Harry Potter, the protagonist, was not Dumbledoreās puppet
Just like I did with another post, I decided to make my own bringing up the same points, because I think theyāre relevant enough to stand on their own. So I genuinely donāt understand where this idea comes from āthat Harry was manipulated by Dumbledore from the very beginning, that he should never have trusted him ā and from these ideas, people somehow jump to the conclusion that Harry was Dumbledoreās puppet the entire time, caught in some political game between him and Voldemort, while ignoring Voldemort being Harryās equal, something confirmed in the books:
āHe chose the boy he thought most likely to be a danger to him,ā said Dumbledore. āAnd notice this, Harry. He chose, not the pureblood (which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard worth being or knowing), but the half-blood, like himself. He saw himself in you before he had ever seen you
Why did Voldemort pick Harry and not Neville?
JK Rowling: Dumbledore explains this in 'Order of the Phoenix'. Voldemort identified more with the half-blood boy and therefore decided he must be the greater risk.
Reinforced by the author herself.
āThe one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches ... born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives ... the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month diesā¦ā
And the quote above was even pointed out in an article on the official Harry Potter site that literally says: 7 times that Professor Trelawney actually got it right.
Itās worth noting that the same quote explicitly says āThe one,ā which refers to Harry himself, not to him as a tool for another character, or even for those who stood by him and helped him along the way. Iāve seen people try to lean on the idea of collectivity and the lesson on friendship of the series to argue otherwise, as if the core of the saga didnāt begin with Harry and Voldemort being marked as equals. Itās not about a collective standing above the individual and diluting the protagonistās agency; itās about how that very collective forms and organizes itself around him.
So, it doesnāt make sense for a series called Harry Potter to have its own protagonist reduced to being groomed into Dumbledoreās puppet. Harry didnāt even trust Dumbledore with everything, and he spent a good part of the series trying to hide things from him. Like in GoF, when he never told him about his dreams or the pain in his scar. In HBP, he fully disagrees with Dumbledore about Draco and Snape, proving he doesnāt always trust his judgments. He also sees Hermione as the one who trusts Dumbledoreās authority the most. Even if they share similar values, Harry literally grew up wary of Dumbledoreās secrecy, and he wasnāt one to be restrained when it came to pursuing things on his terms.
Harry has immense respect for him, not just because he believes in his intentions ā in the cause behind them ā but because thereās an almost paternal bond there. So why is that framed as blind trust? Their relationship is more complex than that!
Itās always about reducing things into easily digestible conceptsā the same way people take the good vs evil framework, rendered as Harry (the hero) = pure and naive, Voldemort (the villain) = impure and heartless. And thatās the same logic here, because Dumbledore is a manipulative ā āimpureā ā figure, Harry is then positioned against him, cast as the āpureā counterpart and automatically reduced to a passive lamb. All the nuance gets ignored, as if actions could only exist in a single, illogical dimension.
That kind of interpretation fails to account for Harry Potter himself.
Harry was a soldierā DAās leader, carrying out a mission he believed in, just as much as Dumbledore did. And he had plenty of personal reasons for it; to end the war that had defined his entire life, and to make sure no one else had to die for something that was always meant to end with him. His sacrifice was a choice ā one he had the courage and honor to make himself. Again, like a soldier, like a hero ā not because he was being manipulated by Dumbledore.
Yes, Dumbledore is an extremely manipulative individual, but implying Harryās choices were a product of that entirely misses the point of his character. The lack of actually reading the booksā where the narration is centered on Harryā leads some people to come up with random theories that erase defining elements of the story.
discoholicmusic
jbbartram-illu
origamiaround
germansingergirl
janainaart
kaledo-art
