Harry Potter and The Stolen Plot...

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by alatar

Read the Deathly Hallows, but the second installment of the movie is more in my mind. Snape, in a pensieve flashback, accuses Dumbledore of keeping Harry alive just long enough to be killed/sacrificed at the right moment, when Voldemort would be at his weakest. Snape, rightfully or no, states that Dumbledore does not care for Harry, and sees the Headmaster only thinking of the Potter as a pawn to be used/thrown away in a larger game.

Couldn't Gandalf be so accused, helping Frodo along the way to Mordor, knowing that most likely he would not survive the quest?

One could take the view that Gandalf was calculating and manipulative, and as Saruman said, holding his "tools" until their task was done, then dropping them.

Gandalf certainly thought along the lines of another wise individual, however.

Also, I think it's noteworthy that both Dumbledore and Gandalf allow themselves to be sacrificed for the greater good, affirming their true belief in their respective causes.

[Galadriel55]

I don't like comparing Gandalf to Dumbledore. Even though they have a similar "mentor" task/role and do many similar things (uch as sacrifice themselves), and even look somewhat alike - but to me they are completely different characters.

One thing that contributes to that opinion is that Gandalf is initially good, wise, etc, and Dumbledore is quite the opposite until he sees the error of his ways. I am not saying that either one is better, but I can't say that comming in to the world with wisdom and missing becoming a Voldemort by a milimeter is not the same thing.

Moreover, although both like a good laugh, Dumbledore overdoes it a bit. Gandalf always has a wise word in his pocket, even for the fattest of hobbits. Dumbledore is sometimes a bit... nuts. I cannot see Gandalf saying half the things Dumbledore said, or did. Gandalf wouldn't accept Dumbledore's position in the first place, but that's something beside the point. Dumbledore sometimes gets plain silly. It's possible that this rift is there because of the different perspectives: teenagers vs sometimes immature, though grown up hobbits.

Gandalf has a much more serious personality, but with less hidden twists and turns (just ask Rita Skeeter).

Originally Posted by Zil

One could take the view that Gandalf was calculating and manipulative, and as Saruman said, holding his "tools" until their task was done, then dropping them.

I would disagree. Dumbledore still had that hidden streak of greed/selfishness in him. Gandalf did not have it from the start. I see his motivation for defeating Voldemort as a partially personal one. Then, about the "tools", Gandalf told Frodo exactly what he was going for, whereas Dumbledore kept a lot quiet. In fact, he kept secret from Harry the most impotant part - that Harry carries a piece of Voldemort's soul with him.

You could argue that this makes Dumbledore a much interesting character to analyse. I think that he's just different. Too different to say better or worse.

Originally Posted by alatar

and sees the Headmaster only thinking of the Potter as a pawn to be used/thrown away in a larger game.

Gandalf sees himself as one of the pieces too - perhaps not a pawn, but something like a bishop.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I would disagree. Dumbledore still had that hidden streak of greed/selfishness in him. Gandalf did not have it from the start. I see his motivation for defeating Voldemort as a partially personal one. Then, about the "tools", Gandalf told Frodo exactly what he was going for, whereas Dumbledore kept a lot quiet. In fact, he kept secret from Harry the most impotant part - that Harry carries a piece of Voldemort's soul with him.

When I said that the argument for Gandalf using people could be advanced, I didn't necessarily mean that I held that position. As it happens, I agree with you that Gandalf's motives for opposing his opposite number were much more pure. Then again, that's what he was there for: he was given a task by a superior. In that sense, one might say Dumbledore's work against Voldemort was more noble, for being more personal.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Gandalf sees himself as one of the pieces too - perhaps not a pawn, but something like a bishop.

Which goes back to what I said above. Gandalf could see the larger picture all the more easily because he was basically above it. Middle-earth was not his home, nor was he of the same stature as those he was to advise and move to action against Sauron. Dumbledore had nothing to rely upon but his own knowledge and sense of rightness.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

When I said that the argument for Gandalf using people could be advanced, I didn't necessarily mean that I held that position. As it happens, I agree with you that Gandalf's motives for opposing his opposite number were much more pure. Then again, that's what he was there for: he was given a task by a superior. In that sense, one might say Dumbledore's work against Voldemort was more noble, for being more personal.

But on the other other other (?) hand, you could say that he only does it because it personally affects him. He doesn't work for the whole world of GOOD, he works for himself.

And on the yet another hand, one could say that Gandalf is a pretty boring character compared to the multi-sided Dumbledore. Not my own opinion either, but it could be.

And on the hand that I didn't mention yet, one could argue that Dumbledore is not a "proper" mentor.

And the only question left is how many octopi is it needed to give enough hands.

Which goes back to what I said above. Gandalf could see the larger picture all the more easily because he was basically above it. Middle-earth was not his home, nor was he of the same stature as those he was to advise and move to action against Sauron.

But at the same time he's the opposite. He's still one of the chess pieces, even if it is the queen and not a pawn. He is both above and within the game.

Dumbledore had nothing to rely upon but his own knowledge and sense of rightness.

And that he did, disregarding his sense of rightness more than once.


I think I'm just agruing for the sake or arguing here, because really I agree with you.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by G55

And the only question left is how many octopi is it needed to give enough hands.

Octopodes.

In terms of lying/not telling the whole truth, we might say Dumbledore is modelled more on Star Wars' Obi-wan Kenobi than on Gandalf - although I'd say Obi-wan himself (at least in the first trilogy, disregarding the prequels) was modelled on Gandalf to some degree.

It's interesting that all three characters sacrificed themselves at some point of the story; and I think it's safe to say that in all three of them the sacrifice was based on the knowledge that death is not the end, there's something else involved (the Force/King's Cross*/Eru's providence).

*Speaking of which, does anybody else think that Rowling's choice of that chapter title might have to do with something else than Harry associating the intermediate afterlife with the station of that name? Especially as Harry has just sacrificed himself for his friends and, as we learn in the following chapter, thus earned them the same protection against Voldemort his mother gave him, in other words redeemed them from evil?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Octopodes.

Yes. That.

Originally Posted by Pitch

*Speaking of which, does anybody else think that Rowling's choice of that chapter title might have to do with something else than Harry associating the intermediate afterlife with the station of that name? Especially as Harry has just sacrificed himself for his friends and, as we learn in the following chapter, thus earned them the same protection against Voldemort his mother gave him, in other words redeemed them from evil?

I never really thought about the name, but it's an interesting idea. I thought - and think - that the fact that it's a station is enough for a symbolic idea. It's not afterlife yet, but the point at which you choose to take the train, or to go back home (aka let go of your life, or continue living).

Although the analogy you talked about doesn't leave much question about it, I really don't want to look at HP as another Christian creation. It's messy enough already just as fiction.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Although the analogy you talked about doesn't leave much question about it, I really don't want to look at HP as another Christian creation. It's messy enough already just as fiction.

My sister generously loaned me a book a while back, God and Harry Potter at Yale: Teaching Faith and Fantasy Fiction In An Ivy League Classroom The Amazon.com review follows.

Who would have believed it? Studying Harry Potter at Yale University? To learn about Christian theology?

But it happened! 'God and Harry Potter at Yale' is the story of the controversial course, 'Harry Potter and Christian Theology,' its teacher, the Rev. Danielle Tumminio, and what she taught and learned from her brilliant undergraduate students. They explored the heights of theology and literature for answers about eternal questions of faith, revelation, salvation, and what it means to be human. Come to the American Hogwarts in New Haven to join these Ivy League Seekers and their guide as they examine the stories of the Chosen One and Dark Lord for a greater understanding of the Potter novels and life's mysteries.

The Author does know both the Potter books and Christian theology... at a post graduate level. One can illustrate many of the basic questions in Christian theology using illustrations from the Potter books.

The big question is whether you can get more than a few chapters in before choking and gagging. I couldn't.

Well, you likely know me by know. I find many scholarly readings of Tolkien somewhat pretentious. I find scholarly readings of Potter far more so. Still, there is enough there that I can see how Reverend Danielle takes her efforts as seriously as many contributors to this forum. The chapter titles in the book do reference basic Christian themes like Sacrifice and Faith. You can take the great questions various philosophers and priests have been debating for centuries and find themes based on these questions all over the Potter books. A Potter fan might find the book a solid short cut introduction to formal Christian theology.

Ugh. I kind of enjoyed the Potter stories as stories, but can't take them seriously as a source of Truth or Wisdom. Of course, I'd say the same thing about Lord of the Rings or the Star Wars movies. Fantasy, especially when you take it towards an epic level, explores Good, Evil, Sacrifice, Faith, Heroism and similar stuff. If one immerses one's self in such sub creations at a young an impressionable age, such stories might well help shape one's values. The nuns at my Saturday School sure used similar stories and parables found in the Bible to that end.

Middle Earth, that galaxy far far away and Hogwarts are to me primarily excellent yarns and entertainment. Various folks are attracted to one more than the other. Various people will take one or another of them seriously. Color me dubious.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

In terms of lying/not telling the whole truth, we might say Dumbledore is modelled more on Star Wars' Obi-wan Kenobi than on Gandalf - although I'd say Obi-wan himself (at least in the first trilogy, disregarding the prequels) was modelled on Gandalf to some degree.

Well, you know, in all this talk of Harry Potter being "stolen" from Tolkien, I don't think anyone's mentioned that the phrase "join the Dark Side" occurs in the very first book. Now there's stealing for you!

Seriously– my own reservations about the HP series have nothing to do with (supposed) theft. It's more that I think Rowling's pretty limited as a writer, and that the ambitiousness of the later books only serves to highlight this. Obviously the real fans aren't going to agree with me here, but I just feel she ends up biting off more than she can chew.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Seriously– my own reservations about the HP series have nothing to do with (supposed) theft. It's more that I think Rowling's pretty limited as a writer, and that the ambitiousness of the later books only serves to highlight this. Obviously the real fans aren't going to agree with me here, but I just feel she ends up biting off more than she can chew.

100% agreed.

(no, I won't start a rant listing the HP series' faults)