#pro dumbledore

[tyashj]

[thephiesintheforest]

I have been thinking today about Dumbledore's and Snape's roles in the story and why I personally, find one more compelling then the other.

(I think the reason why I've been thinking about that is because I follow a lot of great Snape blogs whose favourite is obviously Severus. And the thing is, I get why! I love his character too! But Albus just tickles my brain a bit more ...)

Anyway, in my opinion, the four main characters through which morality is explored in the books are Harry, Voldemort, Snape and Dumbledore. Voldemort and Harry make up one axis of morality. Their stories mirror each other in many ways, while their reactions to what happens to them stands in direct opposition to each other. One could go into detail here, but since this post is not supposed to be about them, I'll simply argue that this axis explores the concepts of deliverance through selfless love and sacrifice vs. damnation through selfish and self-centred hubris (oh the protestantism of it all...).

And then there's the axis that is Snape and Dumbledore. Again, two characters with remarkably similar backgrounds. (Broken families, intelligence, isolation and othering throughout their lives...) And, contrary to Voldemort and Harry, these two even make very similar choices that lead them into very similar catastrophes. (They react to their respective situation by radicalisation into very dangerous and violent ideologies, leading to a loved one's death.)

A part of their reactions to these are also similar. Both pledge themselves to some sort of penance, both are deeply changed and scarred. Both isolate themselves even more from the people around them.

BUT there is a difference and it's not a moral one. It's how they present themselves. It's how they appear to the rest of the world and thus how we first get to know them.

Severus is not a pleasant man. We can argue about just how much damage he did to his students and if he's actually as bad a teacher as he appears to be through Harry's eyes. But there is no doubt that he is just ... not nice. And not kind either. He's spiteful, often snide, makes openly hurtful comments and holds a grudge like nobody's business. And all of these things are VERY obvious.

Albus (barring some glaring exceptions that most people never see and we only get to witness very late in the game) is none of these things. He's gentle, quirky, humorous and sort of just distantly kind to his students. Everyone we meet that we are supposed to trust places him on a pedestal as a beacon of both morality and intellect, while at the same time, painting him as a bit of an eccentric. All of these things isolate him as effectively from other's as Severus unpleasantness. They serve essentially the same purpose, yet leave very different impressions on both a young Harry, and the reader.

In other words, both of these characters have built reputations around themselves that serves to distance themselves from others. They don them as masks because they do not want what's underneath — their humanity, their vulnerability, their love and pain — to be known.

Yet what's underneath is remarkably similar. The difference is that one mask is (to maybe stretch that metaphor a bit too thin) significantly more pleasant, more comforting than the other. So for one (Snape) what's underneath is beautiful by comparison. For the other (Dumbledore) it can only be hideous if what one is used to and expecting is the ideal of goodness itself. Dumbledore, who was previously a godlike figure, was torn down by his humanity. Snape, by contrast, was lifted up by his.

Aside 1: I think this is one of the reasons why so many fans hate Dumbledore to an almost comical extend. They haven't forgiven him for not having lived up to the ideal he projected of himself, the ideal of pure goodness that only ever was a facade to begin with. So when he makes a mistake (for example, when he hurts Harry through neglect bc he fears what will happen when he gets too close), it must be malicious instead of simply the human failure of a traumatised man.

Aside 2: I think Dumbledore recognises this too (that he was torn down by his humanity, where Severus was lifted up). The phrase "my word, Severus, that i shall never reveal the best of you" (quoted from memory) has always struck me that way. Albus views his own capacity to love as his downfall. In Severus, he sees it as his salvation. I wonder if there was ever resentment there...

Anyway, this is, imo what the moral axis of Snape and Dumbledore explores: The inevitability of one's humanity and goodness, not as an absolute transcendant ideal, but a conscious struggle within a complicated world.

I, personally, find the tearing down of Dumbledore as a god figure more emotionally and philosophically intriguing than the lifting up of Snape. Maybe because to believe in the lie of the benevolent god is so much more convenient and comfortable than to believe in the lie of the nasty and unpleasant children's book villain.

The latter one demands forgiveness for the mask (and many can't forgive that either) but the former, demands forgiveness and sympathy for what's underneath. And that is, I think, significantly harder.

[rickktish]

unsolicited rick opinions (unpopular character opinions edition)

Dumbledore is unambiguously a good guy, actually. fraught choices when he was young, but as an adult, and for the duration of the books? literally just doing his best to try to give the kid he can't figure out how to save the safest and happiest childhood he can get away with, constantly thwarted by safety and happiness doing their best to become mutually exclusive states of being for said kid

Loki is actually personally responsible for the vast majority of Thor's suffering, directly (he hurt Thor) or indirectly (the consequences of his actions led to Thor being hurt/losing people important to him/etc and those consequences would not have occurred had Loki been less of a dick/acted differently), and I don't think he deserves redemption of any kind. He's not sympathetic, he's just clever, and that's insufficient to make him forgivable. I also think Thor's position in Ragnarok (I've trusted Loki too many times and gotten burned for it and I no longer believe anything he says at all) is 100% valid and I would personally support him in staying mad instead of forgiving for like. at least a few centuries

Uchiha Itachi is not redeemable, nor do I pity him for the actions he himself committed; while I can see being sympathetic toward his position between a rock and a hard place, he lost all mourning privileges when he intentionally manipulated his younger brother to become a tool for his own suicide. His only redeeming feature is his association with Kisame, who-- unlike Itachi-- is a genuinely interesting character with interesting motivations instead of bullshit ones

the point of anakin skywalker's tragedy is that he could have made better choices and he didn't, not that the jedi somehow abused, neglected, or controlled him. He was always destined to destroy the sith, but HE'S the one who decided to become one of them, therefore requiring him to also destroy himself. He could have done it the right way if he wanted to, and externalizing the blame onto the Jedi is missing the point

speaking of which, the jedi are also unambiguously the good guys and trying to argue otherwise is ignoring the text

severus snape should have suffered more, actually; he's a self-obsessed gross little worm man who needs to let go of the girl he drove away by his own actions and choices, but he never actually becomes that mature. He never grew up past being an immature, whiny teenager and unlike sirius black, whose time incarcerated makes sense to have essentially paused his progress toward becoming a mature and responsible adult in at least some ways, snape was literally living a life and doing a grown up job and STILL never figured out how to be a grown-ass man instead of a slimy homunculus more interested in tormenting children than teaching them.

Qui-Gon Jinn? also unambiguously a good guy. He and the council don't hate each other actually. he is neither the paragon of all that the jedi should have been nor a terrible master and friend who should be scorned for his behavior; he's literally just a regular jedi. because the jedi are good people, and so is he.

Uchiha obito is more interesting when we remember that he's the kind of guy who would try to end the world because Rin died and try to imagine what was going on in his head when he was a kid that made him that way instead of coming up with reasons to make him Not be that kind of person

Haruno Sakura and Hyuuga Hinata deserve to be allowed to be housewives if they want to be, actually. To make things even more interesting they should have entirely different motivations for doing so

(edit bc i just got reminded of another one): All Might is actually not a terrible person for telling Izuku he didn't think he could be a hero; remember, All Might himself was a quirkless kid who got nowhere until he got a quirk, and he's also in the worst time of his life, losing the thing that gives him a sense of self (being able to use his quirk), in massive amounts of pain, etc. he's literally just a guy who's depressed and has internalized (self-directed) ablism that's now unfortunately also coming out and hurting a kid who asked him for advice, and the narrative proves him right actually (at least as far as i ever read; i did not finish bnha) because izuku does in fact only get to do any of the things he does because he got a quirk.

[pro-dumbledores-office]

Breaking Down Dumbledore's Outfit - Harry Potter HBO

In honor of HBO dropping their first trailer for the new Harry Potter tv show, I thought I would do a quick breakdown of the three different outfits we have seen Dumbledore in so far.

Promotional Outfit

This look gives us a very clear sense of how HBO is going to approuch Dumbledore's robes, and it is a noticeable shift away from the brighter, more decorative styles of the early films. The outer robe is a deep burgundy velvet with what appear to be maybe blue stripes that almost reads as black in low light, with a soft sheen that suggests a heavy, slightly worn fabric, and the cut is entirely traditional—long, flowing, and loose, with wide sleeves that open at the cuffs and reveal a slightly different tone inside, adding subtle depth without any need for embroidery or pattern, which is entirely absent here; beneath it, we see only hints of a very dark inner robe, likely black or deep brown, keeping the palette nearly monochromatic, while the hat follows the same restrained logic, being a soft, slouched cap in a dark, matte fabric with only light trim and embellishment, giving him more the look of a scholar than a theatrical wizard; his hair and beard are long and natural, less styled than in earlier portrayals, blending into the robe and creating a continuous vertical silhouette, and this is paired with minimal accessories—just his half-moon glasses and a simple ring.

Beach Scene with Flamels

In the behind scenes photo of Dumbledore on the beach he is wearing what at first glance appears black robes but on closer inspection reads as a very dark, inky blue. The outer robe carries a faint, almost quilted or patterned finish that adds quiet richness without ever becoming decorative, and the cut is more structured than in the previous look, hanging closer to an overcoat with broader shoulders and a straighter line through the body, while the sleeves remain tight and controlled rather than dramatically flared. Beneath it, a similarly dark inner robe of burgundy and blue.

Trailer Dumbledore

In the trailer itself we get just a glance at Dumbledore. Not even a good enough look to know what color his robes are. However, he is wearing a very different style of hat and is clearly also wearing his spectacles which I think clearly establishes that unlike the films, he almost never takes them off in the show. Also holding some sort of tuning fork.

[asoakedtoast]

Every time someone says “dumbledore ruined Sirius’s life” all I think of is the meme “how could I have ruined your life? I wasn’t even there.” Like ommggg marauders fan really need a scape goat for everything, how is the bad life decisions of some group of teenagers his fault, save my man frfr

[mostlyauideas]

People need to understand that characters can be interpreted differently in ways that make them more or less likeable and there is no way that anyone has the same interpretation as you.

The only thing you and another person have in common is that you’ve both (presumably) read the source material.

The moment you start creating headcannons for a character you have got remember that they are in your head only.

You cannot “win” an argument about your character with headcannons.

Many of you should pivot make OC’s. At a certain point you are wasting your interesting ideas on pre-existing characters and turning them into Frankenteins in the process.

If a character you like is criticised (as all characters should be) in a way you don’t agree with then either you need to consult the cannon to try to understand their perspective or move on.

You will not “win” an argument against someone using headcannons, they will not let you.

You cannot “win” an argument against someone using cannon, it’s all perspective.

[chocfrog-enjoyer]

How some people view Dumbledore: Evil Mastermind that manipulates everyone around, is the true embodiment of evil, wants absolute control and a mindless army. And also will poison you with his Veritaserum dosed candy

How I view Albus Dumbledore:

Drawn for the amazing @thick-woollen-socks

[golden-earcuffs]

everyone at hogwarts thinks that dumbledore is partial to gryffindors but then newt scamander walks into the great hall and albus yells 40 points to hufflepuff because newt brought him sugar quills