I am confused. You know how Dumbledore expresses several times to McGonagall his worry that he might be the Dark Lord Harry will need to face? I mostly thought this was simply guilt from having had to make lots of difficult decisions.
But I’ve been re-reading some older chapters today, and I noticed this (ch. 84):
“Indeed—indeed—that will be necessary and more than necessary, if the Dark Lord that Harry must defeat to come into his power is not Voldemort after all—”
“Not this again!” Minerva said. “Albus, it was You-Know-Who, not you, who marked Harry as his equal. There is no possible way that the prophecy could be talking about you!”
The old wizard nodded, but his eyes still seemed distant, fixed only on the road ahead.
What Minerva says sounds a lot like foreshadowing. More specifically, standard dramatic logic would suggest that it was actually Dumbledore who gave Harry the mark, thus justifying D’s fears and making Minerva’s reasoning exactly wrong on the point she is most sure about. There’s plenty suspicious about the “standard story” of what happened that night to allow it, and nothing else I know about Dumbledore sounds like something that would cause serious Dark-Dumbledore worries.
But that doesn’t seem to make sense at all with the rest of the story. Am I just reading too much because of theories I read here?
That the Death Eaters were bad guys was not in question. The question was whether they were the bad guys; whether there was one villain in the story, or two...
For me it’s low confidence and speculative, but t could be foreshadowing. Dumbledore could be bad. Dumbledore and QQ could even be on the same side. The “one villain in the story, or two” at the time and in context was Harry thinking there were 2 sides and both were bad. But as a meta-hint / foreshadowing it could be saying that there was 1 side with 2 villains.
One big piece of evidence for was that Voldemort and Dumbledore fought a war for several years and neither killed the other. Harry initially thought this was evidence for Voldemort being dumb, but by 94 Harry has updated to the enemy being smart. So Voldemort could have wiped out the Order but didn’t.
Dumbledore is soft, but he could have killed all the death eaters. Just gone to their houses and killed them, none of them, nor all of them together (excluding Voldie) are going to be on par with Grindelwald + elderwand + blood sacrifice. Dumbledore could have wiped out the death eaters but didn’t.
You can explain that with two factors each handicapping one of them, Dumbledore is soft and Voldemort has a cunning plan. But you can also explain it with coordination. Coordination certainly fits some of the facts better.
Weighing against this of course, is that it really doesn’t seem like Dumbledore’s style.
I have greater than 5% confidence that Voldemort is three characters: Quirrell (via possession), Harry (via soul-copying ritual) and Dumbledore (via improved Imperius).
Not saying that I subscribe to that particular theory, but if it were so it would probably be for more-or-less the same reason he made Voldie evil in everyone’s eyes, to set up a contrast for bonding.
More specifically, standard dramatic logic would suggest that it was actually Dumbledore who gave Harry the mark
By my inference, both Dumbledore and Voldemort purposely put Harry in the position that left him marked. Dumbledore conspired with Lily to set up a dark ritual which would defeat Voldemort, while Voldemort marked Harry to make it appear he had defeated Voldemort. With both being part of the causal chain, both could be said to have marked Harry.
Dumbledore conspired with Lily to set up a dark ritual which would defeat Voldemort
Evidence, please? Lily’s actions in Harry’s memory of her encounter with Voldemort certainly don’t seem pre-planned, and if you’re suggesting that the “dark ritual” was her sacrificing herself for Harry, this is no reason for her to let James die as well. If Lily had known Voldemort was coming, she could have had James go visit a friend for the week or something, thus making sure her beloved husband survived and Harry at least had a father.
Obviously Voldemort wouldn’t announce when he was coming, so they wouldn’t know that James would take it first.
There are multiple pieces of evidence, that when combined, make a consistent case. Dumbledore talks about being responsible for all that has happened to Harry. Dumbledore includes Lily in a very short list of heroines in recent times. It seems clear that Dumbledore arranged for Snape, and thereby Voldemort, to learn of a “prophecy” that led Voldemort to try to kill Harry. What Lily says when Voldemort comes looks like a clear set up of a dark ritual.
What Lily says when Voldemort comes looks like a clear set up of a dark ritual.
What Lily says is:
“Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead!”
But we know that in any ritual, first is named that which is sacrificed, and then is said the use commanded of it. This does, incidentally, match the order that the Dark Lord speaks in (“Yourself to die, and the child to live.”) but as Lily got it wrong it seems like she definitely wasn’t doing a ritual, and if a ritual happened it was accidental on her part.
Both of them described a dark ritual in terms of what the other gave up, then what the other got.
Per what Lily says, Voldemort gives up killing Harry, in exchange for Lily’s life.
Per what Voldemort says, Lily gives up her life, in exchange for Harry’s life.
Does this mean there were two different rituals proposed? The same one from two perspectives? I don’t think we have enough of the theory of dark rituals to distinguish the two. Did Lily “get it wrong”? Under one possible interpretation, yes, and under another, no.
And then Lily may or may not have balked at the terms, and tried to kill Voldemort, and Voldemort may or may not have tried to kill Harry.
Harry really should have been investigating the details of Voldemort’s death a lot more than he has, starting with an interrogation of Dumbledore.
Fair enough; I didn’t think of the “sacrifice the chance to kill Harry in order to obtain the death of Lily” interpretation. Which I still think is inelegant but I have no good argument against it, so it has a right to exist.
Well, this would make sense if the power that the Dark Lord knows not could be rational thinking. Since Voldemort appears to be much more rational than in canon, that ability makes sense. And Eliezer did something pretty similar already in Gur Fjbeq bs Tbbq.
Why? Non-rational people or people who aren’t very rational win all the time. Sometimes they get lucky or sometimes they are just rational enough in the right things. If the only way to win was to be highly rational the world would look very different than it does.
I was thinking more in terms of what Eliezer wants to portray rather than our world. “Rationalists should win” is one of Eliezer’s maxims, and setting up someone as “the guy who didn’t know the power of rationality” to win most of the time would dilute that lesson.
Also, MoR!Dumbledore is simply not irrational enough. Little of his success can be attributed simply to luck, and while he is not rational on a level with Harry, it seems at least that quite a bit of his success can be attributed to making hard decisions instead of just following instinct. For example, regardless of what really happened with Draco’s mum, Dumbledore’s behavior on this subject is indicative of cold calculation rather than wishful thinking. The same can be said on the subject of his brother, especially since he was so conflicted about it. Note also how much of his arguing with Harry is more about morality rather than reasoning.
I am confused. You know how Dumbledore expresses several times to McGonagall his worry that he might be the Dark Lord Harry will need to face? I mostly thought this was simply guilt from having had to make lots of difficult decisions.
But I’ve been re-reading some older chapters today, and I noticed this (ch. 84):
What Minerva says sounds a lot like foreshadowing. More specifically, standard dramatic logic would suggest that it was actually Dumbledore who gave Harry the mark, thus justifying D’s fears and making Minerva’s reasoning exactly wrong on the point she is most sure about. There’s plenty suspicious about the “standard story” of what happened that night to allow it, and nothing else I know about Dumbledore sounds like something that would cause serious Dark-Dumbledore worries.
But that doesn’t seem to make sense at all with the rest of the story. Am I just reading too much because of theories I read here?
For me it’s low confidence and speculative, but t could be foreshadowing. Dumbledore could be bad. Dumbledore and QQ could even be on the same side. The “one villain in the story, or two” at the time and in context was Harry thinking there were 2 sides and both were bad. But as a meta-hint / foreshadowing it could be saying that there was 1 side with 2 villains.
One big piece of evidence for was that Voldemort and Dumbledore fought a war for several years and neither killed the other. Harry initially thought this was evidence for Voldemort being dumb, but by 94 Harry has updated to the enemy being smart. So Voldemort could have wiped out the Order but didn’t.
Dumbledore is soft, but he could have killed all the death eaters. Just gone to their houses and killed them, none of them, nor all of them together (excluding Voldie) are going to be on par with Grindelwald + elderwand + blood sacrifice. Dumbledore could have wiped out the death eaters but didn’t.
You can explain that with two factors each handicapping one of them, Dumbledore is soft and Voldemort has a cunning plan. But you can also explain it with coordination. Coordination certainly fits some of the facts better.
Weighing against this of course, is that it really doesn’t seem like Dumbledore’s style.
I have greater than 5% confidence that Voldemort is three characters: Quirrell (via possession), Harry (via soul-copying ritual) and Dumbledore (via improved Imperius).
Why would Quirrell try to undermine Dumbledore in Harry’s eyes, then?
Not saying that I subscribe to that particular theory, but if it were so it would probably be for more-or-less the same reason he made Voldie evil in everyone’s eyes, to set up a contrast for bonding.
By my inference, both Dumbledore and Voldemort purposely put Harry in the position that left him marked. Dumbledore conspired with Lily to set up a dark ritual which would defeat Voldemort, while Voldemort marked Harry to make it appear he had defeated Voldemort. With both being part of the causal chain, both could be said to have marked Harry.
Evidence, please? Lily’s actions in Harry’s memory of her encounter with Voldemort certainly don’t seem pre-planned, and if you’re suggesting that the “dark ritual” was her sacrificing herself for Harry, this is no reason for her to let James die as well. If Lily had known Voldemort was coming, she could have had James go visit a friend for the week or something, thus making sure her beloved husband survived and Harry at least had a father.
Obviously Voldemort wouldn’t announce when he was coming, so they wouldn’t know that James would take it first.
There are multiple pieces of evidence, that when combined, make a consistent case. Dumbledore talks about being responsible for all that has happened to Harry. Dumbledore includes Lily in a very short list of heroines in recent times. It seems clear that Dumbledore arranged for Snape, and thereby Voldemort, to learn of a “prophecy” that led Voldemort to try to kill Harry. What Lily says when Voldemort comes looks like a clear set up of a dark ritual.
What Lily says is:
But we know that in any ritual, first is named that which is sacrificed, and then is said the use commanded of it. This does, incidentally, match the order that the Dark Lord speaks in (“Yourself to die, and the child to live.”) but as Lily got it wrong it seems like she definitely wasn’t doing a ritual, and if a ritual happened it was accidental on her part.
Wouldn’t both V and Lily be experienced enough not to perform a dark ritual by accident?
I think that dark rituals in general probably aren’t something one is at great risk of performing by accident.
Both of them described a dark ritual in terms of what the other gave up, then what the other got.
Per what Lily says, Voldemort gives up killing Harry, in exchange for Lily’s life.
Per what Voldemort says, Lily gives up her life, in exchange for Harry’s life.
Does this mean there were two different rituals proposed? The same one from two perspectives? I don’t think we have enough of the theory of dark rituals to distinguish the two. Did Lily “get it wrong”? Under one possible interpretation, yes, and under another, no.
And then Lily may or may not have balked at the terms, and tried to kill Voldemort, and Voldemort may or may not have tried to kill Harry.
Harry really should have been investigating the details of Voldemort’s death a lot more than he has, starting with an interrogation of Dumbledore.
Fair enough; I didn’t think of the “sacrifice the chance to kill Harry in order to obtain the death of Lily” interpretation. Which I still think is inelegant but I have no good argument against it, so it has a right to exist.
Well, this would make sense if the power that the Dark Lord knows not could be rational thinking. Since Voldemort appears to be much more rational than in canon, that ability makes sense. And Eliezer did something pretty similar already in Gur Fjbeq bs Tbbq.
I agree that Dumbledore does not look like a paragon of rationality, but IMO he wins much too often for Eliezer to set him up as that kind of example.
Why? Non-rational people or people who aren’t very rational win all the time. Sometimes they get lucky or sometimes they are just rational enough in the right things. If the only way to win was to be highly rational the world would look very different than it does.
I was thinking more in terms of what Eliezer wants to portray rather than our world. “Rationalists should win” is one of Eliezer’s maxims, and setting up someone as “the guy who didn’t know the power of rationality” to win most of the time would dilute that lesson.
Also, MoR!Dumbledore is simply not irrational enough. Little of his success can be attributed simply to luck, and while he is not rational on a level with Harry, it seems at least that quite a bit of his success can be attributed to making hard decisions instead of just following instinct. For example, regardless of what really happened with Draco’s mum, Dumbledore’s behavior on this subject is indicative of cold calculation rather than wishful thinking. The same can be said on the subject of his brother, especially since he was so conflicted about it. Note also how much of his arguing with Harry is more about morality rather than reasoning.