Daniel_Starr comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 11 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Oscar_Cunningham 17 March 2012 09:41AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (1174)
Tags: fiction fanfiction harry_potter hpmor

Comments (1174)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Daniel_Starr 20 March 2012 06:57:23AM *  7 points [-]

I find Dumbledore morally confusing.

  • His main policy in the fic is inaction.
  • His reputation in the past of the story is of successful and (by the standards of the wizards) moral leadership. He earned vast respect in the wizarding world without resorting to Lucius' blood-purist politics or Voldemort's insistence on slavish obedience.
  • The few specific deeds he's done at his own initiative are somewhere between weird and vile. (Jinxing Snape's relationship with Lily; planning for Harry to have wicked step-parents; etc.)

Largely inactive in the present, good and effective in the reputed past, weird or vile when we actually see him act.

Has there been a leader in real life like this? If this was a real-life person, what would we say about them -- that they were a good leader once, and now they're a crazy one?

Comment author: pedanterrific 20 March 2012 07:13:20AM 11 points [-]

I think you need to consider the idea that this is the way he's always acted.

His handling of the Grindelwald business can be summed up as several years of inaction followed by the most spectacular duel in recent history. Presumably he didn't explain the blood sacrifices + Deathstick = invincibility thing to everyone who asked, so he must have skated by on inscrutability.

He states with a certain bitter pride that he taught Voldemort he doesn't give in to blackmail or threats to hostages- which he (hopefully, considering the alternative) accomplished through more inaction.

When you think about it, a wizard with tremendous magical and political power who doesn't seem to actually want to do anything with that power is pretty much the best case scenario for a lot of people. Imagine that Dumbledore suddenly decided to act on Fawkes' advice: how much of Wizarding Britain is left standing?

Comment author: moritz 21 March 2012 09:54:23AM 4 points [-]

I thought his response to blackmail of his allies was to burn Narcissa Malfoy (or at least have everybody thinking that he burned her alive).

Comment author: pedanterrific 21 March 2012 10:02:49AM *  2 points [-]

That would be the alternative, yes.

Comment author: Alsadius 20 March 2012 05:45:20PM *  10 points [-]

Dumbledore has no difficulty with action when needed(TSPE, most notably), but he's been burned too many times by the cost of his efforts to be eager about it. He'd much prefer to stop the war by passive deeds(sequestering Harry, poisoning Voldemort's father's grave, etc.), and not risk the bloodshed that open war would cause, or even the loss of political capital caused by a showdown with Lucius Malfoy. There's bound to be a big difference between an 11 year old sci-fi fan and a hundredish year old veteran when it comes to eagerness to do harm, and frankly I think that Dumbledore's caution is at least as justified as Harry's sneakiness when it comes to planning a war. After all, Harry's never seen one of his incredibly clever plots fail, and he's eleven, so he is naturally going to be far too eager. Inaction isn't always wrong.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit