn't what I'd call buff, but he has some muscle and can definitely throw a punch. As he grows older post-canon, I think he could get buff if he set his mind to it.

(I actually have notes about the height of a bunch of other characters. Hermione is shorter than Harry and Ron, but noticeably taller than Ginny (5'1 or 155 cm - edited Ginny's height since I think she's shorter than the former estimate of 5'2. Bellatrix says “Very well — take the smallest one,” with Hermione and Luna (who's also short) present, so Ginny is really short) and probably around 5'4 (162 cm) by book 7. Draco is said to be slightly taller than Harry "Harry did not dare look directly at Draco, but saw him obliquely; a figure slightly taller than he was" - DH, placing Draco at around 6' (183 cm))

For your other question, no, I don't think Harry self-harms, definitely not in any way related to the Dursleys, but that's a different post because I went off about heights.

[nettedtangible]

Ok, can we talk about the fact that Dumbledore literally had these statues APPLAUD when they saw him!!! Like he brought them to life!! He controls their actions entirely. Bitch was really like, ‘ok I’m gonna walk forward and it’s gonna be this really cool reveal where I’m gonna be proven right and I’ve just duelled Voldemort and these statues are gonna go fucking wild for it’

PLEASE, this man is so unserious! Walking around with his own little hype team like sir Harry is on the ground half dead and Sirius has just DIED!!!

Really in keeping with my previous post about Dumbledore and his CELEBRATORY FEASTS on the night of James and Lily’s death.

Reading the room? This man hasn’t heard of it! If there’s one thing he’s gonna do, it’s make sure everyone knows how fucking great he is

KIM THERES PEOPLE THAT ARE DYING

[sparsilees]

you’d think if remus’ face was riddled with half a dozen scars, the rumour mill at hogwarts would’ve been churning nonstop, theories abound about the new prof being on the business end of wands in bar fights or having unfortunate run-ins with dangerous creatures in the wild. why, it’s obvious he’s penniless and winnings at underground duelling rings were the fastest shortcut, but he got beaten hollow repeatedly.

if remus was even slightly noticeably scarred, ron and harry wouldn’t have just left it at greying, shabby, and “looks like one good hex would finish him off”.

children are curious and brutally honest—trelawney resembles a shiny bug, dumbledore’s robes are one-of-a-kind, quirrel was a stuttering wimp, firenze may be a centaur but lavender doesn’t discriminate. tongues would’ve wagged if remus was walking about with mysterious scratches apparently impervious to magical healing. forget hermione, the non-muggleborns would’ve suspected and sounded the alarms within the first month.

[iamnmbr3]

@thecarnivorousmuffinmeta raises excellent points as usual. This reminds me that I've been thinking for a while about how Dumbledore's relationship with Harry may be impacted by the bizarre fixation he has on Tom.

We know from from Diary!Tom that Harry apparently looks a little bit like him. Plus of course, in some ways Harry literally IS Tom Riddle in the sense that he is a Horcrux and contains a piece of Tom's soul inside him and has some of his powers. But unlike Tom, Harry looks up to and is loyal to Dumbledore.

Perhaps he isn't quite as unconditionally trusting of Dumbledore as some might think (as argued well here by @hollowed-theory-hall) but certainly he does, in broad strokes, trust and like him in a way Tom never did (for understandable reasons).

Also, unlike Tom, Harry is not a skilled Legilimens (or indeed even allowed to be made aware of the existence of Legilimency and Occlumency for quite some time) and so Dumbledore also gets constant unfettered access to his mind, something that I think Tom denied him. We know that he read Tom's mind against his will in the orphanage but Tom probably got skilled enough at Occlumency to keep Dumbledore out pretty quickly. Certainly he was able to keep the details of opening the Chamber of Secrets and his creation of a Horcrux secret.

And even in the orphanage, I think we could argue that when he is described as having a "closed" look following Dumbledore's incursion into his mind, he may in fact be practicing an instinctive form of Occlumency already since it's something he had a natural talent for and his powers were already quite developed and since similar descriptions of "closed" expressions are often used in the books to give a visual cue to hint at when characters are magically guarding their thoughts.

So I think Dumbledore would've had very little opportunity to invade Tom's mind. Which is something that he seems to have quite a nasty habit of doing. The implication of the books is that he reads Harry's mind regularly. And not just Harry's. He presumably knows so much about what goes on and about the inner feelings and insecurities of students under his care - including Harry but also others like Ron for example - because he makes a habit of just casually invading their minds and reading their thoughts.

This is. Deeply creepy. (And that's not even getting into the times he apparently straight up made himself invisible and followed Harry around in first year to spy on him - I swear the more you think about Dumbledore the creepier you realize he is).

It's rather striking in this context that Hogwarts students don't seem to be made aware of the possibility that their minds can be accessed or taught how to defend themselves.

Given that he makes a habit of doing something so incredibly invasive and that he has a particular fixation when it comes to Tom, I would suspect that he found Tom's ability to deny him access to his thoughts and feelings deeply galling. (Though I'm sure he did all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify his feelings about it).

And then we have Harry - who looks something like Tom and has a literal piece of Tom's soul inside him and is connected to Tom through a mystical prophecy - but who unlike Tom gives him respect and unresistant obedience and (unknowingly) allows Dumbledore unfettered access to dip into his thoughts whenever he wants. Harry, is both the weapon that Dumbledore will use to punish and destroy Tom, and also the "good" and "pure" version of Tom who reacts "properly" to Dumbledore and allows him the things Tom never would.

This is not a true summation of Harry's character (or Tom's for that matter) but I think it may well be how Dumbledore sees it (partly probably at a subconscious level because I think he lies to himself almost as much as he lies to others). And I think that colors how he interacts with Harry.

Do you think Tom was the only student Dumbledore hated? I think Tom probably isn't the only Unfavorite Student and there are more out there that Dumbledore was successful at sabotaging.

(Side thought do you think Moody started out on Dumbledore's bad list but then worked very hard to "redeem" himself by trusting Dumbledore in all things and that's why he's so weirdly loyal to Dumbledore?)

Dumbledore and Hating People

The thing is that Tom Riddle does seem to hold a special place in Dumbledore's heart.

There are other characters we see who are also loathsome/have qualities that Dumbledore despises but it's in different ways/not to the same degree.

Dumbledore utterly loathes Lockhart, purposefully sets him up with the job so as to either destroy his reputation fundamentally or kill him. However, I'd say Dumbledore is contemptuous and dismissive of Lockhart. Dumbledore has 0 interest in the man beyond destroying him, and doesn't spend much time thinking about him beyond getting him in the castle and letting the curse do its work.

Dumbledore is dismissive and contemptuous of Cornelius Fudge, but again, doesn't focus on him much beyond pitying his shortsightedness and holding him in general contempt.

Dumbledore similarly doesn't love the Dursleys but it feels like that's in a way of he has 0 opinion or interest in Vernon and just... a very weird treatment of Petunia. I wouldn't even say he dislikes them, in fact, I think he likes the idea of them beyond the general disappointment in not treating Harry exactly the way he'd like (except they are doing that but he'll never say as much).

While we don't know that Dumbledore doesn't have stashes of memories he's painfully collected over the years, going to anyone who ever interacted with Tom Riddle and asking "please give me every memory you have ever had" only for the vast majority of them to slam the door in his face, given the focus he has on Tom Riddle it seems... unlikely...

Add this in with Tom's "dark glamour", the way Dumbledore talks about him, the way he pontificates about him as if he's a fictional character and Dumbledore is writing fanfiction and metas about the man, and we're looking at a... I'll call it a fixation where Tom hit all the right buttons for Albus Dumbledore in a way that other people just haven't.

Basically, the people we see Dumbledore hate just aren't hot enough (or are women so Dumbledore doesn't care).

I'll put it this way. Harry's easily Dumbledore's second fixation, he puts a lot of work into this boy, but Dumbledore's way less... into him is the only way I can put it, than Tom. Harry's there as a vehicle/means to destroy Tom and acts as a foil to Tom. Everything about Harry for Dumbledore is presented as "in contrast to Tom Riddle" and that's telling to me.

As for hating students...

I think most of the time Dumbledore just doesn't give a fuck.

With Draco who was actively endangering the student body, nearly killing several students to ultimately kill Dumbledore, and ultimately letting Death Eaters (including Fenrir fucking Grayback) into the castle where it's a miracle no one died/got lycanthropy Dumbledore was into it and a) knew the whole time b) did nothing to stop it because then Tom would hurt Draco. (It's too bad Katie Bell got cursed for six months in the process of that huh Dumbledore or you didn't approach Draco with that offer to give him clemency until the last five minutes of your life).

I doubt Dumbledore knows who Crabbe and Goyle even are.

And he seemed to favor the Marauders (rampant known bullies) and not care about Severus at the time and now thinks quite highly of Severus for having redeemed himself for love/following a narrative Dumbledore likes while also being unable to not do what Dumbledore wants.

He only cares about Ron and Hermione in relation to Harry and just likes the general idea of them (Dumbledore is very big on the "idea" of people).

Dumbledore and Moody

I don't think so.

We've seen the redemption story Dumbledore likes and that's Severus Snape's. Dumbledore likes a narrative, Moody having been disliked then just choosing to be a sycophant would be very unimpressive for Dumbledore because he'd see no reason for Moody to have changed/not an impressive enough reason.

It has to be for true love, friendship, some reason that is a compelling narrative to Dumbledore.

Everything for Dumbledore fits into these narratives from Merope dying in childbirth (she just didn't love enough), to Lily being murdered (she loved her son so much she sacrificed herself), to Snape (his love for her means he is now undyingly loyal to her son), to everything.

Plus, I don't get that feeling about Moody.

Dumbledore has plenty of people unquestioningly loyal to him, he cultivates the Order such that this is the case, it's not so much that Moody's an outlier for being so loyal but the fact that he is in the Order of the Phoenix at all means he must be this loyal to survive there (notice Percy is not a member). In the Order we're seeing the people who survived the litmus test of "actively not questioning Dumbledore in any decision he ever makes" (see HBP and the Christmas Party and shooting down of Harry's "Draco's up to something and Snape is too" for reasons that are simply "I trust Dumbledore completely" and nothing else).

If Moody wasn't like that, he wouldn't be in the Order.

So, I think Moody's just like the rest of them and I don't see a reason why he would have ever been different.

[potions-of-dark-devotion]

Why doesn’t anyone in the Order of the Phoenix , even the marauders, tell Harry Potter stories about his parents, positive or negative? Like they tell him things like “you’re so much like your father” or “you look so much like you mother” or “we used to get into trouble all the time” but never “oh hey your did this one time I remember….ect” or “your mom did this weird thing once it was so funny ect…” like stories like this would be a goldmine to Harry of identity and belonging. How well did they all know each other???

[lines-in-limbo]

I recently saw a post on tiktok about Neville as a potentially great chosen one if he had been picked, and I wanted to share my thoughts and rant a little because I don’t have much else to talk about, lol.

I believe ppl are missing a crucial point here. If Voldemort had targeted Neville instead of Harry, things would have played out very differently. Neville most likely wouldn’t have survived at all and wouldn’t have become "the Boy Who Lived."

Firstly, let’s discuss Snape. His role in Harry’s survival is massive. Snape’s love for Lily led him to ask Voldemort to spare her, and he then went to Dumbledore to beg for her protection. The Potters went into hiding, and Dumbledore cast the fidelius charm. Unfortunately, they were eventually betrayed by Peter. Since Snape wouldn’t have done this for the Longbottoms, they wouldn’t have gone into hiding (unless Dumbledore had been tipped off by someone else). This would have made it easier for Voldemort to find them.

Secondly, the protection Harry received from his mother’s sacrifice was unique. Lily’s choice to sacrifice herself for Harry created a magical protection that caused Voldemort’s curse to rebound, leading to his temporary downfall. This was possible because Voldemort gave her the choice to step aside. Alice and Frank, though loving and brave, wouldn’t have had the same opportunity to step aside for Neville. Snape wouldn’t have asked Voldemort to spare them, so Voldemort wouldn’t have given them a chance to step aside. As a result, Neville wouldn’t have received the same sacrificial protection, and Voldemort would have succeeded in killing him.

In short, if Voldemort had targeted Neville, the lack of Snape’s intervention and the absence of the Fidelius Charm and sacrificial protection would likely have led to the Longbottoms' deaths. Neville wouldn’t have become the boy who lived, and the wizarding world’s history would have been completely different.

I personally speculate that if Voldemort had succeeded in killing Neville, he might have then turned his attention to Harry to prevent the prophecy from coming true. Given Voldemort’s nature, he would likely have sought to eliminate any remaining threat. Snape would've intervened (assuming he was aware), potentially resulting in a scenario similar to the one we know. This would mean Harry could still become the chosen one and “the Boy Who Lived,” despite the different circumstances. It’s an intriguing thought—how fate might realign even when the paths change.

This has probably been discussed before, but I just needed to yap a little. It’s been a while since I posted!

[kait-bait8]

Dumbledore offering Draco mercy is a really emotional moment.

Imagine being a bully your entire life, raised by violent parents who talk about the death of those they don’t like as if it’s nothing. Raised around violence. Then, at the age of 16, you’re given the task to kill an old man. A powerful man yes, but an old man. You know if you don’t kill him, you and your family will be killed.

So all year you try and find ways of killing him that don’t involve you having to look him in the eyes. Cursed necklaces and poisoned mead that get passed to him by others so you’re removed. But they don’t work so you keep working on your plan and telling yourself that murder is nothing, killing is nothing. You are violent and you can do this.

And then your moment comes and you are face to face with a weak, frail man who can barely stand. You tell him you are going to kill him and he is telling you something no one has ever told you: you are not a killer. You are not a murderer. You are not violent. You are an innocent child and you can choose to remain so.

And you stand there, terrified, and you know he is right.

[wisteria-lodge]

And now for a HP fandom question - do you have any thoughts on queercoding in the series and if JKR ever actually intended it, and then backtracked, or if it was always completely unintentional? I'm thinking specifically about Lupin and Tonks (as individuals, not as a ship) Inspired by your post about the intention vs how fans perceived Draco Malfoy. Thanks!

So the first thing I want to do is make a distinction between femme-coding and queer-coding. They're tropes with very similar histories, and a lot of works treat them as the same thing. But Harry Potter doesn’t, and I think we can chalk this one up to JK Rowling’s habit of grabbing aesthetics and visuals without really thinking through the history behind them. 

(Like - the goblins. She says she didn’t mean to write an antisemitic thing, and I actually do believe her. But did she use a lot of tropes and images with a long history of being tied to antisemitism? yes.)

So when I say “femme” I mean giving a male character traits stereotypically associated with femininity. Heightened sensitivity/emotionality, an interest in hair, clothes and being attractive, a love of lace/pink/frills, a dislike of violence and physical confrontation, and a preference for the soft power of manipulation, character assassination and poison - versus the hard power of direct confrontation and physical prowess. Are these things super stereotypical? Yes. But they’re ALSO traits you see all the time on male villains, especially ones that you don’t want to seem that threatening. Femme-coded villains show up a lot in children’s media, or as the Big Bad’s #2. They’re not meant to be heroic or sympathetic (since all these feminine traits are not desirable, especially for guys.) But they also aren’t scary, and you can pretty much always play them for comedy. 

For example: see almost every male Disney villain. And JKR was writing children’s literature in the 90s, so of course she’s pulling from the same zeitgeist as the Disney Renaissance. 

JKR loves herself a femme villain. The absolute gold standard is of course Lockhart - who wears pink, wants to start his own line of hair care products, is self-centered, vain, obsessed with popularity… but he sucks in a fight. His entire MO involves manipulating people into thinking he has these traditional masculine qualities when he just doesn’t. But there’s also fussy, prissy Percy wearing his prefect badge on his pajamas. Bitchy, emotional mean-girl poisoners Draco and Snape (especially early book Snape - which is Snape at his most villainous.) Draco, Percy and Snape are also unusual for being male characters who we see crying for reasons other than grief (apparently the only truly acceptable reason for masculine crying). 

Lucius Malfoy is an interesting case because he starts off quite masc. He’s threatening to curse people, the governors are scared of him, etc. But, as the books go on… and he gets less powerful… he also gets more femme. When we meet him in Book 5 he’s no longer threatening people, but bribing them, spreading rumors, and giving interviews to the Prophet casting Arthur Weasley in a negative light. He's also getting really into peacocks. In Book 2 he was a major threat, but as he gets recast as Voldemort’s #2 he becomes a more femme, soft-power villain. When he leads the attack on the Department of Mysteries, he absolutely bungles it, which defines his character (and relationship with Voldemort) for the rest of the series. And it makes sense that Lucius is given this kind of treatment! It’s a way of communicating that there's a new villain in town, a real villain. 

So, are any of these femme-coded villains additionally queer-coded? I’m actually going to say no. Queer-coding is (like it says on the tin) finding ways to imply that your character is specifically gay. Like maybe giving them a same-sex relationship that is written romantically, but not explicitly called out by the text. Or pairing up all of the characters except them. Maybe have other characters joke about them being gay, and use that as a way to talk about the subject with some plausible deniability. Or they could just play suggestively with a cigar, or a walking stick. There are different strategies.  

But Lockhart doesn't get any of that. Honestly, I think that if JKR actually thought of him as gay, she would have been a lot more wary about a scene where he keeps Harry alone with him in his office for way longer than he’s supposed to. And she might have skipped this joke: 

“Harry was hauled to the front of the class during their very next Defense Against the Dark Arts lesson, this time acting a werewolf (...) “Nice loud howl, Harry — exactly — and then, if you’ll believe it, I pounced — like this — slammed him to the floor — thus — with one hand, I managed to hold him down — with my other, I put my wand to his throat (...) he let out a piteous moan — go on, Harry — higher than that — good —” 

Like. At least she would have picked a different word than “moan,” right? Which unfortunately has slightly sexual connotations. Especially if she wanted to keep Lockhart a buffoon, to properly set up the twist at the end. 

Slughorn also gets femme-coded in a similar way: he loves his candy, his parties, his smoking jackets, his lilac silk pajamas, his web of connections he can use to get stuff (Lucius style.) We are introduced to him squatting in specifically a “fussy old lady’s” house. He’s also unusually emotional, getting weepy at Aragog‘s funeral. But I don’t think we’re meant to read him as actually gay, or else his relationship with Tom Riddle might’ve read a little too close to Tom seducing/trying to seduce him. Which is a beat JKR does subtly play out with Hepzibah Smith, but idk. by that point at least Tom is a legal adult.

(As a side note - the Harry Potter series got so lucky that all of its adult characters are played by absolutely top-shelf actors who are aware of the connotations and history behind various symbols, and do consider these things in their performances. Kenneth Brannagh and Jim Broadbent are good enough to make sure there’s not even a hint of iffy subtext when they play Lockhart and Slughorn. Also, Emma Thompson took the potentially very problematic character of Trelawney and made her cute and sympathetic… and not Romani in the slightest.) 

Draco, Snape, and Percy all have a case of the not-gays. Percy has a girlfriend (we don’t really see her or anything, but we’re told she’s there.) Snape of course gets his whole thing with Lily, and Draco… after one too many beats where it’s clear that Pansy is into him, but he’s not into Pansy…  gets a scene where he’s talking to his buddies with his head in her lap. (JKR uses “no one‘s good enough for me” beats with Blaise, Draco and Sirius, and the idea there seems to be more that they have undeservedly high opinions of themselves, and less that they don’t like girls.)

But, I do agree that a lot of JKR's characters do come across as a little more queer than intended. It boils down, I think, to the general lack of any kind of romance in the Harry Potter books and JKR being generally bad at/uncomfortable with writing male attraction directed at women, BUT being perfectly happy writing attraction directed at pretty guys. And because of that… yeah, it can sometimes feel like maybe Harry has a thing for Cedric. Especially when Dudley goes on to tease him about Cedric being his boyfriend, which I believe is the only actual mention of gay people in the entire series.  

So is there any intentional queer-coding in the book? It’s really subtle, but yes. I think Dumbledore is queer-coded. He is unusually emotional/cries unusually often for a Rowling guy. He is also given a scene which emphasizes his “flamboyantly” cut plum-velvet suit, and his relationship with Grindelwald is implied to be romantic for one book and two movies before being actually confirmed in Fantastic Beasts 3. (With the line of dialogue “I was in love with you.” Big step up from “We were closer than brothers.” which is an odd thing to say about someone you are interested in romantically.) 

But you brought up Tonks and Lupin, two characters very commonly interpreted as queer. So let’s get into that. JKR has said that she considers Lupin’s lycanthropy to be a metaphor for stigmatized diseases like AIDS. And… as incredible as it is to say… I actually do not think that she made the jump from there to thinking that maybe the character suffering from AIDS should be gay.

Because the narrative places so much weight on Lupin being bitten young and then on maybe not being allowed to attend school, I’m pretty sure that he’s not intended to be queer so much as he’s meant to be Ryan White, the literal poster child for AIDS activism who got infected via blood transfusion when he was two. Tragic, absolutely. But not gay. Honestly, I hope JKR was thinking of ‘lycanthropy’ as a metaphor for stigmatized illness in the abstract and not as a comment on gay people specifically. Because otherwise, Greyback’s thing about biting children becomes a mash-up of two of the biggest homophobic boogeymen from the 80s: gay men infecting people with AIDS on purpose because… idk, they hate the world or something. And the influence of gay men somehow “turning” children gay. Both absolutely real, if ridiculous, moral panics.

On top of that, Remus and Sirius do get a pretty clear case of the not-gays early on (“He embraced Black like a brother.”) Buuuut Alfonso Cuarón did think through those implications for Movie 3, absolutely saw Lupin as gay, and directed David Thewlis to play him accordingly. No reports confirming or denying whether Alfonso Cuarón ships Wolfstar, but I think that if I’m an actor trying to make sense of Lupin’s motivations… and I know he didn’t show Dumbledore the Marauders’ Map and didn’t tell anyone Sirius was an animagus… and then I’m told my character is gay… well. Anyway, I think there are absolutely hints of Wolfstar in that performance. 

And there's Tonks. Tonks is introduced during a very spooky segment in Book 5: Harry has been going through it, been left alone at the Dursleys while having what sounds like a depressive episode. It’s dark, he hears intruders. It's a really good piece of writing. But JKR knows that it’s the good guys who are coming and thinks, okay. Let’s make that as clear as possible from the word go. And so the first thing Harry sees is Tonks' pink hair. And what kind of person has pink hair? A young adult. A punky young adult. And what power would a teenager think was cool? Well, the ability to change the color of their hair at will. That, by itself, would have worked perfectly fine for this character.

But then (for reasons best known to herself) JKR goes further. Even though Tonk’s hair changing color is easily 90% of the transformations we see and there is no plot reason her appearance needs to change more than that, we see her drastically change her age and body type. When you think about this power for more than five seconds, it becomes kind of OP. For worldbuilding reasons alone, my instinct would’ve been to tone it down a bit. 

But no, we have this counterculture character who seems interested in her career and not in a relationship, who can easily change anything about her body, and (if her ability works anything like Polyjuice) that means she should definitely be able to change her gender. Cool.

Then, in everyone’s least favorite romance, Tonks and Lupin are paired up. I have heard the argument that this was meant to walk back queer-coding, or to punish people who thought they were queer... but I don’t think that’s the case. I don’t think JKR expected these two to be fan favorites, and then was kind of surprised when everyone wanted to hear about their continuing adventures. 

(There are a handful of characters who JKR clearly really enjoys - and really enjoys writing - that fandom honestly could not care less about. Mundungus Fletcher and Ludo Bagman spring to mind. But the reverse is also true. She had one story for Lupin and people wanted to see more. Tonks is probably supposed to be her comment on immature young adults: she is loud, in your face, causes mild destruction and is “a little annoying at times.” But the fans fell in love with her.) 

So JKR has these two fan favorite characters and nothing for them to do. A romance is something for them to do. JKR also has a kind of weird pattern where good people need to either have kids or take care of kids. It’s not good to be a woman who isn’t involved with taking care of children in some fashion: see Rita Skeeter, Dolores Umbridge, Bellatrix Lestrange. This is also (I think) why Harry names his kids specifically after Severus, Sirius, and Albus. Since they’re good men, JKR had to find a way to give them kids after the fact. 

So yeah. I think we were meant to read Tonks and Lupin having a kid as kind of a reward, or at least as proof of their intrinsic goodness. There also just isn’t another guy in the right age range to ship Tonks with. The only other option is Sirius. 

(Harry in the books and Lupin on Pottermore both suspect that Tonks/Sirius is a thing. Completely forgetting, I guess, that they're cousins.)

[maxdibert]

Sirius Black, the firstborn. The aristocrat. The one raised in a disgustingly rich, respected, and feared family. Sirius Black, the rebel without a cause, who forged his identity by opposing the values of that family. The tall guy, so handsome that girls couldn’t even concentrate on their exams. The popular one, the one who had it all. The one who didn’t have to worry about running away from home because the loving parents of his also-rich best friend took him in. Sirius Black, the one at the top, the one who did whatever he wanted to those beneath him. The one who spent seven years torturing a poor half-blood just out of boredom, for fun, because he could.

Sirius Black, who looked at that poor half-blood as a representation of everything he hated, everything that disgusted him. Despising him for wanting to go to his family’s house, for wanting to gain power that he—let’s be honest—had possessed from birth. Sirius Black, constantly laughing at Severus Snape, calling him Snivellus, mocking his appearance, ridiculing his poor, downtrodden look, encouraging him to go somewhere he’d likely end up dead. Sirius Black, convinced he was doing nothing wrong because Severus Snape was a piece of shit who followed the Death Eaters, and hurting him was completely justified.

Sirius Black, the brave one, the one who would’ve given his life for the good cause, the one who was on the right side from the beginning, who always knew where he belonged, who went to war and gave it his all—so much that he ended up in prison.

Sirius Black, who escapes Azkaban only to end up in another prison. The one who, locked in his family home, starts to see things for what they are. The one who is no longer a help but a hindrance. The one who is just a ticking time bomb for a Dumbledore who never gave a damn about his zeal for the fight. Sirius Black, who suddenly finds himself facing that same half-blood he used to insult, to hit, to hunt down like a predator after its daily meal. There he is, with them. Severus Snape, the Dark Arts freak, the greasy-haired, Malfoy’s lapdog, the one who followed the pureblood supremacists and bears the Dark Mark. The same Severus Snape who was a Death Eater and followed Voldemort, now stands as Dumbledore’s right-hand man.

And Dumbledore trusts him more than anyone. Trusts him so much that, although neither Lupin, Tonks, nor Moody like having him among their ranks, no one dares say a word against him. Only Sirius speaks up, and when he does, everyone scolds him. Because he’s no longer Snivellus; now he’s Snape. He’s a double agent. He’s someone important. He’s a rook, a bishop, a knight, while the others are mere pawns.

Sirius Black wonders why. Why, if he did everything right, if he stood up to his family, if he always defended what was right, he’s now reduced to a broken toy confined to isolation while that piece of shit who did everything wrong is the one who has Dumbledore’s favor. Because Sirius was always one of the good ones, and Severus was one of the bad ones. Because tormenting and mistreating him was justified. But then he realizes it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter who’s good or bad in a war; what matters is how useful you are to those who wage them.

And he has become useless, while Severus is a key piece. And that is the best revenge Severus could have had for all the years of abuse he endured: for Sirius to realize, in the last months of his life, that all his efforts to rebel had meant nothing. In a war against power structures, the aristocratic boy never has a place.*

[rickktish]

Some unsolicited Harry Potter Thoughts and Headcanons

Ron Weasley is one of my favorite characters. Ron Weasley should have died from the poison in Slughorn's office when he was 16 so that y'all would treat him with the respect he deserves instead of shitting on him and replacing him with Draco in Leather Pants.

The entire reason Dumbledore is so fucked up actually has nothing to do with his sordid past; it comes from the (Doylist) fact that he was a plot device in a children's book until the main characters (and thus the audience) got old enough that it needed to become a YA series, and then had to find ways to justify is plot device-ness after being magically transformed into a character. The justification did not succeed.

Harry and Ginny were fine as a ship. Not spectacular, but fine. But if the series had come out 10-20 years later than it did I would be frothing at the mouth that Harry ended up with Ron's sister instead of Ron.

Draco Malfoy was a victim of circumstance in that he was raised by racists to be a racist. Draco Malfoy did not change his mind about his racism by the end of the series, but he did change his mind about the cult leader his parents had raised him to worship, and he deserves credit for that. Do not give him credit for what we do not have evidence of him doing, namely becoming not racist. No one in his family did that. Don't pretend that they did just to make them look shinier.

Harry, Ron, and Hermione were all bad friends at different points in the series, but as far as I can recall only Harry and Hermione exhibited actively toxic behavior. Ron had his disagreement with Hermione in book 3 and with Harry in book 4, but he had valid points in PoA (owner of a pet is responsible for that pet's actions) and was operating under false assumptions which he clearly communicated in GoF ("I thought you might've told me if it was the Cloak... because it wouldn't covered both of us, wouldn't it? But you found another way, did you?") before getting his head out of his ass ("Harry," he said, very seriously, "whoever put your name in that goblet -- I -- I reckon they're trying to do you in!") Followed by a sincere apology, interrupted though it was ("Ron opened his mouth uncertainly. Harry knew Ron was about to apologize and suddenly found he didn't need to hear it. "It's okay," he said, before Ron could get the words out. "Forget it." |"No," said Ron, "I shouldn't've--"| "Forget it," Harry said. Ron grinned nervously at him, and Harry grinned back.) Ron also apologized after leaving in DH. If anyone can remember a single instance of either Harry or Hermione apologizing to Ron for something they did that was wrong or for direct harm rather than accidental harm they've done, would you please add it to this post? I'm hoping it's just been too long since I did an in-depth read of the series and I've forgotten something, because I genuinely can't remember a time and I haven't been successful in locating one by my cursory searches through my ebook editions. I would genuinely like to be wrong about this, please and thank you.

I believe with my whole soul that the reason Dumbledore didn't get Sirius out of prison was because he was having Grindelwald flashbacks. Person I trusted with my whole soul turned out to be pro-enslavement/genocide? Person my students trusted with their magically concealed location appears to have turned out to be pro-Voldemort (and everything he uses to justify his pursuit of power)? He literally did not believe any doubts he might have held about Sirius' guilt, because he hasn't trusted his own judgement since he was 18 and his little sister died. also he 1) canonically did not know that Sirius wasn't the secret keeper and 2) probably did not know that Sirius never had a trial, so there's also that.

Harry and Ron 100% should have gone to the Yule Ball together. I would forgive their not ending up together so long as they had gone and had a fantastic time. Unfortunately, GoF was written in 2000, and we missed out for it.

Hermione would be an emotionally (and potentially physically) abusive spouse to Ron, not because I feel any need to put her down or bash her in any way, but because she wasn't willing to tell him that she was into him and instead conjured birds to attack him when she caught him kissing another girl. I think with time, effort, and a decent dose of humility, they could work it out, but at some point their kids are going to be chatting with friends and reveal the most casually fucked up shit about their parents' relationship to someone who's going to look utterly horrified and poor Rose and Hugo will have no idea why because to them it will be completely normal.

Childhood is thinking Dumbledore is the good guy and Snape is the bad guy. Angsty teenhood is thinking Snape is the good guy and Dumbledore "raised Harry like a pig for slaughter." Maturity is realizing that Snape did good things for really fucked up reasons like "I'm obsessed with the woman whose husband and child I would have seen killed so I could have another chance to get in her pants but unfortunately she's dead so I guess I have to keep her child who I hate alive" while also actively causing (directed) severe harm to the children under his care, and that Dumbledore did fucked up things for some good reasons like "I can't let this person who tortured animals as a child and committed murder in his teens destroy the world" and for some bad reasons like "I would literally die right now but unfortunately I have shit to do" (I honestly think everyone somehow missed the fact that Dumbledore was suicidal?? in spite of the fact that he committed assisted suicide?? I'm not quite sure how, but I suspect it has something to do with the woobification of Snape, so. there's that) while also causing (mostly indirect) moderate to severe harm to all who were in his care including, but not limited to, the government officials who asked him for advice, the staff and children at the school he ran, and his own family. The essential difference comes because Snape acted as he did toward others because he hated the world and everything in it, especially children, whereas Dumbledore acted as he did toward others because he couldn't make up his mind whether or not the ends justified the means and his life was entirely defined by the practice of both intentional and unintentional self-sabotage.

This absolutely might be giving Rowling too much credit, but I grew up with fairy tales of goblins who stole and guarded gold and didn't learn that goblins were a racist caricature based in antisemitism until I was in my late teens or early twenties by reading a post about how writing goblins as bankers meant that Rowling is antisemitic. I also genuinely didn't believe it at first, because I grew up in a culture that reveres Judaism and the Jewish people as God's chosen and the source for the foundation of mankind's relationship with God, and I had to seriously work to believe that the slightly goofy, slightly gross fairy tale creature I was familiar with could have such a disgusting connotation. I strongly suspect that Rowling herself had no idea until she started being accused of racism, at which point she pulled her classic schtick and doubled down, radicalizing rather than being open to being told she might be wrong. Sometimes you grow up with something being so normal and part of the regular zeitgeist that it never occurs to you that it could have its origins in racism. (I experienced this myself recently from a post about the origin of the popularity of private pools in the US, which I always thought were just a rich people status symbol. Even though I've known about the issue of pool discrimination since my mom, who attended a formerly black-only middle school in Alabama as a child, read me picture books about it when I was in elementary school, I didn't put it together until I read the post.) The quality of your character is determined then by how you respond to the criticism rather than whether or not you knew before the accusations began. The end result is the same, but I feel like holding her responsible for knowledge we have no way of telling if she knew before she started being accused of having it is bad-faith criticism, and I'd much rather hold her accountable for wrongs I know she's committed rather than ones I can only speculate about.

Dudley Dursley deserved his redemption. He grew up with the rule "Don't be like Harry" and figured out by the end of the series that Harry was a person, which is better than either of his parents managed. I honestly think a good dose of the real world-- maybe university or something-- would give him the foundation he would need to separate himself from his parents' beliefs and become a halfway decent human being. I wish the best for Dudley Dursley.

Neville Longbottom deserved better. In every possible way.

[iamnmbr3]

Me writing meta about Tom Riddle: *checks the book 3 times for accuracy, extrapolates based on the text, clearly denotes things that are just headcanons not specifically supported by evidence*

Albus Dumbledore writing meta about Tom Riddle: lol yeah idk his vibes were just always rancid. no i don't need to "cite my sources" wtf???

[iamnmbr3]

#that’s a thorough look into dumbledore’s failings as a military leader#which is not the same as a strategist#he employs complex strategies oh yes he does#but it’s all to benefit him more than anyone else#which means his strategies don’t extend to good leadership#that would be unnecessary#and at some points quite probably counter to his actual goals#if the enemy isn’t seen as invincible then who’d agree to using whatever means possible#such as child soldiers#or child sacrifice#those are the kind of strategies he uses via @perilousraven

Ughhh, that ask about Dumbledore telling Tom he’s incapable of love just really sets me off cause that such a fucked up thing to say to a kid.

Like, Dumbledore is such a dick to Tom about the whole “you can’t feel love thing”. Even if Tom went the ‘traditional’ life route and got a wife and had five children with her and by all appearances seemed extremely happy and fulfilled with his family and life, Dumbledore would be in the corner muttering to himself about how Tom is using that poor woman and children and he couldn’t even possibly like, let alone love, them.

To be fair, Dumbledore's canon hobby is saying fucked up things to children.

He does it all the time to Harry too.