![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
JK Rowling has said that Albus Dumbledore was "the epitome of goodness." In the most recent interview as of this writing, she said he was "an innately good man."
Dumbledore was a wizard who knowingly hired teachers for a position he believed that Tom Riddle cursed before 1956. From the attitudes of the teachers we met, Dumbledore probably did not inform the DADA teachers of the curse. Some of those teachers died, and others were injured.
Dumbledore was a wizard who left Harry Potter in a state of abuse for years, and did nothing to intervene. Dumbledore allowed and even reinforced a divisive house system at Hogwarts, and favored what was reputedly his house over all others. Dumbledore demonstrated to Tom Riddle in the orphanage that might is right, then brought Riddle to Hogwarts to grow without attempting to guide the motivations of the talented young wizard or to at least intervene when Riddle showed signs of seeking dark knowledge and power. We already know that Dumbledore sat on his hands for years while Grindelwald ravaged Europe.
After Deathly Hallows, I question whether Dumbledore was really good. Dumbledore was a man who followed his obsessions whether or not it affected others under his care. He often preferred to act through others. He expected them to obey without question, on faith in Dumbledore's judgment alone. He may never have given those people the whole truth about their assignments or the roles of others, resulting in the death of at least one of his agents, Severus Snape. Dumbledore was not concerned about specific others or even the general good. He was a narcissist for whom all that mattered was seen in his own reflection.
"You must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber. Nothing but that could have called Fawkes to you."
Narcissism, according to Wikipedia, quoting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is:
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following (I have bolded those that may be least controversial, and used guidance from this translation in plain English):
- has a grandiose sense of self-importance: This is generally expressed in private, not public, where the narcissist appears reasonable. In HBP, Dumbledore expressed to Harry how clever he was, how he rarely made mistakes. Was he really all that clever? He may have been gifted with magical ability as a youth, but we saw relatively few examples of this ability in the books, and magical ability does not necessarily equal cleverness. He defended Harry Potter before the Wizengamot, but he did that with lies, not clever argument. He confounded the Ministry by taking credit for Dumbledore’s Army, then disappeared, but again, he was lying. He was right about Voldemort returning, but many a Death Eater might have known that Voldemort would return. Dumbledore alone ruled the Order and kept its secrets, even from other members. He made plans with little input and over the protests of some, even when lives were in danger, such as when Draco Malfoy poisoned two students. Dumbledore had such a sense of self-importance, he made himself central to all endeavors.
- is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love: His goal of the Greater Good, which only he seemed to have a sense of, overrode all other concerns, including the well-being of individuals or the safety of Hogwarts, the latter specifically entrusted to him. Moreover, he believed the Greater Good could only have been achieved through his success, power and brilliance. But detached from the mundane, what is the Greater Good but a perpetual fantasy, especially when dependent on the actions of one man? Many of us have a notion of doing good by, for example, consuming less and recycling, but most of us believe our actions only matter in concert with the same choices made by others. We do not believe we are the only ones qualified to lead the conservation movement. Seriously, if Dumbledore wanted to contribute to the Greater Good, he could have eliminated the House system, taught magical ethics, hired better teachers, or defused the mystery surrounding Dark Magic. Those would have been difficult things to do, however, would have required cooperating with others, and might not have reflected glory on him. Instead, he chose secrecy and power centralized to him.
- believes that he or she is "special" and unique: Almost everyone seemed to believe this of Dumbledore, and he didn't disagree. A manifestation of this belief for the narcissist is wanting to only associate with like special people. Dumbledore really only accepted as his equals his brilliant Grindelwald and perhaps the famous Nicholas Flamel, though we don't have enough information to know the nature of the latter relationship. Dumbledore also accepted as his acolyte and successor The Boy Who Lived, who he believed to be extraordinarily special. Dumbledore condescended towards and remained remote from everyone else.
- requires excessive admiration: This trait is not in evidence in the books. He probably received excessive admiration, anyway.
- has a sense of entitlement: He expected to be treated with deference and to be obeyed immediately. He strolled into Harry's hearing at the Ministry and conjured himself a comfortable chair. His treatment of the Dursleys indicated he expected special treatment regardless of whether he was welcome or not. He barged in on Slughorn, and though unwelcome, dangled Potter in front of him. The Order also generally obeyed Dumbledore and seemed to wait with baited breath for his decisions.
- is interpersonally exploitative: "Narcissists use other people to get what they want without caring about the cost to the other people." This is more fully discussed below.
- lacks empathy: When Dumbledore cried in front of Potter in OOTP and DH, it was for his own weaknesses, when he was asking Potter to understand and forgive him. When he cried as Snape revealed his Patronus, it may have been because Dumbledore believed he had failed to make Snape see how special Potter was, not because he was sorrowful for Snape’s inability to grow beyond devotion to Lily Evans or impressed with the steadfast strength of Snape's ideal love. When Dumbledore talked to Draco Malfoy, it was as a superior, not as a sympathizer who understood Malfoy's difficult situation. When he talked to Fudge at the end of GoF, it was to berate the Minister as a coward, not to persuade him in his difficult situation. When he confined Black to Grimmauld Place, sent Lupin off to the werewolves, or sent Hagrid to the Giants, he did not seem to consider how difficult the situations might have been for his minions. When he sent Snape to return to Voldemort, he looked worried, but that may have been fear of losing his spy more than actual care for Snape as a person.
- is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her: He believes Fudge is envious of him, for one. He may believe that Voldemort fears him, but besides hearsay, there is no evidence this is true.
- shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes: He is rather condescending towards the Dursleys, Tom Riddle, the Wizengamot, Fudge, and Lucius Malfoy. Conveniently, most of these characters are bad guys. He is generally contemptuous of Snape until he arrogantly remarks that Snape is brave enough to have been a Gryffindor.
Narcissism often grows out of insecure relationships with family, especially in a setting where shame is present and where empathy is lacking. The personality trait develops throughout adolescence, probably as a protective measure against insecurity. Dumbledore grew up in a house characterized by shame, with a headstrong Muggleborn mother, an underachieving brother, a damaged sister, and a felonious father who took the law into his own hands. When Dumbledore went to Hogwarts, his natural talent manifested to such a degree that he achieved fame and admiration. As his brother, Aberforth, said, Dumbledore sought validation in prizes and correspondence with famous wizards. Significantly, Elphias Doge, his closest friend, was a sycophant.
Dumbledore's ambitions were thwarted by family obligations. He escaped by dreaming a new world order with Gellert Grindelwald, with the both of them at the lead. In Grindelwald, Dumbledore essentially fell in love with the mirror image of himself. Grindelwald was a talented, good-looking wizard who felt superior to others. JKR says that this love caused Dumbledore to abandon his innate goodness in favor of plotting to dominate Muggles. How many motivations would make one abandon one’s morals? Certainly love would come at the end of the list, way below fear, coercion, greed, or delusion (but maybe I’m wrong - look at Hermione Granger’s development). It was self-love that caused Dumbledore to fixate on Grindelwald, as they each bolstered the exaggerated image they had of themselves. Further, they shared anti-Muggle sentiments, Dumbledore as a result of his sister's injury, his father's disgrace, and the general disdain towards Muggles in the Wizarding World.
Ariana’s death caused Grindelwald to flee Godric’s Hollow. Because of this flight, Dumbledore never really had to confront his own nature. He only confronted the outward result of murder. Except for Aberforth, who he seemed to view as an amusing but lesser being, Dumbledore never faced the condemnation of the Wizarding World or of any person he admired (who would that person be, anyway?). He blamed Grindelwald and love for leading him astray, decided love brought out deadly weakness in him, and moved on from there. He fled into the fantasy world of his own superiority as quickly as Grindelwald had fled from Godric's Hollow.
It then took Dumbledore years to confront the threat that Grindelwald presented to the world. This may have been because he didn't want to battle the man he had loved, or because he didn't want to face the truth over the death of his sister, as he said. But it also may have been because Dumbledore was living a lie in choosing to believe that love led him astray, and he couldn't afford to expose the lie for fear of confronting his true limitations.
He did seem to limit his ambitions, though. He rejected the obvious center of power, the Ministry of Magic, opting instead to become a teacher at Hogwarts, where he would not be required to compromise either his plans or his exalted self-image. He also understood that young minds would be more likely than critical adult minds to accord him the adoration he felt he deserved, especially when he elevated one House above others to assure its loyalty. In spite of being a teacher and later headmaster, Dumbledore grew in influence in the Wizarding World during Riddle’s first rise to power. He eventually became the Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards and the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot. Yet he chose to work outside the standard Wizarding governmental structures to counter Riddle.
Dumbledore was very like young Tom Riddle in choosing to realize his ambitions from behind-the-scenes. Both wanted a base at Hogwarts. Both set up parallel organizations built along the same structure, with one leader having the final say. Loyalty was the most valuable attribute in followers. Each recruited principally from his own Hogwarts House. Supposedly, the difference was that Dumbledore cared about his followers, whereas Riddle did not.
Yet for a follower like Sirius Black, no doubt a discipline problem for Dumbledore, the care was not there. For all we know, Black was allowed to rot in Azkaban not because Dumbledore couldn’t be bothered to speak against imprisonment without trial and not because Dumbledore truly thought Black guilty, but rather because he dared to collude with the Potters to refuse Dumbledore as a secret keeper. Similarly, perhaps Black was allowed to rot at Grimmauld Place not soley because he was in danger of being apprehended by Aurors or Death Eaters, but because he was a potent rival to Dumbledore for the affections of the Boy Who Lived.
For a follower like Remus Lupin, who may have seemed a weak sister in any cause, the care was not there. Dumbledore abandoned Lupin as a teacher once Lupin was outed as a lycanthrope, then sent Lupin on a mission to the werewolves, perhaps because Lupin kept the incredibly important Animagus secret from him.
For a follower like Harry Potter, who Dumbledore flattered by saying he was not worried because they were together, the care was not there. Dumbledore let Potter grow up in the abusive Dursley household, then let him fall into misadventure after misadventure at Hogwarts, and finally left him with too little information to find and destroy the Horcruxes, while curiously sidetracking him with his own obsession, the Deathly Hallows.
We see much of how Dumbledore operated with his subordinates in his interactions with Potter because, even though he adored Potter as the one to carry his legacy, old habits die hard. In PS/SS, he lied to Potter about Snape's motivations for trying to save him, saying Snape had a rivalry with Potter's father not unlike the rivalry between Potter and Draco Malfoy. In this way, he undercut any gratitude Potter might have felt towards Snape, refocusing it on himself alone, and reinforced House rivalries. When Fawkes saved Potter in the Chamber of Secrets, Dumbledore remarked that it was personal loyalty to the Headmaster that called the Phoenix – not need, not valor, not instinct – thus tying Potter closer to Dumbledore’s cult of personality. In PoA, Dumbledore stopped Snape from expressing an opinion several times, especially at the end, signaling to Potter that Potter only had to respect Snape as much as Dumbledore respected him, i.e., very little. When Potter returns the dead body of Cedric Diggory in GOF, Dumbledore shunted Potter off to the side. Dumbledore later spoke of Diggory as a symbol more than a human being, signaling the role people could expect to fulfill in a war with Voldemort. By OOTP, Dumbledore had dropped Magical Cooperation. Dumbledore did not even look at Potter, only fueling the boy’s attachment anxiety. In the Ministry fight, he taunted Voldemort by calling him "Tom." Then we got the scene with Potter in the Headmaster's office where Dumbledore showed so much compassion for Black and told half-truths about Snape, all the while stressing Potter's goodness and responsibility so as to assure Potter would be "Dumbledore's man." In HBP, Dumbledore shrugged off Potter’s concerns about Draco Malfoy, berated Potter for not being cunning enough to get a complete memory from Slughorn, and brought Potter wholly unprepared, but sworn to follow instructions, to the folly of the cave. At the end of six books, we were told many things about Dumbledore from many different sources, but what had Dumbledore actually done that was so good or great? He followed his own whims, repeatedly abandoned his post as Headmaster, and molded Potter into a follower desperate for his approval.
In the books, Dumbledore seemed aloof and amused by others' distress. With each book, he withdrew from Hogwarts more and more. For some reason, people trusted and followed him. They believed in his goodness.
"You Disgust Me."
Narcissists try to manipulate those around them to reinforce their view of the world and to get others to do their bidding. Dumbledore used many tricks to keep others subservient to him. We see this most clearly in his treatment of Severus Snape.
- Dumbledore told unnecessary lies. For example, he told Potter that his father saved Snape’s life and Snape somehow felt he had a life debt to repay in PS. This minimized Snape's true actions in trying to protect Potter, assuring Potter could take Snape less seriously.
- He publicly demeaned others. In POA, he made no attempt to hide his amusement at Snape’s anger from Cornelius Fudge and the Trio, even knowing why Snape must have been so upset.
- He used language to put others in an inferior position. He calls everyone by their first names, most especially Severus. How many call him "Albus"?
- He used proxies to communicate with others. He did this repeatedly in HBP when summoning Potter, culminating in his request, albeit in a weakened state, that Potter fetch Snape for him.
- He felt no empathy for those in pain. He told Snape, "You disgust me," when Snape was in extreme distress. Later, he slapped down Snape's anguish over Lily's death with a privileged, righteous anger.
- He publicly ridiculed others. He gave Snape the Christmas cracker with a hat reminiscent of the DADA class in which Snape had been set up to look ridiculous.
- He avoided those who questioned him. He was simply not available for Snape or any other teacher to consult for seemingly large portions of many school years.
- He cut people off without listening to them. He repeatedly interrupted and shut down Snape in POA when Snape tried to express his reservations about Lupin’s ties to Black.
- He expressed outright hostility. "You disgust me" is a fairly hostile comment.
- He switched definitions on people. What was once disgusting in Snape later became the best thing about him.
- He tried to keep the rug pulled out from others. Before the House Cup surprise in PS/SS, he showed up at the Quidditch game when Snape refereed.
- He redefined others' perceptions in terms that reflected his way of thinking. He gave Snape a back-handed compliment by telling him Hogwarts might Sort too soon!
- He dismissed others’ worth. He ultimately asked Snape to kill him in an off-hand way, as if Snape owed it to him, without evident forethought for the value of Snape’s soul.
- He tried to name and groom his own heir. Dumbledore was blind to Potter's faults until confronted with them in the cave, yet who but the boy who survived an AK could be suitable to carry the legacy of the great Dumbledore?
- He tried to control the actions of others. Dumbledore's portrait was still trying to dictate Snape's actions.
- He withheld critical information because he could, not because it was necessary. Dumbledore callously allowed Snape to walk into a death trap unprepared because owning his precious knowledge about the Elder Wand was more important to him than Snape’s life, especially as Snape had had the audacity to challenge Dumbledore's judgment and had shut off the ramblings of portrait Dumbledore about the Sword of Gryffindor.
Contrast Dumbledore's callous manipulations with Snape's actions and motivations. Arguably, it might have been love's rejection that drove Snape to seek a place in the Death Eaters, along with Snape's desire to be found worthy and even powerful, and a magical environment condescending if not outwardly dismissive of Muggles. We have those hints of why Snape joined the Voldemort, and his own warning that Voldemort could read people's emotional weaknesses and use those to manipulate them. Significantly, Snape did not try to set himself up as a leader from the start, as the "great" Dumbledore and Voldemort did. Snape became a follower.
Like Dumbledore, Snape's wake-up call came with a threat to a loved one's life. Unlike Dumbledore, the Dark One did not dismiss Snape and leave in a more-or-less clean break (the Light One did that to Snape). Also unlike Dumbledore, Snape did not evade his own responsibility for involving a loved one with death. At no doubt tremendous danger to himself, Snape first secured Voldemort’s promise that the one Snape loved would not be harmed. Knowing, however, that Voldemort used and discarded his followers with little regard for them, and taking as a higher goal the protection of his loved one, Snape went to Dumbledore. He did this in desperation, in spite of his history at Hogwarts and probable history with Dumbledore after the Prank.
Before DH, many people wanted to believe that Dumbledore was a kindly father figure or mentor or even friend to Snape. Many were shocked at how much loathing Dumbledore expressed towards the distraught Snape. He had seemed to treat everyone, even Tom Riddle, with more respect and regard than he treated Snape, with less reason. Why did he flat out tell Snape, "You disgust me?" Some apologists have said it was to shock Snape out of an emotional fugue, but Snape was already shocked enough to go to Dumbledore in the first place. Snape put himself at Dumbledore's mercy, the very mercy Dumbledore later felt was so important to extend to Draco Malfoy, even though the situation was quite reversed.
This was a "wrath of God" Dumbledore, however. A narcissist might have been disgusted by the "weakness" of Snape's showing emotion, especially love that wasn't centered on him. Where others might have seen a distraught man, Dumbledore saw an opportunity to exploit someone for Dumbledore’s own purposes, regardless of the cost to his victim. (Dumbledore was also the voice of the author in this moment, letting us know how she felt about her character, that she found him "horrible." It may be useful to remember that JKR said Dumbledore and Hermione Granger speak for her. Further, this was her opportunity to throw a bone to those who accused Snape of child abuse, just as she may have done with the Dursleys through Dumbledore in HBP.)
The whole conceit of kindly Dumbledore fell away with "You disgust me" to reveal a truly heartless man. Looking back at what he asked of Snape, and Lupin, Black and Potter, there is scant real concern shown for their welfare in any way. What kind of leader is this ruthless? The kind who believes he has all the answers or at least knows the right questions, the megalomaniac who pursues his own goals relentlessly, the Voldemort of good.
But, JKR has said recently that Dumbledore's curse was to be a great man. Snape's curse, besides existing, was to make two mistakes and to never find forgiveness for them, in spite of braving ridicule and worse to apologize repeatedly in the first instance (calling Lily a "Mudblood") and in spite of working tirelessly to make amends for the harm he had done in the second instance (joining the Death Eaters, which led to relaying the Prophecy to Voldemort). And, not being one of the great ones, Snape could not merely walk away from his mistake, but was rather tied to Darkness all his life by the one who should have tied him to Light. More significantly, Snape would not walk away from his mistake. He promised to do "anything" in response to Dumbledore's cold bargain that led Snape further into isolation, ill repute, half-truths, and death.
"Anything" and "Always"
Snape gave his word to Dumbledore not because he was stupid or Dumbledore was all-powerful (though he may have bought the hype that Voldemort feared Dumbledore), but because he loved. Snape staked his life, a existence which had little experience of joy, on a life debt that transcended anything Dumbledore spoke of to Harry -- gratitude to a person who he believed showed him love. He gave his word for a higher cause than that encompassed by the Dark Mark. And, once he had given his word in service of this higher standard, he did not back down from whatever was required of him.
It turned out that Dumbledore was not so powerful that he was able to save the Potters, if he even made much of an effort. He let his Order followers commit their folly, leading to their deaths and, coincidentally, leading to his greater control over the one prophesied to defeat the Dark Lord. He used the Potters' death to further mold Snape into his tool, and Snape acquiesced for the memory of the love for which he would have sacrificed anything. I don't see how this makes Dumbledore innately good or Snape horrible. How many did Dumbledore watch die? How many did he try to save (counting Harry)? And where did Snape acquire his final aversion to others' love, if not from Dumbledore? The cost of Dumbledore's plans was too high to risk Snape's emotions.
What is remarkable about Snape is that he apparently had a lifetime of people trying to put him down. His father seemed to not like anything, which presumably included Snape. His mother looked sullen. His physical appearance as a boy suggests neglect, at the very least. Lily Evans, his purported best friend, ran through blaming him for accidental magic to alienating Petunia to having evil friends before she finally colluded in his humiliation, then dumped him without looking back while he was trying to apologize and may have been able to change. The Marauders seemed to have attacked "special case" Snape just because "he exists," not relenting even after James Potter became romantically involved with Lily Evans. The school, and most especially Dumbledore, whose memory was "as good as it ever was," presumably did not support Snape up to or after the Prank. While Snape may have thought he found acceptance and a path to satisfy his magical ambition with Voldemort and the Death Eaters, he probably soon realized the former only used others and the latter were all trying to secure their own positions in the ranks, not exactly a nurturing environment. An unpopular teacher, at least with the Gryffindors, when Snape took over as Headmaster of Hogwarts, he no doubt had most of the Wizarding World hating him. Certainly, the paragon of love, Harry Potter, vehemently hated Snape until he learned of Snape's saving graces, that Snape had Gryffindor-like courage and he loved Gryffindor Lily Evans. All of this hostility pales, however, compared to Dumbledore's outright hostility and condescension to Snape.
Dumbledore may have been so openly hostile to Snape in "The Prince's Tale" because an unemotional Snape was never going to kowtow to him without first resisting. Snape probably did not fall down and worship Dumbledore when Snape was a student, and from what we see of their interactions in Snape's final chapter, he did not worship Dumbledore as an adult. Snape was independent, self-motivated, intelligent, and logical. He was a maverick who dared to love outside his House. Dumbledore may have felt he could not control Snape except through high-handed bullying. He needn't have bothered, because Snape promised him "anything," but Dumbledore as a Gryffindor probably couldn't help the bullying. And again, Dumbledore is the voice of the author, who has stated her past teacher deserved the depiction he got in Snape.
Snape withstood a lifetime of animosity to pursue his goals and contribute to his society. He never chose to lie down and take abuse. He fought every step of the way, and he learned to give as good as he got, to his detriment at times. He may have received the strength to endure and fight from the same source he got his determination to be in Slytherin, namely, from someone in his family. Or he may have come by his determination as part of his natural character. In any event, he was strong enough to realize his errors and make a change, to keep his word to Lily Evan's memory all his life, to argue with Dumbledore and look rebellious in the forest, to clearly perceive and largely tell the truth to Potter, to continue to think and act independently, to feel shock at the uses to which Dumbledore put both him and Potter, to dismiss Dumbledore's interference in the plan to get the sword to Potter in the Forest of Dean (which dismissal may have cost Snape his life), and to follow through with his mission while he was dying. It was not Lily's love that allowed him to do all this. If Lupin or anyone else had loved Lily, he wouldn't have been able to do half of what Snape did. Snape possessed innate inner strength and confidence, the ability to clearly perceive situations given the facts, the capacity to act on his own, and the willingness and focus to change when he realized he had been wrong.
Snape withstood years of Dumbledore's indifference to his welfare and hostility to Slytherins. He performed useful work and engaged with students to at least keep them safe and ensure they received a meaningful education. When Harry Potter came along, the whole equilibrium of his world tilted. Dumbledore continually allowed Potter to be put in danger "to test his strength," all the while charging Snape with the impossible task of keeping Potter safe. Dumbledore's disregard for Snape did not cease when Snape saved Dumbledore's life. He asked Snape to kill him! Snape's soul was incidental. Then, for Snape's adult life of service, Dumbledore betrayed Snape through his silence about the Elder Wand.
And here is the obligatory statement: Snape was not a nice person. So what? If I had been Snape, sworn to serve two callous masters, trapped with lazy and self-absorbed children, carrying guilt that had been reinforced to keep me in line, lied to by omission, my contributions either taken for granted, kept secret, or abused, and on and on, I don't think I would have been very nice either, let alone would have survived it. Snape was not nice to Harry Potter, but he didn't encourage the child to face Voldemort or an escaped convict or a werewolf or dragons or Inferi. He tried his damnedest to keep Potter out of trouble, even when it brought him derision and hostility from Potter, even though he hated the person he mistakenly saw in Potter. And Snape didn't generally lie, but he did at Spinner's End when he said that Dumbledore's weakness was having to believe the best of people, enough to give him a second chance.
I remember when some thought that Snape was Dumbledore's right-hand man, that Dumbledore listened to and heeded Snape's advice. That turned out to be wishful thinking. In fact, ironically, it was Voldemort who listened to Snape. Voldemort gave the Death Eaters a free hand to follow their own initiatives and, through several books at least, shared his plans in great detail. When we see Snape express an opinion to Dumbledore, he's slapped down for it while Dumbledore feels it his privilege to keep his secrets. This is why the Harry Potter series twists my mind into knots. In the end, if you follow one character who is "innately good" according to some criteria the author think she has defined, then you can do any sort of thoughtless, reckless act and be rewarded for your heroic loyalty and bravery, but if you exercise critical thought and try for self-determination, then you are a loathsome creature. The message is, turn off your brain and become an unquestioning follower of he who is commonly-received as good.
The morality in the HP books makes me crazy. People like Snape who work hard, follow reasonable rules, try to achieve something with their lives, tell the truth for the most part, have a sense of personal honor, question their surroundings -- they are fools and worse. Those who coast, break rules just because they want to, spin their wheels for direction, rely on others to carry them, blatantly lie, uncritically follow a leader, and ultimately accept the current social order as it is -- they are Harry Potter, the good one, if not better than good.
Dumbledore did what was good for Dumbledore, out of sense of grandiosity and an imagined greater good, abandoning those in his care repeatedly to do so. Harry Potter inherited his narcissistic legacy. Potter's major concern in DH was not the welfare of others or their suffering. It was whether or not Dumbledore truly loved him. And, at the end, even though House prejudice and condescension to Muggles still seemed to exist, "all was well" because Harry Potter's life was satisfactory. Meanwhile, the ugly and disagreeable Snape did what was good for others, specifically and generally, out of a sense of honor and gratitude for his experience of love, remaining where people despised him to do so, and the author only reluctantly agreed he was heroic.
So, I know this analysis is a little left of an extreme minority report. We are told over and over that Dumbledore is good by JK Rowling, that he worked for the Greater Good. Like Harry Potter, we want to believe, we want to take Dumbledore on faith. Dumbledore was kindly in manner, at least. He was "nice" to many in person (as opposed to Snape, who's often dinged for not being nice). Who could really believe Dumbledore was a narcissist?
But what was Dumbledore, then? Even when the Scottish book comes out and further disparages Snape's character, I doubt we’ll know.
Having characters wander off down paths the author never intended can be very unnerving but I like to give mine free rein because their path is usually the right one.
You're right -- if JKR stuck to the plan she made seventeen years prior for the last book, that obstinacy made characters' behavior seem out of sync with their earlier development. Still, I had a lot of unease about Dumbledore early on. I danced around it when I wrote, however, for what I believed were JKR's intentions for the character. Silly me.
Dumbledore in my opinion was an elitist who wanted to keep the wizarding status quo. He did nothing to really improve muggle wizard relations. He kept slaves. The only half blood in his immediate circle was treated horribly. He neutralized or disgarded people no longer useful to him. Worst of all he abused his power over children. Using one house as canon fodder for his cause and the other cast as villans from the moment of sorting.
As for Snape not being nice. I wouldn't be a nice person having my dignity and self respect kicked by the so-called epitome of goodness and his followers on a daily basis meanwhile having to do the dirty work of spying and keeping the golden idiot Potter out of trouble.
AND
Yes, that is exactly why I fail to understand the logic (rather lack of logic) behind the "moral of the story".
This is the best HP essay I have ever read. Thank you for putting this in fairly neutral terms. My hatred for Dumbledore has no bounds, and I will never change my opinion that his entire life's ambition to be Merlin and Mordred and the Morrighan all rolled up into one.
Regarding #4 ("requires excessive admiration"), I agree that it's not explicitly stated in the books that he requires it, but he certainly receives it. We constantly hear from others what a great wizard Dumbledore is, the only one Voldemort fears, etc., and everyone in the Order defers to him. I would guess that he probably accepts it as his due. If it was withheld, then we might see him demanding it. There were Fudge's attempts to discredit it him, of course, but that could be seen as a backhanded compliment--the extent to which he tries to discredit Dumbledore just proves what a serious opponent he considers Dumbledore to be.
It's quite interesting that in trying to portray how innately good Dumbledore is, JKR inadvertently seems to show us the opposite, and in trying to show how bad Snape is, she only makes us feel more sympathy for him.
Have you read FerretBrain's article about Harry Potter and Calvinism?
http://ferretbrain.com/articles/art
There's some good stuff in there about the Church of Scotland, Calvinist pre-destination, and the idea of someone being "innately" good or bad from the start.
It really burns me up that the reputed protagonist of the series never changes. I mean, that is the definition of the protagonist, is it not? The character who through challenge, failure, and getting up again grows and changes over the course of the book/series? The people in this book who change or are challenged are the ones that JKR seems to dismiss, you know? Snape, the Malfoys, Neville, even Ron. Dumbledore just ticks me off.
Excellent job.
*delurks*
For all we know, Black was allowed to rot in Azkaban not because Dumbledore couldn’t be bothered to speak against imprisonment without trial and not because Dumbledore truly thought Black guilty, but rather because he dared to collude with the Potters to refuse Dumbledore as a secret keeper.
I think Dumbledore always saw Sirius as a liability. Loyalty to himself was the most important quality he looked for in a minion, but Sirius' first loyalty was to James and his family. When he went to Azkaban, Dumbledore was probably too relieved to see the last of someone he considered a dangerous loose cannon to care one way or another about his guilt.
He withheld critical information because he could, not because it was necessary. Dumbledore callously allowed Snape to walk into a death trap unprepared because owning his precious knowledge about the Elder Wand was more important to him than Snape’s life, especially as Snape had had the audacity to challenge Dumbledore's judgment and had shut off the ramblings of portrait Dumbledore about the Sword of Gryffindor.
I suspect it was even worse than that. Dumbledore deliberately let Snape go to his death because he didn't trust Snape with the Elder Wand. He couldn't tell Snape that the Deathstick was involved because it would be too much of a temptation, you see? Of course, that's assuming Snape's a power-hungry idiot. But Dumbledore trusts no one, and judges everyone by his own vices.
-L (I don't have an IJ or LJ but sign my posts with an initial. Is that OK?)
I was married to a narcissist, and this feels true. The entire world is painted by their self absorption. My ex used to dress up (in my lingerie)in front of the mirror, with all the shades drawn. There was no available for attentio for anything other than his own reflection.
AD is painted as a magical and mercurial creature in the early books, from a childs-eye view he is fascinating, seeming almost a benevolent god. The deeper into the series we go, the less godlike and less sane he becomes.
Thanks for laying this all out. I really hated AD in OOTP for leaving Harry in the dark, fueling his doubts and sense of abandonment. When you look at his record of "being there" for Harry, it's pretty spotty, at best.
You're right, the moral tale doesnt add up. In her confusion about what kind of books these were, the value of amusing entertainment overtook any attempt at telling essential truths. The vividness of the characters and the world she built led us to believe there was a powerful mythic tale herein. Alas, what we really got was much too revealing about what is actually valued in our world.
brava!
He used language to put others in an inferior position. He calls everyone by their first names, most especially Severus. How many call him "Albus"?
Fudge, maybe, or Scrimgeour? I'm pretty sure Fudge calls him "Dumbledore" at various points. But in a way this proves the point -- they're people of higher status than Dumbledore is (Ministers for Magic).
Does McGonagall? (That may be film contamination, that I even wonder if so.)
I'm fairly certain that Severus doesn't even call him "Dumbledore"; I think he only calls him by his title, "Headmaster". But then, there's a large age difference there besides the large social power difference.
In any case, few, certainly. (O, for e-texts of the books, once again. Then I could make a definitive answer.)
And here is the obligatory statement: Snape was not a nice person. So what?
Even aside from our own personal reactions, "so what?" is still valid. Many of us might not want to associate with Severus as a friend. He certainly doesn't seem like someone who would be easy to get along with. But in terms of human worth, "so what" indeed? He was unpleasant, but it seems that he harmed no none a-purpose and in fact tried to resist doing so accidentally. And as far as I can tell, he will treat with civility those who have not provoked him. We usually value patience even with those who DO provoke us -- but is it "evil" not to have that?
As a slight aside, I can definitely sympathize with frustration and the desire to be mean to those who seem pathologically averse to following the fucking directions (if you'll forgive my language!). Really. As an employer, I have a disproportionate appreciation for those who not only do what I tell them to do, but anticipate my other desires, because so few even fulfill the first part, which is doing what their basic training says to do. Honestly, I would be happy if they never did anything exceptional, but merely didn't screw up at least once a day. I can hardly fault Severus for losing patience with those who do just that.
People like Snape who work hard, follow reasonable rules, try to achieve something with their lives, tell the truth for the most part, have a sense of personal honor, question their surroundings -- they are fools and worse.
Let us make a company of fools then. *waves banner* Even if he is often unpleasant, at least you always know where you stand with Severus. If he hates you, by God and others, you know it. He doesn't make fun of you behind your back.
Spot on
It was a pity that Snape did not feel concern over an innocent baby, though it's hard to do so when it's the spawn of the former love of his life, who dropped him for his worst enemy. As for James, if I had joined a gang for revenge and protection, and my gang leader then set his sights on the one who bullied me, you can be damned sure I'd view it as divine justice. No sympathy or pity here!
You've captured Dumbledore's scornful and manipulative behavior of Snape perfectly. IMHO, Snape joined the Death Eaters partially because of the abuse he suffered at the Marauder's hands (and Dumbledore's negligent Headmastering), so the fact that he returned must have been an immense sacrifice. When Lupin in PoA runs loose as a werewolf, Dumbledore never blames himself for hiring such a dangerous creature - we get the impression, though never seen directly, that he blames Snape for outing him. Dumbledore would have preferred to keep that little slip secret.
I've heard the comment that Snape's love for Lily was obsessive and kept him mired in the past. I believe that Dumbledore prevented him from moving on. The constant reminder of Lily's sacrifice and Snape's great mistake was always dangled in his vision, keeping the wound fresh and his emotions in the here and now. If Snape had found a truly fulfilling relationship and was able to put Lily in the past, it would have ruined Dumbledore's Great Plan. Thus, Snape's love was kept alive and unrequited, and his promise was honored up until the moment of his death.
JKR's treatment of Snape was revealing of her attitude towards him. He is said to have abandoned his post, simply because we left the school. We don't know where he went afterward, but the Shrieking Shack is connected to school property, so if he remained on or near the grounds, how could he have abandoned his post? Dumbledore left school repeatedly in HPB but was never said to have abandoned his post. Snape was DRIVEN from the school; he did not willingly leave, and he kept searching for Harry, who by rights should have been a student. In an interview, JKR baldly stated that Snape abandoned his post and thus was not entitled to a portrait, but Harry might be able to do something about it, because even in death Snape's welfare must be dependent on the charity of Gryffindors.
Dumbledore's narcissism prevents him from seeing the detrimental treatment of Slytherin House. In PS/SS, the Slytherins are lead to believe they have won the Cup, only to have it ripped away by over 150 last-minute bonus points. Though Harry and Co undoubtedly worked hard, the point amount is excessive and done just to defeat Slytherin House. I bet many Slytherins resolved to join Voldemort right there - leaving the other houses to chalk it up to typical Slytherin behavior. Obviously Slytherins go bad because they cannot find fulfillment within Hogwarts, and Dumbledore was likely the one who created such an oppressive atmosphere.
abandoned post
Heck, he comes flat out and says that he doesn't care if a bunch of nameless nobodies die as long as Harry is happy. And Harry isn't disgusted by this! Instead in the next book he again becomes DD's good little follower, his man through and through. Notice how angry DD got when Harry actually dared to question him in HBP? Harry is not supposed to have an opinion, if DD says "Jump!", he is supposed to ask "How high?".
I remember when I first started reading the Harry Potter books, I thought Dumbledore was the greatest thing since sliced bread, he was so kind and wise and eccentric. Of course he kept sending a kid to do the dirty work, but that's how these sorts of things work in series like this and I was willing to suspend my disbelief. Reading the fifth and sixth books more in-depth, though, left a bad taste in my mouth. But! That must be a problem with my reading of the books; Dumbledore could only be a Good Person, if only because TPTB told me so.
Then came Deathly Hallows.
Wow. Suffice it to say, you've basically put my reaction into words. At best, Dumbledore believed that, questionable as his decisions and behavior might be, he was paving the way towards a greater good, which really just leads back to that narcissism. The Moral of the Story truly alludes me, and I've pretty much given up on JKR as a reliable witness. Although I would sort of love to see how she'd react to proper analysis of her characters, if she'd deem such a thing worthy of reaction at all.
The morality and values system put forth in the books makes me crazy, too. For all the lip service otherwise, Dumbledore was a grade A manipulator who had zero concern with what winning the war might actually cost to the people fighting it.
It fits. Holy crap, does it fit. If this is an "extreme minority report," then it just shows that the "majority" are brainless sheep. ;-) Gee, how lucky for them: GRYFFINDOR! said the Hat. Heh.
And here is the obligatory statement: Snape was not a nice person.
1. I am getting thoroughly tired of statements like this being "necessary." This isn't any fault to you, mind you; I'm venting about the so-called "majority" who see Mean Ol' Snape but are blind to Machiavellian User Dumbledore, et al.
2. Severus wasn't always "nice" to people, but he proved, in the end, to have a strong sense of honor, integrity, and ethics. He kept his word where many would have bailed out a long time before. And he was genuinely appalled at Dumbledore's callous sacrifice of Harry Potter; he didn't have to like Harry to object to the injustice and cruelty and futility of the whole "plan."
3. When people treated Severus decently--in the few glimpses we get--Severus showed a tendency to respond in kind. I have no doubt that he would be a loyal and steadfast friend to anyone who gave him genuine friendship, though after being burned as badly as he'd been, anyone befriending him in his 30's would have to be a bit patient before he'd let them into his realm of trust.
4. When people treat a man like shit, they shouldn't bitch if he sometimes stinks.
The morality in the HP books makes me crazy. People like Snape who work hard, follow reasonable rules, try to achieve something with their lives, tell the truth for the most part, have a sense of personal honor, question their surroundings -- they are fools and worse. Those who coast, break rules just because they want to, spin their wheels for direction, rely on others to carry them, blatantly lie, uncritically follow a leader, and ultimately accept the current social order as it is -- they are Harry Potter, the good one, if not better than good.
Severus Snape would have made a good secular humanist. ;-) Clearly JKR values "trust and obey and conform" over "think for yourself and question everything, especially authority." Pity. That capacity for critical thinking would go a long way to preventing another Voldemort--or Dumbledore.
This essay needs to be promoted far and wide in the HP fandom. Not everyone will like it, I suppose, but everyone needs to read it. Bravo. Take a bow, and then an encore.
Bohemianspirit
It is curious that with all this post-conclusion discussion going on how many more interesting plot ideas have come up, how much more intriguing characters have become (even if we don't LIKE them). Some might say that's because JKR created layered characters, but I think it's because she made them pinboards for whatever was going through her mind at the time, and we've all filled in the enormous holes in an attempt to understand their motivations. What else can you do with such paucity of character development?
Oh, my!
And, believe me, as a religious person, Rowling's emphasis on blind obedience creeps me out. This is *not* the way you should relate to God, nor to religious leasders, and it's an awful message to sell to kids. What you say is true: Riddle and Dumbledore are both cult leaders, but Riddle treats his followers better! The lack of any objective morality and the double standards in these books drive me right up the wall.
I have been wondering what I have to say about Severus and Albus. You have said it all. After DH, it's impossible for me to see Albus as good in any way.
Thanks for the essay.
But I’m getting carried away. Now, at least, I can see the possible reasons behind Dumbledore’s actions, it really makes sense. Thank you for that! ^_^
It is astonishing though, that the readers are able to understand the characters far better than JK Rowling herself (with her twisted ethics). More astonishing is that many people seem to be more interested in Dumbledore’s sexuality than in the reasons for his questionable behaviour.
I'm one of those who defended Dumbledore and the books up until DH came out. I didn't want to believe that there shouldn't be an underlying decency in both, even though there were plot holes, even though the morals and values were confused (not to mention definitions, rules of magic and story telling, character development and, and...)
If there had been some decency to the Dumbledore character, some glimpse of that 'innate goodness' of him and his motivations, then I'd probably still try to find excuses for all the flaws revealed now. There isn't and my anger is still not over. I read Dumbledore's 'you disgust me' (I did read 'The Prince's tale before I read the rest of the book) and the whole Harry Potter series turned upside down for me in n instant. That's it, I was so very wrong, those who pointed these things out earlier, you among them, were right.
We do have the excuse that the wise wizards with the long white beards in the past always were the good guys who guided their friends wisely. Alas, Dumbledore is no Merlin or Gandalf.
What I can't understand is how an obviously value-confused person like the author can describe these characters so well and misinterpret them so thoroughly. It's almost as if she writes the exact opposite of what she wants to tell. I'd rather be part of your minority than her majority.
the problem of remorse and shame
Sincere remorse is simply not felt by the true narcissist. So I think if we're going to view Dumbledore as a true narcissist, we have to contradict JKR's intended portrayal of his character.
I have no problem with contradicting JKR's *assessment* of Dumbledore as an inherently good person. That's simply her judgment call regarding him ethically and morally. Anyone if free to agree or disagree. However, I'm not nearly as quick to ditch her actual writing of the character, where she is sincerely trying to portray true remorse.
If Dumbledore was truly remorseful, he could not be a real narcissist. As far as I've read about the real narcissist or experienced with those I know, they do not have true remorse.
Not that I don't see your point. I do and I agree that many of Dumbledore's actions and attitudes really seem to fit the narcissist. But not the remorse. It's just too foreign for the narcissist. Oh, the narcissist will feign remorse, but only to get what they want from others. They don't actually experience it (at least from what I've seen in the ones I've known, or what I've read).
I don't think, matters *why* Dumbledore is remorseful. For instance, I feel that his remorse about Arianna's death is more remorse that he wasn't the person he felt he should have been, rather than grief over his sister's passing through his actions. But it is still a form of remorse.
Dumbledore goes after Grindelwald, even though he waits for years and after many have been killed or tortured, because he says the "shame was too great." Narcissists, as I understand it, don't feel true shame. They might claim to have it, but it's just to manipulate people. I'm fairly certain that JKR intends Dumbledore to have experienced true shame. So once again, JKR gives Dumbledore a feeling that is, as far as I understand it, incompatible with being a true narcissist.
Therefore, as I understand it, because JKR writes Dumbledore as experiencing true shame and remorse, he cannot truly be a narcissist, regardless how well he otherwise fits the description.
wynnleaf (not an ij user yet)
remorse?
In some interview - I'm afraid I don't have the direct citation, but the words stuck in my head because they struck me as odd - Rowling said: "I wanted there to be forgiveness. I wanted there to be redemption." Two things about this quote - first, the oddly passive verb. "I wanted there to be," not, "I wanted to show". Second, the glaring imperfections in Dumbledore's character are specifically meant, I think, to diminish Severus's redemptive path, or perhaps even render it nonexistent.
So far as we know, Dumbledore is one of those Gryffindors who can do no wrong. Harry discovers the headmaster has lied to him for years, has failed to protect him, and has even planned his death, but he forgives him immediately. He never feels the anger he ought to feel towards Dumbledore. And we see Dumbledore, apparently happy and well in the afterlife, in Harry's vision at King's Cross. He also has a portrait.
In contrast, Harry never forgives Severus during the story. We know he eventually does, because of the epilogue, but we never see Harry go through that process. We never see Severus redeemed, and, according to Rowling in her interviews, he does not merit a portrait. This is what leads me to believe she has damned Snape, in spite of his genuine repentance*. He 'chose' Slytherin, and therefore nothing he could do would be enough to save him.
This, to my mind, is both a moral and an artistic failure. The major tension in in the books is the conflict between Severus and Harry, and that should have been resolved in the books, where we could see it, and not in a couple of sentences after the fact. And, although Rowling actually did a pretty good job of hinting at Dumbledore's true character, it should still have come as a shock *to Harry*. His mindless, automatic obedience and lack of any emotional reaction when he confronted ghost/Dumbledore were very unsatisfying to me. But worst of all was the way Dumbledore kept robbing Snape, even in the afterlife. (If you see what i mean). It's *Dumbledore*, not Severus, who is on the moral journey to repentance and redemption. Severus just doesn't matter. And that makes me sick.
Oh - just one more thing, and this goes along with the narcissistic personality thing. Swythyv, I think, postulated that it was necessary for Dumbledore to make Harry feed him that potion in the cave *so that he could repent*. He would not have been capable of it without that magical aid. I like that idea!
*oh, and there is a difference between remorse and true repentance. Severus is the *only* character of whom the word "repentance" is used, and he's the only character we see *acting* to correct his failings. Rowling, IMHO, damns him, anyway.
I hate these books. It took me awhile to get here, but now I really hate them. Sorry for the length. And I'll be happy if you, or anyone, can persuade me I am wrong.
I just can't understand why she painted such an awful picture of Dumbledore in DH re the biography yet continues to adore his morality.
I can only assume she just can't see the disparity herself. And when you consider that she's supposedly (by her own admission) the closest to Dumbledore of all the characters in personality, it makes you wonder, doesn't it? (Why she can't see Dumbledore's failings and Snape's efforts.)
Just a tiny nitpick-
Don't you mean "condemnation" rather than "approbation"? Aberforth, bless him, certainly didn't give his brother approbation - nor the other way around. What a family!
belated comment
To shamelessly self-pimp, here (http://raisin-gal.livejournal.com/1539.html) I argue that the HP story makes a whole lot more sense than it does now if we see it as a reflection of the distorted worldview (pathologically so) held by someone in the position of Lily and with the personality of Dumbledore. Her/his involvement with others close to them causes those unfortunate souls to develop characteristics of Adult Children (& other associates) of personality disorder patients and similarly dysfunctional people, at the same time as the narrative describes them as (factually) trying to abuse Lily's child and/or about to kill her.