The good guys are usually identified in terms of their loyalty to Dumbledore . . . Everything Dumbledore presents seems designed to make kids feel safe, even when they aren't.
Well, I'm willing to concede that Dumbledore tolerates a cult of personality. :) But I honestly think a more important issue is the set of attitudes he encourages in his followers. And to me, he definitely does not seem to encourage a habit of dependence on himself, or passivity in the absence of his direction. I mean, in PS/SS and CoS the Trio are his favorites because of how judiciously they act on their own initiative, even after his warning about rulebreaking at the beginning of CoS. At the climax of PoA, he even encourages Harry and Hermione to go on a dangerous mission with the time turner, which they pretty much have to improvise. And a huge issue in OOTP is that he's not around, that Harry is forced to rely on himself.
I think it's too simple to say that he "makes the kids feel safe, even when they aren't." I think maybe a fairer formula is that he makes the kids not feel despair, even when things are going badly. And that's not necessarily about a fatuous optimism or false feeling of security -- ideally it's about an intelligent acceptance of risk and a commitment to hope and action.
Look, for instance, at D's opening lecture in PS/SS. He mentions, quite calmly, that people should stay away from the Forbidden Forest (and I believe also the third floor corridor?) or else "they will die a horrible death" or something like that. That's all -- a plain statement of facts, no big warning signs posted, or barbed wire to actually keep you out. It's a dangerous world, and you start by accepting that -- no one's going to baby you, and you have to show a certain prudence. When Dumbledore fails, I think people also make a mistake in thinking this disproves his message, because "no guarantees, no safety" is an essential part of his message.
Moreover, what you say about Dumbledore not caring about the essentials and true definition of a house really supports the idea that he dislikes Slytherin and can't be arsed to actually figure out who they really are. After all, they're the kids who choose power over all else and are thus bad.
I don't know, I think we're talking slightly at cross purposes here. I don't agree that D is ignoring the true, essential nature of the Houses. I think his point is that there is no such essential nature, or at least that it is wildly exaggerated. Harry rejecting Slytherin does not equal Harry rejecting power just because Slytherin = power. It has to do with Harry's own specific circumstances, what Slytherin might have meant to Harry. For someone else, Slytherin might not be about power so much as family tradition, or a certain way of life, or a certain approach to solving problems. I know this reading contradicts a lot of what we take for granted about Slytherin, but aren't we all often complaining about Harry's limited and one-sided POV on Slytherin?
I think that on some levels he tries his best. On other levels, though, I think that he's complacent, or doesn't understand people at all, or has priorities that are just completely out of place.
Let me, just for the sake of argument, turn these points upside down: Maybe "trying his best" is all anyone can do, and expecting more represents a kind of "magical thinking" that is to be discouraged. Maybe "complacency" is a function of his age, his having seen it all, including some real horrors, so that he's gotten well past his young students' narcissistic denial that awful things can happen, and works with the world as he finds it. And maybe his different priorities are a function of his wisdom, which may in fact be a two-edged and somewhat cruel thing.
no subject
Well, I'm willing to concede that Dumbledore tolerates a cult of personality. :) But I honestly think a more important issue is the set of attitudes he encourages in his followers. And to me, he definitely does not seem to encourage a habit of dependence on himself, or passivity in the absence of his direction. I mean, in PS/SS and CoS the Trio are his favorites because of how judiciously they act on their own initiative, even after his warning about rulebreaking at the beginning of CoS. At the climax of PoA, he even encourages Harry and Hermione to go on a dangerous mission with the time turner, which they pretty much have to improvise. And a huge issue in OOTP is that he's not around, that Harry is forced to rely on himself.
I think it's too simple to say that he "makes the kids feel safe, even when they aren't." I think maybe a fairer formula is that he makes the kids not feel despair, even when things are going badly. And that's not necessarily about a fatuous optimism or false feeling of security -- ideally it's about an intelligent acceptance of risk and a commitment to hope and action.
Look, for instance, at D's opening lecture in PS/SS. He mentions, quite calmly, that people should stay away from the Forbidden Forest (and I believe also the third floor corridor?) or else "they will die a horrible death" or something like that. That's all -- a plain statement of facts, no big warning signs posted, or barbed wire to actually keep you out. It's a dangerous world, and you start by accepting that -- no one's going to baby you, and you have to show a certain prudence. When Dumbledore fails, I think people also make a mistake in thinking this disproves his message, because "no guarantees, no safety" is an essential part of his message.
Moreover, what you say about Dumbledore not caring about the essentials and true definition of a house really supports the idea that he dislikes Slytherin and can't be arsed to actually figure out who they really are. After all, they're the kids who choose power over all else and are thus bad.
I don't know, I think we're talking slightly at cross purposes here. I don't agree that D is ignoring the true, essential nature of the Houses. I think his point is that there is no such essential nature, or at least that it is wildly exaggerated. Harry rejecting Slytherin does not equal Harry rejecting power just because Slytherin = power. It has to do with Harry's own specific circumstances, what Slytherin might have meant to Harry. For someone else, Slytherin might not be about power so much as family tradition, or a certain way of life, or a certain approach to solving problems. I know this reading contradicts a lot of what we take for granted about Slytherin, but aren't we all often complaining about Harry's limited and one-sided POV on Slytherin?
I think that on some levels he tries his best. On other levels, though, I think that he's complacent, or doesn't understand people at all, or has priorities that are just completely out of place.
Let me, just for the sake of argument, turn these points upside down: Maybe "trying his best" is all anyone can do, and expecting more represents a kind of "magical thinking" that is to be discouraged. Maybe "complacency" is a function of his age, his having seen it all, including some real horrors, so that he's gotten well past his young students' narcissistic denial that awful things can happen, and works with the world as he finds it. And maybe his different priorities are a function of his wisdom, which may in fact be a two-edged and somewhat cruel thing.
Back over to you! :)