sitemap
FOLLOW SNITCHSEEKER:

Email Us!
Visit the Official WB SHop!

Members

Members in Chat:



If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   SnitchSeeker.com > Forums > Diagon Alley (Potterdom) > Flourish and Blotts (Books)

Flourish and Blotts (Books) For all discussion relating to the Harry Potter book series - with individual book forums, reviews, editorials, and romance shipping.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-11-2021, 02:34 PM   #1 (permalink)


Dark Force Defense League

MO & DoM
Banshee
 
BanaBatGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Gotham
Posts: 50,941

Hogwarts RPG Name:
William W. Williamson
Graduated

Student Character:
Bernadette O. Grantham
Sixth Year
Gryffindor

Ministry RPG Name:
Duncan M. Fletcher III
Minister's Office

Ministry RPG Name:
David O. Truebridge
Mysteries
Default Is Dumbledore secretly evil?
Professor Pink | Mrs. Bruce Wayne | I'm on a Goat | Glitterpuff | Evil Twin | #DancingQueen | BHB

It has come to my attention that not everyone out there loves and adores Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore in the same way that Ron Weasley and I do. Ahem. I would LOVE to get a little debate started on how/why people feel this way, so that I can then counter your points and try to convince you to love him again. Hehe.

In all seriousness, I think it's interesting that we're seeing more of him in his younger years in the newer Fantastic Beasts movies. I personally always hoped the author of this series would publish Rita Skeeter's biography of Dumbledore as a book in the same way she published Fantasic Beasts and Where to Find Them and The Tales of Beedle the Bard, etc. Maybe someday this will come true, so I can have a fuller understanding of him and his background.

But, speaking of Fantastic Beasts, does his portrayal in this series change your opinion of him? Does Dumbledore have any redeeming qualities? Do you think he's power-hungry, or are his intentions pure? What is his Meyers-Briggs type (this is SUCH a debate but I think it's linked to the secretly-evil thing)? Have you ever had a teacher or professor who reminded you of Dumbledore? Is Dumbledore a Machiavellian figure/The Godfather of the HP series, and if so, is that REALLY a problem?

There is much to discuss with this fan theory (or "conspiracy club" as I call it) and I'm here all weekend, so let's go!

BanaBatGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2021, 05:54 AM   #2 (permalink)
Moderator
Potterdom Mod
Quibbler & Newbie Mod



DMLE & DMT
Hinkypunk
 
ArianaBlack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: fb9912|77b5fe|c21e56
Posts: 12,449

Hogwarts RPG Name:
Finneas Schmoe
Graduated

Student Character:
Kinsay James
Third Year
Gryffindor
x10 x1

Ministry RPG Name:
Yasmin Golshiri
Transportation

Ministry RPG Name:
Tomasz Łaska
Law Enforcement
Default
doesn't proofread tweets | #wrongaboutcereal | emo to the extremo |#HouseNATARIANA

Hello, I present to you, a think piece. Apparently. I literally pulled my HP books off the shelf for this, I hope you're happy. This was supposed to be one paragraph maximum, I swear. SnitchSeeker must've glitched and stretched it out. I have no other explanation for what happened here.

I wouldn't say he's evil. But do I think he was manipulative and knew exactly what he was doing as he was doing it? Yes, I do and more on that later. Do I think he was lowkey (highkey?) a negligent headmaster? Yes, I do and more on that later. Do I think he had something to do with Sirius Black getting framed for murder and rotting in jail for 12 years without having had a proper trial? Yes, I do, even though there is no explicit evidence (and you know what, I get that, I do. But I still think it anyway) and this is not a point I will be harping on because I know the books give us limited information to draw an accurate conclusion here.

One of the things that bugs me terribly is that he kept James' invisibility cloak even though he knew that the Potters were in danger and that the cloak might be their only and last defense. This, of course, does not make him evil, but it does make ariana (me, not the Dumbledore one) big sad so I'm sliding it in anyway.

I think the thing that upsets me most about A. P. W. B. Dumbledore is his relationship with Snape. I haven't read the books in a real long time (aka middle school yikes), but if I recall correctly, Snape overheard (at least part of) the Prophecy (TM) and even though Dumbledore knew that Snape was a Death Eater (as this was common knowledge at the time), he still let Snape go? Then he allowed Snape to teach at Hogwarts. That in itself is a questionable decision, not to mention the fact that Dumbledore continued to let him teach (and made him Head of House) (and didn't stop him) despite the way Snape encouraged bad behavior from Slytherin students and bullied little children!!! The way Snape treated Hermione was absolutely abhorrent (in my opinion), though it paled in comparison to the way he haunted poor Neville. Poor Neville who was so scared of Snape that his boggart took the form of the potions professor. Does this make Dumbledore evil? No. But it does make him a negligent Headmaster, in my opinion.

But that wasn't the first time that Dumbledore was willing to turn his back and pretend bad things weren't happening under the auspices of his decision making. He also sent Harry to live with the Dursley's who were bullying and mistreating Harry from the get go. Big time. Making him live under a cupboard. Verbally being not-so-nice (TM). He also abandoned this poor little baby child on a cold november night in england. ;-; like. baby harry. this is so sad.

More on negligent Headmastery. He kept the philosopher's stone at Hogwarts even though he knew Bad People were after it? I get that HoGwArTs is the SaFeSt PlaCe in the WiZaRdInG wOrlD, but this sounds like a terrible idea. Even to me. Besides, three literal first years were able to get past the "security system". So as far as the wisest man Harry ever knew? Idk man. Something doesn't really add up there. Either he was just incredibly negligent or he wanted the Bad People to come get the stone so that the Events could take place. Also felt he could've done more to get Harry out of the Triwizard tournament, but maybe that's just me. And maybe he should've not let kids go into the forbidden forest to serve detentions?

I could go on about the questionable decisions as Headmaster, but that's a digression. So uh, moving on to the real meat and potatoes of whatever this post is turning out to be: Dumbledore and manipulation.

I won't argue that Dumbledore didn't have his reasons for what he did. I also won't say that he didn't care for Harry or Snape or others. I do think he cared a great deal for Harry. I also know that he made each of his decisions with the end goal of defeating Voldemort (for the "greater good").What I will argue, however, is that in order to achieve this goal, he crossed the line from being a well-intentioned leader to a ruthlessly determined manipulator. I say this because despite the loyalty he was shown time and time again, he always hid information from those fighting for his cause, in turn, keeping from them information needed in order to make free and informed decisions of their own. He found a way to take away free choice and free will under the premise that it was for a greater purpose. Even Aberforth, his own brother, said this in describing Dumbledore: "Secrets and lies, that's that's how we grew up, and Albus, he was a natural." I take this to mean he was well practiced in doing such things from a young age. Perhaps this means that by the time all the action happened in the HP books (he was at least 100 years old, right?), he was so far removed from the morality of his actions, that he couldn't see what he was doing for what it was (manipulation, the obstruction of free choice, etc.). So again, not going so far as to say this is evil, but it is (at least) morally questionable, no?

A very small example of these manipulative tendencies can be seen in his recruitment of Horace Slughorn to teach Potions at Hogwarts in Harry's sixth year. First and foremost, it cannot be denied that Dumbledore knew that Slughorn was close to Tom Riddle in his first go at teaching at the school. Slughorn had a memory that Dumbledore needed to extract in order to uncover crucial information in regard to the Horcruxes. Additionally, Slughorn and Riddle's proximity, might have resulted in Slughorn's recruitment to join the Death Eaters and perhaps it behooved Dumbledore to prevent this from happening as Sluggyboy was a divine potion's master and it'd be detrimental to have him on The Bad Side (this is just speculation, however). But I think what really showcases Dumbledore's manipulation is a much smaller act. Aka, bringing Harry along in order to recruit Slughorn. So why did Dumbledore bring Harry? I don't think it is standard practice to bring students along when you're making a hire. Dumbledore was smart, he knew that Slughorn liked to collect people (he even warned Harry that "he will undoubtedly try to collect" him). In bringing Harry to meet Slughorn (without telling him that they were going to do this), Dumbledore knew that he was presenting the man with an offer he could not resist, even saying that Harry would be "the jewel of his collection". While this is a seemingly small act and cannot be written off as "Evil", it does show us that Dumbledore is capable of manipulating people to get what he wants, even on a small scale.

I'm going to try my best not to go too into detail (because I think as far as the Great Dumbledore Debate goes, this part is pretty standard and also, it's almost midnight and my fingers are aching now), but one of the classic examples of Dumbledore and Manipulation is, of course, seen with Harry. Snape raises this point as clear as day: “I have spied for you and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter--” Here are the facts: The prophecy was quite clear in stating that Harry Potter had to die ("neither could live while the other survives"), he knew what happened the night that Voldemort tried to kill the potters because he, himself, explained the circumstance "on the night Lord Voldemort tried to kill him, when Lily cast her own life between them as a shield, the Killing Curse rebounded upon Lord Voldemort, and a fragment of Voldemort's soul was blasted apart from the whole, and latched itself onto the only living soul left in that collapsing building".

He never gave this information to Harry. If we are to assume the best, we might find ourselves saying that Dumbledore did not have ill intentions in hiding this information and/or for lying to Harry (and to Snape, for this matter). But what we must recognize, however, is that despite one's intentions, the impact and consequences can be detrimental (and they were). If he had given this information to Harry, it may have had domino effects and Harry perhaps would've acted out too early. Maybe he would have refused to help Dumbledore. Maybe he would've Gryffindor-ed and sacrificed himself too early. For whatever reason, Dumbledore chose to keep this information from HP so that he could set out what happened next according to his own plan. It was a game of chess and he already knew what his moves would be. Anything done outside of the scope of his own plan could be a risk. Is this not clouding Harry's freedom of choice?

But as questionable as his actions were in regard to Harry, I think his treatment of Snape is even worse in many ways. To be completely transparent here, I do not care for Snape at all whatsoever (to me he is the worst of the worst), but in speaking about manipulative tendencies, some of these moments take the cake and it'd be an injustice not to mention them. So here we are. Alas. A lot of this will be coming from A Prince's Tale. One of the first things we see is Snape going to Dumbledore to confess to blabbing about the prophecy to Voldemort, desperately Upset because the Evil Dude is going to go after Lily Potter. In begging for Dumbledore's help, Dumbledore replies "And what will you give me in return, Severus?"

There are a few things that make my tummy turn when thinking about this. We already know that Dumbledore would have every intention of protecting the Potters (regardless of Snape's pleading). They were members of his Order of the Phoenix. Furthermore, Dumbledore at this point (perhaps earlier as well, but we know by the plea that it was AT LEAST at this point) knew that Snape was Obsessed with Lily Potter and would likely go to lengths to keep her safe. So he must have known that Snape would have no choice, but to offer something BIG in return. That and Snape was a Death Eater begging for a favor. This was a good opportunity and Dumbledore was not holding back in taking advantage of it as we can see. Anyway, in return, Snape says he would do "Anything". He was cornered. 'Anything' also sounds a little scary to me. Selling his soul, kind of scary.

Then we take it to October 31st. A fun day filled with candy for some or for others, a night of mourning and the catalyst for unjust events that are to follow for several years to come aka The Potters' Deathday. Instead of offering Snape support (as the man was clearly distraught seeing as his Infatuation Crush had died), Dumbledore got Snape to agree to protect Harry. Despite intention (which we can only really make guesses about), he made Snape agree to something whilst in an emotionally compromised state in which no one should be expected to make a sound decision. Nevermind the fact that Snape was only 21 years old. Again, coming from a man who is 100+ years old, this all sounds very calculated. He knew the thing that Snape "loved" the most and used it as ammunition, effectively taking away freedom of choice (once again).

There's also the matter of the elder wand. Dumbledore admitted that he intended for Snape to have the wand, but why then was this information kept from Snape himself? He knew that Voldemort was going after the wand, effectively putting a target on Snape's back. Though we might go as far to say that Dumbledore intended for Snape to die, even if we don't say this... We can assume that Snape wasn't warned that Dumbledore knew he was putting a target on Snape's back because Snape was caught off guard at the Shrieking Shack in DH. He wasn't expecting for Voldemort to murder him. Again, another instance in which Dumbledore withheld key information.

That brings me to the last piece. When Snape finally learned the truth, he said "You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment?" to which Dumbledore replied "Don't be shocked, Severus. How many men and women have you watched die?"

Again, not to say this makes him Evil because he was working for a benevolent cause, yes, but it shows the desensitization / a disregard for human life, in a way. The classic morality question of 'do you sacrifice the one person for the sake of a mass'. You know, the one with the train and switching the tracks. There's no cut and dry Good or Evil, but it does, once again, reveal that Dumbledore justified the manipulation of those around him. He made the choice to take away choices for others.

I'm so tired and there's probably more I could say while I'm in the zone, but I'm just going to stop here thank u.

Also. Not to go all MBTI nerd on you, but I think Albus is an INTJ. I was debating on the E/I for a little bit, but I read somewhere that he was described as recluse. The N/S differentiation is also something I sat on for a little bit and I do think that these two values would be relatively close if not near a middle ground. I'm firm on the T and the J though. But I don't think his mbti type determines whether he is Good or Bad. I do think it gives us insight into his decision making, however, because (if we go with INTJ) his primary cognitive function is Introverted Intuition. This means that he processes information in the background, connecting dots without needing to consciously go from point a to b in order to do so. His Ni (again, assuming intj) means that he can see 10000 steps ahead. His mind is a chess board and people are pawns. Every move is being made in order to reach an ultimate end that he already has in sight. Does this make him evil? No. But it could perhaps lead him to believe that manipulation is a means to justify an end. His secondary function (again assuming intj) is External Thinking, which gives us even more insight into his decision making. A Te function (especially in this secondary slot) is the function he'll lean on in a spur of the moment need. That means that when stakes are high, he isn't going to be thinking with heart, which could perhaps be another reason as to why he is more likely to disregard how decisions will impact others and instead focus on the pragmatic outcomes. Again, not evil, but can produce manipulative tendencies if one is to act on Te alone. What I'm trying to say is that it is not so much mbti that determines who he is, but rather it influences his decisions and that coupled with the circumstances he is faced with and his existing value system / beliefs, could perhaps make a strong case for the reason as to why he believed his manipulative actions were justified. Some food for thought.

Finally, I would like to end this incessant tangent on the wise words of Sirius Black, who says: "Besides the world isn’t split into good people and Death Eaters. We’ve all got both light and dark inside of us. What matters is the part we choose to act on." I don't think that we can slot Dumbledore as Good, but I don't think we can slot him as Evil either. There's a gray area. His actions, while taken for the sake of a reasonably noble goal, often had negative impacts on those around him. Can we justify manipulation? Can we justify withholding free choice? Perhaps this is more of a question left in the hands of an individual, rather than a conclusion that can be drawn at large. It ultimately depends on an individual's value systems and beliefs.

And if you have made it to the end of this post, I'm sorry and I owe you one... Especially because I did not have the energy to read through for a spelling and grammar check.
__________________

Last edited by ArianaBlack; 02-12-2021 at 06:19 AM. Reason: ugh i lied the grammar is going to bother me
ArianaBlack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2021, 07:12 PM   #3 (permalink)
Ravenclaw
Bundimun
 
Nemesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 34
Default

Ariana, this is SUCH a good analysis. I really enjoyed reading it. I also don't see Dumbledore as being necessarily evil, but just quite flawed. He always made very calculated moves "for the greater good", and without much consideration for individuals involved. He talked a lot about love, but he used his emotional intelligence to persuade people to do things he wanted them to. Even children, which is a bit abhorrent to me.

And as much as he wanted to stop Voldemort, he failed to do many things when Voldemort was much younger to prevent it. His treatment of Harry and Tom was strikingly different (both orphans). He basically saw Tom as evil from the get-go because he was bitter, self-reliant and because he spoke Parseltounge, and pretty much gave up on him ever since, even though he was an obviously troubled 11yo kid. I feel like if he was given some guidance things could have potentially ended up differently. But Harry was useful to Dumbledore, and Tom wasn't. He blamed his inability to understand love on his theory (which was basically just a theory) that this inability came from being conceived under a love potion. But that really makes no sense because love potions were very much available in the wizarding world, so I believe quite a few kids would be conceived under their influence. I think it was a cope because he realized later on that he failed to give Tom the guidance he needed. Now of course that doesn't excuse anything he did later, but this part really rubbed me the wrong way.

The way he hid his brother and never spoke of him was also quite horrible. Dumbledore really kept up this image of being a kind, wise, perfect man, but many of his actions scream that he doesn't truly care about anyone if they are not useful for his plans. He's just too much removed from people as individuals to care, and too concerned with the greater good. I really don't have much more to add because I think you really nailed it.
Nemesis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2021, 07:37 PM   #4 (permalink)
Ravenclaw
Firecrab
 
astrocat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: New York City
Posts: 970

Hogwarts RPG Name:
Ashley "Ash" C. Fox
Third Year
Default

I don't know if he was EVIL, but he did some questionable stuff and was definitely a "the ends justify the means" kind of guy. He did a lot of stuff that was questionable/negligent. For example, he leaves Harry with his abusive family and hires a lot of teachers who are bad at their jobs.

Additionally, he is willing to sacrifice everything(including Harry, and Snape, and lots of other people) to defeat Voldemort, and he doesn't tell them that. I don't think that's morally wrong, but it isn't "good" either. They never really get to consider if they want to die for the greater good. They just do it.

Overall, I think he's a morally grey character, like lawful neutral or true neutral.
astrocat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2021, 10:39 PM   #5 (permalink)


Dark Force Defense League

MO & DoM
Banshee
 
BanaBatGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Gotham
Posts: 50,941

Hogwarts RPG Name:
William W. Williamson
Graduated

Student Character:
Bernadette O. Grantham
Sixth Year
Gryffindor

Ministry RPG Name:
Duncan M. Fletcher III
Minister's Office

Ministry RPG Name:
David O. Truebridge
Mysteries
Default I had to break some of these up so I could best reply. Heh.
Professor Pink | Mrs. Bruce Wayne | I'm on a Goat | Glitterpuff | Evil Twin | #DancingQueen | BHB

What fun we're about to have here, yay!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArianaBlack View Post
Hello, I present to you, a think piece. Apparently. I literally pulled my HP books off the shelf for this, I hope you're happy. This was supposed to be one paragraph maximum, I swear. SnitchSeeker must've glitched and stretched it out. I have no other explanation for what happened here.
I am happy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArianaBlack View Post
I wouldn't say he's evil. But do I think he was manipulative and knew exactly what he was doing as he was doing it? Yes, I do and more on that later. Do I think he was lowkey (highkey?) a negligent headmaster? Yes, I do and more on that later. Do I think he had something to do with Sirius Black getting framed for murder and rotting in jail for 12 years without having had a proper trial? Yes, I do, even though there is no explicit evidence (and you know what, I get that, I do. But I still think it anyway) and this is not a point I will be harping on because I know the books give us limited information to draw an accurate conclusion here.
No disagreements so far, but I do believe a large portion of Dumbledore's so-called "negligence" was due, in large part, to the hp author's desire to create a wizarding world of "magic and whimsy." Not sure why I put that in quotes when I'm just quoting myself and my own opinion, lmao, but why would the author bother explaining the nuances of the wizarding world legal practices? I wouldn't exactly call that wise use of her time.

Dumbledore also wasn't the only person sitting on the Wizengamot (and what other boards and officials etc.) at the time of Sirius' imprisonment. We have to remember that many of the stakeholders around that time were swept up in a certain frenzy/furor for punishing ANYONE who broke the law, or did Voldemort-esque things, or, say, attempted a public murder. And, technically, Sirius did attempt murder, which is a crime as far as I know. Perhaps DD thought through all the possible outcomes for both Sirius and Peter, and realized that Sirius would actually be safer in Azkaban than anywhere else.

....because if Dumbledore is truly an INTJ, then he is in fact capable of predicting that Voldemort would "rise again" and that Sirius, in turn, may flee Azkaban. Do we really think DD was unaware of the unregistered teenage animagi at Hogwarts back in the 1970s? More on that below, possibly.

It's also entirely possible that Dumbledore just got that one wrong. Idk. I'd have to reread the books to see if I still think Dumbledore is all that and a bag of crisps, but for the sake of argument and to refresh my rhetorical skills before I finish a paper I've been procrastinating, please allow me to continue this good-natured debate. You know I love you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArianaBlack View Post
One of the things that bugs me terribly is that he kept James' invisibility cloak even though he knew that the Potters were in danger and that the cloak might be their only and last defense. This, of course, does not make him evil, but it does make ariana (me, not the Dumbledore one) big sad so I'm sliding it in anyway.
You feeler you. He was keeping it safe for Harry but mostly for science so that he could thwart Public Enemy #1 aka Voldepants. Yessss, that's lowkey rotten, but not highkey, and anyway. There are MANY other ways of being invisible. I don't know that one (1) little cloak could have saved a family of three (3) from an army of feverish Death Eaters who were loyalists of Voldemort. Sad! But truly, how illogical of you to suggest this, AriFerrari!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArianaBlack View Post
I think the thing that upsets me most about A. P. W. B. Dumbledore is his relationship with Snape. I haven't read the books in a real long time (aka middle school yikes), but if I recall correctly, Snape overheard (at least part of) the Prophecy (TM) and even though Dumbledore knew that Snape was a Death Eater (as this was common knowledge at the time), he still let Snape go? Then he allowed Snape to teach at Hogwarts. That in itself is a questionable decision, not to mention the fact that Dumbledore continued to let him teach (and made him Head of House) (and didn't stop him) despite the way Snape encouraged bad behavior from Slytherin students and bullied little children!!! The way Snape treated Hermione was absolutely abhorrent (in my opinion), though it paled in comparison to the way he haunted poor Neville. Poor Neville who was so scared of Snape that his boggart took the form of the potions professor. Does this make Dumbledore evil? No. But it does make him a negligent Headmaster, in my opinion.
Ah, yes, the Snape hate. Classic! I mean, lmao, Snape kind of becomes a hilarious character as one ages and matures like a fine cheese. At least, in my case, I am definitely a Parmigiano-Reggiano at this point and I'm Very Much Over extending my energy toward Snivellus in the form of hatred. If you want to keep hating him, by all means. Be my guest. I know we've talked about this before hahahah.

However, I don't blame the boss for the employee's behavior. As the saying goes, "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." So once again, I defend Dumbledore's decision to keep Snape around for his usefulness, and in spite of his rudeness and general mistreatment of children. There's always at least ONE teacher like this in the real world, and as a rather Hermione-Neville combo myself, I can tell you that both became more resilient as a result of Snape's maltreatment. Hermione AND Neville had plenty of other teachers who loved them and I'm sure she at least still earned an O on her NEWT in Potions. Neville, meanwhile, was there to show how bullying at a young age (like what Snape experienced) can turn a victim into a bully as well (which is precisely what did happen to Snape, thanks to ya boi Snuffles). So, really, Snape's not THAT bad. The end justifies the means when it comes to Snape and ultimately... he got what he deserved for this maltreatment of children.

Would I name one of my kin after Snivellus? Heck to the no. But would I keep his portrait up in my office if I were the Headmistress in 2021? I suppose, though I might also keep it silenced because Snape's level of cynicism is too similar to what my own inner critic tells me on the daily anyway. Lols.

But, like I said, this is not REALLY negligence. In the real world, it's extremely difficult to fire a "bad" (really, just rude) yet good teacher like Snape (who probably had tenure by the time HP & co. attended). Also, I have the impression that Hogwarts is always hiring because NO ONE wants to work there.

So. This is not negligence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArianaBlack View Post
But that wasn't the first time that Dumbledore was willing to turn his back and pretend bad things weren't happening under the auspices of his decision making. He also sent Harry to live with the Dursley's who were bullying and mistreating Harry from the get go. Big time. Making him live under a cupboard. Verbally being not-so-nice (TM). He also abandoned this poor little baby child on a cold november night in england. ;-; like. baby harry. this is so sad.
The Dursleys were pretty bad, definitely. I definitely agree. The forced labor! Making Harry work outside all day! No eating until everyone else had eaten! Keep your pet bird in its cage in the house! How awful. I mean, I could definitely relate to doing yardwork every weekend as a kid and the end result of ALL THAT SUFFERING is that I now know how to manage the yard at my own house and can save money by not hiring a gardener and can share my yard knowledge with others and also now I only have to bug my mother every now and then with a photo and a, "Will my hostas come back in the spring?" However bad the Dursleys were... they did keep Harry safe, and the theoretical-level magical knowledge that Dumbledore possessed (re: the mother's/sister's love) DID work. So.... at the end of the day... Harry surived, and became more resilient in spite of his mistreatment.

In addition, how would Dumbledore know how bad Harry had it? He probably delegated the job of welfare checks to his deputy, aka Minerva, who could keep tabs on Harry in cat form, or better yet, he relied on the neighbor he placed in Harry's own neighborhood, Arabella Figg. If Mrs. Figg said the boy was fine, Dumbledore probably took her word for it because he's a good person and not going to interfere in every little childhood crisis because sometimes, letting kids be kids and make mistakes... results in stronger kids.

Honestly, having seen so many abused and neglected kids IRL at this point in my young life... I can tell you that Harry's childhood could have been much much worse. At least, from age 11 onwards, Harry didn't have to live with them for longer than the summer hols.

AND, don't forget, again, Dumbledore is not all bad. He sent his most loyal and loveable assistant Rubeus Hagrid to rescue Harry. I bet Minerva would have said, "No no, Hagrid can't do this job," but Dumbledore was pro-inclusion and always advocating to keep Hagrid on. So there's really no way DD would not allow HP to go to Hogwarts. Bless!



Quote:
Originally Posted by ArianaBlack View Post
More on negligent Headmastery. He kept the philosopher's stone at Hogwarts even though he knew Bad People were after it? I get that HoGwArTs is the SaFeSt PlaCe in the WiZaRdInG wOrlD, but this sounds like a terrible idea. Even to me. Besides, three literal first years were able to get past the "security system". So as far as the wisest man Harry ever knew? Idk man. Something doesn't really add up there. Either he was just incredibly negligent or he wanted the Bad People to come get the stone so that the Events could take place. Also felt he could've done more to get Harry out of the Triwizard tournament, but maybe that's just me. And maybe he should've not let kids go into the forbidden forest to serve detentions?
I'm not even going to argue with this one except, ah, ultimately... it was a good decision to put the philosopher's stone at Hogwarts, and frankly, I'm surprised you fell for the literal-first-years line of logic. Tsk tsk, Ariana, think deeper, my darling. (Also, you know I love you, and pls. "EvEn tO mE." Like you're not uber-brilliant AND charming. BECAUSE YOU ARE, OK.)

In my opinion, Dumbledore was using the philosopher's stone as a test to draw out Voldemort and to see where he was and how strong he was at that point in time (1991, supposedly). Let's think this one through as adults. I think DD kept tabs on the whereabouts of his faculty and staff throughout the summer holidays. I think he would not just allow p-p-poor, s-stuttering P-P-Professor Quirrell to roam the forests of Albania unsupervised, and then just... what, come back to work with a suspicious-looking turban on his head?

Obviously, Dumbledore predicted Voldequirrell's moves somewhat in advance and did his best to keep 1-2 steps ahead of them at all times, much like a carpenter building stairs. THAT'S why he moved the Stone to Hogwarts. He also, no doubt, acted democratically in the way he led Hogwarts. If Dumbledore was such a bad guy, why (or how) would he be able to get buy-in from virtually every magical expert and professor at Hogwarts? How was he able to convince EVERY staff member to contribute something to protect the Stone? If anything, Dumbledore isn't negligent; he's relentlessly optimistic. You HAVE to be an optimist to put your trust in children to make the right choices, or at least to make choices for the right reasons. Yeah, sometimes kids fail, and sometimes they're in danger, but again... I have a lot of experience as a teacher, and sometimes... kids surprise you in the absolute best way. I think what happened in book #1 is a clear example of kids and adults kinda working their kid-and-adult ways, and everything having an overall GOOD ending.

Let's not forget that Dumbledore's decisions DID RESULT in a happy ending for the entire HP series, ya'll.

While it is unfortunate that some of Dumbledore's decisions played out the way they did, and certainly, some trauma was added to the lives of young Potter, Granger, and Weasley over the course of the first year of their magical education, at the end of the day... those three bonded and became lifelong friends and stronger wizards when they faced the tests of aptitude required to save the Philosopher's Stone, their school, and ultimately, their souls.

I think Dumbledore just did his best to act as an invisible guide on their quest. He made questionable and chaotic choices, sure, but ones that panned out in the end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArianaBlack View Post
I could go on about the questionable decisions as Headmaster, but that's a digression. So uh, moving on to the real meat and potatoes of whatever this post is turning out to be: Dumbledore and manipulation.

I won't argue that Dumbledore didn't have his reasons for what he did. I also won't say that he didn't care for Harry or Snape or others. I do think he cared a great deal for Harry. I also know that he made each of his decisions with the end goal of defeating Voldemort (for the "greater good").What I will argue, however, is that in order to achieve this goal, he crossed the line from being a well-intentioned leader to a ruthlessly determined manipulator. I say this because despite the loyalty he was shown time and time again, he always hid information from those fighting for his cause, in turn, keeping from them information needed in order to make free and informed decisions of their own. He found a way to take away free choice and free will under the premise that it was for a greater purpose. Even Aberforth, his own brother, said this in describing Dumbledore: "Secrets and lies, that's that's how we grew up, and Albus, he was a natural." I take this to mean he was well practiced in doing such things from a young age. Perhaps this means that by the time all the action happened in the HP books (he was at least 100 years old, right?), he was so far removed from the morality of his actions, that he couldn't see what he was doing for what it was (manipulation, the obstruction of free choice, etc.). So again, not going so far as to say this is evil, but it is (at least) morally questionable, no?
Yikes! Such harsh words! I don't entirely disagree but of course, I'm going to defend Dumbledore and say that sometimes, leaders have to make decisions that not everyone will understand. And part of being a leader means taking those tough decisions on yourself and acting alone, or at least, in a less-democratic fashion than many of us are used to seeing in front of the camera.

Just because we didn't see "free choice" and "free will" from the perspective of the characters in the books doesn't mean it wasn't actually happening behind the scenes. I've kind of alluded to this in my earlier responses to you, my dear, but continuing on the example of sending Hagrid to rescue Harry from the Dursleys: Do you really think DD didn't run many of his ideas by Minerva McGonagall? I think he did. In fact, I think he left a lot of the little details up to those who were better qualified to handle such things... for example, relying on the Order of the Phoenix and the Weasley family to act as a REAL family for Harry. I think just the Order's mere existence is an example of a rather democratic and independently-run organization, in my humble opinion, that Dumbledore could have shut down if here were truly oh-so-manipulative and controlling.

Aberfoth is also an unreliable character witness; he has many years of bitterness and family history with Albus, and he also, ah, makes questionable choices. For more information on Aberforth and his questionable choices, please google what he was arrested for. I've kinda talked about this with you before but it's... more adult stuff than I can address here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArianaBlack View Post
A very small example of these manipulative tendencies can be seen in his recruitment of Horace Slughorn to teach Potions at Hogwarts in Harry's sixth year. First and foremost, it cannot be denied that Dumbledore knew that Slughorn was close to Tom Riddle in his first go at teaching at the school. Slughorn had a memory that Dumbledore needed to extract in order to uncover crucial information in regard to the Horcruxes. Additionally, Slughorn and Riddle's proximity, might have resulted in Slughorn's recruitment to join the Death Eaters and perhaps it behooved Dumbledore to prevent this from happening as Sluggyboy was a divine potion's master and it'd be detrimental to have him on The Bad Side (this is just speculation, however). But I think what really showcases Dumbledore's manipulation is a much smaller act. Aka, bringing Harry along in order to recruit Slughorn. So why did Dumbledore bring Harry? I don't think it is standard practice to bring students along when you're making a hire. Dumbledore was smart, he knew that Slughorn liked to collect people (he even warned Harry that "he will undoubtedly try to collect" him). In bringing Harry to meet Slughorn (without telling him that they were going to do this), Dumbledore knew that he was presenting the man with an offer he could not resist, even saying that Harry would be "the jewel of his collection". While this is a seemingly small act and cannot be written off as "Evil", it does show us that Dumbledore is capable of manipulating people to get what he wants, even on a small scale.
Sure, this was manipulative, but I think at that point, Dumbledore was hoping Harry would figure things out on his own without having to tell him. He was trying to teach Harry about the Deathly Hallows through indirect means. As a teacher, tough concepts are often easier to understand if students access them through their own perspectives, value systems, etc. than if they're directly spoon-fed information. So I think Dumbledore, being the optimist his was, was trying his damned best with Harry and sometimes, in hindsight, when you're dead and can no longer defend yourself, someone might spin history to make you out to be a big bad villian. For more information, please read Rita Skeeter's biograph of Dumbledore. Lol.

And yeah, so, some manipulation happened there with Slughorn. I underlined the bit of your post that says how I see this chain of events in particular. But it was actually a manipulation of Slughorn, not Harry, you see. You have to set aside your personal feelings sometimes in order to see clearly, I say. And yet, here I am, feeling that DD is a good not bad, so uh, I'm doing the same thing as you.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ArianaBlack View Post
I'm going to try my best not to go too into detail (because I think as far as the Great Dumbledore Debate goes, this part is pretty standard and also, it's almost midnight and my fingers are aching now), but one of the classic examples of Dumbledore and Manipulation is, of course, seen with Harry. Snape raises this point as clear as day: “I have spied for you and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter--” Here are the facts: The prophecy was quite clear in stating that Harry Potter had to die ("neither could live while the other survives"), he knew what happened the night that Voldemort tried to kill the potters because he, himself, explained the circumstance "on the night Lord Voldemort tried to kill him, when Lily cast her own life between them as a shield, the Killing Curse rebounded upon Lord Voldemort, and a fragment of Voldemort's soul was blasted apart from the whole, and latched itself onto the only living soul left in that collapsing building".

He never gave this information to Harry. If we are to assume the best, we might find ourselves saying that Dumbledore did not have ill intentions in hiding this information and/or for lying to Harry (and to Snape, for this matter). But what we must recognize, however, is that despite one's intentions, the impact and consequences can be detrimental (and they were). If he had given this information to Harry, it may have had domino effects and Harry perhaps would've acted out too early. Maybe he would have refused to help Dumbledore. Maybe he would've Gryffindor-ed and sacrificed himself too early. For whatever reason, Dumbledore chose to keep this information from HP so that he could set out what happened next according to his own plan. It was a game of chess and he already knew what his moves would be. Anything done outside of the scope of his own plan could be a risk. Is this not clouding Harry's freedom of choice?
See above. I think I addressed this in my previous and possibly later sections. Except for the underlined bit, which I'll address now.

I am just going to say: NO. If Dumbledore had TOLD Harry all of this directly, THEN Harry's decision-making would have been clouded. I think DD did his best to STAY OUT OF HARRY'S LIFE so Harry could grow up somewhat normally! All along, I think DD was trying to thwart Voldemort on a higher plane, on the adult chessboard. I think Dumbledore viewed Tom Riddle as a student he probably feels like he FAILED to HELP back in the day, and so he was trying to prevent Voldemort from getting to Harry NOW in the present day!

All I can see with Dumbledore is, honestly, a lotta classic "good guy" moves in order to defend the defenseless (aka, children) and to use his knowledge for good and not evil, because he recognizes within himself how tempting power can be (and as an INTJ, I have the same problem). Dumbledore is human, and ergo, flawed, but still indubitably on the right side of history in the HP universe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArianaBlack View Post
But as questionable as his actions were in regard to Harry, I think his treatment of Snape is even worse in many ways. To be completely transparent here, I do not care for Snape at all whatsoever (to me he is the worst of the worst), but in speaking about manipulative tendencies, some of these moments take the cake and it'd be an injustice not to mention them. So here we are. Alas. A lot of this will be coming from A Prince's Tale. One of the first things we see is Snape going to Dumbledore to confess to blabbing about the prophecy to Voldemort, desperately Upset because the Evil Dude is going to go after Lily Potter. In begging for Dumbledore's help, Dumbledore replies "And what will you give me in return, Severus?"
I think it's interesting that you're now taking Severus' side in the debate against Dumbledore when I thought, earlier, you were attacking Dumbledore for hiring and keeping him on? Sure, this could be viewed as manipulation. Or perhaps, with Alus being a Gryffindor and having a strong sense of right and wrong and chivalrous behavior, Dumbledore is in fact treating Severus the way Severus has treated many of his students. Again, what a human thing to do. Lol.

Do you see the difference? If anything, Dumbledore is extremely consistent in walking that moral gray area and trying, always, to keep himself moving toward the light and not toward the darkness that's within us all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArianaBlack View Post
There are a few things that make my tummy turn when thinking about this. We already know that Dumbledore would have every intention of protecting the Potters (regardless of Snape's pleading). They were members of his Order of the Phoenix. Furthermore, Dumbledore at this point (perhaps earlier as well, but we know by the plea that it was AT LEAST at this point) knew that Snape was Obsessed with Lily Potter and would likely go to lengths to keep her safe. So he must have known that Snape would have no choice, but to offer something BIG in return. That and Snape was a Death Eater begging for a favor. This was a good opportunity and Dumbledore was not holding back in taking advantage of it as we can see. Anyway, in return, Snape says he would do "Anything". He was cornered. 'Anything' also sounds a little scary to me. Selling his soul, kind of scary.
Sure, it's scary. But Severus had already sold his soul to the devil (a true Faustian bargain) when he aligned with Voldemort first. So, really, what Dumbledore was offering Severus was a pathway toward salvation and a chance to be on the right side, the good side, of history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArianaBlack View Post
Then we take it to October 31st. A fun day filled with candy for some or for others, a night of mourning and the catalyst for unjust events that are to follow for several years to come aka The Potters' Deathday. Instead of offering Snape support (as the man was clearly distraught seeing as his Infatuation Crush had died), Dumbledore got Snape to agree to protect Harry. Despite intention (which we can only really make guesses about), he made Snape agree to something whilst in an emotionally compromised state in which no one should be expected to make a sound decision. Nevermind the fact that Snape was only 21 years old. Again, coming from a man who is 100+ years old, this all sounds very calculated. He knew the thing that Snape "loved" the most and used it as ammunition, effectively taking away freedom of choice (once again).
I don't know that Snape's age is really a factor here as it was not clear to me when I read this series what time or place or space these books were set in. LOL. Your emotional reasoning here is simply not swaying me toward your argument, my friend!! But I love you for trying. Sure, it sounds and feels calculated, and I would be disappointed if my friend who was MUCH OLDER THAN ME were not using their knowledge and wisdom to help 21 year old me.

I mean, this is why I frequently look up to those with PhDs in my field and take their counsel and ingest it and then make my own decisions. Because if they're close to retirement, I would hope they have some influence on me. There just is no such thing as complete and utter free choice and pure independence in a world that is as hyper-connected as the one we live in. That's just... reality, to an extent. I do not think Dumbledore "took" anything away from a man who chose to be a Death Eater before choosing to respond to his life of pain and suffering with kindness and empathy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArianaBlack View Post
There's also the matter of the elder wand. Dumbledore admitted that he intended for Snape to have the wand, but why then was this information kept from Snape himself? He knew that Voldemort was going after the wand, effectively putting a target on Snape's back. Though we might go as far to say that Dumbledore intended for Snape to die, even if we don't say this... We can assume that Snape wasn't warned that Dumbledore knew he was putting a target on Snape's back because Snape was caught off guard at the Shrieking Shack in DH. He wasn't expecting for Voldemort to murder him. Again, another instance in which Dumbledore withheld key information.

That brings me to the last piece. When Snape finally learned the truth, he said "You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment?" to which Dumbledore replied "Don't be shocked, Severus. How many men and women have you watched die?"
Hah, that's a callous reply, and one Severus deserves to hear. Because Severus HAS done bad things for the sake of selfish reasons, as I mentioned. Perhaps Dumbledore saw things playing out the way they did and perhaps he didn't. However, all actions have consequences. Dumbledore was ultimately killed by Snape, technically, don't forget. Again I say to you, directly giving people information doesn't always work. Not everyone will just listen to an expert, as you and I both know having lived through 2020 in the USA, so sometimes, you have to find the right way to reach your audience.

Snape is definitely an emotional person who acts on his feelings. Dumbledore knew that. DD is an excellent teacher who knows that it takes an individual connection with each person to really reach them at their just-right level (also called the zone of proximal development). So yeah, DD DID have to play up Snape's feelings in order to get him to behave and not go to the Dark Side time and time again. Okay? I know it's emotional manipulation, and yeah, it's.... kinda playing dirty, but it's also... a highly effective rhetorical strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArianaBlack View Post
Again, not to say this makes him Evil because he was working for a benevolent cause, yes, but it shows the desensitization / a disregard for human life, in a way. The classic morality question of 'do you sacrifice the one person for the sake of a mass'. You know, the one with the train and switching the tracks. There's no cut and dry Good or Evil, but it does, once again, reveal that Dumbledore justified the manipulation of those around him. He made the choice to take away choices for others.

I'm so tired and there's probably more I could say while I'm in the zone, but I'm just going to stop here thank u.
I love you, my friend, and thank you so much for engaging with me in my debate/thesis defense of a great character. Heh. I hope you enjoy my responses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArianaBlack View Post
Also. Not to go all MBTI nerd on you, but I think Albus is an INTJ. I was debating on the E/I for a little bit, but I read somewhere that he was described as recluse. The N/S differentiation is also something I sat on for a little bit and I do think that these two values would be relatively close if not near a middle ground. I'm firm on the T and the J though. But I don't think his mbti type determines whether he is Good or Bad. I do think it gives us insight into his decision making, however, because (if we go with INTJ) his primary cognitive function is Introverted Intuition. This means that he processes information in the background, connecting dots without needing to consciously go from point a to b in order to do so. His Ni (again, assuming intj) means that he can see 10000 steps ahead. His mind is a chess board and people are pawns. Every move is being made in order to reach an ultimate end that he already has in sight. Does this make him evil? No. But it could perhaps lead him to believe that manipulation is a means to justify an end. His secondary function (again assuming intj) is External Thinking, which gives us even more insight into his decision making. A Te function (especially in this secondary slot) is the function he'll lean on in a spur of the moment need. That means that when stakes are high, he isn't going to be thinking with heart, which could perhaps be another reason as to why he is more likely to disregard how decisions will impact others and instead focus on the pragmatic outcomes. Again, not evil, but can produce manipulative tendencies if one is to act on Te alone. What I'm trying to say is that it is not so much mbti that determines who he is, but rather it influences his decisions and that coupled with the circumstances he is faced with and his existing value system / beliefs, could perhaps make a strong case for the reason as to why he believed his manipulative actions were justified. Some food for thought.

Finally, I would like to end this incessant tangent on the wise words of Sirius Black, who says: "Besides the world isn’t split into good people and Death Eaters. We’ve all got both light and dark inside of us. What matters is the part we choose to act on." I don't think that we can slot Dumbledore as Good, but I don't think we can slot him as Evil either. There's a gray area. His actions, while taken for the sake of a reasonably noble goal, often had negative impacts on those around him. Can we justify manipulation? Can we justify withholding free choice? Perhaps this is more of a question left in the hands of an individual, rather than a conclusion that can be drawn at large. It ultimately depends on an individual's value systems and beliefs.
First of all, you know you are more than welcome to MBTI nerd-out on me at any point in time.

And second of all, uh, I don't disagree with your assessment. I'm also an INTJ, sigh, and I hate it because no one seems to believe us when we work for good and not for evil purposes. So if one's intentiosn are pure, and their moral balance sheet is "more" good than evil, I think we can classify them, in my opinion, as good.

I tell ya again, Dumbledore is good. He's one of the good guys. He's on the light side. He frequently makes choices that benefit others more often than himself. He did make THE ultimate sacrifice as well. I think a lot of his decisions were made while looking through a lens of optimism and hope, along with some deep-seated desire to try to allow Harry as "normal" an upbringing as the boy could have. One way to look at Harry, according to SNAPE the son of a gun, is a lamb for the slaughter. But Albus probably looked at Harry as the savior of the free world, and, ultimately, that's exactly what Potter did.

The world isn't split into good people and death eaters, true, but the world is defined by the choices we make and how we react to the consequences of those choices. Dumbledore defnitely proved himself a white knight, a character definitely Gandalf's equal. Could the author of this series have framed him in a more positive light? Sure. But perhaps she will also continue to develop his character in worse ways as she continues to add rubbish and fan-service films to her legacy.

I think I've said my piece and I know you're probbbbably not convinced if you've read this far but alas! I'm going to go have a lemondrop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemesis View Post
Ariana, this is SUCH a good analysis. I really enjoyed reading it. I also don't see Dumbledore as being necessarily evil, but just quite flawed. He always made very calculated moves "for the greater good", and without much consideration for individuals involved. He talked a lot about love, but he used his emotional intelligence to persuade people to do things he wanted them to. Even children, which is a bit abhorrent to me.

And as much as he wanted to stop Voldemort, he failed to do many things when Voldemort was much younger to prevent it. His treatment of Harry and Tom was strikingly different (both orphans). He basically saw Tom as evil from the get-go because he was bitter, self-reliant and because he spoke Parseltounge, and pretty much gave up on him ever since, even though he was an obviously troubled 11yo kid. I feel like if he was given some guidance things could have potentially ended up differently. But Harry was useful to Dumbledore, and Tom wasn't. He blamed his inability to understand love on his theory (which was basically just a theory) that this inability came from being conceived under a love potion. But that really makes no sense because love potions were very much available in the wizarding world, so I believe quite a few kids would be conceived under their influence. I think it was a cope because he realized later on that he failed to give Tom the guidance he needed. Now of course that doesn't excuse anything he did later, but this part really rubbed me the wrong way.

The way he hid his brother and never spoke of him was also quite horrible. Dumbledore really kept up this image of being a kind, wise, perfect man, but many of his actions scream that he doesn't truly care about anyone if they are not useful for his plans. He's just too much removed from people as individuals to care, and too concerned with the greater good. I really don't have much more to add because I think you really nailed it.
I like how you added more of the Tom Riddle element to this debate!

The love potion thing is indubitably a flawed argument and weak justification of the behavioral choices Tom Riddle consistently made but I do not think Tom Riddle's inner flaws are Aberfoth Dumbledore's fault. If anything, Tom Riddle has some serious developmental and mental health problems stemming from birth and sometimes that's no one's fault but a roll of the die, a deal of the hand, a dip into the gene pool. Perhaps the author's "conceived under a love potion" excuse is actually an extended metaphor for what I've just explained above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by astrocat View Post
I don't know if he was EVIL, but he did some questionable stuff and was definitely a "the ends justify the means" kind of guy. He did a lot of stuff that was questionable/negligent. For example, he leaves Harry with his abusive family and hires a lot of teachers who are bad at their jobs.

Additionally, he is willing to sacrifice everything(including Harry, and Snape, and lots of other people) to defeat Voldemort, and he doesn't tell them that. I don't think that's morally wrong, but it isn't "good" either. They never really get to consider if they want to die for the greater good. They just do it.

Overall, I think he's a morally grey character, like lawful neutral or true neutral.
I don't know that I would directly tell anyone, "Hey babe, can u sacrifice urself for me real quick," either, but... I wouldn't do that because that's just not how human communication works effectively.

One thing I do wish Dumbledore would have done was left more of a Last Will and Testament to explain himself, or perhaps a pensieve or a collection of letters or something, but hey, he's got a portrait in the Headmaster's Chambers that can hopefully answer for his choices. I still think DD is more good than evil so.... light side all the way.

Ro out!
__________________

in the night I hear 'em talk the coldest story ever told ☆ _________________________________________
__________________
somewhere far along this road ☆ he lost his soul to a woman so heartless __________________

BanaBatGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 02:05 PM.


Homework Help Service


This Harry Potter and Wizarding World fan website and community is not endorsed by Hogwarts, Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling, Warner Bros., Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Quidditch, Deathly Hallows, Sorcerer's Stone, Wizards, Muggles, No-Maj, MACUSA, Newt Scamander, Video Games, Half-Blood Prince, Orders of the Phoenix, Goblet of Fire, Philosopher's Stones, Chamber of Secret, Pottermore, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Eddie Redmayne, Cursed Child, or any other official Harry Potter source.

All content is copyright ©2002 - 2016, SnitchSeeker.com unless stated otherwise. Privacy Policy

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.3.2 © 2009, Crawlability, Inc.
Site designed by Richard Harris Design

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209