[image description: a drawing of Taako, sitting on a stool under a spotlight in front of a black background. He’s a fat, dark-complexioned elf with chin-length blonde hair. He’s wearing a patched, dark blue wizard hat with a matching cape, a three-quarter-sleeve light blue blouse, a short pink skirt and ripped dark blue leggings, and brown boots. A folded purple umbrella is leaning against his stool. He’s gesturing to himself, smiling as he says, “Uhh…it’s me? I’m Taako? Y’know, from TV?”]
Just like Slughorn, Albus Dumbledore collects people. Only, instead of focusing on those with influence, he looks to the outcasts.
The expelled half-giant. The young werewolf. The repentant Death Eater.
He protects them and gives them a second chance. All he asks in return is their loyalty.
And, if on occasion he requests that they undertake a certain task, invoking their debt of gratitude – well, that is no more than he is owed.
He once thought to add a certain disowned Black to his collection, but quickly realised his mistake.
Sirius is not an outcast, but a rebel. He knowingly chose his path, and chooses what price he is willing to pay for it. He refuses to be used.
So Albus Dumbledore abandons him.
Who gave you the RIGHT?
Dumbledore knows Sirius’s loyalty lies with Harry instead of him, and he has no use for someone who is not willing to follow his orders without question.
Ooooohoo if there’s ever a post that fits my aesthetic…
okay but then where does Harry himself fit into this collection? Is he an outcast because he is “the Boy Who Lived”?
Nooonono, my friend, that’s what makes this post so beautiful. Because it fits the meta I’ve been trying to get people to accept for years.
Harry was an outcast due to a childhood filled with abuse and neglect.
Vernon made him an outcast by dismissing his claims of magic, berating him, locking him in a CLOSET and putting bars on his window, and let’s face it, even though her editor made her cut it out, Jo intended for there to be physical abuse.
Petunia made him an outcast by enabling and contributing to this abuse, as well as making Harry do dozens of chores while doting on Dudley.
Dudley made him an outcast by bullying him and threatening any students at school who wanted to be his friends.
And the rest of the wizarding world made him an outcast when they bullied him for being an outsider.
Harry James Potter became an outcast the moment he was placed with The Dursleys.
And who put him there in the first place?
I’m here for this Anti-Dumbledore discussion.
This makes even more sense when you consider why Dumbledore deliberately made Harry an outcast.
Think about it What would Harry have been like if he had grown up in the wizarding world? Or, to put it another way, what would Harry have been like if he had grown up in a world where magic was the norm?
He would have taken magic for granted. He would have been less likely (especially as he got older) to view Dumbledore as a wise mentor and more likely to see him as flawed and capable of bad decisions. He would have seen both the world and Dumbledore as ordinary, with their good points and bad points.
But Dumbledore didn’t need a well-adjusted boy who took magic and the magical world for granted. He needed a child who would love the magical world unstintingly, even irrationally, because it was a haven from neglect and abuse. Even more, he needed a child who feared this world becoming evil and who therefore would not question someone that he saw as the ultimate authority, especially if he believed that obeying that authority would keep the world safe.
Even if obedience meant his own death.
Dumbledore wanted a martyr who would die for the wizarding world, because he believed that Voldemort could not die until Harry did. Which was why he left Harry with the Dursleys and let them neglect and emotionally abuse him for the next ten years.
To get a martyr, he first had to create a victim.
well… well, shit
what
Oh shit. Its been updated.
…I’ve been in the “Dumbledore was on the darker side of morally grey” camp for years but this…this. Holy shit. Oh no.
Getting a firm handle on the geography of Ancient Greece both answers and raises questions.
On the one hand, the logistics of all those huge military campaigns make a lot more sense once you realise that many of the great city-states were basically within walking distance of each other. In many cases, those logistics boil down to less “establish a supply train” and more “well, make sure you pack a snack”.
On the other hand, all those episodes where great heroes spend years lost in the wilderness or adrift at sea become more difficult to reconcile. It’s like… how can you possibly get that lost for that long? If you found a good-size hill to climb, you can practically see your destination from your starting point!
It is a puzzlement.
One of the greatest moments of my life was when I realized the entirety of the Odyssey, which is described like this grand globe spanning adventure, probably just all took place around one tiny ass sea
Yeah, something that often throws modern readers is that most Ancient Greek cultures didn’t really have a concept of ocean voyages as we think of them. They relied heavily on coastal landmarks for navigation, which forced them to stay in sight of land. Very often they didn’t even stay on the ships full-time, instead going ashore to camp out each night. The closest they usually got to actual trans-oceanic travel was island-hopping – i.e., a series of short jaunts with daily stops at conveniently located islands along the way. If you ended up spending multiple days on a ship, that meant somebody had screwed up.
The upshot is that when you read those accounts of epic ocean voyages spanning dozens of far-off lands, you’ve gotta bear in mind that the places they’re describing are typically less than a day apart by sea.
And yet it still takes Odysseus TEN YEARS. Don’t piss off Poseidon for real.
PTA archive 