I am madly in love with the way you described Dumbledore in TNER. It's one of my favorite characters, but I know so few works where he really resembles the book version. You've done it perfectly. And I'm curious, what do you generally think of such a controversial personality?
dumbledore is super polarizing (or do most people hate him these days? i'm always reading pro-snape stories and Dumbledore is persona non grata in those akgjaj not sure how he shakes down in other parts of fandom).
to me, characters are either boring or interesting. within these designations, you can have different shades: "aggressively uninterested" or "just don't think about them at all," vs. "their psychology intrigues me" to "i must hereafter shape my identity around my new blorbo" (e.g. snape!)
dumbledore is my "his psychology intrigues me" type. he fascinates me. what the heck is his deal. he lets harry run around doing the most insane things with monsters and bodily harm, lets snape run around doing the most insane things to his students egos; lets the marauders do whatever the heck was going on there; hires a dude wearing voldemort as an accessory, and gilderoy lockheart -- the list is endless. but then! he's genuinely kind to house-elves. he's completely free of werewolf prejudice, and other prejudices besides (apart from the Youthful World Domination phase in which he hated muggles and stuff). he does seem to be genuinely kind and caring. he's also idolized by the narrative, talked up pretty much at every turn.
there's a kind of cognitive dissonance to the guy.
the narrative for six books: omg dumbledore is THE most amazing. the kindest, the most enlightened, the most trustworthy, the one harry trusts without reserve, the one who gives everyone strength, the only one voldemort fears, defeater of grindelwald, also he loves candy! proof he's the best.
the Secret Backstory dropped in the last book: uhm ACTUALLY
the narrative again: NO HE'S STILL THE BEST. ignore harry dying. THE BEST. ALBUS SEVERUS POTTER. SEE?
to be clear, none of this bothers or annoys me. i just don't think of it that way. what i do think is that JKR was trying to finagle something she didn't quite have the subtlety to pull off.
once we get his full backstory, we have a guy who 1) went through a world domination phase with the man he loved 2) accidentally murdered his own sister 3) realized the path he was on would lead to widespread destruction 4) isolated himself from the world because he couldn't be trusted, either with power or with love.
this is my favorite thing about dumbledore: he locks himself up in a tower because he believes, or understands, himself to be an incredible danger to life and liberty. he cannot be trusted. he proves this over and over: first with the safety of his siblings; then the safety of the larger world; and finally, tragically, the safety of harry. he doesn't even trust himself, although he continues to act as if his judgments are without fault or flaw. he tells harry that because his intellect is greater than most people's, his errors tend to be correspondingly huger -- a line that leads harry to believe dumbledore made the wrong judgement about snape, of course, but which is actually about dumbledore's own youth. but the fact that dumbledore turned down an official position of power (minster for magic) and sequestered himself in hogwarts from a young age, that's him not trusting himself, and knowing it, and removing himself from the temptation of widespread influence and public control.
his past wrong judgements become more impactful when we understand he was in love with grindelwald and probably still harbors some tangled knot of feelings. HP is a series about love -- voldemort never understood it, was conceived in violation of it; harry was protected by an act of love from lily, who died for him, and an act of love from snape, who lived for her. harry's patronus, the purest expression of joy that magic is capable of manifesting, is borne of his own love for his father. harry's enduring love for the family he never knew protects him not only from voldemort's touch but from his influence -- he declares he'll never Join the Dark Side because voldemort killed his parents. "you are protected," says dumbledore, "by your ability to love." this was not true for dumbledore.
harry's love purifies his intent and gives him courage. snape's love (again, see his vow, his patronus) turns him off a path of evil to one of self-sacrifice. dumbledore's love, by contrast, killed his sister, destroyed his relationship with his brother, allowed a villain to rise to power. i just think, damn. what must dumbledore feel when he looks at it that way?
i love the inherent destructiveness of loving something monstrous; loving something when you don't want to. there's a notion that we are what we love, or that our love is some reflection of ourselves. if we look at it like that, then dumbledore loving someone evil says a lot about him. but he was frightened by it, so he locked himself away.
he also combines what appears to be a great capacity for compassion with an equal capacity to sacrifice anything necessary in order to achieve a goal he's constructed as worthy.
this makes sense, too: in a way, he sacrificed himself all those years ago -- his plans, his future, his love, because the price was too high. dumbledore in his youth thought that he could Save the World by controlling people. then he realized that control has only ever doomed the world, but he never quite let go of saving the world. when voldemort rises, dumbledore takes a different tack of becoming a private general, or perhaps a military advisor: still largely removed from the thick of war but directing others, who are relieved and grateful to have his plans of attack. he also deeply inspires people, harry being one of the most powerful examples. harry places his absolute trust in dumbledore, believing that this person loves him (which he does) and will always protect him (which he can't) -- and dumbledore betrays this trust by openly acknowledging that, for the freedom of the world, harry needs to die.
it hurts dumbledore to realize that harry has to die in order for the world to be saved; it hurts him so badly he (as i see it) pawns off the truth-telling to snape. he can't look snape in the eye when he tells him; he can't look at anything. he shuts his eyes as if blindness will make it easier.
dumbledore could face the truth, the necessity. he doesn't say "we'll find another way," he says "harry must die." but he couldn't face harry. his desire to save the world once again places him in a position where he has to hurt someone he loves. and he does it. in a way, he keeps playing himself.
.....i wrote a lot more than i thought i would akgajgkahjh well, he's one of your favorites, so hopefully you didn't mind!