I've seen some people point to this quote by Dumbledore "as I have already proven to you, I make mistakes like the next man. In fact, being — forgive me — rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger." as being proof that Dumbledore could be wrong to trust Snape.
Me, I think Dumbledore's talking about the way he treated young Tom Riddle. THAT is a 'mistake' far 'huger' than merely trusting a spy for Voldemort. I suspect his mishandling of Tom, not just in the scenes we see in Book 6, but throughout his schooling was a major contributing factor to the creation of Voldemort in the first place.
(And we've seen Dumbledore continue to show some outrageous pro-Gryffindor/anti-Slytherin bias in the present day too, so apparently he hasn't done a hell of a lot of learning from said 'mistake', either.)
I think the story would be more complex if Snape actually were loyal and no one found out until Dumbledore executed him for his double-cross or he died saving one of the Trio, but I guess that's what fanfic is for *amused eyeroll at self*.
i am still not convinced snape is evil... but alas i am an optimist for the abused ones... i think dumbledore made a huge mistake in letting some of the teasing and abuse go on against snape. his handling of tom riddle was a complete f up too... i do wonder what he was mumbling about when he drank the poison to get to the locket...
The consesnus among fans who were right in the past is that Snape is infact good. That, because of the siutuation being what it was Snape had to either Cure or kill Dumbledore. Since cureing him was not possible in that situation and fialing to kill him woudl have had fatal consequences ofr himself and for Draco .......
But, refering back to the original post. I think part of the reason I did ont like OotP all that uch was that the whole book (Read: WHOLE FUCKING BOOK) was based on Dumbledore and the other adults being stupid. Plots based on stupidity are not the best ones.
I think part of the reason I did ont like OotP all that uch was that the whole book (Read: WHOLE FUCKING BOOK) was based on Dumbledore and the other adults being stupid. s/book/series; s/BOOK/SERIES
I really don't care for such plotlines either. The 'oh mommy's little precocious angel figured out who the SPECTRE agent was before James Bond did!' sort of plot twist is just... not done cleverly nearly often enough. By rights, Dumbledore should've been sacked before Harry was born.
I would not go that far. I think HBP tries to whos that Tom was twisted long before DD got to him. I know there is a large segmet of our society that do not believe in absolute evil, but I do not think that JKR is a member of that segment. There was nothing Dumbeldore could have done to change Riddle.
Keep in mind that JKR wrote "it is our choices that show" what we turly are. That is SHOW not determine. One of the theams in the series is I think that Harry is lived a life that was as bad or worse than Tom RIddles, but Harry is well grounded and balenced, and loving. It is part of who he is h did not decide to be that way and DUmbledreo did not make him that way.
Though I think had he hexed Snape into the earth when he caught him evesdropping (or at least memory charmed him) then Harrys life woudl have been much easier so from that perspective I say you are right.
I don't believe Dumbledore created Riddle's evil, no. BUT. I do believe Dumbledore created a situation within which that evil could be nurtured and fostered without the intrusion of external value and any guidance.
Dumbldore was not headmaster when Tom was a student. He also said that the other teachers did not see Tom as beign that evil, and he himself did not want to pre-judge him based on a 15 minute interview when he was 10-11. Was it a mistake? Yes. Was it 100% forseeable? No. He said that TOm watched himself around him afterwards. I suspect this is somethign that he realised later not while it was going on. In anyevent do you think slughorn would have listened to him about not making his star student who seemed charming and brigherter than everyone else a prefect? etc.
Yeah! What the hell IS that, anyway?! I mean, okay, until the end of the series I figure it's author's prerogative to have a wink-wink-nudge-nudge attitude about the Shockingly Surprisingly Evil character, but this flat denial/elevation to semi-divine status is just...delusional. I'm sure there's some sort of weird term for writing yourself a "perfect" father figure who also happens to play blatant favorites/to abuse non-favorites, but I guess we leave that to the literary critics.
Oh I don't know. The only "stunts" they get caught for are the car crashing into the tree, and going into the forrest after the spiders and then the Deparrtment of mystries bit. The first they are punished for and though nto expelled I'd say they did not get off easy. The second is mitigated by the fact that they were not caught but confessed and as a result of doing it saved a life. The third is totally justified in that given the information they had it was the only corse of action, it was DUmbledores fault they did not have enough information to make a good decision.
If you want to know who gets away with stuff its the slytherins. How many times did Harry attempt to kill dumbledore and instead almost kill someon else who only survived by the barest of luck? Not kicking Draco out after Katie and then after Ron THAT is unconcionable.
Well I suspect the first did happen. It is all complecated by the unbrekable vow. As a person who hates snape in the sotry but thinks he is not evil I suspect that Dumbledore knew about the vow. As such the second instance would be impossible, hell even kicking Draco out would consigne Snape to death unless he took it upon himself ot kill Dumbledore.
SO the decision was not an easy one. One or more of the three of them was going to die or worse when he deicded to take action. However, ROn nearly died because he did not and that still did nto resolve the situation with the three of them. By delaying resolving that he only risked more deaths, among his students.
The mistake, as I understood it, was that he saw all the warped and the wrong and the dangerous in Tom from the first time he encountered him, but trusted in a general system and a few stern warnings to turn him around.
WHEN I AM HEADMASTER OF A BRITISH SCHOOL THERE ARE SOME TRAITS I WILL LOOK TO NOT FIND IN A BOY WHO I SELECT AS A PREFECT. AMONG THEM ARE:
That's not merely ignoring sociopathy/psychopathy in the boy- I'd say making Tom a prefect is wilfully setting out to create an environment that feeds the psychological damage.
The big problem I have with Rowling is that she doesn't think through the consequences of her magic enough. F'rinstance: given the prevalence of pensieves in Dumbledore's world, the necessary psychotherapy to undo Tom's active psychopathic tendency would've been awfully quick to someone who quite apparently uses the pensieve as if he were an expert. Just 'poof, you don't remember this that the other'. By undoing the conscious recall of psychopathy, you undo about 3/4ths of the potential for damage.