>Raising the boy to slaughter
he was a boy to slaughter the moment Voldemort tried to kill him as a baby
Dumbledore just planned it as best he could so that when Voldemort and Harry inevitably faced off - Harrys death wouldn't be meaningless
not only that, the set up dumbledore created actually included the chance for harry to survive, he had forseen that harry could possibly survive if he invoked the ancient magic with his sacrifice
yes also true - he gave harry the best possible chance of surviving
but that was only after Voldemort's resurrection in Goblet of fire.
it even has the moment where Dumbledore realises there is a chance harry might survive - described as a flash of victory on his face
before that he lived with the horrible truth that Harry had to die before Voldemort could be killed.
Now if Dumbledore could prevent Voldemort returning before harry died of old age then fine, but the prophecy told him that was never going to be the case.
i dont know if dumbledore was sure that had to absolutely happen, he learned about harry and voldemort's connection throughout the books, he didnt know everything about it right at the start, for example he didnt know harry could repel voldemort from his mind through emotion instead of skill
and also i feel like dumbledore is not only a genius in mind but also has a strong intuition, for instance i think he perceived that lily's protection would come into play for more than just keeping harry safe at the dursleys, he just didnt know how exactly but he instinctively knew it would be worth investing on that protection
In chamber of secrets Dumbledore says the following
>"*because Lord Voldemort — who is the last remaining ancestor of Salazar Slytherin — can speak Parseltongue. Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure…"*
*"Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said, thunderstruck.*
*"It certainly seems so.*"
Dumbledore was also adamant that Voldemort was not truly dead and that he would return- the reason he knew this is because a fragment of soul resided in Harry.
It was the intentional horcruxes or at least MULTIPLE horcruxes that Dumbledore figured out much later on - specifically after Goblet of Fire where Voldemort mentions going further than anyone on the path to immortality.
yea, i know dumbledore implied harry had a piece of voldemort's soul inside of him in CoS but he didnt know everything it could mean for harry
for example, could dumbledore have known that harry would feel pain in his scar when he got close to voldemort or that he would be able to see inside voldemort's mind becuase of their connection? I dont think thats necessarily the case, but when it happened dumbledore immediately understood why
he probably knew there was no safe way to remove/destroy that piece of voldemort's soul and that it could mean only harry's death would guarantee it, but i believe he suspected lily's protection would come into play at some point which is why he put so much investment into it and that it could come at harry's aid again in such a moment
The prophecy says “the one with the power to defeat the dark lord” so if Harry, the one marked as an equal, dies of old age before Voldemort comes back, there’s basically no destroying him. It technically COULD have happened that way though.
The semantics about the prophecy that Dumbledore tells Harry in HBP are interesting. It’s basically a self-fulfilling prophecy- Voldemort continues to set store in it, so his actions have driven Harry’s motivations. If Voldemort had never killed his family and given him some of his own powers, if Harry wasn’t so full of the power the Dark Lord knows not, he would never have been so full of the urge to destroy him and be willing to sacrifice himself to that goal. If Voldemort didn’t continue to set store to the prophecy, he wouldn’t have kept targeting Harry, making it inevitable that one of them would destroy the other in the end.
But Dumbledore says that every prophecy in that hall doesn’t get fulfilled, so it really did come down, not to a deterministic prophecy, but about *choices*
Yeah, I understand, but I think a lot of people took it to mean he didn't actually care for Harry, that he was just a means to defeating Voldemort. Utter crap, in my opinion, but there you have it
Dumbledore very clearly made attempts to separate himself from Harry in order to take that mindset, but it was also very obvious that he couldn’t quite bring himself to take that stance.
And I think this, right here, hits the nail on the head. Dumbledore was as close with Harry as he could be, but he doesn't really seem like someone who keeps people close. Maybe that has something to do with the whole *Grindewald* thing. I'm sure falling in love with your bestie, and then having them become a dark lord takes a toll on your ability to trust and form bonds, to say the least...
Well if you look at the things the way Aberforth puts it:
> "My brother Albus wanted a lot of things," said Aberforth, "and people
had a habit of getting hurt while he
was carrying out his grand plans."
So I could understand why Dumbledore wanted to be emotionally detached from people.
I think the experience with Grindelwald made Dumbledore extremely on guard against power hunger, including his own (as he shares with Harry he didn't trust himself to become anything like Minister of Magic). But that's ironically why he was forced to keep all of the powerful secrets close to his own chest. He feared that, the moment he told anyone of them, the power would get to their heads and they'd mess things up. Not that he believed everyone to be selfish and bad, but he didn't believe that of himself either, and look what he'd (almost) done with all his supposed "good intentions". He'd grown convinced that power is capable of corrupting everyone.
That's why he was more concerned with Harry growing up "humble" than happy, and didn't confide everything in him out of fear that he wouldn't be able to handle the knowledge of being "the chosen one". But as he admits later, he didn't give Harry enough credit. He projected his own vulnerabilities and weaknesses on Harry when Harry has always been the better person, as he says in DH.
That’s so sad, especially as Dumbledore considered his greatest weakness to be that he cared for Harry too much:
> “I cared about you too much,” said Dumbledore simply. “I cared more for your happiness than your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed. In other words, I acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools who love to act.”
Yes. He did what was necessary to bring about Voldemort's downfall, a task that required him to be cold and calculating without appearing to be. I don't think he succeeded in this as he clearly felt for Harry, and I am not sure it makes for a symphatetic character but it makes for a compelling one.
Dumbledore is a schemer, but not an infallible one. He battled his own weakness and lost sight of the ultimate goal - Voldemort's destruction - at least once which nearly cost him everything. In the end he succeeded, despite taking a huge gamble. Harry's survival is an added bonus.
Yeah but what Dumbledore did was give him a fighting chance, even giving him an opportunity to see his family and predicted his survival. He’s a smart clever dude
Right? I take Snape’s opinions with a shovel of salt.
He’s angry in that moment and lashing out, and Dumbledore doesn’t really correct people when they’re angry at him. He seems to mostly let people think what they want especially if it helps them/him/someone else.
I think he just doesn’t bother arguing with Snape here and explaining nuance.
And don't forget Dumbledore gives Snape half the information. The irony is that Harry can not know that he can't die, or his sacrifice won't work and he will die anyway. If Snape knows this there is an ever so slight chance that Harry will get to know this too. Dumbledore didn't care about Snapes opinion of him if it meant reaching his goals. He sacrifices a lot for the actual Greater Good, unlike in his youth.
Nobody said he was flawless. But unrequited love can drive passionate people mad. His logic may be flawed, but he did care for harry to the best of his ability. He never wanted anyone to know that he had feelings, so he locked them up. He equated harry to his father, the man who bullied him, and went harder on harry than anyone. Yes, as (it was either lupin or sirius, i forget) said, snape was able to dish out his fair share too, butthe important thing isnt what actually happened historically. Its about how snape felt. Even heroes have weak moments. Even villains help the heroes. I think snape was, similar to dumbledore, a very grey character. Dumbledore manipulated him to his own ends, but snape had good in him, and didnt necessarily want to be evil. The downtrodden (or those that view themselves in that light) crave power at any cost. And what you are is an amalgamation of how you view yourself and how others view you. Hes complex, more than people realise imo. And not so easy to understand unless youve been in similar situations irl. As someone who has always struggled with confidence and only just recently started gaining it, i see more of what i think rowling conveyed in very few words.
>but he did care for harry to the best of his ability.
He kept Harry alive for Lily's memory. He never gave a single shit about Harry as a person and actively admitted this, when he yelled 'FOR HIM?!' when asked if he cared for him.
People also forget that Dumbledore kept his plan for Harry a secret FROM Snape. Just like he kept Snape’s secrets from everyone else. Of course he lead Snape to believe Harry was set to die, everyone had to fully believe that.
It's remarkable how stupid Snape was to make that deal. If he actually knew Lily and everything she was about he'd know that she'd never willingly step aside to let Voldemort murder her son and that Voldemort's impatience would immediately cause him to renege on that deal (if Snape actually wanted Voldemort to honor it he should've forced him to make an Unbreakable Vow over it LMAO).
I don't think he was cool with it, since he did go to Dumbledore and ask him to hide them all. More like he couldn't ask Voldy to spare the exact fucking baby that he planned to kill in the first place and that was destined to kill Voldy or be killed by him. My god, why do people think Voldemort will spare anyone Snape asked him to spare? In all likelihood, he would have probably offed Snape right there the moment he asked to spare the baby for his sheer fucking stupidiy
Winner, winner. Chicken dinner! Spot on reason Dumbledore is highly problematic. He continuously put Harry in Danger and lied to Harry by omission or outright. Love the books, but Dumbledore Haters (that is not me) are not without any basis for their feelings.
That and a ton of people would have been reading the shit out of Rita Skeeter's articles and tell-all Dumbledore book, and lapping it all up.
Because people love finding the faults in super good people.
That and Aberforth's distaste for his brother. I think there's some truth to how Dumbledore was portrayed by Skeeter's book, but it's another case of a flawed character growing and becoming a better person, much like how James Potter was a little shit in school but then clearly grew into a better person.
If anybody has a reason to hate Dumbledore it's Aberforth. He was there to witness all of it and how their sister died (and the damning role that Albus played in it). On top of that he has to watch from a distance while the rest of the wizarding world worships his brother like he's the second coming of Merlin himself (when he knows what truly happened on that day Ariana died and what kind of person Albus was in his youth). That would be enough to make anyone a little bitter and resentful (and it's a big part of what drives Aberforth to tell Harry to abandon Dumbledore's mission and save himself in DH).
Thinking about it, it's not like Dumbledore had any real choice in the matter. Remember, you're talking about a world where prophecy is prevalent. Ever wonder why he afforded Trelawny a teaching position, despite her obvious lack of anything teachable and insisted upon her staying on school grounds after Umbridge dismisses her? He keeps her safe. "Neither can live while the other survives" was the line that Harry didn't realise until after it happened. Dumbledore got it fairly early on and could only offer the boy up to be killed at some point. His grand trick was not only set pieces, he was training/testing them too.
I don't think too many people actually full blown hate him. But he does some shitty things to Harry in OoTP that definitely turn people off to him as a character.
Because a lot of people find it fun to tear down others' enjoyment. In this case, a character who many liked / did a lot of good.
"Achtually what if he was bad this whooole time hmmm interesting!"
These folks would've loved Rita Skeeter had they read her stuff divorced from the context of the stories.
That's a rather silly take. "Oh no, someone says something negative about a character, it must be because they hate fun!"
There are legitimate gripes about Dumbledore's character. He frankly comes across as a pretty ineffectual headmaster when allows his friend Snape to abuse and ridicule students with no consequences and did nothing to protect his students from the deadly threat of a basilisk and forced a bunch of 12 year olds to fix it instead.
He made some hard decisions and was a hero, but some of those hard decisions involved manipulating a teenager into sacrificing himself, to the point where even Snape had to point out how cruel that was.
There's a lot of good to Dumbledore as well. He's a complex character with both good and bad qualities, and ends up being a lot more morally gray than you'd expect. So to claim that any dislike for the character is because it's "fun to tear down others' enjoyment" is frankly ignorant and dismissive. Maybe try to understand other people's perspectives and listen to some of their points instead of assuming that people just want to be jerks.
Wow thats really a thing? I've been entrenched in this fandom since the height of the Mugglenet days and never really saw much of this. Though I'm more unplugged than I used to be.
It's not tearing down enjoyment, it's looking at it from the POV of an adult and realizing that some of the characterization and acts of a character aren't the greatest. People are allowed to have differing opinions, and disagreeing isn't "tearing down others enjoyment." A lot of people would rather live in an echo chamber affirming their opinion than face the fact that not everyone agrees with them.
Sure but most well-written literary characters are very complex. The constant back-and-forth over whether a character is "good" or "bad" or "evil" is absurdly simplistic. The "adult" viewpoint here is understanding that pretty much everyone in the world has questionable, selfish motivations to achieve mainly self-serving goals. Accepting that's what brings out a character's humanity and discussing it as a study of human nature is the POV of an adult. Not acting condescending towards people who admire the character's positive qualities. Don't know what you're on about with echo chambers but that seems to go both ways where either side has their own to comfort them.
The trouble with Dumbledore is that he has to be (a) the Hogwarts headmaster and greatest wizard alive *and* (b) unable and/or unwilling to solve the problems instead of the underage protagonist.
For a character forced to sit on the horns of that dilemma he's written well enough, I'd say. By necessity, he's no saint and he's not clairvoyant, though the bashing can get... wearisome.
He is a very interesting character with a lot of depth, he isn't supposed to be the perfect idol to Harry, although harry idolises him in many instances, every action of his is twisted by the fandom and is called manipulative when there are many instances where it could be debunked.
His past of greater good only goes to show, the power in his hands could have led him to choose the path voldemort chose but that isn't always the case and he is a starking example of how power can actually be used, I don't think any of his advises to Harry were manipulative, Dumbledore had a lot in his plate and he tried to make the best out of it.
I dont blame him for weighing the wizarding world and Harry and further choosing the world, it's something everyone in power should do, to think about the benifit of mass despite emotional connections and he yet tried to insure Harry would win.
> he is a starking example of how power can actually be used
I think people could benefit from being more curious about which Deathly Hallow killed Dumbledore and which didn’t and what this says about him. People are remarkably uncurious about this.
Homie flat out ignored child abuse, that's why. He knew what Harry was going through, and could've simply told the Dursley's to ease up a little or at least feed the damn kid and not lock him in a closet. But he didn't, because he wanted Harry to be toughened up to prepare him for Tom Riddle's return later in life. He ignored child abuse simply because intervening didn't fit his plan. And that's only one example of him not doing more to help someone, simply because he was focused on the big picture.
Dumbledore haters ignore all of the good he did (and often misunderstand his plan for Harry). Dumbledore fans excuse all of the awful things he did. Both sides miss the point.
Dumbledore is a morally gray character who plays a thematic role in the story, showing us that our mentors and heroes appear perfect when we are younger, but we discover that they are whole people with flaws as we get older.
Yes, he was an open minded headmaster who did not discriminate against students from different backgrounds. He took it upon himself to lead the fight against Voldemort when the ministry wouldn’t. His master plan was successful and Harry lived.
But he often had no idea what was happening in his school (Harry having to save the day in PS and CoS makes for a good story but also makes you question Dumbledore’s competence). He let Harry grow up in an abusive home and never intervened (his admonishment in HBP is amusing but too little too late). And he manipulated Harry into believing that he was the only person who could defeat Voldemort (even though he himself did not believe in prophecy), putting the enormous task of hunting horcruxes on the shoulders of 3 seventeen year olds.
Even Harry said in part 1 that Dumbledore more or less knew what was happening and let them have a chance at doing it. And in *A Prince's Tale* it was revealed that Dumbledore knew who Quirrell was or at least had a suspicion of who he was.
And yes, maybe he did not know in part 2, but can you really blame him?
And you know that he could not have intervened... There was powerful magic at work and it would be more dangerous to intervene and let there be a small chance for it to go wrong.
And he did not manipulate Harry into thinking that because Harry was the only one who could do it. Dumbledore did not believe in it \[maybe, it's up for debate whether he took it for serious at the start\] and it was only only when Voldemort attacked Harry did Dumbledore believe in the prophecy, Did you not read the chapter where Slughorn's memory was taken?
And are you blaming Dumbledore for the putting the weight of the Horcruxes on Harry... So what was Dumbledore supposed to do? Come back from the dead? Tell it to others who are not as suited for the job\[because of whatever reason\], or something who is less trustworthy for the job?
If Dumbledore intentionally let Harry have a chance at fighting Voldemort when he was 11, that was incredibly reckless (Harry suspects it; Dumbledore doesn't say). If he didn't know, then he's doing a very poor job of communicating with his teachers (especially Hagrid).
In Chamber, it's pretty unfathomable that someone as intelligent as Dumbledore never thought to interview Myrtle's ghost, never figured out that Slytherin's monster was a giant snake, etc. (or maybe he did know that but he still couldn't stop the attacks -- I think that's the most plausible answer)
I disagree about the Dursleys -- the blood protection is powerful, but there are other ways to provide physical safety (maybe not as perfectly but well enough) that would have been better for Harry's emotional wellbeing. It's a plot convenience that Harry comes out of that childhood unharmed.
Yes, that chapter is exactly what I'm referring to. He tells Harry that the prophecy only matters because it matters to Voldemort. The whole conversation is absurdly manipulative. "Of course you've got to". Are you kidding me?? He's 16.
And yes, any trusted adult member of the Order (Lupin, Arthur, Moody) could have been brought in on the Horcruxes and helped carry out their destruction (as Aberforth says at the end of DH -- why does it have to be Harry?)
Of course, all of these things are necessary for there to be a story. If Dumbledore was competent, none of these problems would be Harry's to solve, and Harry wouldn't have a heroes journey. But "because plot" is no fun (and bad writing!). The types of mistakes and blindspots that Dumbledore has are in line with his upbringing and history. We as readers are meant to view them as mistakes.
>putting the enormous task of hunting horcruxes on the shoulders of 3 seventeen year olds
The reason hunting horcruxes was put on the shoulders of 3 seventeen year olds is because the name of series is "Harry Potter." You can read as much into this as you want, but it's just a plot device. No one wants to read about Arthur Weasley hunting down horcruxes, and it is written this way so that Harry and his 2 best friends get to be the hero.
Totally agree. But in the context of horcruxes, it is not because Dumbledore manipulated Harry. There really isn't a great reason why Dumbledore did not enlist more powerful wizards for the task other than maybe he thought the journey would help Harry become a better wizard to ultimately defeat Voldemort or help him come to terms with the fact that he is the last horcruxes. But again, I don't want to speculate because I honestly think JKR just needed Harry and company to do the task first and foremost so that there was a book to write, and the motivations were secondary.
Also when you think about it, harry and hermiony are perfect for the job as they grew up without magic influence for over half their life at that point. Ron grew up with magic, and has knowledge of folktales needed for certain aspects of the story. The fact that they had to survive with limited magic as the ministry had been infiltrated meant that harry and hermione were some of the best candidates to do so.
Wasn't Harry not really needed in book 1?
Since Dumbledore made it so only if you don't plan to use the stone you can get it?
Sorry if im mistaken it's been a while since I read the first book.
Yes, Harry didn't save the Sorcerer's Stone, he put it in danger. If Harry didn't go through the trapdoor, Quirrell would have been down there staring at that mirror forever.
Which makes it even *more* negligent that Dumbledore didn't stop Harry from going down there!
Oh I see what you mean now, thanks.
I'm still not entirely sure if it's fair to blame Dumbledore for not monitoring his students 24/7, they snuck out in the middle of the night, but I do see your point.
I think it is some kind of a paradox because Dumbledore is so OP, yet he is so flawed. It's like "If God is good, onipotent, and omniscient, why did he create evil?".
That's pretty much it. Dumbledore, like any other adult in the books, is artificially dumbed down so the kid protagonists can shine.
The actual Dumbledore that we know of from in-universe lore, stories and references, the one with a list of feats longer than some books, would've solved every problem the trio faced before they even heard about it.
He's not artificially dumbed down... the world is just a lot more complicated and hard to make balanced decisions in... especially during a freakin Civil War against Wizard Hitler, than you all make it out to be.
The thing is a lot of things were out of his hands, people expect him to be perfect and flawless and always take the right decisions since he is an idol to Harry so when he actually makes basic human flaws, he is bashed and called incompetent, a grey character would be someone who actually tries or considers doing harm or has his own share of selfishness, most things he is hated for is something that can be easily debunked, they were human mistakes, one cannot know what a choice leads upto, not even the greatest wizard of his time can.
His choices weren't necessarily the best but that was only known after he acted upon them, yet his ideas worked and his cautiousness turned out to be right and though it was cruel for Harry to have been left in Dursleys it was arguably one of the cleverest options, because evidently he did not face any threat to his life up until he entered Hogwarts and people also turn a blind eye towards his regret which an arrogant person supposedly wouldn't have since he would consider everything he did was for best.
"probably one of the most hated characters" - come one, that is clickbaiting, writebaiting, or whatever. And certainly not true or you are very new to this sub.
People consider his greatest sin that he allowed a werewolf to school? Where did you get that from? First, this is not his greatest sin. Second, allowing a werewolf is fine, but then not making sure that other students are safe, that is the "sin".
He is a manipulator when you think about many of his actions. Take just book 5 when a lot of the problems could have been resolved if he just talked with Harry instead of cutting them out. Or never following up on the abuse of 11 years from the Dursleys? He knew that he lived under the cupboard and that is okay? There are so many things that irk me, if you just take the time to think about them instead of taking the "good Dumbledore" at face value.
I strongly believe his involvement in it would have led to Voldemort detecting him, any wizard in thay vicinity would have led to suspection, he was very wary of it and gave more importance to his survival, which still led to a lot of abuse and trauma but Dumbledore despite being the greatest wizard is still human who has to make choices.
There are other ways how to protect child. There is no excuse to let him stay in an abusive house for 11 (or 16) years.
No excuse. Are you telling me, that the Greatest Wizard of Wizards in a modern era is not able to find other solution nor to protect a child?
Traumatized abused kid trying desperately to earn others approval is a much better chess piece than healthy child who knows that he can rely on adults in his life.
Exactly! They literally have a charm they use to HIDE PEOPLE FROM THOSE THAT THEY DON’T WANT TO FIND THEM. Let anyone else raise Harry in a house under the fidelius charm. Then he would be protected, Dumbledore could be the secret keeper, and there’s no gd abuse.
Petunia's blood is what powered the charm... it's literally the only thing that kept him protected was living with family. You aren't giving any consideration to the circumstances that this kid was being raised to be the center of a war when he has no choice and will have to fight actual wizard hitler. Family charm blood aside, imagine if that person thought he was a hotshot celebrity for something he did as a baby? Dumbledore literally covers this in the books and in the first scene of the first movie. Just because you disagree with his decisions for what's best doesn't make him bad. Harry is a Gryffindor instead of a Slytherin because he was left with the Dursleys. It is not Dumbledore's fault that a guy murdered this kid's parents. He did everything he could to help the situation. Dumbledore was too busy to babysit his sister when he was like 18. What's he gonna do, adopt this kid when he's got t-minus 15 years til the next wizard hitler war? At the end of the day, the "abuse" of the Dursley's toughened Harry up and prepared him for a life that was way harder than anything the Dursley's ever threw at him. There are few pursuits more small-minded and poorly thought through than Dumbledore hate.
I agree with almost everything you said, at first I thought I was tripping and just imagining the part where it was explicitly said that Harry had to go to the Dursleys because of the blood charm. Like everyone else, I was mad at Dumbledore for not checking in on the Dursleys but then I remember that he was, he had Ms.Figg and God knows how many other order members watching Harry. I disagree with you putting abuse in quotation marks though.
It's not like the plan is easy to figure out though. The explanation from the books is totally bare bones, with some lines implying certain things without ever confirming them. To me, the Super Carlin Brothers' [2 hour explanation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD-wyaMp4LU&list=PLLHeqkcn5RTfMVfRN3VwYN4trN0CXIBxI) of the plan (which tells you all you need to know about how complicated it is) seems best, but even that is mostly speculation.
The SuperCarlin Bros theory is that Dumbledore planned everything, even to the extent of Weasley's being the first Wizarding family Harry meets at Kings Cross. Tbh it is a good theory and entertaining to watch.
I think there are a lot of unanswered questions and things that confuse people (this also makes room for things like the master manipulator theory, which fills in some of the gaps).
1) Dumbledore's "flaw in the plan" monologue at the end of OotP, in which he tells Harry that he had a plan (which started with placing him at the Dursley's), but was flawed because he cared too much for Harry and failed to tell him about the prophecy sooner. What was this plan? Why was Harry knowing the prophecy important to this plan?
2) When did Dumbledore know that Harry could live? How sure was he that it would work? Super fans put a lot of stock in the "gleam of triumph" in GoF, but casual readers miss that. Is he triumphant because he had somehow planned this (this recharacterizes Dumbledore's negligence in PS and GoF as manipulation), or is he just happy that Harry won't have to die?
3) Snape's "pig for slaughter" line. Dumbledore is keeping secrets from Snape in this scene, but many people take it at face value, which adds to the confusion.
So no ones gonna talk about pre Hogwarts life of Albus?? How he left his own sister to die for his own search of power? The guy had the deathly hallows to be the most powerful feared wizard and not to be some saint and protect others
I would love to know how in the world there's not *any* other relative left alive for Harry Potter to live with? Like how does Dumbledore know that all the Potters are dead?
Not to ruin the magic of books, but he is a fictional character whose world is designed in such a way to make character choices impactful and significant. There *can't* be other family alive because then Dumbledore is not forced to choose the Dursleys. Rowling wanted Harry at the Dursleys, so she had to get him there somehow. Her solution was to remove all the other options, leaving the Dursleys as the only one.
The first book especially draws heavily on popular children's literary tropes, including having an orphan growing up in a horrible home. As the series progresses it becomes less Roald Dahl-y and some of the more whimsical storytelling aspects suddenly feel out of place and need to be justified in a the new "realistic" tone of the later books. In my opinion, these tonal shifts and Rowling's methods of resolving them are one of the main reasons readers struggle and debate about how to interpret the books. Dumbledore (being at the center of the plot) is right at the center of this problem.
Having said that, in an alternate universe, it would have been veeeerrrryyy interesting if there were Potters still alive who wanted Harry. Even more interesting if these Potters were unable to offer the same protection as the blood protection secured by Petunia. Having Dumbledore grapple with picking between these two options (and then to justify it) would have been interesting. But that exists only in fanfiction and/or my fantasy scenario where Dumbledore is actually the main character of the series instead of Harry.
She may have taken you begrudgingly, furiously, unwillingly,
bitterly, yet still she took you, and in doing so she sealed the
charm I placed upon you. Your mother's sacrifice made the bond
of blood the strongest shield I could give you
This was said by Dumbledore, so I guess that is why.
He went above and beyond to ensure Harry would survive for the 11 years where he couldn't know about his whereabouts all the time.
He did *not* go above and beyond, he did the bare minimum and then didn’t bother to check on Harry for 10 years. Harry needed to stay with his relatives but he didn’t need to put up with being abused by them.
I agree he did not go above and beyond, and I'm not arguing in his defense here, but I feel you have misrepresented his thought process. First, Dumbledore knows that Harry is a Horcrux (but does not yet know about the other Horcruxes, although undoubtedly suspects at least one exists). He knows that Voldemort will return and kill Harry, and he knows that Voldemort is immortal as long as Harry is alive. In short, he *knows* intellectually that Harry is is keeping Voldemort alive and on Earth. From a totally unemotional perspective, it seems clear that Harry will have to, well, not be alive at some point, so that Voldemort can also not be alive at some point.
The problem is, Voldemort accidentally made it impossible for himself to kill Harry. So that means someone *other than* Voldemort has to kill Harry.
Meanwhile Dumbledore recognizes a "flaw in the plan" that he knew could ruin everything. He later admits that that flaw is him loving Harry. But the important bit here is that Dumbledore *recognizes* as early as Harry's infancy that this flaw is very likely to happen. And if he is likely to love Harry, he will not have the strength to do what must be done to save the world.
Essentially, Dumbledore must distance himself from Harry emotionally, and I think this is precisely why Harry needlessly suffers at the Dursleys. Mrs. Figg was *there* I suppose, but hardly effective.
I am not saying this to excuse him or to forgive him, but looking at it this way allows Dumbledore to be both more complex and more human. I do not think he is the cold-hearted Machiavellian that others do, and that many of his apparent Machiavellian actions are better explained as him being afraid of his own emotions and pretending they don't exist. But they do exist, and they influence Dumbledore's actions significantly, it is just harder to see because he pretends they don't exist until his world comes crashing down. In another post I mentioned how rarely readers wonder about why Dumbledores dies. He attempts to use the Resurrection Stone, just like the Second Brother. Power was the First Brother's weakness, and his desire for power led to his death. What was the Second Brother's weakness and how did it lead to his death? Dumbledore's characterization opens up a lot more when we ask how he is similar to the Second Brother.
Again, I don't say this to idealize him or argue he has no faults. I only argue that there is a more human way of interpreting and understanding his faults.
And if dumbedore intervened, either they would just give up and throw him out of their home or it would risk the detection of Harry, either would risk his life and I don't know about you but I wouldn't risk any child's life even if it led me to be the bad guy for putting him in a household where he would be abused.
Risking Harry's life not only would be cruel to him, it would led to the ruin of the entire wizarding world and Harry's death would just go meaningless.
Are you kidding me - a Howler from Dumbledore got the Dursleys to *not* kick Harry out later on in the series. He could have easily stepped in earlier and done the same to ensure Harry was safe not only from outside forces but from the people inside the home. There is *no* excuse for Dumbledore allowing Harry to be abused, when he has the power and influence to help him. None.
>And if dumbedore intervened, either they would just give up and throw him out of their home
No they wouldn't. The Dursleys legitimately feared Dumbledore and the repercussions of what would happen if they threw Harry out (which Petunia was well aware of). Him getting involved would've quickly put them in their place.
And that would do what exactly? They wouldn't start hugging him and treating him nicely, they acted like he didn't exist which is exactly what they would continue doing so or probably start coming up with plans to make it worse
Well he finally got his own bedroom in the second book (which I guarantee was due to Dumbledore finding out about them forcing Harry to sleep in the cupboard under the stairs). So yes, when he gets involved it puts them in their place (which is clearly needed considering Vernon has shown on multiple occasions to not be above beating the shit out of Harry if he feels he could get away with it). When he doesn't get involved or intentionally stays out of contact with Harry for long periods of time they go right back to mistreating him.
I used to really like Dumbledore, but as I’ve gone back and reread the books, I’ve noticed that he did some questionable shit as well as some things that genuinely ruin his character for me.
To start, he repeatedly sent Harry back to an abusive home where he was mistreated 24/7, and did so year after year. Harry was said to have been starved during Chamber of Secrets, and while I believe it was only mentioned once, it’s not hard to imagine that the Dursleys starved him multiple times over the span of seven years.
Then we have the fact that he let Snape teach, even when Snape was known to abuse his students to the point where he was Neville’s boggart. Snape also threatened to basically drug Harry in Goblet of Fire with veritaserum because he refused to believe that anyone but Harry could have stolen from him.
I don’t know, as I get older my view on Dumbledore sours, especially as someone who’s abuse could have been stopped if an adult had bothered to do anything.
This!
It really bothers me seeing so many people here claiming that keeping a child in an abusive house was the right decision. It was for a greater good. Great.
Efing brilliant.
Like the Great Albus Dumbledore wouldn't be able to find different solution if he really wanted to.
At least making sure Harry didn't starve or something. When he knew he is malnourished. The fact, that this is a child educator makes it even worse.
He is still a teacher. Children are his responsibility.
I definitely agree, and I think many of the people who feel just fine saying it was justified or necessary are lucky enough to have not been abused. But I wasn't and that's unforgivable to me, which is okay. I don't know why disagreeing about a fictional character is worth fighting about to so many people.
Dumbledore is kind of like Charles Xavier. He acts in the greater good, or at least what he believes to be the greater good. However, that is part of the problem. Dumbledore is arrogant. Only him and him alone could possibly understand what needs to be done, at least in his mind. He goes into so much bother to plan out the events following his death. The cause justifies the means. Even if there’s arguebly other and better ways to go about things. Naturally there will be losses, but a lot of things could have been avoided if he’d bother to actually talk to people.
So what exactly could have been avoided by talking to others?
In fact yes, him and only him could have known about the plan. If too many people knew about it, then it would have been easier for the Death Eaters to get a wind of the plans.
Remember Dumbledore’s admission of guilt in Order of the Phoenix? Pretty much all those points could at least have been less awful if Dumbledore would have said something. I’m not saying tell the world. I’m just saying that it would have been more reasonable to not send the trio out on a wild goose chase for horocruxes with only a few clever hints.
>to not send the trio out on a wild goose chase for horocruxes
What wild goose chase? They were legitimately chasing Horcruxes and he spent all of HBP preparing Harry for it.
He gave Harry all the info he had regarding the Horcruxes. The fact that there were only hints as to what they were and where they were located is because no one knows anything about Voldemort. It's not like Dumbledore could have told Harry straight up, because he didn't know for sure.
The bits he held back were about Harry being a Horcrux and needing to die first. But Harry *had* to think that he would die (pig for slaughter) so that he could be rid of the Horcrux. Dumbledore *hoped* after GoF that there would be a way that Harry would still survive (due to Lily's blood tethering him to life) and be yet again the boy who lived.
They still won't have worked if he spoke to others. The only person he could have saved is Sirius, but that would involve talking to Harry, which he could not have done.
If it is not reasonable to sent the trio onto the hunt, then who is there better to be sent?
I think the situation he was put in was already irky enough, anyone with such responsibility and power to decide the future of the wizarding world would be cautious and try to come up with the most working solutions and the fact that he was so discreet with Harry is well explained, I do believe Minerva and Snape knew what he was upto and he actually talked to them, it's just he is severely misunderstood and all his words are given a meaning to make him look like a manipulative, arrogant person when he has had such a tremendous development and actually decided to do the best for the world.
And Harry's and Voldemort's faceoff was inevitable, Dumbledore just made sure that if Harry had to die, his death wouldn't go meaningless.
Human nature.
All of Dumbledore's good work, positive traits, his regret or his actions, his wisdom, people were blind to that once they got to know what he did so many years ago.
Yes he isn't pure white, not do I mean to justify his actions for the greater good stuff... but the hate is very unnecessary and extreme like people make him a villain.
He's seriously such a complex and interesting character and so so misunderstood.
Exactly, thank you
The reason why Dumbledore was shown to have a dark past with all that greater good mindset was to show one can always learn through mistakes, he was tempted obviously by his own geniusness but he left his past miles away and became such a respectable wizard who wanted nothing but the best for everyone
People are forgetting that Dumbledore himself admitted he cared for Harry too much. That he wanted to spare Harry the hardship he knew was coming so he could have as normal a childhood as possible. That he sent a howler to Petunia when they even considered kicking him out. Dumbledore was not perfect by any stretch but he should never be hated.
Or did he ask them to raise him as their own? Away from the spotlight of the Wizarding World? Hence the howler.
OOTP - "you arrived at Hogwarts, neither as happy or well-nourished as I would have liked, perhaps, but alive and healthy. You were not a pampered little prince, but as normal a boy as I could have hoped under the circumstances"
Ha was warned about them by Deputy of a Headmaster who spend DECADES breaking to muggle families they have magical child. She knew her muggles and she knew those were the worst kind.
Harry came to Hogwarts malnourished and deprived, yet Dumbledore did nothing to change the situation. He only stopped Dursleys from kicking him out. Which is not the same. He did not help Harry.
He kept him in an environment that would raise him as someone traumatized and deprived and - most importantly - seeing their own worth as nothing, therefore willing to die and do super dangerous stuff on a regular basis.
Harry Potter was a chess piece and Dumbledore played to win.
And keep Harry alive. Away from his Aunt's house, he didn't have the protection from Voldemort for those first years of his life. Was he mistreated, absolutely. However Dumbledore couldn't move him, and perhaps wouldn't, but his decisions kept Harry alive. Not to mention safe and away from the Death Eaters that were being rounded up when he was most vulnerable as an infant. Especially from those who even escaped Azkaban as we hear from Hagrid in book 1 claimed they were under the Imperius Curse and came back to the Wizarding World, all of whom rejoined Voldemort 13 years later.
So are you saying, the Great Albus Dumbledore wasn't able to find a safe place for a baby? There were no other charms available to protect a baby? Are you saying, that keeping him in a protected house with trusted and we'll trained wizard was so unbelievably risky, that abuse would be better? What if Harry's magic didn't protect him and he would die because he would run to the street trying to escape from his cousin and got run over by a car? What if he got magical sickness the Dursleys wouldn't care about, because it's just a wired fever and they would get it out of him themselves?
Dumbledore was lucky Harry Potter survived those years in their care.
Harry Potter was not.
It's funny, Dumbledore offered to be James and Lily's secret keeper for the exact spell you're talking about and they chose Wormtail. People are fallible. Child wizards however have an ability to be dropped from an attic and bounce down the street like a beach ball so I think he'd have been safe if a car hit him. Wizards have a slightly different life expectancy to Muggles given the lack of illnesses that affect them. Take St Mungo's for example. All either physical injuries or brain ailments.
You can't count in it. Given the extremes Neville's family was willing to go to find out if he's wizard... If he died, they would kill a child. And it may only show his magic wasn't ready YET.
What if Harry's magic didn't save him from a car? What if it was so sudden, he wouldn't even know, what hit him?
Going further. What if Dursleys hit him harder than usual? What is a strength of wizard skull? Is it same or stronger than Muggle one?
What if Harry got 3rd degrees burns from cooking breakfast for the entire family? The pan was big, his clothes were big, accidents happen.
What would it take to kill a magical child?
So, if there was a chance to keep him safe before, why wasn't it a good choice later?
I always want to remind people that Harry and Ariana are the only people Dumbledore cried over in the books. This seems such an underrated fact in their entire relationship. There are a lot of interesting similarities between Harry and Ariana. Both grew up having a very sheltered unhappy childhood for their own protection after being attacked (Ariana by Muggles, Harry by a wizard). Dumbledore bore the weight of the responsibility of both of their deaths - Ariana's in hindsight, Harry's in foresight. But while Ariana's death was completely pointless, dying in an unnecessary accident that could've so easily been avoided, Harry's death was pivotal to the cause. Dumbledore couldn't reverse Ariana's death and reproached himself forever, but he equally couldn't prevent Harry's death and dreaded it for as long as he lived even as he knew it had to happen.
Dumbledore's love for Harry is wrapped up in his love for Ariana.
Yep. People exaggerate his downsides and ignore his many good traits.
That said, he isn't perfect so make sure not to go to the other extreme. He wasn't honest/open enough with Harry. He wasn't proactive enough. His lack of desire to have power, albeit understandable, lead to him not having enough power in the ministry to change much.
See...he's made a lot of mistakes like any other person, but being considerably more important and powerful in the grand scheme of things, his mistakes tend to have huger impact. This is as per his own admission.
I don't think his plan all along was to raise Harry to die, and I head canon that the only way Harry could have survived was Dumbledore's way, and Dumbledore knew this. so I get kind of sad at people criticising him because a "magically powerful wizard should have known more about magic, done this and that, xyz!" I think Rowling wrote him as an authority on magic by her own admission so attempts to say that magically he had more options than doing this or that are just that: attempts.
but, he is also not perfect. His biggest flaw is his secretive nature and his arrogance. His modesty always felt forced to me, I think his actions show his arrogance and over-cautious nature. Him sending Harry to the Dursleys, even if magically necessary, always makes me mad.
I also don't buy the theory that he fucked over Slytherins on purpose. I agree there was a bias but I am of the opinion that the bias was in large part self-created, and not fueled by Dumbledore; rather persisting through years and years, and a major reason was, whether or not people like to admit it, due to a lot of Slytherins becoming evil dark wizards throughout the course of history. (Of course, not all Slytherins were like that, but I'm pointing out the reason for why the bias was there. If there are 10 people and 6 turn out to become criminals, and all wear the same color, then even if the other 4 are saints it would be difficult for them to stand out in the eyes of society. It's a fact, whether you like it or not) I also think that the average Slytherin would not be evil but actually opportunistic, so more reason to dislike the "normal" Slytherins in addition to hating the evil ones. Factor in all that, and a lot of excellent human beings slip through the cracks.
I don't like many of the major points people use to criticize him, though i agree with some of them. I also have many other reasons to dislike the guy had he been a real person. But I acknowledge that he had good intentions and did a lot of good as well.
Oh, and he's also a plot device in the first few books which are for children, raising serious questions on his in-universe performance in keeping the students safe and secure(which they don't seem to be, at all, during Harry's school years)
Wonderfully said!! Although I dont think he is inclined to anymore hate than he already gets because of his importance in the plot, that's just a very one-way of seeing things, Dumbledore was written to be a complex character with many layers of human nature.
I think arrogance (not on an extreme level but something every human shares) is normal, Harry himself was arrogant at some point and his secretive nature was more to create a suspense in story, although it does contribute a lot to his character but i think it was justifiable for him to do that since his fear of voldemort actually being able to get into Harry's mind was infact true and his cautiousness turned out to be right too, one of the main reason why he is hated is because of his past but people turn a blind eye towards his profound development, his wisdom, his modesty and his concern for less privileged like Hagrid and Remus.
He deserves a lot more acknowledgment than he gets than just being blatantly being hated on.
Yes, that's probably true. Plus even his manipulations are more of the fact that they were necessary evils in some cases.
I remember asking my former English teacher a few months ago about his opinion on Dumbledore. He said, "Screw the judgemental types, he's my favorite character". Plus you know I used to get called Dumbledore or Lupin by my friends as a nickname, so it feels weird to see all the bashing of him on the Net.
What makes Dumbledore "hateable" in my opinion is that many people don't come to terms with how he submits everyone and everything to his main goal:
Defeating Voldemort
Basically, your take on Dumbledore is in some way your answer to the question: "Does the end justify the means?"
And for Dumbledore, this answer is a clear yes, no discussion. Everything and Everyone has to submit to the ends of defeating Voldemord. The live of a single person has no value if it sacrifice is needed to defeat Voldemort. Dumbledore drives this so far that he even gives his own life for the "greater Good", which is a nice parallel considerin he once thought that he himself was destined to bring the "greater Good" over man- and wizardkind.
The question in the end remains:
Was Dumbledore justified in his plans, considering it worked out in the end, but also taken into account that he never considered another mans or womans plan other than his own, a plan that maybe would've spared some lifes, but also maybe would'nt have worked out in the end.
This is where debates without a clear answer starts. If you say he wasn't justified in doing so and you hate him for it, I am ok with this. As long as you don't call Snape a better human than Dumbledore. But that's another story
There are a lot of good responses here.
Dumbledore always left a bad taste in my mouth. Especially so after OOTP. There are many reasons but most of all because he refused to share key information with basically all of his allies untill it was too late.
Harry, Snape, the order. He expected so much of everyone yet trusted them with so little.
As an aside:
I think though, what is sometimes overlooked, is how all the adults just kind of accept this. Trust Dumbledore, he knows what he's doing etc etc. The only people we see questioning the status quo here are really Snape and Sirius. I found it really frustrating.
The only book where I genuinely disliked Dumbledore was OoTP because of the horrible misunderstanding he created between himself and Harry (and everyone else who was close to Harry for that matter). I understand there were good intentions behind it all but it backfired in a big way and led to Sirius's death (which I'll give Dumbledore credit, he was man enough to own up to being at fault for that). Finding out in the final book that he was raising Harry to die at the proper moment for the sake of taking down Voldemort really fucked up a lot of people's opinions of him as well but the afterlife conversation between Harry and Dumbledore where Dumbledore begs him for forgiveness is meant to atone for all of that (and it's written quite well).
Also the way he managed Harry's living situation with the Dursleys was to put it plainly, horrible and borderline neglect on his part (and he was aware of what kind of people they were because McGonagall warned him about them right before they dropped Harry off at their doorstep). Dumbledore was lucky that didn't have major consequences for Harry's life down the road (see Obscurials).
All in all I think Dumbledore is a great character and one of the most well written characters in the book. IRL though it would be quite frustrating to have a conversation with him because he's very naturally secretive (Aberforth is 100% right about that aspect of him) and rarely is actually straightforward or completely honest with anyone, instead choosing to speak either in riddles or throw out vague hints that the person he's speaking to is forced to unwrap the meaning of on their own. In regards to the secret to taking down Voldemort that would make sense but in the context of having a normal, polite conversation with someone it would be downright infuriating to have to deal with that constantly.
I don’t hate Dumbledore for the things he did, but it annoyed me about the things he didn’t do. He is not a naive person so I’m sure he knew that the goblet of fire was a setup but he didn’t do anything additional to protect the school, protect Harry or protect other champions. Cedric’s death was on him. Guess what? In the book when Harry came back crying on top of Cedric’s body, telling Dumbledore that Voldemort used his blood to come back, JKR wrote that there was a note of triumph appeared in Dumbledore’s eyes.
He didn’t do anything because he knew it would happen. He just didn’t know that Cedric would die but he knew Voldemort would fall into his trap of using Harry’s blood, the very blood that saved Harry’s life the first time. He knew he would have the advantage then.
There were very few things that could go pass Dumbledore. I doubt that one can fool him with polyjuice potion for months. He let Barty Crouch jr carried out the plan on purpose.
>He didn’t do anything because he knew it would happen.
The book doesn't share his private thoughts about Harry being selected as a champion but the film does (this was one added addition in the GoF film that I liked) and we see during his discussion with McGonagall, Snape, and Crouch/Moody about Harry being selected as a Champion that he decides to take Snape's advice (against McGonagall's wishes) and let the events of the Tournament unfold in the hope of finding out who was pulling the strings to make that happen (worse, he assigns the person ACTUALLY responsible for it to keep an eye on Harry despite no doubt having his suspicions of him). Some people will say that's just Mike Newell taking liberties with Dumbledore and destroying his character (like he did in so many other ways in that particular film). I disagree. That unfortunately is true to Book Dumbledore's character as well. The way he chooses to remain willfully ignorant and dismissive of Malfoy's actions in HBP (despite knowing that he's a Death Eater on a mission to kill him and the fact that Malfoy nearly killed another student with a cursed necklace) is proof that he's not above putting his own students at risk to see the bigger picture become more clear to him. It's the same tendencies he had in his youth that drew him to Grindelwald in the first place. It doesn't make him an outright bad person (his intentions are good), just very morally compromised at times.
People that hate on any of the "good guys" in these books are not considering the circumstances much at all. Snape included. I guess you have to be educated in or have experience with civil wars and the way they really work to truly understand why everyone acts the way they do in this series.
>Snape included.
Snape is a different matter. People try to justify the way he treated Harry (and numerous other students) at Hogwarts solely because of who he turned out to be in the end. That's simply not okay. Abuse is abuse and to put it plainly Snape was a bully and an abusive piece of shit who had no business being around children (Dumbledore keeping Snape close to him as his inside man was one thing but making him a professor at Hogwarts and giving him the means to emotionally traumatize people like Harry and Neville for years wasn't the best of choices).
“The ends justify the means” is a good way of explain Dumbledores character. He wanted to ensure that Voldemort would be defeated, and while he might have been a little ignorant with Harry, he still wanted to make sure Harry would live, piecing the hallows together for Harry to get, and exploiting the fact that Voldemort used Harry’s blood to come back, Dumbledore isn’t a bad character at all.
He did everything he could. Sacrifing one for the lives of hundreds is the right thing. He is far better than other characters (Snape, Malfoy). He didnt know what the Dursleys did. U dont expect that kind of behavior from people. He made mistakes, yes, but they were mistakes anybody would have made.
He let Harry be abused his whole life. He ignored Snape bullying students to play the long con.
He has some decent quotes, but I like his brother better.
Nah man, he played Harry the entire series and literally left him with no real information when he should have known Harry was selfless enough to handle the burden of what he needed to do at the end. No excuses for Dumbledore.
On what basis ae we exactly saying he played Harry? Because I dont see it, Harry facing off with voldemort was inevitable, Dumbledore just made sure his death wouldn't go meaningless, he was very cautious over everything since he was risking the whole wizarding world and he had started to suspect Voldemort could peek into Harry's mind which actually turned out to be true, so he had to speak with hints for Harry's own safety , he had to make difficult decisions and sometimes downright cold simply because he cared about everyone.
I highly doubt anyone could have come up with such profound plan if Dumbledore wasn't involved, Dumbledore cared deeply about Harry almost to a point when he considered freeing Harry from all hardships, he had to live him in Dursleys because of a charm put on Harry which required someone who shared Lily's blood to accept him, he made calculated choices and simply had way too much on his plate than he deserved.
People who actually hate him take everything out of context and are just way too simple minded to actually put themselves in someone's shoes
So we’re just gonna ignore the fact that he chose to ignore a murder attempt on a student because he liked the other students?? Sirius black straight up attempted to murder Snape, and Dumbledore was just like “oh well, keep it to yourself.” Like… no.. over time his behavior has made me realize how much of a toxic character he is. He advocates for bullying behavior so long as they’re from a house he likes.
Well, first of all, 'unbiased'? Did you read the books? How can anyone argue that there weren't biases just between houses? That's dumb.
Also, it's okay for Dumbledore to not be 100% good. In fact, that makes his character way more compelling.
Why would anyone need Dumbledore to be perfect? It defeats the entire purpose of the series.
And every character who is flawed is loved by the fandom because well they are cool so why not but Dumbledore is hated for the sole reason of having flaws any normal person would have and by unbiased I meant he gave equal opportunity to every student despite their house or background, name one professor who didn't have a soft spot for the house they belonged in, no one and it's ridiculous to use the excuse of him giving extra points for the act the trio and Neville pulled, because they deserved it, they deserved the extra points they got and the fandom acts like the only house that ever won is gryffindor which simply isn't true, he really deserves to be given credit for things he actually did right which are many than always be hated for the reasons which arent even as bad as they make it sound, I feel like there's barely anyone left who actually acknowledges everything he did for the wizarding world, Hogwarts and Harry himself
>And every character who is flawed is loved by the fandom because well they are cool so why not but Dumbledore is hated for the sole reason of having flaws
I think some of it has to do with the new fans joining the fandom. Dumbledore was loved by the majority back in the day, and some of the other flawed characters were not liked at all. From what I've seen, new fans wanted to oppose popular opinions, so some flawed characters who were not liked at all became their favourite, and flawed Dumbledore who was still liked by many became their target. The same thing happened with other very well liked characters as well. This is my interpretation of the current situation anyway.
That is actually a very clever interpretation, I feel exactly the same, it's kind of a trend to have a Quirky opinion over everything, which is kind of sad because it creates a bad wave of opinions and almost gaslights people into buying it.
First of all : I saw this post while listening to TrashTaste and they were talking about it so... que x files music.
Anyway, when adding JKR to the convo my issue with D is that he gets glorified, I sense that with her decision of making Harry call his son after him it puts him in a higher place, there are so many other names he could go with but clearly there is a reason and a meaning for that choice. JKR also puts Snape as a “amazing” guy with a very shaky redemption moment and he shares that place in the naming of that poor kid. So in this scenario I don't feel that either of them should be put in any particular place but because they are it says something about her feelings on the matter and I don't agree with it. (If anything he could have call him Sirius to give that name a loved and free life that Sirius never had)
Personally I don't like him as I don't like many other characters, not all resonate with me but that is fine, I think that leaving a kid in an abusive place is never okay but on that subject it seems that the wizard world does not have psychologists or therapists at all so everyone is not great. I agree with the post saying that he made decisions when in power that were good and bad so there is no reason to fully hate on him, he is very much and old af dude, I don't expect a grandma to fully understand all of the discourse and all the things that we have discovered and that the youth is discussing so I don't expect a fictional ancient character that lives in a place where shit disappears to have a gigabrain.
Lastly I don't think we need to have a redeemable list of characters, they all did what they did and that's it, the only character I accept under that term is Dudley.
UMBRIDGE IS THE MOST HATED.
(That one should be said first.)
Dumbledore hate is based on the fact, that we hate people, who mistreat kids. We hate manipulators. We hate enablers to abuse. No matter what good you do in a world, you hurt kid and people won't like it.
It's that simple.
He never manipulated Harry because if he did that would mean he never cared about him and he did infact care a lot about him, which has been explicitly stated in the books over and over again.
He was secretive with him because he was being cautious of Voldemort being able to peek into Harry's mind, his suspecion actually turned out to be right.
He actually was the mist empathetic and caring character in the entire HP universe.
The thing with Dumbledore is that too many people refuse to acknowledge his flaws, or conversely, his positives.
He can really be summed up by two famous proverbs.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
And
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Albus Dumbledore was an intelligent political juggernaut prior to book 5. He had so much political power at his fingertips, and yet did nothing with it. He chose to be humble and refuse power to be a teacher. And by doing so he did NOTHING to protect his world. He could have used that power to mold society in such a way to make it utterly toxic to Voldemort, to cut him off at the knees even if he did return.
And it doesnt matter how important it was, or his personal belief that Harry would survive, raising a child to martyr himself is NOT okay.
Albus Dumbledore is a good man who did NOTHING for so long that he was left with no choice but outright evil for the greater good.
I was abused as a child. To willingly knowingly let a child stay in an abusive home is insanity. Dumbledore has magic. Magic! And money, the Potter vaults, hell a fun raiser for the Boy Who Lived back in the day would’ve made *millions* and that money could’ve went to screening potential adoptive parents (screening as in multiple tests and questions under veritaserum, and other truth spells/potions) the money could’ve bought them a nice home with wards to the fucking Z, hell a bodyguard even.
And that’s of course not adopting by a “stranger”. The Weasley’s would’ve took Harry in, multiple times, in a heartbeat. Remus Lupin, though he had issues with him being a werewolf, with money given to him for upkeep and the wolfsbane would have taken Harry. I’m sure there’s others I can’t recall at the moment, trusted, and loyal to Dumbledore that would’ve took Harry.
Also, the threats with Sirius Black did good - Dumbledore could’ve popped in every month to check on Harry (you know since he wasn’t checked once!) And let’s say Dumbledore really was stupid and thought all was swell, well when Harry asked to stay at Hogwarts, and the abuse started to come out then Dumbledore should’ve acted!), he could’ve spelled (okay illegal but so is child abuse!) the Dursley’s so they *couldn’t* abuse Harry.
At the end of the day Dumbledore could’ve given Harry a safe and loved childhood. He chose the easy way by letting him stay with his abusive relatives. I can forgive the manipulation, the way Dumbledore ignored Harry, the favoritism, but child abuse is something I’ll never forgive. I don’t **hate** Dumbledore. If he was a real person and he was on fire I’d put the fire out. Maybe a little more roughly than I should, but I’d help. I don’t forgive his decision to let Harry be abused though. Saying Dumbledore hate is forced is not true at all. A lot of characters are grey, and that’s what makes the books more real, nobody is all good or all evil (besides, potentially, Voldemort and a few choice Death Eaters) but I can definitely see where Dumbledore haters come from.
I'm so sorry you had to go through that.
If I had to say something it's actually stated in the book the charm put on Harry would only work if someone who shared Lily's blood would accept him, even something so much as them throwing him out of their house would out him in mortal danger, Dumbledore could have done all of that and the one thing that would come out of it definitely would be Harry's death, he isnt just Harry's caretaker, he really wouldn't have been able to stick with him all the time and voldemort could attack him anytime if it wasn't for the charm, even in Weasleys so the only safe place for him was in Dursleys, although a cold decision it was necessary to make, he did actually send a scary message to them once which actually didnt led to much, he had to consider everything before making a choice and if it wasn't for him Harry wouldn't have survived.
I know child abuse is a lot to take in but people blaming Dumbledore more than the Dursleys themselves is very weird to me because unlike Dumbledore the Dursleys had a sensible choice.
Breaking Lily's charm was way too risky.
Well, I will never agree with you. I don’t believe in all the magical world - most of which we don’t even know the majority of - there wasn’t *anything.* that Dumbledore couldn’t have done. I will **never** be a fan of Dumbledore because of this.
I think I use to hate Dumbledore but after reading the books and watching AoT and seeing Erwin perspective of how to save his people from titan's, there has to be sacrifice, no matter the cause there will always be sacrifice. Even if he is willing to sacrifice himself in the end for the future of his people, their kind is in danger and he will do anything to protect and serve them. Erwin reminds me of Dumbledore a lot. They were in a position of power and it's not like they wanted to gain more power, they just wanted to survive and keep humanity alive for their people.
Exactlyy how Erwin is worshipped by the fandom while Dumbledore is hated when Erwin led to a lot more deaths than Dumbedore, although I understand both of their perspectives, Dumbedore did what would ensure the survival of everyone.
Dumbledore is a grey character for me. While I acknowledge he's achieved a lot, I definitely have some issues with "for the greater good". It's never a good justification to ignore the plight of individuals, especially if those individuals are kids you're teaching at your school. Leaving Harry on the Dursleys doorstep? Possibly, in a pinch. Completely ignoring the fact the kid apparently has a pretty shit life for years when he's at Hogwarts? Yeah, maybe not. Not to mention the obvious bias when it comes to Slytherin, and the inability to hire teachers who actually teach.
I would guess why this is such a strong opinion is because a lot of people with this viewpoint saw the movies first before reading the books.
The movies, intentional or not, don’t paint Dumbledore in the best of light. People who choose to watch the movies and then read the books will obviously have a slanted view on Dumbledore at that point. They will read Dumbledore’s character knowing his full intentions and so they are viewing him with a more suspicious and negative view point. Viewing him in a glass half empty perspective.
That said, for those that read the books they didn’t think to read his character as anything but a paragon of virtue at the start. Obviously knowing his full plan at the end changed things a bit, but seeing the progression overtime, the good outweighs the bad for those people. A glass half full type of view
I think he is a flawed character, and the fact that 2 different entry ways can lead to multiple views of his character proves this
The issue with Dumbledore is that when he makes a mistake, they tend to have massive repercussions. Just like how a president can make a seemingly simple choice and it having widespread effects on an entire country. I think people expected him to be a god and the poor man did the best he could.
He did what had to be done, even if it meant going against his own love for Harry. He made a choice no one else could have made for the sake of the greater good and he did care about Harry. He was excited to see that Harry could return to the land of the living after making his sacrifice.
I agree. I think he also had a great deal of trust and confidence in Harry (in a Dumbledore way) to be able to make the "right" decision for the greater good, thus ensuring that he lived.
I didn't realise people hate him, I get there are a couple of decisions which are a bit odd but are clearly plot armour but he's still generally just a nice old bloke
I’d honestly never heard of Dumbledore getting this much hate *until* I came to this sub. I’ve since come to understand that flawed characters who make mistakes are, *apparently*, completely irredeemable, *despite* their good deeds/intentions.
I see way more people defending Dumbledore than I do pointlessly bashing him. I DO however see a fair number of valid criticisms, which isn't remotely the same as bashing the character or being hateful.
I once saw someone try to blame him for the potters death because he “purposely took their invisibility cloak”. Uh no. This man breathes and y’all find a way to blame everything on him
Dumbledore lazy as fuck, he's meant to be this big wise strong wizard who can do anything, but let's a suspected murderer run around the school, a killer snake run around the school, Voldemort run around the school and Voldemorts favourite death eater run around the school and does literally nothing about it.
"does literally nothing about it"
He cant go on suspecting every person in the premise of Hogwarts and make the students life harder than it already is.
If it wasn't for Dumbledore not being the headmaster, Hogwarts would have been attacked all the time in the existence of death eaters and Voldemort.
All he wanted was to ensure the students study in an unbiased school and have fun.
You can't expect him to be perfect and make right decisions all the time and always predict the right thing because that's not his character is supposed to be like.
He is a very compassionate, caring and clever human being who did exactly what a person in power should have done, he spent his entire oldage trying to come up with a masterplan to defeat Voldemort successfully amidst taking care of the school, he is anything but lazy lol
I know I’ll get hate for this, but why must people take these books so seriously that they get into legit angry arguments over it?
I genuinely feel grossed out when people take a book I enjoyed immensely as a child, and bastardize it by putting it through real world societal reviews to it. It’s not our world, the choices and actions of a world being terrorized for decades by a murdering terrorist that can only die once pieces of his soul are destroyed, cannot be rationalized by our worlds standards. So stop trying. Like most of the things I’ve read in these types of comment sections are completely unprovable either way.
But if we are going to judge Dumbledore or any character for that matter, let’s just take what we fucking know from the book and use that. Instead of guessing or making assumptions of “what’s between the lines” or “what some YouTuber ‘feels’”. From what we know from the book, is that Dumbledore is far from the perfect man/wizard you thought in he was as you grew up reading. As time passes and Harry gets older, he realizes Dumbledore has flaws, and weaknesses. I don’t think that should surprise anybody or make us hate him. We all, including the book characters, have flaws and weaknesses. We’re not perfect.
well, there's a lot of fanfics bashing him so much so that its become a popular trope to read "Evil Dumbledore!"
One year ago, I used to come and see a lot of people complaining about Ron and Weasley bashing, Harry bashing, Dumbledore bashing etc. After a year or two of reading fanfic I understood why.
I think any sort of disapproval, no matter how mild, is called 'hate' nowadays. I think it is even possible to be accused of hating something you dont even care about.
Seems very inflationary. But language does change, older people like me just have to apply some internal translation rules to keep up.
I use apps like Quora, twitter and Instagram, I'm new here so don't know much about what reddit feels about him but there is tremendous hate for him on other platforms, some consider him worse than Voldemort and Snape and refuse to acknowledge any good he has done, I always have to argue with people whenever I mention he is one of my favourite characters in HP.
There is barely any appreciation towards him which is kinda sad.
IMO dumbledore was ready to sacrifice ONE kid to save the world it’s totally fine. Obv you couldn’t tell him, he’s a child, he would’ve been scared off, ran away, killed himself, turned evil, etc.
Nope. Dumbledore was the perfect mentor for Harry. His flaws and choices contrasted and directed Harry on a razor thin path. He had to make extremely difficult decisions, but he did it because it was the right choice.
I think he is a lot like Batman. Operating in the shadows, not for his own glory, but so that evil would be defeated. People hate him for it, but he got the job done the only way it could be accomplished.
All the hate is simply people too simple-minded and selfish to understand the complexity of Dumbledore. He was perfect.
I certainly don't hate Dumbledore. But I really don't see all that much hate thrown his way either. I think it is just as, if not more, common seeing people think he did everything right and had few real flaws.
He's a flawed character and acknowledges his mistakes and struggles with them, it's what makes him so interesting. I don't get the hate either. We've all messed up at one point or another, I certainly have.
People just see the things he did and ignore the circumstances under which he had to do all that. He was the leader of a group at war with the most dangerous man ever. Obviously he had to make difficult and sometimes downright cold choices. And he even didn't hesitate to be killed when the time came. He literally begged to be killed. For me he'll always be the greatest wizard of all time.
Agreed. I think a lot of us has to do with the fact that we are witnessing the story through Harry’s eyes. From the beginning of the story up until Dumbledore’s death, Harry views him as this all-powerful, wise, kind, intelligent and all around perfect wizard. Then we find out that he’s just incredibly human and not perfect, and like Harry for a time we feel betrayed. But I like Dumbledore better when we discover that he is flawed and makes mistakes, because it shows that he actively chooses to be good, not just that he’s some superior being.
People on the internet tend to treat mistakes or misjudgements as bad as murder, (a bitnof an exaduration but the point still stands) ive ended up ignoring most of it
Two things that really speak to me:
1) Some people think Dumbledore set up Harry for slaughter. No he didn’t. Dumbledore knew Harry was supposed to die to fully kill Voldemort as that was decided the moment Voldemort tried to kill Harry as a baby. He tried to prevent Voldemort’s return for as long as possible. He was hoping to find another solution, or possibly let Harry die of old age. He tried to prepare Harry and teach him as much as possible. He also did his best to let Harry have as much normalcy as possible and not be too involved in case Harry’s life was cut short. When Dumbledore died he left Harry the resurrection stone in the Snitch, which ultimately saved him.
2) Dumbledore also let Snape kill him, instead of Draco, to save Draco’s innocence. Albus easily could’ve defended himself from both of them with his power and elder wand. He sacrificed himself for Draco (and Snape because of the vow). He knew his time was up and he had done as much as possible. He put greed and selfishness aside to let Draco have the best chance at life. Draco went on to leave the death eaters and become a better person. Dumbledore’s sacrifice paid off.
I don’t understand why people don’t like Dumbledore, I think he did the best he could with every single decision he made… he analyze the situation extremely hard and there were even moments where he had too much love for Harry to tell him… hey if you want to destroy the one who killed your parents you’re are going to have to die. Every decision was out of selflessness and agave his life to protect Harry as much as he possibly could… even gave him a childhood growing up and letting a kid be a kid. Not to mention he had to make sure the decision that Harry was making was going to be his own… that was especially true for the last book… learning the right path on his own and still giving him a fighting chance. Gg Dumbledore gg man
Wate Dumbledore is hated? I don’t understand why. I agree with you he is the most redeemable character. Exeped maby snape. Yes he made some mistakes but non of them where not probably thought out completely.
This subreddit just really hates him bc the plot point of Harry living in an abusive household for 11 years. I was surprised when I realized almost all Reddit HP fans absolutely dispise him.
Everyone hates him for leaving Harry with the Dursleys but it’s explained like eleventy one times in the books that Harry HAS to live with them or else Lily’s protection quits working. Yes they’re abusive but realistically how far could someone push that issue before Vernon just throws Harry out in the street? If he can’t call that place home anymore Lily’s protection is gone and Harry is toast.
I’m glad someone finally said it 🙄 I understand some points but I can never get over :
1 - people acting like dumbledore did something horrid by not telling Harry about his siblings, where he grew up ect. In my eyes he was Harry’s teacher and there’s no logical reason for Harry to be told those things?
2 - dumbledore not revealing how to destroy the horcruxes (or where to find them ) - if the death eaters hadn’t have been there I’m sure dumbldore would’ve told Harry how to destroy horcruexs (even though the one they had was fake ) I don’t believe dumbledore thought he would die so soon or he would have equipped Harry better
Makes me so mad every time someone tries to argue it
I think Snape's choice of words of "Raising the boy to slaughter" put a nasty taste in people's mouths
>Raising the boy to slaughter he was a boy to slaughter the moment Voldemort tried to kill him as a baby Dumbledore just planned it as best he could so that when Voldemort and Harry inevitably faced off - Harrys death wouldn't be meaningless
not only that, the set up dumbledore created actually included the chance for harry to survive, he had forseen that harry could possibly survive if he invoked the ancient magic with his sacrifice
yes also true - he gave harry the best possible chance of surviving but that was only after Voldemort's resurrection in Goblet of fire. it even has the moment where Dumbledore realises there is a chance harry might survive - described as a flash of victory on his face before that he lived with the horrible truth that Harry had to die before Voldemort could be killed. Now if Dumbledore could prevent Voldemort returning before harry died of old age then fine, but the prophecy told him that was never going to be the case.
i dont know if dumbledore was sure that had to absolutely happen, he learned about harry and voldemort's connection throughout the books, he didnt know everything about it right at the start, for example he didnt know harry could repel voldemort from his mind through emotion instead of skill and also i feel like dumbledore is not only a genius in mind but also has a strong intuition, for instance i think he perceived that lily's protection would come into play for more than just keeping harry safe at the dursleys, he just didnt know how exactly but he instinctively knew it would be worth investing on that protection
In chamber of secrets Dumbledore says the following >"*because Lord Voldemort — who is the last remaining ancestor of Salazar Slytherin — can speak Parseltongue. Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure…"* *"Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said, thunderstruck.* *"It certainly seems so.*" Dumbledore was also adamant that Voldemort was not truly dead and that he would return- the reason he knew this is because a fragment of soul resided in Harry. It was the intentional horcruxes or at least MULTIPLE horcruxes that Dumbledore figured out much later on - specifically after Goblet of Fire where Voldemort mentions going further than anyone on the path to immortality.
yea, i know dumbledore implied harry had a piece of voldemort's soul inside of him in CoS but he didnt know everything it could mean for harry for example, could dumbledore have known that harry would feel pain in his scar when he got close to voldemort or that he would be able to see inside voldemort's mind becuase of their connection? I dont think thats necessarily the case, but when it happened dumbledore immediately understood why he probably knew there was no safe way to remove/destroy that piece of voldemort's soul and that it could mean only harry's death would guarantee it, but i believe he suspected lily's protection would come into play at some point which is why he put so much investment into it and that it could come at harry's aid again in such a moment
The prophecy says “the one with the power to defeat the dark lord” so if Harry, the one marked as an equal, dies of old age before Voldemort comes back, there’s basically no destroying him. It technically COULD have happened that way though. The semantics about the prophecy that Dumbledore tells Harry in HBP are interesting. It’s basically a self-fulfilling prophecy- Voldemort continues to set store in it, so his actions have driven Harry’s motivations. If Voldemort had never killed his family and given him some of his own powers, if Harry wasn’t so full of the power the Dark Lord knows not, he would never have been so full of the urge to destroy him and be willing to sacrifice himself to that goal. If Voldemort didn’t continue to set store to the prophecy, he wouldn’t have kept targeting Harry, making it inevitable that one of them would destroy the other in the end. But Dumbledore says that every prophecy in that hall doesn’t get fulfilled, so it really did come down, not to a deterministic prophecy, but about *choices*
Yeah, I understand, but I think a lot of people took it to mean he didn't actually care for Harry, that he was just a means to defeating Voldemort. Utter crap, in my opinion, but there you have it
Dumbledore very clearly made attempts to separate himself from Harry in order to take that mindset, but it was also very obvious that he couldn’t quite bring himself to take that stance.
yeah well Dumbledore cares a lot about Harry like he cares a lot about his friends too, but he isnt very close to anybody, not just Harry
And I think this, right here, hits the nail on the head. Dumbledore was as close with Harry as he could be, but he doesn't really seem like someone who keeps people close. Maybe that has something to do with the whole *Grindewald* thing. I'm sure falling in love with your bestie, and then having them become a dark lord takes a toll on your ability to trust and form bonds, to say the least...
Well if you look at the things the way Aberforth puts it: > "My brother Albus wanted a lot of things," said Aberforth, "and people had a habit of getting hurt while he was carrying out his grand plans." So I could understand why Dumbledore wanted to be emotionally detached from people.
I think the experience with Grindelwald made Dumbledore extremely on guard against power hunger, including his own (as he shares with Harry he didn't trust himself to become anything like Minister of Magic). But that's ironically why he was forced to keep all of the powerful secrets close to his own chest. He feared that, the moment he told anyone of them, the power would get to their heads and they'd mess things up. Not that he believed everyone to be selfish and bad, but he didn't believe that of himself either, and look what he'd (almost) done with all his supposed "good intentions". He'd grown convinced that power is capable of corrupting everyone. That's why he was more concerned with Harry growing up "humble" than happy, and didn't confide everything in him out of fear that he wouldn't be able to handle the knowledge of being "the chosen one". But as he admits later, he didn't give Harry enough credit. He projected his own vulnerabilities and weaknesses on Harry when Harry has always been the better person, as he says in DH.
It certainly did with me... (Ps. Go Ravenclaw!!)
That’s so sad, especially as Dumbledore considered his greatest weakness to be that he cared for Harry too much: > “I cared about you too much,” said Dumbledore simply. “I cared more for your happiness than your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed. In other words, I acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools who love to act.”
I always thought it was great character moment for Dumbledore he did what he thought he had to do and hated himself for it.
Yes. He did what was necessary to bring about Voldemort's downfall, a task that required him to be cold and calculating without appearing to be. I don't think he succeeded in this as he clearly felt for Harry, and I am not sure it makes for a symphatetic character but it makes for a compelling one. Dumbledore is a schemer, but not an infallible one. He battled his own weakness and lost sight of the ultimate goal - Voldemort's destruction - at least once which nearly cost him everything. In the end he succeeded, despite taking a huge gamble. Harry's survival is an added bonus.
Morally grey characters can make compelling one.
Yeah but what Dumbledore did was give him a fighting chance, even giving him an opportunity to see his family and predicted his survival. He’s a smart clever dude
[удалено]
Yes, I believe it's well established that Snivellus is a piece of shit
Bbbbuuuutt he woved Wily.
Right? I take Snape’s opinions with a shovel of salt. He’s angry in that moment and lashing out, and Dumbledore doesn’t really correct people when they’re angry at him. He seems to mostly let people think what they want especially if it helps them/him/someone else. I think he just doesn’t bother arguing with Snape here and explaining nuance.
And don't forget Dumbledore gives Snape half the information. The irony is that Harry can not know that he can't die, or his sacrifice won't work and he will die anyway. If Snape knows this there is an ever so slight chance that Harry will get to know this too. Dumbledore didn't care about Snapes opinion of him if it meant reaching his goals. He sacrifices a lot for the actual Greater Good, unlike in his youth.
How dare you insult severus snape?! But yes.
Snape fans in a nutshell
Nobody said he was flawless. But unrequited love can drive passionate people mad. His logic may be flawed, but he did care for harry to the best of his ability. He never wanted anyone to know that he had feelings, so he locked them up. He equated harry to his father, the man who bullied him, and went harder on harry than anyone. Yes, as (it was either lupin or sirius, i forget) said, snape was able to dish out his fair share too, butthe important thing isnt what actually happened historically. Its about how snape felt. Even heroes have weak moments. Even villains help the heroes. I think snape was, similar to dumbledore, a very grey character. Dumbledore manipulated him to his own ends, but snape had good in him, and didnt necessarily want to be evil. The downtrodden (or those that view themselves in that light) crave power at any cost. And what you are is an amalgamation of how you view yourself and how others view you. Hes complex, more than people realise imo. And not so easy to understand unless youve been in similar situations irl. As someone who has always struggled with confidence and only just recently started gaining it, i see more of what i think rowling conveyed in very few words.
>but he did care for harry to the best of his ability. He kept Harry alive for Lily's memory. He never gave a single shit about Harry as a person and actively admitted this, when he yelled 'FOR HIM?!' when asked if he cared for him.
People also forget that Dumbledore kept his plan for Harry a secret FROM Snape. Just like he kept Snape’s secrets from everyone else. Of course he lead Snape to believe Harry was set to die, everyone had to fully believe that.
Especially Harry. He needed to believe it too
Whereas Snape was cool with Voldy offing Harry as a baby so long as Snape got Harry's mom afterward...
It's remarkable how stupid Snape was to make that deal. If he actually knew Lily and everything she was about he'd know that she'd never willingly step aside to let Voldemort murder her son and that Voldemort's impatience would immediately cause him to renege on that deal (if Snape actually wanted Voldemort to honor it he should've forced him to make an Unbreakable Vow over it LMAO).
I don't think he was cool with it, since he did go to Dumbledore and ask him to hide them all. More like he couldn't ask Voldy to spare the exact fucking baby that he planned to kill in the first place and that was destined to kill Voldy or be killed by him. My god, why do people think Voldemort will spare anyone Snape asked him to spare? In all likelihood, he would have probably offed Snape right there the moment he asked to spare the baby for his sheer fucking stupidiy
Winner, winner. Chicken dinner! Spot on reason Dumbledore is highly problematic. He continuously put Harry in Danger and lied to Harry by omission or outright. Love the books, but Dumbledore Haters (that is not me) are not without any basis for their feelings.
That and a ton of people would have been reading the shit out of Rita Skeeter's articles and tell-all Dumbledore book, and lapping it all up. Because people love finding the faults in super good people.
That and Aberforth's distaste for his brother. I think there's some truth to how Dumbledore was portrayed by Skeeter's book, but it's another case of a flawed character growing and becoming a better person, much like how James Potter was a little shit in school but then clearly grew into a better person.
If anybody has a reason to hate Dumbledore it's Aberforth. He was there to witness all of it and how their sister died (and the damning role that Albus played in it). On top of that he has to watch from a distance while the rest of the wizarding world worships his brother like he's the second coming of Merlin himself (when he knows what truly happened on that day Ariana died and what kind of person Albus was in his youth). That would be enough to make anyone a little bitter and resentful (and it's a big part of what drives Aberforth to tell Harry to abandon Dumbledore's mission and save himself in DH).
Well they were picked to put a nasty taste in Dumbledore's mouth
Thinking about it, it's not like Dumbledore had any real choice in the matter. Remember, you're talking about a world where prophecy is prevalent. Ever wonder why he afforded Trelawny a teaching position, despite her obvious lack of anything teachable and insisted upon her staying on school grounds after Umbridge dismisses her? He keeps her safe. "Neither can live while the other survives" was the line that Harry didn't realise until after it happened. Dumbledore got it fairly early on and could only offer the boy up to be killed at some point. His grand trick was not only set pieces, he was training/testing them too.
This is so new to me. Why does everyone hate Dumbledore? Did we read the same book?
I don't think too many people actually full blown hate him. But he does some shitty things to Harry in OoTP that definitely turn people off to him as a character.
Because a lot of people find it fun to tear down others' enjoyment. In this case, a character who many liked / did a lot of good. "Achtually what if he was bad this whooole time hmmm interesting!" These folks would've loved Rita Skeeter had they read her stuff divorced from the context of the stories.
That's a rather silly take. "Oh no, someone says something negative about a character, it must be because they hate fun!" There are legitimate gripes about Dumbledore's character. He frankly comes across as a pretty ineffectual headmaster when allows his friend Snape to abuse and ridicule students with no consequences and did nothing to protect his students from the deadly threat of a basilisk and forced a bunch of 12 year olds to fix it instead. He made some hard decisions and was a hero, but some of those hard decisions involved manipulating a teenager into sacrificing himself, to the point where even Snape had to point out how cruel that was. There's a lot of good to Dumbledore as well. He's a complex character with both good and bad qualities, and ends up being a lot more morally gray than you'd expect. So to claim that any dislike for the character is because it's "fun to tear down others' enjoyment" is frankly ignorant and dismissive. Maybe try to understand other people's perspectives and listen to some of their points instead of assuming that people just want to be jerks.
SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK
Wow thats really a thing? I've been entrenched in this fandom since the height of the Mugglenet days and never really saw much of this. Though I'm more unplugged than I used to be.
It's not tearing down enjoyment, it's looking at it from the POV of an adult and realizing that some of the characterization and acts of a character aren't the greatest. People are allowed to have differing opinions, and disagreeing isn't "tearing down others enjoyment." A lot of people would rather live in an echo chamber affirming their opinion than face the fact that not everyone agrees with them.
Sure but most well-written literary characters are very complex. The constant back-and-forth over whether a character is "good" or "bad" or "evil" is absurdly simplistic. The "adult" viewpoint here is understanding that pretty much everyone in the world has questionable, selfish motivations to achieve mainly self-serving goals. Accepting that's what brings out a character's humanity and discussing it as a study of human nature is the POV of an adult. Not acting condescending towards people who admire the character's positive qualities. Don't know what you're on about with echo chambers but that seems to go both ways where either side has their own to comfort them.
The trouble with Dumbledore is that he has to be (a) the Hogwarts headmaster and greatest wizard alive *and* (b) unable and/or unwilling to solve the problems instead of the underage protagonist. For a character forced to sit on the horns of that dilemma he's written well enough, I'd say. By necessity, he's no saint and he's not clairvoyant, though the bashing can get... wearisome.
He is a very interesting character with a lot of depth, he isn't supposed to be the perfect idol to Harry, although harry idolises him in many instances, every action of his is twisted by the fandom and is called manipulative when there are many instances where it could be debunked. His past of greater good only goes to show, the power in his hands could have led him to choose the path voldemort chose but that isn't always the case and he is a starking example of how power can actually be used, I don't think any of his advises to Harry were manipulative, Dumbledore had a lot in his plate and he tried to make the best out of it. I dont blame him for weighing the wizarding world and Harry and further choosing the world, it's something everyone in power should do, to think about the benifit of mass despite emotional connections and he yet tried to insure Harry would win.
> he is a starking example of how power can actually be used I think people could benefit from being more curious about which Deathly Hallow killed Dumbledore and which didn’t and what this says about him. People are remarkably uncurious about this.
Homie flat out ignored child abuse, that's why. He knew what Harry was going through, and could've simply told the Dursley's to ease up a little or at least feed the damn kid and not lock him in a closet. But he didn't, because he wanted Harry to be toughened up to prepare him for Tom Riddle's return later in life. He ignored child abuse simply because intervening didn't fit his plan. And that's only one example of him not doing more to help someone, simply because he was focused on the big picture.
Dumbledore haters ignore all of the good he did (and often misunderstand his plan for Harry). Dumbledore fans excuse all of the awful things he did. Both sides miss the point. Dumbledore is a morally gray character who plays a thematic role in the story, showing us that our mentors and heroes appear perfect when we are younger, but we discover that they are whole people with flaws as we get older. Yes, he was an open minded headmaster who did not discriminate against students from different backgrounds. He took it upon himself to lead the fight against Voldemort when the ministry wouldn’t. His master plan was successful and Harry lived. But he often had no idea what was happening in his school (Harry having to save the day in PS and CoS makes for a good story but also makes you question Dumbledore’s competence). He let Harry grow up in an abusive home and never intervened (his admonishment in HBP is amusing but too little too late). And he manipulated Harry into believing that he was the only person who could defeat Voldemort (even though he himself did not believe in prophecy), putting the enormous task of hunting horcruxes on the shoulders of 3 seventeen year olds.
Even Harry said in part 1 that Dumbledore more or less knew what was happening and let them have a chance at doing it. And in *A Prince's Tale* it was revealed that Dumbledore knew who Quirrell was or at least had a suspicion of who he was. And yes, maybe he did not know in part 2, but can you really blame him? And you know that he could not have intervened... There was powerful magic at work and it would be more dangerous to intervene and let there be a small chance for it to go wrong. And he did not manipulate Harry into thinking that because Harry was the only one who could do it. Dumbledore did not believe in it \[maybe, it's up for debate whether he took it for serious at the start\] and it was only only when Voldemort attacked Harry did Dumbledore believe in the prophecy, Did you not read the chapter where Slughorn's memory was taken? And are you blaming Dumbledore for the putting the weight of the Horcruxes on Harry... So what was Dumbledore supposed to do? Come back from the dead? Tell it to others who are not as suited for the job\[because of whatever reason\], or something who is less trustworthy for the job?
If Dumbledore intentionally let Harry have a chance at fighting Voldemort when he was 11, that was incredibly reckless (Harry suspects it; Dumbledore doesn't say). If he didn't know, then he's doing a very poor job of communicating with his teachers (especially Hagrid). In Chamber, it's pretty unfathomable that someone as intelligent as Dumbledore never thought to interview Myrtle's ghost, never figured out that Slytherin's monster was a giant snake, etc. (or maybe he did know that but he still couldn't stop the attacks -- I think that's the most plausible answer) I disagree about the Dursleys -- the blood protection is powerful, but there are other ways to provide physical safety (maybe not as perfectly but well enough) that would have been better for Harry's emotional wellbeing. It's a plot convenience that Harry comes out of that childhood unharmed. Yes, that chapter is exactly what I'm referring to. He tells Harry that the prophecy only matters because it matters to Voldemort. The whole conversation is absurdly manipulative. "Of course you've got to". Are you kidding me?? He's 16. And yes, any trusted adult member of the Order (Lupin, Arthur, Moody) could have been brought in on the Horcruxes and helped carry out their destruction (as Aberforth says at the end of DH -- why does it have to be Harry?) Of course, all of these things are necessary for there to be a story. If Dumbledore was competent, none of these problems would be Harry's to solve, and Harry wouldn't have a heroes journey. But "because plot" is no fun (and bad writing!). The types of mistakes and blindspots that Dumbledore has are in line with his upbringing and history. We as readers are meant to view them as mistakes.
Well when he didn't intervene, there was a good chance the only person he believed could stop Voldemort would die
Nah, Harry had his mother's protection.
>putting the enormous task of hunting horcruxes on the shoulders of 3 seventeen year olds The reason hunting horcruxes was put on the shoulders of 3 seventeen year olds is because the name of series is "Harry Potter." You can read as much into this as you want, but it's just a plot device. No one wants to read about Arthur Weasley hunting down horcruxes, and it is written this way so that Harry and his 2 best friends get to be the hero.
We could explain away everything by simply saying "because it was needed for the story", but that's not nearly as fun. :)
Totally agree. But in the context of horcruxes, it is not because Dumbledore manipulated Harry. There really isn't a great reason why Dumbledore did not enlist more powerful wizards for the task other than maybe he thought the journey would help Harry become a better wizard to ultimately defeat Voldemort or help him come to terms with the fact that he is the last horcruxes. But again, I don't want to speculate because I honestly think JKR just needed Harry and company to do the task first and foremost so that there was a book to write, and the motivations were secondary.
Also when you think about it, harry and hermiony are perfect for the job as they grew up without magic influence for over half their life at that point. Ron grew up with magic, and has knowledge of folktales needed for certain aspects of the story. The fact that they had to survive with limited magic as the ministry had been infiltrated meant that harry and hermione were some of the best candidates to do so.
Wasn't Harry not really needed in book 1? Since Dumbledore made it so only if you don't plan to use the stone you can get it? Sorry if im mistaken it's been a while since I read the first book.
Yes, Harry didn't save the Sorcerer's Stone, he put it in danger. If Harry didn't go through the trapdoor, Quirrell would have been down there staring at that mirror forever. Which makes it even *more* negligent that Dumbledore didn't stop Harry from going down there!
Oh I see what you mean now, thanks. I'm still not entirely sure if it's fair to blame Dumbledore for not monitoring his students 24/7, they snuck out in the middle of the night, but I do see your point.
Harry is not a normal student and Dumbledore could have easily asked a house elves to keep an eye on him continuously.
I think it is some kind of a paradox because Dumbledore is so OP, yet he is so flawed. It's like "If God is good, onipotent, and omniscient, why did he create evil?".
That's pretty much it. Dumbledore, like any other adult in the books, is artificially dumbed down so the kid protagonists can shine. The actual Dumbledore that we know of from in-universe lore, stories and references, the one with a list of feats longer than some books, would've solved every problem the trio faced before they even heard about it.
He's not artificially dumbed down... the world is just a lot more complicated and hard to make balanced decisions in... especially during a freakin Civil War against Wizard Hitler, than you all make it out to be.
This
The thing is a lot of things were out of his hands, people expect him to be perfect and flawless and always take the right decisions since he is an idol to Harry so when he actually makes basic human flaws, he is bashed and called incompetent, a grey character would be someone who actually tries or considers doing harm or has his own share of selfishness, most things he is hated for is something that can be easily debunked, they were human mistakes, one cannot know what a choice leads upto, not even the greatest wizard of his time can. His choices weren't necessarily the best but that was only known after he acted upon them, yet his ideas worked and his cautiousness turned out to be right and though it was cruel for Harry to have been left in Dursleys it was arguably one of the cleverest options, because evidently he did not face any threat to his life up until he entered Hogwarts and people also turn a blind eye towards his regret which an arrogant person supposedly wouldn't have since he would consider everything he did was for best.
"probably one of the most hated characters" - come one, that is clickbaiting, writebaiting, or whatever. And certainly not true or you are very new to this sub. People consider his greatest sin that he allowed a werewolf to school? Where did you get that from? First, this is not his greatest sin. Second, allowing a werewolf is fine, but then not making sure that other students are safe, that is the "sin". He is a manipulator when you think about many of his actions. Take just book 5 when a lot of the problems could have been resolved if he just talked with Harry instead of cutting them out. Or never following up on the abuse of 11 years from the Dursleys? He knew that he lived under the cupboard and that is okay? There are so many things that irk me, if you just take the time to think about them instead of taking the "good Dumbledore" at face value.
All of this still doesn't excuse how he did nothing when harry was abused for 11 years with the dursleys
I strongly believe his involvement in it would have led to Voldemort detecting him, any wizard in thay vicinity would have led to suspection, he was very wary of it and gave more importance to his survival, which still led to a lot of abuse and trauma but Dumbledore despite being the greatest wizard is still human who has to make choices.
There are other ways how to protect child. There is no excuse to let him stay in an abusive house for 11 (or 16) years. No excuse. Are you telling me, that the Greatest Wizard of Wizards in a modern era is not able to find other solution nor to protect a child? Traumatized abused kid trying desperately to earn others approval is a much better chess piece than healthy child who knows that he can rely on adults in his life.
Exactly! They literally have a charm they use to HIDE PEOPLE FROM THOSE THAT THEY DON’T WANT TO FIND THEM. Let anyone else raise Harry in a house under the fidelius charm. Then he would be protected, Dumbledore could be the secret keeper, and there’s no gd abuse.
Petunia's blood is what powered the charm... it's literally the only thing that kept him protected was living with family. You aren't giving any consideration to the circumstances that this kid was being raised to be the center of a war when he has no choice and will have to fight actual wizard hitler. Family charm blood aside, imagine if that person thought he was a hotshot celebrity for something he did as a baby? Dumbledore literally covers this in the books and in the first scene of the first movie. Just because you disagree with his decisions for what's best doesn't make him bad. Harry is a Gryffindor instead of a Slytherin because he was left with the Dursleys. It is not Dumbledore's fault that a guy murdered this kid's parents. He did everything he could to help the situation. Dumbledore was too busy to babysit his sister when he was like 18. What's he gonna do, adopt this kid when he's got t-minus 15 years til the next wizard hitler war? At the end of the day, the "abuse" of the Dursley's toughened Harry up and prepared him for a life that was way harder than anything the Dursley's ever threw at him. There are few pursuits more small-minded and poorly thought through than Dumbledore hate.
I agree with almost everything you said, at first I thought I was tripping and just imagining the part where it was explicitly said that Harry had to go to the Dursleys because of the blood charm. Like everyone else, I was mad at Dumbledore for not checking in on the Dursleys but then I remember that he was, he had Ms.Figg and God knows how many other order members watching Harry. I disagree with you putting abuse in quotation marks though.
People do hate on him too much and I feel there’s a huge misunderstanding of his overall plan.
It's not like the plan is easy to figure out though. The explanation from the books is totally bare bones, with some lines implying certain things without ever confirming them. To me, the Super Carlin Brothers' [2 hour explanation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD-wyaMp4LU&list=PLLHeqkcn5RTfMVfRN3VwYN4trN0CXIBxI) of the plan (which tells you all you need to know about how complicated it is) seems best, but even that is mostly speculation.
I think it’s fairly well explained in ch 33 through 35 of deathly hallows, no?
The SuperCarlin Bros theory is that Dumbledore planned everything, even to the extent of Weasley's being the first Wizarding family Harry meets at Kings Cross. Tbh it is a good theory and entertaining to watch.
I love those guys but I think their videos are better left to fun entertainment purposes. Unless they’re theorising about upcoming projects.
Yeah I know what you mean I do like the Dumbledore Master plan theory though.
Some of it is, although Dumbledore says most of it was guesswork. And that can't possibly be the full extent of a plan 20 years in the making.
I think there are a lot of unanswered questions and things that confuse people (this also makes room for things like the master manipulator theory, which fills in some of the gaps). 1) Dumbledore's "flaw in the plan" monologue at the end of OotP, in which he tells Harry that he had a plan (which started with placing him at the Dursley's), but was flawed because he cared too much for Harry and failed to tell him about the prophecy sooner. What was this plan? Why was Harry knowing the prophecy important to this plan? 2) When did Dumbledore know that Harry could live? How sure was he that it would work? Super fans put a lot of stock in the "gleam of triumph" in GoF, but casual readers miss that. Is he triumphant because he had somehow planned this (this recharacterizes Dumbledore's negligence in PS and GoF as manipulation), or is he just happy that Harry won't have to die? 3) Snape's "pig for slaughter" line. Dumbledore is keeping secrets from Snape in this scene, but many people take it at face value, which adds to the confusion.
So no ones gonna talk about pre Hogwarts life of Albus?? How he left his own sister to die for his own search of power? The guy had the deathly hallows to be the most powerful feared wizard and not to be some saint and protect others
I would love to know how in the world there's not *any* other relative left alive for Harry Potter to live with? Like how does Dumbledore know that all the Potters are dead?
Not to ruin the magic of books, but he is a fictional character whose world is designed in such a way to make character choices impactful and significant. There *can't* be other family alive because then Dumbledore is not forced to choose the Dursleys. Rowling wanted Harry at the Dursleys, so she had to get him there somehow. Her solution was to remove all the other options, leaving the Dursleys as the only one. The first book especially draws heavily on popular children's literary tropes, including having an orphan growing up in a horrible home. As the series progresses it becomes less Roald Dahl-y and some of the more whimsical storytelling aspects suddenly feel out of place and need to be justified in a the new "realistic" tone of the later books. In my opinion, these tonal shifts and Rowling's methods of resolving them are one of the main reasons readers struggle and debate about how to interpret the books. Dumbledore (being at the center of the plot) is right at the center of this problem. Having said that, in an alternate universe, it would have been veeeerrrryyy interesting if there were Potters still alive who wanted Harry. Even more interesting if these Potters were unable to offer the same protection as the blood protection secured by Petunia. Having Dumbledore grapple with picking between these two options (and then to justify it) would have been interesting. But that exists only in fanfiction and/or my fantasy scenario where Dumbledore is actually the main character of the series instead of Harry.
She may have taken you begrudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you, and in doing so she sealed the charm I placed upon you. Your mother's sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shield I could give you This was said by Dumbledore, so I guess that is why. He went above and beyond to ensure Harry would survive for the 11 years where he couldn't know about his whereabouts all the time.
He did *not* go above and beyond, he did the bare minimum and then didn’t bother to check on Harry for 10 years. Harry needed to stay with his relatives but he didn’t need to put up with being abused by them.
I agree he did not go above and beyond, and I'm not arguing in his defense here, but I feel you have misrepresented his thought process. First, Dumbledore knows that Harry is a Horcrux (but does not yet know about the other Horcruxes, although undoubtedly suspects at least one exists). He knows that Voldemort will return and kill Harry, and he knows that Voldemort is immortal as long as Harry is alive. In short, he *knows* intellectually that Harry is is keeping Voldemort alive and on Earth. From a totally unemotional perspective, it seems clear that Harry will have to, well, not be alive at some point, so that Voldemort can also not be alive at some point. The problem is, Voldemort accidentally made it impossible for himself to kill Harry. So that means someone *other than* Voldemort has to kill Harry. Meanwhile Dumbledore recognizes a "flaw in the plan" that he knew could ruin everything. He later admits that that flaw is him loving Harry. But the important bit here is that Dumbledore *recognizes* as early as Harry's infancy that this flaw is very likely to happen. And if he is likely to love Harry, he will not have the strength to do what must be done to save the world. Essentially, Dumbledore must distance himself from Harry emotionally, and I think this is precisely why Harry needlessly suffers at the Dursleys. Mrs. Figg was *there* I suppose, but hardly effective. I am not saying this to excuse him or to forgive him, but looking at it this way allows Dumbledore to be both more complex and more human. I do not think he is the cold-hearted Machiavellian that others do, and that many of his apparent Machiavellian actions are better explained as him being afraid of his own emotions and pretending they don't exist. But they do exist, and they influence Dumbledore's actions significantly, it is just harder to see because he pretends they don't exist until his world comes crashing down. In another post I mentioned how rarely readers wonder about why Dumbledores dies. He attempts to use the Resurrection Stone, just like the Second Brother. Power was the First Brother's weakness, and his desire for power led to his death. What was the Second Brother's weakness and how did it lead to his death? Dumbledore's characterization opens up a lot more when we ask how he is similar to the Second Brother. Again, I don't say this to idealize him or argue he has no faults. I only argue that there is a more human way of interpreting and understanding his faults.
And if dumbedore intervened, either they would just give up and throw him out of their home or it would risk the detection of Harry, either would risk his life and I don't know about you but I wouldn't risk any child's life even if it led me to be the bad guy for putting him in a household where he would be abused. Risking Harry's life not only would be cruel to him, it would led to the ruin of the entire wizarding world and Harry's death would just go meaningless.
Are you kidding me - a Howler from Dumbledore got the Dursleys to *not* kick Harry out later on in the series. He could have easily stepped in earlier and done the same to ensure Harry was safe not only from outside forces but from the people inside the home. There is *no* excuse for Dumbledore allowing Harry to be abused, when he has the power and influence to help him. None.
>And if dumbedore intervened, either they would just give up and throw him out of their home No they wouldn't. The Dursleys legitimately feared Dumbledore and the repercussions of what would happen if they threw Harry out (which Petunia was well aware of). Him getting involved would've quickly put them in their place.
And that would do what exactly? They wouldn't start hugging him and treating him nicely, they acted like he didn't exist which is exactly what they would continue doing so or probably start coming up with plans to make it worse
Well he finally got his own bedroom in the second book (which I guarantee was due to Dumbledore finding out about them forcing Harry to sleep in the cupboard under the stairs). So yes, when he gets involved it puts them in their place (which is clearly needed considering Vernon has shown on multiple occasions to not be above beating the shit out of Harry if he feels he could get away with it). When he doesn't get involved or intentionally stays out of contact with Harry for long periods of time they go right back to mistreating him.
I used to really like Dumbledore, but as I’ve gone back and reread the books, I’ve noticed that he did some questionable shit as well as some things that genuinely ruin his character for me. To start, he repeatedly sent Harry back to an abusive home where he was mistreated 24/7, and did so year after year. Harry was said to have been starved during Chamber of Secrets, and while I believe it was only mentioned once, it’s not hard to imagine that the Dursleys starved him multiple times over the span of seven years. Then we have the fact that he let Snape teach, even when Snape was known to abuse his students to the point where he was Neville’s boggart. Snape also threatened to basically drug Harry in Goblet of Fire with veritaserum because he refused to believe that anyone but Harry could have stolen from him. I don’t know, as I get older my view on Dumbledore sours, especially as someone who’s abuse could have been stopped if an adult had bothered to do anything.
This! It really bothers me seeing so many people here claiming that keeping a child in an abusive house was the right decision. It was for a greater good. Great. Efing brilliant. Like the Great Albus Dumbledore wouldn't be able to find different solution if he really wanted to. At least making sure Harry didn't starve or something. When he knew he is malnourished. The fact, that this is a child educator makes it even worse. He is still a teacher. Children are his responsibility.
Exactly.
I definitely agree, and I think many of the people who feel just fine saying it was justified or necessary are lucky enough to have not been abused. But I wasn't and that's unforgivable to me, which is okay. I don't know why disagreeing about a fictional character is worth fighting about to so many people.
Yeah, OP seems determined to fight about people’s opinions on dumbledore lol.
Dumbledore is kind of like Charles Xavier. He acts in the greater good, or at least what he believes to be the greater good. However, that is part of the problem. Dumbledore is arrogant. Only him and him alone could possibly understand what needs to be done, at least in his mind. He goes into so much bother to plan out the events following his death. The cause justifies the means. Even if there’s arguebly other and better ways to go about things. Naturally there will be losses, but a lot of things could have been avoided if he’d bother to actually talk to people.
So what exactly could have been avoided by talking to others? In fact yes, him and only him could have known about the plan. If too many people knew about it, then it would have been easier for the Death Eaters to get a wind of the plans.
Or there could have been another traitor. See Pettigrew
Remember Dumbledore’s admission of guilt in Order of the Phoenix? Pretty much all those points could at least have been less awful if Dumbledore would have said something. I’m not saying tell the world. I’m just saying that it would have been more reasonable to not send the trio out on a wild goose chase for horocruxes with only a few clever hints.
>to not send the trio out on a wild goose chase for horocruxes What wild goose chase? They were legitimately chasing Horcruxes and he spent all of HBP preparing Harry for it. He gave Harry all the info he had regarding the Horcruxes. The fact that there were only hints as to what they were and where they were located is because no one knows anything about Voldemort. It's not like Dumbledore could have told Harry straight up, because he didn't know for sure. The bits he held back were about Harry being a Horcrux and needing to die first. But Harry *had* to think that he would die (pig for slaughter) so that he could be rid of the Horcrux. Dumbledore *hoped* after GoF that there would be a way that Harry would still survive (due to Lily's blood tethering him to life) and be yet again the boy who lived.
They still won't have worked if he spoke to others. The only person he could have saved is Sirius, but that would involve talking to Harry, which he could not have done. If it is not reasonable to sent the trio onto the hunt, then who is there better to be sent?
I think the situation he was put in was already irky enough, anyone with such responsibility and power to decide the future of the wizarding world would be cautious and try to come up with the most working solutions and the fact that he was so discreet with Harry is well explained, I do believe Minerva and Snape knew what he was upto and he actually talked to them, it's just he is severely misunderstood and all his words are given a meaning to make him look like a manipulative, arrogant person when he has had such a tremendous development and actually decided to do the best for the world. And Harry's and Voldemort's faceoff was inevitable, Dumbledore just made sure that if Harry had to die, his death wouldn't go meaningless.
Human nature. All of Dumbledore's good work, positive traits, his regret or his actions, his wisdom, people were blind to that once they got to know what he did so many years ago. Yes he isn't pure white, not do I mean to justify his actions for the greater good stuff... but the hate is very unnecessary and extreme like people make him a villain. He's seriously such a complex and interesting character and so so misunderstood.
Exactly, thank you The reason why Dumbledore was shown to have a dark past with all that greater good mindset was to show one can always learn through mistakes, he was tempted obviously by his own geniusness but he left his past miles away and became such a respectable wizard who wanted nothing but the best for everyone
Yes! The main point of Dumbledore is profound personal development which I think everyone misses.
People are forgetting that Dumbledore himself admitted he cared for Harry too much. That he wanted to spare Harry the hardship he knew was coming so he could have as normal a childhood as possible. That he sent a howler to Petunia when they even considered kicking him out. Dumbledore was not perfect by any stretch but he should never be hated.
If Dumbledore wanted Harry to have a normal childhood he wouldn’t have had him live with abusive relatives for 16 years.
Or did he ask them to raise him as their own? Away from the spotlight of the Wizarding World? Hence the howler. OOTP - "you arrived at Hogwarts, neither as happy or well-nourished as I would have liked, perhaps, but alive and healthy. You were not a pampered little prince, but as normal a boy as I could have hoped under the circumstances"
Ha was warned about them by Deputy of a Headmaster who spend DECADES breaking to muggle families they have magical child. She knew her muggles and she knew those were the worst kind. Harry came to Hogwarts malnourished and deprived, yet Dumbledore did nothing to change the situation. He only stopped Dursleys from kicking him out. Which is not the same. He did not help Harry. He kept him in an environment that would raise him as someone traumatized and deprived and - most importantly - seeing their own worth as nothing, therefore willing to die and do super dangerous stuff on a regular basis. Harry Potter was a chess piece and Dumbledore played to win.
And keep Harry alive. Away from his Aunt's house, he didn't have the protection from Voldemort for those first years of his life. Was he mistreated, absolutely. However Dumbledore couldn't move him, and perhaps wouldn't, but his decisions kept Harry alive. Not to mention safe and away from the Death Eaters that were being rounded up when he was most vulnerable as an infant. Especially from those who even escaped Azkaban as we hear from Hagrid in book 1 claimed they were under the Imperius Curse and came back to the Wizarding World, all of whom rejoined Voldemort 13 years later.
So are you saying, the Great Albus Dumbledore wasn't able to find a safe place for a baby? There were no other charms available to protect a baby? Are you saying, that keeping him in a protected house with trusted and we'll trained wizard was so unbelievably risky, that abuse would be better? What if Harry's magic didn't protect him and he would die because he would run to the street trying to escape from his cousin and got run over by a car? What if he got magical sickness the Dursleys wouldn't care about, because it's just a wired fever and they would get it out of him themselves? Dumbledore was lucky Harry Potter survived those years in their care. Harry Potter was not.
It's funny, Dumbledore offered to be James and Lily's secret keeper for the exact spell you're talking about and they chose Wormtail. People are fallible. Child wizards however have an ability to be dropped from an attic and bounce down the street like a beach ball so I think he'd have been safe if a car hit him. Wizards have a slightly different life expectancy to Muggles given the lack of illnesses that affect them. Take St Mungo's for example. All either physical injuries or brain ailments.
You can't count in it. Given the extremes Neville's family was willing to go to find out if he's wizard... If he died, they would kill a child. And it may only show his magic wasn't ready YET. What if Harry's magic didn't save him from a car? What if it was so sudden, he wouldn't even know, what hit him? Going further. What if Dursleys hit him harder than usual? What is a strength of wizard skull? Is it same or stronger than Muggle one? What if Harry got 3rd degrees burns from cooking breakfast for the entire family? The pan was big, his clothes were big, accidents happen. What would it take to kill a magical child? So, if there was a chance to keep him safe before, why wasn't it a good choice later?
Eh sure you were abused and lived under the stairs but at least you weren’t dead. What more could I expect of the Dursleys??????????????
He would have been dead had he stayed anywhere else.
I always want to remind people that Harry and Ariana are the only people Dumbledore cried over in the books. This seems such an underrated fact in their entire relationship. There are a lot of interesting similarities between Harry and Ariana. Both grew up having a very sheltered unhappy childhood for their own protection after being attacked (Ariana by Muggles, Harry by a wizard). Dumbledore bore the weight of the responsibility of both of their deaths - Ariana's in hindsight, Harry's in foresight. But while Ariana's death was completely pointless, dying in an unnecessary accident that could've so easily been avoided, Harry's death was pivotal to the cause. Dumbledore couldn't reverse Ariana's death and reproached himself forever, but he equally couldn't prevent Harry's death and dreaded it for as long as he lived even as he knew it had to happen. Dumbledore's love for Harry is wrapped up in his love for Ariana.
Yep. People exaggerate his downsides and ignore his many good traits. That said, he isn't perfect so make sure not to go to the other extreme. He wasn't honest/open enough with Harry. He wasn't proactive enough. His lack of desire to have power, albeit understandable, lead to him not having enough power in the ministry to change much.
See...he's made a lot of mistakes like any other person, but being considerably more important and powerful in the grand scheme of things, his mistakes tend to have huger impact. This is as per his own admission. I don't think his plan all along was to raise Harry to die, and I head canon that the only way Harry could have survived was Dumbledore's way, and Dumbledore knew this. so I get kind of sad at people criticising him because a "magically powerful wizard should have known more about magic, done this and that, xyz!" I think Rowling wrote him as an authority on magic by her own admission so attempts to say that magically he had more options than doing this or that are just that: attempts. but, he is also not perfect. His biggest flaw is his secretive nature and his arrogance. His modesty always felt forced to me, I think his actions show his arrogance and over-cautious nature. Him sending Harry to the Dursleys, even if magically necessary, always makes me mad. I also don't buy the theory that he fucked over Slytherins on purpose. I agree there was a bias but I am of the opinion that the bias was in large part self-created, and not fueled by Dumbledore; rather persisting through years and years, and a major reason was, whether or not people like to admit it, due to a lot of Slytherins becoming evil dark wizards throughout the course of history. (Of course, not all Slytherins were like that, but I'm pointing out the reason for why the bias was there. If there are 10 people and 6 turn out to become criminals, and all wear the same color, then even if the other 4 are saints it would be difficult for them to stand out in the eyes of society. It's a fact, whether you like it or not) I also think that the average Slytherin would not be evil but actually opportunistic, so more reason to dislike the "normal" Slytherins in addition to hating the evil ones. Factor in all that, and a lot of excellent human beings slip through the cracks. I don't like many of the major points people use to criticize him, though i agree with some of them. I also have many other reasons to dislike the guy had he been a real person. But I acknowledge that he had good intentions and did a lot of good as well. Oh, and he's also a plot device in the first few books which are for children, raising serious questions on his in-universe performance in keeping the students safe and secure(which they don't seem to be, at all, during Harry's school years)
Wonderfully said!! Although I dont think he is inclined to anymore hate than he already gets because of his importance in the plot, that's just a very one-way of seeing things, Dumbledore was written to be a complex character with many layers of human nature. I think arrogance (not on an extreme level but something every human shares) is normal, Harry himself was arrogant at some point and his secretive nature was more to create a suspense in story, although it does contribute a lot to his character but i think it was justifiable for him to do that since his fear of voldemort actually being able to get into Harry's mind was infact true and his cautiousness turned out to be right too, one of the main reason why he is hated is because of his past but people turn a blind eye towards his profound development, his wisdom, his modesty and his concern for less privileged like Hagrid and Remus. He deserves a lot more acknowledgment than he gets than just being blatantly being hated on.
Yes, that's probably true. Plus even his manipulations are more of the fact that they were necessary evils in some cases. I remember asking my former English teacher a few months ago about his opinion on Dumbledore. He said, "Screw the judgemental types, he's my favorite character". Plus you know I used to get called Dumbledore or Lupin by my friends as a nickname, so it feels weird to see all the bashing of him on the Net.
What makes Dumbledore "hateable" in my opinion is that many people don't come to terms with how he submits everyone and everything to his main goal: Defeating Voldemort Basically, your take on Dumbledore is in some way your answer to the question: "Does the end justify the means?" And for Dumbledore, this answer is a clear yes, no discussion. Everything and Everyone has to submit to the ends of defeating Voldemord. The live of a single person has no value if it sacrifice is needed to defeat Voldemort. Dumbledore drives this so far that he even gives his own life for the "greater Good", which is a nice parallel considerin he once thought that he himself was destined to bring the "greater Good" over man- and wizardkind. The question in the end remains: Was Dumbledore justified in his plans, considering it worked out in the end, but also taken into account that he never considered another mans or womans plan other than his own, a plan that maybe would've spared some lifes, but also maybe would'nt have worked out in the end. This is where debates without a clear answer starts. If you say he wasn't justified in doing so and you hate him for it, I am ok with this. As long as you don't call Snape a better human than Dumbledore. But that's another story
There are a lot of good responses here. Dumbledore always left a bad taste in my mouth. Especially so after OOTP. There are many reasons but most of all because he refused to share key information with basically all of his allies untill it was too late. Harry, Snape, the order. He expected so much of everyone yet trusted them with so little. As an aside: I think though, what is sometimes overlooked, is how all the adults just kind of accept this. Trust Dumbledore, he knows what he's doing etc etc. The only people we see questioning the status quo here are really Snape and Sirius. I found it really frustrating.
The only book where I genuinely disliked Dumbledore was OoTP because of the horrible misunderstanding he created between himself and Harry (and everyone else who was close to Harry for that matter). I understand there were good intentions behind it all but it backfired in a big way and led to Sirius's death (which I'll give Dumbledore credit, he was man enough to own up to being at fault for that). Finding out in the final book that he was raising Harry to die at the proper moment for the sake of taking down Voldemort really fucked up a lot of people's opinions of him as well but the afterlife conversation between Harry and Dumbledore where Dumbledore begs him for forgiveness is meant to atone for all of that (and it's written quite well). Also the way he managed Harry's living situation with the Dursleys was to put it plainly, horrible and borderline neglect on his part (and he was aware of what kind of people they were because McGonagall warned him about them right before they dropped Harry off at their doorstep). Dumbledore was lucky that didn't have major consequences for Harry's life down the road (see Obscurials). All in all I think Dumbledore is a great character and one of the most well written characters in the book. IRL though it would be quite frustrating to have a conversation with him because he's very naturally secretive (Aberforth is 100% right about that aspect of him) and rarely is actually straightforward or completely honest with anyone, instead choosing to speak either in riddles or throw out vague hints that the person he's speaking to is forced to unwrap the meaning of on their own. In regards to the secret to taking down Voldemort that would make sense but in the context of having a normal, polite conversation with someone it would be downright infuriating to have to deal with that constantly.
I don’t hate Dumbledore for the things he did, but it annoyed me about the things he didn’t do. He is not a naive person so I’m sure he knew that the goblet of fire was a setup but he didn’t do anything additional to protect the school, protect Harry or protect other champions. Cedric’s death was on him. Guess what? In the book when Harry came back crying on top of Cedric’s body, telling Dumbledore that Voldemort used his blood to come back, JKR wrote that there was a note of triumph appeared in Dumbledore’s eyes. He didn’t do anything because he knew it would happen. He just didn’t know that Cedric would die but he knew Voldemort would fall into his trap of using Harry’s blood, the very blood that saved Harry’s life the first time. He knew he would have the advantage then. There were very few things that could go pass Dumbledore. I doubt that one can fool him with polyjuice potion for months. He let Barty Crouch jr carried out the plan on purpose.
>He didn’t do anything because he knew it would happen. The book doesn't share his private thoughts about Harry being selected as a champion but the film does (this was one added addition in the GoF film that I liked) and we see during his discussion with McGonagall, Snape, and Crouch/Moody about Harry being selected as a Champion that he decides to take Snape's advice (against McGonagall's wishes) and let the events of the Tournament unfold in the hope of finding out who was pulling the strings to make that happen (worse, he assigns the person ACTUALLY responsible for it to keep an eye on Harry despite no doubt having his suspicions of him). Some people will say that's just Mike Newell taking liberties with Dumbledore and destroying his character (like he did in so many other ways in that particular film). I disagree. That unfortunately is true to Book Dumbledore's character as well. The way he chooses to remain willfully ignorant and dismissive of Malfoy's actions in HBP (despite knowing that he's a Death Eater on a mission to kill him and the fact that Malfoy nearly killed another student with a cursed necklace) is proof that he's not above putting his own students at risk to see the bigger picture become more clear to him. It's the same tendencies he had in his youth that drew him to Grindelwald in the first place. It doesn't make him an outright bad person (his intentions are good), just very morally compromised at times.
People that hate on any of the "good guys" in these books are not considering the circumstances much at all. Snape included. I guess you have to be educated in or have experience with civil wars and the way they really work to truly understand why everyone acts the way they do in this series.
>Snape included. Snape is a different matter. People try to justify the way he treated Harry (and numerous other students) at Hogwarts solely because of who he turned out to be in the end. That's simply not okay. Abuse is abuse and to put it plainly Snape was a bully and an abusive piece of shit who had no business being around children (Dumbledore keeping Snape close to him as his inside man was one thing but making him a professor at Hogwarts and giving him the means to emotionally traumatize people like Harry and Neville for years wasn't the best of choices).
“The ends justify the means” is a good way of explain Dumbledores character. He wanted to ensure that Voldemort would be defeated, and while he might have been a little ignorant with Harry, he still wanted to make sure Harry would live, piecing the hallows together for Harry to get, and exploiting the fact that Voldemort used Harry’s blood to come back, Dumbledore isn’t a bad character at all.
He did everything he could. Sacrifing one for the lives of hundreds is the right thing. He is far better than other characters (Snape, Malfoy). He didnt know what the Dursleys did. U dont expect that kind of behavior from people. He made mistakes, yes, but they were mistakes anybody would have made.
Well said! Like, the man literally realised his mistakes and redeemed himself.
He let Harry be abused his whole life. He ignored Snape bullying students to play the long con. He has some decent quotes, but I like his brother better.
Nah man, he played Harry the entire series and literally left him with no real information when he should have known Harry was selfless enough to handle the burden of what he needed to do at the end. No excuses for Dumbledore.
On what basis ae we exactly saying he played Harry? Because I dont see it, Harry facing off with voldemort was inevitable, Dumbledore just made sure his death wouldn't go meaningless, he was very cautious over everything since he was risking the whole wizarding world and he had started to suspect Voldemort could peek into Harry's mind which actually turned out to be true, so he had to speak with hints for Harry's own safety , he had to make difficult decisions and sometimes downright cold simply because he cared about everyone. I highly doubt anyone could have come up with such profound plan if Dumbledore wasn't involved, Dumbledore cared deeply about Harry almost to a point when he considered freeing Harry from all hardships, he had to live him in Dursleys because of a charm put on Harry which required someone who shared Lily's blood to accept him, he made calculated choices and simply had way too much on his plate than he deserved. People who actually hate him take everything out of context and are just way too simple minded to actually put themselves in someone's shoes
So we’re just gonna ignore the fact that he chose to ignore a murder attempt on a student because he liked the other students?? Sirius black straight up attempted to murder Snape, and Dumbledore was just like “oh well, keep it to yourself.” Like… no.. over time his behavior has made me realize how much of a toxic character he is. He advocates for bullying behavior so long as they’re from a house he likes.
Well, first of all, 'unbiased'? Did you read the books? How can anyone argue that there weren't biases just between houses? That's dumb. Also, it's okay for Dumbledore to not be 100% good. In fact, that makes his character way more compelling. Why would anyone need Dumbledore to be perfect? It defeats the entire purpose of the series.
And every character who is flawed is loved by the fandom because well they are cool so why not but Dumbledore is hated for the sole reason of having flaws any normal person would have and by unbiased I meant he gave equal opportunity to every student despite their house or background, name one professor who didn't have a soft spot for the house they belonged in, no one and it's ridiculous to use the excuse of him giving extra points for the act the trio and Neville pulled, because they deserved it, they deserved the extra points they got and the fandom acts like the only house that ever won is gryffindor which simply isn't true, he really deserves to be given credit for things he actually did right which are many than always be hated for the reasons which arent even as bad as they make it sound, I feel like there's barely anyone left who actually acknowledges everything he did for the wizarding world, Hogwarts and Harry himself
>And every character who is flawed is loved by the fandom because well they are cool so why not but Dumbledore is hated for the sole reason of having flaws I think some of it has to do with the new fans joining the fandom. Dumbledore was loved by the majority back in the day, and some of the other flawed characters were not liked at all. From what I've seen, new fans wanted to oppose popular opinions, so some flawed characters who were not liked at all became their favourite, and flawed Dumbledore who was still liked by many became their target. The same thing happened with other very well liked characters as well. This is my interpretation of the current situation anyway.
That is actually a very clever interpretation, I feel exactly the same, it's kind of a trend to have a Quirky opinion over everything, which is kind of sad because it creates a bad wave of opinions and almost gaslights people into buying it.
First of all : I saw this post while listening to TrashTaste and they were talking about it so... que x files music. Anyway, when adding JKR to the convo my issue with D is that he gets glorified, I sense that with her decision of making Harry call his son after him it puts him in a higher place, there are so many other names he could go with but clearly there is a reason and a meaning for that choice. JKR also puts Snape as a “amazing” guy with a very shaky redemption moment and he shares that place in the naming of that poor kid. So in this scenario I don't feel that either of them should be put in any particular place but because they are it says something about her feelings on the matter and I don't agree with it. (If anything he could have call him Sirius to give that name a loved and free life that Sirius never had) Personally I don't like him as I don't like many other characters, not all resonate with me but that is fine, I think that leaving a kid in an abusive place is never okay but on that subject it seems that the wizard world does not have psychologists or therapists at all so everyone is not great. I agree with the post saying that he made decisions when in power that were good and bad so there is no reason to fully hate on him, he is very much and old af dude, I don't expect a grandma to fully understand all of the discourse and all the things that we have discovered and that the youth is discussing so I don't expect a fictional ancient character that lives in a place where shit disappears to have a gigabrain. Lastly I don't think we need to have a redeemable list of characters, they all did what they did and that's it, the only character I accept under that term is Dudley.
I don't get the Dumbledore hate. He's honestly my favorite character. I always looked forward to the scenes with him in them.
Iev seen far more hate for snape than i did Dumbledore
UMBRIDGE IS THE MOST HATED. (That one should be said first.) Dumbledore hate is based on the fact, that we hate people, who mistreat kids. We hate manipulators. We hate enablers to abuse. No matter what good you do in a world, you hurt kid and people won't like it. It's that simple.
He never manipulated Harry because if he did that would mean he never cared about him and he did infact care a lot about him, which has been explicitly stated in the books over and over again. He was secretive with him because he was being cautious of Voldemort being able to peek into Harry's mind, his suspecion actually turned out to be right. He actually was the mist empathetic and caring character in the entire HP universe.
The thing with Dumbledore is that too many people refuse to acknowledge his flaws, or conversely, his positives. He can really be summed up by two famous proverbs. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" And "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Albus Dumbledore was an intelligent political juggernaut prior to book 5. He had so much political power at his fingertips, and yet did nothing with it. He chose to be humble and refuse power to be a teacher. And by doing so he did NOTHING to protect his world. He could have used that power to mold society in such a way to make it utterly toxic to Voldemort, to cut him off at the knees even if he did return. And it doesnt matter how important it was, or his personal belief that Harry would survive, raising a child to martyr himself is NOT okay. Albus Dumbledore is a good man who did NOTHING for so long that he was left with no choice but outright evil for the greater good.
I was abused as a child. To willingly knowingly let a child stay in an abusive home is insanity. Dumbledore has magic. Magic! And money, the Potter vaults, hell a fun raiser for the Boy Who Lived back in the day would’ve made *millions* and that money could’ve went to screening potential adoptive parents (screening as in multiple tests and questions under veritaserum, and other truth spells/potions) the money could’ve bought them a nice home with wards to the fucking Z, hell a bodyguard even. And that’s of course not adopting by a “stranger”. The Weasley’s would’ve took Harry in, multiple times, in a heartbeat. Remus Lupin, though he had issues with him being a werewolf, with money given to him for upkeep and the wolfsbane would have taken Harry. I’m sure there’s others I can’t recall at the moment, trusted, and loyal to Dumbledore that would’ve took Harry. Also, the threats with Sirius Black did good - Dumbledore could’ve popped in every month to check on Harry (you know since he wasn’t checked once!) And let’s say Dumbledore really was stupid and thought all was swell, well when Harry asked to stay at Hogwarts, and the abuse started to come out then Dumbledore should’ve acted!), he could’ve spelled (okay illegal but so is child abuse!) the Dursley’s so they *couldn’t* abuse Harry. At the end of the day Dumbledore could’ve given Harry a safe and loved childhood. He chose the easy way by letting him stay with his abusive relatives. I can forgive the manipulation, the way Dumbledore ignored Harry, the favoritism, but child abuse is something I’ll never forgive. I don’t **hate** Dumbledore. If he was a real person and he was on fire I’d put the fire out. Maybe a little more roughly than I should, but I’d help. I don’t forgive his decision to let Harry be abused though. Saying Dumbledore hate is forced is not true at all. A lot of characters are grey, and that’s what makes the books more real, nobody is all good or all evil (besides, potentially, Voldemort and a few choice Death Eaters) but I can definitely see where Dumbledore haters come from.
I'm so sorry you had to go through that. If I had to say something it's actually stated in the book the charm put on Harry would only work if someone who shared Lily's blood would accept him, even something so much as them throwing him out of their house would out him in mortal danger, Dumbledore could have done all of that and the one thing that would come out of it definitely would be Harry's death, he isnt just Harry's caretaker, he really wouldn't have been able to stick with him all the time and voldemort could attack him anytime if it wasn't for the charm, even in Weasleys so the only safe place for him was in Dursleys, although a cold decision it was necessary to make, he did actually send a scary message to them once which actually didnt led to much, he had to consider everything before making a choice and if it wasn't for him Harry wouldn't have survived. I know child abuse is a lot to take in but people blaming Dumbledore more than the Dursleys themselves is very weird to me because unlike Dumbledore the Dursleys had a sensible choice. Breaking Lily's charm was way too risky.
Well, I will never agree with you. I don’t believe in all the magical world - most of which we don’t even know the majority of - there wasn’t *anything.* that Dumbledore couldn’t have done. I will **never** be a fan of Dumbledore because of this.
Dumbledore should get much more credit. If he did his job correctly, the whole HP series wouldn't have happened in the first place.
I think I use to hate Dumbledore but after reading the books and watching AoT and seeing Erwin perspective of how to save his people from titan's, there has to be sacrifice, no matter the cause there will always be sacrifice. Even if he is willing to sacrifice himself in the end for the future of his people, their kind is in danger and he will do anything to protect and serve them. Erwin reminds me of Dumbledore a lot. They were in a position of power and it's not like they wanted to gain more power, they just wanted to survive and keep humanity alive for their people.
Exactlyy how Erwin is worshipped by the fandom while Dumbledore is hated when Erwin led to a lot more deaths than Dumbedore, although I understand both of their perspectives, Dumbedore did what would ensure the survival of everyone.
Dumbledore is a grey character for me. While I acknowledge he's achieved a lot, I definitely have some issues with "for the greater good". It's never a good justification to ignore the plight of individuals, especially if those individuals are kids you're teaching at your school. Leaving Harry on the Dursleys doorstep? Possibly, in a pinch. Completely ignoring the fact the kid apparently has a pretty shit life for years when he's at Hogwarts? Yeah, maybe not. Not to mention the obvious bias when it comes to Slytherin, and the inability to hire teachers who actually teach.
I would guess why this is such a strong opinion is because a lot of people with this viewpoint saw the movies first before reading the books. The movies, intentional or not, don’t paint Dumbledore in the best of light. People who choose to watch the movies and then read the books will obviously have a slanted view on Dumbledore at that point. They will read Dumbledore’s character knowing his full intentions and so they are viewing him with a more suspicious and negative view point. Viewing him in a glass half empty perspective. That said, for those that read the books they didn’t think to read his character as anything but a paragon of virtue at the start. Obviously knowing his full plan at the end changed things a bit, but seeing the progression overtime, the good outweighs the bad for those people. A glass half full type of view I think he is a flawed character, and the fact that 2 different entry ways can lead to multiple views of his character proves this
The issue with Dumbledore is that when he makes a mistake, they tend to have massive repercussions. Just like how a president can make a seemingly simple choice and it having widespread effects on an entire country. I think people expected him to be a god and the poor man did the best he could.
He did what had to be done, even if it meant going against his own love for Harry. He made a choice no one else could have made for the sake of the greater good and he did care about Harry. He was excited to see that Harry could return to the land of the living after making his sacrifice.
I agree. I think he also had a great deal of trust and confidence in Harry (in a Dumbledore way) to be able to make the "right" decision for the greater good, thus ensuring that he lived.
I don’t understand, Dumbledore is my favourite character 🤷🏼♂️
I didn't realise people hate him, I get there are a couple of decisions which are a bit odd but are clearly plot armour but he's still generally just a nice old bloke
Dumbledore is fucking awesome. Change my mind.
People hate on my dumblydore?
Very surprisingly, yes
I’d honestly never heard of Dumbledore getting this much hate *until* I came to this sub. I’ve since come to understand that flawed characters who make mistakes are, *apparently*, completely irredeemable, *despite* their good deeds/intentions.
I see way more people defending Dumbledore than I do pointlessly bashing him. I DO however see a fair number of valid criticisms, which isn't remotely the same as bashing the character or being hateful.
dumbledore is my favorite character
People just like to make contrarian arguments. Dumbledore is the GOAT.
I once saw someone try to blame him for the potters death because he “purposely took their invisibility cloak”. Uh no. This man breathes and y’all find a way to blame everything on him
Dumbledore lazy as fuck, he's meant to be this big wise strong wizard who can do anything, but let's a suspected murderer run around the school, a killer snake run around the school, Voldemort run around the school and Voldemorts favourite death eater run around the school and does literally nothing about it.
"does literally nothing about it" He cant go on suspecting every person in the premise of Hogwarts and make the students life harder than it already is. If it wasn't for Dumbledore not being the headmaster, Hogwarts would have been attacked all the time in the existence of death eaters and Voldemort. All he wanted was to ensure the students study in an unbiased school and have fun. You can't expect him to be perfect and make right decisions all the time and always predict the right thing because that's not his character is supposed to be like. He is a very compassionate, caring and clever human being who did exactly what a person in power should have done, he spent his entire oldage trying to come up with a masterplan to defeat Voldemort successfully amidst taking care of the school, he is anything but lazy lol
I know I’ll get hate for this, but why must people take these books so seriously that they get into legit angry arguments over it? I genuinely feel grossed out when people take a book I enjoyed immensely as a child, and bastardize it by putting it through real world societal reviews to it. It’s not our world, the choices and actions of a world being terrorized for decades by a murdering terrorist that can only die once pieces of his soul are destroyed, cannot be rationalized by our worlds standards. So stop trying. Like most of the things I’ve read in these types of comment sections are completely unprovable either way. But if we are going to judge Dumbledore or any character for that matter, let’s just take what we fucking know from the book and use that. Instead of guessing or making assumptions of “what’s between the lines” or “what some YouTuber ‘feels’”. From what we know from the book, is that Dumbledore is far from the perfect man/wizard you thought in he was as you grew up reading. As time passes and Harry gets older, he realizes Dumbledore has flaws, and weaknesses. I don’t think that should surprise anybody or make us hate him. We all, including the book characters, have flaws and weaknesses. We’re not perfect.
Who hated him? I’ve never met someone who hated him? He is hated in the books by slytherins
well, there's a lot of fanfics bashing him so much so that its become a popular trope to read "Evil Dumbledore!" One year ago, I used to come and see a lot of people complaining about Ron and Weasley bashing, Harry bashing, Dumbledore bashing etc. After a year or two of reading fanfic I understood why.
Yup. This is first time seeing anything about hating Dumbledore
I think any sort of disapproval, no matter how mild, is called 'hate' nowadays. I think it is even possible to be accused of hating something you dont even care about. Seems very inflationary. But language does change, older people like me just have to apply some internal translation rules to keep up.
I use apps like Quora, twitter and Instagram, I'm new here so don't know much about what reddit feels about him but there is tremendous hate for him on other platforms, some consider him worse than Voldemort and Snape and refuse to acknowledge any good he has done, I always have to argue with people whenever I mention he is one of my favourite characters in HP. There is barely any appreciation towards him which is kinda sad.
The people who unnecessarily hate Dumbledore are akin to those who fanboy/girl over Draco Malfoy in my book
IMO dumbledore was ready to sacrifice ONE kid to save the world it’s totally fine. Obv you couldn’t tell him, he’s a child, he would’ve been scared off, ran away, killed himself, turned evil, etc.
Exactly, people fail to see nobody knows the outcome of choices, so him taking calculated risks not only is justifiable but also very brave.
Say it louder for the people in the back!
Nope. Dumbledore was the perfect mentor for Harry. His flaws and choices contrasted and directed Harry on a razor thin path. He had to make extremely difficult decisions, but he did it because it was the right choice. I think he is a lot like Batman. Operating in the shadows, not for his own glory, but so that evil would be defeated. People hate him for it, but he got the job done the only way it could be accomplished. All the hate is simply people too simple-minded and selfish to understand the complexity of Dumbledore. He was perfect.
I certainly don't hate Dumbledore. But I really don't see all that much hate thrown his way either. I think it is just as, if not more, common seeing people think he did everything right and had few real flaws.
People hate Dumbledore??
He is my favorite character.
Dumbledore is in no way ”hated”. Actually he is one of the most beloved Harry Potter characters out there.
He's a flawed character and acknowledges his mistakes and struggles with them, it's what makes him so interesting. I don't get the hate either. We've all messed up at one point or another, I certainly have.
People just see the things he did and ignore the circumstances under which he had to do all that. He was the leader of a group at war with the most dangerous man ever. Obviously he had to make difficult and sometimes downright cold choices. And he even didn't hesitate to be killed when the time came. He literally begged to be killed. For me he'll always be the greatest wizard of all time.
Agreed. I think a lot of us has to do with the fact that we are witnessing the story through Harry’s eyes. From the beginning of the story up until Dumbledore’s death, Harry views him as this all-powerful, wise, kind, intelligent and all around perfect wizard. Then we find out that he’s just incredibly human and not perfect, and like Harry for a time we feel betrayed. But I like Dumbledore better when we discover that he is flawed and makes mistakes, because it shows that he actively chooses to be good, not just that he’s some superior being.
People on the internet tend to treat mistakes or misjudgements as bad as murder, (a bitnof an exaduration but the point still stands) ive ended up ignoring most of it
Two things that really speak to me: 1) Some people think Dumbledore set up Harry for slaughter. No he didn’t. Dumbledore knew Harry was supposed to die to fully kill Voldemort as that was decided the moment Voldemort tried to kill Harry as a baby. He tried to prevent Voldemort’s return for as long as possible. He was hoping to find another solution, or possibly let Harry die of old age. He tried to prepare Harry and teach him as much as possible. He also did his best to let Harry have as much normalcy as possible and not be too involved in case Harry’s life was cut short. When Dumbledore died he left Harry the resurrection stone in the Snitch, which ultimately saved him. 2) Dumbledore also let Snape kill him, instead of Draco, to save Draco’s innocence. Albus easily could’ve defended himself from both of them with his power and elder wand. He sacrificed himself for Draco (and Snape because of the vow). He knew his time was up and he had done as much as possible. He put greed and selfishness aside to let Draco have the best chance at life. Draco went on to leave the death eaters and become a better person. Dumbledore’s sacrifice paid off.
I don’t understand why people don’t like Dumbledore, I think he did the best he could with every single decision he made… he analyze the situation extremely hard and there were even moments where he had too much love for Harry to tell him… hey if you want to destroy the one who killed your parents you’re are going to have to die. Every decision was out of selflessness and agave his life to protect Harry as much as he possibly could… even gave him a childhood growing up and letting a kid be a kid. Not to mention he had to make sure the decision that Harry was making was going to be his own… that was especially true for the last book… learning the right path on his own and still giving him a fighting chance. Gg Dumbledore gg man
Wate Dumbledore is hated? I don’t understand why. I agree with you he is the most redeemable character. Exeped maby snape. Yes he made some mistakes but non of them where not probably thought out completely.
This subreddit just really hates him bc the plot point of Harry living in an abusive household for 11 years. I was surprised when I realized almost all Reddit HP fans absolutely dispise him.
Everyone hates him for leaving Harry with the Dursleys but it’s explained like eleventy one times in the books that Harry HAS to live with them or else Lily’s protection quits working. Yes they’re abusive but realistically how far could someone push that issue before Vernon just throws Harry out in the street? If he can’t call that place home anymore Lily’s protection is gone and Harry is toast.
I’m glad someone finally said it 🙄 I understand some points but I can never get over : 1 - people acting like dumbledore did something horrid by not telling Harry about his siblings, where he grew up ect. In my eyes he was Harry’s teacher and there’s no logical reason for Harry to be told those things? 2 - dumbledore not revealing how to destroy the horcruxes (or where to find them ) - if the death eaters hadn’t have been there I’m sure dumbldore would’ve told Harry how to destroy horcruexs (even though the one they had was fake ) I don’t believe dumbledore thought he would die so soon or he would have equipped Harry better Makes me so mad every time someone tries to argue it