Ghosts Are Transparent

fandom blog but also random musings. 21. He/him. 

[urupotter]

Dumbledore as a Mentor

Dumbledore is the most well executed mentor figure for Harry in the series, for two reasons.

First is what he represents. Since the very beginning of the series, he trusts him absolutely, and is along with the Weasleys the only adult with whom he shares that title. But Harry trusts Dumbledore even though he doesn't know anything about him. Harry, who has a pathological mistrust of adults, always feels that he can rely on him. He's the only wizard that Voldemort ever feared, and his very presence at Hogwarts makes it so that there is at least one place which Harry knows is safe.

And then he's killed. Just before the final book, before the last confrontation Harry and the Dark Lord will have, the man whom Harry though he could most rely on dies. The warm blanket of comfort and safety that Dumbledore provided is suddenly gone, and Harry must face Voldemort as his own man, no mentors to guide and protect him. His final challenge. "The last and greatest of his protectors had died, and he was more alone than he had ever been before" Of course, there was another protector left still, but Harry didn't know that at the time.

Dumbledore is also unique among Harry Potter characters in that he's the one who most understands the Harry Potter settings supernatural elements.

Fantasy and supernatural are not the same. Fantasy is when things that would not be possible in our world, indeed, what in the real world would be classified as supernatural, are mundane elements of the setting, as real and part of nature as anything else. Magic, dragons, spells, potions and house elves and all, is part of the nature of the world. They are not considered supernatural elements for wizards, the way they are for muggles. Supernatural elements are those that surpass what is perceived as natural in any given setting. Harry Potter as a series has both, and Dumbledore is the only character who truly understands them.

What am I talking about? Mainly (though not exclusively) Love, capital L. In Harry Potter, Love, unconditional, true, Love is more than just an emotion. It has magical reality, it tangibly affects the world. While it falls under the umbrella of magic, It is the most mysterious and least understood of the magics. It is ancient, and powerful beyond belief. It is what made Harry's mind agony for the Dark Lord to touch. What permitted Dumbledore to trust Snape absolutely (and if you want a more detailed analysis of how Love and Snape are fundamentally intertwined, and how his arc is among the most important in telling the message Rowling wanted to tell, read this meta by rex-luscus), what allowed Harry to survive the unstoppable Killing curse, when no one had ever done it before.

Most powerful mentor figures in fiction teach the protagonist powerful spells and magic. It's expected. After all, in most stories, the hero defeats the villain by growing to match them in power. Not so in Harry Potter. Harry, while a powerful wizard, and very talented in DADA, is nothing out of this world. He never approaches Voldemort's league. Whenever his killing curse fails, it is by supernatural mechanisms, that Voldemort cannot fathom but that neither fully understand. Lily's protection. Priori Incantatem. The supernatural phenomenon of the magical world. In both these scenarios, the first to understand what truly happened and explain is Dumbledore. In their private sessions, Dumbledore never teaches Harry powerful spells, or Potions, as many would expect him to (that role is left to other mentors of his, mainly Lupin and Snape). He teaches him philosophy, how to understand the mind of Tom Riddle, and about the nature of magic itself as a phenomenon. He teaches him wisdom, to understand the world. That's why, when Harry comes into his own, it is no surprise that he defeats him by understanding, on a deeper level, the Deathstick. Another of the myths and legends of the magical world, that is nonetheless real. When Voldemort casts at Harry his third and last killing curse, he dies, with only Harry understanding why. He has learned all that Dumbledore wanted to teach him. He has taught him to be wise.

Voldemort's main flaw is that magic only has value to him in so much as it is a tool that he can bring under his control to increase his power. He views it almost like a scientific discipline. And in those areas, the non supernatural ones, he is unrivalled. Dumbledore is at most his equal, but probably not. When they fight, they are evenly matched, even though Dumbledore has the Elder Wand. Dumbledore acknowledges him as the most brilliant student that Hogwarts has ever seen, a tacit admission that he is his superior. And yet, Dumbledore is the greatest sorcerer to ever live. Why? Because he understands the mysteries of magic, knows that magic is a fundamentally supernatural force. Voldemort opened his mind to the power of magic, but could not see what lay beyond. His mind remained shackled, and he never did understand magic beyond what is conceivable by science. Dumbledore did, and that's why he's the only one he ever feared. And it's what makes him the perfect mentor for Harry.

[urupotter]

I’ll add, Grindelwald himself recognized that this was Voldemort’s weakness. Grindelwald was Dumbledore’s equal in the understanding of the supernatural, but he was his inferior in his mastery of the natural. Grindelwald and Dumbledore together had solved the mystery of the mythical Deathly Hallows. That’s why Dumbledore beats him in a duel, even though Gellert had the Elder Wand. He never even tries to do this with Voldemort, as he recognizes that it will not be a successful approach.

When Voldemort goes to visit Grindelwald, hoping to find information about the Elder Wand, he laughs at him. He mocks him, saying that the wand will never be his, that “...there is so much you do not understand...”

He was right. The wand was never his, because Voldemort lacked understanding. And that proved to be his downfall.

[urupotter]

Further support for this meta comes from a wonderful detail pointed out to me by the wonderful @ashesandhackles (who you should all follow if you like Harry Potter!).

In the chapter The Silver Doe in Deathly Hallows, Ron saves Harry from drowning at the bottom of the lake where Snape placed the Sword of Gryffindor. He is also the one who manages to grab the sword.

Shivering violently, he staggered to his feet. There before him stood Ron,, fully dressed but drenched to the skin, his hair plastered to his face, the sword of Gryffindor in one hand and the Horcrux dangling from its broken chain in the other.

To test whether the sword is actually genuine, they resolve to try to destroy the Horcrux.

"You reckon this is the real one?" asked Ron

"Only one way to find out, isn't there?" said Harry

After that, this happens:

When Ron offered the sword, however, Harry shook his head.

"No, you should do it"

"Me?" said Ron, shocked. "Why?"

"Because you got the sword out of the pool. I think it's supposed to be you."

He was not being kind or generous. As certainly as he had known that the doe was benign, he knew that Ron had to be the one to wield the sword. Dumbledore had at least taught Harry about certain kinds of magic, of the incalculable power of certain acts (emphasis mine).

I think that speaks for itself no? It's the first indication of Harry's new understanding of the deeper magics, and his recognition of the man who taught him.

[urupotter]

Bravery is often framed as a type of emotion. I... really don't agree with that framing. To be brave is to control your fear. It's overriding your fear to do what your mind wants. It's emotional control, to be brave is a key part of what it means to be rational.

I think it's something that could be compelling if explored in a main character. Have as a protagonist or side character one of those cold, rational, calculating characters, but who is also a coward. She rationalizes giving into fear as not being reckless, and being in control of her emotions. Her arc would be realizing that that isn't what's happening at all, she's instead just giving into her fear, and that you cannot truly call yourself a rational being if you're not able to be brave.

[urupotter]

a common failing among policy data analyst types is a sort of… intense econ brain, applied to politics.

There’s a certain type of pundit whose advice basically consists of looking at issue polls and advising politicians to shift their rhetoric and positions as close to the median voter as possible. Implicit in this type of analysis is that voters have fixed and exogenous preferences over political outcomes that cannot be meaningfully influenced.

This is a type of framework imported from economics, specifically consumer theory. It’s reasonable to apply there, both in a normative sense (the alternative is paternalism, which economists are right to be wary of) and in a positive sense, in that whether a particular consumer prefers, say, apples or bananas makes sense to take as given and fixed (to a point, marketing is a thing and probably has some effect).

It is very much misapplied to politics. Voters by and large don’t really know what they want, and for the vast majority of issues either hold no strong opinion, don’t know anything about it, don’t care, or form their views from social consensus. If you’re a politician and you believe this framework, you’ll totally abandon the idea of personally framing and creating the narrative around specific issues. You’ll abandon the idea of investing in propaganda campaigns (after all, if voter viewed are fixed beforehand, what’s the point?). And you’ll cede the field to those who don’t believe this. Essentially consigning yourself to a reactive position, an empty vessel for the “will of the people” (as determined by issue polls)

[urupotter]

It’s still pretty unbelievable to me that when the online right say that people like Mark Carney are communists they really mean it.

They aren’t grifting, are not cynically lying, they sincerely believe that Mark Carney, a literal Goldman Sachs international banker, who served as head of not one, but *two* central banks, is a marxist communist. I’d almost prefer it if they were grifting, but no, they’re just totally insane

[urupotter]

The American economy will explode on April 4th

[urupotter]

Reading the Neil Gaiman charges… there are some deeply evil people in this world man. Some people are hollow inside and you’d never know

[urupotter]

Thank god Trump is doing the tariffs. The more he blows up the American economy the better, it’s necessary that his popularity tanks. Makes it much harder to establish a hybrid regime that way. Fascism cannot be allowed to become a successful electoral program in the global hegemon. It must be associated with failure

[urupotter]

One of the reasons I find Snape kind of unique as a character in the stories I've read in that his particular combination of traits is... rare. By this I mean in that A) he has virtues and skills that would normally appear in a main character, a hero, hell even a teen boy power-fantasy, completely larger than life demonstrations of competence and virtue, while at the same time B) having traits that would normally be given to petty villains in order to make them look lame/pathetic, in order for the audience to laugh at the loser. (petty villains are not the same as regular villains, it's the difference between Filch and Voldemort. Voldemort is infinitely more evil but is rarely someone you pity/think is a loser the way you do Filch).

For A) he is a genius immensely skilled at magic and is hyper competent, inventing spells and potions as a teenager, is self sacrificing and brave to ridiculous extremes, over and over again, more than any other character bar the protagonist himself, is a spy that constantly makes the main villain look like a fool, is so virtuous he risks himself to save people he hates because it's the right thing to do, has tons of sarcastic one liners and witty jokes, is intimidating and smooth and has presence, I could go on. All these are traits you give to the Harry Potters of the world.

For B) he's ugly in a very visceral way, he bullies children who did nothing to him and makes them cry, he's bullied and never truly gets his revenge, in fact the girl he's in love with gets together with his bully, he's constantly humiliated (i.e. the Neville boggart scene where he's made to dress in an old woman's clothes, Dumbledore telling him that he disgusts him, the SWM scene). All this is stuff you give to the Filch's of the world.

More interesting than gray morality of whatever the fuck, which I've seen before, Snape is unique to me in that he's as much of a classical hero, larger than life teenage hyper-competence power fantasy made to idealize and try (and inevitably fail) to live up to as he is a pathetic petty tyrant loser made for the audience to laugh at and feel sorry for while hating him at the same time. It's like if you fused Harry Potter's virtues with Argus Filchs flaws. And he never really stops being either of these things throughout the story, he is cool and pathetic always. It's what makes him so incongruous to me, and part of what makes him inspire such strong emotions. People, whether fans or people that hate him, don't really know on what traits to lean into more: Is he cool or pathetic? Lame or awesome? The reality is that he's both. At both extremes at the same time, writing Snape correctly requires toeing the line between power-fantasy and masochistic self-flagellation.

[urupotter]

perhaps a more pithy way to put is that the vast majority of characters are only ever Harry Potter or Argus Filch in the spectrum of coolness. I've never seen a character touch both extremes at the same time so much and so often. I'd be interested to hear in which other characters in other series are like this, it's a character template I really like.

[urupotter]

I disagree with this in that I think trying to save Lupin in DH is a pretty strong counter example! It isn't really pragmatic (he risks his cover for basically no strategic benefit, Lupin isn't that important in the grand scheme of things to defeat Voldemort), and he still detests Lupin, is afraid of him and bigoted towards him for being a werewolf (which incidentally is another flaw given to losers!). It's straight out of stuff like the Knights Radiant in the Stormlight Archives lol (I will protect even those I hate, so long as it is right)

Tbh I'm not sure how much Snape actually despises children (other than Harry, he definitely hates Harry) and how much of the bullying is just stuff he does because he finds cruelty amusing. It's kind of like his social maladjustment. I think you can both interpret Snape as having really good social skills and emotional control (Occlumency, being a spy, etc) and the constant dickishness and cruelty and pissing people off being something he does because he enjoys it, or you can also interpret him as being socially kind of inept like I tend to see in fandom. Both takes on Snape are viable imo, depend on if you lean more into the competent parts of his character or into the loser parts.

[urupotter]

“All art is political” where “political” is basically used to mean “the way society is organized and functions” isn’t even true as stated even if it weren’t a uselessly broad interpretation. Realistic self portraits are informed by the laws of physics and the way the brain interprets light, both of which are older than society

[urupotter]

Someone should write a vampire society fantasy story where the big twist is that it’s a giant vegan allegory and transitions into horror near the end. Just straight up copy industrial factory farming but for humans and have none of the characters (which you’ve spent the whole previous part of the story developing and having the audience connect with) bat an eye.

[urupotter]

no im sorry but I definitely am going to need to know more about ??? A cannibal??? An ethical one?? Visiting your school to talk about cardiovascular diseases?? Please

Guy who visited went on a plane flight in the 70’s which crash landed into the Andes mountains along with his rugby team. He and the other survivors lasted about a week with the left over rations, but once their piss turned black they resorted to… other food sources. It was ethical because they only ate people that were already dead and they all agreed that if they died the others were allowed to eat them. They were stuck there for three months until the dude and one other guy went on a ten day trek and managed to find a guy. Dude’s name was Roberto Canessa, and later he became a cardiologist. There’s a movie about the event that came out recently on Netflix, it’s called Society of the Snow. I rec it

[urupotter]

HP x ASOIAF fusion. Remus Lupin is Barristan the Bold.

[urupotter]

Hard Man who makes Hard Decisions and sees himself as super rational but is actually a hypocrite and just as emotionally driven as the people he derides is a super common trope but I’d like to see the opposite.

Soft and warm man who sees himself as super in touch with his feeling and very passion driven but is a hypocrite since he’s actually rational and calculating

[urupotter]

GRRM should add a Romeo and Juliet plotline between House Bracken and House Blackwood at some point

[urupotter]

“And the meek shall inherit the earth”. Unreal cooking. Three Michelin star level stuff. Jesus was on fire with that one

[urupotter]

what's your most unhinged hp take?

Idk. Maybe that Snape’s arc is unironically the same type of arc characters like Peter Parker go through?

Not really unhinged though, just funny. Idk, I’d have to think about it more lol. If I ever think of an appropriate one I’ll reblog this post, so follow me anon if you want to stay updated

[urupotter]

HC that Dumbledore talking shop with Snape about Potions or Occlumency is probably the only time he dislikes talking about magic. Basically the only times he’s talking to a superior in any area of magic since Tom Riddle and Grindelwald, brings up bad memories.