The Life and Lies of Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore by Irvin Khaytman (good fiction books to read txt) 📗

In the fandom’s defense, part of Snape’s character was derived from The Prince. The only issue is that Snape was not based on Machiavelli’s titular prince but rather on a historical prince who gets a passing mention in Machiavelli’s book, Chapter XIX.43 However, Severus is featured in only three paragraphs of Machiavelli’s treatise, so this is not the be-all-end-all answer to relating the two texts. Because going through Machiavelli’s instructions, Snape does not follow them at all, whereas Dumbledore does to a T. Here are some of the more salient examples:

“Chapter XIX: That One Should Avoid Being Despised or Hated.”

Chapter XIX states that “a prince should guard himself as from a rock” against being “mean-spirited”

Chapter XVIII advises, “Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. [. . .] to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite.”

Dumbledore has a sterling reputation among those who are anti-Voldemort. He is unfailingly considerate and sympathetic. Dumbledore appears to be the great champion of good and to have all these admirable qualities, yet he is willing and able to cast those things aside when necessary.44

In his superb essay, Andrew Cooper lays out Machiavelli’s advice in layman’s terms. He writes,

[T]he prince's wisdom must allow him to be noble and virtuous so as to be good and respected, but must also know when and how to be shrewd and forceful. [. . .] The prince must be accountable to no one other than himself, and choose company wisely. He must be unreadable and impenetrable, guarded in advice and true to his word. He must be strong yet cunning, bold yet secretive.

Reading that paragraph, it matches up perfectly with everything we know of Dumbledore. Dumbledore was good and respected, yet he could be shrewd and forceful. Dumbledore is accountable to no one else, as we find out when the Ministry tries to rein him in and Dumbledore responds with cheerful disdain. Dumbledore is unreadable and impenetrable (hence I’m writing this book). Dumbledore is strong, cunning, bold, and (above all) secretive. Check, check, and an emphatic check all around.

In truth, it would appear that the fandom got a bit overeager with connecting The Prince to the Half-Blood Prince.45 The Prince was a treatise on how to be an effective leader, which Snape never aspired to be. The key to Snape’s character is that he is an agent of leaders, a double agent at that. Over time, “Machiavellian” came to be simplified to reflect anyone who was ruthless and believed the ends justified the means; but it really applies primarily in the context of leadership. So while Snape may be the Half-Blood Prince, inspired by Emperor Severus as described by Machiavelli, Dumbledore is truly Machiavelli’s Prince.

What Was He Thinking?

We have now veered from a saintly Dumbledore to a completely ruthless one, but that is not the full story, as we’re about to see upon further examination of Dumbledore’s master plans. We have already nitpicked at a few of Dumbledore’s more questionable decisions preparing Harry and Snape for their final moves in the war. But as anyone who has devoted hours to discussing Deathly Hallows knows, that is just the tip of the iceberg. Unlike the other books, where things happen for a reason by and large, Deathly Hallows seems to be teeming with coincidences that ricochet off each other, with things then working out through sheer dumb luck. It’s certainly made my job here much harder than it was for previous books.

One thing in particular does not seem to add up. Considering how desperate Dumbledore was to see Voldemort defeated, considering the prices he was willing to pay to see it done, it just seems like he should have been much more thorough about it. At first glance, he seemed to leave an awful lot to chance. . . and that’s not the Dumbledore we know.

Dumbledore’s plan reaches its climax when Nagini is the last remaining Horcrux, which Snape will realize “when Lord Voldemort stops sending that snake forth to do his bidding, but keeps it safe beside him under magical protection.” (DH686) At this point, Snape has to find Harry and show him the memories that will inform Harry that he needs to die. There are so many potential disasters in this plan, it’s ludicrous.

What if Nagini is not the last remaining Horcrux? What if Harry somehow manages to kill her before finding Ravenclaw’s relic? Voldemort won’t be as worried for Nagini, given his other Horcruxes, and Snape won’t know to do anything.

If Snape is needed at Hogwarts, and Voldemort is to be kept away from Hogwarts, how will Snape even know what’s going on with Nagini?

What if Snape doesn’t find Harry? Surely the two won’t be hanging out on a regular basis.

Why would Harry listen to Snape or look through his memories? If Snape were alive, I’m fairly certain Harry would not have taken Snape’s memories. . . not without a lot of convincing.

What if Harry doesn’t have a Pensieve ready when he does get the memories? There’s a lot of emphasis on how rare they are. So is he meant to just take Snape at his word, then?

What if Snape dies?!? There is no contingency plan that we know of. No one else knows Harry needs to die. The entire thing goes to hell.46

All things considered, about a dozen fortuitous coincidences have to occur for Dumbledore’s plan to actually work. This haphazard manner is such a departure from the Dumbledore of previous books that I didn’t know what to make of it at first. If Dumbledore is willing to sacrifice so much to defeat Voldemort, he should be absolutely certain of his plan working. Instead, Dumbledore seems to be treating the entire war as a rather amusing game. It doesn’t gel with everything we know about