An interesting point about Dumbledore’s protection charm over the Dursley’s has been brought up and being the nerd I am I would LOVE to hear everyone’s thoughts on it because I think the book does not give a clear enough answer! From looking at the online debate on different forums it seems like there’s contention as to whether Dumbledore’s charm protects Harry only at the Dursley’s home, or whether it’s an all encompassing protection. I believe there’s two sides of this debate - 1. Dumbledore sealed Lily’s protection by placing Harry at the Dursley’s and so Harry must return to the Dursley’s yearly for that all encompassing protection to persist. 2. Dumbledore created a second charm that protects Harry while he is at the Dursley’s home specifically. This is in addition to the protection Lily conferred that protects Harry from being touched by Voldemort no matter where he is. I’m personally on the side of #2! I’m going to share my arguments why and I’m interested to know if people agree or disagree. Dumbledore tells Harry: “She took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you.[…]While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort[…]You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, there he cannot hurt you.” So the use of the word “there” two times makes it seem to me like this is an added charm over the house that is separate from Lily’s blood protection. When Voldemort takes Harry’s blood in GoF and renders Lily’s protection useless, the charm over the house still holds which is why I think it’s separate, and also because Harry confers the same protection over everyone at the battle of Hogwarts, without the need for an additional charm. So this feels like an unnecessary protection Dumbledore cast, considering Harry had Lily’s blood protection for the first 14 years of his life and then for the next three he barely spent any time at the Dursleys anyway! I’m also curious how far this protection against Voldemort at the home extends. I mean the Dursleys take Harry to the zoo, could Voldemort theoretically have jumped him there? 😂 Let me know your thoughts on this!!
I think it's hard to say with how little information we have. It would make more sense that there are separate protections. I think Harry would be vulnerable anywhere outside of Petunia's house.. Rather, what would happen if Voldemort used magic to throw physical objects -- like stones? What about exploding them? Would it protect him from indirect attacks? Mental? What about magical objects/artifacts? I think the problem is really Rowling glossing over the sacrificial magic with the "power of love" trope without explaining exactly HOW it protects him. But if there are vulnerabilities it'd totally explain Dumbledore casting more charms... The problem I have with #1 is this, if the house (and Petunia) is really so important... why not cast the fidelius charm? Also, can you layer the fidelius charm with other fidelius charms? Can you use it to hide an identity? I have too many questions.
I see it as a "bonus" to Lily's sacrifice. The magic protects the subject of that sacrifice so long as they are with their family, at least until the subject becomes an adult. Dumbledore "casting" the charm didn't involve him waving his wand. Like much of the most powerful magic, it was more basic: Dumbledore "cast" the charm by leaving Harry with the Dursleys. Or, in other words: Ding Dong Ditch is one of the most powerful protection charms ever. To the questions: Petunia (and Dudley, I guess) are what provide that protection, not the house. They are, weirdly, Harry's bodyguards, and whether at school, the house, or even the zoo, Harry is protected. The exception is when he's left with Mrs Figg, but on those rare occasions, Dumbledore probably arranges extra protection. The Dementor attack is the exception because Lily's sacrifice is focused against Voldemort. Umbridge is an entirely separate horror. Even then, Dumbledore took precautions so that Harry could protect himself. Anyone reckon that it's a coincidence that Remus, a powerful and empathetic wizard, turned up the same year as the Dementors? Is this convoluted? Yes. Am I trying too hard to make sense of it? Yup. Is it fun? Heck yes.
@@krila3978The charm actually works like the Fidelius charm. The Ministry have Harry's exact address, but the Death Eaters can't learn it or even get close. They only have a general area.
I think it’s a moot point. The true protection was the prophecy. Lily’s blood protected Harry from Voldemort and the prophecy protected him from everyone else as far as his death is concerned. I don’t think Dumbledore’s protection was for Harry at all but for the Dursleys. There were too many benefits for his plan to keep Harry there and he couldn’t do that if something were to happen to them.
I agree with you and always thought it would be like you mentioned in no. 2. But I am wondering how could Harry ever feels at home with the dursleys? And didn‘t he say his real Home is hogwarts?
Jacob. Was. *RIGHT* . *THERE* . No, but seriously, I had to make that make sense in my head, so I've got two headcanons: 1) The magic goat (which I will now call it *forever* , thank you Mikaela), being magic, *had* to choose someone with magic to rule. 2) The wizarding world misinterprets what it's actually judging - the magic goat doesn't actually choose someone of pure heart, but of pure *motives* . Dumbledore isn't perfect, no one is (except Jacob, of course), but his motives in that moment were pure - more pure than the other candidate even - because he wasn't trying to be elected, he was only trying to stop Grinde-Mads and allow people the chance to have a good and true leader. That's why it went to him first, then to the next best option: someone who *did* want to win, but for noble reasons. Edit: Yes, I am a Ravenclaw.
Its just so frustrating because they were developing the themes of disproving that anti muggle wizard superiority so regardless of cannon its bad writing. I know the series was panned but I really enjoyed that one and wish it were continuing so much more than a random remake tv show.
Haven't seen the 3rd Fantastic Beasts, but this discussion does raise that wonderful point T'chala's father had in the Avengers movies: "It is very hard for a good man to be king"
I was rereading it recently and something that really struck me about Lily's magic is that Dumbledore said that as long as Harry considers Privet Drive a home, the magic will persist. but Harry NEVER considered Privet Drive a home or the Dursleys as his family, he is surprised when he realizes that Petunia is related to Lily, not exactly because he did not know it but because he had not taken into account it, they were sisters, they shared a bond and cared about each other and it never crossed Harry's mind.
Very good point. But in one sense Harry did consider it home because, with few exceptions, he did as he was told by the Dursleys. It’s more like being institutionalised, but maybe that was enough
I don’t think it’s that simple. At the end of the day, Harry would have died before letting anything happen to the Dursleys. Yes, Hogwarts was the home he chose and the Weasleys were the family he chose, but I don’t think it “negates” his attachment to his biological family either. So many of us wish we had different homes and different families but the regard is still often there.
@@signalfire15 But Harry had a real alternative. The moment I had actually non abusive people around me, my thoughts changed pretty quickly. Like yes they are my parents and at least I care for my mother but I don't consider them real family anymore. The attachment is still there but it is framed differently now. Harry would probably protect the Dursleys because he couldn't live with the guilt of letting somebody die but probably not because he loved them so much.
@@ducklingscap897 I don’t think he really had an alternative. Sure, he could have stayed with the Weasleys and I’m sure they didn’t mind having him there and they did treat him as family but I’m sure Harry still felt like a burden to them. I think the only real alternative Harry had was the prospect of living with Sirius, however short lived that dream was. And notice, even in that situation, Harry regarded Sirius as family because he was actually Harry’s godfather. I do think Harry regarded the Dursleys as his home / family because of the blood bond and connection to his own parents.
I would say he was good generally, but he was not perfect. And I think those imperfections made him a better character than some abstract pure goodness would be. He was still a human with his own thoughts, feelings, goals and ulterior motives
So I actually had a thought about this. Richard Harris was pretty spot on as to how I imagined Dumbledore(not to say I didn't love Gambon) but when he passed Dumbledores character changed as it felt like Gambon was trying to be different as some actors do when they are recast due to the previous actor passing. Did it make sense? No. But I do wonder if that played a part. 😊
The question of asking "is Dumbledore bad" is just another way of asking "how far you have to go to achieve the greater good". Because thats all what Dumbledore is about, from his youth to his adult life.
GOD I love the point you made that the books don't address these morally complex questions/themes with enough time or sensitivity, which leaves a void for the fandom to fill in. You're SO right and I've never seen it explained like that. 10/10 would watch multiple mikailas debate again.
totally argee. JKR has said sometime that she intended HP to be a children's book series, and, as such, she had to "dumb down" the morality of the characters in order to make it easier to understand right and wrong and good and evil. In her opinion, had she added more complexity to the characters it would have been hard to distinguish both considering people are essentialy flewd and not just good or evil.
In the 4th book, after Harry has returned from the graveyard and is telling Dumbledore what happened, when Harry tells Dumbledore that Voldemort used his blood, Dumbledore has “a glint of triumph in his eyes.” It was always my belief that at this moment, Dumbledore realized that Harry would be able to live when Voldemort kills him. One of the inarguable traits of Dumbledore is his cleverness, so it is plausible that he figured out the loop hole at this time. When Harry is in Limbo, it seemed like Dumbledore was waiting for him, like he expected Harry to be there.
2:12 As long as Harry could consider the Dursley’s place his “home,” he was protected from Voldemort (by his mother’s sacrifice). So he needed to stay there at least part of each summer. It had to be considered his home, but he was protected everywhere as long as his “home” was with his family. He wasn’t protected from Dementors or House Elves, just Voldemort. So living in a cupboard for 11 years made it possible for him to survive every encounter with Voldemort. (Dumbledore still could have done a lot to make them treat Harry better!!)
And of course, when Voldemort used Harry’s blood to return, Harry was no longer fully protected by his mom’s sacrifice. I think Dumbledore’s plan A was for Harry to defeat Dumbledore and survive, as did happen, but he did know Harry had to die for Voldemort to be finally destroyed. Plan C or D could have been for Harry to die of old age and the good guys to defeat Voldemort later on.
You bring up a great point of contention in this debate! 👏🏼 some people interpret the protection spell Dumbledore cast over the Dursleys to have sealed the protection Harry’s mother placed over him when she sacrificed herself, and others interpret it as two separate forms of protection - one for the Dursleys home cast by Dumbledore and one for Harry created by his mother. I definitely agree with the second interpretation because when Dumbledore is explaining the charm he cast over the house he specifically says “there Voldemort cannot harm you, there he cannot hurt you” which to me seems like he’s specifically talking about a second protection that refers to Harry’s home. I also think that if Lily’s protection was tied to the Dursley’s alone then the protection over the Dursley’s house would’ve been rendered ineffective after Voldemort took Harry’s blood and could touch him, but because it was a second and different charm created by Dumbledore, it still held up after Goblet of Fire. I’ve seen this point debated a lot online so I’m curious to hear how the majority of people interpret this!
@@magicbymikailaI've always wondered if Voldemort using Harry's blood did make the protection at the house ineffective against him, but he never actually tested it. He may have sent Death Eaters to test the wards at some point, but didn't go himself, assuming that Dumbledore's protections would've worked.
Plan C and D are flawed since Harry had to be the one to kill Voldemort. My guess is that in case Severus was not able to tell Harry the truth (which he would learn from Dumbledore at King's Cross station when he is give the option to go "on".), Dumbledore still predicted that Voldemort would still give Harry the ultimatum that die or let others die, and Harry would willingly accept it, causing him to not actually die when the killing curse hit him. Nothing else would change at all.@@Andreamom001
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we given proof that Dumbledore had cast a protection spell over the Dursley's. I personally, always thought that the protection was always there from the moment Voldemort tried to kill Harry, causing the killing curse to backfire. So, if he did cast a spell, then the 2nd interpretation would be spot on as Lily's protection through her sacrifice was already sealed, causing both of them to be completely different.
I think it’s clear in the books how much goodness, kindness and love was in Dumbledore. I would even say that he is quite noble. He is flawed, he made mistakes in his youth but just the fact that he avoided power because he knew it was his weakness shows how much he wanted to be better. He’s a man who always wanted to do the right thing, to act for the greater good, and he was ready to make sacrifices for the greater good and expected the same from everyone too. And honestly, the fact that he always gave second chances to people that many others wouldn’t, like Hagrid, Lupin, Draco, Snape also proves what kind of person he is. And he definitely loved and cared for Harry a lot, book readers know that.
I think that self doubt given his past and willingness to try to give others a chance or elevate love (especially familial) based on his own experience actually works in well with his more dubious actions story-wise but the fantastic beasts movies undercut that. If they’d stuck with that original characterization of him being over loyal and too lenient with people he loved, and distrusting his judgment because of past as well as letting personal feelings make him avoidant, they wouldn’t have needed the blood pact nonsense (that also contradicted the book). If he just strong armed the ministry for political change it might do some good briefly but in the long term wouldn’t actually change the social problems and he didn’t trust himself to make the right decisions at that level. And being too willing to give people like the Dursleys or Snape a chance, or not having Draco turned in, or even Tom Riddle as a child. It’s very idealistic, but it can harm others by proxy of letting abusive or dangerous people have free rein even when they do occasionally make the right choice eventually. Even Voldemort’s rise is partly due to that. The wizards don’t actually have social services and actual British ones and psychology wasn’t great in 1930’s and 1940’s, but he could have at least warned other teachers about Tom being a troubled child and dangerous to other kids, but he didn’t want to hurt his chances of a new start.
He didn't really avoid power did he? He was the headmaster of Hogwarts, supreme Mugwump, Chief Warlock and sorcerer supreme (even though in that case its unclear if that comes with any institutional power). That's a lot of titles for someone who has no interest in power.
@@ducklingscap897 He did specifically avoid being Minister of Magic, even though he was offered the post multiple times. Also in FB3 when Qilin chooses him, he refuses too (although accepts later, I think). Being at Hogwarts isn’t the same, he started as a teacher and then Headmaster’s job is somewhat different and not as political. Although you do make fair points, but I wouldn’t call all of these examples ‘power’, more like his accomplishments.
What ever happened with Serius' second chance? He was thrown into Azkaban pretty quickly, possibly to block him from interfering with Dumbledore's plan🤔. Meanwhile Death Eaters who have killed or hoped to gain a woman after Voldemort kills her husband and son get a pass...and helping Hagrid sure did benefit Dumbledore without any drawbacks, when he KNEW Hagrid was innocent of opening The Chamber of Secrets and could have got Hagrid completely exonerated by letting some of his knowledge go, like Tom M. Riddle doing it and Tom M. Riddle being Voldemort's true name
Every so often I see people saying they hate Dumbledore and that he’s a terrible person or something. I’m always baffled by this. “He didn’t care about Harry. He only raised him like a pig for slaughter as a tool to fight Voldemort”. No. He did indeed care about Harry. He’s a kind and caring person. But he also knew that Harry would be the key to ending Voldemort. Dumbledore knew that for Voldemort to be defeated, Voldemort had to cast Avada Kedavra at Harry, but Dumbledore also suspected Harry might survive the encounter, which he did. Not very “raising him for slaughter” If you ask me. And even without knowing Harry would survive, what would you have him do? He had three choices: A) Avoidance - hide Harry from danger forever. This is not sustainable since eventually Voldemort conquers and rules the world. B) Brutal Honesty - tell Harry from day one that he’s got to one day let Voldemort kill him (and that it might be temporary lol). This would still save the world from Voldemort, yes, but it would also destroy Harry’s chance at enjoying his life at Hogwarts. That revelation would loom over him constantly like a dark cloud and sap the joy out of life. C) Merciful Ignorance - let Harry have as normal a life at Hogwarts as humanly possible. Harry can make friends. Have fun. Enjoy quidditch. Goof around. No looming death date choking the joy out of life. If Dumbledore didn’t care about Harry and only saw him as a pawn to end Voldemort (as some claim) then he’d have gone with option B and tell Harry everything upfront, not caring if the news would give this poor child a mental breakdown. Dumbledore chose option C - the option that is the least cruel to Harry while still saving the world from Voldemort. It’s not hard to see why Dumbledore felt that this was his only choice. How do you keep a super OP strong and wise character interesting? By giving them a terrible choice. Superman with all his strength still can’t save everyone. Dumbledore is an interesting and compelling character because he cares deeply about people but still has to orchestrate Voldemort’s demise. But I keep seeing people saying “Dumbledore is the worst!” and I have to surmise that they just misunderstood the story. Either that or they are just trying to sound unique and edgy.
Good points. Maybe some of those people have only seen movie Dumbledore... overall, I like movie Dumbledore, but I feel his sense of whimsy and certain scenes that make him likeable are missing. I kind of think of Dumbledore more as Gandalf was in the Shire at the beginning of The Fellowship (he's SO powerful, but he's willing to be silly and entertain the hopeful children running behind the cart).
yeah i totally agree what is funny to me some people hate him more the voldermort or even snape ..... like i understand he did good things to protect and all but it doesnt change the fact that he was a bully to CHILDREN or blaming dumbledore for the action of dumbledore which i dont understand
The people who believe Dumbledore didnt care about Harry and was just 'raising him like a pig for slaughter' just didn't read properly. Dumbledore straight up admits at the end of Order of The Phoenix that leaving Harry in the dark and hiding so much information wasn't a LOGICAL choice, it was Dumbledore trying to protect Harry's innocence and letting him lead as normal a childhood as possible. If he was really as manipulative and controlling as people think he would have told Harry everything the moment he walked into Hogwarts at age 11 and started forcing him to train or something.
@@aseyawardak3438 Dumbledore is not innocent in Snape buoying children though. He is the headmaster. It is his responsibility to make sure all the teachers treat their students fairly. And he completely ignores it. I mean you can't tell me he didn't know anything about that...
@@ducklingscap897We don't know whether Snape and Dumbledore have discussed this point. Maybe Snape was able to convince / give excuses to Dumbledore that he is just being strict to maintain a standard. Harry is obviously a special case, and Snape's hatred for James can't be suppressed by Dumbledore I think. He tries to, by telling him that Harry's nature is much like his mother. But can't stop him hating Harry. Also, I think Dumbledore isn't too strict with Snape, because he needs him to stay loyal to himself, and to carry out his duties as a double agent. If there was anyone Dumbledore actually didn't care enough too much about, it was Snape. I believe Dumbledore manipulated Snape the most, without caring for him much. For the Greater Good. And I think Snape was also okay with that, in his remorse that he was the trigger point (by delivering the prophecy to Voldemort) that brought the demise of his beloved Lily
Furthere point about Dumbledore raising Harry to be a sacrifice: as Harry understands on his way to meet Voldemort, Dumbledore CHOSE to love Harry. He knew Harry would have to surrender himself to stop Voldemort, and rather than distancing himself (except in book 5) he got to know Harry, he opened himself up to Harry. Harry wasn't just a piece to play, he was a sacrifice in the true meaning of the word. And it could only work because Harry chose to be the sacrifice.
This is why Dumbledore is so confusing to me, when i try to put him in situations, or to write some fanfic about him, i can't figure out what how he would do some things and how he would do some other things, or if he would do them at all, which is why i try to avoid write about him or to give very minor roles in those 3-4 short fanfics i wrote...even when his role is to give advices i'm not sure how to write him doing so.
This is why i think Harry Potter has some of the best fictional characters: its one of the few that readers can walk away, debating on whether the characters are good or bad. Whether its dumbledore, snape, sirius, james.....the series did an excellent job giving these characters the complexity we need to return time and time again....our perspective changes with each read.
Dumbledore is my favorite character for these shades of gray. Is he perfect? Hell no, but I don't want him to be either. At the end of the day, Dumbledore did everything in his power to give Harry a fighting chance. Hell, he even set up his own death to help Harry win. He took an near impossible situation and found a path to win the war, and save Harry. Most people wouldn't have even attempted what Dumbledore did, and would have just let Harry die. One life for many? It would have been the easy choice. In my opinion, a lot of the issues people have with Dumbledore is due to the early books. Rowling started off very whimsical, with the Dursleys being over-the-top abusive, and the adults being very useless (such as leaving a baby on the doorstep). It doesn't translate well when we get into the later books, where the tone becomes far more serious and characters like Dumbledore become increasingly important. It's hard to look at book 1 Dumbledore vs book 5/6/7 Dumbledore. The whimsical nature of the books, while wonderful to read, hampers character development and proper world building. A lot of the arguments against Dumbledore could have been avoided if it was the Ministry who left Harry at the Dursleys, and not Dumbledore himself. Which, logically, should have been the case.
It is true that many things are exaggerated in the first books, but maybe this is because they were written more like children's books? So everything is a bit more obvious for children to understand the abuse? The later books are not really children's books. It could also reflect Harry's own maturing.
@@Tamy-qo7ohthat is the reason why they change ( the first few were in an old English genre of boarding school and fairytale stories like Diane Wynn Jones books), but that doesn’t change the negative effect it had on Dumbledore’s character. She had to write ways to explain early actions away like him forcing himself to trust muggles more after being racist and extremely paternalistic towards them in the past
If someone loved Harry very much in his place, many would NOT sacrifice him at all, even at the cost of millions. People are split around 50/50 regarding to whom is more important to them and what they can live with and without
Honestly, the same people who say Dumbledore or even the Weasleys are "evil" are usually the same people who say Draco isn't a villain. I am sorry, but if Malfoy isn't a villain, if Snape isn't a villain, Dumbledore most certainly isn't. Is he perfect? Far from it. But he is at least TRYING to do good. His intentions aren't malicious. I think people underestimate the responsibility that being the one to hear the prophecy puts on Dumbledore. There's clearly a reason he and he alone was the one the prophecy was made to. And I don't like Harry being left with the Dursleys anymore than anyone, but for the character we grow to learn, it makes sense that Dumbledore prioritises protecting Harry from Voldemort above all else. Dumbledore himself has admitted that being smarter than most people means his mistakes are correspondingly huger despite being fewer and further between. I understand people acknowledging those mistakes, but there are some crazy conclusions, and a sign of illiteracy if you come out with the impression that Dumbledore has "gone evil". Are you serious. We have the likes of Voldemort and Bellatrix as a litmus test for evil, get a grip. I did thoroughly enjoy Mikaila's video, as usual. And that internal debate is actually what makes Dumbledore a fantastic character. But definitely not even a question about him being evil. I'd agree that even Malfoy and Snape aren't evil, and they're certainly closer on the spectrum than Dumbledore. I think it's okay if you can't understand Harry's understanding of Dumbledore's actions, I actually don't think it's a flaw in the writing. If you've ever read any book with a character that the world or circumstance has decided has the responsibility to save the world (and people don't know about the prophecy, so Dumbledore IS that person to everyone), you have to make horrifying choices, as Mikaila pointed out. I both understand Dumbledore's choice, Harry's betrayal, and ultimate acceptance. I find it much harder to understand Harry naming his child after Snape, as myself, but I understand Harry's sense of honour makes it make sense. I really can't believe Ginny agreed to that.
Excellent points. About Harry naming Albus Severus, I was also like, that's gone too far... But think about Harry's ideology; he has learnt from Dumbledore to see good in people, and ignore/forgive their flaws. I do think Harry completely forgave Snape for all the abuse he received at Hogwarts, because he also saw where Snape came from, how he was abused etc. He might've also realised that Lily's protection only worked because of Snape's love for Lily, which made Voldemort give her a CHOICE, and so, he must've developed further respect for Snape. Harry is not someone who holds grudges. He also forgives both, Dudley and Malfoy at the end of the series. Eventually, he may be able to convince Ginny and the others, that they need not carry the Hatred forward, as Snape had done, but rather hide his flaws and just highlight his better parts, to their children.
@@ambiverter Exactly! I, myself, would not have named my child after Snape. But I am not Harry. I most definitely would not have stepped in to save Wormtail’s life: TWICE. It’s not a plot hole when you personally don’t resonate with a character’s decision. Harry names his children for the figures in his life without whom he would not have lived to HAVE children. (And then Ginny gets Lily’s middle name 🤣. Ginny is the goatest of wives).
The end justifies the means In the end,,harry succeeded,and wizarding world was saved,He has to do whatever he can do for greater good, there might be sacrifices and hurt and collateral damage,but still many still survived and voldemort is dead That is all that matters
In my opinion, he's not good nor bad, but rather a complex character, he has his good moments and other times he comes off as deeply misguided and even downright questionable at times, but to me what Herman's the type of person someone is is rather the intentions behind the actions rather than the actions themselves.
I just finished GoF again and when Harry is telling Sirius and Dumbledore what happened in the graveyard and gets to Voldy taking his blood, it says Harry saw a "flash of triumph" (maybe phrased differently) in Dumbledore's eyes. This is Dumbledore realising that Voldy has connected Lily's protection to his own body so that while Voldy lives, Harry is protected. The fact that this is true (because it's the justification for Harry resurrecting) and that Harry is now less protected because Voldy can touch him doesn't make a lot of sense and maybe Dumbledore knew this and didn't want to trust in it to save him which is why he still didn't tell Harry. Also being told you have to die to win the war isn't great insentive to follow through. What Dumbledore didn't know was that Harry was the master of the Deathly Hallows and thus Death at the time of his death, so that's a less confusing plot armour.
He wants harry to have the hallows in order to help in finding horcrux and defeat voldemort,,hence he leave him the ressurection stone,, But his plan failed because ,he intended snape to have the wand,he knows harry will go against snape in killing him,but draco dis arm dumbledore before snape kill him.
“The world isn’t split into good people and Death Eaters. We’ve all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That’s who we really are.” Dumbledore was neither good nor evil. In my opinion he was always working for the Greater Good, his vision on what the Greater Good was just changed over time. He was a brilliant, powerful, and wise man, but also manipulative combined with- a rather large ego at times. He sometimes seemed to believe that he knew better than anyone else, and acted upon that thought, shutting other people out, not including them in his plans, but still expecting them to follow along, trust him blindly, while manipulating them. On the whole he did have a massive responsibility, he was trying to rescue the entire wizarding world from the grasp of Voldemort, and he obviously couldn't just tell everyone and their neighbors his plans. His goals were good, he had a good heart, and plenty of love to give to those he cared for. He was a well rounded character that had both light and dark inside of him.
People need an yes / no or good/bad answer but 'The world isn't split into good people and death eaters, we have all got both light and dark inside us, what matters is the power we choose to act on, that's who we really are.
So happy you mentioned the Hunger Games! I’d like to add that the prequel, The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes delves even deeper into these ethical questions particularly how people deal with the aftermath of war, what the winning side does to ensure their continued victory is sound because clearly dealing with that kind of instability is never easy, and the mention of how children are viewed is extremely integral to the series as a whole. As innocent victims, pawns to be moved across the board, or killers every bit as capable as their adult counterparts parts.
When it comes to Dumbledore "raising Harry like a pig for slaughter", I think there are two ways of looking at it. 1. Morally: This is the complicated way of looking at it. He's putting a kid through tons of pain and suffering, just for him to die. But in doing so, he saves far more souls from experiencing that. So technically right but also wrong. I think here, there is no answer. 2. Logically: I think undoubtedly, he logically did the correct thing. It's very logical to eliminate one to save millions. I think there can be no way to say that he logically did the wrong thing.
In the first movie hagrid dont belive voldy is death, at the end of part 3 or start of 4, wormtail founds him. Dumbledore could found voldi and end it but he didnt. He waited and let hatry do the work
It was not part of the plan at all, at least until Voldemort's resurrection. So, he did raise Harry as a pig for slaughter, but in my opinion, the means justify the end, if they aren't that extreme. @@clarisacalderon9555
@@lorenzkoch6407because he couldn't. Dumbledore knows the prophecy. He knows that Harry is the one with the power to vanquish the dark lord and one will have to die by hands of the other
I think it is hard to truly argue that Dumbledore is bad. Does he make some mistakes? Yes, but he is strong enough to commit atrocities greater than Voldemort and instead chooses the path to try and stop him. In the end he allows himself to die and has one of the people closest to him to do it to basically save Malfoy. I think truly it is hard to even argue him as a grey character and he more so lands along the lines of good but fucks up every now and again and in a position of power that makes it impossible for him to not make a wrong decision. It’s easy to judge someone with hindsight
This is the thing I love and hate about complex characters; their debatable, their deep, their confusing, their conflicting, they make us question the whole book, they make us love and hate them just like we love and hate the people we meet in life.
Dumbledore's biggest fault was too much secret keeping IMO. Is good of one outweigh the good of many? I would say NO for most people. But Dumbledore didn't have to act in the heat of the moment, he had 16 YEARS to make that decision and while he did try to find alternatives, it was only on his own. Yeah, he was an amazing wizard with lots of great achievements, but if he had clued in 5-10-50 other people into the secret, maybe a third option would have been found. After all, wizarding world had many ways to ensure secrecy, like Unbreakable Vow. He also stated many times about many people that he trusted them with his life.
Thank you for saying this. Because in my head canon, Harry actually is told this by another character… A more minor character in the books but a major in my head canon.
early! i mean...i always thought of dumbledore as more of a gray (grey?) character, but yeah ive seen a lot of stuff whether on he was a villain or not i think you explained the stuff well and yeah since he's a complicated character, its rly js up to the person to decide how they see him
6:05 the problem is that it wasn't Dumbledore's choice/decision/right to make that call for, "The Greater Good". He wasn't given that right by Harry's parents, he let the man who was given that right rot in Azkaban for over a decade. In a world of magic, which is literally the power of reality warping and energy manipulation, anything is possible, wizards/witches have the ability to become practically gods. Im in the, Dumbledore is evil/not good camp.
I think the reason for Dumbledore fearing himself in power is because of choices he made in the past. He used to believe that wizards are and should be superior to Muggles and was willing to suppress them. He did change though, and I suppose the Qilin only sees the heart of a person at present. Dumbledore does make some questionable choices, but his intentions are good. And I suppose that this is what the Qilin sees. I think Dumbledore's failures in the books are a result of his self doubt. Back in the past he let his emotions guide him, so with Harry he is trying to follow logic and not let his feelings interfere. So he is allowing all of these things happening to Harry even though it feels wrong because he stopped using his feelings as a compass. On the other hand he is still protecting Muggles and Zentaurs and respects all of them and his goal is peace and freedom for wizards and Muggles alike. He is complex and I think this is what makes him such a compelling character. He has a lot of wisdom but still is not without flaws. His heart can still be good though, not pure in a naive sort of way, but pure in a vulnerable "I can see the mistakes I made in the past and will put all my efforts to rectify my mistakes and make the world a better place without seeking power" sort of way. .. but of course I might just try and justify why I still do like Dumbledore in spite of it all.
One thing nobody has ever been able to explain to me is that if Dumbledore really did not trust himself with power, then why did he put himself in that position where he could be voted as supreme Mugwamp? Why did he become headmaster of a school? I mean… That is a pretty powerful position when you think about it even though he did a really crappy job at it. And why did he sit on the wizarngimot? Why did he have so many fingers in so many pies of government? And why did he have the personal ear of the minister for magic? Doesn't sound like someone who has done a lot of changing to me. Doesn't like sound like someone that is trying to avoid being in positions of power to me. No, I don't think he changed one little bit. He just got more deceptive, and better at hiding his faults that he was in his youth.
I think what summarizes my thoughts on Dumbledore is that he was a great man, but he wasn't necessarily a good man. He made a lot of tough decisions in order to win the war, but there were a lot of things he could have done to make Harry's life better. And, it seemed like his actions were more motivated by redemption for the things he did in his youth instead of how much he cared for Harry and other people. Also kind of a side note, but I am a strong believer that Dumbledore should have been a Slytherin :)
When people talk about 'pig for slaughter', I think it's important to remember, that Dumbledore wasn't the one who choose Harry to be one. It's all started with self-fulfilling prophecy, then after Harry became a horcrux his fate was set. He wouldn't have a normal peaceful life, even if Dumbledore didn't use and manipulated him. But of course it's hard to call Dumbledore 'pureharted'.
One thing that was pointed out by the Super Carlin Brothers channel some time ago, is Dumbledore totally thought Harry was a goner UNTIL Harry told him what Voldemort did to come back to life in the graveyard. The book said there was a glint of hope in his eye for a brief second, something like that. And that's when he thought there's a chance for Harry to live after the horcrux is killed out of him
I always wondered why Dumbledore didn’t tell Harry that there was this glimmer of hope, because if that was ME I’d rather know I have a chance however slight than thinking I was 100% gonna die 😂 it feels like it would’ve made the whole sacrificing himself to Voldemort a tiny bit less traumatic for Harry hahaha 😭 it makes me wonder whether Dumbledore intentionally left that information out because he knew that Harry had to fully believe he was going to die for the sacrificial protection to be cast over everyone so Voldemort could no longer hurt them.
Something pointed out by the Super Carlin Brothers when they talked about Dumbledore’s Bug Plan as they call it is that Dumbledore hears that Voldemort took Harry’s blood into him, Dumbledore gets his signature twinkle in his eye. Dumbledore now knows Harry, making this decision hard, but now Dumbledore also knows… Harry will die, but Harry can live. Voldemort doomed himself and saved Harry. Harry isn’t told about this until King’s Cross in between, but Dumbledore knew that, when Harry would ultimately die, he still had a way to live. Dumbledore is by no means perfect, he pulled the strings and used people as chess pieces. But he also knew there was a way the cheat the board
I wanna quote Dumbledore himself and Sirius on this matter: "It is not our abilities that show who we are. It is our choices " "We all have both light and dark insides us. What matters is what side we choose to act on" Therefore I declare Dumbledore a manipulative person who acted on behalf of the good. He's flawed but good
One thing I have always wondered would be if there had been other options that Dumbledore could have chosen from. In the case of the Dursley's, did it have to be those related to his mother for the blood protection to work or could it be anyone that Harry was related to since the blood protection is for him? And in the case of the "pig for slaughter," did Dumbledore ever try and look for a way to save Harry while also getting rid of the horcrux or did he simply never look because he believed the only way to destroy the horcrux was to kill Harry? Dumbledore definitely can be seen as good and evil. He is very grey.
The deathly hallows were the way to save Harry without having him “die”. Harry didn’t end up pursing them as soon as planned but he left him two and Hermione with instructions for the third, albeit he died sooner than planned potentially
Honestly tho, it would have been LEGENDARY if the magic goat had picked Jacob and the wizards hat to put up with an muggle president. I would put something about the goat's choice being magically bindinh or smtg.
1. Jacob was a non-mag, and thus not suitable as the leader of Wizarding world. While Qilins can understand people with good heart and approach them we see that they only bow at people who are suitable and worthy as a leader (which is revealed in the conversation they had at hogshead). So the Qilin's thing is not just about pure of heart, it is also about what constitutes a leader, which Jacob could never be for obvious reasons. 2. Dumbledore is meant to be a leader. In the Fantastic Beasts, we see Dumbledore orchestrating every plans and leading the team he formed towards fighting Grindelwald. The same could be seen in HP as well. He just lead people towards the goals which did not benefit himself, but the whole wizarding world. If this ain't a leadership quality, I don't know what else is.
I don't think Dumbledore should have been chosen because a person "pure of heart" would be someone unwilling or even refusing to accept power. Why? With power comes responsibility. With responsibility comes a balance. And in war, a person pure of heart would do anything to not make those decisions. Even if that means avoidance to the brink of isolation. To me, it reads as a kind of plothole. Because in reality, a person pure of heart would never value anyone else's lives below their own. And dumbledore does this by ofc making Harry destroy the horcruxes, not taking an active role in Harry's life, empowering house discrimination and isolating the Slytherins for no good reason.... If I had to interpret the goat message to apologize for the plot it would be the person with the most pure INTENTIONS (at the time). Because a pure heart and pure intentions are two completely different things. And Dumbledore had the intent to do what is right and save as many as he could, knowing that it would not be easy. Even then, it doesn't fully absolve Dumbledore of his guilt. He's simultaneously too involved and too uninvolved with the plot. But he has never, ever, been innocent. He just has pushed his own ideation in an organized manner with positive intent which is reflected back to us and reads to us as positive intent so we interpret it as positive. This is a constant in World History. This is always how I have viewed Dumbledore overall. Villains and heroes don't exist outside of the brush that paints them.
I haven’t seen the recent fantastic beasts movies, and hearing you describe it was wild 😂 I think Dumbledore was a human trying to do the best he could in crappy circumstances. I think he would have been a boring character if he was a perfect mentor
Mikayla, this is amazing! I love your analysis of Dumbledore. As I started getting more into the fandom, I started getting a more negative perception of him but you’re really really put everything in perspective and truth of the winners are those of us who are in the fandom and to add more complexity to the story.
This was a really interesting format with the whole courthouse/self-debate, I hope that you do this again with other fandom issues (like with Twilight or Percy Jackson)!
This was TERRIFIC! ❤😂,i loved it,thank you mikaila! Imao the ends justify the means only in cases were the persons affected agreed to the means so as to achieve the ends, i.e. harry agreed to sacrifice himself so it's fine,but should he decide not to,Dumbledore or anybody else has no right to force him. Which is exactly what happened, Dumbledore made sure he was old enough to make his own decision before revealing (kind of,at least wanting to) this plan,so that Harry can be fully prepared to make this decision (he had just that year come of age(lost trace)). But he never made a plan to firce him to do so,that was Harry's choice, Dumbledore left it up to him to decide if "the end justifys the means". This was very informative and hilarious,thank you! Glad i found your channel, very engaging stuff.
Dumbledore never gave Harry a choice. He raised Harry exactly for that purpose. He manipulated and engineered circumstances to ensure that Harry would make the choice he wanted Harry to Mike. This is child exploitation at its finest.
I think the writer of the movie was trying to go for a captain america theme. Like Capt America couldnt lift Mjollnir until he revealed tonys parents killer (thus freeing his conscious and making him worthy). I guess the writer thought him finally getting on the front line and opposing Grindelwald instead of just watching...... I wonder if the writer realized that they foreshadowed Jacob the entire movie as being pure of heart and literally put him RIGHT THERE.
Superb analysis. You cut through the implicit assumptions of the questions given and give a much deeper analysis than a simple reading of what is present in the text allows. Your conclusion is inspiring, illustrating the value of the fandom and their interpretation of these characters.
Do you know " Dumbledore's Big Plan" by SuperCarlinBrother. It's a very interesting video (basically the story in Dumbledore's perspective) and according to it Dumbledore knew from the secound when he heard that Voldemort used Harry's blood that Harry could survive.Also the "raising Harry as a pig for slaughter" is just something Snape says, he doesn't know if Dumbledore is lying or not. But pure of heart... I don't think so
I personally like Dumbledore because he feels very human. He makes mistakes he takes risks. He isnt perfect. I find comfort in knowing I'm not the only one who makes mistakes, I find him a lot more real feeling than the other charters. Keeping secrets from your loved ones so they are happy, is a very relatable thing. Hurting people by accident. Its all incredible real.
I've said it before, Dumbledore is neither good nor evil. He's a CHESS PLAYER. He sees the whole board and knows that some pawns and even officers have to be sacrificed in order to checkmate the king and win the game. Except, here, the stakes are so much higher and the sacrifices required are too costly. Do I like Dumbledore? Nope. But he's not evil. Manipulative yes but not evil.
Regarding the Dursleys, if Dumbledore really thought Harry had to live there, he should have spoken to them and made a deal. (The fact that he didn't bother to knock on the Dursleys' door tells me he knew what kind of people they were.) If he simply had Harry in a room that the Durlseys couldn't get to, that instead had a vanishing cabinet that led to a different home, where he would be raised by a loving family, but slept in the Dursley home. Regarding the Horcrux in Harry: That is more complicated. One item I consider is that the Horcrux in the diary was leaving (to manifest as Tom Riddle) without destroying the diary, which means that there is a way for Horcruxes to be transferred to something else. If Dumbledore were willing to search out more information on Horcruxes, consulting other people besides himself, he might have found a way. For all he knew, every Gringotts cursebreaker knows how to transfer or destroy Horcruxes, because they are commonly found in Egyptian tombs. My point is that I believe he never consulted anyone. He got one book on them (the one Hermione summoned out of his office) and that was all the information he had. Regarding Harry, Dumbledore always did what was easy, rather than what was right. Most of his actions prove that he was either evil, stupid, or lazy.
To your point of Horcruxes, what did Tom have to do to achieve that? Sacrificing another, in this case, Ginny Weasley. While JKR has never said loads about Horcrux creation, it's always seemed a soul for a soul. Would Dumbledore sacrifice another innocent just to save another innocent?
@@MrWWIIBuffMost of the Horcruxes were placed in inanimate objects. I'm saying that the fact a Horcrux could transfer from the diary to Ginny means that a Horcrux can transfer. Therefore, if Dumbledore (or someone else) learned how to cause that to happen, they could have transferred the Horcrux from Harry into an inanimate object they didn't mind destroying. (It would've been a good idea to use it to preserve priceless historical objects as well).
Supreme mugwump, minister or magic, and president are all different. Dumbledore refused the presidency but on his chocolate from card and in court it's mentioned he's supreme mugwump
you're amazing. and I'm so glad that you've found a psychotherapist you can work with. but as a therapist, I have to say: you would be a very tricky client to work with. you're highly intelligent, very emotionally aware, able to deal with conflict and confusion and still maintain your clarity and precision. so yeah, you're probably smarter than the vast majority of therapists -- which means, they won't be able to convince you of anything. but then the potential impasse is, how do you get past what you already know? in other words, who is your own fandom? who can see the flaws in the airtight logic you've built, for Harry, for the Hunger Games, for your depression and anxiety? I hope you keep looking for that. and not assuming anyone knows better than you -- but also not assuming that you know better than anyone. you're brilliant, and I admire you -- but you're also still learning, and you don't have many answers yet. not that answers solve anything -- just, they give you something to work with. sorry to totally mansplain you. just that I wish I'd been as insightful as you are, when I was your age. you fucking rock. I wish you the best!
I feel like one part that is often forgotten in the discussion about Dumbledore is his treatment of Snape. And I don't mean that he used Snape like a tool, that is often discussed but Snape bullying others. As his headmaster it is his job to make sure that all teachers behave and that all students are treated equally. We all know he completely favors Gryffindor which makes it even more confusing that he never stopped Snape. He isn't blameless in Snape bullying children, it was his responsibility to stop him (or any teacher when they harm children) and he didn't do anything. Being the headmaster is not just an empty title.
Thank you for saying this because I have been saying that as well. The way that Snape treated students really the buck stops with Dumbledore. My other gripe is that as headmaster he showed no duty of care towards his staff either. The workplace he created was absolutely toxic, and I dare say there were probably a lot of disgruntled staff at Hogwarts that we don't see. I don't think J.K. Rowling though it's up to The task of writing that sort of scenario where there is a workplace with genuine interpersonal conflict though. I understand that it was originally meant to be a kids book. It should have stayed a kids book. it takes an incredibly talented author to be able to write a series that genuinely grows with the reader. Somehow I don't think J.K. Rowling was up to the task. Even CS Lewis realised he wasn't up to the task, which is why when the kids in the Chronicles of Narnia got older he wrote them out of the series. and to me that shows the calibre of the sort of author CS Lewis was that he could recognise his own limitations as an author.
@@milanka882 Right, and Snape isn't the only one who wouldn't pass a simple background check. Dumbledore clearly doesn't give a shit about any of the students aside from his few favorites, neither about their safety nor about their education. He treats his position as a sinecure and -- as far as we can tell -- didn't even make a rule against teachers abusing students. This wouldn't be a problem if Dumbledore were either (1) not headmaster of Hogwarts, or (2) presented a bit more ambiguously. As it is, Rowling employs her authorial divine power to create a universe in which Dumbledore is "good" by fiat (not by his actual actions) because no character is allowed to be good/reasonable and have a legitimate beef with Dumbledore's behavior.
@@chansonexmo I love writing fan fic about characters who are "good/reasonable and have a legitimate beef with Dumbledore's behaviour". It can be a lot of fun. Naturally you have to use more minor characters to do this, but it can be done. My fave one to do this with is Flitwick. In my head cannon he has a laundry list of grievances with Dumbledore dating back to his own school days. I'm currently in the throws of recording myself telling my fan fic in story format on audio files rather than writing it down. I just prefer that method of storytelling and not many people do it. When the first ones are done I'm looking forward to sharing the link.
I just love how complex and not straight forward Dumbledore's character is! He be saving the world but he also be real. He be making mistakes and dealing with the consequences. Does it make him a bad person? No, it just makes him human. Also, Snape is the LAST person who should try to throw shade on Dumbledore. Pig for slaughter? How about we talk about your bullying students and vindictive behaviour Snape before you start pointing fingers at Albus. Also the movies really didn't clarify Dumbledore's motives at ALL. It left so much important information out and I feel like that's a big part of the reason why a lot of people look at Dumbledore sus. They haven't read the books and therefore are missing crucial context. I was a child when the books came out and I haven't read them since then but I have watched the movies a ton and recently I read over the books and BOI the movies did Albus no favours. I forgot just how much stuff they left out because they figured the fans would fill in the blanks but for someone watching it without the context of the books, it really makes Albus look a kinda way, not gonna lie.
I mean, Dumbledore doesn‘t have to be a paragon. It‘s the whole question of whether ends justify the means again. Dumbledore does anything in his power to destroy Voldemort, even those actions taken by themselves are evil. Dumbledore only care about results.
I think the author confused wise, clever and good in Dumbledore’s case. She set him up to be the only character to know the prophecy, meaning he was the only one who could ever make the decision, and without ever consulting anyone. For this to be not a sad losing story, the character had to be incredibly clever AND wise (the difference between those wasn’t satisfyingly explored: in the canon Dumbledore is just good with magic, knows alchemy and has good intuition), but he did NOT have to be good. Just “not bad” enough to not want Voldemort to lose. And that’s exactly what he (unintentionally by author) turned out to be. Trying to flesh him out as a pure guy in his past (mind you just a couple decades after wanting to dominate the entire world) undermines his cleverness, but gives him good ground for wisdom in the future. And, again, it makes him just “not bad” when he realises that Grindelwald and him were after an evil goal. We have this sort of true neutral character. Did he deserve to rule the entire wizarding world? The fact that he at that point was capable of questioning the decision of the qilin show that maybe he was worthy. But not because of the pure goodness of his heart, which means that qilin couldn’t have bowed down before Dumbledore.
8:46 I don‘t think in Hunger Games there‘s a question of whether they could have won the war without directly sacrificing children. To me that was always part of Coin‘s personal motivations, not so much about the greater war. The war was always unwinnable for the capital once a majority of districts openly revolted.
Dumbledore is definitely not a bad person, but he is also not a good one. All I expect is for people not to look at him as a Saint or an amazing father figure for Harry. He was manipulative in his actions, no matter how Rowling tries to sell him to us from Harry’s perspective.
This will probably be a very unpopular opinion, but with the ‘raised like a pig for slaughter’ thing, I am not so sure that was really the truth. At the time, Dumbledore was asking Snape to kill him in a painless and dignified way (Killing Curse). I suspect the killing curse is very much like the torture curse in you must really mean it and truly want it to happen. “You need to really want to cause pain - to enjoy it - righteous anger won't hurt me for long..” "Avada Kedavra's a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it - you could all get your wands out and point them at me and say the words, and I doubt I'd get so much as a nosebleed..." I think it is more likely that Dumbledore was trying to provide Snape with the motivation he needed to be able to successfully use that spell against him.
Dumbledore had Mrs Figg as a neighbor keeping an eye on the kid, he had to know he was being abused. Also, how did Dumbledore came up with the ONLY solution being for Harry to get AK by Voldemort, without consulting with ANYONE ELSE, in the WHOLE of the Magical World. Also also, Basilisk's venom destroys horcruxes, and Harry was bitte by one, wouldn't that at least have weakened the horcrux?
JUSTICE FOR JACOB!!! 🦡 How could they not have made him the hair of Hufflepuff? It would have been perfect!!! Also, I adored watching you argue with yourself! 😂 Every Mikailas answers were super convincing! Loved all the perspectives! ❤
Of course he's good, but he's good only by JK's understanding of goodness. Dumbledor's goodness lies in the emphatic faith he has in the power of love to out-inspire Voldemort's greed, hate and fear, he manipulates Harry and his friends because his real end-game is to make them show off how much love is in their heart and how it renders their spirits unconquerable by greed, fear and hate, in the hopes that others will follow their example and through loving sacrifices ultimately destroy Voldemort. And of course he wanted Harry to sacrifice himself to give protection to his friends so they would be invincible against Voldemort. The thing is in order to show off their love, they need at the absolute least, the appearance of challenge, peril and doom. Dumbledor could've just told Harry at the end of Goblet of fire that he was immune to Voldemort through his blood being in Voldemort, but had Harry known, his loving sacrifice wouldn't have been a sacrifice for his part, Dumbledore needed Harry to think he was vulnerable so that his sacrifice would work. Personally I think he was an arrogant, sentimental fool with a reckless messiah complex, and he really should have just captured Voldemort at the end of the philosopher's stone when he left Quirrel and used magic to find his horcruxes using the spirit of Voldemort as a means of tracing them, then destroy them and Voldmeort would die from not having a body. What you have to understand about the Harry Potter series is that logically speaking it is nonsense. Money? Why bother in a world with magic? Sports that have beaters who could kill players, and broomsticks wherein accidents could cause death, being played by children and teenagers, for no reasons other than sheer applause from hormonal children, teenagers and foolish adults? Utterly absurd. Muggles are not allowed to know magic exists? Then what do you do with the families of muggle-borns, when witches and wizards marry muggles, when muggles by accident find out about magic without the ministry knowing? Muggle-borns aren't told they have magic till they're 11 or 10? How do you stop accidents happening then? Need wands? Then how did Harry make the glass vanish, and do other things he "couldn't explain when angry or scared"? Owls? How the hell are they supposed to know where and when to go to deliver letters? Was Ron seriously supposed to understand how to say "open" in snake-language from hearing Harry talk in his sleep? That's ridiculous. Teaching children how to brew date-rape drugs? Selling date-rape drugs to children and teenagers? That's lunacy. Teaching children and teenagers how to brew truth drugs? Madness. Not using said truth drugs in court when the accused can't have "antidotes"? Absurd. Slughorn keeping Voldemort's secret and Dumbledor not caging him up and using truth drug on him when he couldn't have had access to an "antidote"? Insane. When looked at logically the Harry Potter series is nonsensical and vile, and JK knows it. The point of the Harry Potter series is to glorify love and to shame selfishness and bigotry.
i remember Mobius and Loki's final monologue in Loki Season 2. "most purpose is more burden than glory. and you'll never wanna be the kind of guythat avoids it just because you can't live with the burden" "the hardest choices are usually the things that needs to be done and by hard means impossible" dumbledore sacrificing harry is nothing more than a trolley dillema. there's no right or wrong, albus just had to choose his burden
I understand that Dumbledore isn't a saint but i really like him. I really like him because he is such a complex character and I really like his story with Grindelwald. I think that he did what had to be done. For the greater good
NO BUT when I saw the movie in theaters and saw the goat going towards the crowd my FIRST THOUGHT was JACOB. and it choose DUMBLEDORE???? JACOB. WAS. RIGHT. THERE.
Gale in the hunger games is a good example because he watched his whole district get firebombed and we as readers know how traumatized he is and how he seeks vengeance blindly. His rash but effective moves seem more emotionally charged. Dumbledore likely had similar past experiences but they aren’t mentioned so we as readers can’t forgive him for being rash like Gale. Insteadwhat we see is a calculated move years in advance that he didn’t tell Harry about until the last moment practically. (Imagine if he actually spent time personally training Harry for the coming war? A half an hour of spell work could have helped lmao)
I have seen Dumbledore as a grey character.i think Dumbledore initially saw harry as a way to kill voldemort. so only thing he cared about is that harry is alive not how he was treated by dursleys. But when he started to know harry as a person he started caring about him. I think that's why he berated the dursleys in the 6th book .
I honestly think Dumbledore left him with the Dursley's so he wouldn't be arrogant and the other characteristics that were shown by characters like Draco and maybe even James. What he did was correct I don't think so but here we are 🤷♀️
The man who developed a good nature from a shattered evil (or at the very least selfish and shortsighted) worldview was great as a character. I know the ATLA fans have the "going Kyoshi" saying. I loved the scenes in the later books where Dumbledore does it. The scene when Umbridge drags Harry to Dumbledore's office is arguably my favorite in the series ("Ah yes. I thought we'd hit that snag. You seem to be laboring under the idea that I will "come quietly".")
I think the entire point of Dumbledore’s moral ambiguity is the ambiguity itself. While JKR has said she wrote this series for children, that does not mean that there aren’t deeper layers of maturity to the stories. That’s a huge part of the series’ continued popularity and a fundamental aspect of mythopoetics (that the story can be returned to time and time again and will reveal/inspire new questions each time). We see the same thing in the LotR and (original 6) Star Wars works. This is a fantastic video and definitely reflects the line from Sirius, “The world isn’t split into good people and Death Eaters. We’ve all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That’s who we really are.”
I just realised a possible reason why Dumbledore chose to left Harry with the part of the family that will most definitely hate him for his mom. Since Dumbledore had to make a choice between a stranger and millions of lives, he probably put Harry in the worse place possible for a growing boy so that he would resent the world, but have not enough power to curse the world itself. So when he is needed to sacrifice himself, he has no reason to say no, perhaps because he has nothing to lose, or would rather choose death in exhange of being free from a miserable life. That's part of his slaughter pig plan. Omg, I just made an emo Harry Potter AU...
My friends and i have long since theorized that Dumbledore is a Light Lord, a man so into his own hype or ideologies that he has essentially gone evil. Its the to much yin with no yang
Something I love about Dumbledore is that he's flawed. He's not omniscient or all-powerful, which makes him stand out from others in the "fairy godparent" trope.
I think a thing that was missed here that made the whole magic ethics goat thing just... so so dumb... Was that it wasn't picking who was good, it was picking who was PURE. And even if Dumbledore is good, he's good in a complex way and is definitely not pure. Honestly, I think JKR really wanted Dumbledore to be this unequivocally good guy and in her head he was. She gets annoyed when fans point out that he's not, so she makes it a plot point the that goat of objective morality has decided that he's good.
On the second question. One of the things that always bothered me, is when Dumbledore says he wanted Harry to remain happy...??? Happy? Starved, occasionally beaten, abused, insulted, and treated like a slave. What Happiness is Dumbledore speaking of? On a different but related topic, after Sirius escapes and Peter Pettigrew is outed as the real betrayer, why did Dumbledore, a man that has influence with a massive section of the community, who is the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, the Supreme Mugwump of the ICW, and the Headmaster of Hogwarts and yet we are to believe he couldn't arrange for a trial? Really!?
The charm only worked if he called the dursleys home. But at the end of the 1st movie harry says "I'm not going home not really" This is when he is leaving hogwarts so he never thought of that place as a home so it might not have even protected him in the first place.
What I find interesting with Dumbledore is that there an intense shift between books 1 - 3 and from the end of book 4 - 6/7 onwards. Dumbledore knows that Harry is the Chosen One, has to fight Voldemort and will almost certainly die. So, while he's kind to Harry, he doesn't actually get close to him and trains him with quests and teacher to become able to fight Voldemort and be as strong as he can be. But then, after Voldemort's resurrection, there now is a chance (a glimmer in his eye, as Harry describes it) that Harry could actually beat Voldemort and survive. And that's when Dumbledore becomes far more involved and protective over Harry. His isolation in book 5, while arguably stupid (Dumbledore even admits this), is all out of protection for Harry. Dumbledore is obviously not good at regulating those love feelings himself. And then he truly starts to train Harry and laying out the ground work for Harry to survive. He's such a fascinating character and still one of my favourites.
I think it is not very "realistic" to pick Dumbledore. I would not call him evil but he is not as a good person as Jacob or Newt. But the real question is: they had 4 candidates for wizard president what if none of them where a good person?
Prior to the first book Dumbledore is Kirk and Harry is Khan. This means there exists and alternate universe where we got "Harry Potter and the Wrath of Harry Potter." Man, this sounded so much more interesting in my head!
“A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good.” - Stannis Baratheon. When it comes to characters like Snape and Dumbledore who frustratingly can’t be neatly sorted into convenient boxes of morality because they are capable of both great heroism and great villainy, this simple but profound philosophy is the one you should hold to. Give credit to the good that they do while never forgetting the evils they’ve committed. Condemn the evil they spread, but do not neglect the positive change their existence has brought. Anything else is not only absurdly simplistic but doesn’t do justice to the great writing that goes into making them as if it’s a simple choice about where they go on the morality scale, why are we bothering to still talk about them?
An interesting point about Dumbledore’s protection charm over the Dursley’s has been brought up and being the nerd I am I would LOVE to hear everyone’s thoughts on it because I think the book does not give a clear enough answer! From looking at the online debate on different forums it seems like there’s contention as to whether Dumbledore’s charm protects Harry only at the Dursley’s home, or whether it’s an all encompassing protection. I believe there’s two sides of this debate -
1. Dumbledore sealed Lily’s protection by placing Harry at the Dursley’s and so Harry must return to the Dursley’s yearly for that all encompassing protection to persist.
2. Dumbledore created a second charm that protects Harry while he is at the Dursley’s home specifically. This is in addition to the protection Lily conferred that protects Harry from being touched by Voldemort no matter where he is.
I’m personally on the side of #2! I’m going to share my arguments why and I’m interested to know if people agree or disagree.
Dumbledore tells Harry: “She took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you.[…]While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort[…]You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, there he cannot hurt you.”
So the use of the word “there” two times makes it seem to me like this is an added charm over the house that is separate from Lily’s blood protection. When Voldemort takes Harry’s blood in GoF and renders Lily’s protection useless, the charm over the house still holds which is why I think it’s separate, and also because Harry confers the same protection over everyone at the battle of Hogwarts, without the need for an additional charm. So this feels like an unnecessary protection Dumbledore cast, considering Harry had Lily’s blood protection for the first 14 years of his life and then for the next three he barely spent any time at the Dursleys anyway! I’m also curious how far this protection against Voldemort at the home extends. I mean the Dursleys take Harry to the zoo, could Voldemort theoretically have jumped him there? 😂
Let me know your thoughts on this!!
I think it's hard to say with how little information we have. It would make more sense that there are separate protections.
I think Harry would be vulnerable anywhere outside of Petunia's house..
Rather, what would happen if Voldemort used magic to throw physical objects -- like stones? What about exploding them? Would it protect him from indirect attacks? Mental? What about magical objects/artifacts? I think the problem is really Rowling glossing over the sacrificial magic with the "power of love" trope without explaining exactly HOW it protects him.
But if there are vulnerabilities it'd totally explain Dumbledore casting more charms...
The problem I have with #1 is this, if the house (and Petunia) is really so important... why not cast the fidelius charm? Also, can you layer the fidelius charm with other fidelius charms? Can you use it to hide an identity? I have too many questions.
I see it as a "bonus" to Lily's sacrifice. The magic protects the subject of that sacrifice so long as they are with their family, at least until the subject becomes an adult. Dumbledore "casting" the charm didn't involve him waving his wand. Like much of the most powerful magic, it was more basic: Dumbledore "cast" the charm by leaving Harry with the Dursleys.
Or, in other words: Ding Dong Ditch is one of the most powerful protection charms ever.
To the questions: Petunia (and Dudley, I guess) are what provide that protection, not the house. They are, weirdly, Harry's bodyguards, and whether at school, the house, or even the zoo, Harry is protected. The exception is when he's left with Mrs Figg, but on those rare occasions, Dumbledore probably arranges extra protection.
The Dementor attack is the exception because Lily's sacrifice is focused against Voldemort. Umbridge is an entirely separate horror. Even then, Dumbledore took precautions so that Harry could protect himself. Anyone reckon that it's a coincidence that Remus, a powerful and empathetic wizard, turned up the same year as the Dementors?
Is this convoluted? Yes. Am I trying too hard to make sense of it? Yup. Is it fun? Heck yes.
@@krila3978The charm actually works like the Fidelius charm. The Ministry have Harry's exact address, but the Death Eaters can't learn it or even get close. They only have a general area.
I think it’s a moot point. The true protection was the prophecy. Lily’s blood protected Harry from Voldemort and the prophecy protected him from everyone else as far as his death is concerned. I don’t think Dumbledore’s protection was for Harry at all but for the Dursleys. There were too many benefits for his plan to keep Harry there and he couldn’t do that if something were to happen to them.
I agree with you and always thought it would be like you mentioned in no. 2. But I am wondering how could Harry ever feels at home with the dursleys? And didn‘t he say his real Home is hogwarts?
Jacob. Was. *RIGHT* . *THERE* . No, but seriously, I had to make that make sense in my head, so I've got two headcanons: 1) The magic goat (which I will now call it *forever* , thank you Mikaela), being magic, *had* to choose someone with magic to rule. 2) The wizarding world misinterprets what it's actually judging - the magic goat doesn't actually choose someone of pure heart, but of pure *motives* . Dumbledore isn't perfect, no one is (except Jacob, of course), but his motives in that moment were pure - more pure than the other candidate even - because he wasn't trying to be elected, he was only trying to stop Grinde-Mads and allow people the chance to have a good and true leader. That's why it went to him first, then to the next best option: someone who *did* want to win, but for noble reasons.
Edit: Yes, I am a Ravenclaw.
Its just so frustrating because they were developing the themes of disproving that anti muggle wizard superiority so regardless of cannon its bad writing. I know the series was panned but I really enjoyed that one and wish it were continuing so much more than a random remake tv show.
I am also a ravenclaw lol, and also maybe at some point Dumbledore wasn't so bad, but as he grew older, he grew to be a worse character.
RAVENCLAW for the win!!!
I love that reasoning because it is the only thing that makes logical sense when Jacob was right there!
Omg pure motives!!! Yess i love that!
Haven't seen the 3rd Fantastic Beasts, but this discussion does raise that wonderful point T'chala's father had in the Avengers movies: "It is very hard for a good man to be king"
I didn't know when clicking on this video that it would lead to multiple Mikaila's shouting abuse at each other, but I'm all for it.
Only thing better than one Mikaila is more than one.
I agree 100%
I was rereading it recently and something that really struck me about Lily's magic is that Dumbledore said that as long as Harry considers Privet Drive a home, the magic will persist. but Harry NEVER considered Privet Drive a home or the Dursleys as his family, he is surprised when he realizes that Petunia is related to Lily, not exactly because he did not know it but because he had not taken into account it, they were sisters, they shared a bond and cared about each other and it never crossed Harry's mind.
Very good point. But in one sense Harry did consider it home because, with few exceptions, he did as he was told by the Dursleys. It’s more like being institutionalised, but maybe that was enough
I don’t think it’s that simple. At the end of the day, Harry would have died before letting anything happen to the Dursleys. Yes, Hogwarts was the home he chose and the Weasleys were the family he chose, but I don’t think it “negates” his attachment to his biological family either. So many of us wish we had different homes and different families but the regard is still often there.
@@signalfire15 But Harry had a real alternative. The moment I had actually non abusive people around me, my thoughts changed pretty quickly. Like yes they are my parents and at least I care for my mother but I don't consider them real family anymore. The attachment is still there but it is framed differently now.
Harry would probably protect the Dursleys because he couldn't live with the guilt of letting somebody die but probably not because he loved them so much.
@@ducklingscap897 I don’t think he really had an alternative. Sure, he could have stayed with the Weasleys and I’m sure they didn’t mind having him there and they did treat him as family but I’m sure Harry still felt like a burden to them. I think the only real alternative Harry had was the prospect of living with Sirius, however short lived that dream was. And notice, even in that situation, Harry regarded Sirius as family because he was actually Harry’s godfather. I do think Harry regarded the Dursleys as his home / family because of the blood bond and connection to his own parents.
I would say he was good generally, but he was not perfect. And I think those imperfections made him a better character than some abstract pure goodness would be. He was still a human with his own thoughts, feelings, goals and ulterior motives
That’s my take. Dumbledore appears perfect in the beginning but as the reader matures, they realise he is not. FB is wrong!
exactlyyy
"HARRYPOTTAHDIDYOUPUTYOURNAMEINTHEGOBLETOFFIRE" Dumbledore said camly 🔪
will always be a ✨vibe✨
So I actually had a thought about this.
Richard Harris was pretty spot on as to how I imagined Dumbledore(not to say I didn't love Gambon) but when he passed Dumbledores character changed as it felt like Gambon was trying to be different as some actors do when they are recast due to the previous actor passing.
Did it make sense? No. But I do wonder if that played a part. 😊
The question of asking "is Dumbledore bad" is just another way of asking "how far you have to go to achieve the greater good".
Because thats all what Dumbledore is about, from his youth to his adult life.
GOD I love the point you made that the books don't address these morally complex questions/themes with enough time or sensitivity, which leaves a void for the fandom to fill in. You're SO right and I've never seen it explained like that. 10/10 would watch multiple mikailas debate again.
Thanks so much Brett!! We gotta film a debate together someday (maybe a Star Wars the last Jedi themed one 😂😂)
totally argee. JKR has said sometime that she intended HP to be a children's book series, and, as such, she had to "dumb down" the morality of the characters in order to make it easier to understand right and wrong and good and evil. In her opinion, had she added more complexity to the characters it would have been hard to distinguish both considering people are essentialy flewd and not just good or evil.
In the 4th book, after Harry has returned from the graveyard and is telling Dumbledore what happened, when Harry tells Dumbledore that Voldemort used his blood, Dumbledore has “a glint of triumph in his eyes.”
It was always my belief that at this moment, Dumbledore realized that Harry would be able to live when Voldemort kills him. One of the inarguable traits of Dumbledore is his cleverness, so it is plausible that he figured out the loop hole at this time.
When Harry is in Limbo, it seemed like Dumbledore was waiting for him, like he expected Harry to be there.
2:12 As long as Harry could consider the Dursley’s place his “home,” he was protected from Voldemort (by his mother’s sacrifice). So he needed to stay there at least part of each summer. It had to be considered his home, but he was protected everywhere as long as his “home” was with his family.
He wasn’t protected from Dementors or House Elves, just Voldemort. So living in a cupboard for 11 years made it possible for him to survive every encounter with Voldemort.
(Dumbledore still could have done a lot to make them treat Harry better!!)
And of course, when Voldemort used Harry’s blood to return, Harry was no longer fully protected by his mom’s sacrifice.
I think Dumbledore’s plan A was for Harry to defeat Dumbledore and survive, as did happen, but he did know Harry had to die for Voldemort to be finally destroyed. Plan C or D could have been for Harry to die of old age and the good guys to defeat Voldemort later on.
You bring up a great point of contention in this debate! 👏🏼 some people interpret the protection spell Dumbledore cast over the Dursleys to have sealed the protection Harry’s mother placed over him when she sacrificed herself, and others interpret it as two separate forms of protection - one for the Dursleys home cast by Dumbledore and one for Harry created by his mother. I definitely agree with the second interpretation because when Dumbledore is explaining the charm he cast over the house he specifically says “there Voldemort cannot harm you, there he cannot hurt you” which to me seems like he’s specifically talking about a second protection that refers to Harry’s home. I also think that if Lily’s protection was tied to the Dursley’s alone then the protection over the Dursley’s house would’ve been rendered ineffective after Voldemort took Harry’s blood and could touch him, but because it was a second and different charm created by Dumbledore, it still held up after Goblet of Fire. I’ve seen this point debated a lot online so I’m curious to hear how the majority of people interpret this!
@@magicbymikailaI've always wondered if Voldemort using Harry's blood did make the protection at the house ineffective against him, but he never actually tested it. He may have sent Death Eaters to test the wards at some point, but didn't go himself, assuming that Dumbledore's protections would've worked.
Plan C and D are flawed since Harry had to be the one to kill Voldemort. My guess is that in case Severus was not able to tell Harry the truth (which he would learn from Dumbledore at King's Cross station when he is give the option to go "on".), Dumbledore still predicted that Voldemort would still give Harry the ultimatum that die or let others die, and Harry would willingly accept it, causing him to not actually die when the killing curse hit him. Nothing else would change at all.@@Andreamom001
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we given proof that Dumbledore had cast a protection spell over the Dursley's. I personally, always thought that the protection was always there from the moment Voldemort tried to kill Harry, causing the killing curse to backfire. So, if he did cast a spell, then the 2nd interpretation would be spot on as Lily's protection through her sacrifice was already sealed, causing both of them to be completely different.
I think it’s clear in the books how much goodness, kindness and love was in Dumbledore. I would even say that he is quite noble. He is flawed, he made mistakes in his youth but just the fact that he avoided power because he knew it was his weakness shows how much he wanted to be better. He’s a man who always wanted to do the right thing, to act for the greater good, and he was ready to make sacrifices for the greater good and expected the same from everyone too. And honestly, the fact that he always gave second chances to people that many others wouldn’t, like Hagrid, Lupin, Draco, Snape also proves what kind of person he is. And he definitely loved and cared for Harry a lot, book readers know that.
I think that self doubt given his past and willingness to try to give others a chance or elevate love (especially familial) based on his own experience actually works in well with his more dubious actions story-wise but the fantastic beasts movies undercut that. If they’d stuck with that original characterization of him being over loyal and too lenient with people he loved, and distrusting his judgment because of past as well as letting personal feelings make him avoidant, they wouldn’t have needed the blood pact nonsense (that also contradicted the book). If he just strong armed the ministry for political change it might do some good briefly but in the long term wouldn’t actually change the social problems and he didn’t trust himself to make the right decisions at that level.
And being too willing to give people like the Dursleys or Snape a chance, or not having Draco turned in, or even Tom Riddle as a child. It’s very idealistic, but it can harm others by proxy of letting abusive or dangerous people have free rein even when they do occasionally make the right choice eventually. Even Voldemort’s rise is partly due to that. The wizards don’t actually have social services and actual British ones and psychology wasn’t great in 1930’s and 1940’s, but he could have at least warned other teachers about Tom being a troubled child and dangerous to other kids, but he didn’t want to hurt his chances of a new start.
Agree!!
He didn't really avoid power did he? He was the headmaster of Hogwarts, supreme Mugwump, Chief Warlock and sorcerer supreme (even though in that case its unclear if that comes with any institutional power). That's a lot of titles for someone who has no interest in power.
@@ducklingscap897 He did specifically avoid being Minister of Magic, even though he was offered the post multiple times. Also in FB3 when Qilin chooses him, he refuses too (although accepts later, I think). Being at Hogwarts isn’t the same, he started as a teacher and then Headmaster’s job is somewhat different and not as political. Although you do make fair points, but I wouldn’t call all of these examples ‘power’, more like his accomplishments.
What ever happened with Serius' second chance? He was thrown into Azkaban pretty quickly, possibly to block him from interfering with Dumbledore's plan🤔. Meanwhile Death Eaters who have killed or hoped to gain a woman after Voldemort kills her husband and son get a pass...and helping Hagrid sure did benefit Dumbledore without any drawbacks, when he KNEW Hagrid was innocent of opening The Chamber of Secrets and could have got Hagrid completely exonerated by letting some of his knowledge go, like Tom M. Riddle doing it and Tom M. Riddle being Voldemort's true name
Wizard CPS. Imagine how young Tom Riddle would feel. LMAO
Every so often I see people saying they hate Dumbledore and that he’s a terrible person or something. I’m always baffled by this.
“He didn’t care about Harry. He only raised him like a pig for slaughter as a tool to fight Voldemort”. No. He did indeed care about Harry. He’s a kind and caring person. But he also knew that Harry would be the key to ending Voldemort. Dumbledore knew that for Voldemort to be defeated, Voldemort had to cast Avada Kedavra at Harry, but Dumbledore also suspected Harry might survive the encounter, which he did. Not very “raising him for slaughter” If you ask me.
And even without knowing Harry would survive, what would you have him do? He had three choices:
A) Avoidance - hide Harry from danger forever. This is not sustainable since eventually Voldemort conquers and rules the world.
B) Brutal Honesty - tell Harry from day one that he’s got to one day let Voldemort kill him (and that it might be temporary lol). This would still save the world from Voldemort, yes, but it would also destroy Harry’s chance at enjoying his life at Hogwarts. That revelation would loom over him constantly like a dark cloud and sap the joy out of life.
C) Merciful Ignorance - let Harry have as normal a life at Hogwarts as humanly possible. Harry can make friends. Have fun. Enjoy quidditch. Goof around. No looming death date choking the joy out of life.
If Dumbledore didn’t care about Harry and only saw him as a pawn to end Voldemort (as some claim) then he’d have gone with option B and tell Harry everything upfront, not caring if the news would give this poor child a mental breakdown.
Dumbledore chose option C - the option that is the least cruel to Harry while still saving the world from Voldemort. It’s not hard to see why Dumbledore felt that this was his only choice.
How do you keep a super OP strong and wise character interesting? By giving them a terrible choice. Superman with all his strength still can’t save everyone. Dumbledore is an interesting and compelling character because he cares deeply about people but still has to orchestrate Voldemort’s demise.
But I keep seeing people saying “Dumbledore is the worst!” and I have to surmise that they just misunderstood the story. Either that or they are just trying to sound unique and edgy.
Good points. Maybe some of those people have only seen movie Dumbledore... overall, I like movie Dumbledore, but I feel his sense of whimsy and certain scenes that make him likeable are missing. I kind of think of Dumbledore more as Gandalf was in the Shire at the beginning of The Fellowship (he's SO powerful, but he's willing to be silly and entertain the hopeful children running behind the cart).
yeah i totally agree what is funny to me some people hate him more the voldermort or even snape .....
like i understand he did good things to protect and all but it doesnt change the fact that he was a bully to CHILDREN or blaming dumbledore for the action of dumbledore which i dont understand
The people who believe Dumbledore didnt care about Harry and was just 'raising him like a pig for slaughter' just didn't read properly. Dumbledore straight up admits at the end of Order of The Phoenix that leaving Harry in the dark and hiding so much information wasn't a LOGICAL choice, it was Dumbledore trying to protect Harry's innocence and letting him lead as normal a childhood as possible. If he was really as manipulative and controlling as people think he would have told Harry everything the moment he walked into Hogwarts at age 11 and started forcing him to train or something.
@@aseyawardak3438 Dumbledore is not innocent in Snape buoying children though. He is the headmaster. It is his responsibility to make sure all the teachers treat their students fairly. And he completely ignores it. I mean you can't tell me he didn't know anything about that...
@@ducklingscap897We don't know whether Snape and Dumbledore have discussed this point. Maybe Snape was able to convince / give excuses to Dumbledore that he is just being strict to maintain a standard.
Harry is obviously a special case, and Snape's hatred for James can't be suppressed by Dumbledore I think. He tries to, by telling him that Harry's nature is much like his mother. But can't stop him hating Harry.
Also, I think Dumbledore isn't too strict with Snape, because he needs him to stay loyal to himself, and to carry out his duties as a double agent.
If there was anyone Dumbledore actually didn't care enough too much about, it was Snape. I believe Dumbledore manipulated Snape the most, without caring for him much. For the Greater Good.
And I think Snape was also okay with that, in his remorse that he was the trigger point (by delivering the prophecy to Voldemort) that brought the demise of his beloved Lily
Furthere point about Dumbledore raising Harry to be a sacrifice: as Harry understands on his way to meet Voldemort, Dumbledore CHOSE to love Harry. He knew Harry would have to surrender himself to stop Voldemort, and rather than distancing himself (except in book 5) he got to know Harry, he opened himself up to Harry. Harry wasn't just a piece to play, he was a sacrifice in the true meaning of the word. And it could only work because Harry chose to be the sacrifice.
No matter if Dumbledore was good or bad, he was a crucial part to the books and I love him as a character 😊
And I hate him
@@nirmalweerasinghe4360Funny how no one asked
This is why Dumbledore is so confusing to me, when i try to put him in situations, or to write some fanfic about him, i can't figure out what how he would do some things and how he would do some other things, or if he would do them at all, which is why i try to avoid write about him or to give very minor roles in those 3-4 short fanfics i wrote...even when his role is to give advices i'm not sure how to write him doing so.
Imo, Dumbledore would always tackle a situation logically first, and then try to emotionally process it.
This is why i think Harry Potter has some of the best fictional characters: its one of the few that readers can walk away, debating on whether the characters are good or bad. Whether its dumbledore, snape, sirius, james.....the series did an excellent job giving these characters the complexity we need to return time and time again....our perspective changes with each read.
Dumbledore is my favorite character for these shades of gray. Is he perfect? Hell no, but I don't want him to be either. At the end of the day, Dumbledore did everything in his power to give Harry a fighting chance. Hell, he even set up his own death to help Harry win. He took an near impossible situation and found a path to win the war, and save Harry. Most people wouldn't have even attempted what Dumbledore did, and would have just let Harry die. One life for many? It would have been the easy choice.
In my opinion, a lot of the issues people have with Dumbledore is due to the early books. Rowling started off very whimsical, with the Dursleys being over-the-top abusive, and the adults being very useless (such as leaving a baby on the doorstep). It doesn't translate well when we get into the later books, where the tone becomes far more serious and characters like Dumbledore become increasingly important. It's hard to look at book 1 Dumbledore vs book 5/6/7 Dumbledore. The whimsical nature of the books, while wonderful to read, hampers character development and proper world building. A lot of the arguments against Dumbledore could have been avoided if it was the Ministry who left Harry at the Dursleys, and not Dumbledore himself. Which, logically, should have been the case.
It is true that many things are exaggerated in the first books, but maybe this is because they were written more like children's books? So everything is a bit more obvious for children to understand the abuse? The later books are not really children's books. It could also reflect Harry's own maturing.
@@Tamy-qo7ohthat is the reason why they change ( the first few were in an old English genre of boarding school and fairytale stories like Diane Wynn Jones books), but that doesn’t change the negative effect it had on Dumbledore’s character. She had to write ways to explain early actions away like him forcing himself to trust muggles more after being racist and extremely paternalistic towards them in the past
If someone loved Harry very much in his place, many would NOT sacrifice him at all, even at the cost of millions. People are split around 50/50 regarding to whom is more important to them and what they can live with and without
Honestly, the same people who say Dumbledore or even the Weasleys are "evil" are usually the same people who say Draco isn't a villain. I am sorry, but if Malfoy isn't a villain, if Snape isn't a villain, Dumbledore most certainly isn't. Is he perfect? Far from it. But he is at least TRYING to do good. His intentions aren't malicious. I think people underestimate the responsibility that being the one to hear the prophecy puts on Dumbledore. There's clearly a reason he and he alone was the one the prophecy was made to. And I don't like Harry being left with the Dursleys anymore than anyone, but for the character we grow to learn, it makes sense that Dumbledore prioritises protecting Harry from Voldemort above all else. Dumbledore himself has admitted that being smarter than most people means his mistakes are correspondingly huger despite being fewer and further between. I understand people acknowledging those mistakes, but there are some crazy conclusions, and a sign of illiteracy if you come out with the impression that Dumbledore has "gone evil". Are you serious. We have the likes of Voldemort and Bellatrix as a litmus test for evil, get a grip.
I did thoroughly enjoy Mikaila's video, as usual. And that internal debate is actually what makes Dumbledore a fantastic character. But definitely not even a question about him being evil. I'd agree that even Malfoy and Snape aren't evil, and they're certainly closer on the spectrum than Dumbledore. I think it's okay if you can't understand Harry's understanding of Dumbledore's actions, I actually don't think it's a flaw in the writing. If you've ever read any book with a character that the world or circumstance has decided has the responsibility to save the world (and people don't know about the prophecy, so Dumbledore IS that person to everyone), you have to make horrifying choices, as Mikaila pointed out. I both understand Dumbledore's choice, Harry's betrayal, and ultimate acceptance. I find it much harder to understand Harry naming his child after Snape, as myself, but I understand Harry's sense of honour makes it make sense. I really can't believe Ginny agreed to that.
Excellent points.
About Harry naming Albus Severus, I was also like, that's gone too far...
But think about Harry's ideology; he has learnt from Dumbledore to see good in people, and ignore/forgive their flaws. I do think Harry completely forgave Snape for all the abuse he received at Hogwarts, because he also saw where Snape came from, how he was abused etc.
He might've also realised that Lily's protection only worked because of Snape's love for Lily, which made Voldemort give her a CHOICE, and so, he must've developed further respect for Snape.
Harry is not someone who holds grudges. He also forgives both, Dudley and Malfoy at the end of the series.
Eventually, he may be able to convince Ginny and the others, that they need not carry the Hatred forward, as Snape had done, but rather hide his flaws and just highlight his better parts, to their children.
@@ambiverter Exactly! I, myself, would not have named my child after Snape. But I am not Harry. I most definitely would not have stepped in to save Wormtail’s life: TWICE. It’s not a plot hole when you personally don’t resonate with a character’s decision. Harry names his children for the figures in his life without whom he would not have lived to HAVE children. (And then Ginny gets Lily’s middle name 🤣. Ginny is the goatest of wives).
The end justifies the means
In the end,,harry succeeded,and wizarding world was saved,He has to do whatever he can do for greater good, there might be sacrifices and hurt and collateral damage,but still many still survived and voldemort is dead
That is all that matters
In my opinion, he's not good nor bad, but rather a complex character, he has his good moments and other times he comes off as deeply misguided and even downright questionable at times, but to me what Herman's the type of person someone is is rather the intentions behind the actions rather than the actions themselves.
I just finished GoF again and when Harry is telling Sirius and Dumbledore what happened in the graveyard and gets to Voldy taking his blood, it says Harry saw a "flash of triumph" (maybe phrased differently) in Dumbledore's eyes. This is Dumbledore realising that Voldy has connected Lily's protection to his own body so that while Voldy lives, Harry is protected. The fact that this is true (because it's the justification for Harry resurrecting) and that Harry is now less protected because Voldy can touch him doesn't make a lot of sense and maybe Dumbledore knew this and didn't want to trust in it to save him which is why he still didn't tell Harry. Also being told you have to die to win the war isn't great insentive to follow through. What Dumbledore didn't know was that Harry was the master of the Deathly Hallows and thus Death at the time of his death, so that's a less confusing plot armour.
He wants harry to have the hallows in order to help in finding horcrux and defeat voldemort,,hence he leave him the ressurection stone,,
But his plan failed because ,he intended snape to have the wand,he knows harry will go against snape in killing him,but draco dis arm dumbledore before snape kill him.
Thats why harry ask him when they met in kings Cross if he intended to leave the wand to snape,,
Dumbledore: Today we'll be abandoning this kid
edit: first comment i've posted in years and it got more likes than my older comments combined
Doesn't even stand around and make sure no one snatches him. Just leaves. Probably had a party to get to - some things are just too important
“The world isn’t split into good people and Death Eaters. We’ve all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That’s who we really are.”
Dumbledore was neither good nor evil. In my opinion he was always working for the Greater Good, his vision on what the Greater Good was just changed over time.
He was a brilliant, powerful, and wise man, but also manipulative combined with- a rather large ego at times. He sometimes seemed to believe that he knew better than anyone else, and acted upon that thought, shutting other people out, not including them in his plans, but still expecting them to follow along, trust him blindly, while manipulating them.
On the whole he did have a massive responsibility, he was trying to rescue the entire wizarding world from the grasp of Voldemort, and he obviously couldn't just tell everyone and their neighbors his plans. His goals were good, he had a good heart, and plenty of love to give to those he cared for.
He was a well rounded character that had both light and dark inside of him.
Very apt summary of the character. 👍🏼
People need an yes / no or good/bad answer but 'The world isn't split into good people and death eaters, we have all got both light and dark inside us, what matters is the power we choose to act on, that's who we really are.
So happy you mentioned the Hunger Games! I’d like to add that the prequel, The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes delves even deeper into these ethical questions particularly how people deal with the aftermath of war, what the winning side does to ensure their continued victory is sound because clearly dealing with that kind of instability is never easy, and the mention of how children are viewed is extremely integral to the series as a whole. As innocent victims, pawns to be moved across the board, or killers every bit as capable as their adult counterparts parts.
2:34 "He played ding-dong ditch with a baby" help-
Watching the Super Carlin brother's "Dumbledore's big plan" really clears up his character
When it comes to Dumbledore "raising Harry like a pig for slaughter", I think there are two ways of looking at it.
1. Morally: This is the complicated way of looking at it. He's putting a kid through tons of pain and suffering, just for him to die. But in doing so, he saves far more souls from experiencing that. So technically right but also wrong. I think here, there is no answer.
2. Logically: I think undoubtedly, he logically did the correct thing. It's very logical to eliminate one to save millions. I think there can be no way to say that he logically did the wrong thing.
plus harry DID come back to life which felt a little like it was part of the plan...not a guearentee but a viable option
In the first movie hagrid dont belive voldy is death, at the end of part 3 or start of 4, wormtail founds him. Dumbledore could found voldi and end it but he didnt. He waited and let hatry do the work
Dude, that's literally what the prophecy had set in stone.
@@lorenzkoch6407
It was not part of the plan at all, at least until Voldemort's resurrection. So, he did raise Harry as a pig for slaughter, but in my opinion, the means justify the end, if they aren't that extreme.
@@clarisacalderon9555
@@lorenzkoch6407because he couldn't. Dumbledore knows the prophecy. He knows that Harry is the one with the power to vanquish the dark lord and one will have to die by hands of the other
I think it is hard to truly argue that Dumbledore is bad. Does he make some mistakes? Yes, but he is strong enough to commit atrocities greater than Voldemort and instead chooses the path to try and stop him. In the end he allows himself to die and has one of the people closest to him to do it to basically save Malfoy.
I think truly it is hard to even argue him as a grey character and he more so lands along the lines of good but fucks up every now and again and in a position of power that makes it impossible for him to not make a wrong decision.
It’s easy to judge someone with hindsight
HE PLAYED DINGDONG DITCH WITH A BABY!
This line caught me so off guard that I laughed for 20 minutes after the video ended. Thank you for that. 😂😂
That line killed me lmao
ran here as soon as i saw the notification
off-topic but i adore your bangs!!
This is the thing I love and hate about complex characters; their debatable, their deep, their confusing, their conflicting, they make us question the whole book, they make us love and hate them just like we love and hate the people we meet in life.
Dumbledore's biggest fault was too much secret keeping IMO.
Is good of one outweigh the good of many? I would say NO for most people. But Dumbledore didn't have to act in the heat of the moment, he had 16 YEARS to make that decision and while he did try to find alternatives, it was only on his own. Yeah, he was an amazing wizard with lots of great achievements, but if he had clued in 5-10-50 other people into the secret, maybe a third option would have been found. After all, wizarding world had many ways to ensure secrecy, like Unbreakable Vow. He also stated many times about many people that he trusted them with his life.
Thank you for saying this. Because in my head canon, Harry actually is told this by another character… A more minor character in the books but a major in my head canon.
early!
i mean...i always thought of dumbledore as more of a gray (grey?) character, but yeah ive seen a lot of stuff whether on he was a villain or not
i think you explained the stuff well and yeah since he's a complicated character, its rly js up to the person to decide how they see him
6:05 the problem is that it wasn't Dumbledore's choice/decision/right to make that call for, "The Greater Good". He wasn't given that right by Harry's parents, he let the man who was given that right rot in Azkaban for over a decade. In a world of magic, which is literally the power of reality warping and energy manipulation, anything is possible, wizards/witches have the ability to become practically gods. Im in the, Dumbledore is evil/not good camp.
"Jacob Kowalski was standing right there." - I remember thinking the same thing as I watched the movie
I think the reason for Dumbledore fearing himself in power is because of choices he made in the past. He used to believe that wizards are and should be superior to Muggles and was willing to suppress them.
He did change though, and I suppose the Qilin only sees the heart of a person at present.
Dumbledore does make some questionable choices, but his intentions are good. And I suppose that this is what the Qilin sees.
I think Dumbledore's failures in the books are a result of his self doubt. Back in the past he let his emotions guide him, so with Harry he is trying to follow logic and not let his feelings interfere. So he is allowing all of these things happening to Harry even though it feels wrong because he stopped using his feelings as a compass. On the other hand he is still protecting Muggles and Zentaurs and respects all of them and his goal is peace and freedom for wizards and Muggles alike. He is complex and I think this is what makes him such a compelling character. He has a lot of wisdom but still is not without flaws. His heart can still be good though, not pure in a naive sort of way, but pure in a vulnerable "I can see the mistakes I made in the past and will put all my efforts to rectify my mistakes and make the world a better place without seeking power" sort of way.
.. but of course I might just try and justify why I still do like Dumbledore in spite of it all.
One thing nobody has ever been able to explain to me is that if Dumbledore really did not trust himself with power, then why did he put himself in that position where he could be voted as supreme Mugwamp? Why did he become headmaster of a school? I mean… That is a pretty powerful position when you think about it even though he did a really crappy job at it. And why did he sit on the wizarngimot? Why did he have so many fingers in so many pies of government? And why did he have the personal ear of the minister for magic? Doesn't sound like someone who has done a lot of changing to me. Doesn't like sound like someone that is trying to avoid being in positions of power to me. No, I don't think he changed one little bit. He just got more deceptive, and better at hiding his faults that he was in his youth.
I think what summarizes my thoughts on Dumbledore is that he was a great man, but he wasn't necessarily a good man. He made a lot of tough decisions in order to win the war, but there were a lot of things he could have done to make Harry's life better. And, it seemed like his actions were more motivated by redemption for the things he did in his youth instead of how much he cared for Harry and other people.
Also kind of a side note, but I am a strong believer that Dumbledore should have been a Slytherin :)
When people talk about 'pig for slaughter', I think it's important to remember, that Dumbledore wasn't the one who choose Harry to be one. It's all started with self-fulfilling prophecy, then after Harry became a horcrux his fate was set. He wouldn't have a normal peaceful life, even if Dumbledore didn't use and manipulated him. But of course it's hard to call Dumbledore 'pureharted'.
Mikaila with bangs, one of the many personalities that held more power over the others 🦍 👑
One thing that was pointed out by the Super Carlin Brothers channel some time ago, is Dumbledore totally thought Harry was a goner UNTIL Harry told him what Voldemort did to come back to life in the graveyard. The book said there was a glint of hope in his eye for a brief second, something like that. And that's when he thought there's a chance for Harry to live after the horcrux is killed out of him
I always wondered why Dumbledore didn’t tell Harry that there was this glimmer of hope, because if that was ME I’d rather know I have a chance however slight than thinking I was 100% gonna die 😂 it feels like it would’ve made the whole sacrificing himself to Voldemort a tiny bit less traumatic for Harry hahaha 😭 it makes me wonder whether Dumbledore intentionally left that information out because he knew that Harry had to fully believe he was going to die for the sacrificial protection to be cast over everyone so Voldemort could no longer hurt them.
Something pointed out by the Super Carlin Brothers when they talked about Dumbledore’s Bug Plan as they call it is that Dumbledore hears that Voldemort took Harry’s blood into him, Dumbledore gets his signature twinkle in his eye. Dumbledore now knows Harry, making this decision hard, but now Dumbledore also knows… Harry will die, but Harry can live. Voldemort doomed himself and saved Harry. Harry isn’t told about this until King’s Cross in between, but Dumbledore knew that, when Harry would ultimately die, he still had a way to live.
Dumbledore is by no means perfect, he pulled the strings and used people as chess pieces. But he also knew there was a way the cheat the board
I wanna quote Dumbledore himself and Sirius on this matter:
"It is not our abilities that show who we are. It is our choices "
"We all have both light and dark insides us. What matters is what side we choose to act on"
Therefore I declare Dumbledore a manipulative person who acted on behalf of the good. He's flawed but good
One thing I have always wondered would be if there had been other options that Dumbledore could have chosen from. In the case of the Dursley's, did it have to be those related to his mother for the blood protection to work or could it be anyone that Harry was related to since the blood protection is for him? And in the case of the "pig for slaughter," did Dumbledore ever try and look for a way to save Harry while also getting rid of the horcrux or did he simply never look because he believed the only way to destroy the horcrux was to kill Harry? Dumbledore definitely can be seen as good and evil. He is very grey.
The deathly hallows were the way to save Harry without having him “die”. Harry didn’t end up pursing them as soon as planned but he left him two and Hermione with instructions for the third, albeit he died sooner than planned potentially
Honestly tho, it would have been LEGENDARY if the magic goat had picked Jacob and the wizards hat to put up with an muggle president. I would put something about the goat's choice being magically bindinh or smtg.
1. Jacob was a non-mag, and thus not suitable as the leader of Wizarding world. While Qilins can understand people with good heart and approach them we see that they only bow at people who are suitable and worthy as a leader (which is revealed in the conversation they had at hogshead). So the Qilin's thing is not just about pure of heart, it is also about what constitutes a leader, which Jacob could never be for obvious reasons.
2. Dumbledore is meant to be a leader. In the Fantastic Beasts, we see Dumbledore orchestrating every plans and leading the team he formed towards fighting Grindelwald. The same could be seen in HP as well. He just lead people towards the goals which did not benefit himself, but the whole wizarding world. If this ain't a leadership quality, I don't know what else is.
I don't think Dumbledore should have been chosen because a person "pure of heart" would be someone unwilling or even refusing to accept power. Why? With power comes responsibility. With responsibility comes a balance. And in war, a person pure of heart would do anything to not make those decisions. Even if that means avoidance to the brink of isolation.
To me, it reads as a kind of plothole. Because in reality, a person pure of heart would never value anyone else's lives below their own.
And dumbledore does this by ofc making Harry destroy the horcruxes, not taking an active role in Harry's life, empowering house discrimination and isolating the Slytherins for no good reason....
If I had to interpret the goat message to apologize for the plot it would be the person with the most pure INTENTIONS (at the time). Because a pure heart and pure intentions are two completely different things. And Dumbledore had the intent to do what is right and save as many as he could, knowing that it would not be easy.
Even then, it doesn't fully absolve Dumbledore of his guilt. He's simultaneously too involved and too uninvolved with the plot. But he has never, ever, been innocent. He just has pushed his own ideation in an organized manner with positive intent which is reflected back to us and reads to us as positive intent so we interpret it as positive.
This is a constant in World History. This is always how I have viewed Dumbledore overall. Villains and heroes don't exist outside of the brush that paints them.
Awesome as always thanks ❤
thanks so much for watching!! 💖
Absolutely brilliant stuff....wonderful, mikaila...its not easy to argue on two sides of a debate, and you did just that....hats off
I haven’t seen the recent fantastic beasts movies, and hearing you describe it was wild 😂
I think Dumbledore was a human trying to do the best he could in crappy circumstances. I think he would have been a boring character if he was a perfect mentor
Mikayla, this is amazing! I love your analysis of Dumbledore. As I started getting more into the fandom, I started getting a more negative perception of him but you’re really really put everything in perspective and truth of the winners are those of us who are in the fandom and to add more complexity to the story.
This was a really interesting format with the whole courthouse/self-debate, I hope that you do this again with other fandom issues (like with Twilight or Percy Jackson)!
THIS GUY?? Dumbledore said calmly 1:05
This was TERRIFIC! ❤😂,i loved it,thank you mikaila!
Imao the ends justify the means only in cases were the persons affected agreed to the means so as to achieve the ends, i.e. harry agreed to sacrifice himself so it's fine,but should he decide not to,Dumbledore or anybody else has no right to force him. Which is exactly what happened, Dumbledore made sure he was old enough to make his own decision before revealing (kind of,at least wanting to) this plan,so that Harry can be fully prepared to make this decision (he had just that year come of age(lost trace)). But he never made a plan to firce him to do so,that was Harry's choice, Dumbledore left it up to him to decide if "the end justifys the means".
This was very informative and hilarious,thank you! Glad i found your channel, very engaging stuff.
Dumbledore never gave Harry a choice. He raised Harry exactly for that purpose. He manipulated and engineered circumstances to ensure that Harry would make the choice he wanted Harry to Mike. This is child exploitation at its finest.
I think the writer of the movie was trying to go for a captain america theme. Like Capt America couldnt lift Mjollnir until he revealed tonys parents killer (thus freeing his conscious and making him worthy). I guess the writer thought him finally getting on the front line and opposing Grindelwald instead of just watching...... I wonder if the writer realized that they foreshadowed Jacob the entire movie as being pure of heart and literally put him RIGHT THERE.
Superb analysis. You cut through the implicit assumptions of the questions given and give a much deeper analysis than a simple reading of what is present in the text allows. Your conclusion is inspiring, illustrating the value of the fandom and their interpretation of these characters.
Do you know " Dumbledore's Big Plan" by SuperCarlinBrother. It's a very interesting video (basically the story in Dumbledore's perspective) and according to it Dumbledore knew from the secound when he heard that Voldemort used Harry's blood that Harry could survive.Also the "raising Harry as a pig for slaughter" is just something Snape says, he doesn't know if Dumbledore is lying or not. But pure of heart... I don't think so
I personally like Dumbledore because he feels very human. He makes mistakes he takes risks. He isnt perfect. I find comfort in knowing I'm not the only one who makes mistakes, I find him a lot more real feeling than the other charters. Keeping secrets from your loved ones so they are happy, is a very relatable thing. Hurting people by accident. Its all incredible real.
I've said it before, Dumbledore is neither good nor evil. He's a CHESS PLAYER. He sees the whole board and knows that some pawns and even officers have to be sacrificed in order to checkmate the king and win the game.
Except, here, the stakes are so much higher and the sacrifices required are too costly.
Do I like Dumbledore? Nope. But he's not evil. Manipulative yes but not evil.
6:47 But both Voldie and Dumbles believed a vague poophasey. and both acted on it. it was only self-fullfilling because they both acted on it.
Regarding the Dursleys, if Dumbledore really thought Harry had to live there, he should have spoken to them and made a deal. (The fact that he didn't bother to knock on the Dursleys' door tells me he knew what kind of people they were.) If he simply had Harry in a room that the Durlseys couldn't get to, that instead had a vanishing cabinet that led to a different home, where he would be raised by a loving family, but slept in the Dursley home.
Regarding the Horcrux in Harry: That is more complicated. One item I consider is that the Horcrux in the diary was leaving (to manifest as Tom Riddle) without destroying the diary, which means that there is a way for Horcruxes to be transferred to something else. If Dumbledore were willing to search out more information on Horcruxes, consulting other people besides himself, he might have found a way. For all he knew, every Gringotts cursebreaker knows how to transfer or destroy Horcruxes, because they are commonly found in Egyptian tombs. My point is that I believe he never consulted anyone. He got one book on them (the one Hermione summoned out of his office) and that was all the information he had.
Regarding Harry, Dumbledore always did what was easy, rather than what was right. Most of his actions prove that he was either evil, stupid, or lazy.
To your point of Horcruxes, what did Tom have to do to achieve that?
Sacrificing another, in this case, Ginny Weasley. While JKR has never said loads about Horcrux creation, it's always seemed a soul for a soul. Would Dumbledore sacrifice another innocent just to save another innocent?
@@MrWWIIBuffMost of the Horcruxes were placed in inanimate objects. I'm saying that the fact a Horcrux could transfer from the diary to Ginny means that a Horcrux can transfer. Therefore, if Dumbledore (or someone else) learned how to cause that to happen, they could have transferred the Horcrux from Harry into an inanimate object they didn't mind destroying. (It would've been a good idea to use it to preserve priceless historical objects as well).
Supreme mugwump, minister or magic, and president are all different. Dumbledore refused the presidency but on his chocolate from card and in court it's mentioned he's supreme mugwump
you're amazing. and I'm so glad that you've found a psychotherapist you can work with.
but as a therapist, I have to say: you would be a very tricky client to work with. you're highly intelligent, very emotionally aware, able to deal with conflict and confusion and still maintain your clarity and precision. so yeah, you're probably smarter than the vast majority of therapists -- which means, they won't be able to convince you of anything.
but then the potential impasse is, how do you get past what you already know? in other words, who is your own fandom? who can see the flaws in the airtight logic you've built, for Harry, for the Hunger Games, for your depression and anxiety?
I hope you keep looking for that. and not assuming anyone knows better than you -- but also not assuming that you know better than anyone. you're brilliant, and I admire you -- but you're also still learning, and you don't have many answers yet. not that answers solve anything -- just, they give you something to work with.
sorry to totally mansplain you. just that I wish I'd been as insightful as you are, when I was your age. you fucking rock. I wish you the best!
I feel like one part that is often forgotten in the discussion about Dumbledore is his treatment of Snape. And I don't mean that he used Snape like a tool, that is often discussed but Snape bullying others. As his headmaster it is his job to make sure that all teachers behave and that all students are treated equally. We all know he completely favors Gryffindor which makes it even more confusing that he never stopped Snape. He isn't blameless in Snape bullying children, it was his responsibility to stop him (or any teacher when they harm children) and he didn't do anything. Being the headmaster is not just an empty title.
Thank you for saying this because I have been saying that as well. The way that Snape treated students really the buck stops with Dumbledore. My other gripe is that as headmaster he showed no duty of care towards his staff either. The workplace he created was absolutely toxic, and I dare say there were probably a lot of disgruntled staff at Hogwarts that we don't see. I don't think J.K. Rowling though it's up to The task of writing that sort of scenario where there is a workplace with genuine interpersonal conflict though. I understand that it was originally meant to be a kids book. It should have stayed a kids book. it takes an incredibly talented author to be able to write a series that genuinely grows with the reader. Somehow I don't think J.K. Rowling was up to the task. Even CS Lewis realised he wasn't up to the task, which is why when the kids in the Chronicles of Narnia got older he wrote them out of the series. and to me that shows the calibre of the sort of author CS Lewis was that he could recognise his own limitations as an author.
@@milanka882 Right, and Snape isn't the only one who wouldn't pass a simple background check. Dumbledore clearly doesn't give a shit about any of the students aside from his few favorites, neither about their safety nor about their education. He treats his position as a sinecure and -- as far as we can tell -- didn't even make a rule against teachers abusing students.
This wouldn't be a problem if Dumbledore were either (1) not headmaster of Hogwarts, or (2) presented a bit more ambiguously. As it is, Rowling employs her authorial divine power to create a universe in which Dumbledore is "good" by fiat (not by his actual actions) because no character is allowed to be good/reasonable and have a legitimate beef with Dumbledore's behavior.
@@chansonexmo I love writing fan fic about characters who are "good/reasonable and have a legitimate beef with Dumbledore's behaviour". It can be a lot of fun. Naturally you have to use more minor characters to do this, but it can be done. My fave one to do this with is Flitwick. In my head cannon he has a laundry list of grievances with Dumbledore dating back to his own school days. I'm currently in the throws of recording myself telling my fan fic in story format on audio files rather than writing it down. I just prefer that method of storytelling and not many people do it. When the first ones are done I'm looking forward to sharing the link.
@@milanka882 That's a good idea. A lot of these issues can be fixed through showing different perspectives. I'd be curious to hear your story.
I just love how complex and not straight forward Dumbledore's character is! He be saving the world but he also be real. He be making mistakes and dealing with the consequences. Does it make him a bad person? No, it just makes him human. Also, Snape is the LAST person who should try to throw shade on Dumbledore. Pig for slaughter? How about we talk about your bullying students and vindictive behaviour Snape before you start pointing fingers at Albus.
Also the movies really didn't clarify Dumbledore's motives at ALL. It left so much important information out and I feel like that's a big part of the reason why a lot of people look at Dumbledore sus. They haven't read the books and therefore are missing crucial context.
I was a child when the books came out and I haven't read them since then but I have watched the movies a ton and recently I read over the books and BOI the movies did Albus no favours. I forgot just how much stuff they left out because they figured the fans would fill in the blanks but for someone watching it without the context of the books, it really makes Albus look a kinda way, not gonna lie.
I mean, Dumbledore doesn‘t have to be a paragon. It‘s the whole question of whether ends justify the means again. Dumbledore does anything in his power to destroy Voldemort, even those actions taken by themselves are evil. Dumbledore only care about results.
I think the author confused wise, clever and good in Dumbledore’s case. She set him up to be the only character to know the prophecy, meaning he was the only one who could ever make the decision, and without ever consulting anyone. For this to be not a sad losing story, the character had to be incredibly clever AND wise (the difference between those wasn’t satisfyingly explored: in the canon Dumbledore is just good with magic, knows alchemy and has good intuition), but he did NOT have to be good. Just “not bad” enough to not want Voldemort to lose. And that’s exactly what he (unintentionally by author) turned out to be. Trying to flesh him out as a pure guy in his past (mind you just a couple decades after wanting to dominate the entire world) undermines his cleverness, but gives him good ground for wisdom in the future. And, again, it makes him just “not bad” when he realises that Grindelwald and him were after an evil goal. We have this sort of true neutral character.
Did he deserve to rule the entire wizarding world? The fact that he at that point was capable of questioning the decision of the qilin show that maybe he was worthy. But not because of the pure goodness of his heart, which means that qilin couldn’t have bowed down before Dumbledore.
8:46 I don‘t think in Hunger Games there‘s a question of whether they could have won the war without directly sacrificing children. To me that was always part of Coin‘s personal motivations, not so much about the greater war. The war was always unwinnable for the capital once a majority of districts openly revolted.
This was brilliant 👏
And now to go watch OSPs trope talk video on the pure of heart and dive deeper into the subject 🎉
Dumbledore is definitely not a bad person, but he is also not a good one. All I expect is for people not to look at him as a Saint or an amazing father figure for Harry. He was manipulative in his actions, no matter how Rowling tries to sell him to us from Harry’s perspective.
This will probably be a very unpopular opinion, but with the ‘raised like a pig for slaughter’ thing, I am not so sure that was really the truth. At the time, Dumbledore was asking Snape to kill him in a painless and dignified way (Killing Curse). I suspect the killing curse is very much like the torture curse in you must really mean it and truly want it to happen.
“You need to really want to cause pain - to enjoy it - righteous anger won't hurt me for long..”
"Avada Kedavra's a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind it - you could all get your wands out and point them at me and say the words, and I doubt I'd get so much as a nosebleed..."
I think it is more likely that Dumbledore was trying to provide Snape with the motivation he needed to be able to successfully use that spell against him.
Dumbledore had Mrs Figg as a neighbor keeping an eye on the kid, he had to know he was being abused. Also, how did Dumbledore came up with the ONLY solution being for Harry to get AK by Voldemort, without consulting with ANYONE ELSE, in the WHOLE of the Magical World. Also also, Basilisk's venom destroys horcruxes, and Harry was bitte by one, wouldn't that at least have weakened the horcrux?
He's both!!
JUSTICE FOR JACOB!!! 🦡 How could they not have made him the hair of Hufflepuff? It would have been perfect!!!
Also, I adored watching you argue with yourself! 😂 Every Mikailas answers were super convincing! Loved all the perspectives! ❤
Morally grey but written like a good guy. JK Rowling don’t want us to even think he was bad. She just know good or evil no between
Of course he's good, but he's good only by JK's understanding of goodness. Dumbledor's goodness lies in the emphatic faith he has in the power of love to out-inspire Voldemort's greed, hate and fear, he manipulates Harry and his friends because his real end-game is to make them show off how much love is in their heart and how it renders their spirits unconquerable by greed, fear and hate, in the hopes that others will follow their example and through loving sacrifices ultimately destroy Voldemort. And of course he wanted Harry to sacrifice himself to give protection to his friends so they would be invincible against Voldemort. The thing is in order to show off their love, they need at the absolute least, the appearance of challenge, peril and doom. Dumbledor could've just told Harry at the end of Goblet of fire that he was immune to Voldemort through his blood being in Voldemort, but had Harry known, his loving sacrifice wouldn't have been a sacrifice for his part, Dumbledore needed Harry to think he was vulnerable so that his sacrifice would work.
Personally I think he was an arrogant, sentimental fool with a reckless messiah complex, and he really should have just captured Voldemort at the end of the philosopher's stone when he left Quirrel and used magic to find his horcruxes using the spirit of Voldemort as a means of tracing them, then destroy them and Voldmeort would die from not having a body.
What you have to understand about the Harry Potter series is that logically speaking it is nonsense.
Money? Why bother in a world with magic?
Sports that have beaters who could kill players, and broomsticks wherein accidents could cause death, being played by children and teenagers, for no reasons other than sheer applause from hormonal children, teenagers and foolish adults? Utterly absurd.
Muggles are not allowed to know magic exists? Then what do you do with the families of muggle-borns, when witches and wizards marry muggles, when muggles by accident find out about magic without the ministry knowing?
Muggle-borns aren't told they have magic till they're 11 or 10? How do you stop accidents happening then?
Need wands? Then how did Harry make the glass vanish, and do other things he "couldn't explain when angry or scared"?
Owls? How the hell are they supposed to know where and when to go to deliver letters?
Was Ron seriously supposed to understand how to say "open" in snake-language from hearing Harry talk in his sleep? That's ridiculous.
Teaching children how to brew date-rape drugs? Selling date-rape drugs to children and teenagers? That's lunacy.
Teaching children and teenagers how to brew truth drugs? Madness.
Not using said truth drugs in court when the accused can't have "antidotes"? Absurd.
Slughorn keeping Voldemort's secret and Dumbledor not caging him up and using truth drug on him when he couldn't have had access to an "antidote"? Insane.
When looked at logically the Harry Potter series is nonsensical and vile, and JK knows it. The point of the Harry Potter series is to glorify love and to shame selfishness and bigotry.
i remember Mobius and Loki's final monologue in Loki Season 2. "most purpose is more burden than glory. and you'll never wanna be the kind of guythat avoids it just because you can't live with the burden" "the hardest choices are usually the things that needs to be done and by hard means impossible" dumbledore sacrificing harry is nothing more than a trolley dillema. there's no right or wrong, albus just had to choose his burden
I understand that Dumbledore isn't a saint but i really like him. I really like him because he is such a complex character and I really like his story with Grindelwald.
I think that he did what had to be done.
For the greater good
I love your bangs hairstyle!
Finally a potterhead who is also a Percy Jackson fan
NO BUT when I saw the movie in theaters and saw the goat going towards the crowd my FIRST THOUGHT was JACOB. and it choose DUMBLEDORE????
JACOB. WAS. RIGHT. THERE.
Gale in the hunger games is a good example because he watched his whole district get firebombed and we as readers know how traumatized he is and how he seeks vengeance blindly. His rash but effective moves seem more emotionally charged.
Dumbledore likely had similar past experiences but they aren’t mentioned so we as readers can’t forgive him for being rash like Gale. Insteadwhat we see is a calculated move years in advance that he didn’t tell Harry about until the last moment practically. (Imagine if he actually spent time personally training Harry for the coming war? A half an hour of spell work could have helped lmao)
I have seen Dumbledore as a grey character.i think Dumbledore initially saw harry as a way to kill voldemort. so only thing he cared about is that harry is alive not how he was treated by dursleys. But when he started to know harry as a person he started caring about him. I think that's why he berated the dursleys in the 6th book .
I honestly think Dumbledore left him with the Dursley's so he wouldn't be arrogant and the other characteristics that were shown by characters like Draco and maybe even James. What he did was correct I don't think so but here we are 🤷♀️
The man who developed a good nature from a shattered evil (or at the very least selfish and shortsighted) worldview was great as a character.
I know the ATLA fans have the "going Kyoshi" saying. I loved the scenes in the later books where Dumbledore does it. The scene when Umbridge drags Harry to Dumbledore's office is arguably my favorite in the series ("Ah yes. I thought we'd hit that snag. You seem to be laboring under the idea that I will "come quietly".")
This was both very entertaining and very insightful! You made some great points, loved the video.
I think the entire point of Dumbledore’s moral ambiguity is the ambiguity itself. While JKR has said she wrote this series for children, that does not mean that there aren’t deeper layers of maturity to the stories. That’s a huge part of the series’ continued popularity and a fundamental aspect of mythopoetics (that the story can be returned to time and time again and will reveal/inspire new questions each time). We see the same thing in the LotR and (original 6) Star Wars works. This is a fantastic video and definitely reflects the line from Sirius, “The world isn’t split into good people and Death Eaters. We’ve all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That’s who we really are.”
I just realised a possible reason why Dumbledore chose to left Harry with the part of the family that will most definitely hate him for his mom. Since Dumbledore had to make a choice between a stranger and millions of lives, he probably put Harry in the worse place possible for a growing boy so that he would resent the world, but have not enough power to curse the world itself. So when he is needed to sacrifice himself, he has no reason to say no, perhaps because he has nothing to lose, or would rather choose death in exhange of being free from a miserable life. That's part of his slaughter pig plan.
Omg, I just made an emo Harry Potter AU...
10 points to Ravenclaw! Because we have her. And we need more folks like her. Thank you for being brilliant.
And we have the best head of house. #TeamFlitwick
My friends and i have long since theorized that Dumbledore is a Light Lord, a man so into his own hype or ideologies that he has essentially gone evil. Its the to much yin with no yang
Something I love about Dumbledore is that he's flawed. He's not omniscient or all-powerful, which makes him stand out from others in the "fairy godparent" trope.
I think a thing that was missed here that made the whole magic ethics goat thing just... so so dumb... Was that it wasn't picking who was good, it was picking who was PURE.
And even if Dumbledore is good, he's good in a complex way and is definitely not pure.
Honestly, I think JKR really wanted Dumbledore to be this unequivocally good guy and in her head he was. She gets annoyed when fans point out that he's not, so she makes it a plot point the that goat of objective morality has decided that he's good.
On the second question. One of the things that always bothered me, is when Dumbledore says he wanted Harry to remain happy...???
Happy?
Starved, occasionally beaten, abused, insulted, and treated like a slave. What Happiness is Dumbledore speaking of?
On a different but related topic, after Sirius escapes and Peter Pettigrew is outed as the real betrayer, why did Dumbledore, a man that has influence with a massive section of the community, who is the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, the Supreme Mugwump of the ICW, and the Headmaster of Hogwarts and yet we are to believe he couldn't arrange for a trial? Really!?
The charm only worked if he called the dursleys home. But at the end of the 1st movie harry says "I'm not going home not really" This is when he is leaving hogwarts so he never thought of that place as a home so it might not have even protected him in the first place.
What I find interesting with Dumbledore is that there an intense shift between books 1 - 3 and from the end of book 4 - 6/7 onwards. Dumbledore knows that Harry is the Chosen One, has to fight Voldemort and will almost certainly die. So, while he's kind to Harry, he doesn't actually get close to him and trains him with quests and teacher to become able to fight Voldemort and be as strong as he can be. But then, after Voldemort's resurrection, there now is a chance (a glimmer in his eye, as Harry describes it) that Harry could actually beat Voldemort and survive. And that's when Dumbledore becomes far more involved and protective over Harry. His isolation in book 5, while arguably stupid (Dumbledore even admits this), is all out of protection for Harry. Dumbledore is obviously not good at regulating those love feelings himself. And then he truly starts to train Harry and laying out the ground work for Harry to survive. He's such a fascinating character and still one of my favourites.
I think it is not very "realistic" to pick Dumbledore. I would not call him evil but he is not as a good person as Jacob or Newt.
But the real question is: they had 4 candidates for wizard president what if none of them where a good person?
Or he’s just complex- like a real human
Prior to the first book Dumbledore is Kirk and Harry is Khan. This means there exists and alternate universe where we got "Harry Potter and the Wrath of Harry Potter." Man, this sounded so much more interesting in my head!
“A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good.”
- Stannis Baratheon.
When it comes to characters like Snape and Dumbledore who frustratingly can’t be neatly sorted into convenient boxes of morality because they are capable of both great heroism and great villainy, this simple but profound philosophy is the one you should hold to.
Give credit to the good that they do while never forgetting the evils they’ve committed. Condemn the evil they spread, but do not neglect the positive change their existence has brought. Anything else is not only absurdly simplistic but doesn’t do justice to the great writing that goes into making them as if it’s a simple choice about where they go on the morality scale, why are we bothering to still talk about them?
Let's not forget that Dumbledore had a good idea that Harry would survive Voldemort's second assassination attempt.