That’s a reasonable narrative. We’ll have to wait to see exactly how it played out, of course, but I wouldn’t find that version surprising at all.
Conversely, however, remember how many of the basic protections we take for granted that don’t exist in the wizarding world. In a lot of ways it’s a medieval society, and very few leaders from that era would have flinched at doing something utterly brutal to make a point. Even real-world terrorist groups try to pretend to play by the rules of civilized society, because those rules are so expected that ignoring them would damage their cause terribly. It’s the same as dictators running “free elections”—they’re not, but they pretend for the PR value. I doubt that PR value exists in the wizarding world.
I doubt PR counted for much among deatheaters, so Dumbledore did not lose anything here, and for the rest of wizarding Brittain—they didn’t have a choice other than Dumbledore, so they wouldn’t believe deatheaters that DD could do sth like that. And later they would not change their opinions, but would forgot their motivation (because it was unplesant—fear of worse evil).
Very similiar thing happened in real life in WW2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre Nazi Germany announced in 1943 that they have found mass graves of tousands Polish prisoners of war all killed by shot in the back of head by soviets. USA and UK had treaty with Stalin, and Germany was more immadietly dangerous, and Stalin was instrumental, so nobody believed Germans, and after the war Poland was sold to USSR, and only in 1990 Katyn massacre was made public.
Wow. I like the idea that Dumbledore burned Narcissa, told Lucius and the other Death Eaters and consciously relied on his good reputation to ensure no one else would believe he’d done it. That’s creepy. You’re right, that does take care of the “how does he have such a positive reputation, then?” objection.
I still think Fawkes would have a problem with it unless he’d tried everything else first. Fawkes is presented as quite the moral absolutist. But maybe Fawkes wasn’t around—and possibly he did try lesser measures first.
I still think Fawkes would have a problem with it unless he’d tried everything else first.
If family members of order of the phoenix members are being killed on a daily basis, one doesn’t quiet have the luxury of “trying everything else” first.
(I expect Dumbledore’s learned how to keep a secret from his pet bird by now, so Fawkes may not know, but if he did then I suspect he’ll be disgusted. Phoenixes don’t seem to do situational morality well.)
Interestingly, PR value did exist in the medieval world. King John suffered some serious dissent among his barons for his severity (hostage executions, etc.).
You’re right that “be restrained with everybody” is a recent values innovation. There’s a more limited version that goes way, way back in history: “be restrained with other elites, especially if they have relatives supplying you soldiers.”
That’s a reasonable narrative. We’ll have to wait to see exactly how it played out, of course, but I wouldn’t find that version surprising at all.
Conversely, however, remember how many of the basic protections we take for granted that don’t exist in the wizarding world. In a lot of ways it’s a medieval society, and very few leaders from that era would have flinched at doing something utterly brutal to make a point. Even real-world terrorist groups try to pretend to play by the rules of civilized society, because those rules are so expected that ignoring them would damage their cause terribly. It’s the same as dictators running “free elections”—they’re not, but they pretend for the PR value. I doubt that PR value exists in the wizarding world.
I doubt PR counted for much among deatheaters, so Dumbledore did not lose anything here, and for the rest of wizarding Brittain—they didn’t have a choice other than Dumbledore, so they wouldn’t believe deatheaters that DD could do sth like that. And later they would not change their opinions, but would forgot their motivation (because it was unplesant—fear of worse evil).
Very similiar thing happened in real life in WW2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre Nazi Germany announced in 1943 that they have found mass graves of tousands Polish prisoners of war all killed by shot in the back of head by soviets. USA and UK had treaty with Stalin, and Germany was more immadietly dangerous, and Stalin was instrumental, so nobody believed Germans, and after the war Poland was sold to USSR, and only in 1990 Katyn massacre was made public.
Wow. I like the idea that Dumbledore burned Narcissa, told Lucius and the other Death Eaters and consciously relied on his good reputation to ensure no one else would believe he’d done it. That’s creepy. You’re right, that does take care of the “how does he have such a positive reputation, then?” objection.
I still think Fawkes would have a problem with it unless he’d tried everything else first. Fawkes is presented as quite the moral absolutist. But maybe Fawkes wasn’t around—and possibly he did try lesser measures first.
If family members of order of the phoenix members are being killed on a daily basis, one doesn’t quiet have the luxury of “trying everything else” first.
Yes, but will Fawkes care?
(I expect Dumbledore’s learned how to keep a secret from his pet bird by now, so Fawkes may not know, but if he did then I suspect he’ll be disgusted. Phoenixes don’t seem to do situational morality well.)
As a recent example compare the attitude towards bombing civilians before WWII, with what every side wound up doing during that war.
Interestingly, PR value did exist in the medieval world. King John suffered some serious dissent among his barons for his severity (hostage executions, etc.).
You’re right that “be restrained with everybody” is a recent values innovation. There’s a more limited version that goes way, way back in history: “be restrained with other elites, especially if they have relatives supplying you soldiers.”
I suppose my grammar was rather ambiguous. PR value certainly existed in the medieval world, I meant “that” as in “that particular”.
Use ‘that that’.