Hm, so Dumbledore knows about Lockhart's memory-modifying ways. And appears to be amused by his fate! I think this supports the notion that Dumbledore hired Lockhart in the first place to teach him a lesson of some kind.
Rack up another point for dubious!Dumbledore . . . seriously, if he chose a self-aggrandizing liar over Lupin (to return to a discussion of the past), then all I can think is that either Lupin was simply unavailable or he really, really, really didn't want a werewolf on staff.
It makes sense, but only Lucius knows for certain.
Does it? I mean, yes, the media often treats Harry Potter like an adult - but would anyone seriously believe that an 11-year-old girl was committing hate murders? The more that I think about this explanation, the less sense it makes to me. Particularly considering the widespread and well-known use of the Imperius curse during Voldemort's reign, it seems like most people would assume outside manipulation or control, not a homicidal first-year.
(Dumbledore takes care to note that the Weasleys are "pure-bloods." Why? The sentence makes just as much sense without it.)
no subject
Rack up another point for dubious!Dumbledore . . . seriously, if he chose a self-aggrandizing liar over Lupin (to return to a discussion of the past), then all I can think is that either Lupin was simply unavailable or he really, really, really didn't want a werewolf on staff.
It makes sense, but only Lucius knows for certain.
Does it? I mean, yes, the media often treats Harry Potter like an adult - but would anyone seriously believe that an 11-year-old girl was committing hate murders? The more that I think about this explanation, the less sense it makes to me. Particularly considering the widespread and well-known use of the Imperius curse during Voldemort's reign, it seems like most people would assume outside manipulation or control, not a homicidal first-year.
(Dumbledore takes care to note that the Weasleys are "pure-bloods." Why? The sentence makes just as much sense without it.)