Albus Dumbledore: Character Analysis v2

1. What are your general thoughts on Dumbledore as a character through books 1-7? Do you see a difference in his behavior and/or actions between the books?

2. Throughout the books, Dumbledore seems to always be teaching Harry something, but his lessons are sometimes hidden and subtle. What do you believe are the most important lessons Dumbledore taught Harry? Did Dumbledore adequately prepare Harry for the trials that lie ahead in book 7? Is there anything you think Dumbledore should have told Harry before he died?

3. What did you think of the revelations of DH regarding Dumbledore's family? How did these tragedies effect the person he is now?

4. Why do you think Dumbledore and Grindelwald were friends? How did Dumbledore's homosexuality affect his susceptibility to Grindelwald's ideas?

5. Was Dumbledore right to keep so many secrets from so many people? Was this secrecy because of his sister? Because of his own homosexuality?

6. What do you think of Dumbledore's recognition of his own failings? His decision not to enter the Ministry?

7. Do you think Dumbledore expected too much from Harry? Did he do the right thing? Was it fair to ask Harry to sacrifice himself?

8. Does the revelation of his homosexuality ultimately affect his character? What actions, if any, do you see differently now?

This is character analysis so discussion how his homosexuality affected his actions throughout the books is completely on topic. Your personal reaction to his homosexuliaty can be discussed here: Homosexuality in Harry Potter (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=113186)

NOTE:
This thread, nay, this forum will not tolerate homophobia or Dumbledore bashing. Whether you agree or not with homosexuality is not the topic here. Members who choose to dispense with the hate and the nastiness will get a one-way ticket to bansville.

Well, firstly, this was kind of out of the blue, but I'm really, really happy. :love:I don't have a problem with homosexuality at all, (I have friends that are gay or bi...it's not even a big deal at my school, which is Catholic, so I don't really see why some people, especially religious people, are so against it.) but I never really dared to hope that anyone would be gay in canon - I didn't really think that any character had been set up to be gay, so I wasn't expecting it at all.

One thing that I'd really like to mention is that, well - we shouldn't attribute Dumbledore's eccentric manner to his homosexuality...if people start to do that, I'm going to be very angry, and I think most other people will be, too. Being gay doesn't mean that you act any different from anyone else. Dumbledore's oddness was part of his personality, and I hope that JKR wrote his homosexuality to be a separate part of his character...otherwise, he would be a rather cliche gay character. Well, I'm not saying that Dumbledore is cliche, I'm just saying that having a gay character wear brightly-colored robes, etc. is, well...cliche. But hey, he's one of the most powerful wizards ever, so I guess that kind of works out. (Honestly - I'm happy about Dumbledore being gay, but I think it could have been done better, in book-canon.:whistle:)

What else. Oh. Yes, I'd also like to point out that we can't start saying "Ew!" when we think about Dumbledore saying that he loved Harry too much to tell him the prophecy, etc.:no::no::no: Being homosexual is not the same as being a pedophile, for one thing, and for another, gay people aren't attracted to everyone in the same sex, just like heterosexuals aren't attracted to everyone of the opposite sex. Imagine, for a moment, that JKR decided to make Dumbledore a woman, without any change to his character - or, if you don't want to do that, imagine McGonagall telling Harry that she loved him too much to do something or another. Would it be creepy or weird or in any way sexual? No! It wouldn't! :tu:So I'm hoping that the movie directors don't change the way they characterize Dumbledore, and that we, as fans, understand his homosexuality and his relationships with the other male characters as platonic. Well, except perhaps Grindelwald. (Can't. Wait. For. The. Encyclopedia!!! :))

You know what I think is absolutely wonderful? Isn't it great that a homosexual character is the one (after Harry, maybe Lily too) who understood the most about love?:tu: I wish that this would have been revealed, somehow, in book-canon, but I guess I can understand why it wasn't. This should still have a big impact, though....we might have this entire generation growing up as un-homophobic as possible, because they understand that love between homosexuals isn't any different than love between heterosexuals, isn't any less meaningful or strong.

...Whoopee!!! Yay, JKR!!!:love:

One apology: I'm sorry, but I really, really didn't have time to read very much of the previous thread, so I'm sorry if I'm repeating someone. :whistle:

~Marisa

1. What are your general thoughts on Dumbledore as a character through books 1-7? Do you see a difference in his behavior and/or actions between the books?
Dumbledore presented himself as a flawless, dreamlike character until OotP. I enjoyed his tremendous magical ability, but I was glad when he admitted himself that he made mistakes, too. It showed that he was not arrogant, and that he merely accepted his status and was aware of his power - but he did not think himself superior. In HBP, this all seemed to change. He suddenly seemed much more arrogant and aware of his own "prodigious skill" being better than everyone else's. I did not like his character change - his love towards Harry seemed frenzied, as if he truly did not care. Therefore, I was not too surprised to hear in DH that he was "using" Harry to defeat Voldemort (but Dumbledore did understand that he was not killing Harry, so my respect for him remained).

2. Throughout the books, Dumbledore seems to always be teaching Harry something, but his lessons are sometimes hidden and subtle. What do you believe are the most important lessons Dumbledore taught Harry?

Love conquers all.

Did Dumbledore adequately prepare Harry for the trials that lie ahead in book 7? Is there anything you think Dumbledore should have told Harry before he died?

I agree with Dumbledore that he should have told Harry about the prophecy much earlier than at the end of OotP. However, I agree with his decision to disclose information about the Deathly Hallows. I always thought he could have told Harry a lot more about his thoughts on where the Horcruxes were, but I think that is something Harry had to find out for himself.

3. What did you think of the revelations of DH regarding Dumbledore's family? How did these tragedies effect the person he is now?

I was shocked, but I am glad we found out. His family made him more human, and it caused him to believe in the powers of love. His family is the reason he did not become a Grindelwald and why he became the opposite.

4. Why do you think Dumbledore and Grindelwald were friends? How did Dumbledore's homosexuality affect his susceptibility to Grindelwald's ideas?

I think for the reason Bathilda gave: two brilliant wizards that bonded in the midst of nothing else/no one else around. I believe Dumbledore was smitten with Grindelwald's brilliance (I think at this age Dumbledore was arrogant, and seeing a wizard as brilliant as he caused him to become attracted to him). Therefore, this probably had a lot of effect on Dumbledore's susceptibility, but he had to believe in it to an extent - not even love for someone can change one's entire outlook of decency.

5. Was Dumbledore right to keep so many secrets from so many people? Was this secrecy because of his sister? Because of his own homosexuality?

I would say Dumbledore was so secretive for a multitude of reasons: his mother, who taught him to be secretive; Ariana's fate; his brilliance/arrogance; and his homosexuality. Although I believe homosexuality was more widely accepted by the Wizarding community, I have a feeling at that age most homosexuals feel embarrassed by it, and thus become secretive.

6. What do you think of Dumbledore's recognition of his own failings? His decision not to enter the Ministry?

I think it exhibits his brilliance more than his magical talents. It also shows how much he changed from the arrogant wizard who dreamed of suppressing Muggles.

7. Do you think Dumbledore expected too much from Harry? Did he do the right thing? Was it fair to ask Harry to sacrifice himself?

No, I think Harry had to do all of those things no matter what - Dumbledore simply told him that he would have to do it. Dumbledore ultimately helped Harry because he advised him on how to do it instead of having Harry go in blindly. I think it was fair to ask Harry to sacrifice himself because it truly was the only way. Dumbledore knew it would not be the end of Harry, but he also knew Harry was strong enough. Again, without Dumbledore's help/advice on what Harry had to do, Harry would most likely have been easily defeated.

8. Does the revelation of his homosexuality ultimately affect his character? What actions, if any, do you see differently now?

It affects his character some, but not by much. His actions are still the same - just more understandable in some cases. I now understand his hesitance to go after Grindelwald much more clearly, as well as his acceptance of Snape (as well as people like Filch) and Muggleborns, and his outstanding love for seemingly everyone is much more defined. I do not think his sexuality is a big deal (not as big as fans will soon make it), for he is still the same person we have read - we are just now more enlightened. Unfortuantely, I have the feeling that he will now be the new object of ridicule in Harry Potter by non-fans.

1. I see 3 "Dumbledores": first the one in first three books; the all-knowing, benevolent father figure. Then the planner in books 4 and 5 who is sharing things on a need-to-know basis. Lastly there's the last two books where DD stops treating Harry like a pupil but more like his equal, a young wizard.

2. Well, first and foremost he has to prepare Harry to face LV one day, most of what he does is aimed at that, secondly he is teaching him to be a man/adult. I wish he'd tell him more about Horcruxes and Hallows before book 7.

3. Somewhat interesting, but I don't think the book would have lost much without them. Obviously he rejects power and authority, and is very kind to Muggles and accepting someone like Snape as a result.

4. I guess both were talented wizards, with similar ideas on Muggles. I guess his homosexuality may have helped him listen to his ideas more.

5. I understand why (his sister), but I think he overdid it with the secrets. He could have confided with Harry, or at least McGonagall.

6. It just emphasizes his wisdom.

7. Harry was the chosen one, so I'd say expectations were high anyway. DD did the right thing by training and preparing Harry. In the end it was fair that Harry had to sacrifice himself.

8. No, I just don't care much for wizard sexuality one way or the other. I think this will sadly allow for more anti-HP feelings, fandom or otherwise.

1. What are your general thoughts on Dumbledore as a character through books 1-7? Do you see a difference in his behavior and/or actions between the books?
I think he was a person who had a bigger plan and just took it step by step. I don't really see a difference between his actions, he had to do what the thought was right, it's just we didn't get to see it/learn about it until later on.


2. Throughout the books, Dumbledore seems to always be teaching Harry something, but his lessons are sometimes hidden and subtle. What do you believe are the most important lessons Dumbledore taught Harry? Did Dumbledore adequately prepare Harry for the trials that lie ahead in book 7? Is there anything you think Dumbledore should have told Harry before he died?
I think that Dumbledore's lessons about love were the most important because no matter what, love and sacrafice for it was what it always came back to. I don't think he did a bad job per se, but he could have done a btter one. He did put off telling Harry a lot thought. He could have told Harry a lot more, but th ere wasn't anything that he SHOULD have told him. The decision was up to Dumbledore what to say and what not. Also, Dumbledore wasn't the only person taht told Harry stuff along the way.

3. What did you think of the revelations of DH regarding Dumbledore's family? How did these tragedies effect the person he is now?
I think that Dumbledore appreciated love a lot more after he lost the majority of his family.

4. Why do you think Dumbledore and Grindelwald were friends? How did Dumbledore's homosexuality affect his susceptibility to Grindelwald's ideas?
They both were attracted to power and the Deathly Hallows. As Jo said, Dumbledore was attracted to Grindelwald, so he'd do more for him looking for some sort of return.

5. Was Dumbledore right to keep so many secrets from so many people? Was this secrecy because of his sister? Because of his own homosexuality?
I don't think that he was wrong to keep secrets. Everybody does. I think the secrets were because of his sister. He was ashamed of being at fault for her death. He wasn't exactly keeping his sexuality a secret, it's just that nobody ever asked/doubted it.

6. What do you think of Dumbledore's recognition of his own failings? His decision not to enter the Ministry?
It was good that he could recognize these faults, but since he did, he wouldn't have allowed himself to get to far. I'm glad he didn't go into the ministry because Harry's story would be waaaay different.

7. Do you think Dumbledore expected too much from Harry? Did he do the right thing? Was it fair to ask Harry to sacrifice himself?
I think Dumbledore had no choice but to expect what he did from Harry. It He didn't think there was any other way. I'm sure Dumbledore had more knowledge about sacrafice than we are aware of, so I can't really say.

8. Does the revelation of his homosexuality ultimately affect his character? What actions, if any, do you see differently now?
No, I always thought that he was, so I regarded things that way.

Just to make a comment on Dumbledore and the recent revelations:

Again, I do not think the confirmation from Rowling that Dumbledore was a gay character in the series should have any sort of effect on how we perceive his character. Dumbledore is still Dumbledore, he is not changed by this, simply because there isn't any evidence within the books of his sexuality playing a direct role in the story. The only thing this revelation does is open up discussion about the meaning of the revelation within the series as well as in literature itself.

Harry Potter has had a lot of prejudices laid against it saying the series will not stand the test of time and that this is merely a trend that will grow old. However, I believe the Potter books will become classics and will be studied and considered at length in the future. I think there will come a time when the series has "Harry Potter scholars" who specialize in the series like one might specialize in Austen or Poe or Dickens. Dumbledore became a far more complicated and fascinating character after Deathly Hallows and this new announcement is just an extra layer of characterization which adds to the humanism and reality of many of the characters. Rowling's great achievement is creating characters who seem so alive, particularly Severus, Harry and Dumbledore.

One thing I would like to bring up is the question of how long Rowling has had Dumbledore in mind as a gay character, and whether she ever did slip evidences into the writing which supported in her mind the characterization, without really giving it away to us. One thing I would think is possible, given the intolerance and prejudice she explores within the books regarding half-bloods and pure-bloods and such, is whether the wizarding community at large knew of Dumbledore as a gay figure, and perhaps in OotP, some of the bits where Dumbledore is dragged through the mud by the Ministry were reflections on this fact? I mean, I recall Skeeter mentioning either in DH or OotP, as well as the Daily Prophet and their rubbish in OotP, something about whether Dumbledore's relationship with Harry was "unhealthy" or something. Many of the articles in OotP where the Ministry tries to sway the wizarding community against Dumbledore and Harry seem to suggest, now, that perhaps Dumbledore's sexuality was known to say Fudge and it was his smear campaign to suggest that the wizened Albus was a pedophile of sorts. I mean, it all certainly smells of such discrimination and contempt if we read it that way. Again, we did not know this information during OotP so it was just a plain smear campaign within the framework of the story, but adding this layer of characterization makes that part of OotP stand out more now, as well as the hooplah surrounding Dumbledore in DH and Skeeter's book, and Elphias Doge's role as well.

I must say that this news excited me so much, for several reasons. Mainly because I am a huge Dumbledore fan, and this reveals so much about him. It explains his lonlieness - not only for the lack of a intellectual equal, but of a romantic one.

And yet at the same time, it really saddens me, because now that we do know more of his personal life and his relationship with Grindelwald... this just adds a whole new depth. I mean, the explanation Albus gave us concerning the fight he and Aberforth and Gellert had was sad enough - but add to that the dimension that the man that was your intellectual equal, the man that you loved was the one that might have killed your sister? I wonder what Gellert's sexuality was - did he love his friend back, or was he ambivalent to Albus' affections?

People have been heavily debating over whether his secrecy was a good thing, whether it was morally right to raise Harry as "a pig for slaughter," who had no choice but to face Voldemort. And I agree, I questioned that as well. But this news makes me stop and think - what must it have been like for Albus? How would it have been to love one who may not have loved back, who may have killed your sister? How wise must Albus have been to force himself to see that the one he loved was so evil, and causing all this destruction, and that he had to be stopped, and that he was the only one who could do it? How must it have been to defeat the one you loved, and leave him helpless, imprisoned and alone, when you knew that not too long ago, you could have conquered the world together, for the greater good?

Yes, this changes my view of Dumbledore. It makes me see him as stronger, and I am all the more fond of him.

May I ask something? Please, do NOT misconstrue this as homophobic but I really must ask. Was Rowling serious? I mean, is this actually part of his character or a throwaway remark designed to shock/amuse people?

Again, absolutely NO homophobia intended but I have to know.

Finding out Jo had Dumbledore as a gay character doesn't change the character for me in the least and actually I know Jo says it was Grindlewald who DD was in love with and I can see that but upon reading DH I felt Elphias Doge and DD had been a couple while at Hogwarts. Or maybe Doge just had a huge crush on DD and that was what I was seeing. Cause when Doge spoke of DD it felt to me as if he was talking about a life partner not simply a best friend.

May I ask something? Please, do NOT misconstrue this as homophobic but I really must ask. Was Rowling serious?I'm convinced she was. There have been already speculation about Dumbledore's homosexuality among fans before, so it seems it wasn't a surprise for everyone. :)


For further discussion of homosexuality in the series please all check out Homosexuality in Harry Potter (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=113186). This thread is for Albus Dumbledore's character analysis only, where his homosexuality might belong to, though. Thanks!

I know Jo says it was Grindlewald who DD was in love with and I can see that but upon reading DH I felt Elphias Doge and DD had been a couple while at Hogwarts. Or maybe Doge just had a huge crush on DD and that was what I was seeing. Cause when Doge spoke of DD it felt to me as if he was talking about a life partner not simply a best friend.

My impression is that they were possibly more than friends at Hogwarts and that they likely got back together later in life. IMO the press treats Doge almost like the widow in interviews.

This (http://www.newsweek.com/id/50787) doesn't seem to suggest that she was joking. And I think we can be fairly sure that the remark was not intended for shock value, given that she seems to imply that she held off the disclosure for many years because she wasn't sure how it would be received.
I wonder what Gellert's sexuality was - did he love his friend back, or was he ambivalent to Albus' affections?
The linked story has JKR saying it was an unrequited love affair, so I'd reckon that was it. And I doubt that Dumbledore had much affection left for Grindelwald after all those years, what he was probably more scared of was learning that he had cast the curse that killed his sister. So what he told Harry at King's Cross was absolutely true to that extent, he wasn't hiding anything there.
As for the new information itself, it doesn't really change my view of Albus in any way. It's like being told, in context of Molly Weasley, that she had brothers who died in the first war: it may explain some aspect of Dumbledore in greater detail, but what really mattered more to me was his early family life, and how that affected him. That was the revelation for me as far as Dumbledore was concerned, and we had it right there in the Deathly Hallows text.

1. What are your general thoughts on Dumbledore as a character through books 1-7? Do you see a difference in his behavior and/or actions between the books?
Well . . . no, not really. We only got to know him well during HBP and DH, so I can't see much difference before that. He just seems less mysterious than he did then, I suppose.

2. Throughout the books, Dumbledore seems to always be teaching Harry something, but his lessons are sometimes hidden and subtle. What do you believe are the most important lessons Dumbledore taught Harry? Did Dumbledore adequately prepare Harry for the trials that lie ahead in book 7? Is there anything you think Dumbledore should have told Harry before he died?
The biggest lesson Dumbledore taught Harry is the importance of choice. He taught Harry the true significance of the prophecy because of this and he also made Harry realize that he wants to kill LV himself. He also teaches Harry the importance of love. Love itself isn't something a spell can make, but it's a force that makes people do amazing things. Lily's love for Harry is a great example of this. In HBP, he taught Harry that love is the main reason Harry wants to kill LV, and it opened Harry's eyes.
I wish Dumbledore taught Harry a bit about power and what it does to people. It would have made a difference in DH if Harry knew something about how alluring power may be.

3. What did you think of the revelations of DH regarding Dumbledore's family? How did these tragedies effect the person he is now?
I found the background story of his life to be tragic. He made mistakes in his youth, and it resulted in the loss of his younger sister. As Harry said, Dumbledore was never free. Dumbleore carried the blame for his sister's death, and that's tragic to me.

4. Why do you think Dumbledore and Grindelwald were friends? How did Dumbledore's homosexuality affect his susceptibility to Grindelwald's ideas?
I think Dumbledore was friends with Grindelwald because, for the first time in Dumbledore's life, he found an equal. He found someone his age that had power and intellect almost as great as his. I think Dumbledore felt isolated and frustrated that he couldn't find anyone he could express his ideas to, and when Grindelwald came around, he immediately became attracted. Dumbledore's homosexuality prevented Dumbledore for fully acknowledging the truth of Grindelwald's behavior. He said in King's Cross that deep inside he knew there was somethingw rong with Grindelwald, but he couldn't bring himself to admit it.

5. Was Dumbledore right to keep so many secrets from so many people? Was this secrecy because of his sister? Because of his own homosexuality?
I think Dumbledore had to. All his life, he was full of secrets. He couldn't reveal to others the truth about his sister or the reason why his father was arrested. He never told anyone about his friendship and love for Grindelwald. He never told anyone that he may have caused his sister to die. All his life, he had to deal with secrets and deception. I'm sure some wizards had homophobia, and this enforced Dumbledore's need to keep secrets. Sometimes Dumbledore should have told other people the truth, but it's understandable why he couldn't, IMO.

6. What do you think of Dumbledore's recognition of his own failings? His decision not to enter the Ministry?
It takes a lot of strength to admit flaws and resist temptations. I see Dumbledore as being even stronger than I thought he was before DH.

7. Do you think Dumbledore expected too much from Harry? Did he do the right thing? Was it fair to ask Harry to sacrifice himself?
I think Dumbledore only expected Harry to do what he knew Harry would do. Eventually Dumbledore grew to love Harry as a son and grew close to him. He realized the truth about Harry's character and expected Harry to do what Harry ended up doing. Dumbledore thought Harry was a better man than himself and expected greater things from Harry.

8. Does the revelation of his homosexuality ultimately affect his character? What actions, if any, do you see differently now?
Now that I'm aware of his homosexuality, it sheds light onto the relationship he had with Grindelwald. Some would wonder why a person like DD couldn't turn away from Grindelwald, but it makes sense to me now. It wasn't easy for Dumbledore to see the person he fell in love with turn his back on him.

May I ask something? Please, do NOT misconstrue this as homophobic but I really must ask. Was Rowling serious? I mean, is this actually part of his character or a throwaway remark designed to shock/amuse people?

Again, absolutely NO homophobia intended but I have to know.
Judging by what I perceive to be Jo's general egalitarian principles, as illustrated in the main theme of the books (that birth and/or physical characteristics are much less important than who we choose to be), I'm sure she was serious and gave an open and honest answer to an enquiry about Dumbledore's love life. It also ties in nicely with his relationship to Grindelwald, and the fact that Elphias Doge clearly had a huge crush on Dumbledore at the very least!

Judging by what I perceive to be Jo's general egalitarian principles, as illustrated in the main theme of the books (that birth and/or physical characteristics are much less important than who we choose to be), I'm sure she was serious and gave an open and honest answer to an enquiry about Dumbledore's love life. It also ties in nicely with his relationship to Grindelwald, and the fact that Elphias Doge clearly had a huge crush on Dumbledore at the very least!

Just because Elphias Doge was a big friend of Dumbledore's doesn't mean that he was also gay and had a crush on him. I read that more as those two were very close, and Elphias hated to see his old friend being tarnished after he died. Just my opinion, though:)

To me I dont see Dumbledore as being "just" gay. Jk Rowling said it blunt as possible but for Dumbledore it doesnt seem that simple. Dumbledore is the type of person who would love someone for who they are no matter if its male or female. Race and sex wouldnt matter at all.

To me I dont see Dumbledore as being "just" gay. Jk Rowling said it blunt as possible but for Dumbledore it doesnt seem that simple. Dumbledore is the type of person who would love someone for who they are no matter if its male or female. Race and sex wouldnt matter at all.


There are, of course, different kinds of love. Based on Rowling's revelation and the hints about Grindelwald, I would say Dumbledore would only feel romantic love for a male. After all, we would not feel it is necessary to explain that Harry can love males and females, would we? He can still be Ron's best friend, even though he is only attracted in a sexual way to females.

But certainly, Dumbledoee is not "just" gay, anymore that other characters are 'just' het. Nothing we have learned thus far about his flaws, his ideals, his plans, and his treatment of others is changed by the revelation that he is attracted to other men.

But certainly, Dumbledoee is not "just" gay, anymore that other characters are 'just' het. Nothing we have learned thus far about his flaws, his ideals, his plans, and his treatment of others is changed by the revelation that he is attracted to other men.
I agree. :D He is still very much Dumbledore and it only makes a difference when viewing his relationships with Grindelwald and Doge - and not a major difference there either. It's a detail - added colour, which clarifies the situation a bit but it is by no means essential to the plot to know that Dumbledore is gay. (If it was, it would have been made clearer in the books.)

One thing that I'd really like to mention is that, well - we shouldn't attribute Dumbledore's eccentric manner to his homosexuality...if people start to do that, I'm going to be very angry, and I think most other people will be, too. Being gay doesn't mean that you act any different from anyone else. Dumbledore's oddness was part of his personality, and I hope that JKR wrote his homosexuality to be a separate part of his character...otherwise, he would be a rather cliche gay character. Well, I'm not saying that Dumbledore is cliche, I'm just saying that having a gay character wear brightly-colored robes, etc. is, well...cliche.

Oh my god... I didn't even think of that. I really hope she didn't write it like that. I don't think she did, but still. Ugh... you know fans are going to be thinking that's why he acts like that and stuff. Stereotypes suck.

The revlelation about Dumbledore's sexuality isn't really a big surprise. I used to wonder a bit whether his trust of Snape came from some kind of secret relationship between them. That said, I think it's an irrelevent revelation now that the book is over, and I think it's something she should've left up to the fans to decide. For example, i would've been dissapointed if that actually was the explanation for his trust of Snape, not because I have any problem at all with homosexuality, but because it just seems like such an easy way out for the author. The same thing for DD's relationship with Grindelwald . I wish that she would've been more creative, within the range of her genre, to come up with an explanation of DD's character.

Just a friendly reminder that this thread is about Dumbledore himself not JKR's decision to reveal his homosexuality :)

I had an interesting thought, what do people think of Dumbledore's belief in the power of love post his presumed heartbreak over the ending of his friendship with Grindlewald?

The revlelation about Dumbledore's sexuality isn't really a big surprise. I used to wonder a bit whether his trust of Snape came from some kind of secret relationship between them. That said, I think it's an irrelevent revelation now that the book is over, and I think it's something she should've left up to the fans to decide. For example, i would've been dissapointed if that actually was the explanation for his trust of Snape, not because I have any problem at all with homosexuality, but because it just seems like such an easy way out for the author. The same thing for DD's relationship with Grindelwald . I wish that she would've been more creative, within the range of her genre, to come up with an explanation of DD's character.
I don't think Snape was his type. I don't see where they would have any connection except that Dumbledore understood Snape's love of Lily. Snape to me seems like a bitter man who treated children poorly and I don't think that would appeal to Dumbledore.

Edited to answer Jessica's question...
I think Dumbledore believedin the power of love very much because he didn't go after Gridlwald right away and I'm sure he had a hard time having to defeat him. I believe he believes that love is very powerful.

I don't think Snape was his type. I don't see where they would have any connection except that Dumbledore understood Snape's love of Lily. Snape to me seems like a bitter man who treated children poorly and I don't think that would appeal to Dumbledore.

Edited to answer Jessica's question...
I think Dumbledore believedin the power of love very much because he didn't go after Gridlwald right away and I'm sure he had a hard time having to defeat him. I believe he believes that love is very powerful.

oh yeah, I'm nbot saying there was ever anything between them, since we know for sure what went on there, I just meant I used to wonder before the seventh book.

I had an interesting thought, what do people think of Dumbledore's belief in the power of love post his presumed heartbreak over the ending of his friendship with Grindlewald?He certainly never lost his belief or understanding of love. Knowing his sexuality doesn't alter anything. Knowing he loved and lost makes certain things he's said to Harry over the years all the more poignant. "Do you see, Harry?" Do you see the flaw in my brilliant plan now?

****
"In other words, I acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools who love to act. Is there a defense?""It was cruel," said Dumbledore softly, "that you and Sirius had such a short time together. A brutal ending to what should have been a long and happy relationship."

****
"Sirius represented much to you that you had never known before," Dumbledore said gently. "Naturally the loss is devastating..."

I didn't mean because of his homosexuality at all. I was just referring to the tragic consequences of love in his own life. I think it's amazing that he can be so confident and hopeful about love and it's power to do good.

I hope that he did find love. I'm inclined to believe that he and Doge were more than friends. I'd like to think they had a long happy relationship together.

I had an interesting thought, what do people think of Dumbledore's belief in the power of love post his presumed heartbreak over the ending of his friendship with Grindlewald?This is an interesting revelation. Dumbledore felt many of the same feelings that Snape felt. They both had a relationship break up. They both had been strongly influenced by their "loved one". They both felt guilt over something that related to the relationship.

Dumbledore understood something that was very important - that love was an extremely powerful force. He knew that people could exert a very strong influence over the people they loved. This power could be used for both good and evil. Voldemort used fear and hate to control his followers. But love can be just as effective. I believe that is what happened with Dumbledore and Grindelwald.

When Snape approached Dumbledore, full of remorse for what had happened to Lily, and claiming his love for her, Dumbledore understood completely what the power of love could do. This time he was using it for good. This time Dumbledore was able to take Snape's love for Lily and use it to turn a former Death Eater into his most loyal follower. I think Dumbledore would not have recognized how powerful love could be if he hadn't experienced it first hand, with Grindelwald.

I didn't mean because of his homosexuality at all. I was just referring to the tragic consequences of love in his own life. I think it's amazing that he can be so confident and hopeful about love and it's power to do good.

I hope that he did find love. I'm inclined to believe that he and Doge were more than friends. I'd like to think they had a long happy relationship together.

I agree that he likely did find love, he lived a very long time, so perhaps he had several romances. However, imo, Dumbledore's love life pales in the face of his political life.

I am still re-reading in light of JKR's earlier revelation that Dumbledore manipulated Harry like a puppet and while she did not include other characters, I believe Dumbledore was manipulating everyone associated with his plan. While I find that behavior untenable, imo there is a balance with Dumbledore in that he was also a compassionate person who appeared to be at war with himself over the decisions he had to make at times. Dumbledore's recognition upon his death of his errors and his remorse and regret in that regard are admirable. However, the questions Dumbledore (and other characters) leave one with is, how far can a person travel outside of the realm of proper political behavior and still be redeemed? Is there no limit as long as one feels regret and remorse at the end?

I find these questions in relation to Dumbledore's character tough to answer.

A new interview (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1572399/20071019/story.jhtml?rsspartner=rssYahooNewscrawler) snippet: As is sometimes not knowing the whole story. Like Rowling before "Deathly Hallows" was published, Dumbledore withheld key information from Harry, so as not to "spoil" his journey, prompting a 9-year-old fourth grader to ask if Dumbledore ever really did love Harry, or was he just manipulating him so that he would sacrifice himself in the end?

"That's a deep question, thanks for asking it," Rowling said. "Dumbledore did like Harry, and as he got to know him, he became like a son to him. But I wanted you to question Dumbledore. It is right to question him, because he was treating people like puppets, and he was asking Harry to do a job that most men twice his age wouldn't have been able to do." But if Harry had all the information, he likely would have been tempted into doing something else, so he had to trust Dumbledore, who ultimately did guide him to do the right thing, Rowling said.

I agree that he likely did find love, he lived a very long time, so perhaps he had several romances. However, imo, Dumbledore's love life pales in the face of his political life.

I am still re-reading in light of JKR's earlier revelation that Dumbledore manipulated Harry like a puppet and while she did not include other characters, I believe Dumbledore was manipulating everyone associated with his plan. While I find that behavior untenable, imo there is a balance with Dumbledore in that he was also a compassionate person who appeared to be at war with himself over the decisions he had to make at times. Dumbledore's recognition upon his death of his errors and his remorse and regret in that regard are admirable. However, the questions Dumbledore (and other characters) leave one with is, how far can a person travel outside of the realm of proper political behavior and still be redeemed? Is there no limit as long as one feels regret and remorse at the end?

I find these questions in relation to Dumbledore's character tough to answer.

I agree. I think there are certain things that I won't really forgive Dumbledore for, mainly the 7 Potters. i just couldn't believe he would sacrifice the lives of all those people who had been by his side and trusted him without consequence. In regard to Dumbledore's love life, I really can't picture him with a bunch of happy relationships. I think Dumbledore was extremely guarded later in his life, and he was too busy with his "master plan" and Voldemort to have time for a love life. And I just don't see the DD/Doge connection. Just my opinion, though!

It actually explains a bit more about Dumbledore's character, especially what he said to Harry about the Ministry of Magic and the room of love ("greater and more terrible" I think are the exact words.) Knowing that he was in love with G.G, it explains his actions quite a bit more and, to be honest, it was something that I would have preferred to have read in canon

Also, I'm not sure if Voldemort considers homosexuality to be disgusting (although given his views on blood purity etc, it wouldn't surprise me) but, if he does, it's pretty funny that the only person more powerful than him was gay

[staff edit: Let's not go there!]

Didn't he say something in DH about,

Feel sorry for those who live without love?

Well, I think this new revelation has a HUGE impact on analyzing his character and his life.

In one moment his sister dies, he alienates his brother, and his first love turns to a enemy.

Imagine having to hunt down and murder the person you love. That would scar anyone. No wonder he was scared of facing GG.

Just to help out with the Elphias Doge evidence: reread his obituary that is at the beginning of Ch. 3 of DH. When I first read DH, I was thinking the obit was written by some sort of partner, and I was actually thinking (it WAS 3 am) that perhaps Dumbledore had a wife we never knew about and now that he was dead Rowling was going to reveal that Dumbledore had this amazing life Harry never knew about and I was thinking it was going to be so sad to learn about the wife and kids Harry never learned about. But instead, I realized by the middle of the obit that the writer was a male but yet the obit smelled of "a widow" as someone put it beforehand. Elphias Doge came across as a widow who lost their significant other. It was there that I began wondering. But I didn't expect Grindelwald so that I can say was surprising to learn, mostly because Rowling really didn't flesh out everything in DH as I would have liked. It was perfect for the Trio, but Snape and Dumbledore, while they had their time, it didn't feel like their stories were properly told in full.

I felt like there could have been a lot more there to learn, and Dumbledore is DEFINITELY one who has a lot more about him that Rowling has thought of that we don't know. And part of that stems to his domestic life. I wonder where he lived over the summer holiday? I wonder if perhaps he lived with Doge? Or alone? And I wonder about his relationship with Doge. I want to know if they were closer than just good friends and whether there was something there later in life.

And I agree, while many people looked at Dumbledore as asexual, and I did too until DH, I will agree that it makes sense that Dumbledore's "love" of someone would not be as superficial as rooted in something physical or anything rooted in the gender. It's the person. I have friends who are gay and some of them are very much about the attraction to the gender. But I agree, Dumbledore would feel love for someone depending solely on the person. Had Grindelwald been the exact same person, but female, I think he would have fallen for her. But seeing as what attracted Dumbledore about Grindelwald is what is important, the love was felt for that person - who happened to be male as well.

So again, I agree that Severus was not someone who he would be attracted to, and Severus was more like a stubborn nephew in Dumbledore's mind anyhow. He cared about him, but again, he was more concerned with the big picture. He cared about Harry like a son or grandson, but he still pulled strings. He pulled strings with other Order members, but probably not nearly as much as Harry and Severus. They were the two who were closest with Dumbledore, and therefore received the most "on a need to know basis" information.

I will admit Dumbledore was not my most favorite character at the end of DH. I was annoyed with how manipulative he was and how complex he had become. I was quite content I'll say with the goofy grandfatherly guy who had once swapped his wizard's hat for a bonnet which Severus had pulled out of a cracker, but alas, that was a man who was not bothered at the time by Tom Riddle too much.

I really really REALLY hope Rowling's encyclopedia that probably won't be out until ten years from now, will have PAGES UPON PAGES of information about her characters which she never got round to revealing. I'm hoping that she had all these other ideas and concepts in her head for interesting scenes and such, but never got round to fitting them in. So she at least filed them away for later, and can finally include stuff. I want more backstory on Dumbledore and his life growing up and all, and also later on in life too.

I read it in the newspaper today (front page!), and I immediately rushed to the computer to check the Q&A/interview JKR gave and read it myself.

At first I was a bit speechless, but when I finished reading it made sense to me. DD was a brilliant man, even when he was young. I think he felt love (not the I love you mum and dad-love but the I want to spend the rest of my life with you-love) for the brilliance of another person, which (almost?) matched his own. You fall in love with a person who you can laugh with, who shares the ideas you have and who can give you the love you need. So I can imagine DD falling in love with GG, because he "fulfilled" this.

It seems to me it didn't matter to DD what a person looked like on the outside, but that he only looked at the inside. Maybe because he only ever saw this brilliance in a man/men, that's what made him gay.

He pulled strings with other Order members, but probably not nearly as much as Harry and Severus. They were the two who were closest with Dumbledore, and therefore received the most "on a need to know basis" information.

I would respectfully disagree that Harry and Snape were the closest with Dumbledore and recieved the most 'on a need to know basis' information. There were Order members running around doing things on a daily basis that we heard little about and that would mean that they had to meet with Dumbledore on a frequent basis imo (off page).

Those members were also included in Dumbledore's plans and he equally manipulated them in my opinion (with the exception of Sirius who often resisted said manipulations quite adroitly). We were given some insight to this when the advanced guard of the Order arrived to collect Harry and take him to Grimmauld or joined Harry at the MOM. But also Kingsley was spying for Dumbledore at the ministry on a daily basis from GoF and Remus Lupin was 'out on Order business' for much of OOTP and then spying among the werewolves among other things in HBP. Moody never retired to his home again after teaching and was still involved with the Order in DH, Tonks was also asked to perform duties as seen on page and Arthur was involved as well (woking at the Ministry and out on other duties as well as we saw when he was bitten by Nagini in OOTP). And there were more, Hestia and wizards and witches in the Order we saw very little of.

While we only saw or heard about bits and pieces of the work of others (because that was all that Harry saw), however, it was evident imo, that Dumbledore was as busy handing out 'need to know' information to other members as well in line with whatever he asked them to do - none of which was 'need to know' for Harry so we didn't know about it.

My point is, I believe that Dumbledore had a group of people that he regularly worked with (most of them Order members) in the furtherance of his plan and manipulated them in the same way he did Harry and Snape - possibly even more in some cases, although their efforts were not shown on page. Whether Dumbledore's methodology was proper or not is up for each reader to decide.

JKR confirmed that Dumbledore indeed did this with others (relevant portion underlined):

As is sometimes not knowing the whole story. Like Rowling before "Deathly Hallows" was published, Dumbledore withheld key information from Harry, so as not to "spoil" his journey, prompting a 9-year-old fourth grader to ask if Dumbledore ever really did love Harry, or was he just manipulating him so that he would sacrifice himself in the end?

"That's a deep question, thanks for asking it," Rowling said. "Dumbledore did like Harry, and as he got to know him, he became like a son to him. But I wanted you to question Dumbledore. It is right to question him, because he was treating people like puppets, and he was asking Harry to do a job that most men twice his age wouldn't have been able to do." But if Harry had all the information, he likely would have been tempted into doing something else, so he had to trust Dumbledore, who ultimately did guide him to do the right thing, Rowling said.

1. What are your general thoughts on Dumbledore as a character through books 1-7? Do you see a difference in his behavior and/or actions between the books?

Books 1-5 I thought he was fantastic and great fun to read. I respected him. Book 7 he appeared to me to be manipulative and deceptive. Every life is worth saving, and I hated his whole belief 'for the greater good'. He didn't need to sacrifice himself in the end of HBP let alone all the other unknown, innocent victims, ad in my mind there will have always been an alternative to the actions he took. In the end he became probably my most disliked character, this is before his revelation and I think this is so because of the way he was portrayed. His 'flaws' were not communicated very effectively, to me at least, and the execution of it was horrible.


3. What did you think of the revelations of DH regarding Dumbledore's family? How did these tragedies effect the person he is now?

I can't say properly because I feel the tragedies weren't relayed effectively from within the text.

4. Why do you think Dumbledore and Grindelwald were friends? How did Dumbledore's homosexuality affect his susceptibility to Grindelwald's ideas?

I genuinely believe that Albus and GG were friends because they were 'what is considered to be' at the same (very high) intellectual level. Can no one imagine how frustrating it must be to have to communicate with people of lower mental capacity and how thrilled they(Albus and GG) must have been when they met each other.

'Dumbledore's Homosexuality' is something the author always 'thought' he was. This is something that will be left open for debate for years to come since it hasn't been expanded on properly in the books. There isn't sufficient evidence in the book for this notion to be accepted as fact. But this forum accepts the authors words as canon.

5. Was Dumbledore right to keep so many secrets from so many people? Was this secrecy because of his sister? Because of his own homosexuality?

I do not think it was right for Albus to keep secrets from so many people. He could have at least told Snape (among other order members, eg Lupin) who is at the same intellectual level as Albus if not higher. To me it indicated that Albus saw him self as the wisest and most accomplished of all people. His 'humble' musings as it were were more of a, 'Ho ho, I am just your average wizard who likes lemon sherbet and puddings' *moves around and winks with air of obviousness that he is the most powerful* .

6. What do you think of Dumbledore's recognition of his own failings? His decision not to enter the Ministry?

Look at previous answer. He is humble of the arrogant sort (that is how I felt honestly)

7. Do you think Dumbledore expected too much from Harry? Did he do the right thing? Was it fair to ask Harry to sacrifice himself?

Yes I do think he expected too much of Harry. He was overestimating Harry's powers compared to what little he trusted in others. Even after his death he was ordering Snape around through his portrait. The man was a spy for half of his life, he doesn't need strict guidance, not to mention he kept too much information to himself. And it was not fair to ask Harry to sacrifice himself, as it was just as unfair if not more so to ask Snape to kill him, even if he was going to die eventually. There is always an alternative, which is where I find some of the messages conveyed in the book as puzzling.

8. Does the revelation of his homosexuality ultimately affect his character? What actions, if any, do you see differently now?

No it doesn't affect his character,well not for the positive at least, and it does not give him more 'depth' as others have stated. Was he not 'deep' enough? Now that is something that should be considered seriously. This revelation makes his character to me more confusing, and I wished there was a more complex reason for his relationship with others and how he treats them. My belief that Albus found an intellectual equal in GG seemed to contain more substance than ' Albus was in love with GG and experienced unrequited love so was in a difficult situation when it came to his brother, sister, Ministry of Magic and the wizarding world as a whole.'

In fact for me, it made the character sillier since he didn't properly move on with his life after GG showed his true colours. 120 plus years, he didn't get to meet anyone else? And I thought Snape was obsessed. How can such a person be so hard on themselves and not allow themselves to move on and benefit the community with the maximum output possible. No need to cry over spilt milk.

In the end the man was killed by his own stupidity because he couldn't resist putting on a cursed ring that resurrects the specters of the dead. Who did he want to call? Arianna or GG?

Since my general views on Dumbledore haven't really changed much since the last version of this thread, I'm just going to copy and paste my original Dumbledore statement:

Dumbledore is definitely not the saint that Doge made him out to be, but he isn't the horrible person that Rita Skeeter painted him as either. He's somewhere in the middle, like most people are. But, unlike most people, he had incredible amounts of talent and intelligence, he was a leader with the capacity to frighten the greatest dark lords and inspire people to fight for justice. So his flaws stick out, because they affected so many more people than most people's flaws do.

Dumbledore had a lot of hard choices to make. With the exception of his obsession with the Deathly hallows, I think he made good choices under the circumstances. Dumbledore had to take chances - chances that would have horrible consequences had they gone wrong - but, in the end, I think that the possible gains (i.e. ridding the world of Voldemort) outweighed the possible (yet still horrible) losses. Even Dumbledore's maddening secrecy turned out to be part of his big plans.

I really liked the chapter with Aberforth. I think we got a pretty good picture of Dumbledore (even though it's colored by Aberforth's cynical nature) from him, yet we also get the huge contrast between the two brothers. Aberforth saw only the people involved, and hated that his brother risked them, yet he could not see the bigger picture (though this is completely off topic, I think that Aberforht is similar to Xeno Lovegood in this respect).

Dumbledore's own account in the chapter "kings cross" is very sad. We see how Dumbledore views himself. He does not deny his shortcomings - he readily admits them all, and he openly shows his regrets. I like that a lot about Dumbledore.

Hem hem. This is character analysis so discussion how his homosexuality affected his actions throughout the books is completely on topic. Your personal reaction to his homosexuliaty can be discussed here: Homosexuality in Harry Potter (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=113186)Additionally please make sure you state your critiques in a constructive way:
If you wish to critique a public figure, make sure your comments are constructive and reasonable. These principles also apply to signatures, avatars, and the like. Additionally, threads that de-generate into nothing more than hate-filled ranting will also be closed and members will be warned in either case.Posts have been deleted.

What If Dumbledore had told others about the bit of Horcrux in Harry, and told them that if Harry went with purpose to his death, but he would still survive due to the two souls and the sacrifice for the wizarding world? Even if he told one person... who would he have told? HArry could not know that his sacrifice could bring him back.... then it could not have been a real sacrfice. With such a huge secret as to the destruction of LV. Dumbledore could not risk the chance. HE left enough clues behind to others like Snape. When he told Snape to watch for the snake, then tell harry about that he had a bit of LV in him. I think DD knew that Harry could come back if he chose too. DD was planning on this sacrifice to literally protect the wizarding world from LV as Lily's sacrifce protection saved Harry.
I don't think Harry was really a puppet.

I think this revelation shows Dumbledore to be a far weaker man than most in the series. He allowed Grindlewald to continue his reign of terror for years out of love. That is not acceptable hero behaviour. Jo says this is a partial justification for such behaviour, but I do not agree with that logic.

I agree. I think there are certain things that I won't really forgive Dumbledore for, mainly the 7 Potters. i just couldn't believe he would sacrifice the lives of all those people who had been by his side and trusted him without consequence.

I just wish he'd confided in McGonagall or someone in the Order, and preferrably tell Harry more on Horcruxes and Hallows - I thnk Harry earned the truth by OOTP.

I think lives could have been saved...it felt odd that Snape knew more than anyone, and probably risked - and gave - more than anyone else.

My impression is that they were possibly more than friends at Hogwarts and that they likely got back together later in life. IMO the press treats Doge almost like the widow in interviews.

I disagree, I dont think that Grindelwald never shared the same feelings that Dumbledore did, hence why JKR makes that statement about blind love.

I think this revelation shows Dumbledore to be a far weaker man than most in the series. He allowed Grindlewald to continue his reign of terror for years out of love. That is not acceptable hero behaviour. Jo says this is a partial justification for such behaviour, but I do not agree with that logic.Dumbledore, despite his utter brilliance, was a flawed person. No one in HP was wholly good, pure, and perfect.

I see JKs answer from a different point of view. To me she wasn't justifying Dumbledore's hesitation to act against Grindelwald at all. Instead she was saying that Dumbledore was in love, and while in love he made excuses and turned a blind eye and deaf ears to the rumors about Grindelwald---until the fight that ended with his sister's death.
Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was. To an extent, do we say it excused Dumbledore a little more because falling in love can blind us to an extent? But, he met someone as brilliant as he was, and rather like Bellatrix he was very drawn to this brilliant person, and horribly, terribly let down by him.
This is definitely in line with canon:"Oh, I had a few scruples. I assuaged my conscience with empty words."
***
"Did I know, in my heart of hearts, what Gellert Grindelwald was? I think I did, but I closed my eyes."
***
"The Resurrection Stone---to him, though I pretended not to know it, it meant an army of Inferi!"
***
"Reality returned in the form of my rough, unlettered, and infinitely more admirable brother. I did not want to hear the truths he shouted at me. I did not want to hear that I could not set forth to seek Hallows with a fragile and unstable sister in tow."
***
"Grindelwald lost control. That which I always sensed in him, though I pretended not to know, now sprang into terrible being."
***
"Well, Grindelwald fled, as any but I could have predicted."According to canon, it was shame and fear---of not knowing whether he was responsible for the death of his sister or not---that kept him from acting against Grindelwald.

used to wonder a bit whether his trust of Snape came from some kind of secret relationship between them.
That would be in direct contradiction of Snape being motivated wholly by his love for Lily.

I didn't mean because of his homosexuality at all. I was just referring to the tragic consequences of love in his own life. I think it's amazing that he can be so confident and hopeful about love and it's power to do good.
That is amazing. It would be more likely under normal circumstances, for Dumbledore's bad experience with Grindelwald to convince him that love = weakness!

One thing I would think is possible, given the intolerance and prejudice she explores within the books regarding half-bloods and pure-bloods and such, is whether the wizarding community at large knew of Dumbledore as a gay figure, and perhaps in OotP, some of the bits where Dumbledore is dragged through the mud by the Ministry were reflections on this fact? I mean, I recall Skeeter mentioning either in DH or OotP, as well as the Daily Prophet and their rubbish in OotP, something about whether Dumbledore's relationship with Harry was "unhealthy" or something. Many of the articles in OotP where the Ministry tries to sway the wizarding community against Dumbledore and Harry seem to suggest, now, that perhaps Dumbledore's sexuality was known to say Fudge and it was his smear campaign to suggest that the wizened Albus was a pedophile of sorts. I mean, it all certainly smells of such discrimination and contempt if we read it that way. Again, we did not know this information during OotP so it was just a plain smear campaign within the framework of the story, but adding this layer of characterization makes that part of OotP stand out more now, as well as the hooplah surrounding Dumbledore in DH and Skeeter's book, and Elphias Doge's role as well.

I've been reading about Oscar Wilde recently and, doing the math, I realized that Dumbledore grew up in Victorian Britain, a culture in which, hypocritically, homosexuality was both taboo/illegal and widely but covertly practiced among adolescent males in boarding schools. If he ever did come out as a young man to colleagues, it would have been quite a brave thing to do! However, we don't know if Victorian-era wizard culture was the same as muggle culture. Do you think he did an Oscar Wilde and went to Azkaban for his lifestyle, or stayed closeted to all but his closest friends, or perhaps lived in a more tolerant society?

Do you think he did an Oscar Wilde and went to Azkaban for his lifestyle, or stayed closeted to all but his closest friends, or perhaps lived in a more tolerant society?If there had been a scandal concerning Dumbledore's orientation, I feel absolutely sure that Rita Skeeter would have had it documented and that Auntie Muriel would have relayed it.

Unless JKR says differently, imo the wizard world is compeltely tolerant of all relationships and does not place the stigma on various relationships like the muggles do. That is my optimistic view. :) So in my opinion, Dumbledore would not have had to hide his sexual proclivity or have had to face any recriminations from society in that regard. Thus I don't feel that it affected his character overall.

Besides possibly Atticus Finch, Dumbledore is my all-time favorite fictional character. However, I feel as if Rowling might have tarnished his legacy as almost a 'publicity stunt'. Not that I feel that him being homosexual ruins the wisdom of his words and courage of his actions, but to pull the carpet out from under all the readers after the series is OVER is a serious mistreatment of us, the fans. It's not the same shock that came after he died, it is much different. It's more like a "are you kiddin me?"

Just to keep it clear this is a thread for analysis of Dumbledore's character. Your reaction to his homosexuality belongs here: Homosexuality in Harry Potter (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=113186). We'll also have a thread up in the next 24 hours about JKR's decision to out Dumbledore :)

Not that I feel that him being homosexual ruins the wisdom of his words and courage of his actions, but to pull the carpet out from under all the readers after the series is OVER is a serious mistreatment of us, the fans. It's not the same shock that came after he died, it is much different. It's more like a "are you kiddin me?"

Speak for yourself. I don't feel mistreated and neither do my friends who were into the series. I had kind of assumed there was something more than friendship between Grindelwald and Dumbledore from DH, this interview just proved me right.

And if it doesn't matter... then why should it matter? It's not like there was any evidence in the books that Dumbledore was heterosexual, unless one assumes that everyone is straight.

I just wish he'd confided in McGonagall or someone in the Order, and preferrably tell Harry more on Horcruxes and Hallows - I thnk Harry earned the truth by OOTP.

I think lives could have been saved...it felt odd that Snape knew more than anyone, and probably risked - and gave - more than anyone else.

I agree, i think Harry definitely deserved more information. I understand why Snape was given the most info, and i think he deserved all the knowledge he was given, and I don't think Dumbledore should have used Snape the way he did. I was pretty mad at DD after I learned what he did to Snape.

[response to deleted post removed - off topic]
Anyway, the news about Dumbledore doesn't change my opinion of his character, I still love him, although I'm a bit annoyed that a fanfic I wrote about him being young and in love with a young lady is now irrelevant (actually the whole of DH did that to my story!).
I think he is someone who made mistakes in his youth as everyone does, but he paid a rather bigger price than most people, ie. the loss of his sister. But he grew up to be extremely wise and noble, and realises that love can be a good thing - that of Snape for Lily making him redeem his death eater ways.
When I read that bit from Rita about his relationship with Harry being unhealthy, I knew what she was getting at; but I do not see it in that way whatsoever.

What i don't get about the guy is why he trusted Snape, simply because he loved Lily. I mean, i wouldn't trust somebody solely on the basis of that.

What i don't get about the guy is why he trusted Snape, simply because he loved Lily. I mean, i wouldn't trust somebody solely on the basis of that.

or also, in the light that he 'loved Grindelvald' and he did DD wrong (I suppose), why then would he trust Snapes love for Lily?

But he stored a lot by love, it was his greatest belief and value. Plus he saw Snape felt real remorse. And as we saw, he was right to trust him.

What i don't get about the guy is why he trusted Snape, simply because he loved Lily. I mean, i wouldn't trust somebody solely on the basis of that.
Dumbledore believed love was a very powerful thing. He thought that Harry's ability to love was the power Voldemort did not have according to the prophecy. My guess is that this belief is what made him believe Snape.

Albus Dumbledore had more reasons than just Snape's love for Lily to trust him. Initially, after their first meeting, I don't necessarily think he did trust Snape. He may well have taken a wait and see attitude. The potential cost of carefully starting to use Snape as a spy was clearly outweighed by the enormous benefit having a Death Eater spy would provide, if Snape proved to be for real.

After months and later years of working with Snape, though, I think it was entirely reasonable for him to develop that trust. We don't know of an instance in which Snape betrayed it, in sixteen years.

or also, in the light that he 'loved Grindelvald' and he did DD wrong (I suppose), why then would he trust Snapes love for Lily?

I think Dumbledore may have come to understand that he loved Grindelwald more than Grindelwald loved him back. So the fact that Grindelwald did him wrong, does not provide an example of someone who truly loves, and is evil to the object of his love at the same time.

Also, in a way Dumbledore probably saw himself as like Snape in having this unrequited love, but as Snape's opposite in terms of the effect it had on them. Dumbledore overlooked a dark streak he saw in Grindelwald and his led to his own involvement int he death of his sister. Snape, on the other hand, was in love with someone who did not lead him astray - on the contrary, his love for her motivated him to rethink the very dark course he had chosen for his life and try to make up for it.

Also, in a way Dumbledore probably saw himself as like Snape in having this unrequited love, but as Snape's opposite in terms of the effect it had on them. Dumbledore overlooked a dark streak he saw in Grindelwald and his led to his own involvement int he death of his sister. Snape, on the other hand, was in love with someone who did not lead him astray - on the contrary, his love for her motivated him to rethink the very dark course he had chosen for his life and try to make up for it.
I wonder if Grindelwald loved Dumbledore, but like Snape, was too blinded by his ambition to realise that what he was doing was not only wrong but would lose him his love? Then, after years of imprisonment, Grindelwald tried to hinder Voldemort - he even mocked him. Did Grindelwald realise that he had done wrong just as Snape did?

1. What are your general thoughts on Dumbledore as a character through books 1-7? Do you see a difference in his behavior and/or actions between the books? I see Dumbledore as more jovial and amusing in the first few books; his complex personality and his admiration/love for Harry increases through the series.

2. Throughout the books, Dumbledore seems to always be teaching Harry something, but his lessons are sometimes hidden and subtle. What do you believe are the most important lessons Dumbledore taught Harry?I think Dumbledore wanted Harry to learn to believe in himself & his abilities through the tasks he accomplished, accompanied by Dumbledore's and some of Harry's peers word's of praise and appreciation (something Harry never experienced living with the Dursleys). Is there anything you think Dumbledore should have told Harry before he died?I think he gave Harry what he needed to know - he taught Harry to reason and think through things.

3. What did you think of the revelations of DH regarding Dumbledore's family? How did these tragedies effect the person he is now? I think DH did a great job of explaining the reason for a lot of the complexity to DD's character, and why he felt such empathy towards those students who were "different" or were not from a pureblood or well to do family.

4. Why do you think Dumbledore and Grindelwald were friends? How did Dumbledore's homosexuality affect his susceptibility to Grindelwald's ideas? I think the two were drawn by their intellects and by their eager desire and curiosity to be on the Deathly Hallows "quest" - sort of like the search for the Holy Grail. Perhaps DD's sexual desires/relationship with Grindelwald clouded his ability to see that the two of them supported different means to accomplish the same goal.

5. Was Dumbledore right to keep so many secrets from so many people? Was this secrecy because of his sister? Because of his own homosexuality? I think all of the above - we all have "burdens" or "challenges" in our life that we don't feel compelled to tell the whole world; but that doesn't mean that these happenings or experiences can't make us stronger and a better person for having lived through or with them

6. What do you think of Dumbledore's recognition of his own failings? His decision not to enter the Ministry? Even though we now know about Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald, I still feel in my heart of hearts that the reason DD didn't accept the MOM position was because he blamed himself for his sister's death; and he blamed his head over heels infatuation/love for Grindelwald for blinding him to the neglect he had for his sister that summer

7. Do you think Dumbledore expected too much from Harry?Not at all Did he do the right thing? Was it fair to ask Harry to sacrifice himself? I don't think DD asked any more of Harry than he did himself - after all, Dumbledore didn't have to let Draco disarm him, but he chose to, in effect, sacrificing himself.

8. Does the revelation of his homosexuality ultimately affect his character? What actions, if any, do you see differently now? I think it adds yet another facet to his very deep character; I also think it helps explain why he chose to focus all his energies and drive in later years on pursuing the "common good" in his own way; if Grindewald was his only real love in life, he took all that sexual, psychic, emotional energy and focused on righting wrongs and fighting evil for the rest of his life.

What i don't get about the guy is why he trusted Snape, simply because he loved Lily. I mean, i wouldn't trust somebody solely on the basis of that.

Their situations are similar, and therefore, I think this is one of the reasons why Dumbledore trusted Snape. Both had loved and lost, in a different way, but still having the same emotions.

Also, Dumbledore has always regarded love not as a emotion, but a force that binds people together; a power that can overcome evil. While he is intelligent and stuff, I believe he looks with his heart instead of his eyes for certain situations...and that is probably why he trusts Snape.

He was careless of his poor little sister though...so sad i hate that she died

1. What are your general thoughts on Dumbledore as a character through books 1-7? Do you see a difference in his behavior and/or actions between the books?

Well he comes across from a benevolent old man who was very wise and kind and at the same time extremely strong and prepared to stand up for the underdogs in Books I to IV and from the fifth book we begin to see a powerful, still very wise and still standing up for the less fortunate and everyone who needs his help, but to achieve the desired goals this DD is willing to manipulate people to almost any extent.

2. Throughout the books, Dumbledore seems to always be teaching Harry something, but his lessons are sometimes hidden and subtle. What do you believe are the most important lessons Dumbledore taught Harry? Did Dumbledore adequately prepare Harry for the trials that lie ahead in book 7? Is there anything you think Dumbledore should have told Harry before he died?

He taught Harry to be think before he chose and he taught Harry about the importance of choices and how they would define us and also taught him about the power of love; but he did not prepare Harry in Dueling and also the Dark Arts that Harry should have known -- because he was fighting a side that used only the Dark Arts as it were.

3. What did you think of the revelations of DH regarding Dumbledore's family? How did these tragedies effect the person he is now?

He is, I believe everything because of that terrible tragedy. In one blow he lost his sister, his lover and his dreams -- it must have shattered him completely and from the ashes was born this DD we know and love.

4. Why do you think Dumbledore and Grindelwald were friends? How did Dumbledore's homosexuality affect his susceptibility to Grindelwald's ideas?

Mainly because of the letter DD writes GG where he says he is glad GG was expelled from Durmstrang because he would not have come to Godric's Hollow otherwise.

For the first time Jo says DD found his equal and it helped that GG was good looking and DD was smitten with him.

But I do not think that DD was influenced by GG ideas because DD liked HIM -- remember DD himself had no reason to like muggles; his sister was unstable and his mother dead and his father in Azkaban and DD with the responsibility of the family on his shoulders all because of the nasty muggle bullies who tormented his sister and caused her to become magically unstable.

He agreed with the basic ideas of GG but he did turn a blind eye to the deeper and the more nastier ones because he did not want to lose his friend, lover and equal.

5. Was Dumbledore right to keep so many secrets from so many people? Was this secrecy because of his sister? Because of his own homosexuality?

Well I really do not know how to answer this, maybe it was a combination of the second and third questions or maybe it was his inherent nature to be secretive.

Was he right to do so? DEFINITELY NOT -- In a war of this magnitude he should not have kept so many secrets all to himself. There are unbreakable vows, magical oaths and so many other things he could have used and shared the horcruxes, the prophecy and Snape's innocence and the plan for Snape to kill him at the end of the year to some of the more important members of the Order like, Moody, Shaklebolt, Doge, Diggle, the Weasleys, Harry, Lupin, Sirius, Tonks and Snape, Harry, Hermione and Ron. No one would have betrayed and it would have made the job easy for Harry and Snape would have had a better deal instead of having to work all alone.

6. What do you think of Dumbledore's recognition of his own failings? His decision not to enter the Ministry?

He was a wise man and this decision shows that.

7. Do you think Dumbledore expected too much from Harry? Did he do the right thing? Was it fair to ask Harry to sacrifice himself?

It would have been fine to for Harry to sacrifice himself -- if it had been Harry's choice. It was not and DD forgot himself and he CHOSE for Harry. I think that was a bit unfair and showed his manipulative nature.

Yes. He did ask too much from a seventeen year old boy who was fighting blind.

8. Does the revelation of his homosexuality ultimately affect his character? What actions, if any, do you see differently now?

His character, I do not think so. But now I think there is greater understanding of his actions. His back story tells us the tradegy of his life and I think there is a parallel to Snape. Both loved -- DD lost GG and he spent the rest of his life fighting the evil he had almost created with the man he loved and Snape lost his love because of his own foolishness and spent the rest of his life fighting the evil he was a part of, which killed her.

1. What are your general thoughts on Dumbledore as a character through books 1-7? Do you see a difference in his behavior and/or actions between the books?

He is your wise old wizard who has to die. He seems somewhat typical to me through the first couple of books. I love that we finally learn about his family and his bakground. I do see a difference in his actions from 1-7. By Book 6 you can since a rush that he needs to get certain information to Harry because he knows he will die soon.

2. Throughout the books, Dumbledore seems to always be teaching Harry something, but his lessons are sometimes hidden and subtle. What do you believe are the most important lessons Dumbledore taught Harry? Did Dumbledore adequately prepare Harry for the trials that lie ahead in book 7? Is there anything you think Dumbledore should have told Harry before he died?

He never once taught Harry about dueling which I always thought was odd since he was kind of setting him up for this show down with Voldemort. All he did was fill Harry up with knowledge. I think it was a good idea, but seeing as Harry only had a dec ent DADA teacher his third year, I would have expected DD to be showing him a little more.

3. What did you think of the revelations of DH regarding Dumbledore's family? How did these tragedies effect the person he is now?

I think what happened that night with Grindelwald and Ariana is what made him the person he became. He took his theory of the Greater good and applied it in every scenario with Harry and Hogwarts. And its what Harry needed, because he would have done things for instant gratification.

4. Why do you think Dumbledore and Grindelwald were friends? How did Dumbledore's homosexuality affect his susceptibility to Grindelwald's ideas?

I think it was about DD finding his equal and someone who could challenge him in many ways. DD was an advanced wizard, and I dont think many thought as he did. I think he found Grindelwald and was lost in adoration for him, and those feelings amounted to so much more. I also think he was lost in Grindelwads plans as well, and possibly followed in a little deeper than he would naturally have. I think he took that as a lesson, and didnt let his feelings distract him again.

5. Was Dumbledore right to keep so many secrets from so many people? Was this secrecy because of his sister? Because of his own homosexuality?

Was he right to do so? I dont think there is a right or a wrong. He did what needed to be done and what others werent brave enough to do. Nobody needed to know the secrets of his family, no one needed to know about Grindelwald. I think thats where people felt wrong for trusting him when he had so many secrets himself, but none of it was necessary to tell.

6. What do you think of Dumbledore's recognition of his own failings? His decision not to enter the Ministry?

It made him very wise. He always did what needed to be done. He managed to put his own feelings aside for the greater good.

7. Do you think Dumbledore expected too much from Harry? Did he do the right thing? Was it fair to ask Harry to sacrifice himself?

I think DD thought age wasnt relevant to much Harry needed to accomplish. Harry needed to be courageous, and brave and have the will to succeed. The motivation was the nature of the beast and thats all Harry really needed. Was it fair to ask Harry to sacrifice himself? I think it had to happen. Harry was a horcrux, and because his blood ran through Voldemort, only Volde could kill Harry and have Harry survive. I dont think DD had to ask Harry to do so, I think Harry would have done it on his own.

8. Does the revelation of his homosexuality ultimately affect his character? What actions, if any, do you see differently now?
I dont see any actions differently. I honestly think it just gave him a little more depth. It isnt critical to the story, it doesnt cause an epiphany. Its a tiny part of the story that will make critics and Harry Potter haters even more pessimistic.

2. Throughout the books, Dumbledore seems to always be teaching Harry something, but his lessons are sometimes hidden and subtle. What do you believe are the most important lessons Dumbledore taught Harry? Did Dumbledore adequately prepare Harry for the trials that lie ahead in book 7? Is there anything you think Dumbledore should have told Harry before he died?

He never once taught Harry about dueling which I always thought was odd since he was kind of setting him up for this show down with Voldemort. All he did was fill Harry up with knowledge. I think it was a good idea, but seeing as Harry only had a dec ent DADA teacher his third year, I would have expected DD to be showing him a little more. I always thought that was odd, too, that Dumbledore didn't teach Harry how to fight Voldemort. Then, when it urned out that Harry had to die in order to destroy the Voldy soul fragment, I assumed it was because he didn't want Harry to think that fighting was an option. If Dumbledore had taught Harry to fight, then Harry would have thought he had to fight. Instead, he taught Harry to find horcruxes, and that is what Harry did.

I always thought that was odd, too, that Dumbledore didn't teach Harry how to fight Voldemort. Then, when it urned out that Harry had to die in order to destroy the Voldy soul fragment, I assumed it was because he didn't want Harry to think that fighting was an option. If Dumbledore had taught Harry to fight, then Harry would have thought he had to fight. Instead, he taught Harry to find horcruxes, and that is what Harry did.
Afterall, you can fight against someone/thing without physically fighting. I think tat that's quite cool, that Dumbledore was a pacifist, but knew when a fight needed to be fought

I never thought of that, but DD is somewhat of a pacifist isnt he?
Always trying to teach Harry how to outsmart Voldemort rather than showing him spells to KO him.
Brains over brawn, I guess.

Yeah DD was a pacifist alright, but I think he should have taught Harry more about dueling and even the Dark Arts, simply because the side he was fighting against used only offensive curses, unforgivables and the darkest of arts all the time.

Harry, IMO could have been taught the basics, nothing more and also the counters to some of the nastier curses the DE threw at one and all.

1. What are your general thoughts on Dumbledore as a character through books 1-7? Do you see a difference in his behavior and/or actions between the books?
I think Dumbledore is probably one of Jo's best-crafted characters; he's such a complex person, it's so interesting to learn about him, especially in DH. Also he's just so wise, it's hard for me to NOT like him, although there were a few moments in DH that bothered me.

2. Throughout the books, Dumbledore seems to always be teaching Harry something, but his lessons are sometimes hidden and subtle. What do you believe are the most important lessons Dumbledore taught Harry? Did Dumbledore adequately prepare Harry for the trials that lie ahead in book 7? Is there anything you think Dumbledore should have told Harry before he died?
Tolerance, Love, and definately all those things about Tom Riddle. I think he prepared him enough for him to be able to figure things out but still be challenged. I don't think that Dumbledore really had anything that he had to say to Harry before he died.

3. What did you think of the revelations of DH regarding Dumbledore's family? How did these tragedies effect the person he is now?
I was completely surprised, but I began to think about it and I totally think that it explained why Dumbledore seemed to care so much more about everyone, even Riddle.

4. Why do you think Dumbledore and Grindelwald were friends? How did Dumbledore's homosexuality affect his susceptibility to Grindelwald's ideas?
I think they were friends because they met each other at a time when they both were in need of mental stimulation. Being alone with his mad sister and goat-obsessed brother must have left Dumbledore wanting some kind of mental help. As for the susceptibility to Grindelwald's ideas, I think that because Dumbledore was in love with him, he was blinded to the reality of the ideas and how horrible they really were.

5. Was Dumbledore right to keep so many secrets from so many people? Was this secrecy because of his sister? Because of his own homosexuality?
I think everyone has the right to have secrets, and I don't really think Dumbledore was being secretive, it was more a "don't ask, don't tell" sort of situation.

6. What do you think of Dumbledore's recognition of his own failings? His decision not to enter the Ministry?
I think it was a good thing that he recognized his own failings, because if he had been Minister, he wouldn't have been headmaster of Hogwarts!

7. Do you think Dumbledore expected too much from Harry? Did he do the right thing? Was it fair to ask Harry to sacrifice himself?
When I first read DH, yes, I did think it was too much to ask of him, but overall it was the right thing, cause Harry lived anyway...
I'm not entirely sure if it was fair to ask Harry to sacrifice himself, but I think that it was more unfair to ask Snape to keep him alive without giving him the full story.

8. Does the revelation of his homosexuality ultimately affect his character? What actions, if any, do you see differently now?
I only see the whole Grindelwald thing in a different light, not his character. I think that that entire situation (homosexuality included) definately changed how Dumbledore viewed life, and I'm very glad that Jo revealed this tidbit of info.

1. What are your general thoughts on Dumbledore as a character through books 1-7? Do you see a difference in his behavior and/or actions between the books?
I love Albus Dumbledore and I always will. He's very wise and he never says anything that is not worth being said. He has always been reserved and secretive but that is part of what makes him Dumbledore. He definitely changed throughout the series, trusting Harry more and more, but he always knows his greatest faults and his greatest limitations and owns up to it. That makes him very respectable.

2. Throughout the books, Dumbledore seems to always be teaching Harry something, but his lessons are sometimes hidden and subtle. What do you believe are the most important lessons Dumbledore taught Harry? Did Dumbledore adequately prepare Harry for the trials that lie ahead in book 7? Is there anything you think Dumbledore should have told Harry before he died?
He gave Harry a family and he also gave Harry trust. Yes, Dumbledore was a trusting man throughout the entire series to most characters; however, that was something Harry never had growing up. I think he could have better prepared Harry, yes. Considering Harry was the ONLY one who could actually defeat Voldemort, he deserved to know everything Dumbledore had to tell him.

3. What did you think of the revelations of DH regarding Dumbledore's family? How did these tragedies effect the person he is now?
A brilliant man stuck in an average family is going to be a tough thing. That being said...he loved his family. Him and his brother might have had their disagreements and Albus, obviously, was the more talented of the two and Aberforth resented that to some extent. Obviously, when his dad is less than respectable and his mom dies soon after his dad is sent off to prison how would you expect a genius to react? Then, when Ariana died he didn't know what to do. I think the prospect of him being blamed for it made him more reserved. It explains a lot, people in grief are often reserved about themselves and it explains a lot about Dumbledore.


4. Why do you think Dumbledore and Grindelwald were friends? How did Dumbledore's homosexuality affect his susceptibility to Grindelwald's ideas?
Their intellectual level began their friendship. Dumbledore never had anyone he could talk to that was on his same level who understood everything that he presented. He meant a lot and, since he was attracted to Grindelwald he was willing to listen to anything Grindelwald presented, and most likely accept it for acceptance in return.

5. Was Dumbledore right to keep so many secrets from so many people? Was this secrecy because of his sister? Because of his own homosexuality?

No, Harry deserved to know EVERYTHING about Voldemort. Other than that, his personal life is his personal life. His past is his past. He has the right to share or not to share, just like all of us. He probably became more reserved because of his past.

6. What do you think of Dumbledore's recognition of his own failings? His decision not to enter the Ministry?
Proves that he was a very wise man, indeed.


7. Do you think Dumbledore expected too much from Harry? Did he do the right thing? Was it fair to ask Harry to sacrifice himself?
Like I've said before, Harry deserved to know EVERYTHING when it came to Voldemort. His personality suggests that he would have chosen to sacrifice himself...he likes "playing the hero" after all. Was it fair to ask Harry to give up his life? Not really, but is it fair to ask the rest of the wizarding world to be suspectible to Lord Voldemort because the only person who can save them won't? No. It appears to be a lose-lose situation and I honestly believe that Dumbledore did what he thought was best.


8. Does the revelation of his homosexuality ultimately affect his character? What actions, if any, do you see differently now?
I don't. Dumbledore never let anything like that get in the way. He acted from his head, not from his heart when it really mattered.

1.

[COLOR="DarkSlateBlue"]5. Was Dumbledore right to keep so many secrets from so many people? Was this secrecy because of his sister? Because of his own homosexuality?

Well I really do not know how to answer this, maybe it was a combination of the second and third questions or maybe it was his inherent nature to be secretive.

Was he right to do so? DEFINITELY NOT -- In a war of this magnitude he should not have kept so many secrets all to himself. There are unbreakable vows, magical oaths and so many other things he could have used and shared the horcruxes, the prophecy and Snape's innocence and the plan for Snape to kill him at the end of the year to some of the more important members of the Order like, Moody, Shaklebolt, Doge, Diggle, the Weasleys, Harry, Lupin, Sirius, Tonks and Snape, Harry, Hermione and Ron. No one would have betrayed and it would have made the job easy for Harry and Snape would have had a better deal instead of having to work all alone.

i definetely agree with your point on this. All of those people were extremely loyal. I think they had proved that by their actions: basically risking their lived. But he still didn't give them enough respect to tell them anything. I'm still upset about it.

I think Dumbledore should have told a few people more about what they risking their life for, but I don't think it had fit to his character to let them use magical oaths or even dark magic (unbreakable vow). He trusted in the humans surrounding him, what seems to be a major part of his character for me. We know he got promises from for instance Harry and Snape to take care for smaller or huge tasks, but I can't imagine him forcing them to give a promise supported by magic protection. It still has to be their own decision.

I was sorry to see JKR state that Dumbledore's infatuation with Grindelwald blinded him to Grindelwald's dark ways. Love blinds you to your lover's faults--that's just too "romance novel plot" to be believed. While reading DH, I assumed that JKR was going for something deeper--we all have a dark side, and Dumbledore flirted with that dark side: he was tempted by power. Instead of a complex, powerful man being tempted by evil, repenting, and trying to find a way to live with himself after a tragedy, we get that same old McGonnagal "you're too noble to use your power" Dumbledore from the very first book. He's the wonderful guy Doge remembered who just made a mistake because he was in love. Sheesh--that's as superficial as it gets! I didn't like DH anyway, I was tremendously disappointed with it for reasons that I won't go into here, and now I have one less reason to reread the series to see if I can come to love it again.

Originally posted by Gertiekeddle
I think Dumbledore should have told a few people more about what they risking their life for, but I don't think it had fit to his character to let them use magical oaths or even dark magic (unbreakable vow). He trusted in the humans surrounding him, what seems to be a major part of his character for me. We know he got promises from for instance Harry and Snape to take care for smaller or huge tasks, but I can't imagine him forcing them to give a promise supported by magic protection. It still has to be their own decision.

I did not know that an unbreakable vow was Dark Magic, okay that negates the use of the vow, but I still feel DD could have asked for a promise or oath to reveal a few important things to the Inner Circle of the Order. IMO everyone was fighting blind...

Harry IMO was fighting blind; Snape did not know about the horcruxes was also fighting blind, I felt. And Harry is someone who understands. We saw that in POA where he gives Sirius a chance to speak; at a time when everyone including Harry thought he was responsible for the Potters murder.

Had DD expalined things to Harry and Snape, I firmly believe they could have and would have worked together and maybe even saved Snape's life, and mybe, maybe... I think, also the lives of Moody and Hedwig...

Can we keep this on Dumbledore and the analysis of his character? If you want to voice your disappointment about the last book, please do so in Deathly Hallows: A disappointment? v2 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=111293)

Had DD expalined things to Harry and Snape, I firmly believe they could have and would have worked together and maybe even saved Snape's life, and mybe, maybe... I think, also the lives of Moody and Hedwig...We definitely agree here about that Dumbledore could or should have told more. But I can't see Harry and Snape ever working together - it was Snape who asked to not reveal all to Harry and the whole polt structure (Voldemort being able to use legilimency for instance) seems to deny this possibitily for me.

So while I agree Dumbledore acted very secretive to get his plan done and this certainly is a sign of his character, he was not responsible for all what happened. Also they were in war - I don't know whether there was any possibility to save any more lifes for Dumbledore. I see it as a one of his characteristics that he didn't want to see more people dead though.

I feel DD is a combination of wisdom, good nature and also extreme manipulation... IMO DD largely sees only the bigger picture and that was why his secrecy was paramount to him... because he was IMO palying with the lives of the others sometimes, only sometimes and largely, I believe when he could not avoid it, but nevertheless did chose for others if needed, I always thought and IMO surely that would not go down well with the others...

I also believe that DD thought that when presented the case fully to the Order embers who could be trusted they may not agree to be sacrificed for the greater good; like the seven Potters--that was surely dangerous and casuality ridden IMO

Was that one more reason for DD to be secretive; What do people think?

I think, this was also a factor that was a part of his character...

I think that with extreme intelligence there came quite a bit of confidence, and yes, arrogance. Dumbledore was convinced that he knew best and very often, he was right. So he assumed that not telling the Order would be for the greater good. This is morally questionable but revealing every little detail would probably have resulted in squabbling and discord.

Originally posted by Moriath
I think that with extreme intelligence there came quite a bit of confidence, and yes, arrogance. Dumbledore was convinced that he knew best and very often, he was right. So he assumed that not telling the Order would be for the greater good. This is morally questionable but revealing every little detail would probably have resulted in squabbling and discord.

What you have said is very correct, but IMO the mistakes he made because of this, should I say attitude, or well extreme confidence, were very huge and DD himself admits to this in HBP where he tells harry that his mistakes have huge repercussions.

Two deaths IMO that could have definitely been avoided was Sirius in the OOTP and Snape in DH I felt...

While he need not have revealed every single detail as you have so rightly pointed out; such a thing would have surely created only chaos within the Order, the major things IMO should have been told.

Also another sad mistake I feel IMO, could have been surely avoided was to tell Snape that Harry would have lived and had he done so, I think Snape would have died happy, died, IMO thinking he had saved the child of Lily Potter...

What you have said is very correct, but IMO the mistakes he made because of this, should I say attitude, or well extreme confidence, were very huge and DD himself admits to this in HBP where he tells harry that his mistakes have huge repercussions.

Two deaths IMO that could have definitely been avoided was Sirius in the OOTP and Snape in DH I felt...

While he need not have revealed every single detail as you have so rightly pointed out; such a thing would have surely created only chaos within the Order, the major things IMO should have been told.



I agree here. Dumbledore knew the connection between Harry and Voldemort existed. He didnt have to tell Harry all of his plans, but he could have told him what Voldemort might do, and how he might attack his mind or play tricks on it, instead of letting Snape teach him occlumency. That was a choice I never quite inderstood. Snape wasnt exactly the nicest person to Harry, and Harry was still a kid.

Also another sad mistake I feel IMO, could have been surely avoided was to tell Snape that Harry would have lived and had he done so, I think Snape would have died happy, died, IMO thinking he had saved the child of Lily Potter...

I agree that Snape not having been told about the possibility Harry would survive is one of the more tragic aspects of his death. However, I cannot object to Dumbledore's decision not to tell him. As I understand it, for the protection to work as it actually did, for the Horcrux to be destroyed without killing Harry, Harry's love and willingness to die was a contributing factor. A willingness to maybe die (rather than surely die) might not have sufficed to protect Harry.

And as things turned out, Snape had to share with Harry what he believed to be the truth. He could not have lied, and hidden from Harry the possibility of his survival, because he communicated the secret to Harry through showing a memory of what Dumbledore told him. I think Dumbledore may have been expecting some similar method to be used, since a simple statement of the facts by Snape would probably have had little chance of convincing Harry.

As a secondary point, there is the problem of Snape's proximity to Voldemort. The only way for Harry to survive the Horcrux removal is for Voldemort to kill him. Fortunately, Voldemort had become fixated on killing Harry himself, but that could have changed, had Snape somehow messed up and given himself away, allowing Voldemort to learn all of the secrets that Dumbledore had entrusted to him. The lie to Snape protected Harry in a couple of differnt ways, as I see it.

Snape would have been happier knowing, but from a practical standpoint, he did not need to know to play his role in the plan, and the plan was safer with Snape in the dark.

As I understand it, for the protection to work as it actually did, for the Horcrux to be destroyed without killing Harry, Harry's love and willingness to die was a contributing factor.

I thought so too. But I reread that part last night, and Dumbledore actually says that the blood protection transfer kept both of them bonded/chained to each other, so that Harry couldn't die while Voldemort is still alive. It did leave me wondering why on earth was it important for Harry to believe he was going to die. I'm still wondering.

I agree here. Dumbledore knew the connection between Harry and Voldemort existed. He didnt have to tell Harry all of his plans, but he could have told him what Voldemort might do, and how he might attack his mind or play tricks on it, instead of letting Snape teach him occlumency. That was a choice I never quite inderstood. Snape wasnt exactly the nicest person to Harry, and Harry was still a kid.

Dumbledore explained why he did not tell Harry all that himself, he felt it would give Voldemort an incentive to use the connection more if he thought it could be a way to use Harry to spy on Dumbledore. Also, Dumbledore did not JUST send Harry to learn Occlumency from Snape. Snape actually did explain to Harry the things you suggest Dumbledore ought to have explained, about Voldemort attacking his mind or making him do things, in addition to trying to teach Occlumency. I presume Dumbledore thought Harry might, at least, absorb that part of the lessons, since that requires no practice or liking of the teacher. He underestimated the extent to which Harry would discount anything Snape told him.

Dumbledore explained why he did not tell Harry all that himself, he felt it would give Voldemort an incentive to use the connection more if he thought it could be a way to use Harry to spy on Dumbledore. Also, Dumbledore did not JUST send Harry to learn Occlumency from Snape. Snape actually did explain to Harry the things you suggest Dumbledore ought to have explained, about Voldemort attacking his mind or making him do things, in addition to trying to teach Occlumency. I presume Dumbledore thought Harry might, at least, absorb that part of the lessons, since that requires no practice or liking of the teacher. He underestimated the extent to which Harry would discount anything Snape told him.

I respect your opinion, but Dumbledore said that what he underestimated was Snape's ability to let go of his old grudge against James enough to successfully teach Harry Occulmency (OOTP Brit. Ed. pg. 734-35). Imo, Dumbledore blamed Snape rather than Harry because Snape was the more mature and thus should have been the person to ensure the lessons were carried out despite the aggrevation between the two participants.

Dumbledore, imo, made several similar errors of judgment along the way, however, he did seem willing to readily admit to his mistakes which is admirable. I am not certain I would say that he learned from them, because imo, he made similar errors associated with secrecy, power and control continually until his death.

Originally posted by zgirnius
I agree that Snape not having been told about the possibility Harry would survive is one of the more tragic aspects of his death. However, I cannot object to Dumbledore's decision not to tell him. As I understand it, for the protection to work as it actually did, for the Horcrux to be destroyed without killing Harry, Harry's love and willingness to die was a contributing factor. A willingness to maybe die (rather than surely die) might not have sufficed to protect Harry.

Why should it be so? There is nothing in the books, I think, to say that Harry should go into the Forest thinking he must die, instead of willing to die (and I think Harry would have still gone into the Forest) for the horcrux inside him to be destroyed.

I think DD was naturally secretive and his brilliance and enomous magical talent made him a bit arrogant, in thinking IMO, that he could think, analyse and decide better than all. This was an honest arrogance and not the arrogance we imply when we use the word normally. This aspect shows up time and again all through the Books.

It helped, I think, that he was correct in his assumptions and theories more often than not, but the few times he did make mistakes, they cost very heavily.

He sits alone IMO, in more ways than one, that sadly blinds him to the needs of individual persons and emotions -- he is almost, always seeing only the bigger picture.

In that respect it would have been fantastic had he found love after GG with Doge or any other wizard, for that would have healed him a bit and would have IMO, made him not so alone at the top and would have changed his perspective about everything...

I think DD was naturally secretive and his brilliance and enomous magical talent made him a bit arrogant, in thinking IMO, that he could think, analyse and decide better than all. This was an honest arrogance and not the arrogance we imply when we use the word normally. This aspect shows up time and again all through the Books...

I totally agree. DD may have been wrong about what he chose to keep secret and what he chose to impart to others, but it was not due to any desire to imply anyone was undeserving of the information. He simply knew that his methods would lead to the end of Voldemort. He was simply to brilliant for his own good.


p.s. this isnt directed at anyone in particular, but everyone on the forum. Please stop with the use of "IMO." That silly three letter abbreviation only interrupts the flow of your arguments. we realize it is your opinion, if it wasn't yours you wouldn't write it, or it would be in quotes. thanks

Why should it be so? There is nothing in the books, I think, to say that Harry should go into the Forest thinking he must die, instead of willing to die (and I think Harry would have still gone into the Forest) for the horcrux inside him to be destroyed.

I think DD was naturally secretive and his brilliance and enomous magical talent made him a bit arrogant, in thinking IMO, that he could think, analyse and decide better than all. This was an honest arrogance and not the arrogance we imply when we use the word normally. This aspect shows up time and again all through the Books.

It helped, I think, that he was correct in his assumptions and theories more often than not, but the few times he did make mistakes, they cost very heavily.

He sits alone IMO, in more ways than one, that sadly blinds him to the needs of individual persons and emotions -- he is almost, always seeing only the bigger picture.

In that respect it would have been fantastic had he found love after GG with Doge or any other wizard, for that would have healed him a bit and would have IMO, made him not so alone at the top and would have changed his perspective about everything...

I agree with you. Imo, Dumbledore needed to share his decision making with another - or others - in order to help with perspective. While I hope he was able to have a wonderful love life, imo, he should have shared his political duties with the members of the Order. There were brilliant people all around him. I also agree that his mistakes were very costly, imo, sometimes needlessly so. However, as you indicated, it did help that everything worked out in the end - at least for those who survived. :)

Originally posted by sericana
p.s. this isnt directed at anyone in particular, but everyone on the forum. Please stop with the use of "IMO." That silly three letter abbreviation only interrupts the flow of your arguments. we realize it is your opinion, if it wasn't yours you wouldn't write it, or it would be in quotes. thanks

Hey! I thought so too, until I read a in-thread warning by Jessica who encouraged the use of IMO's and I think's so that everyone would know it is your opinion and you are not talking for Jo, when we write about the characters and the books in general.

Since then, I have been using so many IMo's inserting where ever I can and sometimes it does look silly, but in a heated discussion, it does show that what I am expressing is only MY OPINION and not what Jo meant when she wrote a character or a particular incident...


Originally posted by wickedwickedboy
I agree with you. Imo, Dumbledore needed to share his decision making with another - or others - in order to help with perspective. While I hope he was able to have a wonderful love life, imo, he should have shared his political duties with the members of the Order. There were brilliant people all around him. I also agree that his mistakes were very costly, imo, sometimes needlessly so. However, as you indicated, it did help that everything worked out in the end - at least for those who survived.

No, no, no..., I meant that having found that personal love would have made him see persons and individuals instead of strategies and logis... At least I would hope it did.

Or do you think DD would have been the same even then? That is interesting, but it does show him to be a bit more callous than now, when IMO his mistakes can be expalined... sort of.

2. IMO is your friend. Use it in abundance. Use it in overabundance. Make it clear that you are stating YOUR OPINION.

The above is from another thread. If there are questions about thread logistics or other things of that sort go ahead and Owl one of us staff types, so that we don't tie up thread with thread logistics and other things that are off-topic. Using "in my opinion" or "I think that" in place of "IMO" or "IMHO" is fine, too :).

And now back to discussion of one of my favorite characters, Albus Dumbledore :).

No, no, no..., I meant that having found that personal love would have made him see persons and individuals instead of strategies and logis... At least I would hope it did.

Or do you think DD would have been the same even then? That is interesting, but it does show him to be a bit more callous than now, when IMO his mistakes can be expalined... sort of.

Well I couldn't really say because we don't really know anything about Dumbledore's private life. He may have had romantic relationships we know nothing about. I do believe sharing his power (within the Order) would have had an impact though, generally having one all powerful person heading things has not worked out well in history. :)

Originally posted by wickedwickedboy
Well I couldn't really say because we don't really know anything about Dumbledore's private life. He may have had romantic relationships we know nothing about. I do believe sharing his power (within the Order) would have had an impact though, generally having one all powerful person heading things has not worked out well in history.

That is a point and probably a correct one. But if that were the case then it does IMO makes DD more culpable and more disregaring of others I think.

I truly hope that is not the case...

And how I wonder, did the others allow DD to get away with so much? Moody, McGonagall and most of the Order members are some of the smartest and more powerful witches and wizards in the U.K. To follow someone, even though he may be the most poweful or the most knowledgeable does not really speak well for them IMO.

Only three teenagers, one witch and two wizards knew about the horcruxes. Not even Snape knew about the details of Harry's lessons with DD...

Writing in the Snape and Lily thread, another thought struck me...

Snape comes running with sheer terror to DD and tell him to hide the Potters because Voldemort has chosen Harry as the child of the Prophecy.

From that point onwards Snape became DD's man.

Why did DD knowing that Snape loved Lily so much that he was willing to to anything DD asked of him, not tell Lily that Snape had come away from being a death eater and he was now working against the side he had joined in the first place? I am assuming he did not because there is nothing in cannon to say he did.

Was this another of DD's collossal mistake? Another manipulation for the greater good?

Snape could not approach the Potters because James, Sirius and Remus would kill him first. He could not write his remorse and apologize for his mistakes because they would not believe him and think it was an elaborate ploy to lure them to Voldemort.

DD IMO most likely knows this. Then why did he not tell the Poters and especially Lily that Snape has turned away from the Dark side?

Or did he and Lily did not care. IMO that would have been terrible and I truly hope that was not the case. I hope someone asks this question of our beloved author... I for one am very interested in the answer.

1. What are your general thoughts on Dumbledore as a character through books 1-7? Do you see a difference in his behavior and/or actions between the books?
I think DD actions were extremely consistent. The only consistency gap exists from what we didn't know about him earlier.

2. Throughout the books, Dumbledore seems to always be teaching Harry something, but his lessons are sometimes hidden and subtle. What do you believe are the most important lessons Dumbledore taught Harry? Did Dumbledore adequately prepare Harry for the trials that lie ahead in book 7? Is there anything you think Dumbledore should have told Harry before he died?

No, I do think DD should have done more to secure locations of the other Horcruxes. How is it that a death eater (Bella) goes to Azkaban forever as a convicted death eater, and no one gets the right to search her vault for any dark objects. Doesn't make sense in our world, wouldn't seem to make sense in her world.

3. What did you think of the revelations of DH regarding Dumbledore's family? How did these tragedies effect the person he is now?

I think DD's single mindedness in seeking to destroy LV was a reflection of his past. He was trying to make up for his earlier failure. Similarly we see his great disdain for Draco's narrow mindedness (hating Mudbloods) as a compensation for his flawed past.

4. Why do you think Dumbledore and Grindelwald were friends? How did Dumbledore's homosexuality affect his susceptibility to Grindelwald's ideas?

JK made it clear that DD had no equals and that it was a very lonely life. I imagine he was seperate from others by his intelligence, skill and homosexuality. At what point he realized his homosexuality, we don't know. However, I imagine that his separation from other wizards due to skill and intelligence increased his lonliness and separation because of his homosexuality (and verse visa). It was a very sad downward spiral for him. Hard to believe he wasn't on some depression medications... I think it greatly affected his relationship with Grindlewald. To met someone with comparable intelligence and skills may have awakened him to his sexuality in the first place. How often are all of us attracted to others because of commonness (sexual and non-sexual). Here is a boy apart from everyone else and now he has an equal! No question there is a direct correlation.

5. Was Dumbledore right to keep so many secrets from so many people? Was this secrecy because of his sister? Because of his own homosexuality?

His secrecy was compounded by his family situation and his homosexuality...but not the cause. His secrecy was fundamental to his plan succeeding. In a world of truth potions, legilemensy and imperio, there really was no other way of keeping his plans from LV.

As an aside, do you think DD used legilemensy and imperio against Draco to get him to tell his story on the tower in Book 6. I do, I really really do.

6. What do you think of Dumbledore's recognition of his own failings? His decision not to enter the Ministry?

How few of us recognize our failings. As to his decision not to enter the ministry, well in the magic world it really didn't impede his power did it?



7. Do you think Dumbledore expected too much from Harry? Did he do the right thing? Was it fair to ask Harry to sacrifice himself?

Absolutely, Absolutely and Absolutely.
What DD expected of Harry is too much to expect from anyone. However, it was absolutely the right thing. In any war there are sacrifices to be made. DD sacrificed many to put Harry into position to defeat LV (including himself). Was every strategy correct or the best, surely not...but whose is. As excellent a job as JK did of showing us the horror of war (and the randomness and unfairness of death and destruction) she did an even better job of showing us how horrible it is to order others to what is likely their destruction. No wonder that DD guy was lonely. Of course it was fair, he asked every member of the Order to do the same. Not only that, he asked them to do the same in protecting Harry, at the possible cost of their own lives without nearly as much knowledge as Harry (not to mention much less glory).

8. Does the revelation of his homosexuality ultimately affect his character? What actions, if any, do you see differently now?

Primarily his secrecy and seclusion. I think he had a natural tendancy towards both due to his intelligence and skill, but his homosexuality probably increased that.

I do see his "pity" for Snapes unfulfilled love perhaps reflected in his own towards Grindlewald.

Another huge mistake that in reality cost the Potters their lives and put Sirius in Azkaban for thirteen years IMO was the way DD ran the Order of the Phoenix. He seems to place the responsibilities of trust on the members themselves, there seems to be no way to deduce any traitor within its ranks IMO.

The moment they knew there was a traitor who was passing information to Voldemort, I wonder why DD did not do a thing to find out the traitor and save James and Lily.

IMO DD seems to trust everyone in the Order blindfold.

What was this part of him, I wonder that allowed him to be so lax, in the time of war and with the knowledge of the Prophecy.

Snape could not approach the Potters because James, Sirius and Remus would kill him first. He could not write his remorse and apologize for his mistakes because they would not believe him and think it was an elaborate ploy to lure them to Voldemort.

DD IMO most likely knows this. Then why did he not tell the Poters and especially Lily that Snape has turned away from the Dark side?


There were four Marauders ;). Let's keep in mind that little Peter, whom no one respected, was a member of the Order of the Phoenix as well, and so close to Lily and James that he was photographed standing between them in the picture Moody showed Harry at 12 Grimmauld Place in OotP.

Dumbledore did not know he was the spy, but he knew there was a spy close to the Potters. Further, it seems that the Potters did not take this seriously, because they chose a Secret Keeper among the people close to them. This seems to me reason enough not to tell the Potters about Snape. If James' sense of honor caused him to share this information with his closest friends, Peter would have doubtless betrayed Snape to Voldemort. So in this case, I think Dumbledore's secrecy was warranted.

In my opinion, if Dumbledore was treating Order members during the first war as he did in the second, the members would have every right to mistrust him. The problem with that is, Dumbledore, while secretive and manipulative, did have the right idea or *guess* most of the time, so it did pay to heed his words. It wasn't like the Potters ignored him, they just obviously trusted their friends more than Dumbledore and I don't blame them. In fact, I would go as far as to speculate that if Dumbledore had been made secret keeper, it is altogether possible that we would have had the same outcome. Dumbledore's plans were often very risky and he looked to the 'big picture'. If he foresaw that Harry had to be kept safe to defeat Voldemort, and for whatever reason that meant his parents had to die, imo, Dumbledore would have gone with keeping Harry safe. That was his MO at that time imo.

Originally posted by zgirnius
There were four Marauders . Let's keep in mind that little Peter, whom no one respected, was a member of the Order of the Phoenix as well, and so close to Lily and James that he was photographed standing between them in the picture Moody showed Harry at 12 Grimmauld Place in OotP.

Dumbledore did not know he was the spy, but he knew there was a spy close to the Potters. Further, it seems that the Potters did not take this seriously, because they chose a Secret Keeper among the people close to them. This seems to me reason enough not to tell the Potters about Snape. If James' sense of honor caused him to share this information with his closest friends, Peter would have doubtless betrayed Snape to Voldemort. So in this case, I think Dumbledore's secrecy was warranted.

And I wonder what was DD doing with the knowledge that there was a spy who was very close to the Potters?

DD had knowledge of the Prophecy -- he knew Snape had been apprehended and thrown out half way through the same Prophecy -- sometime later Snape comes running in fear and remorse and once again informs DD that Voldemort has indeed chosen the Potters and tells DD to some how hide all of them -- even James Potter once DD says he is disgusted with Snape's attitude.

Why did DD not do more? He was in the position of the Supreme Commander of the Light forces that were fighting a battle with Voldemort -- the battle was already on -- James and Lily had already defied Voldemort Thrice -- why weren't they protected more securely -- why did DD listen to James's wish of appointing Sirius as the secret keeper when he knew some one very close to the Potters was a DE -- Was that the time to pander to James's wish -- why weren't the members subjected to more scrutiny once they knew there was a spy very close to the Potters especially when it looked like their child was the child of Prophecy?

It seems to me that DD was equally to blame for the death of the Potters as any body else...

Sure there were four Marauders and everybody was scared and suspecting every other person to be a spy -- in the army when you know you have a traitor, you try your best to flush out the dangerous weed, else it would damage the entire crop ( I think this came out plain silly but I won't change it) -- in the magial world DD could have asked every one to simply show their fore arms -- if Peter was not marked for remaining secret (though I very much doubt it) -- then a simple oath that 'I am not a death eater and I am working against Voldemort' would have sufficed.

Why wasn't that done? In a war of that magnitude when so much was at stake why did DD leave everything to the dignity and honesty of the members themselves?

Is that the best way to lead? What exactly were the motivations behind such a reasoning?

And Snape has not even come into this yet...

Since I was too carried away to post IMO's, kindly note that the entire post is my opinion only.

why did DD listen to James's wish of appointing Sirius as the secret keeper when he knew some one very close to the Potters was a DE -- Was that the time to pander to James's wish -- why weren't the members subjected to more scrutiny once they knew there was a spy very close to the Potters especially when it looked like their child was the child of Prophecy?

You write as though you know James Potter would have obeyed an order regarding this matter. From what we have seen and been told about his personality, I very much doubt it. The Order is not a military organization with members who recognize a duty to obey all of the orders of their superiors. It's a group of people with common ideals working against a common enemy with a far looser structure.

We are told in PoA that Dumbledore offered to be the Secret Keeper for the Potters himself. (Minerva says it in PoA, "The Marauders' Map"). He was turned down in favor of Sirius Black (really Peter Pettigrew). Right there, we see evidence that the Potters did not consider it their duty to do whatever Dumbeldore said.

At the end of PoA, Sirius accuses Peter of having spied on the Order for a year. I put these things together and come up with:

About a year before the Potters died, Dumbledore confided his belief that there was a spy in the Order to several people, among then Minerva McGonagall and Sirius Black. Given that the matter concerned the Potters closely, and how close Sirius was to them, I deduce the Potters also knew. But they chose the option of Peter, with the twist that everyone would think it was Sirius. We even have a reason why they would have, provided for us by (ironically) Remus Lupin in DH - James Potter would have considered it dishonorable to distrust a friend.

It seems to me that DD did all he could for them, and their own choices limited how much he could do.

Sure there were four Marauders and everybody was scared and suspecting every other person to be a spy -- in the army when you know you have a traitor, you try your best to flush out the dangerous weed, else it would damage the entire crop ( I think this came out plain silly but I won't change it) -- in the magial world DD could have asked every one to simply show their fore arms -- if Peter was not marked for remaining secret (though I very much doubt it) -- then a simple oath that 'I am not a death eater and I am working against Voldemort' would have sufficed.

I would imagine that Peter was either unmarked, or had some way to hide the mark when it was necessary. Voldemort can think of this elementary precaution as well as you can. (If it was this easy, surely the Ministry would have done this in rounding up Death Eaters. They surely have less scruples considering the rights of individuals). A simple oath would not help, as Peter would certainly have been willing to lie. I suppose you probably meant an Unbreakable Vow?

Why wasn't that done? In a war of that magnitude when so much was at stake why did DD leave everything to the dignity and honesty of the members themselves?

Is that the best way to lead? What exactly were the motivations behind such a reasoning?

In a war, or in any other human enterprise, leaving everything to the dignity and honesty of the people one works with is the only way to lead (IMO). Making everyone do exactly what you want under threat is not leadership, it is tyranny. I have no experience of the military side of things, but I am quite convinced of this based on my experience in the business world. (And it seems a commonly held view out there - though I find "business books" deadly dull, I have picked up one or two to have an idea what my bosses are reading. Books on leadership I have read aren't about strategies of imposing top-down control, they are about inspiring the team with a common goal and facilitating the work of team members towards that goal.)

This discussion seems to have arisen out of your dissatisfaction with Dumbledore's handling of Snape, but it seems to me that Snape is the poster boy for why this works. Snape, a Death Eater, came to Dumbledore with his story, and Dumbledore accepted his services as a spy based on nothing but Snape's bare word that he would do "Anything" Dumbeldore asked in exchange for protection for the Potters. I don't doubt Dumbledore took some precautions against the possibility that Snape proved unreliable in the early days. That is only prudent. But he did not (as some theorists had proposed pre-DH) demand an Unbreakable Vow of service. What he got in return, was someone he could (and did) trust with his life, his death, and his greatest secret, and someone who never failed to merit that trust.

While the credit must go to Snape himself for his courage and steadfast loyalty, I don't think just anyone could have inspired them. It is also a testament to Dumbledore's leadership skills.

It wasn't like the Potters ignored him, they just obviously trusted their friends more than Dumbledore and I don't blame them.
I dosagree with this. IMO Dumbledore told the Potters that one of their friends was a spy. I think James especially resented this, and that is why he chose Sirius - to prove his absolute trust of Sirius. I don't think he trusted Dumbledore less - he just wanted to prove that he trusted Sirius even though Dumbledore had said one of his friends was a spy. The switch to Peter was the big mistake; I personally don't think they thought it through properly.
In fact, I would go as far as to speculate that if Dumbledore had been made secret keeper, it is altogether possible that we would have had the same outcome. Dumbledore's plans were often very risky and he looked to the 'big picture'. If he foresaw that Harry had to be kept safe to defeat Voldemort, and for whatever reason that meant his parents had to die, imo, Dumbledore would have gone with keeping Harry safe. That was his MO at that time imo.I don't see how you can draw that conclusion at all. Given that Dumbledore berated Snape for only asking for Lily's life saying that James and Harry didn't matter as long as he got what he wanted, I cannot imagine for one minute that Dumbledore would think it all right for Lily and James to die as long as he got what he wanted - Harry alive. I also don't see how Dumbledore being the secret keeper could have had the same outcome because Dumbledore would not have told Voldemort where the Potters were which is what Peter did.

James Potter would have considered it dishonorable to distrust a friend. I'm the same - I would rather be betrayed than not trust. Interestingly I would say Snape was the opposite - he'd rather not trust than be betrayed, and Dumbledore trusts, but uses secrecy and limiting the spread of information to limit any damage done by misplaced trust. I really don't see anything sinister in Dumbledore's preference for secrecy - it really seems to me to be a sensible precaution given the times and circumstances.

Originally posted by zgirnius
In a war, or in any other human enterprise, leaving everything to the dignity and honesty of the people one works with is the only way to lead (IMO). Making everyone do exactly what you want under threat is not leadership, it is tyranny.

So is this what I understand of the statement above -- with the knowledge of the prophecy and the knowlege that Voldemort knows one half of that prophecy and with the knowledge one person extremely close to the Potters and a member of the Order is a DE, DD should have still led the Order by leaving everything to the dignity and honesty of the members concerned? -- Is there no verification needed? -- and should the members still meet to discuss matters regarding Voldemort with that unknown DE present because no one knows who he or she is -- IMO and I respectfully disagree with you -- THIS is not leadership -- unless I am missing something in the books or what Jo has said...

The other points you have raised need a lot of thinking -- the one about James Potter is so true... I will have read your post again...

I thought so too. But I reread that part last night, and Dumbledore actually says that the blood protection transfer kept both of them bonded/chained to each other, so that Harry couldn't die while Voldemort is still alive. It did leave me wondering why on earth was it important for Harry to believe he was going to die. I'm still wondering.
If Snape simply dragged Harry to Voldemort to be killed with him believing that Snape is the enemy, Harry would have gotten rid of the soul fragment and still survived it. However through Harry's self sacrifice, Voldemort's power has been broken. He could no longer harm anybody. That's when "the power the Dark Lord knows not" comes into play. I think Dumbledore has put much more store into the prophecy than he admitted.

So is this what I understand of the statement above -- with the knowledge of the prophecy and the knowlege that Voldemort knows one half of that prophecy and with the knowledge one person extremely close to the Potters and a member of the Order is a DE, DD should have still led the Order by leaving everything to the dignity and honesty of the members concerned?

In PoA, we learn that Voldemort was specifically after the Potters, and that Dumbledore told them to hide for this reason, from a conversation not including Dumbledore. In other words, other people were told this information. We also learn that a member close to the Potters was a traitor, from the same conversation. We learn Sirius knew all this, back in the day. In other words, the only one of the facts you list above that Dumbledore may not have shared with anyone is the actual content of the prophecy, which is a secret he fears may be of use to Voldemort (DD knows more of it than Voldemort, after all). Yes, he absolutely should have left it to the Order members at that point. They were all warned, and could take prudent precautions to protect themselves and their fellows.

As a leader, he also provided what he felt was the best advice - that the Potters should hide, that they should use the Fidelius Charm, and that they should use him as the secret keeper because of the danger of the spy. I presume that he not only offered, but explained reminded them why this would be a good idea. Beyond that, he could and should have done no more, as I see it. Clearly, the Potters took some of this advice - they hid and used the Fidelius Charm to do it. Unfortunately, they put their trust in the wrong person.

If in your opinion DD ought to have made everyone show their forearms and swear Unbreakable Vows, how much more true is this of James and Lily Potter? They should have asked to see Peter's arm before choosing him, and required him to take an Unbreakable Vow that he would never tell the secret without their authorization before making him Secret Keeper. He was their choice, not Dumbledore's, so surely it is more their responsibility than his to make sure he was worthy of their trust?

Note I do not think Lily and James should have done either of these things...I think they should have used Dumbledore, as he offered. :)

? -- and should the members still meet to discuss matters regarding Voldemort with that unknown DE present because no one knows who he or she is --

Yes, they absolutely should still meet and discuss, bearing in mind what Dumbledore has told them - that one of them is probably a spy. In fact, in a universe with Veritaserum, Legilimency, and the Imperius Curse, they should have acted as though there was a spy in their midst even before Dumbledore confirmed it. There are things that can be done short of Unbreakable Vows, to limit the danger. (Compartmentalization, limiting information on a need-to-know basis, etc. rather the way real-life secret organizations operate, for similar reasons, since in RL there are no guarantees).

Actually, in a universe with magic like the Imperius, there is good reason NOT to demand Unbreakable Vows of loyalty...

You write as though you know James Potter would have obeyed an order regarding this matter. From what we have seen and been told about his personality, I very much doubt it. The Order is not a military organization with members who recognize a duty to obey all of the orders of their superiors. It's a group of people with common ideals working against a common enemy with a far looser structure.

We are told in PoA that Dumbledore offered to be the Secret Keeper for the Potters himself. (Minerva says it in PoA, "The Marauders' Map"). He was turned down in favor of Sirius Black (really Peter Pettigrew). Right there, we see evidence that the Potters did not consider it their duty to do whatever Dumbeldore said.
These are two quite different matters. Of course all the members of the Order would obey orders. How else would such an organisation function? But Dumbledore never ordered James to make him Secret-Keeper! He simply offered and James declined because it was inconceivable to him (and rightly so) that Sirius could ever betray him. This in no way indicates that he didn't follow Dumbledore's orders or that Dumbledore never gave orders.

These are two quite different matters. Of course all the members of the Order would obey orders. How else would such an organisation function? But Dumbledore never ordered James to make him Secret-Keeper! He simply offered and James declined because it was inconceivable to him (and rightly so) that Sirius could ever betray him. This in no way indicates that he didn't follow Dumbledore's orders or that Dumbledore never gave orders.

We never see Dumbledore give an order, do we? I don't see where this idea comes from that he did, and people obeyed him. We finally see his interactions with one particular order member in DH (a first!), and he almost never gives an order. The closest we see is "Keep an eye on Quirrell, will you?"

Anytime Albus wans Severus to do something, they have a talk. Dumbledore asks him either what he plans to do, or asks him to do something. If Sev agrees, fine. If not, he may give his reasons for asking, and then Sev agrees (again, or not). I see no reason to suppose that Dumbledore treats anyone else in the Order in a manner which is substantially different.

The Order has meetings, we know. I presume that in those meetings, the members decide on a course of action, and then follow it. Not that Dumbledore shows up, and tells everyone what to do.

The Order has meetings, we know. I presume that in those meetings, the members decide on a course of action, and then follow it. Not that Dumbledore shows up, and tells everyone what to do. As everyone in the order following Dumbledore respected and trusted him greatly, they probably followed most of his advise. Therefore, giving orders would not have been a smart thing to do because it might have made people resent doing something (no one likes to be ordered around) that they would have done willingly out of respect for Dumbledore otherwise.

I don't see how you can draw that conclusion at all. Given that Dumbledore berated Snape for only asking for Lily's life saying that James and Harry didn't matter as long as he got what he wanted, I cannot imagine for one minute that Dumbledore would think it all right for Lily and James to die as long as he got what he wanted - Harry alive. I also don't see how Dumbledore being the secret keeper could have had the same outcome because Dumbledore would not have told Voldemort where the Potters were which is what Peter did.

In response to your pondering how I might have drawn this conclusion: Dumbledore planned for Harry to die in order for Voldemort to be vanquished (he was not certain the blood sacrifice would save him, although he hoped it would). Dumbledore also asked Snape to kill him knowing that Voldemort would believe Snape to be the master of the Elder Wand and seek it from Snape - which would most probably end in Snape's death at the hands of Voldemort.

If Dumbledore could do those things, why would he hesitate to allow the Potters to die if it meant protecting Harry so that he could one day vanquish Voldemort? I would reach the same conclusion about the Longbottoms and Neville. Dumbledore, imo, proved that the greater good was the focus of his decisions and the most important factor in his considerations. As secret keeper of the Potters, if telling their location in order for Harry to be saved became the issue, I don't think Dumbledore would have hesitated to give their location away - even if their deaths was the probable outcome.

These are two quite different matters. Of course all the members of the Order would obey orders. How else would such an organisation function? But Dumbledore never ordered James to make him Secret-Keeper! He simply offered and James declined because it was inconceivable to him (and rightly so) that Sirius could ever betray him. This in no way indicates that he didn't follow Dumbledore's orders or that Dumbledore never gave orders.

I agree. I think James simply trusted Sirius completely and more than Dumbledore. I think James trusted Remus and Peter more than Dumbledore as well. They were all intimate friends.

As secret keeper of the Potters, if telling their location in order for Harry to be saved became the issue, I don't think Dumbledore would have hesitated to give their location away - even if their deaths was the probable outcome.

Dumbledore gave Harry the choice to die. Harry could have chosen to live knowing that Voldemort would also and that he would continue to kill other people. But it was still a choice.

Same with Snape, Dumbledore gave Snape a choice to kill him, a choice to turn spy etc. I can't think of any instance in which Dumbledore has forced someone to die or take extreme actions without allowing them a choice. Sometime the other option isn't really a choice but it's still there.

If Lily and James had to die in order to defeat Voldemort I think Dumbledore would have told them that. I don't think he would have allowed them to die without giving them the choice to live.

Dumbledore gave Harry the choice to die. Harry could have chosen to live knowing that Voldemort would also and that he would continue to kill other people. But it was still a choice.

Same with Snape, Dumbledore gave Snape a choice to kill him, a choice to turn spy etc. I can't think of any instance in which Dumbledore has forced someone to die or take extreme actions without allowing them a choice. Sometime the other option isn't really a choice but it's still there.

If Lily and James had to die in order to defeat Voldemort I think Dumbledore would have told them that. I don't think he would have allowed them to die without giving them the choice to live.

I agree with you regarding Harry being given a choice - but the mere fact that Dumbledore's plan entailed Harry having to make that choice does give insight into Dumbledore's way of thinking imo. However, what choice did Snape have? Dumbledore didn't tell him that Voldemort would believe him to be the master of the Elder Wand - Snape was surprised upon hearing that information from Voldemort just before he was killed (DH The Elder Wand). Thus I am not certain that Dumbledore would have informed the Potters. He may have, but even then, being their secret keeper, they wouldn't have had much say in the matter in any case.

I am not attempting to say Dumbledore was a cold hearted man. My point is, that when it came to the greater good, Dumbledore tended to look at the big picture and all of the little details (like the death of a person) were deemed inevitable by him and he seemed to accept that, imo.

Consider this: James and his friends knew that Dumbledore was one of the wisest wizards in the land at that time. They knew he had incredible ability (he'd taken down Grindlewald) and they understood that he, of all people would offer the best protection in a crisis. Why wouldn't James want the ultimate protection for his wife and child and further why wouldn't Sirius and Remus, who loved the Potters dearly, want that protection? One might suggest that they were all simply out to prove they were smarter and wiser - or that the Potters wanted to prove to Sirius and their friends how much they were trusted. If one has little respect for the intelligence, inherent logic and maturity of James, Sirius, and Remus those might serve as satisfactory answers, but imo, James and Lily would not risk their family and newborn for such poor reasons.

Thus one is left with the conclusion that something about Dumbledore made them feel that despite his outstanding abilities, they would be better off with Sirius or one of their friends as the secret keeper. I feel they trusted their friends more - but why? That is the question, and I think Dumbledore's character helps to provide us with the answer. The Potters and their friends had worked closely with Dumbledore while in the Order, they knew how Dumbledore worked, and were privy to his greater good outlook, imo.

Originally posted by zgirnius
You write as though you know James Potter would have obeyed an order regarding this matter. From what we have seen and been told about his personality, I very much doubt it. The Order is not a military organization with members who recognize a duty to obey all of the orders of their superiors. It's a group of people with common ideals working against a common enemy with a far looser structure.

We are told in PoA that Dumbledore offered to be the Secret Keeper for the Potters himself. (Minerva says it in PoA, "The Marauders' Map"). He was turned down in favor of Sirius Black (really Peter Pettigrew). Right there, we see evidence that the Potters did not consider it their duty to do whatever Dumbeldore said.

At the end of PoA, Sirius accuses Peter of having spied on the Order for a year. I put these things together and come up with:

About a year before the Potters died, Dumbledore confided his belief that there was a spy in the Order to several people, among then Minerva McGonagall and Sirius Black. Given that the matter concerned the Potters closely, and how close Sirius was to them, I deduce the Potters also knew. But they chose the option of Peter, with the twist that everyone would think it was Sirius. We even have a reason why they would have, provided for us by (ironically) Remus Lupin in DH - James Potter would have considered it dishonorable to distrust a friend.

It seems to me that DD did all he could for them, and their own choices limited how much he could do.

I would imagine that Peter was either unmarked, or had some way to hide the mark when it was necessary. Voldemort can think of this elementary precaution as well as you can. (If it was this easy, surely the Ministry would have done this in rounding up Death Eaters. They surely have less scruples considering the rights of individuals). A simple oath would not help, as Peter would certainly have been willing to lie. I suppose you probably meant an Unbreakable Vow?

In a war, or in any other human enterprise, leaving everything to the dignity and honesty of the people one works with is the only way to lead (IMO). Making everyone do exactly what you want under threat is not leadership, it is tyranny. I have no experience of the military side of things, but I am quite convinced of this based on my experience in the business world. (And it seems a commonly held view out there - though I find "business books" deadly dull, I have picked up one or two to have an idea what my bosses are reading. Books on leadership I have read aren't about strategies of imposing top-down control, they are about inspiring the team with a common goal and facilitating the work of team members towards that goal.)

This discussion seems to have arisen out of your dissatisfaction with Dumbledore's handling of Snape, but it seems to me that Snape is the poster boy for why this works. Snape, a Death Eater, came to Dumbledore with his story, and Dumbledore accepted his services as a spy based on nothing but Snape's bare word that he would do "Anything" Dumbeldore asked in exchange for protection for the Potters. I don't doubt Dumbledore took some precautions against the possibility that Snape proved unreliable in the early days. That is only prudent. But he did not (as some theorists had proposed pre-DH) demand an Unbreakable Vow of service. What he got in return, was someone he could (and did) trust with his life, his death, and his greatest secret, and someone who never failed to merit that trust.

While the credit must go to Snape himself for his courage and steadfast loyalty, I don't think just anyone could have inspired them. It is also a testament to Dumbledore's leadership skills.

"But you think you're right?" asked Harry.

"Naturally I do, but as I have already proven to you, I make mistakes like the next man. In fact, being - forgive me - rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger."

The HBP - The House of Gaunt

Albus Dumbledore was a brilliant and an extremely gifted man. While he was almost always right, he did make mistakes and like he said, his mistakes were correspondingly huger and cost very heavily.

DD was just a teenager when he first met and fell in love with GG. Both the boys took to each other at once, BB says, and DD was not at all averse to ruling the muugles, he had not much affection for them at the time.

It was because of the muggles, his sister was unstable and his father was in Azkaban and DD, after the death of his mother, the unwilling Head of the family.

He made the mistake of falling in line with the wishes of GG, knowing in his heart of hearts that GG was most likely the next Dark Lord -- DD did close his eyes to the major flaws of the other boy. Maybe it was love, maybe it was to rule the muggles or most likely as I see it, it was to meet and interact with an equal. That IMO blinded DD to all GG's faults and that mistake cost DD his sister, placed an enormous guilt upon him that he could not come to terms with even after a century and an estrangement with the only surviving member of the family, who was resentful of him, even after his death.

After the defeat of GG, DD rises as one of the better and certainly the most powerful wizard in the WW.

Then came Voldemort who would take the WW to new heights of terror. DD started the Order of the Phoenix to fight to the death in most cases, against the death eaters.

In 1979 the HP Lexicon says Peter started spying for Voldemort and started passing sensitive information to his master.

Now DD knows of a spy and it is confirmed by Snape later. He still allows for the meetings of the Order to go on as usual putting the onus on the dignity and honesty of the members themselves. While he never divulges the prophecy and I am sure he must have kept so much information to himself, there was still so much damage a spy within the ranks of the Order could do.

In the OOTP Moody shows Harry a photograph of the Order after telling Molly how the death eaters picked them off one by one. Did the spy, in this case Peter,give information about the members schdules that made them sitting ducks?

The Potters, Sirius in Azkaban for 13 years, Marlene McKinnon, Benjy Fenwick, Edgar Bones, Caradoc Dearborn, the Longbottoms, the Prewetts, so many of them died then. Moody says most of them were killed after the photo was taken, and in the photo Peter is sitting in between James and Lily Potter.

While James Potter would want to show the world he trusted Sirius and he is not wrong in that everything would have been fine had the spy was found out. Since he was not, DD should have insisted instead of offering to be secret keeper telling James the importance of he, DD being the secret keeper.

Instead he allowed an evil to exist knowingly in the Order. That is a mistake for which you tend to pay dearly and that was what the Order in my opinion did. Paid very dearly for it.

This is why I respectfully disagree with you about DD allowing the spy to exist without doing a thing to flush him or her out. To leave everything to the honesty and dignity of the people one works with is fine, so long as the said people in your knowledge are both dignified and honourable. The spy was neither and that meant you had a responsibility to remove him before he shattered the dignity and honour of the others. And that is what happened when both Sirius and Remus were suspected as spies while Peter got away. That was a huge mistake IMO.

There was so much damamge caused and IMO great power means greater responsibility and it was DD's job as the leader of the Order, a leader whose word carried so much weight, to ensure the safety of the Order.

Peter, I think he was marked then because we don't see any mention of a marking for him in the GOF and Voldemort uses his mark to call the others in the graveyard.

Had DD used some method of flushing out the spy I am sure some of these lives at the very least would have been saved and as the leader it is his responsibility to make sure those who are already fighting a deadly war outside are not betrayed inside too.

The mistakes continued IMO even after Harry came to Hogwarts and his inability to see through the false Moody indirectly led to the death of Cedrtic and the ressurrection of Voldemort.

In Harry's fifth year, DD did not give Harry a way to contact him in case of an emergency especially when McGonagall was injured. DD knew Harry and Snape had a bad history. While it is true Harry did shout to Snape about Sirius's apparent capture in the DoM, it would have been so much better had Harry a way to contact him if things went wrong, especially since Harry had been having visions off and on IMO another mistake that led to Harry going to the DoM and Sirius falling into the veil.

That was why I had written in an earlier post that in my opinion that it would have been nice had DD found someone who was his equal; he has no one to talk to and discuss with and while he does get it right most times, the times he does not are big bad ones IMO.

I like DD, I even respect him, but I do not agree with his idea of sacrificing the one for the many without the consent of the one to be sacrificed.

Snape was killed unneccessarily because Voldemort thought he had the Elder wand; DD did not think it prudent to explain...

The seven Potters, Moody was killed tragically; so much could have been avoided...IMO...

I did not understand your last paragraph. What is the meaning for Snape is the poster boy for why this works? Sorry, but did not get the meaning...

I would have to agree with you Green. I too feel that Dumbledore should have offered full disclosure of any material fact he was a aware of that would or could possibly affect any person he was giving/suggesting orders to. It is not a simple question of those working with him having a choice, but rather an informed choice, imo. Dumbledore's partial disclosure resulted in unfairness to those who were faced with options he presented, or caused to be presented to them, imo.

wicked, in general principle I would agree with you - but in the case of Harry, full information would have further jeapordized his life which would have partially defeated the purpose of all the intricate plans to begin wiht.

Originally posted by Rell
but in the case of Harry, full information would have further jeapordized his life which would have partially defeated the purpose of all the intricate plans to begin wiht.

Harry IMO need not be told everything -- a simple way to get in touch with other Order members when in trouble would have been a great start --

The full prophecy IMO need not have been told to Harry in his fifth year because Voldemort was actively using and manipulating the link; but DD could have told Harry about the existence of a prophecy and how Voldemort was desperate to get it and he would use any methods to get it and Harry should learn Occlumency to know the contents of the said prophecy --

Permission to share the knowledge about the horcruxes to certain Order members who can be trusted NEVER to betray --

After all if Ron and Hermione who do NOT know Occlumency can be trusted with the full Prophecy and the knowledge of the horcruxes with the belief that they will not betray even if captured by Voldemort -- why cannot Moody, Lupin, Arthur Weasley, Tonks, Shaklebolt, McGonagall and Snape?

Knowledge of all this shared by the above members would have only helped Harry and not hindered him, I felt...

We never see Dumbledore give an order, do we? I don't see where this idea comes from that he did, and people obeyed him.
The phrase "Dumbledore's orders" sounds very familiar. I'm sure it occurs several times in the books.As everyone in the order following Dumbledore respected and trusted him greatly, they probably followed most of his advise. Therefore, giving orders would not have been a smart thing to do because it might have made people resent doing something (no one likes to be ordered around) that they would have done willingly out of respect for Dumbledore otherwise.
This was a war. Everyone in the Order was risking their life and in this situation you agree to follow orders for the good of the whole group. I really don't believe there was any question of choosing whether or not to do what Dumbledore wanted. Every member had, by joining up, agreed to follow Dumbledore as their undisputed leader. And he was most definitely respected by all of them, IMO.

I don't think Dumbledore was a sergeant major type, shouting orders and keeping tight discipline. That wasn't his nature. But the seriousness of the situation and the respect Dumbledore commanded, would make everyone follow his orders anyway.

But Dumbledore did not order Harry to go to his death. That would have been too much. Instead he told Harry (via Snape) what had to be done, and trusted Harry to follow through.

I don't think Dumbledore was a sergeant major type, shouting orders and keeping tight discipline. That wasn't his nature. But the seriousness of the situation and the respect Dumbledore commanded, would make everyone follow his orders anyway. But Dumbledore did not order Harry to go to his death. That would have been too much. Instead he told Harry (via Snape) what had to be done, and trusted Harry to follow through. I think you're agreeing with me. I'm trying to say that Dumbledore didn't give orders because it was not necessary - they all joined up because they trusted and respected Dumbledore enough to tell them to do the right thing (and we see their level of trust when they all trusted snape, the former Death Eater, on Dumbledore's word alone)

Originally posted by Rell
I think you're agreeing with me. I'm trying to say that Dumbledore didn't give orders because it was not necessary - they all joined up because they trusted and respected Dumbledore enough to tell them to do the right thing (and we see their level of trust when they all trusted snape, the former Death Eater, on Dumbledore's word alone)

Yes, but could a member go against DD, have opinions that were not in line with what he said and would DD really listen?

In the books we don't see it happening. DD is not sergeant major type in the sense he never barked orders but he did really, really expect everyone to do only as he said. IMO

You could not do a thing DD had told you not to do, even though you thought it was the right thing to do and I also do not think he would have explained why you could not do it-- you just had to trust him and that was that IMO -- he never cares to explain to Snape's accusation of why Harry could be told certain things and not he in the DH in the Prince's Tale where Snape wants to know what Harry has been doing in those special lessons.

DD does not tell him and nor does he give a valid explanation IMO.

Instead he says he will not put all his eggs into a basket that is dangling very close to Voldy or some such thing I forget...

That is a laugh IMO seeing just how much was riding on Snape ALL the time...

I think you're agreeing with me. I'm trying to say that Dumbledore didn't give orders because it was not necessary - they all joined up because they trusted and respected Dumbledore enough to tell them to do the right thing (and we see their level of trust when they all trusted snape, the former Death Eater, on Dumbledore's word alone)
I think perhaps we have a different view on the definition of "orders". Dumbledore was in charge and everyone did what he said even when they weren't quite sure about it, for example, McGonagall trusting Snape purely because Dumbledore told her to - in other words they followed his orders.

I think perhaps we have a different view on the definition of "orders". Dumbledore was in charge and everyone did what he said even when they weren't quite sure about it, for example, McGonagall trusting Snape purely because Dumbledore told her to - in other words they followed his orders.Ok, that makes sense then :)
I wonder how Dumbledore's offer to secret keeper went - obviously James refused his help, so I wonder if he had before ignored Dumbledore's directions and if he was different than others in this.

I can't really remember but does Dumbledore actually kill Grindelwald or just defeat him? That would be extremely hard for him to have to kill Grindelwald considering his feelings for him. Aw, sad :( I wonder if Grindelwald liked him back - if not, maybe for the best considering it would be strange for Dumbledore to end up with such an evil character.

I can't really remember but does Dumbledore actually kill Grindelwald or just defeat him? That would be extremely hard for him to have to kill Grindelwald considering his feelings for him. Aw, sad :( I wonder if Grindelwald liked him back - if not, maybe for the best considering it would be strange for Dumbledore to end up with such an evil character.

Dumbledore defeats him. Voldemort evidently killed Grindelwald at (Nuremberg??) the prison that Grindelwald built to imprison his enemies. We see that through Harry's connection to Voldemort (the scar) in Deathly Hallows. Grindelwald was imprisoned there and Dumbledore said he may have shown remorse in his later years (if I remember correctly).

Oh, well, I'm glad he didn't have to be responsible for Grindelwald's death then. Dumbledore doesn't seem like the type to have a to the death duel (although Grindelwald might). Looking upthread, someone said it was an unrequited love. Too bad.

Anyway, I am rereading the seventh book and it looks like Rita Skeeter may have picked up on Dumbledore's sexuality.

Anyway, even though JKR never revealed Dumbledore's sexuality to the readers, are we sure Dumbledore really kept it a secret? Harry didn't know, but I bet some of the other characters who knew Dumbledore better were aware of it. The story is from Harry's POV remember, so we only know what he does. Harry probably never considered it!

I wonder if Elphias Doge knew, for one. I think he may have had a crush on Albus (at the least).

We don't know if Dumbledore kept it secret. Dumbledore may simply have been the type to not volunteer information unless asked (and sometimes not even then...). Since Harry wasn't in the business of asking Dumbledore many questions (something he regretted later, though I admit the context doesn't quite apply to the topic of Dumbledore's sexuality), Harry simply never asked. And since we see the story through Harry, it meant we had less chances to find out about it.

I personally don't think him being gay or straight impacted how he ran the school. His temptation to the "dark arts" certainly did, but it would have been the exact same result if Grindelwald was female. He still would not have trusted himself with the Minister of Magic post.

We don't know if Dumbledore kept it secret. Dumbledore may simply have been the type to not volunteer information unless asked (and sometimes not even then...). Since Harry wasn't in the business of asking Dumbledore many questions (something he regretted later, though I admit the context doesn't quite apply to the topic of Dumbledore's sexuality), Harry simply never asked. And since we see the story through Harry, it meant we had less chances to find out about it.

I personally don't think him being gay or straight impacted how he ran the school. His temptation to the "dark arts" certainly did, but it would have been the exact same result if Grindelwald was female. He still would not have trusted himself with the Minister of Magic post.

I agree; I don't feel it impacts the story or plot in the least except in a very tangential way. I like to think that Dumbledore's sexual orientation wasn't a secret at all, but rather that unlike the muggle world, the wizard world did not attach the same stigma to homosexuality. Thus Dumbledore and all others who were gay, were openly so, and it was simply not remarked upon because it didn't matter to anyone. Harry didn't remark upon professorial relationships - or any relationships unless they came into eyes view and/or were particular friends of his. So I think it is a possibility. :) Too, Dumbledore was over 100 years old and I would imagine that he'd had several relationships over the years - but like many professors, he would be discrete around the students independent of his sexual orientation. So even if they knew, there would be no opportunity to remark on any public display of affection.

I haven't posted on this thread yet so.. . here's my two or three cents.

Dumbledore has always been one of my favorite characters. I like his humor, patience and wisdom of course. If anything he was a bit too saintly in the beginning which made him feel unrealistic but it was it worked for the series because it began the POV of a younger kid. Children place their mentors on a pedestal. Then as Harry grew and the series progressed we got to see more dimensions, we saw him angry, we saw him battle, and we saw that he can be very -very- secretive.

Kids in general don't think about their mentors, their parents, or teachers in any perspective outside their own interaction. So it made sense that Harry had never questioned Dumbledore's past life- in any context- until he was a teenager coming to age and beginning to see things from an adult perspective.

I am little irritated by the people who seemed to think JKR pulled this out of thin air and placed it on the text after the fact . There are allusions in text that as she said- people can pick up if they're looking for it. I did pick it up the first time I read Deathly Hallows but I didn't dwell on it because it was just another way of reading into character. For me it fell right in line with everything else neither good nor bad, but human.

I am inspired by the more positive responses but the argument that she "just made Dumbledore gay" for any reason other than adding depth to her character is ridiculous. There were enough allusions in the text to look back on and it was all pretty well done IMO, and realistic treatment of a man who was a very powerful wizard and who had some powerful enemies and chose to keep most of his younger life under wraps for many personal reasons.

I would like to think he was able to express his affection for someone other than Grendlewald and maybe had some dates with Elphias Dodge in between wars. :)

I don't care if he's gay or not. Frankly I think it's freak'n awesome. Dumbledore was and still is my very favorite character. You have to love a man who opens a feast with Nitwit Oddment Blubber Tweak!

There were a couple things I thought didn't fit in, before reading book 7.

One was the line in the movie where Dumbledore talks about "eternal glory." I initially didn't like it. Now we know that achievement and glory were very much on his mind as a youth. I would say that he pushed for the Triwizard Tournament as a way of recapturing his youth. At the time it was supposedly done to promote unity among the Wizarding world. I took that to mean that an international effort would fight Voldemort, but nothing much happened after Hagrid returned from the Giants. Fleur eventually named her daughter after Viktor, so I went back to see how much time there was between the end of term and her joining Gringotts, (in case they had a tour of the world) and it wasn't long. Fleur pursued Bill, just days after leaving school!

I now suspect that Dumbledore didn't want an age line, and wanted Harry to have the opportunity to meet his peers of talent and accomplishment from other schools, like he did with Grindelwald. I sometimes imagine how the story would go if Harry had been in Slytherin. I imagine an older Slytherin might have Harry's name in the Goblet at his request. Would Dumbledore have been angry if Harry had said he'd done it? After 7, I don't think so.

The other thing I'd wondered about was Dumbledore's stand-off nature as headmaster. I thought it odd that people said Harry was his favorite since he barely interacted with him. Since he didn't leave mementos to other students, that meant he'd had about as much contact with others as with the ones we saw.

The third thing I'd thought before 7, was that Dumbledore avoided becoming Minister out of disdain for the lying involved in politics. I guess it was really fear of abusing power. There's a saying: "those who seek power are corruptible". When Sirius is about to be given to the dementors he says he doesn't have the power to convince other people the truth. I thought that meant he just didn't have the charisma and influence his reputation would seem to indicate. Contrasting with Voldemort (Riddle) who was always VERY persuasive.

As for his gaeity, I haven't really processed it yet. I thought it was a mistake, like the talk about how Gandalf was gay (i.e. the actor). But I think it figures more in with gays in our world versus the Wizard-World thread than his character specifically, so I'll post there.

At the time it was supposedly done to promote unity among the Wizarding world. I took that to mean that an international effort would fight Voldemort, but nothing much happened after Hagrid returned from the Giants.
When Dumbledore was out to organise the Triwizard Tournament, I don't think he saw it as anything more than the wizarding equivalent of a school exchange programme, and I understood it to be exactly that- more an opportunity to socialise and get to know people from other wizarding schools than a strategic effort (if it was that at all).
Voldemort never really moved out into the open at all, so I doubt any formal attempt to fight him would have worked- and the main resistance to his influence came from the Order of the Phoenix, which was an underground organisation headed by Dumbledore- and Dumbledore did have Charlie working on getting foreign wizards into the fight. It's just that it never went to the level where foreign wizarding governments had to get involved.


Fleur eventually named her daughter after Viktor
I didn't see any canon suggesting that: somehow I never got the impression they were that close (inviting him to her wedding doesn't count for much, IMO- there were LOTS of people there).

Fleur eventually named her daughter after Viktor
I didn't notice this before. I just assumed it was the French version of Victoria.

Does the revelation of his homosexuality ultimately affect his character? What actions, if any, do you see differently now?

First of all I'm very upset that people seem to be taking this harder than they should. We all knew Dumbledore had to love someone in his life because he showed himself to be a very loving person to all he knew already. Secondly I'm one of those people who think that, you shouldn't have to help who you fall in love with because love is more instinct than a thought. Also to answer the first question I do not think for one moment him being gay changes anything about the person he was, which was the greatest wizard that ever lived. The only problem I had is that it was Grindelwald he falls in love with and not just some nameless wizard. I didn't really see that in the book but rather just Dumbledore making a new best friend who was as smart as him. But since it is him, I think JKR should have mentioned that before this only because Grindelwald was the greatest threat to the wizarding and muggle world way before Voldemort and to graze over this fact was slightly irritating. I like others have already said can understand why he waited so long to go after Grindelwald in order to stop him, not only was he in love with him but he was still unsure which one of them killed his dear sister. Also this really makes him complete trust in Snape when not another soul would trust him make much much more sense. Who could understand the things we do in the name of love better than Dumbledore someone who after a point did everything he did to redeem himself for the wrongs he did in his loved ones lives.

i personally love Dumbledore he is like one of my favirote charactor i love dumbledore!!!

I didn't notice this before. I just assumed it was the French version of Victoria.

Could be something in that - although I didn't really notice any real attachment between the two of them. The names are fairly common in their respective countries, so I would be more inclined to find it a coincidence. Fleur appeared to be quite taken with Bill, I would imagine any old flames were quite stricken from her mind.

But back to um..Dumbledore, lol. I think that knowing all he knew, it was a little bit unwise to have the tri-wizard tournament. I think he perhaps should have halted it mid-stride when he was certain Voldemort had returned. However, Dumbedore made a number of decisions that ended up being mistakes - as he readily admitted. Imo, this was just another. On the other hand, he may not have been able to stop the tournament without some type of consequence. I don't recall anyone indicating that, but it could be that once it is started, it cannot be stopped.

Voldemort never really moved out into the open at all, so I doubt any formal attempt to fight him would have worked.

I agree. I think that after a year of Ministry denials, Dumbledore knew that Voldemort would achieve his stated objective of seizing power so concentrated on tracking down sites for the Horcruxes.

Could be something in that - although I didn't really notice any real attachment between the two of them.

I think that knowing all he knew, it was a little bit unwise to have the tri-wizard tournament. I think he perhaps should have halted it mid-stride when he was certain Voldemort had returned.

I might comment more about Fleur in her character analysis.

I think it evident that the silver instruments helped track down Voldemort and what he was up to. However, I don't think Dumbledore knew for certain that he was back in the country, until Harry returned from the graveyard. Voldemort might have been covering his tracks and moving about so he couldn't be zeroed-in on. We don't know how magical tracking works, but I suspect moving every other day, kept Harry and co. safe, while being holed-up may have been Karkaroff's and Ted Tonk's downfall. The enemy knew there was somebody with the Order on Grimmauld Place (partly because they used the name).

Had the Ministry gone on a war-footing immediately, then there might have been a chance for Voldemort to be thwarted in his attempt to sieze power. For instance the prisoners of Azkaban might have been moved to a more secure location, or held with greater magical protection. Although if You-Know-Who could break into Nurmengard.... I kept thinking the unity of magical creatures and international cooperation would be key for #7. The greatest shock in the book was the imminent takeover of the Wizarding World.

1. What are your general thoughts on Dumbledore as a character through books 1-7? Do you see a difference in his behavior and/or actions between the books?
Throughout the books, Dumbledore was always a solid rock Harry could rely on to help him in times of need, whether he helped directly or indirectly. I've always respected Dumbledore and he remains on of my favorite characters. In DH we really got to see the whole story regarding Dumbledore's past. We got to know all of him rather than just some. And he seems a lot more realistic and human. Regarding differences in Dumbledore's behavior, he gradually appears less and less infallible, until OotP where he makes a major mistake and admits it. Then in HBP, Dumbledore's behavior seems the most different, likely owing to the fact that he knew he was dying and didn't have much time left.

2. Throughout the books, Dumbledore seems to always be teaching Harry something, but his lessons are sometimes hidden and subtle. What do you believe are the most important lessons Dumbledore taught Harry? Did Dumbledore adequately prepare Harry for the trials that lie ahead in book 7? Is there anything you think Dumbledore should have told Harry before he died?
I think there are a few: Always stick by and trust your friends
You don't have to work alone - allow others to help in times of need
Be tolerant of others; give them a second chance
Don't underestimate love
You know more than you think you do
I do think Harry was adequately prepared for the trials in DH: Dumbledore taught Harry about Voldemort's past to help him understand Voldemort better. He also taught Harry the lessons above, and even reached out beyond the grave (by giving Harry the snitch and giving Ron and Hermione gifts).

3. What did you think of the revelations of DH regarding Dumbledore's family? How did these tragedies effect the person he is now?
Very surprising - I didn't expect the complecated history of the character. But these tragedies really affected Dumbledore's character, I think, as far as his personality and decisions went. They made him more human and a more complex and richer character than before.

4. Why do you think Dumbledore and Grindelwald were friends? How did Dumbledore's homosexuality affect his susceptibility to Grindelwald's ideas?
Dumbledore and Grindelwald were likely friends because they had the same interests and were both geniuses at magic. And I suspect Dumbledore may have fallen in love with Grindelwald, though I don't know if he either knew it or loved Dumbledore back. I have a feeling Dumbledore only believed in wizard superiority insofar as wizards knew was was best for muggles - benevolent protectors, if you will. I don't think he ever bought into the whole purity of blood idea. Also, as the possible victim of prejudice due to his homosexuality, Dumbledore may have wanted to participate in a cause that would put himself in a position of power to escape that prejudice. In this way he may have been more tempted by Grindelwald's ideas, and even more so if he had fallen in love with Grindelwald.

5. Was Dumbledore right to keep so many secrets from so many people? Was this secrecy because of his sister? Because of his own homosexuality?
If you had a childhood like Dumbledore's with many shady events happening, I don't think you'd tell many people about it. I think he was entitled to keep secret the elements of his past that he wished to keep secret, especially since it seemed to me he regretted a lot of the things he did back then. In addition to his childhood and his sister, his homosexuality likely also had something to do with his secretiveness. Just like Remus Lupin, if you have a stigma that when revealed affects the way others view you, you are likely to be secretive by nature.

6. What do you think of Dumbledore's recognition of his own failings? His decision not to enter the Ministry?
I think it shows that he is able to see his shortcomings and thus his humanity. It shows that he wasn't in denial about wanting power and wanting the Deathly Hallows. His decision not to enter the Ministry showed that he was trying to stay away from the things that brought the worst out in him - ie, he was trying to stay away from a position of power.

7. Do you think Dumbledore expected too much from Harry? Did he do the right thing? Was it fair to ask Harry to sacrifice himself?
When I first read that part of the book, I did think he was asking Harry way too much, and that it wasn't fair. I still don't think it's fair, but I do think that Dumbledore asked Harry to do the things he did because he knew that in the end, Harry would have the heart and the ability to do them. He did expect an awful lot, but in the end I think he did the right thing. After all, the right way isn't always the easiest way.

8. Does the revelation of his homosexuality ultimately affect his character? What actions, if any, do you see differently now?
For me, I don't think his homosexuality had any ultimate affect of his character on-page. It might help to explain his motives perhaps, but for me it just really came out of nowhere. I'm not saying I'm displeased with the revelation, on the contrary. But I don't really see any evidence of his homosexual nature on-page. Though I suppose it might fit with his quirky nature.

I didn't notice this before. I just assumed it was the French version of Victoria.

It is literally the French word for "Victory" (La victoire). An appropriate name for a child born not long after the Battle of Hogwarts, as her interest in Teddy suggests.

I think there are a few: Always stick by and trust your friends
You don't have to work alone - allow others to help in times of need
Be tolerant of others; give them a second chance
Don't underestimate love
You know more than you think you do


Item one Dumbledore himself failed to grasp fully. ;)

8. Does the revelation of his homosexuality ultimately affect his character? What actions, if any, do you see differently now?


May help explain why did he hire Lockhart..... People who were attracted to him seemed unable to see who he really was.

8. Does the revelation of his homosexuality ultimately affect his character? What actions, if any, do you see differently now?


May help explain why did he hire Lockhart..... People who were attracted to him seemed unable to see who he really was.


I hadn't thought of that. But I don't think Dumbledore was fooled about Lockhart - I think it was just pretty much impossible to get good DADA teachers for a job everyone "knew" was cursed.

DD would have never looked in any kind of affection or attraction to Lockhart because he was no where near DD's mind level or his equal in any way.

That was the problem for DD. He had no rquals whom he could trust. Only others all of them who looked up to him and expected miraculous solutions from him.

That was the problem for DD. He had no rquals whom he could trust. Only others all of them who looked up to him and expected miraculous solutions from him.

He must have been very lonely.

DD would have never looked in any kind of affection or attraction to Lockhart because he was no where near DD's mind level or his equal in any way.

That was the problem for DD. He had no rquals whom he could trust. Only others all of them who looked up to him and expected miraculous solutions from him.


I agree.

I just tougth that maybe for a moment Dumbledore wanted to believe in Lockhart because that would make him not as intelligent as Dumbledore but a great wizard nonetheless.


I just don't get why would he be hired in any other case. He wasn't only a bad teacher,he was dangerous to students, if I remember correctly he tryed to erase Ron's memory somewhere near the end o the book.

He must have been very lonely.
It's amazing to me how much Dumbledore advocated for love when he spent most of his life without even a real friend.

I think it's likely he had a dog. It would explain his faith in the power of love.

I think it's likely he had a dog. It would explain his faith in the power of love.
I think the fact that Dumbledore did not design Hogwarts rules to allow student to bring dogs to school (when they are explicitely told that they are allowed to bring cats) speaks against this.

:rolleyes: Dumbledore as a dog lover would know that dogs need to run outside and can't stay inside like cats.

On a slightly different topic, does anyone besides me think it's possible that he was romantically involved with Doge later in life? Obviously Doge wouldn't be the mental equal that Grindelwald was but it struck me in DH that Doge was treated almost like the widow by the wizarding world. And I like the idea of Dumbledore finding happiness later in life with Doge (and a dog)

On a slightly different topic, does anyone besides me think it's possible that he was romantically involved with Doge later in life? Obviously Doge wouldn't be the mental equal that Grindelwald was but it struck me in DH that Doge was treated almost like the widow by the wizarding world. And I like the idea of Dumbledore finding happiness later in life with Doge (and a dog)

In my opinion, I see their relationship as just friends. Although, I think Doge was in love with Dumbledore and not just because of his greatness and brain power but because he admired him (I can see Doge as a Homosexual). But I think Dumbledore, after what happened with Gellert, didn't wanted another broken heart. Maybe DD fancied Elphias but when Gellert appeared, Doge was thrown out of the picture. But as their "relationship" ended so dramatically, I think he become afraid of commitment, of full trustiness.

I think the fact that Dumbledore did not design Hogwarts rules to allow student to bring dogs to school (when they are explicitely told that they are allowed to bring cats) speaks against this.

Well, he didn't make a case against Ron bringing his old rat to school, even though that wasn't on the list. We can assume that Remus told him after the Shack scene that Ron's rat was an Animagus.

Maybe he had his housekeepe take care of the dog during the week, then he went home on weekends and visited it, telling it all about his latest visit into a room full of chamber pots and who knows what else that he gets up to at school. :)

I think it's likely he had a dog. It would explain his faith in the power of love.
He had a phoenix - they are better than dogs, and you don't have to take them for long walks when it's raining!

I didn't read the article, but I think it is assuming too much to say that Dumbledore's main role should be as a model to the gay community. His biological predisposition should not have a bearing on whether or not he is a good role model. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to think that he was ashamed of his sexuality merely because he didn't shout it from the top of the towers. To say that is to assume that, if asked about it, he would deny being gay. That is not the case. The article, from how you tell it, seems to assume that Dumbledore was hiding in the closet, which is a debatable issue that I think was already sufficiently covered in this thread, so I won't go into that again.

I wasn't implying that DD should be a role model to the gay community, I was only saying that he wasn't a good one.

Now, don't get me wrong, I didn't mean I wanted Dumbledore to tell everyone he met "Hi my name's Albus, and I'm gay," what I meant was,

Dumbledore was obviously a very famous person. He appeared in the newspapers quite a bit, he was a bit of a wizard celebrity. If Dumbledore had ever looked for a companion it would have gotten out. He obviously didn't, because no one seemed to know about him being gay. The fact that he never tried to look for love,throughout his entire 100+ years implies to me that he was ashamed of his sexuality. Dumbledore didn't seem to me as one to shun love, even if he was heartbroken by his fist "crush".

Dumbledore was obviously a very famous person. He appeared in the newspapers quite a bit, he was a bit of a wizard celebrity. If Dumbledore had ever looked for a companion it would have gotten out. He obviously didn't, because no one seemed to know about him being gay. The fact that he never tried to look for love,throughout his entire 100+ years implies to me that he was ashamed of his sexuality. Dumbledore didn't seem to me as one to shun love, even if he was heartbroken by his fist "crush".

According to JKR, Dumbledore was very isolated. I think he was all his life, actually. He couldn't tell anyone the truth about why his father was in Azkaban or what was wrong with his sister. He was an intelligent man all his life, and he fell in love with Grindelwald because - for the first time - he found an equal. Dumbledore probably didn't fall in love because he never found someone that he could see as an equeal as he did with Grindelwald.

According to JKR, Dumbledore was very isolated. I think he was all his life, actually. He couldn't tell anyone the truth about why his father was in Azkaban or what was wrong with his sister. He was an intelligent man all his life, and he fell in love with Grindelwald because - for the first time - he found an equal. Dumbledore probably didn't fall in love because he never found someone that he could see as an equeal as he did with Grindelwald.

At a young age Dumbledore was isolated, but when he was older he obviously became very famous. As I've said, he was very well known, large numbers of people wanted him to be minster, the Ministry would ask him for advice, all this points to the fact that he was still a prominent public figure. He kept quiet about things from his childhood past, but that would be easy to keep secret because the episode with Grindelwald happened before Dumbledore gained the fame he had today.

Now, I can see the argument with Dumbledore not falling in love because he never found an equal, but it seems that he didn't even try to look, which doesn't seem to fit the character to me.

Also, I'm going to guess that gay people get the same prejudice in the wizarding world as the muggle world, and Dumbledore would have struck me as one to speak out for gay rights as he did for Muggle rights, because he was never one to stand by and let people be mistreated.

Now, don't get me wrong, I didn't mean I wanted Dumbledore to tell everyone he met "Hi my name's Albus, and I'm gay," what I meant was,

:rotfl: I can see how that might be ineffective.

Now, I can see the argument with Dumbledore not falling in love because he never found an equal, but it seems that he didn't even try to look, which doesn't seem to fit the character to me.

Also, I'm going to guess that gay people get the same prejudice in the wizarding world as the muggle world, and Dumbledore would have struck me as one to speak out for gay rights as he did for Muggle rights, because he was never one to stand by and let people be mistreated.

I think it's understandable that he didn't even try to look because I expect he would know of an equal or almost-equal in his age group. I wouldn't expect him to go for, say, Riddle, as the age gap is way too big.

I completely agree that he seems to be the type who would speak out about gay rights as well if it were an issue in the wizarding world.

Finding out Jo had Dumbledore as a gay character doesn't change the character for me in the least and actually I know Jo says it was Grindlewald who DD was in love with and I can see that but upon reading DH I felt Elphias Doge and DD had been a couple while at Hogwarts. Or maybe Doge just had a huge crush on DD and that was what I was seeing. Cause when Doge spoke of DD it felt to me as if he was talking about a life partner not simply a best friend.

That's the first thing that came to my mind. Doge probably had a crush on Dumbledore.

The only thing I can say is...wow. I'm just...shocked. Dumbledore gay? It never crossed my mind, really. It was a complete surprise. It's like after 7 books, there's still so much about the characters that was never mentioned.

According to JKR, Dumbledore was very isolated. I think he was all his life, actually. He couldn't tell anyone the truth about why his father was in Azkaban or what was wrong with his sister. He was an intelligent man all his life, and he fell in love with Grindelwald because - for the first time - he found an equal. Dumbledore probably didn't fall in love because he never found someone that he could see as an equeal as he did with Grindelwald.

I respect your opinion, but he was over 100 years old. It seems like he would have had some social interaction between the time he was 17 and 100. I don't think that he would necessarily have to find someone who was his equal; just someone whose company he enjoyed perhaps.

I think that one of Dumbledore's defining characteristics was his friendliness - even in the most daunting company. He was very cordial to Voldemort when he came to apply for a job, even though he fully understood what Tom was up to. I would imagine that Dumbledore flourished in Wizard social circles, but it was just off page. He seemed to know everyone and more, know about them. While he had spies over the years in various locations, I would imagine that he verified the information about others for himself, getting to know the people and understanding them. Otherwise, I don't see how he could have a good understanding of human nature - and he seemed to (including many DEs - many of which had been at Hogwarts - but he knew their adult natures as well). That was not just with human wizards, but with Giants, Centaurs, and many other non-human wizards.

I think at times he mis-judged people and situations, but he was on the whole fairly accurate, imo. I was considering whether or not he had spies in Slytherin House during Harry's 5th and 6th years. There were times when stray Slytherins seemed to be hanging about for no apparent reason - at least, unexplained in canon. I recall Flint and Zabini off hand, in strange locales and suspected of being up to no good by Harry, and yet they didn't seem to be doing more than 'hanging around'. As far as I know, Flint's family was not into the DE deal and Blaise's mother, as well as Blaise himself were not DEs (all though all of them were blood purists). I thought perhaps they would have served to apprise Dumbledore of what was going on in that house - because I believe a lot of information got thrown around in there between the students (about their DE parents for those who were with Voldemort; budding DEs and things like Draco's attempts at killing Dumbledore).

I just figured out as of right now that people actually replied to my post. :whistle: Sorry for the late reply!

Now, I can see the argument with Dumbledore not falling in love because he never found an equal, but it seems that he didn't even try to look, which doesn't seem to fit the character to me.

Well, it's a matter of interpretation. I don't really know how well known it was that he looked, but I think when Voldemort came into power, he had more things on his mind rather than dating opportunities.

I respect your opinion, but he was over 100 years old. It seems like he would have had some social interaction between the time he was 17 and 100. I don't think that he would necessarily have to find someone who was his equal; just someone whose company he enjoyed perhaps.

I agree, Dumbledore had around 97 years filled with social interaction. Dumbledore's knowledge of human behavior and nature is what adds to the isolation he had.

ES: I know Dumbledore likes to see the good in people but he seems trusting almost to the point of recklessness sometimes.

[Laughter] Yes, I would agree. I would agree.

ES: How can someone so -

JKR: Intelligent -

ES: be so blind with regard to certain things?

JKR: Well, there is information on that to come, in seven. But I would say that I think it has been demonstrated, particularly in books five and six that immense brainpower does not protect you from emotional mistakes and I think Dumbledore really exemplifies that. In fact, I would tend to think that being very, very intelligent might create some problems and it has done for Dumbledore, because his wisdom has isolated him, and I think you can see that in the books, because where is his equal, where is his confidante, where is his partner? He has none of those things. He’s always the one who gives, he’s always the one who has the insight and has the knowledge. So I think that, while I ask the reader to accept that McGonagall is a very worthy second in command, she is not an equal. You have a slightly circuitous answer, but I can't get much closer than that.

Dumbledore's wisdom and intelligence is what isolated him, according to JKR. That is why I think Dumbledore never found anyone he could actually get close with or fall in love with after Grindelwald deserted him. To be honest, there isn't any character that had the same level of intelligence and wisdom as Dumbledore. Grindelwald was very intelligent (thus Dumbledore saw him as an "equal"), but Dumbledore even admitted he was more skilled than him in DH. Voldemort was very clever, but his arrogance and lack of wisdom often got in the way.

Dumbledore's observance of others is what made it hard for him to actually relate to him, IMO. The dark memories ate him from the inside, I think, and he truly despised himself for his mistakes. I always interpret Dumbledore's loneliness to be the cause of his reluctance to talk about his past experiences with others.

Dumbledore experienced several things when Ariana was killed, in my opinion. I think he had great remorse for his role in her death. The thought that he may have been the one to cast the spell that killed her affected him all his life. I think that this is why he was so understanding of Snape's remorse. He knew what a powerful motivator it was.

I think that Dumbledore experienced shame, too, when he realized he was heading down a path that Grindelwald eventually followed. This feeling of shame is what kept him from seeking a position of power. It also helped him to realize that he could never underestimate the lure of the Dark Arts, in my opinion.

Dumbledore lost someone he loved. He maybe he decided to live life as a single man because he was afraid he would be hurt again, as he must have been hurt when Grindelwald left him. Or maybe he was afraid of the influence that one person has over another when they are in a relationship.

posted by SusanBones111
Dumbledore lost someone he loved. He maybe he decided to live life as a single man because he was afraid he would be hurt again, as he must have been hurt when Grindelwald left him. Or maybe he was afraid of the influence that one person has over another when they are in a relationship.

I think Dumbledore never got over Grindelwald. He cries for all that he lost and that I think includes GG as well in King's Cross and hopes GG did feel some remorse. While he may have been in realtionships in his long life, I doubt he loved anyone as he did GG. Somehow I feel he did not fall out of love and deeply regretted that GG would not turn to the good side like he did. And GG is not killed by Dumbeldore, only defeated. Perhaps he could not kil him...

There's a new essay over at LiveJounal, that discusses Albus Dumbledore. One interesting aspect about it is that it speculates that he might have had Asperger's Syndrome, which is where it is "characterized by difficulties in social interaction and by restricted and stereotyped interests and activities." (Wikipedia). They also suggest that he wasn't actually Head of Gryffindor House (or a member of that House at all). Instead, they suggest that he was a member of either Ravenclaw (which is what i personally believe) or Slytherin.

Here's the link:
http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/243418.html#cutid1

There's a new essay over at LiveJounal, that discusses Albus Dumbledore. One interesting aspect about it is that it speculates that he might have had Asperger's Syndrome, which is where it is "characterized by difficulties in social interaction and by restricted and stereotyped interests and activities." (Wikipedia). They also suggest that he wasn't actually Head of Gryffindor House (or a member of that House at all). Instead, they suggest that he was a member of either Ravenclaw (which is what i personally believe) or Slytherin.

Here's the link:
http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/243418.html#cutid1


WOW! What a wonderful link, jammi567!

I have just finished reading the essay and as I wrote there, while I may not agree with a few points, most of the essay was mind blowing. Dumbledore I believe did not have any disease, at least I do not think so for now, but I do believe as I have been saying all along that Dumbledore was willing to sacrifice anyone for the greater good!

He did sacrifice Snape, and without his consent and he sacrificed Moody, George's ear and Hedwig, which was a very wrong thing to do.

I also agreed with one other point in that essay. Why should Harry go back to Privet Drive after all, when he would come back from there in a week's time to the Burrow, when he could have gone to the Burrow right after School.

Also the reasoning behind Dumbledore's thought process that Harry should be in Privet Drive for the protections to hold were not followed once he started Hogwarts.

10 years in a cupboard.

After 1st year - 2 months

After 2nd year - one month and a bit, before Harry was rescued by Ron and the Twins

After 3rd year - One month and a bit before Harry walked out blowing up Marge

After 4th year - Just a few weeks before Harry goes back for the Quidditch World cup

After 5th year - Harry goes to GP after the dementors

6th -year - 2 weeks and Dumbledore takes him away and

7th year - one week!

The protections seem to hold even if Harry would spend as little as two weeks in Privet Drive as he did after 5th year.

That by itself is suspicious and why did not Dumbledore, as he assumed the responsibility of placing Harry with the Dursleys in the first instance, not ckeck up on him in the first 10 years? Why would it be good for Harry not to know he is a wizard and hsi first interaction be only after he came to Hogwarts. Hagrid came because Harry had not sent a letter. Otherwise Hagird would not have come and Harry would have gone to Hogwarts as a muggleborn.

The responsibility of checking up on Harry lay with Dumbledore and I am very afraid, he did not do a good job.

WOW! What a wonderful link, jammi567!
Thankyou. I did quite enjoy it as well. And i did always take Hermione's quote that Dumbledore was "supposed" to have been in Gryffindor with a pinch of salt (once i was old enough, of course). I mean, that's not exactly the stongest of evidence, is it.

The responsibility of checking up on Harry lay with Dumbledore and I am very afraid, he did not do a good job.
Ahhh, but that would have meant that he would have had to have taken personal responsibility, and he simply couldn't be bothered with that (which makes you wonder why he took the job of Deputy Headmaster, and got the positions of Grand Sorc., Chief Warlock, and Supreame Mugwump).

I think Dumbledore didn't check on Harry largely because it was vital to Harry's safety to separate him from the wizarding world so the DEs couldn't find him. The "greater good" again! His priority was to keep Harry alive rather than happy.

posted by horcrux4
I think Dumbledore didn't check on Harry largely because it was vital to Harry's safety to separate him from the wizarding world so the DEs couldn't find him. The "greater good" again! His priority was to keep Harry alive rather than happy.

Well considering the fact Harry was safe even after he stayed in Privet Drive for only 2 weeks after OOTP, I think, Dumbledore may have made a mistake.

I think Harry's person was actually protected by Lily's sacrifice, where ever he stays, and after fouth year, with Lily's blood that was meant for Harry's protection against Voldemort was running in Voldemort's body; a fact Dumbledore understood the moment he heard of it -- because he gleams in triumph; (at least after many months of thinking about it and reading many, many posts here, that is what I understood) Dumbledore most likely knew that the protection that would always work against Voldemort was now running in his body.

But Harry is made to stay in nPrivet Drive even after fourth year and had Harry avoided Privet Drive for that one week after 6th year, it may have saved Moody and Hedwig. IMO.

So Harry I think, never needed to stay in Privet Drive and suffer, not after 4th year anyway.

Well considering the fact Harry was safe even after he stayed in Privet Drive for only 2 weeks after OOTP, I think, Dumbledore may have made a mistake.

I think Harry's person was actually protected by Lily's sacrifice, where ever he stays, and after fouth year, with Lily's blood that was meant for Harry's protection against Voldemort was running in Voldemort's body; a fact Dumbledore understood the moment he heard of it -- because he gleams in triumph; (at least after many months of thinking about it and reading many, many posts here, that is what I understood) Dumbledore most likely knew that the protection that would always work against Voldemort was now running in his body.

But Harry is made to stay in nPrivet Drive even after fourth year and had Harry avoided Privet Drive for that one week after 6th year, it may have saved Moody and Hedwig. IMO.

So Harry I think, never needed to stay in Privet Drive and suffer, not after 4th year anyway.

Actually, I think it offered double protection. Dumbledore himself had inacted magic on Privet Drive. So Voldemort could not approach the house at all. If Harry had stayed at another place, Voldemort could attack Harry - although due to the blood exchange, he could not likely kill him. But I don't think Dumbledore wanted Voldemort to try to attack Harry at all at that time, that is why he made him remain at Privet drive until he was an adult.

During Harry's first 10 years at Privet Drive, Voldemort wasn't around so I think Dumbledore's charm was to keep any DEs away if they heard where the "boy who lived" was living. It was important that Harry should grow up unknown to the wizarding world to keep him safe. Once Voldemort was back, Lily's sacrificial charm kicked in, but that only protected him from Voldemort. That's how I see it anyway.

Harry had to go back to Privet Drive briefly each summer to keep Dumbledore's charm working, which is why he returns every year. He has to be able to call the Dursley's house "home" and that's achieved by going there. That worked until he was 17 so he needed to go back that last time as he was still 16 and Volkdemort was after him.

I've been rereading the series and I've been thinking about Dumbledore's revelation in OotP. I think Sirius' death is what pushed him to become colder and more manipulative in the events that followed. It hit him hard that if he had only told Harry about the prophecy Harry would have known better than to go after Sirius and think Sirius was in danger. He put Harry's happiness above defeating Voldemort and I think he takes a giant step back from that afterwards.

In HBP he's working behind the scenes to ensure that Harry will have the tools he needs to defeat Voldemort and that Harry will be given them when he needs them but not before. I think he's really forcing himself to do what has to be done. What is right rather than what is easy.

But isn't his reason for not telling Harry that he must die, basically to give Harry time in which he may enjoy the delusion that he is learning the keys to victory?

I saw it more as he explained it to Snape. If he learns too early he might lose his nerve and not be able to concentrate on what needed to be done.

The bottom line is that the horcruxes needed to be destroyed - including the one inside Harry. Dumbledore knew that Harry would not be willing to live at the cost of Voldemort's continued reign of terror. Dumbledore had to put destroying Voldemort over his love for Harry. He learned the consequences of failure to do so with Sirius' death.

:

On a slightly different topic, does anyone besides me think it's possible that he was romantically involved with Doge later in life? Obviously Doge wouldn't be the mental equal that Grindelwald was but it struck me in DH that Doge was treated almost like the widow by the wizarding world. And I like the idea of Dumbledore finding happiness later in life with Doge (and a dog)


The same thought was wandering through my mind after the gay announcement thing,Doge sounded so...depressed,after Rita´s article...He migh have been jsut a good friend,as I had viewed it until the announcement...but after it,it gave it a new light...glad i wasnt the only one...:lol:

The bottom line is that the horcruxes needed to be destroyed - including the one inside Harry. Dumbledore knew that Harry would not be willing to live at the cost of Voldemort's continued reign of terror. Dumbledore had to put destroying Voldemort over his love for Harry. He learned the consequences of failure to do so with Sirius' death.

Dumbledore, in my opinion, had recognized that Harry would have to die long before OotP. (Or why would he have the 'gleam of triumph', in GoF, when he saw a chance for Harry to actually live?)

Also, I do not believe, at the end of OotP, that Dumbledore had any intention of having Harry destroy Horcruxes. He had been working on the problem by himself for some time, and I think he planned to keep on by himself. I think the reason he told Harry in HBP is the ring curse. He realized that the year of life Snape was able to procure for him through his skills was not going to be enough time to destroy all of them by himself, and it was only because of this that he decided to tell Harry.

He could have told Harry about the soul bit in OotP, when he told Harry "everything".

Regarding Doge - the same thought crossed my mind as soon as I read the 'gay' revelation. I don't think they had a close, lasting, 'true love' sort of relationship, because Doge was still alive, and relatively uninvolved in the events of the series. But I think they might have been lovers, who parted amicably, at some point. I think Doge might have been in love with Dumbledore, but don;t think Albus returned the feeling.

Dumbledore, in my opinion, had recognized that Harry would have to die long before OotP. (Or why would he have the 'gleam of triumph', in GoF, when he saw a chance for Harry to actually live?)

Also, I do not believe, at the end of OotP, that Dumbledore had any intention of having Harry destroy Horcruxes. He had been working on the problem by himself for some time, and I think he planned to keep on by himself. I think the reason he told Harry in HBP is the ring curse. He realized that the year of life Snape was able to procure for him through his skills was not going to be enough time to destroy all of them by himself, and it was only because of this that he decided to tell Harry.

He could have told Harry about the soul bit in OotP, when he told Harry "everything".


I respect your view, but Harry did it in less than a year, didn't he? And Dumbledore was much more talented and knew more information than he gave to Harry about it all. Plus there was the Hallows that Dumbledore had - knowledge he did not share with Harry and made him find them on his own with the mysterious clues he left.

What is odd to me is why Dumbledore wanted Harry to 'move slowly'. What was the purpose in that? He made it sound as if by moving fast, Harry would become tempted by the Hallows as he had - but as well as he knew Harry, he should have realized that would not be the case. Meanwhile poor Harry is drudging through the horrible climate that Voldemort is given time to create. It made little sense to me, especially since Dumbledore knew what Voldemort was capable of.

Dumbledore's plan had a lot of flaws in it, which he admitted, but there are several aspects that defy sensible explanation, imo. Harry's lack of knowledge; the Elder Wand business with Snape and Dumbledore's quicker than necessary death. It all worked out in the end in as far as the goal, but the means were unreasonable, imo.

I respect your view, but Harry did it in less than a year, didn't he? And Dumbledore was much more talented and knew more information than he gave to Harry about it all.

What information about Horcruxes do you allege Dumbledore withheld?

Adding the year of HBP, it took two years to destroy the Horcruxes. And I believe 100% that Dumbledore had no idea what the item of Ravenclaw or Gryffindor was when he made these decisions, so he could not count on finishing in any set amount of time. In the end Harry learned this secret through his connection to Voldemort, which is a skill and a source Dumbledore did not have, and encouraged Harry not to use because of the potential dangers.

What information about Horcruxes do you allege Dumbledore withheld?

Adding the year of HBP, it took two years to destroy the Horcruxes. And I believe 100% that Dumbledore had no idea what the item of Ravenclaw or Gryffindor was when he made these decisions, so he could not count on finishing in any set amount of time. In the end Harry learned this secret through his connection to Voldemort, which is a skill and a source Dumbledore did not have, and encouraged Harry not to use because of the potential dangers.

Actually I was referring to the Hallows in as far as information withheld. What I was saying was that following Dumbledore's death, it took Harry less than a year to find all of the horcruxes from the time he started searching for them. I totally agree with you about the connection, but some of Harry's ordeals in that regard were kept secret by Harry and Dumbledore did not know about them. This was precisely because Harry knew that Dumbledore was trying to cut the connection off (Occulmency, etc.). If he had sought Harry's assistance, the two of them could have found them all in no time flat (they simply could not look one another in the eye while doing so :lol:). Dumbledore should have been more sharing on that particular topic, imo.

Imo, it was a huge mistake by Dumbledore. I am not convinced that his keeping the knowledge that Harry was a horcrux was so brilliant either - and it certainly was unethical, imo. Mind I am not saying that Dumbledore didn't believe he was doing what was best for Harry and his cause, because I believe he did think that. However, his own sense of morality and his judgment were clouded by his own character, imo.

I think Doge might have been in love with Dumbledore, but don;t think Albus returned the feeling.

I think DD only had feelings for Grindewald...Doge might had been something ,but never seriously,Like Ginny with Dean,it was something ,but ginny ´s heart was always with Harry...I feel it would follow the same pattern...

I've been rereading the series and I've been thinking about Dumbledore's revelation in OotP. I think Sirius' death is what pushed him to become colder and more manipulative in the events that followed. It hit him hard that if he had only told Harry about the prophecy Harry would have known better than to go after Sirius and think Sirius was in danger. He put Harry's happiness above defeating Voldemort and I think he takes a giant step back from that afterwards.

In HBP he's working behind the scenes to ensure that Harry will have the tools he needs to defeat Voldemort and that Harry will be given them when he needs them but not before. I think he's really forcing himself to do what has to be done. What is right rather than what is easy.

I thought he was always manipulative. He is very tough on wanting his decisions to be obeyed and as a member of the Order, I really don't think, anyone could really disobey him. He made unilateral decisions and I think he did not tell Harry, because in his mind Harry was not mature enough to know and Harry in his opinion did not need it at that time.

Dumbledore I think always gives information on a need to know basis. He is very ruthless too IMO. He is a true war commander, who only always sees the larger picture, and people are treated in different ways according to that picture, to get maximum result.

That is why I felt it was all the more important for him to flush out the spy and that fact he did not reflect IMO badly on him. Because he was the one who took decisions, who gave orders and who planned strategies IMO.

More than Harry's happiness, I think, Dumbledore felt that Harry need not know the Prophecy or about the horcruxes. He tells Harry when he thinks it is the right time to do so, IMO. Not before.

I do think Dumbledore was truly affectionate towards Harry and very resigned about Snape's closed atttitude, when it came to Snape's feelings, but at then end of it all, he was the top most leader who was in charge of his troops and from there I think he saw only the whole puzzle and not the individual pieces.

The bottom line is that the horcruxes needed to be destroyed - including the one inside Harry. Dumbledore knew that Harry would not be willing to live at the cost of Voldemort's continued reign of terror. Dumbledore had to put destroying Voldemort over his love for Harry. He learned the consequences of failure to do so with Sirius' death

He does, only I don't think it is because of Sirius's death. Dumbledore himself says it best in HBP when he says like the other man he too makes mistakes, only because of his brilliance, (I think) his mistakes, though rare, are huge.

That was what happened with Sirius. His huge mistake of not telling Harry to contact him in an emergency, caused Harry to take matters into his own hands and that adventure reslulted in disaster.

On a slightly different topic, does anyone besides me think it's possible that he was romantically involved with Doge later in life? Obviously Doge wouldn't be the mental equal that Grindelwald was but it struck me in DH that Doge was treated almost like the widow by the wizarding world. And I like the idea of Dumbledore finding happiness later in life with Doge (and a dog)

I actually think Dumbledore loved GG until he died and even after. The way he describes GG in the King's Cross chapter and the way he cries for his sister and I believe his lover, makes me feel that his love for GG never quite vanished.

He may have had a relationship with Doge, but his heart was I think, firmly with GG.

hello there Green woods!!!

I thought he was always manipulative.

I think so too,i didnt wee him like this before,though,only after hallows when we see him as he trully was,i doubt I would have cried so much his death If I had known thenit had been planned,I did suspect it though....
After Hallows Dumbly seemed to me like Ron when he plays chess,He tells his figures exactly what to do,and mostly always wins...He knows how to make good moves,and one cant deny he did,sadly,some of his moves like you said were huge mistakes,but then again DD was not perfect ,even if he did give that impression...

One thing I really disliked about him,was how he planned to dispose of Snape´s life...I think he did it to give him redemption,still it was a cruel thing to do...

About Doge...thats exaclty how I fell i could have been,if it ever was...Who knows,I did have the idea,but then..I think DD might have decided not to get involded sentimentally with anyone,...

One thing I really disliked about him,was how he planned to dispose of Snape´s life...I think he did it to give him redemption,still it was a cruel thing to do...

I do not believe he planned to dipose of Snape's life. Snape was the only one he told about Harry's soul bit, so Dumbledore needed Snape to survive as long as possible.

When Harry asks him about his intentions regarding Snape and the Elder Wand, he says (paraphrase) "That did not work out well". WHich suggests to me Snape's death was not his goal in that at all, but an effect of the business he did not expect and regretted.

He expected Voldy to believe he had overpowered DD...which in fact he did...it didnt turnout the way he planned cause he wanted the elder wand to go with him to the tumb,no new master ,cause his death had been planed it woudnt count.The last master of the elder wand would have been him.DD.He expected Voldy to spare Snapes life...i dont think so...

what are your thoughts?

I do not believe he planned to dipose of Snape's life. Snape was the only one he told about Harry's soul bit, so Dumbledore needed Snape to survive as long as possible.

When Harry asks him about his intentions regarding Snape and the Elder Wand, he says (paraphrase) "That did not work out well". WHich suggests to me Snape's death was not his goal in that at all, but an effect of the business he did not expect and regretted.

Dumbledore really needed Snape to live to tell Harry about the soul bit. But Dumbledore also knew about the Elder wand and that Voldemort was sooner or later going to understand that mastery over the wand was necessary for the wand to work properly. He would attack Snape and kill him.

We don't see Dumbledore telling Snape about it and warning him to be safe so that he would be able to hand over the memories to Harry.

That action perhaps implies that Dumbledore maybe set up Snape to die so that Voldemort would wrongly think he was the master of the Elder wand and thus be defeated, because the wand was Draco's. I don't think he knew it had become Harry's, did he? If he did, even then Dumbledore wanted Voldemort to think he was the Master wrongly. He felt that wand would not work for him and correctly too, but he sacrificed Snape in the process I felt.

What I don't understand is how the message of the soul thing would have reached Harry, had Snape died elsewhere?

What were the provisions Dumbledore made if such a thing happened?

What I don't understand is how the message of the soul thing would have reached Harry, had Snape died elsewhere?

What were the provisions Dumbledore made if such a thing happened?

Through Dumbledore's portrait.

Through Dumbledore's portrait.

That was a dangerous route. Remember we are talking of a scenario after Snape's death.

What if Harry could not make it safely to the Headmaster's office? Harry did make it into the School. But after Snape died, what if one of the Carrows were the Head and what if they were there in the Headmaster's office or what if the Headmaster's office sealed itself like it did with Umbridge?

What would Harry do in such a circumstance?

Also remember that Harry is completely ignorant of something extra inside him. And no one else knows.

That was a dangerous route. Remember we are talking of a scenario after Snape's death.

What if Harry could not make it safely to the Headmaster's office? Harry did make it into the School. But after Snape died, what if one of the Carrows were the Head and what if they were there in the Headmaster's office or what if the Headmaster's office sealed itself like it did with Umbridge?

What would Harry do in such a circumstance?

Also remember that Harry is completely ignorant of something extra inside him. And no one else knows.

I meant if Harry had seen Snape die and had not gotten the memories. He would return to the castle just as he did anyway. JKR could have made up a zillon ways for him to get into Dumbledore's office. But the point is, Snape was not the only means left of Harry finding out and JKR let us know that or we would have all thought Dumbledore was an extremely bad planner. :lol:

I meant if Harry had seen Snape die and had not gotten the memories. He would return to the castle just as he did anyway. JKR could have made up a zillon ways for him to get into Dumbledore's office. But the point is, Snape was not the only means left of Harry finding out and JKR let us know that or we would have all thought Dumbledore was an extremely bad planner. :lol:

When Snape died Harry knew him as a DE who killed Albus Dumbledore and as one who handed over the Prophecy to Voldemort.

Had Snape died before Harry got to him, then Harry would only be satisfied that Snape a murderer was killed. Why should he suspect there be a message for him through Snape?

I've been rereading the series and I've been thinking about Dumbledore's revelation in OotP. I think Sirius' death is what pushed him to become colder and more manipulative in the events that followed. It hit him hard that if he had only told Harry about the prophecy Harry would have known better than to go after Sirius and think Sirius was in danger. He put Harry's happiness above defeating Voldemort and I think he takes a giant step back from that afterwards.

I slightly disagree. In my opinion, Dumbledore had been cold-blooded all along. He cared for Harry, yes, but he was also willing to send the boy to his death! He had no emotional connexion to Sirius and their relationship was rather matter-of-fact and distanced. Dumbledore could have done a lot more for Sirius if he had cared. I do not want to imply that Dumbledore was without emotions. He was a very caring headmaster and the well-being of his students was of major importance to him. But I have the impression that he had the tendency to dismiss people if they were not of use.

I slightly disagree. In my opinion, Dumbledore had been cold-blooded all along. He cared for Harry, yes, but he was also willing to send the boy to his death! He had no emotional connexion to Sirius and their relationship was rather matter-of-fact and distanced. Dumbledore could have done a lot more for Sirius if he had cared. I do not want to imply that Dumbledore was without emotions. He was a very caring headmaster and the well-being of his students was of major importance to him. But I have the impression that he had the tendency to dismiss people if they were not of use.

I completely agree. I do think that in the aftermath of Sirius' death, Dumbledore considered his mistakes and was serious about taking the blame upon himself. But I believe he had been manipulating in a cold manner all along and this was just another consequence of his mechanisms. Dumbledore was very compassionate, very wise and ready and willing to confess when he was mistaken, but that didn't stop him from plowing ahead making mistake after mistake in the wake of his blunders. Of course much of his plan was brilliant, I don't imply he was a catastrophe, but I do believe that his desire to keep things to himself and sit alone in a type of dictatorship was the cause of most of those things that went wrong. I too got the idea that Dumbledore dismissed people who were of no use to him; not dispassionately; they simply fled his consciousness. However, he was also dispassionate about those actually doing his business at times, imo. As you pointed out, his plan for Harry was most dismissive of Harry's right to live. I believe others in the Order would have strongly argued the point.

I slightly disagree. In my opinion, Dumbledore had been cold-blooded all along. He cared for Harry, yes, but he was also willing to send the boy to his death! He had no emotional connexion to Sirius and their relationship was rather matter-of-fact and distanced. Dumbledore could have done a lot more for Sirius if he had cared. I do not want to imply that Dumbledore was without emotions. He was a very caring headmaster and the well-being of his students was of major importance to him. But I have the impression that he had the tendency to dismiss people if they were not of use.
I agree that Dumbledore could be very cold-blooded. An example, in my opinion, is the way Moody was sacrificed so that Snape could remain a spy for Voldemort. I would not be surprised if Emmeline Vance was similarly sacrificed, although we don't have any canon on that, so it is just a guess on my part.

But I believe that Dumbledore did come to love Harry. He was extremely cold to him in OotP, but by the time we got to the cave in HBP, I feel that he had allowed himself to really care for the boy. I don't know if it was the close call in the Ministry in OotP that helped to make Dumbledore aware of how much he really cared for Harry, or if it was the close association in HBP that helped him get to know Harry better. But by the time Harry talks to Dumbledore's portrait at the end of DH, they both seem to have formed a feeling special relationship.

Dumbledore really needed Snape to live to tell Harry about the soul bit. But Dumbledore also knew about the Elder wand and that Voldemort was sooner or later going to understand that mastery over the wand was necessary for the wand to work properly. He would attack Snape and kill him.

In order to know that Dumbledore's wand was the Elder Wand, Voldemort had to research its past. I presume Dumbledore knew its past. And the facts surrounding its past are that, at least the last two times it changed possession, no one died. Gellert stole it from Gregorovich, and Dumbledore defeated Gellert in a non-fatal duel.

Voldemort decided to kill Snape in spite of these facts, of which he was cognizant. He could have simply defeated him; had Snape actually been Master of the Elder Wand, this would have sufficed to make Voldemort Master. Dumbledore is not psychic, and the action Voldemotr chose does not make the most sense from a utilitarian standpoint. It seems to me that Dumbledore believed that while Snape appeared to be a loyal and useful right-hand-man, Voldemort would let him live. It was an additional, unstated reason Dumbledore urged Snape to play hsi part well, as I see it.

I agree that Dumbledore could be very cold-blooded. An example, in my opinion, is the way Moody was sacrificed so that Snape could remain a spy for Voldemort.

Actually, I do not believe this was the reason Moody was sacrificed. He was sarificed in order to keep Snape and Dumbledore on top of Voldemort's plan for attacking Harry when he left 4 Privet Dr. I think that if Snape had told Voldemort he could no longer get information from Order members because he was no longer trusted, Voldemort would have turned to someone else to supplement Yaxley's information. Someone like Bella, who would track down Dung or another known Order member, and learn the secret. In such a worst-case scenario, more people might have died, and Harry might have been at greater risk.

In order to know that Dumbledore's wand was the Elder Wand, Voldemort had to research its past. I presume Dumbledore knew its past. And the facts surrounding its past are that, at least the last two times it changed possession, no one died. Gellert stole it from Gregorovich, and Dumbledore defeated Gellert in a non-fatal duel.

I agree. :)


Voldemort decided to kill Snape in spite of these facts, of which he was cognizant. He could have simply defeated him; had Snape actually been Master of the Elder Wand, this would have sufficed to make Voldemort Master. Dumbledore is not psychic, and the action Voldemotr chose does not make the most sense from a utilitarian standpoint. It seems to me that Dumbledore believed that while Snape appeared to be a loyal and useful right-hand-man, Voldemort would let him live. It was an additional, unstated reason Dumbledore urged Snape to play hsi part well, as I see it.

I don't think Voldmeort could have defeated Snape. As far as Voldemort was concerned, Snape was his man. His trusted man who killed Albus Dumbledore for him. How would he defeat Snape in a duel so serious that the wand will consider him truly powerful and change its allegiance.

With the Elder wand and indeed other wands, we have been told that they are semi sentint. While they don't change owners or allegiances in a mock or practise duel, they do change ownership when there is serious fight between two witches or wizards who want to defeat the other.

Snape would not do that as far as Voldemort knew. But he also know that Snape having killed Dumbledore was the owner of the wand. And there would be no serious duel because Snape was his man.

That was why I think Voldemort killed Snape. Because if he wanted to duel, he must have thought that Snape would most likely not fight with him. Then the wand too, will not become his.

By killing Snape, the wand is his. Only Voldemort never knew that it was not Snape but Draco who was the true owner.

What I think Dumbledore planned was that Snape would kill him, but since it was a planned murder, it would be Dumbledore who would wield the wand, and after his death, the wand too would lose its power, because it had not been won, as he had died undefeated.

Voldemort, in the meantime would think Snape was the owner of the wand and break into Dumbledore's tomb and take the wand and kill Snape to become its master, because Snape being a loyal spy would never fight him properly and if he did not fight properly, then the wand will not change ownership.

He would use a wand that is not properly won, because the Elder wand chooses the man with the most power. Dumbledore would be that man, because after his death there would be no way Dumbledore can be defeated and so the wand will not work for Voldemort when he duels Harry.

But all Dumbledore's plans of having the wand die with him failed, because Draco disarmed him in a very serious situation and became the owner of the Elder wand.

So if Dumbledore knew all this as I think he did, then it is really bad when he cannot even tell this to a man who has sold his soul for Dumbledore the last 16 years.

I think Snape should have been told about the wand. The fact he was not, makes me feel Dumbledore intended Snape to die and IMO he never had the right to sacrifice Snape's life without asking him.

Then once again, had Snape been killed elsewhere or had died without passing on ethe memories to Harry, what was the back up plan? That is what I cannot understand. How could Dumbledore think Snape would simply be fine until Harry gets the message and what would Dumbledore's plan be if Snape died without Harry knowing he was a horcrux?

Actually, I do not believe this was the reason Moody was sacrificed. He was sarificed in order to keep Snape and Dumbledore on top of Voldemort's plan for attacking Harry when he left 4 Privet Dr. I think that if Snape had told Voldemort he could no longer get information from Order members because he was no longer trusted, Voldemort would have turned to someone else to supplement Yaxley's information. Someone like Bella, who would track down Dung or another known Order member, and learn the secret. In such a worst-case scenario, more people might have died, and Harry might have been at greater risk.

Again, there was no reason to make Voldemort chase Harry. Snape had just killed Dumbledore and no one in the Order is even going to look at him, without trying to arrest him or kill him.

Voldemort already trusts him implicitly. He has also seen Charity Burbage die without blinking his eye.

Where was the need to kill Moody, Gerorge's ear and Hedwig so that Snape somehow once agaoin gets information. Vodlemort was happy with him. Why should Snape prove himself at that time? What was the need really?

The entire post is my opinion only.

In order to know that Dumbledore's wand was the Elder Wand, Voldemort had to research its past. I presume Dumbledore knew its past. And the facts surrounding its past are that, at least the last two times it changed possession, no one died. Gellert stole it from Gregorovich, and Dumbledore defeated Gellert in a non-fatal duel.

Voldemort decided to kill Snape in spite of these facts, of which he was cognizant. He could have simply defeated him; had Snape actually been Master of the Elder Wand, this would have sufficed to make Voldemort Master. Dumbledore is not psychic, and the action Voldemotr chose does not make the most sense from a utilitarian standpoint. It seems to me that Dumbledore believed that while Snape appeared to be a loyal and useful right-hand-man, Voldemort would let him live. It was an additional, unstated reason Dumbledore urged Snape to play hsi part well, as I see it.


I respect your view, but in both of the previous cases where the wand changed hands, the person was defeated (the wand taken from them) against their will. Voldemort thought Snape was his loyal servant and as such, would willingly give him the wand. Therefore any disarming or "defeat" would be fake and likely not function, from Voldemort's point of view. Dumbledore knew that as well. However, even if Voldemort was willing to try that, Dumbledore knew that it would not work because Snape would not be the master (Dumbledore's plan was that the power of the wand would die with him). Thus Voldemort would simply kill Snape when he saw that a 'defeat' or 'disarming' did not work. Therefore, Dumbledore knew that in the end, Voldemort would kill Snape in his quest to Master the wand, one way or the other.

The fact is, Voldemort did want Snape to live; he said 'I regret it' when Nagini attacked. But he was wise enough to know that a willing taking of the wand would not work (thus he did not give it to Snape to be defeated and allow him to live ~ that would have been too dangerous anyway).

Dumbledore was a compassionate man, but he simply behaved in a cold-hearted manner at times in order to further his plans.

Dumbledore was a compassionate man, but he simply behaved in a cold-hearted manner at times in order to further his plans.Agreed. He loved many people - proof being in his reaction to the drink he took when he and Harry were in the cave that the locket horcrux was in. [staff edit] But he also realised that he couldn't let his love get in the way of defeating Voldemort. The way I take it, Dumbledore is still a bit reckless in his own way, but learned many lessons after his relationship with Grindelwald, which ended disasterously.

I saw the character as a character that knew that something was going to happen. To me there is no set thing that was more important then the other lessons, but telling him about the prophecy was one of the most important, if i had to chose. And to me he should have talked to him more about the horcruxes.

When it was revealed about his family it made him seem more human. Because of those events he became Headmaster, and probably was the best thing because he saw more things as Headmaster.

Dumbledore probably saw similar ideas in him and that is why he becamse friends with him. It did not affect his ideas

Why did he keep it a secret? I don't know. Just because Rowling says he is gay now does not tell me that he was gay. She should have mentioned it in the book then we could say for a fact that he was gay.

Like i say it makes him sound more human. Maybe as Minister he would have done some good, but as Headmaster he was able to think ahead and figure out Voldermort's return. I think he chose wisely in not becoming Minister.
He expected way too much, although he was his destiny to do it. As for sacrificing Harry, he never asked him. Harry had to sacrifice himself or voldermort would never be truly gone.

Were there signs that he was gay, no. Remember that he may have been alone because of his actions with his sister and his life early on. Just because he was alone is not one of the signs.

If he was gay i don't care. All I can say is it is too late to say now that he is gay. If it was revealed at the end of the Star Wars that Luke was Darth Vader's son, would that not be considered late? Yep.

Voldemort decided to kill Snape in spite of these facts, of which he was cognizant. He could have simply defeated him; had Snape actually been Master of the Elder Wand, this would have sufficed to make Voldemort Master. Dumbledore is not psychic, and the action Voldemotr chose does not make the most sense from a utilitarian standpoint. It seems to me that Dumbledore believed that while Snape appeared to be a loyal and useful right-hand-man, Voldemort would let him live. It was an additional, unstated reason Dumbledore urged Snape to play hsi part well, as I see it.

Yes - as we saw in DH, a simple Expelliarmus is enough to win a wand's allegiance. But I have a feeling that both Dumbledore and Snape knew and accepted the obvious risk involved in this situation.

Yes - as we saw in DH, a simple Expelliarmus is enough to win a wand's allegiance. But I have a feeling that both Dumbledore and Snape knew and accepted the obvious risk involved in this situation.

I really don't think a simple expelliarmus would work, if the said witch or wizard was not willing to fight with the other. I also don't think Voldemort believed that Snape would allow him to win the wand ( Voldemort believed Snape to be very loyal to him and he also believed that Snape would never duel him in the manner that the Elder wand will switch masters); and winning the wand IMO is most essential to also win the wand's allegience. The wand will go over to the most powerful and it has to be won properly. Since Snape could not be defeated in the right way IMO, Voldemort killed him to become the true master of the Elder wand.

posted by the LC Podcast
MA: But wand lore. Can you go into-- in a more detailed fashion, the way that the wands change hands and how different the Elder Wand is because fans are confused.

JKR: I am going to put up another update on my website about this, and I have one half-written. Essentially, I see wands as being quasi-sentient, you know? I think they awaken to a kind of-- They're not exactly animate but they're close to it. As close to it as you can get in an object because they carry so much magic. So that's really the key point about a wand. Now, the reactions will vary from wand to wand. The Elder Wand is simply the most dispassionate and ruthless of wands in that it will only take into consideration strength. So one would expect a certain amount of loyalty from one's wand. So even if you were disarmed while carrying it, even if you lost a fight while carrying it, it has developed an affinity with you that it will not give up easily. If, however, a wand is won, properly won in an adult duel, then a wand may switch allegiance, and it will certainly work better even if it hasn't fully switched allegiance for the person who won it. So that of course is what happens when Harry takes Draco's wand from him, and that's what happens when-- But you know what I mean. Oh, yeah, Ron. The blackthorn wand from the snatcher. So that would be sort of rough and ready, common, or garden, a wand favoring the person who had the skill to take it. It would favor them. However, the Elder Wand knows no loyalty except to strength. So it's completely unsentimental. It will only go where the power is. So if you win, then you've won the wand. So you don't need to kill with it. But, as is pointed out in the books, not least by Dumbledore because it is a wand of such immense power, almost inevitably, it attracts wizards who are prepared to kill and who will kill. And also it attracts wizards like Voldemort who confuse being prepared to murder with strength.

JN: Interesting.

JKR: Does that clarify anything?

JN: It did quite, and we look forward to reading your thing or two, I hopefully didn't...

MA: Step on it too badly.

JKR: No, I don't think so. I have been asked a lot of times, well what about Duelling Club and so on? Well I think it's clear there that in practice, where there's no real weight attached to the transference of a wand, where it's almost all for fun or purely for competition, there's no enormous significance attached in either wizard's mind to a wand flying out of someone's hand. But there are situations in which the emotional state of wizards where a lot hangs on a duel, that's something different. That's about real power and that's about transference that will have far-reaching effects in some cases. So I think the wand would behave differently then.

Yes - as we saw in DH, a simple Expelliarmus is enough to win a wand's allegiance. But I have a feeling that both Dumbledore and Snape knew and accepted the obvious risk involved in this situation.

You mean, you think Albus told Snape about the Elder Wand?

I do agree Snape generally accepted that Voldemort might kill him either pwing to suspicions about his loyalties, or for a supposed failure as a Death Eater, or in a rage over something, or for just some random unpredictable reason. But it did not seem to me that this particular source of danger, the significance Voldemort would see in the killing of Dumbledore, was one of which Dumbledore informed Snape.

posted by zigirnius
But it did not seem to me that this particular source of danger, the significance Voldemort would see in the killing of Dumbledore, was one of which Dumbledore informed Snape.

Dumbledore I think would have understood the significance of Draco disarming him, right away or at the least after he died and became a portrait on the wall. Snape was with him the whole year and Dumbledore must have told him about the importance of the wand and the danger Snape would be in.

If Dumbledore did not want to then, he should have told Snape when his tomb was broken into and his wand stolen.

The fact he did not, to me suggests that he either intended Snape to die or he simply did not care. That is the first thing that gets to me.

And what I really don't get is how in the name of all that is good, did Dumbledore think, Harry would receive the most important information if Snape died before Harry got the memories.

That is the second query for which I have no answers.

I really don't think a simple expelliarmus would work, if the said witch or wizard was not willing to fight with the other.


Dumbledore did not fight Draco. Draco Expelliarmused him. Draco was Master of the Elder Wand until Harry, in turn, disarmed him. So it seems to me that anabel is right.

You are certainly right that Voldemort believed he should to kill Snape to win the wand. My point was simply that this is false under the magical rules of the Potterverse. Further, the information Voldemort would need to gather before he could find the wand was sufficient for him to draw this conclusion. (Gellert Grindelwald did not duel Gregorovich for the wand, he stole the wand and then used it on Gregorovitch to cast a nonlethal spell and Voldemort saw this memory in his quest for the wand).

So I do not think we can say Dumbledore knew what Voldemort would do to Snape.

Dumbledore did not fight Draco. Draco Expelliarmused him. Draco was Master of the Elder Wand until Harry, in turn, disarmed him. So it seems to me that anabel is right.

You are certainly right that Voldemort believed he should to kill Snape to win the wand. My point was simply that this is false under the magical rules of the Potterverse. Further, the information Voldemort would need to gather before he could find the wand was sufficient for him to draw this conclusion. (Gellert Grindelwald did not duel Gregorovich for the wand, he stole the wand and then used it on Gregorovitch to cast a nonlethal spell and Voldemort saw this memory in his quest for the wand).

So I do not think we can say Dumbledore knew what Voldemort would do to Snape.

Draco used the expelliarmus in a life and death situation (which was a serious fight IMO) and Dumbledore at that time was very weak; weaker than Draco Malfoy, who was the stronger between the two.

Th Elder wand demands that the wizard be completely defeated in a serious duel and he be stronger between the two for the wand to switch masters.

Draco at that point was both IMO. He defeated Dumbledore in a life and death situation the wand recognizes, because they are semi - sentient and Draco was the stronger wizard; stronger to the dying Dumbledore.

That was why the wand chose him.

Harry simply twists the wand out of Malfoy's hands along with the other 2 wands. Not even an expelliarmus and Harry is the new owner of the Elder wand, because he has physically disarmed Draco Malfoy in a situation of life and death; one the wand recognized and accepted because Harry defeated Draco and he was the stronger wizard at that time.

So it is not the spell IMO, but once again I think its the intent and the seriousness of the situation and the magical strength of the of persons involved that decides the exchange.

And I also think Dumbledore knw all this.

Hello...can everyone try discussing Dumbledore's character more, and the specifics of wandlore and wand loyalty a little less?
Thank you, and happy posting!

Dumbledore, I think, must have known about the Elder wand and I think he must have also known enough about wand lore. He must have also known that no one apart from him knew the importance of Draco disarming him. The Elder wand had changed masters because Draco had disarmed him in a situation the wand recognized.

He has been with Snape for almost a year, before Snape was killed. He also knew Voldemort had broken into his tomb and stolen the wand. He also knew that Voldemort had no idea about Draco and would kill Snape to become the master of a wand with which he wanted to defeat Harry Potter.

Dumbledore also knew that Snape would have never made Voldemort aware that he knew about the Elder wand; he was an Occlumens who had been cheatoing Voldemort for so long. Had Dumbledore informed Snape, Snape would have been a lot more cautious and would have used the time he had to prepare a reason for Voldemort and would have tried to survive.

In any case I think the choice should have been Snape's not Dumbledore's. And yet Dumbledore has once again made a huge mistake that I believe cost the life of a man who slaved for him and his Order for the last 18 years.

Did Dumbledore not care like with the 7 Potters or he intended to play it safe and kill off Snape so that Voldemort would mistakenly think he was the owner of the wand when he would not be?

I don't know, but to me Dumbledore's actions in this circumstance was pretty cold.

Just my Opinion.

I don't know, but to me Dumbledore's actions in this circumstance was pretty cold. Just my Opinion.

I agree. But JKR described Dumbledore's character as written to be machiavellian at times. That he was shown at times to be subtly unscrupulous, cunning, deceptive and dishonest. I believe he acted that way on page with Harry, Snape, Remus, Kingsley, Hermione, Fudge, Ron and others. In OOTP, Dumbledore admitted that at times, the lives of others were immaterial in comparison with Harry's. So that was a part of Dumbledore's character legacy. On the other hand, he was also shown to be very compassionate with Harry, Snape (at his turning), Remus (allowing him to attend Hogwarts), Draco (showing mercy), etc. He also showed kindness to many people, was very understanding and forgiving and tried to reason with people - to a point - and then he'd finally lose it. He was also deeply dedicated to the greater good.

So in Dumbledore I see a very grey character. In the end, his struggle resulted in ridding the world of a great evil and allowing those left to go forward and make the wizard world a happy place. :)

Dumbledore also knew that Snape would have never made Voldemort aware that he knew about the Elder wand; he was an Occlumens who had been cheatoing Voldemort for so long.

I am complying with the in-thread warning about wands, so I will respond only to this point. I disagree Dumbledore believed this of Snape. He says differently in his conversation with Snape following their argument in the Forest. He states to Snape that he will not tell him what Harry is up to (in other words, he will not tell Snape about Horcruxes) because of the danger of Snape's position, 'dangling on Voldemort's arm'. I believe this is also why Dumbledore did not tell Snape about the Elder Wand. It was information he did not want Voldemort to get in the event that Snape somehow betrayed himself or became suspected by Voldemort for other reasons.

It's not that he did not trust Snape's good intentions or his skill. Just that, if something went wrong in spite of these, Snape was completely vulnerable to Voldemort in his position as a spy.

posted by zigirnius
It's not that he did not trust Snape's good intentions or his skill. Just that, if something went wrong in spite of these, Snape was completely vulnerable to Voldemort in his position as a spy.

DUmbledore knew about the Elder wand and its logistics and also that he knew Voldemort would think of the Elder wand because of his wand and Harry's having the same core.

If Dumbledore knew then agreeing with all you say, at the time, his tomb was broken into, was the time Dumbledore should have known with a certainity that Snape would be killed, sooner or later, because Voldemort will confront him and fight him to defeat him or kill him to become master of the wand.

I think Dumbledore must have told Snape at least when his tomb was broken into and given Snape a warning about the importance of that action. But for whatever reason, he does not and Snape dies.

I started this point about the wands, because IMO DUmbledore, as he said in the HBP, made yet another huge mistake, one that cost him Snape, and had Harry not been so lucky, would not have the memories to ultimately defeat Voldemort.

Again, I think it's Dumbledore being so alone at the top without anyone who was his equal to discuss with him.

I also agree with wickedwickedboy that Dumbledore was a grey character and I also think he acted only as a leader when he did not tell Snape and IMO he deliberately sacrificed Snape all for the greater good!

I only differ from Dumbledore's point of view, in the sense, I feel he should have told Snape about the danger to his life and he should have also had a back up plan in case Snape would die before Harry got the memories, before some how all the horcruxes were destroyed and Harry managed to kill Voldemort and reduce him o a sprit like state once more.

He made a mistake as a leader I feel in both instances.

I also agree with wickedwickedboy that Dumbledore was a grey character and I also think he acted only as a leader when he did not tell Snape and IMO he deliberately sacrificed Snape all for the greater good!

I only differ from Dumbledore's point of view, in the sense, I feel he should have told Snape about the danger to his life and he should have also had a back up plan in case Snape would die before Harry got the memories, before some how all the horcruxes were destroyed and Harry managed to kill Voldemort and reduce him o a sprit like state once more.

He made a mistake as a leader I feel in both instances. I think that this was the way Dumbledore treated most of his Order members. He acted for the greater good many times, and put people in danger because of it. Snape was put in an extremely dangerous position many times. Dumbledore needed Snape to play this role for the greater good.

Dumbledore gave Lupin a dangerous mission with the werewolves. Hagrid had to try to talk the giants into joinging their side. And then we have the Order members who risked their lives to get Harry out of Privet Drive. They took on that job not knowing that the Death Eaters were waiting for them. There are a lot of things that Dumbledore did for the greater good that bother me because they seem almost cold and calculating. It was a Dumbledore that I never knew existed until DH. I am not exactly comfortable with the real Dumbledore. That is just how I feel about it.

I think that this was the way Dumbledore treated most of his Order members. He acted for the greater good many times, and put people in danger because of it. Snape was put in an extremely dangerous position many times. Dumbledore needed Snape to play this role for the greater good.

Dumbledore gave Lupin a dangerous mission with the werewolves. Hagrid had to try to talk the giants into joinging their side. And then we have the Order members who risked their lives to get Harry out of Privet Drive. They took on that job not knowing that the Death Eaters were waiting for them. There are a lot of things that Dumbledore did for the greater good that bother me because they seem almost cold and calculating. It was a Dumbledore that I never knew existed until DH. I am not exactly comfortable with the real Dumbledore. That is just how I feel about it.

I agree with most of the points in your post. I only differ by saying that all the others knew of the dangers they faced.

Remus knew of the danger when he went to the werewolves. Hagrid knew, too that he could get clobbered by the giants.

Even Snape knew he could get killed anytime Voldemort got a question about Snape's loyalty into his head. I agree with all this.

But all members of the Order knew what they were getting into when they went out on Order missions. They agreed to do so; agreed with Dumbledore and agreed to put their lives on the line for the greater good of the WW.

In this case of the Elder wand. Snape was not given that information.

I feel he should have for 2 reasons. One, it should have been Snape's choice. Snape should have known that he could get himself killed because of the Elder wand. Dumbledore knew Snape would be killed when he died supposedly at Snape's hand or at the least when his tomb was broken into and his wand stolen.

Two, it would have given Snaqpe the time to prepare another way to hand over the memories to Harry in a way Harry would believe him.

So I think he allowed Snape to die and he also did not make any provision about how to get the memories across to Harry if Snape was killed before he could complete that job.

In this case of the Elder wand. Snape was not given that information.

I feel he should have for 2 reasons. One, it should have been Snape's choice. Snape should have known that he could get himself killed because of the Elder wand. Dumbledore knew Snape would be killed when he died supposedly at Snape's hand or at the least when his tomb was broken into and his wand stolen.

Two, it would have given Snape the time to prepare another way to hand over the memories to Harry in a way Harry would believe him.

So I think he allowed Snape to die and he also did not make any provision about how to get the memories across to Harry if Snape was killed before he could complete that job. I agree with you that Snape was placed in a very dangerous position because of the Elder Wand. And I feel that Dumbledore took advantage of Snape in this circumstance. But Snape had to have known that by agreeing to kill Dumbledore in the first place he would be in an extremely dangerous situation. He would know that the good guys would be after him for the murder. The only thing that would be new to him would be that Voldemort may kill him for the wand. And it could just be that Snape would have been willing to do what he did even if he knew about the Elder Wand. But I agree with you that Snape should have been given a choice.

I agree with you that Dumbledore should have made better plans to get the information to Harry. But maybe there was a backup plan that wasn't needed. Maybe Dumbledore's portrait could have given that information to Harry. I thought that there were many things that were left to chance. Dumbledore left Harry to figure out a lot of stuff on his own.

But maybe there was a backup plan that wasn't needed. Maybe Dumbledore's portrait could have given that information to Harry. I thought that there were many things that were left to chance. Dumbledore left Harry to figure out a lot of stuff on his own.

Assuming Snape died, again, IMO 2 things would have happened. One ; The Headmaster's office would have closed down because it was the death eaters who were running the School. Like with Umbridge. Dumbledore's portrait too would have been shut inside the office. We don't know if Dumbledore had another portrait elsewhere and I am assuming here that he did not have a portrait anywhere else.

Second; the head master's office would be open with the Carrows in charge or some other DE in charge. In both cases Harry would not be able to access Dumbledore's portrait. This is what I think would have happened, because Voldemort would make the noffice open and palce another DE there. I don't think he would take it like Umbridge who went into a fit and then stromed off.

The only other option I see is Phineas's portrait. Dumbeldore would have to tell through Phineas that Harry must be killed to save the others. But I don't know how that would work though, if there would be a DE in the headmaster's office all the time.