big woman in a little world

dumbledore is the most interesting character in harry potter by a huge margin. raising a child soldier like veal but loves him but lies to him constantly. smartest and coolest person in every room playing 7D chess just running circles around everybody. met an 11 year old orphan and was like "I can tell you're evil and disgusting and i need you to know i wont tolerate it" and set his dresser on fire to intimidate him. Gay. Was in love with a terrorist. Thinks everything is funny. Just fucking with people constantly

I know people didn't respect jkr as a writer even before she got radicalized but it's wrong that people blame her for the epidemic of simpleton adult readers because 1) she wrote those books for kids 2) the simpletons cannot even grasp nuance as simple as "dumbledore loved harry but still put him in fucked up situations because he was a general in a war." they're like "wow she didn't even get how evil dumbledore was" or "she obviously wrote dumbledore as an evil abuser." No it's complicated. You are too young/uneducated to understand what WW1 and WW2 did to the british mind and how they think about their children. She's doing it and also satirizing it. Understand this

OP, why didn’t Dumbledore just kill Harry, destroy the Horcruxes, then kill Voldemort? What was the end goal of “raising Harry like veal”?

you wanted that old man to just kill a boy?

@some1completelydifferent I answered this cheekily bc I thought it was a bad faith question, but I checked your blog and presume it's not. I know I'm not OP, but I'm happy to answer.

Book 1: Dumbledore knows the night that Harry survived the killing curse, extraordinary magic happened. He quickly deduces that Lily's love saved him, but can't be sure what happened to Voldemort. Perhaps he knows enough or something about Horcrux's here to suspect them, but he can't be certain. He only knows for certain that Voldemort survived that night in some capacity by the end of the book. He also knows that Voldemort survived in a very weak capacity, which is perhaps the catalyst of him starting to suspect he created multiple (but he can't be sure).

Book 2: Harry destroys the Diary. Now Dumbledore can start really formalizing his theory that 1. Voldemort created a horcrux 2. Voldemort created multiple horcruxes 3. Perhaps Harry is a horcrux on accident then.

Book 4: Voldemort reconstitutes with Harry's blood. Dumbledore can now be fairly certain that Lily's protection lives on in Voldemort as well, and that Harry will likely survive an attack from Voldemort. Dumbledore can also start theorizing that if Harry sacrifices himself willingly, the same magic can then happen again (which he's right about, Harry's love protects his friends in the final battle).

Book 6: Dumbledore has gotten to work at destroying horcruxes by this book. He does this to fight Voldemort and to protect Harry from the task. He is afraid of Voldemort learning that Dumbledore knows his secret, so he keeps his plans secret. He starts teaching Harry info about Voldemort and Horcruxes while keeping his hand hidden. He doesn't want to scare Harry with what Dumbledore thinks is the best method to truly kill Voldemort: that Voldemort unsuspectingly kills a piece of himself inside Harry. Dumbledore realizes he's going to die before he can do most of the work. He destroys the Ring, and gets enough info to suspect the Locket and the Chalice (and the Snake). Dumbledore has Harry get the memory from Slughorn to confirm how many Horcruxes Voldemort was considering.

Dumbledore had no time to eliminate all the Horcruxes, and he would have had to kill a boy he loved, instead of helping Harry potentially survive and protect people while he do it, and fulfill the prophecy (Voldemort will create a living Horcrux and then eliminate that Horcrux himself...neither can live while the other survives etc.)

Dumbledore explains most of this in the King's Cross chapter in book 7.

Lol, of course not. I was asking OP a question in the hopes that they would examine their statement re Dumbledore raising Harry like veal/as a child soldier, because I find that to be a fanon-tainted and deeply inaccurate take that's spawned thousands of unreadable fanfics and a lot of truly irritating meta. Dumbledore did love Harry. His machinations were intended to save him, not use him, that's the big reveal we get in King's Cross, and I don't understand why so, so, soooooo many people seem to have skipped that chapter.

I know the details you've described, believe me. My argument is that Snape was wrong, Dumbledore did not raise Harry as a pig to the slaughter. Once he understood about the Horcruxes, he -could- have just killed Harry and then destroyed as many remaining Horcuxes as he could while possibly entrust destruction of the rest to any number of other adults, or whatever. But his plan regarding Harry started before he was Cursed by the ring, so that's not relevant anyway.

Dumbledore didn't manipulate Harry to destroy Voldemort; he manipulated Harry -so he could live-. Dumbledore is incredibly complicated, he's a wonderful character, but he did not raise Harry as a child soldier. He took a horrific situation and put as may pieces into place as he could so that an innocent child wouldn't have to die to save the world.

Okay, but OP is making allusions to the themes of the book, which I think is accurate. Dumbledore is a fictional character, but in the real world teenagers are sent to die in order to "protect their country." I agree with OP that JKR meant that as intentional connection, that is why Snape says the line to put the thought in our heads as well. This is why she uses fascist imagery for the Death Eaters. Dumbledore represents a kind of thinking, and Harry questions that thinking in the seventh book. That is why Dumbledore is interesting, which she says in her post.

I agree that Snape is meant to put that thought in our head. Harry definitely thinks it's true as he walks to Voldemort, which is devastatingly heart-breaking and very similar to Jesus' "Why have you forsaken me?" For the magic to imbue the people fighting back at the castle with blood-protection, he needed to believe he was about to die so it would be a true sacrifice. Did Dumbledore know that would happen? I'm not sure. But he did choose to allow Harry to believe he was walking to his death. Maybe, because he was mostly sure Harry would survive Voldemort's curse, but not entirely sure.

But if JKR had intended us to see Dumbledore as using Harry as a child soldier who was always intended to die for the great good, that would have been the plot. And it wasn't. As I said above, we get the fantastic reveal of the truth at King's Cross. Dumbledore wasn't using Harry to win the war, he was guiding to him to survive. Death Eaters have fascist/KKK imagery, because they're evil bigots.

And, sure, you can read a message about how war is particularly destructive to children in HP. That's definitely there. But Dumbledore "raising a child soldier like veal" is just not true. It's not a part of his particular complexity.

I have just very recently, like a week ago, finished re-reading the books through OotP, and "Dumbledore is coldly using Harry" is just completely inaccurate. He lies—or fudges facts, or leaves things out— on occasion if he feels he has to or to preserve his own privacy. "Socks" But his "manipulation" and withholding of information is doing almost entirely out of love and the fear that that love will harm Harry, because every time Dumbledore has allowed himself to love someone, it's ended in disaster. It's all there in the conversation they have after Sirius dies.

#I never learned to do one and that's why my life is all fucked up

OP was using heightened and humorous language to imply her point, which is that Dumbledore felt compelled to risk Harry's life without Harry's knowledge, which makes him a multilayered and interesting character because it's a direct allegory to kids being sent to the trenches. Posts are generally more fun when using heightened and humorous language, especially when evoking 19 year olds dying in the thousands in the trenches. Dumbledore is also GAY!!!! 🥳🥳🥳🥳

escapedaudios

When I was a little boy, girls used to just do random cartwheels for no reason. Then one day, they stopped. Now that I am a man, no women randomly do cartwheels. This is because society is evil and killed the cartwheel impulse in their soul. They don't even spin horizontally anymore. It's fucked up.

dumbledore is the most interesting character in harry potter by a huge margin. raising a child soldier like veal but loves him but lies to him constantly. smartest and coolest person in every room playing 7D chess just running circles around everybody. met an 11 year old orphan and was like "I can tell you're evil and disgusting and i need you to know i wont tolerate it" and set his dresser on fire to intimidate him. Gay. Was in love with a terrorist. Thinks everything is funny. Just fucking with people constantly

I know people didn't respect jkr as a writer even before she got radicalized but it's wrong that people blame her for the epidemic of simpleton adult readers because 1) she wrote those books for kids 2) the simpletons cannot even grasp nuance as simple as "dumbledore loved harry but still put him in fucked up situations because he was a general in a war." they're like "wow she didn't even get how evil dumbledore was" or "she obviously wrote dumbledore as an evil abuser." No it's complicated. You are too young/uneducated to understand what WW1 and WW2 did to the british mind and how they think about their children. She's doing it and also satirizing it. Understand this

OP, why didn’t Dumbledore just kill Harry, destroy the Horcruxes, then kill Voldemort? What was the end goal of “raising Harry like veal”?

you wanted that old man to just kill a boy?

@some1completelydifferent I answered this cheekily bc I thought it was a bad faith question, but I checked your blog and presume it's not. I know I'm not OP, but I'm happy to answer.

Book 1: Dumbledore knows the night that Harry survived the killing curse, extraordinary magic happened. He quickly deduces that Lily's love saved him, but can't be sure what happened to Voldemort. Perhaps he knows enough or something about Horcrux's here to suspect them, but he can't be certain. He only knows for certain that Voldemort survived that night in some capacity by the end of the book. He also knows that Voldemort survived in a very weak capacity, which is perhaps the catalyst of him starting to suspect he created multiple (but he can't be sure).

Book 2: Harry destroys the Diary. Now Dumbledore can start really formalizing his theory that 1. Voldemort created a horcrux 2. Voldemort created multiple horcruxes 3. Perhaps Harry is a horcrux on accident then.

Book 4: Voldemort reconstitutes with Harry's blood. Dumbledore can now be fairly certain that Lily's protection lives on in Voldemort as well, and that Harry will likely survive an attack from Voldemort. Dumbledore can also start theorizing that if Harry sacrifices himself willingly, the same magic can then happen again (which he's right about, Harry's love protects his friends in the final battle).

Book 6: Dumbledore has gotten to work at destroying horcruxes by this book. He does this to fight Voldemort and to protect Harry from the task. He is afraid of Voldemort learning that Dumbledore knows his secret, so he keeps his plans secret. He starts teaching Harry info about Voldemort and Horcruxes while keeping his hand hidden. He doesn't want to scare Harry with what Dumbledore thinks is the best method to truly kill Voldemort: that Voldemort unsuspectingly kills a piece of himself inside Harry. Dumbledore realizes he's going to die before he can do most of the work. He destroys the Ring, and gets enough info to suspect the Locket and the Chalice (and the Snake). Dumbledore has Harry get the memory from Slughorn to confirm how many Horcruxes Voldemort was considering.

Dumbledore had no time to eliminate all the Horcruxes, and he would have had to kill a boy he loved, instead of helping Harry potentially survive and protect people while he do it, and fulfill the prophecy (Voldemort will create a living Horcrux and then eliminate that Horcrux himself...neither can live while the other survives etc.)

Dumbledore explains most of this in the King's Cross chapter in book 7.

Lol, of course not. I was asking OP a question in the hopes that they would examine their statement re Dumbledore raising Harry like veal/as a child soldier, because I find that to be a fanon-tainted and deeply inaccurate take that's spawned thousands of unreadable fanfics and a lot of truly irritating meta. Dumbledore did love Harry. His machinations were intended to save him, not use him, that's the big reveal we get in King's Cross, and I don't understand why so, so, soooooo many people seem to have skipped that chapter.

I know the details you've described, believe me. My argument is that Snape was wrong, Dumbledore did not raise Harry as a pig to the slaughter. Once he understood about the Horcruxes, he -could- have just killed Harry and then destroyed as many remaining Horcuxes as he could while possibly entrust destruction of the rest to any number of other adults, or whatever. But his plan regarding Harry started before he was Cursed by the ring, so that's not relevant anyway.

Dumbledore didn't manipulate Harry to destroy Voldemort; he manipulated Harry -so he could live-. Dumbledore is incredibly complicated, he's a wonderful character, but he did not raise Harry as a child soldier. He took a horrific situation and put as may pieces into place as he could so that an innocent child wouldn't have to die to save the world.

Okay, but OP is making allusions to the themes of the book, which I think is accurate. Dumbledore is a fictional character, but in the real world teenagers are sent to die in order to "protect their country." I agree with OP that JKR meant that as intentional connection, that is why Snape says the line to put the thought in our heads as well. This is why she uses fascist imagery for the Death Eaters. Dumbledore represents a kind of thinking, and Harry questions that thinking in the seventh book. That is why Dumbledore is interesting, which she says in her post.

dumbledore is the most interesting character in harry potter by a huge margin. raising a child soldier like veal but loves him but lies to him constantly. smartest and coolest person in every room playing 7D chess just running circles around everybody. met an 11 year old orphan and was like "I can tell you're evil and disgusting and i need you to know i wont tolerate it" and set his dresser on fire to intimidate him. Gay. Was in love with a terrorist. Thinks everything is funny. Just fucking with people constantly

I know people didn't respect jkr as a writer even before she got radicalized but it's wrong that people blame her for the epidemic of simpleton adult readers because 1) she wrote those books for kids 2) the simpletons cannot even grasp nuance as simple as "dumbledore loved harry but still put him in fucked up situations because he was a general in a war." they're like "wow she didn't even get how evil dumbledore was" or "she obviously wrote dumbledore as an evil abuser." No it's complicated. You are too young/uneducated to understand what WW1 and WW2 did to the british mind and how they think about their children. She's doing it and also satirizing it. Understand this

OP, why didn’t Dumbledore just kill Harry, destroy the Horcruxes, then kill Voldemort? What was the end goal of “raising Harry like veal”?

you wanted that old man to just kill a boy?

@some1completelydifferent I answered this cheekily bc I thought it was a bad faith question, but I checked your blog and presume it's not. I know I'm not OP, but I'm happy to answer.

Book 1: Dumbledore knows the night that Harry survived the killing curse, extraordinary magic happened. He quickly deduces that Lily's love saved him, but can't be sure what happened to Voldemort. Perhaps he knows enough or something about Horcrux's here to suspect them, but he can't be certain. He only knows for certain that Voldemort survived that night in some capacity by the end of the book. He also knows that Voldemort survived in a very weak capacity, which is perhaps the catalyst of him starting to suspect he created multiple (but he can't be sure).

Book 2: Harry destroys the Diary. Now Dumbledore can start really formalizing his theory that 1. Voldemort created a horcrux 2. Voldemort created multiple horcruxes 3. Perhaps Harry is a horcrux on accident then.

Book 4: Voldemort reconstitutes with Harry's blood. Dumbledore can now be fairly certain that Lily's protection lives on in Voldemort as well, and that Harry will likely survive an attack from Voldemort. Dumbledore can also start theorizing that if Harry sacrifices himself willingly, the same magic can then happen again (which he's right about, Harry's love protects his friends in the final battle).

Book 6: Dumbledore has gotten to work at destroying horcruxes by this book. He does this to fight Voldemort and to protect Harry from the task. He is afraid of Voldemort learning that Dumbledore knows his secret, so he keeps his plans secret. He starts teaching Harry info about Voldemort and Horcruxes while keeping his hand hidden. He doesn't want to scare Harry with what Dumbledore thinks is the best method to truly kill Voldemort: that Voldemort unsuspectingly kills a piece of himself inside Harry. Dumbledore realizes he's going to die before he can do most of the work. He destroys the Ring, and gets enough info to suspect the Locket and the Chalice (and the Snake). Dumbledore has Harry get the memory from Slughorn to confirm how many Horcruxes Voldemort was considering.

Dumbledore had no time to eliminate all the Horcruxes, and he would have had to kill a boy he loved, instead of helping Harry potentially survive and protect people while he do it, and fulfill the prophecy (Voldemort will create a living Horcrux and then eliminate that Horcrux himself...neither can live while the other survives etc.)

Dumbledore explains most of this in the King's Cross chapter in book 7.

dumbledore is the most interesting character in harry potter by a huge margin. raising a child soldier like veal but loves him but lies to him constantly. smartest and coolest person in every room playing 7D chess just running circles around everybody. met an 11 year old orphan and was like "I can tell you're evil and disgusting and i need you to know i wont tolerate it" and set his dresser on fire to intimidate him. Gay. Was in love with a terrorist. Thinks everything is funny. Just fucking with people constantly

I know people didn't respect jkr as a writer even before she got radicalized but it's wrong that people blame her for the epidemic of simpleton adult readers because 1) she wrote those books for kids 2) the simpletons cannot even grasp nuance as simple as "dumbledore loved harry but still put him in fucked up situations because he was a general in a war." they're like "wow she didn't even get how evil dumbledore was" or "she obviously wrote dumbledore as an evil abuser." No it's complicated. You are too young/uneducated to understand what WW1 and WW2 did to the british mind and how they think about their children. She's doing it and also satirizing it. Understand this

OP, why didn’t Dumbledore just kill Harry, destroy the Horcruxes, then kill Voldemort? What was the end goal of “raising Harry like veal”?

you wanted that old man to just kill a boy?

let that woman be strangely dogmatic and cold to her toddler

I really enjoy media where moms are like dads. anti-maternal instinct characters. perhaps because of my own mommy issues, which is fine and normal

when I'm old and looking back at this time in my life I think I'm going to think wow what huge waste of my time

tennesseewillams

whatever tho. not like i really care that much because im cool and easy going

dumbledore is the most interesting character in harry potter by a huge margin. raising a child soldier like veal but loves him but lies to him constantly. smartest and coolest person in every room playing 7D chess just running circles around everybody. met an 11 year old orphan and was like "I can tell you're evil and disgusting and i need you to know i wont tolerate it" and set his dresser on fire to intimidate him. Gay. Was in love with a terrorist. Thinks everything is funny. Just fucking with people constantly

#yeah like imagine if winston churchill was gay and whimsical and he had found a magical boy that could explode like a bomb but survive it #he'd be like get me that boy I need to send that boy over there with all the other boys I sent over there

I know people didn't respect jkr as a writer even before she got radicalized but it's wrong that people blame her for the epidemic of simpleton adult readers because 1) she wrote those books for kids 2) the simpletons cannot even grasp nuance as simple as "dumbledore loved harry but still put him in fucked up situations because he was a general in a war." they're like "wow she didn't even get how evil dumbledore was" or "she obviously wrote dumbledore as an evil abuser." No it's complicated. You are too young/uneducated to understand what WW1 and WW2 did to the british mind and how they think about their children. She's doing it and also satirizing it. Understand this

mezbiyen-deactivated20220330

scientifically speaking, it actually makes total sense homosexuality exists. first it's rad as hell but also more seriously of course you don't want your whole population producing babies. that would be disastrous. science is actually so easy if you get over god and misogyny

#meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee #I don't care peep these tits

coworkers will be people who have conversations about new cell phones models for 20 minutes.

isn't that funny? out in the real world you will never meet someone who wants to talk about new cell phone models for 20 minutes, but then at work at every job everyone will be that person.