I am confused as to why Dumbledore tolerates Quirrell’s presence at Hogwarts: he clearly suspects Quirrell, and we’ve just seen that he can be exceedingly ruthless. At the very least, one would expect Dumbledore to put heavy security precautions in place around him (along the lines of tracking his movements, etc).
One hypothesis that would partially explain this, along with many other things, is that Quirrell might be a fragment of Voldemort’s soul that disagrees with the other fragments, or at least with Voldemort himself. (Or, equivalently, that it has persuaded Dumbledore of this.) (Presumably, it is the one based on the Pioneer horcrux.) This fits with (real-life) modularity of mind, which has been extensively discussed on LW, and has also already been shown to exist in-story by Harry’s internal, conflicting voices.
(In addition to explaining why Dumbledore trusts Quirrell, this would also explain why Quirrellmort acts so differently from Voldemort.)
To extend this line or reasoning a bit, there’s no reason to think that Hat and Cloak and Santa Claus are any of the previously introduced characters- they could easily be yet another fragment of Voldemort’s soul, possibly cooperating with or opposing the other fragments.
(My previous hypothesis was that Dumbledore was simply so desperate to gain a DADA teacher that he made concessions and accepted as possibly dark candidate. However, this doesn’t fit with the ruthless Dumbledore we’ve seen in recent chapters.)
(My previous hypothesis was that Dumbledore was simply so desperate to gain a DADA teacher that he made concessions and accepted as possibly dark candidate. However, this doesn’t fit with the ruthless Dumbledore we’ve seen in recent chapters.)
The position is cursed (I think in MoR as well as canon). Many of the ways someone can vacate the position forcibly by the end of a school year are fatal or debilitating. It might be that he’s willing to trade a year of Defense education for all of his students in exchange for putting a suspected enemy in harm’s way, if the enemy is foolish enough to hold still for it. (Or believes himself immune to the curse because he’s the one who placed it.)
Actually, come to think of it, I now expect that smart!Dumbledore would weaponize the curse in this way as the only explanation for why there is a Defense teacher at all who is not explicitly under a one-year contract. Otherwise it would probably make more sense to cobble together the educational requirements with dueling clubs, student tutoring, and extra sessions in Charms, plus throwing textbooks and the fear of OWLs at all the students, rather than put them under the influence of high-variance low-average bottom-of-the-barrel educators who will be found staggeringly unfit or disabled or dead by summertime.
It’s not a very strong curse—examples of it firing are things like “becoming headmaster”(Snape), “being exposed as a somewhat-icky creature”(Lupin), or “being a bad teacher”(Summers). Hardly the sort of thing I’d try to weaponize.
But it very consistently does something to get them out of the position. People who are hard to strike at in other ways might be best inaccurately flailed towards with this sort of bludgeon.
I guess—the time Voldemort got the job in canon, it certainly set him back. Still, Dumbledore does not seem to be acting like he realizes who Quirrell is.
Lockhart—had his personality wiped, so he might as well have died.
Moody—Trapped in a box by a cockney nutjob. For a YEAR. And the guy who actually did the teaching died.
Quirrel—died. Of course Voldemort was only possessing him so HE didn’t die—in fact I think Voldie probably knew Quirrel wouldn’t survive the year and didn’t care at all as long as he got the Philosopher’s Stone.
Also, keep in mind that there is a convincing argument to the effect that Umbridge was actually raped senseless by those centaurs. Who is Summers? Or is that a term/reference I’m not familiar with?
“Go wrong, Mr. Potter? I certainly hope not.” Professor McGonagall’s face was expressionless. “After Professor Blake was caught in a closet with no fewer than three fifth-year Slytherins last February, and a year before that, Professor Summers failed so completely as an educator that her students thought a boggart was a kind of furniture, [...]
Of course—I’m not saying that it can’t have poor effects, merely that it’s unreliable.
And I have to say, I always assumed it was violence that was inflicted upon Umbridge, not rape. However, upon rereading, it certainly seems like you’re right.
“She got carried away,” said Harry. “By a herd of centaurs.”
...
Since she had returned to the castle she had not, as far as any of them knew, uttered a single word. Nobody really knew what was wrong with her, either. Her usually neat mousy hair was very untidy and there were still bits of twigs and leaves in it, but otherwise she seemed to be quite unscathed.
Edited the above to remove her as an example, because that’s certainly nasty enough not to minimize the effects of the curse.
And as pedanterrific said, Summers is a MoR prof, not a canon one. (I’m pretty sure it’s a Buffy joke).
I doubt the curse can be effectively weaponized. If it only ensures that the Defense professors won’t outlast the year, they could be incapacitated or found incompetent, but then, they might end up being fired after they’re found abusing students, or some other reason that harms the school rather than the professor.
We already know Dumbledore is willing to have students abused. (If a Defense prof does it badly enough to be dismissed, this does hurt the Defense prof. There could be criminal charges, or at least bad publicity.)
The professor might instead abscond with valuable school property and adopt a new identity.
The curse is basically an outcome pump with the specification “Defense Against the Dark Arts professorship vacated by end of year.” It’s difficult to exploit something with a possibility space that large (discounting obvious tricks like “bet against the professor lasting the year,” which by now nobody would fall for anyway.)
discounting obvious tricks like “bet against the professor lasting the year,” which by now nobody would fall for anyway.
Well, you can bet with the professor. Specifically, you offer him a bet that functions as insurance or a hedge for him: bet he doesn’t last the year, and if he does (very good) then he loses a smaller bet (a little bad), but if he fails (very bad) then he wins a bet (a little good).
This, unfortunately, can’t insure against anthropic risks (the professor dying due to the curse). But it does work in general, and it increases in effectiveness with the effectiveness of the curse. You could probably structure it in such a way that even your absconding scenario works: something like have him sign a loan due in a year, hand over a Gringotts vault filled with your end of the bet, and then if he leaves he can stop by Gringotts on the way out.
If Santa Claus is aligned against Voldemort, as seems likely, then Dumbledore would want to conceal their real identity. And we already appear to know that Santa is on Harry’s side, and so presumably opposes Voldemort. (Although I did overstate the case regarding Santa Claus in that sentence- I mostly just included him for completeness.)
So, you think he’s not SC but wanted McGonagall and Snape to think he was? In that case, why carefully evade the question rather than just lie?
Some people believe actions carry more moral weight than consequences. To such a person, a lie of omission is a lesser crime than a bald faced one. They might, for example, respond “only a fool would say yea or nay” rather than actually answering a question, or quote some obscure piece of text and hope that you drew the wrong conclusion from it.
I am confused as to why Dumbledore tolerates Quirrell’s presence at Hogwarts: he clearly suspects Quirrell, and we’ve just seen that he can be exceedingly ruthless. At the very least, one would expect Dumbledore to put heavy security precautions in place around him (along the lines of tracking his movements, etc).
One hypothesis that would partially explain this, along with many other things, is that Quirrell might be a fragment of Voldemort’s soul that disagrees with the other fragments, or at least with Voldemort himself. (Or, equivalently, that it has persuaded Dumbledore of this.) (Presumably, it is the one based on the Pioneer horcrux.) This fits with (real-life) modularity of mind, which has been extensively discussed on LW, and has also already been shown to exist in-story by Harry’s internal, conflicting voices.
(In addition to explaining why Dumbledore trusts Quirrell, this would also explain why Quirrellmort acts so differently from Voldemort.)
To extend this line or reasoning a bit, there’s no reason to think that Hat and Cloak and Santa Claus are any of the previously introduced characters- they could easily be yet another fragment of Voldemort’s soul, possibly cooperating with or opposing the other fragments.
(My previous hypothesis was that Dumbledore was simply so desperate to gain a DADA teacher that he made concessions and accepted as possibly dark candidate. However, this doesn’t fit with the ruthless Dumbledore we’ve seen in recent chapters.)
The position is cursed (I think in MoR as well as canon). Many of the ways someone can vacate the position forcibly by the end of a school year are fatal or debilitating. It might be that he’s willing to trade a year of Defense education for all of his students in exchange for putting a suspected enemy in harm’s way, if the enemy is foolish enough to hold still for it. (Or believes himself immune to the curse because he’s the one who placed it.)
Actually, come to think of it, I now expect that smart!Dumbledore would weaponize the curse in this way as the only explanation for why there is a Defense teacher at all who is not explicitly under a one-year contract. Otherwise it would probably make more sense to cobble together the educational requirements with dueling clubs, student tutoring, and extra sessions in Charms, plus throwing textbooks and the fear of OWLs at all the students, rather than put them under the influence of high-variance low-average bottom-of-the-barrel educators who will be found staggeringly unfit or disabled or dead by summertime.
It’s not a very strong curse—examples of it firing are things like “becoming headmaster”(Snape), “being exposed as a somewhat-icky creature”(Lupin), or “being a bad teacher”(Summers). Hardly the sort of thing I’d try to weaponize.
(Edited to remove Umbridge example—see below)
But it very consistently does something to get them out of the position. People who are hard to strike at in other ways might be best inaccurately flailed towards with this sort of bludgeon.
I guess—the time Voldemort got the job in canon, it certainly set him back. Still, Dumbledore does not seem to be acting like he realizes who Quirrell is.
Other examples of it firing are:
Lockhart—had his personality wiped, so he might as well have died.
Moody—Trapped in a box by a cockney nutjob. For a YEAR. And the guy who actually did the teaching died.
Quirrel—died. Of course Voldemort was only possessing him so HE didn’t die—in fact I think Voldie probably knew Quirrel wouldn’t survive the year and didn’t care at all as long as he got the Philosopher’s Stone.
Also, keep in mind that there is a convincing argument to the effect that Umbridge was actually raped senseless by those centaurs. Who is Summers? Or is that a term/reference I’m not familiar with?
Of course—I’m not saying that it can’t have poor effects, merely that it’s unreliable.
And I have to say, I always assumed it was violence that was inflicted upon Umbridge, not rape. However, upon rereading, it certainly seems like you’re right.
...
Edited the above to remove her as an example, because that’s certainly nasty enough not to minimize the effects of the curse.
And as pedanterrific said, Summers is a MoR prof, not a canon one. (I’m pretty sure it’s a Buffy joke).
And the other is an Anita Blake joke, yeah.
Edit: Google searching “umbridge centaurs” turns up this awesome article. Don’t mess with Hermione, folks.
Didn’t Professor Summers get caught in a jailbait orgy?
Edit: Oh, that was Professor Blake of course, my bad.
I doubt the curse can be effectively weaponized. If it only ensures that the Defense professors won’t outlast the year, they could be incapacitated or found incompetent, but then, they might end up being fired after they’re found abusing students, or some other reason that harms the school rather than the professor.
We already know Dumbledore is willing to have students abused. (If a Defense prof does it badly enough to be dismissed, this does hurt the Defense prof. There could be criminal charges, or at least bad publicity.)
The professor might instead abscond with valuable school property and adopt a new identity.
The curse is basically an outcome pump with the specification “Defense Against the Dark Arts professorship vacated by end of year.” It’s difficult to exploit something with a possibility space that large (discounting obvious tricks like “bet against the professor lasting the year,” which by now nobody would fall for anyway.)
Well, you can bet with the professor. Specifically, you offer him a bet that functions as insurance or a hedge for him: bet he doesn’t last the year, and if he does (very good) then he loses a smaller bet (a little bad), but if he fails (very bad) then he wins a bet (a little good).
This, unfortunately, can’t insure against anthropic risks (the professor dying due to the curse). But it does work in general, and it increases in effectiveness with the effectiveness of the curse. You could probably structure it in such a way that even your absconding scenario works: something like have him sign a loan due in a year, hand over a Gringotts vault filled with your end of the bet, and then if he leaves he can stop by Gringotts on the way out.
Why would Dumbledore lie about that?
If Santa Claus is aligned against Voldemort, as seems likely, then Dumbledore would want to conceal their real identity. And we already appear to know that Santa is on Harry’s side, and so presumably opposes Voldemort. (Although I did overstate the case regarding Santa Claus in that sentence- I mostly just included him for completeness.)
He carefully evaded the question of whether or not he was Santa Claus.
Nodding is not an evasion. It means “yes”.
So, you think he’s not SC but wanted McGonagall and Snape to think he was? In that case, why carefully evade the question rather than just lie?
Edit: And I don’t see
as a ‘careful evasion’ anyway.
Some people believe actions carry more moral weight than consequences. To such a person, a lie of omission is a lesser crime than a bald faced one. They might, for example, respond “only a fool would say yea or nay” rather than actually answering a question, or quote some obscure piece of text and hope that you drew the wrong conclusion from it.
I’m struggling to imagine how the Dumbledore we’ve seen in recent chapters could be such a person.