Harry Potter/Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows/Albus Dumbledore Good Or Bad/Headscratchers

Please check JK's FAQs before asking a question that may have already been answered.


 * Was Albus Dumbledore a good or a bad man? Did his painful history and Dead Little Sister make up for his Chessmaster and Manipulative Bastard streak? Was his manipulation of everyone, but especially Harry and Snape, justified in any way? My opinion is that if you can forgive Dumbledore for mercilessly manipulating the people around him, especially Harry and Snape, than you should also forgive Snape for his sarcasm and insensitivity in the classroom - both are equally damaging, if in different ways. I don't think you can say anyone is a "good" or a "bad" person: I don't forgive either Dumbles or Snape for the aforesaid specific actions, but both have painful backstories. I tend to be harsher on adult!Dumbledore though, because he gets no criticism by any of the in-story characters after DH (except Rita Skeeter -- but that's a given) and adult!Snape got more than enough criticism and punishment for his actions. Dumbledore's actions were more subtly damaging and his bullying was more of a subtle coercion. Yet he gets no criticism by Harry or anyone else. How is Harry, one of the most affected by Dumbledore, able to blindly dismiss Dumbledore's bad actions? He doesn't get angry at all -- and neither does anyone else... Strikes me as unfair, considering how much damage he did.
 * Also, in the chapter "King's Cross," Dumbledore says to leave the baby, there's nothing they can do. Harry agrees without a backward glance. WHAT. FLAT WHAT. Sure, it's the last, smallest remaining piece of Voldy's soul that wasn't tainted by the Horcruxes. It's also a crying, flailing, helpless baby. And Dumbles (and consequently Harry, who always blindly obeys him) can't even do the compassionate thing and comfort a little baby.
 * It was not a little baby. It was Tom Marvolo Riddle feeling at last the damage that he himself had inflicted upon his own soul. Dumbledore says that they can't help, not that they should not bother. What can be done to comfort a broken soul that seems to have even lost sentience? Voldemort didn't remember the pain or Harry and Dumbledore's chat not far from where he lay, so if there was a chance for him to be saved (which Dumbledore said so himself), it had to happen back on Earth.
 * Okay, can I just say... what the hell? Why do people seem to take away this perception that Dumbledore is a Manipulative Bastard or in any way not the Big Good? People criticize him for leaving Harry with the Dursleys, but it provided him with the optimal protection, sheltered him from his fame to prevent him from getting a big ego (something he explains from the very first chapter of the entire series), and it is never indicated that he knows that Harry is emotionally, verbally, and at least a bit physically abused. People criticize him for the whole "customizing the Philosopher's Stone gauntlet to Harry's Nakama, putting them all in danger" thing, but note how he came in with almost perfect timing to keep Harry from getting his ass killed. He wanted Harry to have his chance, and flew to his rescue as soon as he knew it was needed. People criticize him sending Harry off to be Jesus, but it quite literally had to be done in order to stop Voldemort. No Big Good in their right mind is going to save one person at the expense of everyone Voldemort threatened. This troper honestly does not understand in any way, shape, or form the abuse that people insist on giving Dumbledore. He was manipulative, yes, but being a Chessmaster does not make you a Manipulative Bastard. Everything he did, it was with the interests of everyone in mind, not just himself and his own agenda. He was the Big Good, through and through.
 * Well, allow me to retort. For once, D couldn't possibly not know how Harry was treated, seeing how his very fucking own agent lived across the street from the kid and babysat him on occasion (that is, of course, if you're so firm on insulting everyone's intelligence by suggesting that he didn't keep a personal eye on him). The allegedly "exceptional" qualities of his vaunted protection have already been much doubted over on the relative pages of this discussion, namely how it completely failed to protect him from Dementors in B5. The attention was also called to the indisputable fact that the "almost perfect timing" would've done jack squat if it wasn't for the unwieldy IdiotBalls Rowling kept foisting off on the villains every moment it became obvious that our nincompoop of a hero had once again got himself into another mess he can only possibly escape feet-first. Neither did it escape notice how the esteemed Headmaster four times allowed enemy agents with various extents of malice prance around the school under his charge, resulting in the final score of two dead and a dozen more spared only by highly contrived coincidences. All of that before Fridge Logic kicks into high gear and you begin see the galore of perfectly valid opportunities for the conflict being resolved as late as B3 or B4, each and every one of which the cunning Dumbledore successfully fucks up, thus being more or less directly responsible for the blood bath of Deathly Hallows. So, in fact, an unbiased look at DD reveals a complete opposite of a true Chessmater - a reckless, sentimental old fool, who bet countless lives (and lost many of them), on an infinitesimal chance that he'd be able to bring that one kid through alive and even "not ruin his childhood".
 * If he was watching himself, then he wouldn't have needed to leave Mrs. Figg there in the first place. And who's to say that she could have had any idea what was happening to Harry? Recall that the Dursleys are obsessed with appearance, so of course they wouldn't give her any reason to suspect anything was wrong. Hell, even being given the slightest background on his parents would reinforce that, if they gave the excuse that he was a troublemaker and under punishment when they left him with her; anyone who knew anything about James Potter as a child wouldn't be that shocked. As for the rest of that criticism, and the various Idiot Balls, recall that Albus Dumbledore worked with Quirrell for years while he was the Muggle Studies teacher and either taught or presided over as Headmaster of every single Death Eater, and Voldemort himself. He probably knew them more than well enough to predict most of the things they were going to do, including the things that required the Idiot Ball, which just so happens to be one of the defining traits of a Chessmaster. And losing lives? It was a god damned war. In any war, especially one with extremely powerful weapons like wands, there is no chance of coming out without a number of casualties on your side, no matter how brilliant your commander is, especially when you have explicit moral boundaries like Dumbledore's side towards Dark Magic and Unforgiveables. The plot could not have been resolved in Book 3 due to the Stable Time Loop and the consistently repeated point that you do not mess with time, ever, and while, yes, Dumbledore ultimately fails to prevent Voldemort's return at the end of Book 4, it's arguably a good thing, as it ultimately set Voldemort up for his downfall as per Book 7. Not to mention, and this is a biiiig part of it, the way it ended, even with the body count stacked as it was, could easily have been the best case scenario. We don't know, being outside of the Harry Potter universe, how reliable proper prophecies like Trelawny's are. If they are 100% accurate, then guess what, Harry was the only one who could have defeated Voldemort. So yeah, setting up the giant gambit to ensure Harry survived the second Killing Curse, destroying the last Horcrux, and allowing Harry to ultimately win, was the only route he could have taken. People who make accusations towards Dumbledore make them without having all the facts and relying on guesswork and their own personal fanon, pure and simple. There is nothing in canon to indicate that the prophecy could have been false, that Dumbledore knew the extent to which Harry was abused and neglected, anything at all. There is only speculation and postulation that often goes counter to Occam's Razor, assuming far too many things when the far simpler answer is "Dumbledore was always working towards the destruction of Voldemort with as few casualties as possible."
 * I think Mrs. Figg DID know, based entirely on one of the few lines she had: "I was to keep an eye on you but not say anything, you were too young. I'm sorry I gave you such a miserable time, but the Dursleys would never have let you come if they'd thought you enjoyed it." This implies that Mrs. Figg knew very well how Harry was being treated, if she knew the Dursleys wouldn't want Harry to have fun (which is why they had her babysit him in the first place, so he couldn't go with them when they went places), and the fact that she wanted him to have fun shows she didn't believe him to be a troublemaker. Dumbledore also knew how Harry was treated, if his conversation with Harry at the end of book 5 and his conversation with the Dursleys in book 6 is anything to go by. Dumbledore only kept Harry at the Dursley's because of the blood protection on the house that kept Voldemort from going after Harry while he was at Privet Drive. Harry would've been better taken care of in another home, but being at the Dursley's kept him alive, which was Dumbledore's ultimate goal in respect, as he explains at the end of book 5.


 * I don't think he was good or evil, just senile and too well-respected for anyone to criticize him. Let's see:
 * He wanted Harry to have a normal childhood, but doesn't know about the abuse at the Dursleys? He's either willfully ignorant, or he knows and doesn't do anything. Both are bad. Third option: he considers that a perfectly normal childhood. He's just senile, then. A Fidelius charm can hide Harry even better than a blood ward can, and he could have been put with a loving family. Dumbledore can be the secret keeper. Before you say that he doesn't want to be personally involved, he already is. Only he, and a select few he has personally chosen, know where Harry Potter lives. He's already made Harry Potter a secret and he's the secret keeper -- might as well cast the spell that actually offers real protection. The blood wards stopped working at the end of 4th year, BTW.
 * First off, the blood wards did not stop working at the end of 4th year. The personal magical protection on Harry's body did. The blood wards were shown to be working just fine, as evidenced by the fact that Voldemort didn't come burn Number 4 Privet Drive to the ground and had to attack via a proxy outside the range of the wards. A Fidelius Charm would have required a wizard to be the one raising him, and he explicitly stated he wanted him raised outside of the Wizarding world to keep him from getting a swelled head. There is nothing to indicate that he knew about the abuse at the Dursleys, or that he would have felt the need to look in on Harry personally. He is shown to put a great deal of trust in people, and thus would likely have trusted Mrs. Figg's judgment. As pointed out above, Mrs. Figg couldn't have known any more than the rest of Privet Drive would have, as the Dursleys are obsessed with appearance.
 * "You did not do as I asked. You have never treated Harry as a son. He has known nothing but neglect and often cruelty at your hands." (emphasis mine) That's a direct quote from Dumbledore in chapter 3 of Half-Blood Prince. So yes, Dumbledore knew exactly what Harry was going through... and still kept sending him back there.
 * First year: again, allowing a murderer into a school. When catching a bear, you do not set a bear trap inside the kindergarten classroom. Even if the kindergarten teacher is the local expert on hunting bears. Find a substitute to take that job and catch a criminal properly. Standard argument is that the mirror was for Voldemort and everything else was for Harry: Bullcrap. You don't try to give a kid a "normal childhood" and then hint to him he's the hero who has to save the world himself. Unless, of course, you're senile and you think that making him a hero and drawing the entire school's attention to him by giving him a ludicrous number of house points will help him be a normal kid.
 * 2nd year: he was present when the chamber was opened the last time. He knows it was opened now. He knows this beast can kill with a single look (Myrtle). He knows roughly where it happened and who was actually responsible. Why did Hermione figure it out before you, Dumbledore?
 * Who's to say he didn't figure it out? It's entirely plausible that he did and couldn't actually do anything about it, unless you want to tell me he picked up Parseltongue somewhere.
 * If you believe that he did figure out that the same killer monster that murdered a student 50 years ago is back, you don't need to speak Parseltongue to tell everyone to evacuate the school. Multiple students only survived by sheer coincidence. Calling him an old fool who couldn't figure it out is as nice as I can be to him, short of calling him evil and willing to risk the lives of his students for... what, his reputation?
 * Given how many students did survive by "sheer coincidence", it makes this troper suspect that Dumbledore did work out what the creature was, and secretly cast some sort of luck-based spell over the school to prevent it from killing anyone. He didn't tell anyone because he wasn't certain, and because telling people there's a basilisk around would only cause them to become trigger-happy, blasting away at any suspicious noise they hear with their eyes shut.
 * Wasn't Dumbledore's position at the school taken from him (as well as Hagrid's) during Harry's second year? If Dumbledore wasn't actually there, it's possible he wasn't able to figure it out. Even if he could figure it out without being at the school, how the hell was he supposed to let everyone know and have the school evacuate? He didn't have the power to do that at the time.
 * Dumbledore wasn't removed as Headmaster until after Easter.
 * 3rd year: why make Harry risk his life again instead of saying this: "Miss Granger, I need to borrow your time-turner." No, Harry, it's up to you to be a hero. Like a normal child with a normal childhood.
 * Because he had enough details about the Stable Time Loop to know that it was Harry and Hermione who were supposed to go, that's why.
 * He only sees Harry and Hermione return safely after their mission was a success. Nowhere along the timeloop do they meet Dumbledore and confirm anything -- Harry1 and Hermione1 could have survived, brought the time-turner to Dumbledore, went back in time, saved Buckbeak, saved Harry1 and Sirius's life... and then died. The Time Loop would still be stable.
 * He had to let Harry and Hermione be the ones to perform the rescue, because Dumbledore wasn't personally acquainted with Buckbeak himself. Hippogriffs aren't tame or predictable animals; if Buckbeak had taken an initial dislike to Dumbledore when he approached, he wouldn't have been able to sneak away with him quietly enough to avoid Fudge and Macnair. Better to trust the ones the animal was already on good terms with.
 * It's much worse than that. An alternative interpretation is that D actually arranged the Tournament with Harry in view and orchestrated his involvement through Moody (great minds think alike indeed) and then allowed the kid to be taken to the cemetery to facilitate V's resurrection (remember that "look of triumph" in D's eyes? Yeah).
 * The "look of triumph" was because Voldemort using Harry's blood both allowed him a potential path to redemption via Lily's love and bound him and Harry together, allowing the Horcrux in Harry's scar to be destroyed without Harry himself dying (notice how Dumbledore doesn't actually start properly grooming Harry to go like a lamb to the slaughter until after this happens). This "alternative interpretation" is honestly ridiculous. As to the original point, no details are given about the magical contract, but that doesn't automatically mean it can be gotten out of, or that the penalty for going against it was small. There is nothing to indicate that Dumbledore wouldn't have tried to get Harry out of it if he knew how to.
 * He could have helped teach him the skills to survive. Nothing in the magical contract could have said anything about teachers helping the students, or else Harry, Fleur, and Krum would all have received magical punishment/disqualification.
 * 5th year: Voldemort has been back for a year already and now considers Harry a very personal target to eliminate, Harry just witnessed a murder a few months ago, and his visions are getting worse. What does Dumbledore do? Keep Harry in the dark about everything. He sends members of the Order of the Phoenix out to risk their lives to protect a recording of a prophecy without even telling them why or what they're guarding. Which he still refuses to divulge to Harry until he is forced to. Oh, right, because he wanted Harry to have a "normal childhood," right?
 * Part of the reason for keeping everyone, especially Harry, in the dark is to keep the information from falling into the wrong hands. The second part of the prophecy is explicitly what they're protecting from Voldemort, and they've had traitors before, so of course he's not going to tell anyone what it is (they obviously know that it's a prophecy given that that's what they're guarding, and they know the reason why is because it has information Voldemort wants. Doesn't really need to get more specific than that). As for Harry, he's keeping him in the dark on the prophecy because he doesn't want a teenage boy to feel the weight of the world on his shoulders, and he keeps him in the dark about everything during year five because, as he explicitly stated, he didn't want things getting through the link in his head to Voldemort. And beyond that, despite the fact that that was more than a good reason, he apologizes for it at the end of the book, both for closing himself off from Harry and for hiding the prophecy from him, not even batting an eyelash when Harry destroys half his office.
 * Dumbledore does more than apologize in that conversation; he flat-out admits that he made the wrong decision in trying to keep Harry in the dark, and that as a direct consequence of that decision it is his, Dumbledore's, fault that Sirius Black died. So, given that even Dumbledore himself agrees that he screwed the krup here, I think that settles it.
 * 6th year: at some point within this year, he has already decided that Harry must die. That actually very neatly explains why he doesn't bother training Harry at all, but instead spends all their evenings making sure Harry knows Voldemort is totally evil in the slowest method possible. He has not confirmed what the "power the dark lord knows not" actually is, mind you -- his theory is that it's love. He suspects that the scar is a Horcrux, but as far as we can tell, has made no attempt to find a way to get rid of it without killing Harry. And Draco? Don't mind him -- he can still save this young, innocent boy who is casting unforgivables and attempting murder. So long as he's not successful, he's still innocent, right? Again, good, evil, or senile? If you're not going to pick senile, then the best you can hope for Dumbledore is "good, but a Manipulative Bastard."
 * Whoever you are, I'm officially in love with you.
 * The memories are to give Harry insight into Voldemort as a person, something that is absolutely important in fighting a single enemy. Draco isn't him thinking he can save an innocent boy who's turning to darkness, but him knowing that Draco has absolutely no desire to be involved in any of it and is only trying out of fear for his family because of the major mistakes that his father made. And it is not a theory that the power the Dark Lord knows not, it's a basic deduction; Harry is an otherwise average wizard of somewhat above average intelligence and power who is mainly skilled and dueling and combat because of all the personal training he did over the course of Book 4 for the Tournament and Book 5 in the DA. He doesn't have any evidently special powers aside from the magic coursing through his veins as a result of his mother's love. Meanwhile, love is one of the very few things that Voldemort is incapable of comprehending. So therefore, logically speaking, Harry's special "power" is not, in fact, a power at all, it's his capacity for love, and the ways that he expresses it (the whole Chronic Hero Syndrome thing). Furthermore, the "Horcrux in the scar" is not a longshot guess, but another easy conclusion based off of the various magical shenanigans that happen relating to the scar and Voldemort. Voldemort feels strong emotions, they leak through to the scar. Harry sees things happen through Voldemort's eyes and the eyes of his snake (also a Horcrux). Harry's scar hurts whenever Voldemort is around (the chunk of soul trying to reunite with the original). It's not a guess, it's basic logic, to the point where people in real life without any actual knowledge of Horcruxes or how they work in a living container figured it out before Book 7.
 * The problem with your so-called "basic logic" is that your train of logic is "Dumbledore said it, therefore it's true." That's also JK Rowling's way of inserting Word of God into a story: have Dumbledore say it. It's bad writing because anyone who understands that Dumbledore is only human will realize how many holes are in his reasoning. First, insight doesn't require a holographic video experience spread out over months, we understood it just fine by reading about it in a book. Dumbledore could have summarized it in one evening. Second, regarding Draco: he's already over the deep end. He has already used an Unforgivable and twice attempted murder. He is no longer a child needing a way out, he's a criminal needing to be locked up, yet the speech Dumbledore gives him in their final confrontation leads me to believe that he thinks Draco is still an "innocent" boy who's incapable of murder. Earth to Dumbledore: he's attempted it twice. The power Dark Lord knows not: many other things, including all things Muggle. Both of them are half-bloods, but Voldemort severed all his Muggle roots while Harry didn't. It could have been the power of luck -- Harry is damn lucky throughout all the novels, and Voldemort had a very unlucky childhood, parentage, heritage, etc. The power of love is such a vague "power", you even admitted that it's not really a power. It could have been the power of righteousness and justice, for all that it mattered. The scar Horcrux: only a simple conclusion because Dumbledore said so. If Horcruxes are bound to physical objects, couldn't he just amputate the scar? All the Voldemort-related pain that Harry had ever felt was always centered around that particular tissue, after all. This costs almost nothing to try out and could save Harry's life if it works -- nothing, not even a medical scan of some sort, is performed. If Occlumency could block the connection, then it suggests a mental link, not a spiritual one, unless Occlumency is also the art of soul-manipulation of some kind. The fact that Voldemort himself possessed Harry in Book 5 without noticing anything and could fully control their "connection" after he discovered it means that souls are either really easy to manipulate with magic, or it's just a shallower type of link. Regardless, Dumbledore doesn't ever attempt a "safer" solution for Harry, but jumps straight to "Harry must die." When playing with people's lives, I prefer to go on more than "educated guesses."
 * I just want to point out, I don't think Draco was off the deep end at any point. It seemed pretty obvious to me that he never did anything he did really because he felt comfortable. He tries to kill Dumbledore with the necklace and wine, but think about it. These are about the most weak attempts at murder ever possible. If they worked, they would require him not even having to see Dumbledore, only hearing about his death the next morning or whatever. It's the easy way out. He doesn't have to look at him while he kills him. He doesn't have to think about what Dumbledore or anyone would think of him because no one would ever know. Dumbledore knows that Draco is never serious about wanting to kill him because when Draco is face to face with him, he can't do it. He's scared, he doesn't know what to do, he's in fear of what will happen to him if he doesn't go through with it. Draco was not a nice guy and even downright vile, but not a true murderer even with his attempts. He was just a scared kid trying to follow orders to save himself and his family.
 * So he's a murderer AND a coward. This makes things better...how exactly?
 * He's a coward because he doesn't WANT to be a murderer and is only attempting murder to save his family. He doesn't want to kill Dumbledore at all, he just feels he has to or else his family will suffer he consequences.


 * Ok, let's get them all excuses in order for debunking.
 * "DD and Arabella didn't know Harry was maltreated". Bullshit. Harry's invitation letter is addressed to the "closet under the stairs". If DD knew where the boy freaking slept, there's no way he didn't know the rest. And in B5 Arabella, apologises to Harry for boring him to death during his stays at hers, because "if the Dursleys knew you were having a good time at mine, they would never left you with me". So again, the Dursleys were fooling noone. And finally, during his confession, DD admitted that he'd knew beforehand that Harry would be maltreated.
 * Yes, they knew he was being abused. What do you purpose he do about it? Harry needed to stay there for the magical protection living with blood relatives grants and Harry had no other blood relatives. Yes, he could pop in every now and then and threaten the Dursleys but what would that acomplish? It would make them frightened and angry and they'd just take that out on Harry as soon as Dumbledore was elsewhere. It's not until Harry's actually old enough to somewhat defend himself that threats from wizards to leave Harry alone have any chance of working, due to the simple fact that he needs to stay with them.
 * Pay them. Do them some favors. Befriend them. Explain how pissing Harry off makes him liable to outbursts of accidental magic, and how important it is that he doesn't slip to Dark Side. Seriously people, what is wrong with you? Why are the only proposed option of interaction are insults and/or intimidation?
 * Because it wouldn't work. At all. The Dursley's aren't reasonable when it comes to magic. People don't just stop being abusive because someone knows, or because they've offered them bribes. Any witch or wizard attempting to befriend them would have never been able to reveal what they were or even discuss the subject of magic without the Dursley's shutting them out. If Petunia's own sister and raising her orphaned son didn't do a thing to soften them towards the subject then nothing was going to. It's a simple horrible truth that Harry and Dumbledore are aware of and are resigned to until Harry turns 17.
 * You know what really wouldn't work? At all? Sending three teenagers after the relics of the most powerful evil sorceror in the world. Once you've entertained that idea seriously, you really have no excuse to dismiss the possibility of befriending a bunch of stuck-up ignorami. Mind you, when I say befriend them, I don't mean "wake up one day and think: "Oh, fuck! Dursleys have been abusing Harry for the past twelve years! I'd better do something about it!" - I mean beforehand. Take the trouble to actually appear in person and explain everything, not leave some stinking note. Maybe even go an extra mile and put on something respectable at that. Warn them about the outbursts of accidental magic and how being agitated or threatened would make Harry more prone to them. Tell them that for any additional information they might refer to Mrs. Figg (they'll understand the implications, and yes, people do behave better when somebody knows). Yes, offer them to compensate for all the expenses, and add some bonus for their troubles. Shortly speaking, treat them like actual people and not act like you've rendered them some unfathomabe honor by entrusting them with a holy mission of raising the little bugger.
 * Which is still wrong, because the blood protections only require that Harry share a roof with someone else of his mother's blood. Vernon Dursley is only related to Harry by marriage; getting him out of the household (say, by having him arrested and jailed for child abuse?) and leaving behind Petunia and Dudley (living off a stipend that Dumbledore provides, since they no longer have Vernon's income) would ensure Harry at least wasn't flagrantly abused, even if the environment was still a tad chilly. Particularly if Dumbledore made the point that if Petunia didn't start acting like a human being, she'd be the next to go... after all, little Dudders alone is still a relative sharing the blood of Lily Potter, and Dumbledore could easily arrange for them to be fostered in the same home. And before somebody goes 'Intimidation!', I might point out that the only thing proposed here is that Vernon (and if necessary, Petunia) have inflicted upon them the normal penalties of law for offenses that they have actually committed.
 * So you solution is to destroy a family, incarcerating a husband and father and believeing that wouldn't turn Petunia and Dudley against Harry even worse? Petunia is specifically mentioned as being the necessary ingrediant for the protection to keep working and there's no way in hell that's going to be doable if Dumbledore starts actually messing with her family. I get that you want to find a work around for the situation, and that's fine, but actions have consequences and you need to think about them when coming up with plausible solutions. If Dumbledore is willing to violate people that badly why not just place the family under direct mind control? Wouldn't be any further over the line than what you've suggested.
 * I'm supposed to weep tears over Vernon being a 'husband and father'? Vernon is also a child abuser; those belong in jail. You're actually saying that child abusers should be gone easy on because they're parents. That's as absurd as killing both your parents and then demanding the mercy of the court because you're an orphan. Also, you're saying that 'sending a guy to prison for crimes he has legitimately committed' is morally equivalent to 'Imperius curse mindrape'; that's ridiculous. And you're also factually wrong; the blood protections specifically require a blood relative of Lily Evans, but there are two people in the household who fit that description; Petunia, and Dudley.
 * "DD couldn't leave Harry in a wizarding family under a Fidelius charm." So, you're basically telling me, that in all the England, there wasn't a single wizard (including DD himself) responsible and level-headed enough to raise a celebrity child in reasonable severity. I will just leave it at that, because nothing I could say would prove my point better than that.
 * No. There isn't a single adult wizard that wouldn't worship Harry like prince. Harry stopped Voldemort, something even Dumbledore failed to do. Because of Harry Potter the Dark Lord is gone, the Death Eaters roundedup or in hiding and they don't have to spend every day in fear for themselves and their loved ones. A decade later Harry is STILL getting preferential treatment from the wizarding community until Fudge decides to smear his image and even that only goes so far.
 * I find this hard to believe. People like Remus would have raised Harry very well. And even if he had to be raised by muggles, it didn't have to be the Dursleys. It could've been a nice, random muggle family (or maybe just Arabella if Dumbledore wanted someone who knew about the wizarding world).
 * Remus? Seriously? The man could barely take care of himself. He turns into a wolf at periodic intervols, how would he take care of Harry during those periods, can't just leave an infant or young child alone for that length of time and he was never shown having any real friends until the order reformed? What do you think the wizarding community's reaction would have been when they discovered that their savior was in the care of a werewolf? The wizarding community can not be objective when it coms to Harry Potter, he's either their savior or their bane, depending on which side they were on during the war. As for Muggles, it had to be the Dursley's because Dumbledore could only work the protective magic he felt was necessary on the home of Harry's blood relatives. If anything else would do he would have moved into the Burrow after his second year, there's no doubt they would have taken him in and treated him much better.
 * That's why the suggestion was "people like Remus". You know, people with brains, not necessarily werevolves.
 * Well, hardly a random Muggle family, since their house would've essentially dissapeared from the map, but definitely people like Lupin.
 * And even barring Lupin, you've at least got Mcgongall, who is established as the wizarding world's Only Sane Woman about two pages into the first book.
 * Alternately, there's Andromeda Tonks. She's actually related to Harry by blood (second cousins on the Potter side via the Black famly tree, as is every other Black of her generation), and unlike the rest of the Black family she isn't a Death Eater, married to a Death Eater, or in Azkaban. Also, she married a Muggleborn wizard, so Harry would not only grow up with competent and loving parents (just look at Tonks for how good a job they did), but experienced in both the Muggle and Wizarding worlds, best of both worlds. And again, looking at the job they did with Tonks, I seriously doubt they'd let Harry grow up with a big head.
 * Or for extra hilarity, Moody. Granted, Harry would probably grow up just a tad eccentric and loaded down with combat skills no wizard his age should be having after having been raised in isolation with old Mad-Eye, but could you imagine a safer environment? CONSTANT VIGILANCE!
 * Also, DD could actually explain to Harry's would be-foster parents that V's fall wasn't Harry's merit, but his mother's, and therefore they shouldn't venerate him.
 * Hey, remember how the Weasleys "venerated" Harry Potter and spoiled him outrageously in everything and let him get totally egotistical? Nope, me neither.
 * Or how about the Flamels? They were good friends and colleagues of Dumbledore's, they'd been around for too many centuries to be impressed by some flash-in-the-pan Boy Who Lived, and they weren't British, meaning they probably only knew about Voldemort second-hand and wouldn't feel obligated to Harry for "saving" them.
 * I remember Arthur and Molly adoring him to the point where I can't remember a single instance of them actively scolding him for his reckless actions and endangering Ron and Ginny along the way. They only focuss on what good he's caused and they don't have the means to spoil him as he doesn't live with them long term and can't afford anythign Harry can't buy for himself. The problem with these ideas is that we see how these people react once harry is already developped as a person and meetinbg them for short periods. We have no ide how they may have favoured him if he'd been dropped on their doorstep right after Voldemort fell, And a FC won't work as it only affects a location or piece of information so if Harry so much as went outside the protection would be lost and there would be nothing stopping a Death Eater from nabbing either the person or their loved ones and getting the information out of them by force. Petunia's blood protection couldn't be forcibly removed until Harry hit adulthood.
 * Did you read versions of OotP and DH that were published in alternate timelines? Molly Weasley was trying to restrain the kids from going out on their adventures right up to the day the Great Horcrux Hunt began. The Weasleys were never "enabling" Harry's adventures; christ, they'd have pulled their legally of-age children from the Order if they'd been able to. As far as blood protections vs. the Fidelius Charm, where the hell did you get the idea that the blood protections work anywhere outside of Privet Drive? Dumbledore specifically says that they don't (in chapter 37 of "Order of the Phoenix"). And with the exception of the one instance at the end of Philosopher's Stone (where Voldemort was a highly weakened shade of himself and especially vulnerable), the protections never saved Harry from anything outside Privet Drive; Harry's been repeatedly stabbed, beaten up, hexed, cursed, bitten, and Crucio'ed, by either Voldemort himself or people carrying the Dark Mark, all the way through the damn series.
 * "DD knew Death Eaters well enough to predict their every move". Weak bullshit. Ten years had passed, and people change.
 * Agreed here, Dumbledore was playing with fire. Draco's getting the DE into the castle in book six proves the falicy of such thinking.
 * "DD couldn't deal with the Basilisk because he didn't know Parseltongue". Bullshit. After the Duel Club, he knew that Harry can speak it.
 * Yes, but HE didn't know parsletongue. He might have suspected a basilisk but he had no way to verify it and Harry didn't mention to anyone but Harry and Hermione that he was hearing voices and they told him that was weird and to not tell people about it.
 * He (and Snape) both knew Legilemency. It's safe to assume that whatever Harry knows, they know. Why the hell else do you think they set up that Duelling Club? To confirm their suspicions, of course.
 * They don't just automatically knwo everythig everyone else knows, they have to actually enter the minds of the person and locate the infomation. It's not exactly a subtle thing and Harry would have certainly realized something was up. I'm also fairly certain it requires eye contact and while Harry might maintain that with Dumbledore while feeling intruded upon he certainly would not have with Snape. Also, even if he knew it was a basilisk and he knew Harry wasa parsletongie, which everyone knew after the duelling club, there's still the matter of finding the Chamber of Secrets, figuring out how to open it witout being able to speak the language (and Dumbledore certainly wouldn't have brought Harry along at this point), figuring out who's controlling the basilisk and destroying the diary, assuming he even figured out what it was. Could Dumbledore have done that? Maybe, but it's not what happened.
 * " Harry would have certainly realized..." - You don't know that. "eye contact..." - yes, he did looked Snape in the eye every time the latter started telling him off for the next screw up. "...finding the Chamber of Secrets" - he knew where Mirtle died, from there on it's easy. Don't tell me he couldn't have found that snake on the washstand. "...certainly wouldn't have brought Harry along..." - why not? Everything else - I honestly don't see what all this has to do with killing the snake. Moreover, as I've already wrote in the CoS section, he could've used a Time Turner to return to the time of the attack and nail the snake right there and then.
 * Know how I can tell you that he couldn't have? Because he didn't. Dumbledore had almost all the infomation right in front of him for decades, and Harry likely wasn't the first Parseltongue to come through he school since Voldemort. Fact is, Dumbledore didn't know what was going on and Harry was told by the two people he trusted not to go around telling anyone about hearing voices and by the time he figured out what was going on and was ready to tell Dumbledore he'd been removed by Lucious. Maybe Dumbledore or Snape could have gone searching through Harry's mind for the information, maybe even without his knowledge but that's, again, not how thinbgs went down. We have no reason to believe either of them regularily invade their students' minds.
 * This is circular logic. You are saying he couldn't have done it because he didn't and that he didn't because he couldn't.
 * New possibility; even if we accept that Harry is only safe at Privet Drive or at Hogwarts, he could be given lodging at Hogwarts year-round. And before you go "No he couldn't!", two words: Sybill Trelawney. Dumbledore was able to declare that she could keep her year-round apartment at Hogwarts, as a guest of the school, even after Umbridge fired her from being Professor. So; find designated caregiver for Harry, give said caregiver a job at Hogwarts, give them year-round quarters as part of that job, and Harry (as their ward) lives with them. Sha-freaking-zam. Harry is now at Hogwarts the entire year. Hell, you could make Arabella Figg Harry's caretaker and then give her a job replacing Filch; now the Board of Governors can't even complain, because its not a make-work job, she's legitimately employed in a job that a squib has already been holding for decades. As for Filch? I'm sure his early retirement can be made a lot less stressful by Dumbledore sliding him a retirement bonus of 'ye olde huge sack of galleons' on the down-low.
 * Of course, that would require abolishing an important part of Hogwarts addmittance policy, that is "let in every goddamned last associate of Voldemort who feels like it", and we don't know how the school board would take to that. Hogwarts has traditions, you know!
 * Everything about capturing Pettigrew, I already explained in the PoA section. In a nutshell: Pettigrew was exempt from the time loop, because his fate immediately after his escape was uncertain, and the timeline couldn't be possibly "messed with" thanks to being invariable.
 * Dumbledore is likely smart enough to realize that messing with time is a bad idea. He can send Harry and Hermione (both of whom have first hand knowledge of the vents in the area they needed to go to) because the're single minded enough to stick to the mission set for them. Dumbledore likely would have gotten distracted by the dozens of other little details he'd like to change. Plus it's possible he spotted them on his way to Hagrid's, we don't see that part from his perspective so he may have known. And they may be able to tell who's used the Time Turner. That one was for Hermione and nobody else, the Ministry likely would have be very upset tha Dumbledore was using it to acomplish his own agenda.
 * Nope, saying "time travel is dangerous" for the seventeenth time didn't make it any more convincing. "Dumbledore likely would have gotten distracted..." - that's just lame. "...to acomplish his own agenda..." - since when is saving an innocent from death and capturing an escaped murdrerer is seen as "his own agenda"? Again, much elaborated on in the relative section.
 * Explain to me how time travel is not dangerous, nor the consequences of being discovered altering time? Time travel works in stable time loops anyway, he didn't go back and do it himself because that's not what happened the first time, whether he knew that or not.
 * How can you say that's not what happened the first time, if nobody knows what excatly happened?
 * Because it's obviously safe enough to give a time-travel device to a 14-year-old girl with only the instructions "Don't let anyone else see you, including your past self." I'm going to make an assumption that Dumbledore is more careful and is even more skillful than 14-year-old Hermione at sneaking around unseen. Being in the late evening/night, there were HUGE areas and times that Dumbledore himself could have stepped in to ensure that Pettigrew was captured without disrupting anything. There's an obvious "open ended" region after Harry and Hermione lost sight of Peter and went to take care of Harry and Sirius instead that Dumbledore could have stepped in.
 * They gave time travel to a 14 year old girl so she could do extra homework, under the supervision of the teachers. If she'd been caught using the time turner for personal reasons or let anyone else use it it would hve ben take away from her. Her having it at all was soley due to Minerva's persistence and even that took a while.
 * So? The question about the ostensible intrinsic danger of Time Travel still holds.
 * On the Triwizard Tournament. Yes, DD obviously arranged for the sake of Harry's training, because the alternative would be that he wasn't able to keep an eye on the Goblet while a former Death Eater (Karkarov) was in the school and didn't manage to root the culprit out of a handful of suspects (only a powerful mage could Confound the Goblet, how many of those were present?). Not to mention, of course, the utter ridiculousness of an idea of a "binding magical contact" without any emergency loopholes for a junior sport event. And last, but not least, the Return Portkey. Who the fuck else could've fit the Goblet with it if not DD? Crouch definitely didn't need to do that.
 * Or he aranged the Triwizard Tourneamnet to solidify Hogwart's allegence with the other two schools. He knew Voldemort was growing in strength and a return was inevitable so he reached out to the wizarding world outside his immediate influence. He seemed fairly upset that Harry was entered into the tournament at all and the spells he learned were either from coursework from that year or from basic research from Hermione, easily achived without putting Harry in repeated danger. He may have even been willing to help Harry train (though that is actually cheating, though at least basic cheating seems to be accepted as tradition) but Harry never seeks help from ay of the teachers so they all just assumed he figured out what he needed on his own. Fake Moody even tried to help indirectly but failed because Harry refused to ask for help outside Ron and Hermione.
 * Again, the idea of a "binding magic contract" without escape clauses for a junior competition is ridiculous. For Lenin's sake, it's not some grand trial with the fates of the universe at stake - it's an ordinary inter-colledge dick-measuring contest! What if some of the contestants is badly injured (Dobby, you have a chance to save Master Harry!), or if they cheat and must be disqualified, or if their relative suddenly falls ill or dies? There are countless possibilities, yet nobody attempts to test the contract's boundaries by suggesting, for instance, that Harry just seats the Tournament through and loses, nobody does anything to bail him out. As usual, it's not about whether it would work or not - it's about the mind-boggling absense of effort, which to me has only one explanation - the staff (read: DD) were interested and involved in Harry's participation. But even if we give the accused party all the benefit of the doubt in the world, it will not eliminate the grand question, that all DD advocates have so far avoided: who could've put the return portkey on the Goblet, if not DD?
 * That's because the answer is STUPIDLY easy to figure out: NOWHERE, in the ENTIRE SERIES, does it EVER say that touch-activated portkeys are one-way.
 * 1. Can you name any reason why they should behave differently from the time-activated ones, which ARE one-way? 2. If that was the case, you'd think Crouch and/or V would've taken special precautions to make sure Harry doesn't grab the Goblet right after appearing at the cemetery or Summons it once shit hits the fan...oh right, I forgot, "V is very vain". 3. If that was the case Goblet would've brought Harry back to the center of the labyrynth, not outside.
 * Presumably the "binding magical contract" effect wasn't something whipped up just for the Triwizard Tournament: it's most likely an effect that's used for all sorts of wizarding-world contracts. It's designed to be unbreakable because that's how they prevent people from breaking other sorts of crucial contractual agreements, not because a junior athletic competition is all that important.

Ok, seriously, Dumbledore is not a bad guy. He is manipulative because he has to be, an occupational hazard of fighting Voldemort.
 * He leaves Harry with the Durselys because he believes it to be the best option. Fidelius Charms are breakable, the blood magic is not. There is absolutely 0% chance of a DE or Voldy hurting Harry while he is at the Dursley's. To Dumbledore that comes first, he has to get Harry to safety. The side effect of him growing up normal is good too. He knew Harry was abused, but he had good reasons for his plan and wasn't going to change them for Harry's comfort. Bear in mind the Dursleys never seem to have hit him or anything serious like that.
 * Care to explain Dementor attack in OotP?
 * Sure, Harry had a guard but he went off to get stolen cauldrons. Plus Harry wasn't in the house so its protection did not apply.
 * 1. Fletcher had nothing to do with the Wards whatsoever (BTW, choosing HIM as Harry's guard is another WTF moment, thanks for raising it). 2. This means the protection was completely useless, since Harry obviously didn't spend his whole life inside the house - he went to non-wiz school, for crying out loud!
 * Ok, see, this kind of pisses me off. 'change them for Harry's comfort'? What the fuck? Seriously. Harry was systematically and very thoroughly abused in horrifying ways. He was malnourished, given the absolute minimum of attention possible (wearing secondhand clothes from a kid five times his size, glasses never fixed/replaced, etc), and Petunia at least once tried to take a frying pan to his head. WHAT?! And Vernon was always grabbing him and shaking/throwing him around. It's entirely possible there was worse physical abuse that did not get 'seen' in the books, and even if there wasn't, emoional/mental/verbal abuse is EVERY bit as bad as physical. It just doesn't happen to leave nice, sympathy-getting visible marks. By not removing Harry from that house ASAP, Dumbledore was running the very, frighteningly real risk of breeding another Voldemort (or worse) instead of the 'Savior of the Wizarding World'.
 * This is just speculation, again, but I don't think the Dursleys were THAT abusive. The only reason I have to go on this is because Harry attended a Muggle school for quite a few years and there is no mention of the school getting involved. It is admittedly a stretch of logic, but it doesn't make sense that the social workers of Britain, or whatever they are called, would have missed truly serious abuse. As for emotional abuse, yeah that was going on, but so long as Harry's life wasn't being threatened Dumbledore must have felt it was better to keep him safe. I am willing to bet that Dumbledore probably felt uneasy about how bad the Durselys were, which is why part of the reason why he let the Weasleys take Harry so often. I doubt any Wizarding family could have offered the same protection, Dubledore did say that the blood ward weas the strongest magic available. As for the dementors, again speculation, but maybe the blood ward only applied to Voldemort and the Death Eaters, not Ministry-sent dementors. Fletcher as a guard is kinds lame, but they did it in shifts and I doubt Dumbledore thought something serious was going to happen with the blood ward keeping Voldemort and the Death Eaters at bay.
 * You have clearly never been abused yourself, nor known someone who was abused. And you also never read the books. The books made it VERY clear that Harry was abused, frequently and consistently. He was slapped into the cupboard ... and locked in ... for extended (unspecified) periods, his food intake was severely curtailed (anyone who thinks a piece of bread and cheese is a sufficient meal for a growing child is INSANE), and both Petunia and Vernon physically accosted him at *least* once each in the books (more, actually), not to mention Dudley and co's 'Harry hunting'. As for no one getting involved ... *snort* All Vernon and co had to do was keep any bruises where they could not be seen, and verbally terrorize Harry into never speaking of what went on in the house (which is a VERY common tactic used by abusers). Combine that with a few careful blandishments in the right ears if anyone *did* get suspicious, and it is entirely believable that Harry fell through the cracks of the system. I will grant you that the dementors are very much an iffy proposition where keeping them away from Privet Drive is concerned, but for god's sake ... all it would have taken is someone like Malfoy finding out where Harry lived, (and given his connections in the Ministry, he could have), and Harry would have been so much dead meat, because even if he could not approach Privet Drive, he could have VERY easily sweet-talked the Dursleys into bringing 'both their boys' to some other location. Especially if he promised to take Harry off their hands. And as for Privet Drive being the only safe place ... bullshit. If Dumbles had actually intervened on Sirius' behalf and made sure he got a trial, (and Sirius was cleared), Grimmauld Place, which was apparently unassailable in the later books, would have been perfectly fine as a living place. Better, Harry would have been with someone (two someones, in all likelihood, since I'd bet good money on Remus joining them) who loved him dearly. And even if you take Sirius out of the equation ... hello, Weasleys. Upgrade the defenses around the Burrow and put it under Fidelius (with bloody Dumbledore as Secret Keeper) and Harry'd be fine. Final point ... abuse (physical or otherwise) leaves scars. Depending on the severity of the abuse and the personality of the one being abused, the damage can be as 'minimal' (hah!) as a lifetime struggle with low self-esteem and as horrifying as suicidal depression, anxiety/panic attacks, any of a number of crippling phobias, night terrors and more. Given what Harry was going to be expected to do (defeat Voldie), putting him, knowingly, into a situation where he would be in danger of acquiring such problems is not only damn stupid, it's literally criminal.
 * Who says Dumbledore doesn't check up on the Dursleys and Obliviate Harry? It's not ideal, but shields Harry from the worst of any abuse and stops Death Eaters torturing him to death.
 * Refutation of two points above. First off, the only weakness in the Fidelius Charm is that the Secret Keeper might betray you. Since Dumbledore could use himself for the Secret Keeper, that's obviously not a problem for him! As far as 'there is no way to break the blood protections', that's wrong again; the blood protections only work so long as Harry is still living at Privet Drive. The instant Vernon or Petunia chucks him out permanently and not just temporarily, *poof*, its gone. And given that they didn't want him there anyway... let's just say that if, oh, Narcissa Malfoy had walked up to Vernon in his office at Grunnings one day and said 'Give Harry's custody over to me and I'll give you this huge sack of gold', Vernon would sign the paperwork so fast he'd break the pen. So, really, Dumbledore's blood protections are a pure Idiot Plot; he's an idiot for thinking they'd work, and the Death Eaters are total idiots for actually being so made of fail that in seventeen years they can't think of a plan that literally took me longer to type out than to compose in the first place.
 * "Give Harry's custody over to me and I'll give you this huge sack of gold" - or, even better, kidnap Dudley and promise Petunia to send him back home one piece at a time unless they renounce Harry. Same effect, but more fun!
 * Voldemort is good at deception, that is why he hired Quirrel. He may have suspected Quirrel wanted to steal the Stone, but he had no proof and Quirrel had not done anything to make him suspect Voldemort's involvement. The obstacles may not have been on par with Voldy's cave, but Flamel still had to get to the Stone every now and again to get Elixer. Dumbledore had no idea Harry knew about the Stone and he certainly didn't set up the obstacles so Harry and co. could get past. It just happened that way so we could have a story.
 * Oh, sure. And all the obstacles just happened to be perfectly tailored to the kids' skills. And Hagrid just happened to blab out all the plot-related information. And DD just happened to be there when Harry was sitting at the mirror and explain exactly how it work. And of course DD didn't know that someone was killing unicorns or how they were being killed and what that implied...are you trying to persuade us or yourself?
 * Pretty much. Coincidences can happen. Dumbledore knew about the unicorns but what do you expect him to do about it? He still doesn't know who is doing it or who Voldemort may be possesing. I have to wonder about why Voldy did the unicorn blood, he wan't going to die without it, but that's another headscratcher. As for Hagrid blabbing, he blabbed to a stranger in a pub, it's not out of character. Dumbledore was at the mirror because he was waiting for Harry, that was why he was invisible. Why wouldn't he explain about the mirror, it kept Harry from searching for it again.
 * Just happened to be tailored to the kids? So Dumbledore forsaw that Hermione would read ahead about a rare and deadly plant and remember enough information to get them through? And he totally had Macgonnagal create a chess set because he knew Ron would be good at chess? Or the potions puzzle that only Hermione was able to solve, which assumed she would make it that far? And of course there was the huge mountain troll that Quirrel dispatched on his own and would have likely been too much for the kids. But of course Dumbledore knew exactly how Quirrel would disable it and that it would still be down by the time the kids got there. And he knew Hagrid would leak the information about Fluffy to the kids? Okay, that one might be plausable but that again would require the children to know about Fluffy in advance and even then it didn them no good.
 * "Coincidences can happen" - Indeed they can. So if, say, one of the obstacles just happened to require something they happened to be good at, that would've been a coincedence. But when all the obstacles, without a single exclusion relied on their very particular strengths...well, if you keep deluding yourself, there is really nothing I can do about it. Next, on the particular tasks. OMG, you're not even trying, are you? "DD forsaw that Hermione would read ahead about a rare and deadly plant..." - they are in a fucking school, and he's the thrice goddamn Headmaster. He can control what they read and know, especially in case of a knowledge-hog, like Hermie. Advise a book about that plant for outside reading and then put a question about it in some test, to be sure she got it. Done. "had Macgonnagal create a chess set because he knew Ron would be good at chess" - no, because he knew Ron was good at chess. They have partratis in the common rooms, meaning they know what the kids are doing in their spare time. "the potions puzzle that only Hermione was able to solve, which assumed she would make it that far" - if she solved, it it doesn't mean only she could solve it and besides, why the hell wouldn't she get that far? "...there was the huge mountain troll that Quirrel dispatched on his own" - you mean like the one they nailed in the bathroom? Besides, you've answered your own question - Quirrell was expected to deal with the troll. "And he knew Hagrid would leak the information about Fluffy to the kids" - nope, he told Hagrid to leak it. "that again would require the children to know about Fluffy" - uhuh, remember how a first-year girl managed to open the door leading to the invaluable artifact guarded by a vicious monster? Another coincedence, I guess. And then Hagrid just happened to give Harry a flute as a gift.
 * Dumbledore obviously was unsure what Slytherin's monster was. He may have suspected it was a Basilisk, but he had no way to know for sure. He also had no way to know that Parseltongue would get him into the Chamber. As for closing the school, there were no fatalities and the conditions were reversable. It would take multiple attacks, five in total, before they talked of shutting down the school. Remember the attacks were spaced over months.
 * Use a Time-Turner after the first attack, go to the place where it's about to take place, become imperceptible, wait for the killer, stop him. Done.
 * Nope. Doesn't work like that. It's a Stable Time Loop.
 * You Keep Using That Word. Care to elaborate in your own words how that particular plan wouldn't work? (Mind you, when I wrote "stop him" I obviously meant after it attacked Colin, so the precious Loop wouldn't suffer).
 * Moreover, DD obviously knew who the monster was. Otherwise why the hell would Hagrid advise Harry to follow the spiders? It meant Hagrid (and therefore DD) knew that the spiders were fleeing the castle, which, in conjunction with the methods of attacks and the slaughter of roosters gives a very clear picture. Oh, and add here Mirtle's bathroom mysteriously being left unrepaired for 50 years (right, they couldn't drive out a single stupid ghost, sure).
 * Hagrid told Harry and Ron to follow the spiders because they would lead them to Aragog, who could confirm that Hagrid really wasn't the Heir of Slytherin. While Aragog himself seemed to know what the monster was, he wouldn't tell Harry and Ron and he likely didn't tell Hagrid or Dumbledore either. The staff may have never even realized the spiders and roosters were related to the monster, and Basilisks are probably not the only magical creature that use petrification.
 * No, they really may not. Hagrid would have to know in advance that the spiders were fleeing the castle, and Aragog didn't hide their fright of the monster. As for the roosters, gimmeabrek. What kind of fox kills roosters but doesn't drag them away? And then there were writings on the wall in rooster blood, and don't tell me they couldn't tell it from human, that's not even funny. They also knew the monster belonged to Slytherin, who had a raging snake fetish, coul petrify people and kill them without contact, probably with sight (how else?), and only Harry, a Parselmouth, could hear it inside the walls (Legilimancy). NO WAY they didn't know or at least had a very good guess what it was.
 * Why do people think Dumbledore would have done better if he had reversed time? He didn't live through the events. All he had was a hasty second hand account from Sirius. He could have easily botched something, been seen because he didn't know how events played out. Also wasn't Fudge expecting Dumbledore? Hard to hide your involvement when you are supposed to be following after the Minister and appear out ahead of him. Plus there is no evidence Dumbledore had any experience with a Time Turner, while Hermione had been sucessfully using one for a year.
 * Become invisible, follow the Trio, live through the events. Done. No, he couldn't, everything had already worked out fine. What kind of "experience" do you need to use the damned thing?
 * Once again, Stable Time Loop.
 * Again, BS. Already elaborated in PoA section, and have so far yet to receive a sane answer (i.e. without heedless resort to tropes) why that wouldn't work.
 * If you have never used one before you have no practice at not being detected.
 * WHO? WHO IN THE NINE CIRCLES OF FUCK WAS SUPPOSED TO "DETECT" HIM, and how was avoiding that would be any different from not being detected in normal course of events, which DD obviously can do very well.
 * As for the tournament, I assume that the magically binding contract was just that, magically binding. It might have been made like that so Headmasters couldn't withdraw their champions if they thought the Goblet had made a bad choice. I don't know what would have happened had Harry failed to compete, but obviously the result was worse than letting Harry do so. As for the reversable Portkey, Voldemort was probably going to use that to send Harry's dead body back. This way his death would be attributed to an accident and no one would know Voldy was back. He couldn't be sure when exactly he would be able to do it, so it was set to activate on Harry's touch, alive or dead. As for the flash of triumph, read book 7.
 * "withdraw their champions ..." - forbid to do that by the rules. Done. Again, what if a champion is badly injured, or cheats, or their relative falls badly ill and requires their attendance? "I don't know what would have happened..." - that is the point. Your theory is ungrounded. "Voldemort was probably going to use that to send Harry's dead body back..." - 1. How was that better than having Harry dissappear without a trace? 2.If that was the case, then it'd only make sense to bring Harry back inside the mase, not to the stands.
 * I assume that bloody injuries would have resulted in a withdrawal if the damage could not be easily remedied, like how Pomfrey fixed up Diggory. Cheating I would assume would result in the judges giving you zero points. As for the relative, maybe they could reschedule the tasks. As for the Portkey, I'm reaching here, maybe the original cup would have teleported the winner to the stands. That way they wouldn't have to run the maze again in reverse. Just guessing here. Plus if Harry disappeared it would be suspicious to Dumbledore, where as if he dies during the tournament it is chalked up to natural causes.
 * Well? How are you supposed to withdraw a contestant when (s)he is under that horrible contract of vagueness? Again, I'm not saying that it couldn't be all bindy and unescapy, I'm saying that it's unlikely, and thus should've been at least addressed in the book. As for the Portkey, who do you think put the Portkey on the Goblet? Crauch!Moody, who else, who brought it into the labyrinth to begin with, and he obviously wouldn't want to hold to the original plan.
 * I always assumed the Portkey was meant to take Voldemort to Hogwarts where Dumbledore was. Voldy planned on Harry dying in the graveyard, so if he went to Hogwarts directly after that, believing nobody would expect him to show up, use the element of surprise to Avada Kadavra Dumby, and then his two worst enemies are dead (meaning he wouldn't need the prophecy) and Voldy is free to take over the wizarding world.
 * Riiiiiiiiiight. Go with but a bunch of your least reliable goons, probably in a weakened state, to the domain of your arch-nemesis, where there will be dozens of other powerful wizards, and where you cannot apparate from should anything go wrong. Brilliant!
 * Actually there's some Fridge Brilliance in there: Voldy knew the first half of the prophecy. Specifically the part about "The one with the power to vanquish the dark lord." - He is under the impression that Harry Potter, and ONLY Harry Potter can defeat him. So why not go mass slaughtering at Hogwarts after offing the one person in the world who poses a threat to you is taken care of? (Note: Regardless of the accuracy of the prophecy, Voldy believed that it was infallable.) Even failing that: he has the 3 ingredients he needs for his rebirth at hand already should he die a second time. At this point he still has (almost) all of his horcruxes intact, and so death is a temporary setback.
 * Because V is only an idiot when the plot demands it. Other times he understands that, prophecy or not, there are powers to reckon with even for him. And a full stadium of wizards, lead by DD on his home turf is definitely one of those. And who says he'd be killed rather than overpowered and captured?
 * Dumbledore witholds information from Harry in book 5 for a number of reasons. Key among these is the fact that Voldy can know access Harry's mind. He is scared that if Voldy realizes he is giving Harry useful info, that Voldy will be tempted to possess Harry. He also still wants to protect Harry despite all he has been through, he loves him too much to add to his burden.
 * "...will be tempted to possess..." - As opposed to, say, possesing him just to make him kill himself? "...still wants to protect..." - uhuh, by withholding crucial information that will help him to stay alive. Brilliant!
 * It doesn't appear that possesion lets you make the person committ suicide. Voldemort posses Harry at the end of the book and he doesn't make Harry Avada Kedavra himself or something. It probably kills the possesor too, even if Voldy's Horcruxes would let him survive he probably doesn't want to go through that again. As for Dumbledore, he admits his desire to protect Harry wasn't rational and was at odds with his grand plan.
 * Given that Dumbledore flat-out says at the end of OotP 'Sirius is dead and this whole mess happened because I didn't tell you what I should have told you at the start of this year, Harry', the point's moot. Even Dumbledore admits that he screwed up on this one, so how can we argue it?
 * Mostly because even his "explanation" doesn't make any sense. "Oh, Harry. I cannot possibly ruin your pleasant ignorance and shoulder this terrible burden on you by telling you that some half-crazed crow you have no respect for had made a prophecy Riddle'd totally fell for thus becoming even more predictable and vulnerable, and that you don't have to fall for, because only you should rule your destiny, as i'm gonna belatedly explain to you the next year when I finally run out of stupid pills. Instead I'll leave you in the dark, seathing with impotent rage, guilt you must be feeling for inadvertently causing Sedrick's death and assisting in Voldemort's ressurection, and frustration over your friends and mentor all seemingly abandoning you. For the entire summer you will been eaten alive by insurmountable urge for action which I could use to teach you Occlumecy and other useful skills, but will instead completely waste, adding to your boredom and desperation! This is how precious you are to me - so precious I will completely disregard your feelings and show zero respect to you as a person!" Wow. That's...that's beyond simple senility. That's Insane Troll Logic!
 * Dumbledore doesn't go after Draco because if he does Draco will be killed by the Death Eaters. He doesn't want that. He assigns Snape to help him try to curb Draco's admittedly pitiful attempts to committ homicide. He quarrels with Snape after Ron was poisoned because Snape was not doing his job well enough to keep students safe. Draco is admittedly very sheepish about murder, both attempts see him try to use Rosmerta to manipulte others into killing Dumbledore, Katie and Slughorn. I expect that if Draco had tried a bit harder Dumbledore would have stopped him.
 * "...Draco will be killed by the Death Eaters" - How? "Snape was not doing his job well enough..." - Snape obviously couldn't possibly tail Draco 24/7. "...if Draco had tried a bit harder..." - two people all but died, how much "harder" do you need?
 * They would kill Draco for failing. As for how, the usual. Snape was unable to win Draco's confidence, that was why Dumbledore reproached Snape for not keeping a closer eye on Draco. Bad choice of words on try harder. If he were more successful then.
 * "The usual" how? What V was gonna do, if DD, say, hid Draco under FC with himself as a Keeper? And the choice of words is still bad. Whad you mean "succeeded"? If Ron or that chick actually died? Well, then it's kinda late to stop him, don't you think?
 * I have heard this one so often: "Snape or Dumbledore should have used Legilimency to read someones mind and find out that they were up to no good." First of all, Legilimency can be resisted by skilled wizards, it is highly unlikely Crouch or Quirrel would have been affected. Second, Legilimency is extremely obvious when it is used and its effectiveness can be quashed by looking away. I doubt that would let it work on many students. Third it is probably illegal like the use of Veritaserum on students. Fourth and final, I doubt Snape and Dumbledore would poke around in the heads of everyone around them just in case. Legilimency is powerful, but limited. To be real effective you need to be able to incapacitate your opponent and force them to make eye contact with you, ala Voldemort and Gregorovich.
 * "...is extremely obvious when it is used...probably illegal...Snape and Dumbledore would poke around...you need to be able to incapacitate your opponent..." - you don't know any of that.
 * I don't. I just make guesses based on what we do know. If Veritaserum is illegal on students why would Legilimency be legal? Harry certainly felt it when Snape or Voldemort tried it. IF eye contact is crucial how do you plan to maintain it with an unsubdued opponent. Snape might poke around, judging on personality, but if Dumbledore didn't during books 1 and 2 I doubt he ever will.
 * Except that he did. When the teachers question Harry after they find Petrified Mrs. Norris, DD gives Harry a long look which makes the kid feel "X-rayed" (does it have to be any more obvious than that?) and then immediately declares his innocence.
 * There is a canon example of non-obvious legilimency; when Harry tries to get Snape to read his mind in Umbridge's office, because he needs to get a warning out about Sirius and can't talk out loud. Snape does pick up what Harry's trying to get across from his surface thoughts, but Harry ends the scene having absolutely no idea if Snape actually used Legilimency on him or not. Ergo; Snape is capable of subtlety as well as obvious mind rape. If he wants to be.


 * IMO, Dumbledore was at best harmfully manipulative and at worst straight-up evil. 1) Bringing Harry to the Dursleys. He did this BEFORE Sirius went on his attempted Roaring Rampage of Revenge on Pettigrew. BEFORE. Which meant he had precisely zero authority over one Harry Potter unless he was named guardian in the Potters' wills, which I *sincerely* doubt, with Sirius being Harry's godfather. 2) From things revealed later in the book, Hagrid somehow managed to get to Godric's Hollow within minutes of the attack. HOW? He cannot use magic! How in the name of hell did Dumbledore even know the Potters had been attacked to send him? Sirius at least suspected because he couldn't find Pettigrew. For Hagrid to have gotten there that fast, Dumbledore would have had to have some sort of monitoring charm or some such ... AND a pre-made portkey to the cottage, which would kind of muck up the whole 'secret' thing if a bad guy managed to get hold of it! 3) The abuse. Arabella knew. She couldn't not. She SAW Harry regularly, admitted to his face she knew he was treated like shite. She reported to Dumbledore. He even admitted to knowing shit was bad at the Dursleys. 4) Back to Sirius, and spending over a decade locked in hell without benefit of a trial. I don't bloody well care if everyone was poison-sure he was guilty ... He. Was. Owed. A. Trial. And Dumbledore had the power and authority to insist on such, if not right then and there, then within a couple years, or what use were all his titles? 5) HOW many screwed-up teachers 'taught' in that school under Dumbledore's authority again? Quirrel - who taught at the school before, and Dumbledore somehow didn't, you know, notice the change in demeanor and decide to investigate? Lockhart. Whom he *knew* was a fraud. 'Moody', oh hells, 'Moody'. You mean to tell me Dumbledore never once suspected that this ... person ... wasn't the same as the friend he'd known for years? HAH. Umbridge. Ghods. Again with the having titles and authority and not, you know, using them. WTF. Also, Trelawney. Yeah, I get it. Seer who foresaw the end of the Dark Lord. *really* bad idea to let her run about loose, lest she get snapped up by a bad guy. That does not mean she MUST be a teacher. Binns. You're telling me they can't, you know, replace a ghost? Snape. I like the guy. He's got ... interesting depths. He is not, however, at all suitable to be teaching kids, at least the young ones. Keep him as the NEWT potions teacher and let someone with a more congenial disposition deal with the 'dunderheaded' youngsters. 6) While we're on the subject ... whose bright idea was it, again, to bring an item into a SCHOOL that was going to be attracting the attention of a maniacal, bloodthirsty, sociopathic monster who would NOT give a damn about killing everyone who got in his way?
 * "'Moody', oh hells, 'Moody'. You mean to tell me Dumbledore never once suspected that this ... person ... wasn't the same as the friend he'd known for years?" - Yes, he did not suspect Moody. because Crouch was just that damn good! Did you even read the book? "Umbridge. Ghods. Again with the having titles and authority and not, you know, using them. WTF." - Again... did you even read the book? Fudge took away his titles, Fudge wrote new laws to give Umbridge more power! What was Dumbledore supposed to do with Umbridge when the ministry, the law itself was used against him?
 * Have her fired for sadistically abusing children under her care, something that would have raised enough political stink that even Fudge would cut Umbridge loose to save his own skin. And before you say 'How could Dumbledore know she was doing it?', that's not the proper question -- the proper question is 'What kind of idiot knows that a senior agent of someone who wishes his political destruction is walking around his school and doesn't have her watched?!? (As to what to watch her with? Portraits. Ghosts. Hogwarts house-elves. Monitoring charms. He's the world's most powerful wizard and she's a barely competent moron; there is no way he couldn't keep an eye on her in Hogwarts unless he simply never bloody tried.)


 * HBP: DD has a go at the Dursleys for torturing Harry. At the time I thought they were getting come-uppance for the years of abuse. DH: that Glory turned to ashes in my mouth, DD intended the Dursleys to torture Harry all along. Mrs Figg was DD's spy all the time.
 * There ain't no such animal as Blood-Wards. It is such a difficult spell because it don't exist. It don't protect against Dementors etc
 * Er, what? Hasn't it been discussed that the Blood-wards didn't protect Harry against Dementors in Oot P because he's nowhere NEAR his home, where the wards are?
 * Sure. The counter-question was how the hell were those wards supposed to be useful at all, since Harry obviously didn't spend his entire life inside the house.
 * Riddle is DD's man through and through. It was a vital part of DD's evil plan that Snape give Harry the info dump at that exact time and place. If Riddle had killed Snape 10 minutes earlier or 100 yards away, if Riddle had killed Snape quickly or stayed to watch Snape's death agony, DD's plan would have crashed and burned.
 * DD plans to ruin the education of countless generations by deliberately hiring The incompetent teachers. Binns, the man who can even make the Goblin Riots boring. Hagrid is a very competent Grounds-keeper, so DD sacks Grubbley Plank the competent Creatures teacher, OotP: Umbridge sacks Trelawney for incompetence, DD stands on the Headmaster's right to let people live in the Castle. He could have done that from the beginning: Trelawney lives in the Castle and DD hires a competent teacher,
 * Upthread mentioned Snape's "insensitivity". WTF??? Snape deliberately intended to emotionally damage childern, Snape was sensitive enough to know exactly what tricks would hurt each student.


 * The whole scar-removal thing, assuming it's just a peice of tissue that's really Voldy's soul trying to get back...Okay, how would Dumbledore remove it short of cutting off a peice of Harry's flesh?
 * Yes, take a knife, cut out the scar,destroy the scar, Nurse heals the knife wound. It is the obvious solution, but it the untermensch Muggle solution. Also Dark Lord Broadcasting Network was an essential part of DD's plan and Harry's "death" is even more essential. DD does not hold the Idiot Ball, DD holds the Evil Ball. DD's plans must be evil.
 * There's no evidence that Voldemort's soul is only stuck on that piece of scar that it could be removed by cutting of the flesh. Sticking a knife there will just cause Harry unnecessary pain and damage. And souls don't reside only on a particular part of your body do they? If that were the case, how did Harry manage to gain Parselmouth abilities, when the soul is not on his lips, or ears?
 * But when would Dumbledore find the time to perform this? Stun Harry, cart him off to the hospital wing and do it?
 * You'd think that simply telling Harry 'I have found out that a piece of Voldemort's soul is stuck in your scar; fortunately Madam Pomfrey can surgically remove it' would have Harry running to the Hospital Wing under his own power, no 'carting' required.


 * DD is Light side of the Force, Riddle is Dark side. Both are evil like in the Star Wars prequels.


 * Magnificent Bastard: Once you've come this far, it's settled. This title doesn't belong to Voldemort, it goes to none other than Albus Dumbledore himself. Directly and indirectly, intentionally and otherwise, this one man has been behind everything, everything, that has driven the history of the Potterverse from his time and even beyond, fitting every characteristic trope almost all the time.

Back to the main Headscratchers page