Dumbledore: Not the Hero we Deserve or the Hero we Need - Alicia Gaines

(Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone spoilers)

 

The term “hero” is often subjective. Especially in literature.

Sometimes there are no heroes, and sometimes there are far too many. However, it can generally be agreed upon that most great works of literature have characters that embody heroic characteristics in one way or another.

J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter is perhaps one of the most well-known modern book series, and while it is in no small part due to the awe that magic inspires, it is also due to the characters that the readers grow to know and love over the course of the seven books and eight movies. (And the spin-offs…)

Harry is, of course, the obvious hero of the series, but he is not the only one to be hailed a hero by fans.

Other characters, including Ron, Hermione, Dumbledore, McGonagall, the Weasleys, and surprisingly, one Severus Snape, have all at one time or another been considered to be heroes in the series. 

Unpopular opinion: Dumbledore was not as good a man as the series may portray. 

Starting with the first book, it becomes apparent to readers that Harry comes from a less-than-ideal home situation. At age eleven he is doing all of the chores in his house and is certainly treated unfairly by his aunt and uncle in comparison to his cousin, Dudley. Yelled at and berated constantly, it is clear that his situation is, at best, neglectful, and at worse, abusive. 

Considering the fact that it is a children’s series, the lack of direct and obvious abuse in a household with obvious tension between Harry and the rest of his family is understandable, if not entirely expected. 

Even so, most fans will readily admit that the household is most likely neglectful and emotionally abusive, with physical abuse possibly implied.

This brings us to Harry’s introduction to the magical world, which happens to be at Gringotts, the bank of the wizarding world. Harry’s guide, Hagrid, takes him to the goblins running the bank and tells them that Harry has a vault and that Hagrid has the key to open it, given to him by Dumbledore, along with some mysterious orders which are explained later in the book. The orders are, in terms of this argument, irrelevant. What isn’t irrelevant is Hagrid’s possession of Harry’s vault key. 

It becomes clear during the Gringotts trip that the security on the bank is very, very strict; strict to the point of blood tests to affirm identity. This would mean that only family would have access to the vaults, as they are very tightly guarded and secured against all outsiders. Harry’s parents are dead, however, and his aunt and uncle would be unable to access or have ownership of the vault considering their status as “muggles,” or non-magical people, leaving the only person who could hold possession of Harry’s key to be someone with the equivalence of guardianship over Harry. 

Knowing that Hagrid’s orders and Harry’s key came from Dumbledore, it is not hard to make the jump, and figure out that Dumbledore is, in some way, responsible for Harry, and may possibly even be considered along the lines of a magical guardian. 

Have I mentioned that Dumbledore was also introduced as one of three people to help bring Harry to his aunt’s and uncle’s after the death of his parents and ensure his safety? 

So, not only is Dumbledore directly responsible for leaving him with his relatives, but he also seems to have some other connection to Harry other than being the headmaster of his new school, which begs the question:

Why has Dumbledore never checked in on Harry?

A busy man he may be, but he is also very smart and very powerful. With the knowledge revealed later in the series about Harry’s aunt’s hatred for the wizarding world, one would think that Dumbledore would attempt to check in on Harry at least once. But he doesn’t. So this could be considered purposeful neglect, as Dumbledore leaves Harry with an aunt who’s known for her bigotry, and then not ensuring his safety after he was personally responsible for it, but another question arises.

What if Dumbledore did check up on Harry? 

This is worse, because if Dumbledore did, then he would be willfully allowing Harry to continue living in a harmful and unsafe environment. 

And this is just the beginning of the series, and how it pertains to Harry. 

For space, and my own sanity, I won’t go too in-depth on how the first book ends, but the series of events are nearly as incriminating as the aforementioned. Here are a few mistakes of his:

First, Dumbledore, headmaster of Hogwarts, decides to store a very dangerous magical artifact known as the Philosopher’s stone inside a decidedly more dangerous magical artifact known as the Mirror of Erised, which is apparently known for causing insanity, and is powerful enough that “men have wasted away before it, entranced by what they have seen, or been driven mad.” 

Interesting choice, Dumbledore, for keeping the obviously bad mirror in an easily-accessible classroom with the only security measure being a rule forbidding entrance to that floor as if a school of children and teenagers ever listen to rules. Especially ones that sound like they would be more fun breaking than listening to.

Then, Dumbledore, headmaster of Hogwarts, hired a man named Quirrell to become a teacher in a lacking position. Apparently, this was done without anything past the most basic of background checks or actual interviews, as Quirrell was later revealed to have the series’ main antagonist, Voldemort, hidden as a parasite under Quirrell’s turban. This, in the “safest place in the wizarding world.” Okay.

So, Dumbledore’s “safest place in the wizarding world” is actually not, his hiring methods clearly need some work, and his concern for the safety of his students is either significantly less than readers are led to believe, or he has been truly negligent in his attention to security measures. Honestly, I’m not sure which is worse, considering what his job is. 

Later, there’s a whole plot with Quirrell trying to murder Harry and steal a valuable artifact to become immortal (more than he already was), which of course failed with the intervention of Harry and his other eleven-year-old friends. 

Which is yet another issue. Because Dumbledore’s negligence allowed for a trio of eleven-year-olds to be placed in a situation where they were actively in danger on school grounds at the hands of another adult and one of the most dangerous wizards alive.

And to top that off, with what was probably the worst way to resolve this conflict, instead of berating them for taking problems into their own hands and confronting a literal master in the fields of magical combat, Dumbledore decides to reward the reckless and frankly suicidal behavior by giving them house points, effectively winning them the annual inter-school competition, incentivizing and encouraging this type of behavior in front of their peers. 

Possible Pavlovian response aside, Dumbledore is clearly an enabler of not-so-great behavior. And, while it could be argued that he just wanted to provide the students with some level of comfort or reward for the harrowing ordeal, with the rest of his mistakes to consider, I think it becomes clear that Dumbledore is either seriously negligent, or just apathetic, an enabler of reckless behavior, and possibly an enabler of abuse. And while this could be written off as negligence, considering the fact that it takes a smart, or at least a very cunning man to face off against not one, but two of the cruelest and most powerful dark wizards to date and live. 

Dumbledore may be negligent, or he might be the most manipulative and immoral person in the wizarding world. I guess that’s up for debate.

Either way, many events throughout the series, even though possibly unintentional on the part of Rowling, have led me to believe in my unpopular opinion: Despite the Harry Potter series having numerous heroic figures, I personally do not count Dumbledore among them.