FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD

I don't go to midnight movies anymore. My movie buddies of those days can't go with me and it doesn't feel safe to go alone like it did when all the Harry Potter movies were new. I actually found myself checking the time on Thursday night, however, and wondering if I could still get a ticket. But common sense prevailed; did I really want to go to the mall at midnight and come out alone at 3 am? No. I did decide that I could go on Friday afternoon after I finished volunteering at the Food Bank. If not for that, I would have gone earlier in the day. The theater wasn't completely full, but it was nice to see Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald with an audience - sharing some laughter, some gasps, some clapping. That's part of the experience I've missed from the midnight movies (and midnight book launches).

This second movie reveals so much of the back story of Dumbledore, Newt and his brother, Theseus, Leta Lestrange, Nagini, Tina, Queenie, and Jacob and how their lives are intertwined and connected to Grindelwald. Some of the story we already knew from the Harry Potter books, but without the detail. Other parts of the story were a surprise and in some cases, a shock. I definitely wasn't prepared for the ending, and now I can't believe we have to wait for the third movie to see where this story will take us.

This second movie answers a few questions but raises many more, just as the second installment should do. To say more, before the story is common knowledge, might ruin it for others, so I'll leave it there. The cast, old and new, is perfect. I especially like Jude Law as Dumbledore. He manages to capture just how I imagine a younger Dumbledore would be. I was glad to see the nifflers again, as well as many new creatures, some were quite extraordinary, but well understood by Newt, of course.

I'm looking forward to reading the screen play and then seeing the movie again, this time with Laura. And then we can have a great discussion. Thank you, J. K. Rowling, for another wonderful story, one that touches all our emotions and imagination.

Pat

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - the movie

Since the time I saw the movie at midnight with Sarah till now, I've had the chance to see it two more times. I haven't posted anything here about it because, quite honestly, I just forgot to do it. I've discussed it in other places and I've read other people's thoughts about it. What I have been doing is paging back through the book and making notes of the changes in the movie. But I'm not quite finished and probably won't post the whole thing. It's just been an interesting exercise for me.

SPOILERS ABOUND! IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE, YOU SHOULD GO READ SOMETHING ELSE NOW.

For the most part, I really liked this movie - the first time and more each time I saw it. More than in any of the other movies, I found myself silently cheering when I recognized passages that were nearly the same as the book. Some were in the same part of the book, others were in different scenes, but they were there nonetheless.

The things that make me curious are how they are going to include all those important elements of Deathly Hallows in the next two movies, when they have left out so many things in all the first six movies. The house elves, for instance. We saw a lot of Dobby in Chamber of Secrets, and only a little of Kreacher in Order of the Phoenix. In the books we saw Dobby enough to either find him annoying or sometimes cute, but we still saw him. He was familiar and recognizable when we saw him in Deathly Hallows. We didn't need any explanation about who he was, how he was connected to Harry or why Harry would care about him so much, or why we would care so much about him at Shell Cottage. The big surprise with Kreacher in Deathly Hallows is that we DO care about him, when all we had seen before was a disgusting and irritating character who was definitely on the side of evil. Yes, he was in the Order of the Phoenix movie, but only barely, and not at all in Half-Blood Prince. Will people who haven't read the books, or haven't read them recently, remember why Kreacher is important?

But I'm jumping ahead. The opening scene in the movie took me by surprise until I realized they were showing the aftermath of the battle in the Ministry when Fudge finally has to acknowledge the return of Voldemort. Nicely done, even though that wasn't by the book. It worked well. So did the scene with the people in a meeting watching something they don't understand and then the bridge attack and collapse. In the book we are told that a bridge collapsed but it was off-screen, so this worked well in the movie. It also works to show that the Death Eaters have crossed that rule for wizards remaining out of sight of muggles. It's apparent that they aren't playing by the rules any longer, now that everyone in the wizard world knows Voldemort is back.

I really liked the scene at Spinner's End. Yes, it's in the daytime, but that doesn't really matter. Snape, brilliantly played by Alan Rickman, is perfect in every aspect of this scene. He conveys so much of what is in the book but not in the movie by a mere glance, hand gesture or tone of voice. I would like to have seen the listing by Snape of how he has remained faithful to Voldemort while seeming to be remorseful and loyal to Dumbledore. That was a nice set-up in the book that could have made the ending of the movie have more of an impact. The Unbreakable Vow was very well done, but I really wish that the questions had been asked by Narcissa rather than Bellatrix. (Mostly Helena Bonham Carter irritates me in this role, so less of her is better, IMO.) But the reason I found the scene so powerful in the book was that it was the distraught, anxious, loving mother who was pleading for help for her son. In the movie, it's clearly Bella who is trying to trap Snape by asking the questions. It still works, especially the way Snape so clearly hesitates and gives the slightest blanch at the last question. Again, that's Rickman at his best.

Another brilliant performance comes from Jim Broadbent as Horace Slughorn. He isn't at all like the Slughorn I pictured physically. In my mind, Sluggy looked like the little man on the Monopoly game. But Broadbent is marvelous in the role and adds, with just the right facial expressions, that sense that Slughorn isn't evil, just not strong enough to resist Voldemort, even though he clearly wants to. When we first meet him, it's very much like the book and I laughed when Dumbledore came back from the loo with his knitting pattern book.

Harry's arrival at the Burrow is a bit different, but it works well. Instead of finding out later at Hogwarts that some parents didn't want their children to return, it's discussed by the trio at the Burrow. And at some point we see the Death Eaters swoop into Diagon Alley and kidnap Ollivander, though his shop is trashed in the movie rather than neatly cleaned out, which, in the book, leaves people wondering about Ollivander's loyalties. But all that works in the movie. It shows the terror and the boldness of the Death Eaters without a lot of dialogue, making the sense of fear and urgency very obvious.

I loved all the scenes with Luna, but missed Neville. He wasn't in the book that much either, so I guess that's OK. The scenes with the Weasleys were great throughout the movie - just not always enough.

There were little details about the Potions book and the Half-Blood Prince that were in the movie, but not really enough of the mystery was explored as to who the Half-Blood Prince was. I was intrigued to see something about alchemy on one of the pages when Harry is reading the notes written in by the HBP. But I think they cut the ending way too short. Parts of it were OK. The Potions class scenes were a treat, but I really missed the scene in DADA with Snape. That would have been such a nice bookend to the first movie in his Potions class. I hope that is one of the deleted scenes that will be on the DVD.

The Cave scene was good, as far as it went, but the third time through the movie I counted the number of shells (not crystal goblets) that Dumbledore drank and came up with 5 to 7. It was hard to tell, as the last time that Harry dips in shows liquid left and then it is empty the next time we see it when he sees the locket. But it definitely wasn't twelve. And Dumbledore's distress is good, but doesn't include the line about it's his fault that they were hurt. Overall, Michael Gambon was much better in this movie than in the previous ones. His scenes with the young Tom Riddle were outstanding and the ones with Harry were better. I would have liked his hand to look more withered than it did, though.

Harry's not under the invisibility cloak when he and Dumbledore get back to the Tower after the Cave, and Dumbledore doesn't freeze him, but tells him to remain hidden and still. That works well with Harry's earlier promise,thankfully included in the movie, before they leave for the Cave. And as I thought about it later, it is a way to show that Harry, at that point, completely trusts Dumbledore and has faith in him. The silent caution from Snape is well done and I do like it. Most of what happens on the Tower, except that some of the DEs are different, is like the book. But it stops short of Dumbledore telling Draco that he can hide him from Voldemort. And the light when Dumbledore is hit by Avada Kedavra should have been defintely green rather than sort of green - same with the skull in the clouds.

Now, there is that moment when Harry arrives at the still body of Dumbledore with Ginny near him. Very well done. While I missed the funeral, and the mournful phoenix song and Harry pointing out how disloyal Snape was, I did like the wands raised in tribute to Dumbledore. What made it work for me was that when the light is directed upwards, the skull in the cloud dissapates. Light overcomes darkness. Good overcomes evil. Love overcomes hate. That theme is played out in a very visual way without someone having to explain it.

And what I really liked about the ending was that they were on the same Tower discussing Harry's plans and his need to have Ron and Hermione go with him. And then there was Fawkes, flying against the almost golden sky. Definitely not like the book, but it really worked well, as far as I was concerned.

The teen romance scenes were great. I thought it was all cast and played extremely well. Parts were funny and parts were poignant, just as all of us remember those years being. My favorite moments were the ones with Ron and Lavender. Jessie Cave doesn't look like the way I imagined Lavender, but she played the part so well. And the scene in Slughorn's office after Ron eats the love potion-laced candy was great. Just goes to show that Rupert Grint has a great sense of comedica talent and timing.

I loved all the regulars, especially Maggie Smith. She is like Rickman; she does so much with so little screen time. I loved her in the scene where she sends Harry and Ron off to their first potions class when she sees them loitering in the corridor. And the scene with the opal necklace is great with McGonagall and Snape and their reaction to Harry's wild thoughts about Draco. Back to Lupin and Tonks and the Weasley parents - I love all those characters in the book and love the way the actors portray them. It's too bad we don't see more of them, and I hope that with Deathly Hallows split into two movies, we will.

Then there is Tom Felton as Draco who had a much bigger role in the book and in the movie. They show it quite differently than the book. It was nice that they showed what was on his arm, so those of us who were convinced he'd become a werewolf had that mystery solved once and for all. And instead of Harry doing all the speculating about where Malfoy was going and what he was doing, we got to see it. If we'd had to just listen to Harry going on about Malfoy as he did in the book, I think it would have been irritating in the movie.

Just about the only scene I really didn't like was the burning of the Burrow. I loved the Christmas scene with Harry and Ginny and Ron. I loved Lupin and Tonks obviously being together and talking to Harry about Snape. I was even OK with the Death Eater attack and all of them being outside to fight them off. But what was the point of burning down the Burrow, a place that they're going to need in the next book. And then it was never mentioned again in the movie, so it really seemed like something added just for more action. What a waste when they could have made any of the other important scenes more complete.

I'm not sure I liked the kiss between Ginny and Harry. It was sweet, but I liked the suddeness of it in the book, and that it was a very public show that they were now a couple. And I suppose they can have Ginny show or tell Harry where she hid the Potions book, but the whole point of the scene in the book was to show the diadem, which we didn't see or hear of in the movie.

That is one thing the movie didn't do. It reminded us of the book and the ring and the locket as Horcruxes, and did a really good job of the memory with Slughorn, but we didn't get any hints about what the other Horcruxes might be. Something they did however, is to give a very visual hint that Harry is a Horcrux. That tic that he did throughout Order of the Phoenix and in Half-Blood Prince should prove useful in Deathly Hallows. Especially since he did it in this one and then Dumbledore makes some comment about magic leaving traces - or however he said it.

The scene at the end with Snape and Harry was good as far as it went. It just didn't go far enough. We saw Snape react to Bellatrix calling him a coward by saying he would make the Unbreakable Vow, but we don't see him react much to Harry when Harry calls him a coward. I really wanted to see Snape unhinged or at least the very controlled kind of reaction that Rickman gave in OP, but we didn't get it. We also didn't get his (Snape's) outrage over James's use of Snape's spells against Snape before Snape tells Harry that he is the Half-Blood Prince. Maybe they will include something about that in the next movie? I hope so.

In Prisoner of Azkaban, one of my favorite movie moments was the added scene on the bridge when Lupin is talking to Harry. And I have a favorite not-in-the-book moment in this movie as well. It's when Slughorn is telling Harry about the gift of a fish that he received from Lily and how it disappeared when she was killed. It made that whole scene of Harry telling Slughorn to be brave even better. I wonder if it is something that Kloves came up with or if it is something that Rowling had written and not included.

And just one more thing. I love the soundtrack for this movie. I listened to it when it was on-line the week before the movie opened and bought it the day it was released. I've listened a number of times and like all of it. I am sorry that Nicholas Hooper will not be back to score the final two movies, and unlike many, I hope that John Williams is not back to finish up. I like some of what he has done, but his soundtracks all sound so much alike that I'm often not sure which movie it is. I had to look the other day to see that it was E.T. on the radio and not one of the other movies he has done. Maybe with Yates the editing will be better if Williams returns. I like it much better when the music is a subtle part of a scene and doesn't overpower the action or the dialogue, which Williams's scores tend to do.

So, I look forward to seeing Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince at least one more time in the theater and then to buying it when it's released on DVD in the fall. And that will put us even closer to the first part of Deathly Hallows, which I hope will be the best of the Harry Potter movies yet.

Pat

Have I forgotten Harry?

Hardly. I've finished reading Deathly Hallows again, and find that I like it better each time through. I've rewatched "Order of the Phoenix" several times as it was on HBO a lot in August. I liked that as a movie, but I kept waiting for Fawkes to swoop in and swallow up the snake attacking in the Ministry battle. Of course, Hollywood can't seem to bring themselves to include the very Christian elements of any of the books, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it was left out.

I was unhappy, like many fans, that Warner Brothers pushed the release of "Half-Blood Prince: movie to next summer. But having recently read some of the reviews of the early screenings, maybe that's not such a disappointment after all. It seems that it would allow them to fix the things that are wrong or decide to include the things omitted, such as Dumbledore's funeral. But since they are starting to shoot the next installment in February, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

And I've been reading. I started reading John Granger's book, How Harry Cast His Spell, which is great. But then I got his other book (that apparently is being redone for release later), The Deathly Hallows Lectures. Also great. I've decided to finish that first. One of the books that John has mentioned more than once is Dante's Divine Comedy, which I might have read a portion of in high school, but certainly not the whole thing. I was in Barnes and Noble and saw one of their copies of it and decided it was time to add that to my library. The one that I have is a translation by Longfellow with the illustrations by Gustave Dore. It's a slow read, but I don't think it's the sort of book to race through, so I'm reading it in smaller sections, one canto per read at the most.

I'm looking forward to, and have already reserved, the 10 Anniversary edition of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in September and The Tales of Beedle the Bard in December. Sometimes this fall, Travis Prinzi's book will be out, and I'll probably buy the one by Melissa Anelli from The Leaky Cauldron, a look at how the fandom of Harry Potter happened.

And in the meantime, we are preparing for a trip to the east coast this fall to Virginia. I'll finally get to see many of those historical sites that used to consume all my interest. So in addition to reading all about Harry, I'm trying to brush up on American history, which I've ignored for a number of years.

And we have choir starting again - really starting with a rehearsal every week and singing at least three Sundays a month. I'm quite happy about that but it does fill up my schedule. The adult Bible study classes begin this evening. I'll be continuing the one that I've been in for the last several years. It's a precepts study that started with Genesis and we've been working out way through the Old Testament. Having finished 2 Samuel last spring, we are ready for Kings and Chronicles.

Fall has turned out to be very busy at our house, so I haven't been blogging here much, though I've added some things to my other one, Eeyore's Ramblings, about the fan reactions to the HBP movie delay and about church. I have some photo work to do, a short "movie" from our church's last Guatemala trip, actually printing the photos from our April trip to Walt Disney World, the photos we will take in Virginia, Thanksgiving at our house. . .

Can we just skip to December? Things might be a little calmer by then. Oh, wait, no they won't. What am I thinking?

My point is, that it isn't likely that I will update here any more frequently than I have been. But I do check other Harry Potter blogs, and other friend's blogs every day, sometimes with a comment, but sometimes not.

Pat

Albus Dumbledore--not who we thought he was

Until the end of Order of the Phoenix, and until we learn of his family history, I thought it was fairly easy to see Dumbledore as a Christ figure/God figure, or at least something similar, even if he was meant instead to be a metaphorical one.

In the few comments I've read since Deathly Hallows, I think some people are stuggling with the less than perfect, somewhat manipulative image that we now have of our beloved Headmaster of Hogwarts, the one who was so mourned after his death in Half-Blood Prince that people refused to believe he was really dead until J.K. Rowling said that he definitely was, and he was not going to do a
Gandalf.

I don't have the same problem with Dumbledore that many seem to have though. And I've been trying to figure out why I don't. Ordinarily, I don't like people who manipulate or use others for their own purpose, and that does seem to be what Dumbledore did with Harry and with Severus. Dumbledore told Harry that he had a "grand plan" when he told him about the prophecy in Order of the Phoenix, though he didn't tell Harry just what that grand plan was. Of course, Harry being the least curious bloke we've ever read didn't ask Dumbledore to spell out the details of that plan. One would think that since the plan seemed to involve Harry pretty heavily that it would have been a reasonable question for him to ask, but no, he didn't.

So in Order of the Phoenix, we see a side of Dumbledore that shows Harry and the reader that this is a very flawed and human man. He admits he has made mistakes, and rather large ones, and he has regrets, and for the first time, Harry realizes that Dumbledore seems old and tired. We just don't know what those regrets are. Then in Half-Blood Prince, Dumbledore seems to be back to his former self--all-knowing, wise, mannerly, humorous. Even with his withered black hand, that is mentioned frequently througout so we don't forget it's there, Dumbledore seems stronger again, stronger than after the battle with Voldemort at the Ministry of Magic. But then he drinks that nasty green potion in the Cave, and nearly dies then. We see him barely able to return to Hogsmeade without Harry's help, and only revived because his beloved school so obviously needs him. Certainly nothing in any of those actions to tarnish our hero. We don't know what he relived when he drank the poison, but most of us went down the path that it had something to do with wanting to protect the students, etc--a view that put his suffering on a very altruistic plane, rather than any particular personal failing of Dumbledore's. Instead he is reliving his part in the deaths of his family, a horrible thing for anyone to have to live with.

I actually really liked what we learned about Dumbledore in Deathly Hallows. Let me explain--it's not his actions I liked, but that Rowling has created a very real person, rather than the perfect hero. Here we have a man, brilliant and talented, but a very flawed man, who learned early in life what it meant to make the easy choices rather than the right choices, a man who lost his family because he made poor choices, and who lived the rest of his life with the regret that he couldn't go back and make any of it better. Because of the two months he spent with Grindelwald, planning their take-over of the wizarding world, Albus learned what his greatest weakness was--the desire for power.

When he defeated Grindelwald and ended up with the Elder Wand, Albus didn't ever use it to attain the kind of power that he had so desired in his youth. McGonagall alludes to that in the very first book, when she says that Dumbledore is too noble to use the kind of magic that Voldemort used. In reality, it's not because he is noble, rather, it's because he understood that he would have been lured by that kind of power.

At one point Dumbledore had the Elder Wand and the Invisibility Cloak (after James's death), and could have kept both--all he needed was the Resurrection Ring to complete the Deathly Hallows. He gave the cloak to Harry, who had rightfully inherited it from his father, and only told him "Use it well". Dumbledore tells Harry at the end of the first book, Philosopher's Stone, that there are very few wizards who could look in the Mirror of Erised to get the Stone from it; it was because Harry only wanted to keep it from Voldemort, not because he had any desire to use it. It's then that we first see that Harry is "pure of heart", something which Dumbledore repeats, throughout. But it's not until the end of Deathly Hallows that we realize that Dumbledore would have seen something quite different at that point.

When Dumbledore and Harry talk at King's Cross, Dumbledore admits that he was tempted by power all his life. It was a failing that he never conquered. When he found the Ring Horcrux in the Gaunt house ruins, Dumbledore, unlike Marvolo or Tom Riddle, realized that it was the Resurrection Stone, the one Hallow he had long sought. He destroyed the Horcrux, but having that third one of the Deathly Hallows in his hand was a temptation that led to his blackened and withered hand that we saw all through his last year.

In Deathly Hallows, in one of the memories that Snape gave Harry, we find out part of the "thrilling tale" that Dumbledore never was able to tell Harry:

It was nighttime, and Dumbledore sagged sideways in the thronelike chair behind the desk, apparently semiconscious. His right hand dangled over the side, blackened and burned. Snape was muttering incantations, pointing his wand at the wrist of the hand, while with his left hand he tipped a goblet full of thick golden potion down Dumbledore's throat. After a moment or two, Dumbledore's eyelids fluttered and opened.

"Why," said Snape, without preamble, "why did you put on that ring? It carries a curse, surely you realized that. Why even touch it?"

Marvolo Gaunt's ring lay on the desk before Dumbledore. It was cracked; the sword of Gryffindor lay beside it.

Dumbledore grimaced.

"I. . . was a fool. Sorely tempted. . ."

"Tempted by what?"

Dumbledore did not answer.

"It is a miracle you managed to return here!" Snape sounded furious. "That ring carried a curse of extraordinary power, to contain it is all we can hope for; I have trapped the curse in one hand for the time being--" (DH, US version, p. 680-1)

It's at that point that we learn the sudden change in Dumbledore's strategy, which up to that point was to let Harry get on with the business of resisting Voldemort in whatever way he could, with Dumbledore giving him bits and pieces of information as he felt Harry needed them. Snape tells Dumbledore that he likely only has about a year before the spell spreads and kills him, that if Dumbledore had called him earlier, he might have been able to buy him more time.

He looked down at the broken ring and the sword. "Did you think that breaking the ring would break the curse?"

"Something like that. . . I was delirious, no doubt. . ." said Dumbledore. (DH, US p. 681)

Even then, Dumbledore doesn't explain to Severus Snape, the only man he seemed to confide in at all, what really had led him to put on the ring. It's when he is talking to Harry at King's Cross that we see the full and complete picture of who Dumbledore was and why he acted as he did:

After another short pause Harry said, "You tried to use the Resurrection Stone."

Dumbledore nodded.

"When I discovered it, after all those years, buried in the abandoned home of the Gaunts--the Hallow I had craved most of all, though in my youth I had wanted it for very different reasons--I lost my head, Harry. I quite forgot that it was now a Horcrux, that the ring was sure to carry a curse. I picked it up, and I put it on, and for a second I imagined that I was about to see Ariana, and my mother and my father, and to tell them how very, very sorry I was. . .

"I was such a fool, Harry. After all those years I had learned nothing. I was unworthy to unite the Deathly Hallows, I had proved it time and again, and here was final proof."

"Why?" said Harry. "It was natural! You wanted to see them again. What's wrong with that?"

"Maybe a man in a million could unite the Hallows, Harry. I was fit only to possess the meanest of them, the least extraordinary. I was fit to own the Elder Wand, and not to boast of it, and not to kill with it. I was permitted to tame and to use it, because I took it, not for gain, but to save others from it.

"But the Cloak, I took out of vain curiosity, and so it could never have worked for me as it works for you, its true owner. The stone I would have used in an attempt to drag back those who are at peace, rather than to enable my self-sacrifice, as you did. You are the worthy possessor of the Hallows." (DH, US p. 719-20)

So once again, we have the reason that Dumbledore told Harry on several occasions that Harry was the better man, that his blood was more valuable, that it was Harry who had to defeat Voldemort, and not Dumbledore who was a much more powerful and talented wizard.

What we learn about Dumbledore is that he wasn't perfect and he was tempted by power until the end of his life. Everything that he did, every decision he made, was colored by that knowledge of his own flaws, his own very real guilt. Because he himself couldn't be trusted with power (hence, the reason he never agreed to be the Minister for Magic), he couldn't be sure that anyone else wouldn't fall into the same trap. He didn't confide fully in Harry or in Snape, knowing that each had his own flaws with which to cope. Snape had been lured by the Dark Arts, so how could Dumbledore trust him with a teaching position that might tempt him to return to his Death Eater life, when Dumbledore knew that he himself couldn't be trusted with the thing that tempted him most? Harry had a blind spot where Snape and Draco were concerned, always letting his anger and hatred get in the way of what he knew he should be doing.

What Dumbledore never understood about either of them was that they were very different than he was; Snape's remorse about Lily's death would never have let him return to his Death Eater ways, no matter how much he hated James's memory, and Harry never wanted the power or fame that Dumbledore had sought as a youth. We see Harry trusting his friends, sharing the information he has learned or has figured out on his own, something that Dumbledore was never able to do.

We all have flaws, things in our past or in our personalities that prevent us from being the wonderful beings God intends us to be. Dumbledore showed his remorse and tried to atone for his failings by teaching and guiding young people, by being an exemplary role model for them as Headmaster of Hogwarts. He gave people second chances because he, himself, had been in need of a second chance. He insisted on showing respect for others, no matter what their birth status or whether they were non-human creatures.

Whether he was right or wrong to pursue his "grand plan", we can't really say. Dumbledore did what all of us must do; he recognized his weakness, he felt remorse for his failings, and he tried to atone for his sins and live his life in a way that helped others. That his understanding of what was best for others might not be the same as anyone else's is what we all have to face.

We can't know how best to guide others so that they make the right decisions, without at times, seeming manipulative and controlling. If we have information that will influence another in a direction they take or in their actions, some might see that as being manipulative. The alternative is that we stand back and hope they can figure it out for themselves. Hands off, all round. In Dumbledore's case, he had more information than anyone else about how Voldemort might be defeated. It seems to me that it would have been wrong if he had just stood back and let Harry wander through his years at Hogwarts, hoping that he'd stumble on the secrets by himself.

When we see a child about to do something that we know is dangerous, we don't hesitate to stop them. Is that manipulative? When we see a child who is talented, and we encourage him to pursue that talent, is that being manipulative? Perhaps, but maybe it's just using the wisdom that we've gained through our own experiences and just by living. What Dumbledore did with Harry isn't so very much different than the parent or the teacher who has some knowledge about a child's talent or his limitations and tries to guide him in a direction that will afford him the greatest chance of success.

The stakes for Harry figuring out how to defeat Dumbledore were a bit higher than whether or not our musically talented child continues with those violin lessons, much higher, and in Dumbledore's view, the outcome wasn't something that he could just leave to chance. He had lived all his life with the regret that he hadn't done the proper things for his family and it had ended in a disaster which he could not ever rectify; and here he was, faced with knowledge that no one else had about why Voldemort had chosen Harry and how Voldemort might be defeated once and for all. Should he have told Harry what the grand plan was? Maybe, but what eleven, twelve or thirteen year old--or even a sixteen year old, for that matter-- would have been able to handle that overwhelming information and responsibility?

Instead of Dumbledore as an allegory for God or Christ, we have Dumbledore as a flawed human being, one who lived his life, with regrets and triumphs, just as we all do; a person who, because of his regrets sometimes failed to trust that others, who were not as gifted intellectually as he, would fall victim to the same temptations that had haunted him most of his life--the desire for power. Rather than being disappointed in who Dumbledore turned out to be, I found it encouraging. Here is a hero who is not so different than any of us--one who has made choices, one choice which was devastating, but which set his feet and heart on a life-long path of redemption, as he tried to live the rest of his life as he now knew he should have done. The past could not be undone, as Dumbledore learned when he was once again tempted to try to use the Resurrection Stone, but except for that one last stumble, his choices for the future showed that he had learned from his mistakes, had taken responsibility for them, as he spent his life teaching students, being an example of mercy to all, and in the end, tried to help Severus and Harry accomplish what he, the greatest wizard of all, could not do--defeat the evil that terrorized the world in the form of Lord Voldemort. So even though Albus turned out not to be the perfect person many of us built him up to be, I think what Rowling gave us in Albus Dumbledore was much better.

Pat