Your thoughts on Dumbledore....

[sherza]

biakit ... while I agree with much of your comments (Snape is an ass, and him bullying Hermione for her resemblance to Lily doesn't make sense) There's one small problem with your argument about Snape not being a victim.

There were four Marauders ... and only one Snape. Snape was/became a sneaky bastard who could, and sometimes did, eventually pay back some small measure of the hell the four gave him, but four on one odds? Yeah, my sympathy is *wholly* with Snape there. When one of the Marauders comes out and admits they give Snape shit *because he exists* ... yeah. I'm on Snape's side on that one. James and Sirius were horrifyingly vicious bullies as kids ... and I honestly wonder if Snape was their sole victim ... and I *also* tend to wonder if James didn't feed Lily a love potion to get her to go with him. She HATED him the first six years of their school lives ... and then by the end of seventh year she's willing to marry him? Yeah ... that sounds more than a little hinky.

I don't blame Snape for holding on to his grudge against James and Sirius ... they made his school life a living hell, and Sirius tried to KILL HIM. These are not actions anyone sane would be willing to forgive easily, even without any other issues in the mix. Was he wrong to take it out on Harry? Oh heck yes ... but I understand why he's still pissed.

Plus, there are other factors in the hows and whys of how he treated Harry (well, potentially, anyway) you have to remember who he is ... a spy. He is/was a Death Eater. And he's surrounded by Death Eater kids ... especially in his class with Harry. Kids who WILL report on Snape's actions to their parents (Draco for sure, he's such a daddy's boy, possibly others) as to how Snape treats Harry. If Snape had given Harry any mercy, it's entirely possible he'd be ... ahem ... 'asked' ... to explain himself, either to Lucius/other Death Eaters or Voldie himself after he came back. Not a good scenario, there.

And there is a potential other reason for Snape hounding Hermione. (Not saying it's right, just saying there might be other reasons for it). Hermione is ALWAYS the first to want to answer a question, and if you don't call on her, likely as not, she'll just blurt it out anyway. That doesn't allow anyone else to attempt to answer the question. She also goes WAY beyond what she's supposed to for homework (she once wrote *two scrolls more than required* for an essay, in History, I believe) and to be completely blunt, is an all-around 'insufferable know-ot-all' that DOES need to be taken down a peg or two so that she realizes that 1) she isn't always right 2) other people have brains and are allowed to contribute and 3) showing off what you know at every opportunity is only going to get people really irritated at you and result in you being very, very, isolated. That last one, I think she figured out a little ... did she have ANY friends aside from Ron and Harry?

[ShotgunWilly]

Maybe James and Sirius started it, but I think that Snape has nearly as much to do with James and Sirius' treatment of him as James and Sirius do. It was said in the books that Snape gave as good as he got most of the time.

[G. Novella]

The thing I think that I love about Snape is his snarkiness. I mean, come on, he's an ass, but thats why you love him. For characters like Snape and Dumbledore, you'll always be for or against. Besides, his love for Lily is what makes him redeemable in the end. His hate and bitterness are supposed to be his character, but his love for Lily is what saved him from a darker fate.

Also, on the topic of Hermione. I love her, but honestly, I would never want her as my friend. She needs to just learn to shut up and let Ron and Harry think or speak once in a while, her intentions are good, but she's so bound to rules and everything is black and white that she often overlooks the big picture. She tends to want to run for help at the first sign of trouble, it just gets to me.

And on a new note, does anyone get annoyed witn Harry and his lack of a backbone? Sometimes I just want to tell him to wake up and make his mind up. But then I sigh, and find his indeciseveness so cute.

I guess I can't hate any of the characters. I love them, but they annoy me at different points. Except for Lucius Malfoy. He's a bastard, no matter what anyone says.

[sherza]

Yeah, with four on one odds? I sincerely doubt that. This is coming from the same woman who thinks Harry *wasn't* physically abused, despite writing in more than sufficient proof that he was. I don't care who you are ... four on one odds are shitty, and self-defense strike-backs are NOT the same as bullying the living hell out of someone simply because they exist. Snape may have repaid some of their shenanigans, but that does not make him equally guilty for the war between them. From all evidence we possess, he was willing to walk past them without so much as looking at them (the lake incident) whereas THEY went out of their way to hound him.

As well, the comments about Snape giving as good as he got came from Sirius, I do believe ... which means I automatically take it with about a pound of salt, because he was one of the ones giving Snape hell, and if I remember when he was talking about it right, he was kind of trying to justify things/put them in a good light when Harry called him on the carpet about it.

[ShotgunWilly]

About the outnumbered stuff, I personally think you underestimate Snape's determination and power. I'm sure that there are some instances of being outnumbered 4:1 where you'd be surprised about how badly the bigger side got their asses kicked.

Don't forget that, if I remember correctly, Snape came to Hogwarts with a fair amount of dark arts knowledge and I'm sure he had his own circle of 'friends' to help him on occasion. JKR might not have mentioned them, but people seem to forget that Slytherins can work together too.

I'm hardly saying that what James and Sirius and co. did was right, but I am saying that it probably isn't as cut-and-dried as people present it

I'm of the opinion that there are other factors at work behind JKR's denial of Harry's physical abuse. It's entirely possible that for some political reason or whatnot, they didn't want to acknowledge it.

[lucyolsen]

Who exactly said the Snape knew about dark arts before coming to Hogwarts? Sirius?

[sherza]

Jun 10, 2012 14:53:08 GMT -5 ShotgunWilly said:

About the outnumbered stuff, I personally think you underestimate Snape's determination and power. I'm sure that there are some instances of being outnumbered 4:1 where you'd be surprised about how badly the bigger side got their asses kicked.

Don't forget that, if I remember correctly, Snape came to Hogwarts with a fair amount of dark arts knowledge and I'm sure he had his own circle of 'friends' to help him on occasion. JKR might not have mentioned them, but people seem to forget that Slytherins can work together too.

I'm hardly saying that what James and Sirius and co. did was right, but I am saying that it probably isn't as cut-and-dried as people present it

I'm of the opinion that there are other factors at work behind JKR's denial of Harry's physical abuse. It's entirely possible that for some political reason or whatnot, they didn't want to acknowledge it.

Yes, a single person can kick the asses of four people, under the right circumstances ... physically, and potentially, in a magical duel. But Snape shouldn't have HAD to, damnit. That he could, doesn't make it right. He also clearly didn't manage it every single time they ganged up on him.

Also ... we only have Sirius' word for it that Snape came to school with an extensive Dark Arts repetoir. Think for a minute here. Snape was a halfblood who lived in a Muggle neighborhood. Guess what that means? No practicing magic. He may have read about Dark Arts stuff, but was able to perform it before he even started school? Yeah, no.

And no, Snape didn't have a circle of friends. He was a poverty-stricken halfblood in a house full of blood-bigoted purebloods during the height of Voldemort's power. He had NO Slytherin backup whatever, and even if he was a nice-tempered kid, forming a friendship outside of Slytherin would have been nigh-on to impossible in that atmosphere! The books make it pretty clear that Snape was a loner.

[G. Novella]

The thing about the Marauders and bullying, well, I feel like James and Remus probably grew out of it. Remus more so because he knew about ostracization. As well, James was raised slightly spoiled and Snape challenged his ego and was sort of threatening in his affections for Lily. I think teenage James is hard to place because I do truly like James as a man. He just had a long way to go to become a man.

As well, I don't think Sirius stopped bothering Snape. I think he truly found Snape repulsive due to Snape heading towards Dark Arts and Voldemort. I think like Snape, Sirius was raised to hate his family and the side it represented, ergo Sirius hated Snape for being the traditional Slytherin. Whereas Snape hated Sirius for being this cocky arrogant muggle lover. I find their rivalry so much more interesting than the Marauder Snape rivalry.

[Kitty279]

Jun 8, 2012 21:37:46 GMT -5 sherza said:

I hated Dumbledore from the first chapter of the first book, and had him pegged, pretty much instantly, as harmfully manipulative at the very least. Why?

He left an ambulatory 15 month old child on a doorstep. On November 1. With a letter.

My instantaneous reaction was 'W.T.F.'. Unless early November in England is body-temperature warm with no precipitation ... what Dumbledore did was literally criminal. Harry could have wandered off, been attacked by animals, been snatched up by Muggle passersby, gotten deathly sick or even died before he was found. He didn't even have the common human decency to speak to Petunia and Vernon directly, to explain what had happened etc.

After that, things just kept getting uglier and uglier. Traps a first year can get past, which a first year (Hermione) wonders if they weren't deliberately made that way ... WTH? Dumbledore never twigging to Quirrellmort. Never twigging to the diary, or that the monster was a basilisk, or, for goodness' sake, having the brains to talk to Myrtle about how and why she died. And then in third year we find out that Sirius was tossed in Azkaban without a trial ... and Dumbledore never did a thing about it ... and he had the power to. Double-doses of WTF on that one. And not recognizing that Moody wasn't Moody? GAH. AND we find out the ruddy old goat KNEW Harry was being neglected and abused. Quite frankly, at that point I was glad that Dumbledore wasn't actually real, because if he had been, I'dve been hard-pressed to keep from trying to kick his butt.

Honestly, when you put everything together, Dumbledore truly does come off as evil ... just not in the same class of evil as Voldie.

That post left me nodding a lot - at first I at least liked Dumbledore a bit, but after OotP I was so annoyed with him. IMO his insistence to keep Harry in the dark about the things that concerned first and foremost Harry himself and his oh-so-grand idea to have Snape teach him Occlumency, regardless of the fact that Snape hates Harry and vice versa was the main reason why Sirius died. And I never forgave him for that.

Besides, I find it still hard to understand why it's the decision of the Minister if someone gets a trial. Dumbledore was the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, which is the judicial body. Why on earth can he not enforce one? And he's the Supreme Mugwump of the ICW - why can they not force a trial on the British Ministry? However, my impression was that Dumbledore not even tried. On the other hand, his word was enough to get Snape - a proven Death Eater - out of a trial. Talk about double standards! It's so easy to understand why so many fanfictions have him do it because he doesn't want him to have custody of Harry and make sure he doesn't get to be Dumbledore's sacrificial lamb ...

Why was Dumbledore having the Order guarding that stupid prophecy? He could have had Harry removing it, and I never saw what it would matter if Voldemort got it. He was after Harry anyway and wanted to kill him, so what's the difference? It would have been more useful to take the more reliable Order members and use them to find the Horcruxes much earlier. That would have saved thousands of lives.

Oh, and what was Dumbledore thinking, needing a whole year to tell Harry about the Horcruxes?? Why not sit him down on a weekend with no school to get in the way and do it in one go? And then spend the rest of the time training him? Even if he thought Harry needed to do, did he believe the kids would only have to to and collect the Horcruxes, no danger and no fights possible? And then he left it to three unprepared teenagers to end a war? Teenagers he didn't even tell how to destroy these things? It doesn't make any sense to me. Either he was senile or so hell-bent on setting things in motion for Harry to be sacrificed for a questionable prophecy that he didn't even realise that he could have ended the war long before or even prevented it.

[biakit]

About the four to one one Snape I think that most of the times Peter was only there watching and laughing, maybe even checking the teachers. Remus was the most sensible one, sure he had a laugh too sometimes, but to me he was the one who liked the least what they did to Snape, I think he didn't want to argue to the only friends who accepted him. James is different, he was so spoiled that when Snape first challenged him in the train he accepted and 'challenged' back, he wanted to win their competition so he kept bulling Snape to show he was the best, but something happened in their 7th year (I think his parents died or something) and he grew up, I think that he bullied less Snape, and as Lily and Snape weren't friends anymore he didn't need to bully him to get Lily's attention, so he only kept doing it because of the 'habit' and Sirius. Well Sirius is the one who doesn't forgive Snape and keeps arguing and bulling him every time he can, I think Sirius hates Snape because Snape didn't have a name to honor like Sirius has with the Black, Sirius had to go to Slytherin and had to marry a Slytherin girl and had to support the dark arts because of his family, and then there's Snape, who didn't need to be anything, but he still chooses the dark arts.
I think that James and Remus regret what they did to Snape, or at least if James still didn't he eventually would. Sirius would probably do it again and Peter doesn't regret because he might think it's not his fault.

[dracosfairmaiden]

I was one of those people that loved Dumbledore at first but now I think he's overrated. To me, the main thing I noticed was that he played God too much. He kept acting like he was in charge of everything when he really wasn't.

[sherza]

Jun 10, 2012 15:26:44 GMT -5 Kitty279 said:

IMO his insistence to keep Harry in the dark about the things that concerned first and foremost Harry himself and his oh-so-grand idea to have Snape teach him Occlumency, regardless of the fact that Snape hates Harry and vice versa was the main reason why Sirius died.

Besides, I find it still hard to understand why it's the decision of the Minister if someone gets a trial. Dumbledore was the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, which is the judicial body. Why on earth can he not enforce one? And he's the Supreme Mugwump of the ICW - why can they not force a trial on the British Ministry? However, my impression was that Dumbledore not even tried. On the other hand, his word was enough to get Snape - a proven Death Eater - out of a trial. Talk about double standards!

Why was Dumbledore having the Order guarding that stupid prophecy? He could have had Harry removing it, and I never saw what it would matter if Voldemort got it. He was after Harry anyway and wanted to kill him, so what's the difference? It would have been more useful to take the more reliable Order members and use them to find the Horcruxes much earlier.

Oh, and what was Dumbledore thinking, needing a whole year to tell Harry about the Horcruxes?? Why not sit him down on a weekend with no school to get in the way and do it in one go? And then spend the rest of the time training him? Even if he thought Harry needed to do, did he believe the kids would only have to to and collect the Horcruxes, no danger and no fights possible? And then he left it to three unprepared teenagers to end a war? Teenagers he didn't even tell how to destroy these things? Either he was senile or so hell-bent on setting things in motion for Harry to be sacrificed for a questionable prophecy that he didn't even realise that he could have ended the war long before or even prevented it.

I am right there with you, hon. And remember ... he had the Order guarding Harry. When Harry was supposedly protected by un-breachable blood wards. Which means that a) he lied about how impenetrable the wards were and/or b) some or all of the guards saw /exactly/ what the Dursleys did to Harry ... and let it happen. Probably on Dumbledore's 'don't you dare interfere' orders. I'll give Moody et all credit, they DID at least threaten Vernon and Petunia at the end of OotP, but ... yeah. That's always bugged me.

Honestly, by the time he died, Dumbledore had a pretty damn good idea of what some of the Horcruxes were and where they were at. I'll give him leniency on the diadem ... there's no real way he could have suspected that one, without interrogating every single ghost in the castle ... and HE couldn't get to the cup, even if he knew it was there (though Sirius might have been able to, depending on how things worked) but that leaves Nagini, the locket, and Harry where they can be found and dealt with, with a bit of effort and thought. He couldn't have dealt with them himself? Really now!

And he let the Minister run roughshod all over him ... which is pretty much the equivalent of the Supreme Court letting the President dictate how they're going to judge their cases in the USA. Oy. *eyeroll* He could have done so, so much more than he did.

[G. Novella]

Jun 10, 2012 16:02:54 GMT -5 dracosfairmaiden said:

I was one of those people that loved Dumbledore at first but now I think he's overrated. To me, the main thing I noticed was that he played God too much. He kept acting like he was in charge of everything when he really wasn't.

But the thing is, if Dumbledore didn't take that role of a leader who made those decisions, who would?

The ministry obviously was doing nothing. Harry was just a baby at the time, and a hormonal teenager the second time around, that had a whole lot on his plate besides trying to handle an army. I know it's easy to hate and blame him, but he did win three wars if you think about it technically. Yes he wasn't a good man, but he was a good leader.

Politics is a messy game. He could ask for Sirius to be tried, but why bother? Sirius was so set up to be a villain that no one questioned it. He'd already saved Snape which was questionable, and to go for Sirius when he himself didn't believe Sirius was innocent wasn't a good idea. Instead, as a leader and politician, it's smarter to save those favors for a different time.

By the way, what is a Mugwump? I mean, in muggle terms.

[mountaingirl777]

In some cases Dumbledore makes me think of a grandfather, but other times he makes me think of torture and misery.

The things make me not like Dumbledore is the fact that he made Harry stay at the Dursleys and also not do anything to help Sirius. I believe that he knew that Sirius was innocent, but turned a blind eye and let him suffer in Azkaban. I've always wondered why Dumbledore didn't do anything for Sirius after Prisoner of Azkaban. Dumbledore was powerful, why couldn't he use his power to free Sirius instead of making him sit in that hell hole of a house!

I also believe that he knew about what was going on at the Dursleys. I don't believe Arabella would be posted to watch over him and not say anything to Dumbledore, especially when she herself has been involved with abuse (i.e. dudley running her over with his bike).

[sherza]

Jun 10, 2012 16:10:17 GMT -5 G. Novella said:

But the thing is, if Dumbledore didn't take that role of a leader who made those decisions, who would?

Yes he wasn't a good man, but he was a good leader.

Politics is a messy game. He could ask for Sirius to be tried, but why bother? Sirius was so set up to be a villain that no one questioned it. He'd already saved Snape which was questionable, and to go for Sirius when he himself didn't believe Sirius was innocent wasn't a good idea. Instead, as a leader and politician, it's smarter to save those favors for a different time.

By the way, what is a Mugwump? I mean, in muggle terms.

Hmmm. Amelia Bones, Kingsley Shacklebolt, Rufus Scrimgeour, Alastor Moody, Minerva McGonagall, Filius Flitwick, Severus Snape ... all names I can think of off the top of my head that could have and did contribute strongly to the 'cause'. Any one of them bar Snape would have made a serviceable leader in Dumbledore's stead. Hell, even Crouch did his bit, before he went over the deep edge after discovering his son was a Death Eater. And there were more besides.

No ... he really wasn't a good leader.

Every person accused of a crime deserves a trial. Full stop. I don't care HOW guilty the person looks on paper. If they could (and did) try BELLATRIX FREAKING LESTRANGE for her crimes, they could try Sirius. There is NO excuse whatever for throwing Sirius in jail without a trial and letting him rot. None.

I forget which title is which, but aside from Dumbledore being Headmaster of Britain's most prestigious school, he is also the leader of the magical version of the United Nations, AND the leader of the UK magical world's judicial system. Now you tell me he didn't have the clout to see justice done. I DARE you.

[G. Novella]

Jun 10, 2012 16:30:11 GMT -5 sherza said:

Jun 10, 2012 16:10:17 GMT -5 G. Novella said:

But the thing is, if Dumbledore didn't take that role of a leader who made those decisions, who would?

Yes he wasn't a good man, but he was a good leader.

Politics is a messy game. He could ask for Sirius to be tried, but why bother? Sirius was so set up to be a villain that no one questioned it. He'd already saved Snape which was questionable, and to go for Sirius when he himself didn't believe Sirius was innocent wasn't a good idea. Instead, as a leader and politician, it's smarter to save those favors for a different time.

By the way, what is a Mugwump? I mean, in muggle terms.

Hmmm. Amelia Bones, Kingsley Shacklebolt, Rufus Scrimgeour, Alastor Moody, Minerva McGonagall, Filius Flitwick, Severus Snape ... all names I can think of off the top of my head that could have and did contribute strongly to the 'cause'. Any one of them bar Snape would have made a serviceable leader in Dumbledore's stead. Hell, even Crouch did his bit, before he went over the deep edge after discovering his son was a Death Eater. And there were more besides.

No ... he really wasn't a good leader.

Every person accused of a crime deserves a trial. Full stop. I don't care HOW guilty the person looks on paper. If they could (and did) try BELLATRIX FREAKING LESTRANGE for her crimes, they could try Sirius. There is NO excuse whatever for throwing Sirius in jail without a trial and letting him rot. None.

I forget which title is which, but aside from Dumbledore being Headmaster of Britain's most prestigious school, he is also the leader of the magical version of the United Nations, AND the leader of the UK magical world's judicial system. Now you tell me he didn't have the clout to see justice done. I DARE you.

Your intensity made me smile, not in a haha way, but in a there-are-people-like-me-out-there-who-want-to-debate-fictional-characters way.

First off, the people you mentioned. Almost all of them besides Moody, McGonagall and Flitwick were just setting up their careers. McGonagall was more of a teacher than a leader. She's too straightforward to play the game of politics. Scrimgeour made a poor leader to begin with since he was too concerned about politics. Flitwick's not really a leader, more of a teacher, like, the ideal teacher. I would never let Snape lead anything, period. Amelia Bones as far as we know was still young and not a respected ministry figure. Moody was this paranoid old Auror that frightened the public. None of the above had even half of the charisma Dumbledore had. I mean, the entire country thought he was a god, until Fudge started using extreme propaganda against him and Dumbledore started saying scary things. Besides that, Dumbledore was a crowd pleaser. Look at JFK, Trudeau, or MLK jr, all people who could sway crowds and had charisma.

As for everyone deserving a trial, I completely agree. But who's to say any of them would be tried under Veritaserum? We all know many Death Eaters walked free with a garbled story, and if Sirius was tried, he would have no one backing him at this point, and he could request Veritaserum, but that's if he manages to get some words in while everyone hisses and jeers that he be taken away. The opposing lawyer would present the case, and if Couch is the guy leading the trial, well, Sirius would have a tough time explaining. I can see it now. Sirius pleads innocent, but Crouch sways the crowd and Sirius still gets sent away. Granted it might sway Dumbledore or Remus to see the truth, but who's to say?

Besides, the entire wizarding judicial system is flawed. I mean seriously, they have a truth serum! Why is not mandatory in every trial? Make bucket loads, fill a pool, just have some on hand, morons. Then they try a kid for underage magic. If I was a member of the Wizengamot and got called to that trial, I'd have a few dirty words to say at the trial itself. I'd probably get kicked out for cussing like a sailor. I mean really, why even bother getting out of bed to attend the trial?

But yes, Dumbledore had the clout to get justice done. But in all honesty, how legitimate are these titles? I mean, they managed to strip him of the titles in a matter of weeks in the fifth book. Sure Dumbledore can ask for Sirius to be tried, but what's the point? He would require solid evidence that Sirius was innocent to get any jury to see the point in a trial, and by the time he gets it in the books, Sirius has ruined his reputation to the point where even if Dumbledore tried to defend him, they'd start saying he went senile a year earlier.

That leads to the questions:

Why the hell did James and Lily never leave a note saying, in case something happens, Sirius should have our baby and he wasn't the secret keeper?

I mean, give it to Remus or I don't know, McGonagall or someone!

I doubt Dumbledore knew Sirius was innocent. I think he just saw Sirius as a lost case and went on to more important matters, like rebuilding the Wizarding world.

[sherza]

Jun 10, 2012 17:02:35 GMT -5 G. Novella said:

First off, the people you mentioned. Almost all of them besides Moody, McGonagall and Flitwick were just setting up their careers. McGonagall was more of a teacher than a leader. She's too straightforward to play the game of politics. Scrimgeour made a poor leader to begin with since he was too concerned about politics. Flitwick's not really a leader, more of a teacher, like, the ideal teacher. I would never let Snape lead anything, period. Amelia Bones as far as we know was still young and not a respected ministry figure. Moody was this paranoid old Auror that frightened the public. None of the above had even half of the charisma Dumbledore had. I mean, the entire country thought he was a god, until Fudge started using extreme propaganda against him and Dumbledore started saying scary things. Besides that, Dumbledore was a crowd pleaser. Look at JFK, Trudeau, or MLK jr, all people who could sway crowds and had charisma.

As for everyone deserving a trial, I completely agree. But who's to say any of them would be tried under Veritaserum? We all know many Death Eaters walked free with a garbled story, and if Sirius was tried, he would have no one backing him at this point, and he could request Veritaserum, but that's if he manages to get some words in while everyone hisses and jeers that he be taken away. The opposing lawyer would present the case, and if Couch is the guy leading the trial, well, Sirius would have a tough time explaining. I can see it now. Sirius pleads innocent, but Crouch sways the crowd and Sirius still gets sent away. Granted it might sway Dumbledore or Remus to see the truth, but who's to say?

Besides, the entire wizarding judicial system is flawed. I mean seriously, they have a truth serum! Why is not mandatory in every trial? Make bucket loads, fill a pool, just have some on hand, morons. Then they try a kid for underage magic. If I was a member of the Wizengamot and got called to that trial, I'd have a few dirty words to say at the trial itself. I'd probably get kicked out for cussing like a sailor. I mean really, why even bother getting out of bed to attend the trial?

But yes, Dumbledore had the clout to get justice done. But in all honesty, how legitimate are these titles? I mean, they managed to strip him of the titles in a matter of weeks in the fifth book. Sure Dumbledore can ask for Sirius to be tried, but what's the point? He would require solid evidence that Sirius was innocent to get any jury to see the point in a trial, and by the time he gets it in the books, Sirius has ruined his reputation to the point where even if Dumbledore tried to defend him, they'd start saying he went senile a year earlier.

That leads to the questions:

Why the hell did James and Lily never leave a note saying, in case something happens, Sirius should have our baby and he wasn't the secret keeper?

I mean, give it to Remus or I don't know, McGonagall or someone!

I doubt Dumbledore knew Sirius was innocent. I think he just saw Sirius as a lost case and went on to more important matters, like rebuilding the Wizarding world.

No, none of the people I named is ideal/perfect as a leader for the 'good guys' but they could have lead. They might have had to combine resources or something, but the point is that there are people other than Dumbledore who knew their asses from their elbows and *could have* lead. Moody especially, because very early in the Voldemort years, he *wasn't* an insanely paranoid old codger. He was paranoid, yes, but to a reasonable degree, and a more than capable fighter. He only went overboard on the paranoia later on, when he got older and the DE's that lied their way out of trouble were still running around.

Ad yeah, the wizarding world's judicial system is messed up, and Sirius could have gotten railroaded ... but that's beside the point. He. Was. Owed. A. Trial. Whether or not everyone thought he was guilty, etc etc. Like I said, if they could try Bellatrix, who got caught torturing the Longbottoms red-handed ... they could try Sirius. There's NO excuse for him not getting a trial. None.

And the positions Dumbledore holds are a mockery because he allows them to be. He LET Fudge and the Wizengamot railroad him. He didn't even TRY to fight them ... and don't tell me he did. Because, seriously. He so didn't. Did he try to counter the Prophet's smears against himself or Harry? No. He just rolled over and played dead.

I have NO clue why the Potters didn't leave a note. Maybe they did, but it got suppressed? Or, they couldn't, because of how the Fidelius works? There's nothing anywhere saying the Potters had a Will either, which makes NO sense whatever, given they were actively fighting in a freaking WAR, and had been forced to go into hiding to save their and their son's lives. It's a plothole of massive proportions that JKR should have addressed.

[G. Novella]

Jun 10, 2012 17:24:10 GMT -5 sherza said:

No, none of the people I named is ideal/perfect as a leader for the 'good guys' but they could have lead. They might have had to combine resources or something, but the point is that there are people other than Dumbledore who knew their asses from their elbows and *could have* lead. Moody especially, because very early in the Voldemort years, he *wasn't* an insanely paranoid old codger. He was paranoid, yes, but to a reasonable degree, and a more than capable fighter. He only went overboard on the paranoia later on, when he got older and the DE's that lied their way out of trouble were still running around.

Ad yeah, the wizarding world's judicial system is messed up, and Sirius could have gotten railroaded ... but that's beside the point. He. Was. Owed. A. Trial. Whether or not everyone thought he was guilty, etc etc. Like I said, if they could try Bellatrix, who got caught torturing the Longbottoms red-handed ... they could try Sirius. There's NO excuse for him not getting a trial. None.

And the positions Dumbledore holds are a mockery because he allows them to be. He LET Fudge and the Wizengamot railroad him. He didn't even TRY to fight them ... and don't tell me he did. Because, seriously. He so didn't. Did he try to counter the Prophet's smears against himself or Harry? No. He just rolled over and played dead.

I have NO clue why the Potters didn't leave a note. Maybe they did, but it got suppressed? Or, they couldn't, because of how the Fidelius works? There's nothing anywhere saying the Potters had a Will either, which makes NO sense whatever, given they were actively fighting in a freaking WAR, and had been forced to go into hiding to save their and their son's lives. It's a plothole of massive proportions that JKR should have addressed.

To the point about them combining resources. They did, but after Dumbledore died, when things got too late. They just kept putting their trust in the man, furthering his idea that he was right, which was a bloody mess.

As for Moody leading anyone. Can you honestly say that Moody at any time in his life can go up, in front of a crowd, and sway them to fight a war? My idea of Moody speeches generally involve people wetting their pants and fleeing the country. He wouldn't try and feed the people hope, which Dumbledore did. Moody wouldn't be able to convince any boards to fund his projects or ideas. He'd scare them. He was a general for soldiers, but not a leader for civilians.

I'm not denying that Sirius was owed a trial, but I am saying that I can see him not being freed from a trial anyways. I mean, Crouch didn't even listen to his own son's explanation of innocence, why would he give Sirius a chance to talk?

Dumbledore didn't counter the smears, he was telling people the truth. That resulted in him getting smeared. What was he supposed to do? Go around saying, no listen, I'm not senile. Voldemort's back. I believe a fourteen year old kid's traumatized story. That's how I know. Why hasn't he acted? Well, because he's laying low, but I'm right! Just use some veritaserum, oh wait, we don't have any lying around because we're morons who don't see the point in using it.

I can't see any reasoning why being under a Fidelius made them think, oh, let's not write down our last wishes using some ink and paper. As for it being suppressed, Dumbledore's manipulative, but not to the point where he'd let an innocent man rot in Azkaban. He'd have freed Sirius, and fought him every step of the way concerning Harry. And then more people would ally with Dumbledore because Sirius was such a loose cannon.

But yes, JKR really needed to explain that issue.

[sherza]

Actually, yes, I CAN see a *younger* Moody leading people effectively. You need to remember that Moody in OotP - DH was NOT the same man as the Moody of twenty years prior. He was younger, less scarred, less paranoid, etc. I can very, very easily see him swaying people to fight for their lives in the early days of the war. Granted, he probably didn't have the political savvy, but that'd be where Amelia or Rufus or someone of that stripe would come in.

As for Dumbledore, well ... there's also pensieves. But that whole mess was ... yeah. I can't begin to figure out why Dumbledore didn't try to defend himself. It makes no sense.

Actually, Dumbledore was quite willing to do nothing to aid Sirius. Here again we run into the 'he had the power, the Minister is NOT a judge and therefore cannot have any say in who gets a trial or how that trial goes, so WTF is going on here' issues. He had four witnesses, veritaserum and pensieves to prove Sirius' innocence at the end of PoA ... but he didn't even begin to try.

It's a massive, massive problem.

[G. Novella]

Four Witnesses- Three kids Snape claimed had been confounded. A werewolf who's looked down upon and has been linked to Black in the past. I see a lot of credibility in their statements.

Younger Moody, well, I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Besides, I can't see Amelia Bones or Scrimgeour being allied around Moody to help lead the war effort when they've just started or are building their reputations and careers.

Wizard Justice system=BIG MESS THAT EXPLAINS NOTHING!

And he was defending himself, its just that no one really believed, and asking a fifteen year old kid who just witnessed a murder to help seems callous and the Dumbledore that loved Harry wouldn't want to put him through that. I think with Dumbledore, you have to see him as two people. The maniacal leading bastard, and the grandfather who tried too hard to help everyone. In essence, both would be great separately, but combined, they made a lot of mistakes.

[sherza]

That would be where examining wands for spells, medical exams, and suchlike things came in, yes? In a logical system of any sort? Witnesses can and do prove their reliability as such via various means.

Name me one thing ... just ONE ... that we see in OotP aside from Dumbledore's convo with Fudge during Harry's trial that showed Dumbledore attempting to defend himself and/or Harry from all the rumormongering and allegations.

Dumbledore did NOT love Harry. Flat out, no. If he did, he wouldn't have left the kid ON A DOORSTEP. Or kept him pig-ignorant of everything. Or returned him to an abusive home that he damn well KNEW was abusive, via whatever means. Or completely ignored the kid without explaining jack all of fifth year, leaving said poor kid to come up with worst-case scenarios about it. There is no kindly, grandfatherly old man anywhere to be found, at all. Just a manipulative old coot.

[G. Novella]

Exactly to the first point.

He offered the second solution to Fudge, and countered his arguments logically. But a hearing is not the place to defend the slander against him. What's he supposed to say during a hearing? I'm not senile! Harry's not crazy! It's you people and this corrupt ministry?

That would be followed by, Hello Mr. Dementor, off to Azkaban are we? Or, Hello Healer, yes, I'm mentally aware that I disrespected the minister during a hearing when he wants nothing more than to throw me into Azkaban and prove I'm against him and has proven that he'll do illogical things to kick a kid out of a school that he doesn't even run.

As for the love thing, well, I don't think he started to love Harry until he actually met Harry in Hogwarts and got used to looking out for the kid. It's easy to leave a kid on a doorstep that you don't know. Besides, like I said, Dumbledore has this weird, I'm right thing that people kept feeding him. If someone had just, oh, I don't know, said Dumbledore, this isn't a good idea, and here's why and I'll fight it, then maybe the war wouldn't be on just his shoulders. But everyone seemed content to just let him lead it.

[sherza]

I didn't say he had to try to prove it at the hearing. I just said point to somewhere, anywhere else in that book where he verbally smacked Fudge upside the head about the rampant lies and libel, or did anything via ANY means to correct the situation.

Considering that Dumbledore vouchsafed information to no one on any critical issue, and completely ignored any and all objections to his actions ... it ain't everyone else's fault that he's pulled the crap he has. McGonagall objected to him leaving Harry. Multiple people bitched about Harry being left with the Dursleys after he started school, multiple people complained about leaving Harry ignorant ... and Albus completely ignored them and did what he wanted anyway. After a while, under conditions like that, people eventually stop going 'you're screwing up, idiot' because they know they won't be heeded.

[vlcrawford]

Yeah I liked him to the first few times I read the books but the more I read them the more I realized that he was a terrible person from the very first chapter. Having a bay kidnapped from his rightful guardian, leaving said bayy on the doorstep in the middle of the night in Nov., without a by your leave. Knowing full well as he said in OotP that he knew he was condemning him to tendark years as he said. Then why would he bring the stone into the school exactly when Harry was there. He put all that faith in a prophecy so he didn't evn try to do anything to make sure the man wouldn't come back. Why did it take fifty some years before he started huntintg the Horcruxes when the Riddles were murdered while Toomy-Boy was still in school.
And as for Sirius, he let the man go to prison without a trial. The only evidence that he betrayed the Potters was Dumbles word. We know he could have gotten Sirius a trial, because he proved it by keeping Snape from having to have one at even though he was a known Death Eater and because when Fudge tried to railroad Harry they had to give him one and that was when Dumbles was being ostracized himself. Both times he could've helped Sirius he didn't do a damn thing. For the man who swore so much about Second Chances he didn't even given Sirius the chance to prove he needed a second chance. For the man who said in CoS "Innocent until proven guilty" he sure didn't act that way.
And why didn't he instead of having Hermione and Harry use the Time- Turner why didn't he? He could disallusion himself to invisibilit and caught that rat, but instead he expected to kids to be out on the grounds in not one but two forms with a hundred demntors and a werewolf on the loose. I could go on because I haven't even started on five of the seven books at all. The man was either a senile, arrogent idiot, a manipulative dangerous old codger or truly as evil as Voldemort himself. Myself I think he was a combination of all three. I truly hate the man and think he should have been fed to Aragog and family very, very slowly.

[sherza]

I'll give Dumbledore the benefit of the doubt on nixing the Horcruxes as soon as Tommy started making them ... there's no real way for Dumbledore to have known at the time. But once Tommy got knocked on his butt and Dumbledore had time to do some research on WHY the bugger wouldn't die, the excuse ends.

[G. Novella]

Yes, but name one time, in the book, where a person said, he's being abused Albus! Get him out of there! Not a single person did. Not even Sirius.

They complained about his ignorance, yes, but think about it from his perspective. Harry had witnessed a kid die. I don't know, let's tell a traumatized kid that he has to kill the murderer he just witnessed in action. Or be killed. Not to mention that Harry had the connection to Riddle messing with his mind. What if Riddle saw the prophecy through Harry's head? Then he'd know the truth and be able to avoid dying that way, making him more destructive.

I think Dumbledore knew that Harry was being downtrodden and neglected, but he knew nothing of the physical abuse. If he did, he'd have removed Harry. Case in point being that his sister had gone mad because of the abuse. That leaves a mark on a guy.

I will never say Dumbledore was evil, or that the entire thing was his elaborate scheme to get Harry under his control and come out on top.

As for the Horcruxes, he spent twelve years unaware of how Riddle was still alive. All he knew was that somehow the blood protections was invoked. Until COS, he had no idea about the Horcruxes. Then POA he had to deal with a mass murderer on the loose, run a school, and do all his extraneous jobs. GOF he was busy handling the TriWizard Tournament, trying to figure out where Riddle was and what he was up to, run a school, and handle all the weird things coming up. OOTP he had to convince the world that Riddle was alive and kicking, had to start up the Order, and in between, after he got kicked from Hogwarts, I'm guessing he went Horcrux hunting and began trying to figure out everything.

As well, he was HUMAN! He made mistakes. If he didn't, well, then he'd be surreal and we'd not be having this discussion.

Besides, we see the flaws. What about everyone who you've named as smart? McGonagall, Moody, Shacklebolt, etc, they all believed Dumbledore knew what he was doing. They let him run things the way he was. They all said, yes, he knows what he's doing. Trust Dumbledore. Oh he can solve the problem. That's a lot of pressure, and the guy took it in stride and mostly did right by what he could.

All said and done, whether he was evil or not, he got the job done. He got rid of Voldemort. Harry forgave him and said, yes, Dumbledore was right. His methods were less than ideal, but this was the real world, nothing is clear cut black and white, he messed up in places, but he did what no one else could. Oh sure, you can say Harry did it, but in reality, if Dumbledore hadn't walked Harry through it, well, the series would be way longer than seven books.

But then, I will say it again, I like to defend and bash all the characters. For me, I pick the side not being argued and fight it. Except for Lucius Malfoy. I really hate that man. If anyone was truly a vindictive bastard, it's him.

[sherza]

Jun 10, 2012 20:43:21 GMT -5 G. Novella said:

Yes, but name one time, in the book, where a person said, he's being abused Albus! Get him out of there! Not a single person did. Not even Sirius.

They complained about his ignorance, yes, but think about it from his perspective. Harry had witnessed a kid die. I don't know, let's tell a traumatized kid that he has to kill the murderer he just witnessed in action. Or be killed. Not to mention that Harry had the connection to Riddle messing with his mind. What if Riddle saw the prophecy through Harry's head? Then he'd know the truth and be able to avoid dying that way, making him more destructive.

I think Dumbledore knew that Harry was being downtrodden and neglected, but he knew nothing of the physical abuse. If he did, he'd have removed Harry. Case in point being that his sister had gone mad because of the abuse. That leaves a mark on a guy.

As for the Horcruxes, he spent twelve years unaware of how Riddle was still alive. All he knew was that somehow the blood protections was invoked. Until COS, he had no idea about the Horcruxes. Then POA he had to deal with a mass murderer on the loose, run a school, and do all his extraneous jobs. GOF he was busy handling the TriWizard Tournament, trying to figure out where Riddle was and what he was up to, run a school, and handle all the weird things coming up. OOTP he had to convince the world that Riddle was alive and kicking, had to start up the Order, and in between, after he got kicked from Hogwarts, I'm guessing he went Horcrux hunting and began trying to figure out everything.

Besides, we see the flaws. What about everyone who you've named as smart? McGonagall, Moody, Shacklebolt, etc, they all believed Dumbledore knew what he was doing. They let him run things the way he was. They all said, yes, he knows what he's doing. Trust Dumbledore. Oh he can solve the problem. That's a lot of pressure, and the guy took it in stride and mostly did right by what he could.

All said and done, whether he was evil or not, he got the job done. He got rid of Voldemort. Harry forgave him and said, yes, Dumbledore was right. His methods were less than ideal, but this was the real world, nothing is clear cut black and white, he messed up in places, but he did what no one else could. Oh sure, you can say Harry did it, but in reality, if Dumbledore hadn't walked Harry through it, well, the series would be way longer than seven books.

Until the start of Book 5, the only adults that had ANY clue Harry was being abused were Dumbledore, Arabella Figg, possibly Poppy Pomfrey via medical scans ... and Molly Weasley. And Molly got her info, scant as it was, from the twins, after they rescued him, so I don't really blame her for not jumping all over that. Once Book 5 started, the people that were guarding Harry have absolutely no excuse, I agree, because they HAD to have seen/heard something over the summer.

As for not telling Harry ... oh lord.

1) Dumbledore could have talked to Harry about things (Voldie and his history, the prophecy, what have you) at ANY point after Harry started going to school. Breaking earth shattering news right after Harry's seen someone die is epically stupid, I agree (AHEM, END OF BOOK 5, DUMBLEDORK! WTF WERE YOU THINKING?) but during the summer or what have you ... *snort* Dumbledore sure as hell MADE the time to talk to Harry in book 6, didn't he? He could have done that a lot earlier and saved a lot of folks a lot of pain.

2) There was never any need to protect the prophecy. What does it tell Voldie, exactly? that he was an idiot and marked Harry as his equal, and that Harry has a power he doesn't know that can kick his butt. There is absolutely nothing he can do with any of the information in the second half of the prophecy. And even if the prophecy still had to be protected, and Harry being possessed by Voldie was a concern ... TELL HARRY THAT, FOR GOD'S SAKE. Tell him *why* you're suddenly avoiding him, so he doesn't start making up reasons! It would have had the dual purpose of ensuring that Harry worked his butt off to learn occlumency, besides!

And you're telling me that Dumbledore had twelve years ... twelve! to investigate how Voldie didn't die and he didn't figure it out until CoS? Yeaaaaaaaaaah, right, tell me another one. He knew *exactly* what the diary was when Harry handed it over at the end of CoS. He, at that point, had all the pieces of information he needed except for the exact number of Horcruxes he needed to be looking for.

And again ... everyone was relying on Dumbledore because that's how he set things up. He didn't share information, and did things himself, regardless of any commentary or complaints by his minions. After a while, people would have stopped bothering, and gone 'Dumbledore deals with it anyway, so leave it to him'.

And the war may have been won, but it wasn't because Dumbledore did the right things. He took massive gambles left, right, and center, got a shitload of people killed unnecessarily, and got *damn* lucky that things played out as well as they did. If he'd once gotten his head out of his butt and trusted the people around him with the information he possessed, the horcruxes save the cup and diadem (if Nagini was made a horcrux after Voldie's revival) would have been toast by Book 4. Sirius wouldn't have been killed, because Harry wouldn't have fallen for the trap, and HE might not have died, either, the big idiot, because he went after a horcrux without telling anyone, thinking he could handle it alone. Heck, done right ... there might not have been a second massive battle at all.

[G. Novella]

Jun 10, 2012 21:08:24 GMT -5 sherza said:

Until the start of Book 5, the only adults that had ANY clue Harry was being abused were Dumbledore, Arabella Figg, possibly Poppy Pomfrey via medical scans ... and Molly Weasley. And Molly got her info, scant as it was, from the twins, after they rescued him, so I don't really blame her for not jumping all over that. Once Book 5 started, the people that were guarding Harry have absolutely no excuse, I agree, because they HAD to have seen/heard something over the summer.

As for not telling Harry ... oh lord.

1) Dumbledore could have talked to Harry about things (Voldie and his history, the prophecy, what have you) at ANY point after Harry started going to school. Breaking earth shattering news right after Harry's seen someone die is epically stupid, I agree (AHEM, END OF BOOK 5, DUMBLEDORK! WTF WERE YOU THINKING?) but during the summer or what have you ... *snort* Dumbledore sure as hell MADE the time to talk to Harry in book 6, didn't he? He could have done that a lot earlier and saved a lot of folks a lot of pain.

2) There was never any need to protect the prophecy. What does it tell Voldie, exactly? that he was an idiot and marked Harry as his equal, and that Harry has a power he doesn't know that can kick his butt. There is absolutely nothing he can do with any of the information in the second half of the prophecy. And even if the prophecy still had to be protected, and Harry being possessed by Voldie was a concern ... TELL HARRY THAT, FOR GOD'S SAKE. Tell him *why* you're suddenly avoiding him, so he doesn't start making up reasons! It would have had the dual purpose of ensuring that Harry worked his butt off to learn occlumency, besides!

And you're telling me that Dumbledore had twelve years ... twelve! to investigate how Voldie didn't die and he didn't figure it out until CoS? Yeaaaaaaaaaah, right, tell me another one. He knew *exactly* what the diary was when Harry handed it over at the end of CoS. He, at that point, had all the pieces of information he needed except for the exact number of Horcruxes he needed to be looking for.

And again ... everyone was relying on Dumbledore because that's how he set things up. He didn't share information, and did things himself, regardless of any commentary or complaints by his minions. After a while, people would have stopped bothering, and gone 'Dumbledore deals with it anyway, so leave it to him'.

And the war may have been won, but it wasn't because Dumbledore did the right things. He took massive gambles left, right, and center, got a shitload of people killed unnecessarily, and got *damn* lucky that things played out as well as they did. If he'd once gotten his head out of his butt and trusted the people around him with the information he possessed, the horcruxes save the cup and diadem (if Nagini was made a horcrux after Voldie's revival) would have been toast by Book 4. Sirius wouldn't have been killed, because Harry wouldn't have fallen for the trap, and HE might not have died, either, the big idiot, because he went after a horcrux without telling anyone, thinking he could handle it alone. Heck, done right ... there might not have been a second massive battle at all.

I'm glad you don't blame Molly for not jumping on the abuse. In that, we agree. And we agree that no one said anything during Book 5 was a major plot hole.

As for Dumbledore not saying anything, perhaps I may be naive and like my Dumbledore as both loving Harry but manipulative in regards to Harry. I think that Dumbledore had convinced himself at this point that he was right and was doing the right thing by Harry. And by fifth year, when people started speaking out, well, no one likes to hear they raised their child wrong, and in that regards, Dumbledore was the same.

But by the end of Book five, he realized just how badly he'd screwed up and had to fess up to Harry so that Harry wouldn't blame himself and blame Dumbledore because he felt he was wrong, and he was mostly in the wrong. His reasons weren't entirely wrong, he just miscalculated and misread everything and bam, he made a Dumbledore sized mistake. Unfortunately, they're both idiots and blame themselves when things go wrong. I mean really, they can't predict human behavior and be all knowing!

Oh Dumbledore must have had his theories about how Voldemort survived, but no concrete evidence or a place to start looking. All he had were his speculations and nothing to act on or leads to follow until the diary. Oh and on another note, he never suspected Gringotts or Hogwarts as hiding spots.

As for the second part, well, I agree that he should have explained why he was avoiding Harry. But again, he is an isolated little bubble who works on his own.

In fact, if you think about it, Harry's exactly like him in that sense. He doesn't tell anyone about the Horcruxes until Dumbledore says jump. He doesn't want Ron and Hermione to help him even though he needs them. He tries to save Sirius on his own. I mean really, I get it, McGonagall gone, Dumbledore gone, but sit down and think. Sirius is a strong guy, he can wait a few minutes while you guys get a plan laid out. He constantly keeps his feelings bottled to himself instead of saying, look guys, I'm brooding, help me.

Yes Dumbledore took gambles, but in that respect, so did Harry, but we all love him.

COS, they went to bloody Lockhart. Seriously, wtf? YOU SPENT THE YEAR COMPLAINING HE'S A MORON AND ALREADY FIGURED HE WAS A FAKE! SO WHAT IF RON SUGGEST HIM!? RON IS DISTRAUGHT OVER LOSING HIS SISTER! Harry's damn lucky he didn't die or get eaten by basilisk, and that Fawkes showed up when he did. Like Dumbledore, he worked alone, never went to a real guide for help and got bloody lucky as Ron would put it.

OOTP- I'm still amazed Sirius was the only guy who died, and that all six made it out with all their body parts and minds in tact. Seriously. Harry's luck never fails to amaze me. But again, Harry assumed Sirius's present was unnecessary and never opened it in his attempts to protect Sirius. Like Dumbledore, he tries to alienate the one adult who wants to be honest with him, and really needs some companionship besides a hippogriff.

Why, because they have this bloody, I must save everyone thing. Granted Dumbledore is old, but I believe after a person hits their teen years, they're impossible to change.

That's just two examples off the top of my head by the way.

To hate Dumbledore and call him evil, one must isolate and alienate each character and hate them. At this point, I think we need to agree that we cannot agree. We have reached an impasse, and I think we've written like, ten posts each that are pretty damn long trying to convince each other. You will feel Dumbledore is evil, and I feel that Dumbledore was both good and evil.

And yes, if people were perfect and things were done right, than we could avoid a bloody battle. But that's why RTB fics are so popular, and the same with time travel. That, and because JKR leaves so many plot holes that we fanfickers take it upon ourselves to fill them in or total the thing and redo it.

[Trilonias]

One thing I would like to point out about Dumbledore - he is WAY too secretive. And that, I think, was what led to many of the problems described. I don't care if he was good, bad or whatever. He was secretive, something that bit everyone because Dumbledore didn't trust. He had Snape take a vow before he even begin to trust him, and Harry had to jump through hoops for the information Dumbledore had.

Now that I think about it, Dumbledore isn't the only one with this problem. I just like to think Harry learnt his lesson after his second death.

[sherza]

No, I'm pretty darn sure that Dumbledore knew exactly what the diary was the moment he saw it, so he at least knew about Horcruxes at that point ... and once he knew there was one, it would have taken NO time at all to put the rest of the pieces together ... like I said, he had all the information at that point save the exact number of the bloody things to be looking for. And I agree he had no way of knowing about the cup or diadem. Those two would have survived past Voldie's return, for sure.

Harry works alone/doesn't trust people because he was abused all his life. He learned that he couldn't trust anyone ... at least, that's the lesson he would have gotten if things went the way JKR portrayed them. *Someone* in the Muggle world should have caught on to what was going on in the Dursley home and tried to do something about it, realistically speaking. I'm not sure about in England, but in America, educators are required by law to report suspected abuse, and when one kid from a home is an obese, bullying, spoiled whale and the other is short, thin, dressed in rags and constantly being bullied, something's hinky as hell. So either no one noticed (which would teach Harry he was on his own) or someone did and nothing came of it (which would teach Harry he was on his own).

He's also a teenager. Teenagers do stupid things because they don't know any better. He was acting on things as he perceived them, without access to the sort of adult wisdom that can tell you you're being an idiot about something. Add onto that, that in the CoS situation, Harry had to be flailing nearly as bad as Ron was, because ... best friend's sister! ack! Yeah, he really should have told someone else ... but last year, he tried to tell McGonagall, and got brushed off, so why try to go to her a second time? Snape he doesn't trust as far as he can throw him, and Flitwick, he has no real knowledge of to go to. Dumbledore wasn't there, and Lockheart had been told to go deal with the monster. So ... tell Lockheart what we know. Doesn't make sense to US, as adults in a non-emergency situation, but to a twelve year old kid? Likewise the thing with the mirror. He was, admittedly misguidedly, trying to *protect* Sirius, who was in a tricky situation, by not contacting him in any way, so that Sirius could not be tracked/found by anyone hunting him. Dumbass thing to do? Yes. But again, Harry is a kid who is still learning. He's going to screw up. Dumbledore is an adult, he's been there and burned the T-Shirt multiple times, so he doesn't HAVE the excuses that Harry does.

And people can change ... profoundly ... at any point in life, given enough of an inducement to do so.