Uncle Quentin's Spy (Harry Potter/Buffy) (Complete)

preier · Mar 30, 2015

@aletiophile, are the flashbacks to 'princess bride' intended? ^^

macdjord, i tried another presentation of why i see snape's canon behaviour as a plot hole:

pre fall of voldemort:

public identity : DE
secret identity : spy for albus
expected behavior : DE
actual behavior : DE

coherent

post fall of voldemort:

public identity : hogwart's professor (prof)
secret identity1: DE who fooled, and is still fooling(important), dumbledore (DE)
secret identity2 : spy for dumbledore( passively)
expected behavior : prof
expected behavior given SI1 : prof in public, DE when in private with lucius, draco & co
expected behavior given SI2 : prof in public, DE when in private with lucius or draco, reporting to albus when in private with albus
actual behavior : DE in public, reporting to albus when in private with albus

not coherent.

doomlord9 · Mar 30, 2015

I'm not even sure why people are arguing.

Severus Snape's first and only real loyalty is to Severus Snape, he supports both sides so that he can declare loyalty to the winner. Both sides know this but ignore it for as long as he remains useful to them.

preier · Mar 30, 2015

doomlord9 said:
I'm not even sure why people are arguing.

because it's the internet?

re:snape's loyalties, not the point. but then you said you didn't know why there was a discussion

alethiophile · Mar 30, 2015

doomlord9 said:
Severus Snape's first and only real loyalty is to Severus Snape, he supports both sides so that he can declare loyalty to the winner. Both sides know this but ignore it for as long as he remains useful to them.

I think this is incorrect; his Patronus demonstrates that he does have a real loyalty to the memory of Lily. Which translates to "protect Harry", no matter how much he hates him, and thus to "support Dumbledore". I'll agree that he doesn't have a fundamental loyalty to Dumbledore, and that in different circumstances he might have left Dumbledore if that conflicted with "acting as Lily would have wanted him to" or whatever.

Regarding Snape's behavior between Voldemort's fall and his rise...this might be a plot hole, insofar as the DEs might believe Dumbledore would believe that Snape's DE behavior indicates unreconstructed DE-ness, and thus not believe Snape that Dumbledore believes Snape is reformed. I don't know if the DEs pre-rise believed Dumbledore believed Snape was Dumbledore's spy among the DEs (while Snape was actually a DE pretending to be Dumbledore's spy among the DEs); if so, this would nicely resiolve the issue. Or else the DEs might believe Dumbledore was just that stupid/naive/trusting. LM's behavior toward Dumbledore might provide some support for the latter hypothesis.

doomlord9 · Mar 30, 2015

alethiophile said:
I think this is incorrect; his Patronus demonstrates that he does have a real loyalty to the memory of Lily. Which translates to "protect Harry", no matter how much he hates him, and thus to "support Dumbledore". I'll agree that he doesn't have a fundamental loyalty to Dumbledore, and that in different circumstances he might have left Dumbledore if that conflicted with "acting as Lily would have wanted him to" or whatever.

Regarding Snape's behavior between Voldemort's fall and his rise...this might be a plot hole, insofar as the DEs might believe Dumbledore would believe that Snape's DE behavior indicates unreconstructed DE-ness, and thus not believe Snape that Dumbledore believes Snape is reformed. I don't know if the DEs pre-rise believed Dumbledore believed Snape was Dumbledore's spy among the DEs (while Snape was actually a DE pretending to be Dumbledore's spy among the DEs); if so, this would nicely resiolve the issue. Or else the DEs might believe Dumbledore was just that stupid/naive/trusting. LM's behavior toward Dumbledore might provide some support for the latter hypothesis.

Not quite, he's obsessed with Lily and holds grudges like no one else. If he is willing to torment Harry because James was mean to him, he is willing to support Harry if it means taking out Voldemort in revenge for killing Lily.

He's no even loyal to Lily, he just wanted her for himself.

The only versions of Snape that are close to his canon portrayal that I will believe is a good person is the Snape in Doghead Thirteen's Enter the Dragon. He is exactly the same as canon but is actively using his assholeness to destroy the aspect of the Wizarding World that he hates. Other than that, they're all OC's with the name 'Snape' tacked on

alethiophile · Mar 30, 2015

doomlord9 said:
Not quite, he's obsessed with Lily and holds grudges like no one else. If he is willing to torment Harry because James was mean to him, he is willing to support Harry if it means taking out Voldemort in revenge for killing Lily.

I'm pretty sure the Patronus does indicate that his motivation there is in regard to Lily directly, not just a grudge against Voldemort.

doomlord9 said:
He's no even loyal to Lily, he just wanted her for himself.

Well, define 'loyal'. His unrequited desire for Lily is clearly the root cause, but he can be 'loyal' to her memory because of that.

doomlord9 · Mar 30, 2015

alethiophile said:
I'm pretty sure the Patronus does indicate that his motivation there is in regard to Lily directly, not just a grudge against Voldemort.

You do know that we have no clue what Lily's Patronus was and a Doe Patronus is more indicative of him having feelings towards James who had a Stag.

alethiophile said:
Well, define 'loyal'. His unrequited desire for Lily is clearly the root cause, but he can be 'loyal' to her memory because of that.

By loyal I mean doing something for her for any reason that is selfless, doing what is best because it would make her happy.

Snape doesn't do anything like that, he hates James for taking Lily from him and acts against Voldemort for killing Lily after he asked her to be left alive for him after Voldemort got done murdering her husband and son. Lily is a possession to him, something he sees as his to take.

alethiophile · Mar 31, 2015

doomlord9 said:
By loyal I mean doing something for her for any reason that is selfless, doing what is best because it would make her happy.

He can't know what would make her happy. She's dead. But if you define "selfless" such that it's impossible for anyone ever to qualify, then of course Snape isn't.

doomlord9 said:
Snape doesn't do anything like that, he hates James for taking Lily from him and acts against Voldemort for killing Lily after he asked her to be left alive for him after Voldemort got done murdering her husband and son. Lily is a possession to him, something he sees as his to take.

There is not, AFAICT, one bit of canon evidence to support this view. I'll want cites if you disagree.

Snape is an asshole in quite a few different ways. But there's a difference between that and having no redeeming characteristics whatsoever.

turbinicarpus · Mar 31, 2015

Starfox5 said:
If Dumbledore cannot assassinate Malfoy and co. then he has no business even trying to fight Voldemort, since even if Harry managed to take out Voldemort, obviously the Death Eaters would still be beyond Dumbledore's reach, and Voldemort's faction would still win just without him. Those Death Eaters were out and about, not holed up in their mansions. Malfoy was visiting Fudge regularly. If you can't assassinate Malfoy, you are too damn weak to face Voldemort.

IMO, the difficulty wouldn't be so much assassinating Lucius as it would be doing it in a way that didn't make it obvious that Dumbledore did it. Maybe having someone dress up as Voldemort would work; and maybe it would backfire horribly. We know that seeing Voldemort was believing for the Ministry. OotP didn't. Given the Ministry's line at the time, they'd be more likely to blame Sirius Black than acknowledge Voldemort's return.

The time to assassinate Lucius would have been either immediately after Voldemort's fall [1] or (more justifiably) in the two years between the end of CoS and Voldemort's return. I am sure that Dumbledore, Snape, Moody, and maybe Sirius would have been able to put their heads together to do it and get away with it. (If worse came to worst, have Sirius be the one to do it, which would feed into the ministry narrative of him being the Dark Lord's servant, so they wouldn't dig very deeply. Also, with any luck, it would sow fear and confusion among Death Eaters who had escaped justice. The price, of course, be that Sirius could never be exonerated, unless the public sentiment were shifted to the point where Dumbledore openly admitting that he had Lucius killed wouldn't harm him.)

doomlord9 said:
You do know that we have no clue what Lily's Patronus was

That's an interesting query. I don't have time to do a search at the moment; can someone confirm or disconfirm?

doomlord9 said:
and a Doe Patronus is more indicative of him having feelings towards James who had a Stag.

Assuming that we don't have any good information about Lily's patronus (as you say) and in isolation, yes. (For that matter, maybe he really loves Harry.) However, combined with people's patronuses sometimes changing when they fall in love to match that of the one they love, and considering that Snape did, in fact, feel some form of affection for Lily, no affection for James, and Lily loved James, (Edit:) that Snape genuinely loved Lily is far more plausible than any alternatives.

[1] Though, notably, while we only see Death Eaters get off on the "Imperius Defense" and go right back to Death Eatering, given Voldemort's tactics, there were probably many, many innocent people who were similarly exonerated, went back to their civilian lives, and didn't show up in the books. So, there may have, in fact, been a reasonable doubt in Lucius's case as well.

macdjord · Mar 31, 2015

preier said:
you're actually saying it yourself :
Cover: Blood purist who has managed to fool Dumbledore into thinking he's reformed

that's the face he should present to the DE in, you know, secret? NOT to the public at large.

Well, he has two options:

Act like an arsehole, thus providing visible evidence of his loyalty to the DE cause, but have to convince the other ex-DEs (and, later, V) that Dumbledore is naive and trusting enough to believe he's reformed anyway
Act like a nice guy, thus maintaining consistency with his supposed role, but have to convince the other ex-DEs (and, later, V) that he's really on their side without any visible evidence to support that

How well do you think option 2 would go down? "Oh, I know it's a radical change in my behaviour from before the Fall, but I'm only being nice to those mudblood students because I've decided to become our spy on the inside." How likely is Malfoy to believe that? Or the reborn Voldemort? If he'd been inserted as a spy by V before the fall, then things would be different. As it is, he was better off trying to convince them Dumbledore was a fool - something they already wanted to believe - then trying to convince them he was still on their side without public evidence.

Starfox5 · Mar 31, 2015

Pahan said:
IMO, the difficulty wouldn't be so much assassinating Lucius as it would be doing it in a way that didn't make it obvious that Dumbledore did it. Maybe having someone dress up as Voldemort would work; and maybe it would backfire horribly. We know that seeing Voldemort was believing for the Ministry. OotP didn't. Given the Ministry's line at the time, they'd be more likely to blame Sirius Black than acknowledge Voldemort's return.

The time to assassinate Lucius would have been either immediately after Voldemort's fall [1] or (more justifiably) in the two years between the end of CoS and Voldemort's return. I am sure that Dumbledore, Snape, Moody, and maybe Sirius would have been able to put their heads together to do it and get away with it. (If worse came to worst, have Sirius be the one to do it, which would feed into the ministry narrative of him being the Dark Lord's servant, so they wouldn't dig very deeply. Also, with any luck, it would sow fear and confusion among Death Eaters who had escaped justice. The price, of course, be that Sirius could never be exonerated, unless the public sentiment were shifted to the point where Dumbledore openly admitting that he had Lucius killed wouldn't harm him.)

Well, I may be in the minority here, but I think a Dumbledore that's as experienced as the books want him to be would know exactly how to fool the Ministry and the aurors into believing Voldemort is back. At some point you you have to stop saying "Dumbeldore cannot do this, cannot do that", or you end up actually saying "Dumbledore's a weak fool who can't do anything".

In my story, he will have to tread a bit more carefully since the Watchers meddling in the brewing war means he finally realized that the situation has slipped out of his control. But at the same time, that's exactly what is needed to push him into action. Dumbledore's main fault in my opinion and stories generally is his unwillingness to use his power. If he has to become proactive to avoid a desaster that could ruin Britain and doom the world, then that's a good thing. And with the Slayer on the prowl, convincing Fudge that the "harmless prank at the World Cup" brought the Slayer down on them because Fudge was not seen to be doing something about Death Eater wannabes might convince him to stop his slandering campaign. On the other hand, the Slayer makes a wonderful cover for killing off Death Eaters, and the faster Death Eaters are gone, the less danger the Watchers cause for good Wizards. He could also go for the "I am the only one that can keep the Slayer in check, I already have contacted them through intermediaries" line to gain a lot of leverage with Fudge. And, even if it goes against his personal wishes and beliefs, killing key Death Eaters would also help him gain (a bit) of the Watcher's trust.

I do not think that a man who tolerates Snape absuing hundreds of children for a decade and more, just because he expects needing him as a spy sometime, would balk at doing his own dirty work, as long as it seemed the best course of action.

macdjord said:
Well, he has two options:
Act like an arsehole, thus providing visible evidence of his loyalty to the DE cause, but have to convince the other ex-DEs (and, later, V) that Dumbledore is naive and trusting enough to believe he's reformed anyway
Act like a nice guy, thus maintaining consistency with his supposed role, but have to convince the other ex-DEs (and, later, V) that he's really on their side without any visible evidence to support that
How well do you think option 2 would go down? "Oh, I know it's a radical change in my behaviour from before the Fall, but I'm only being nice to those mudblood students because I've decided to become our spy on the inside." How likely is Malfoy to believe that? Or the reborn Voldemort? If he'd been inserted as a spy by V before the fall, then things would be different. As it is, he was better off trying to convince them Dumbledore was a fool - something they already wanted to believe - then trying to convince them he was still on their side without public evidence.

"You know, just as you have to act the nice guys, remorseful victims of the Imperius, I have to act the nice guy, remorseful Death Eater. I didn't have the money to bribe my way out of Azkaban, and so I had to suck up to Dumbledore. But I hate it. Tolerating mudbloods! Toting the party line! I long for the time I can finally don the sacred robes again!"

I think it would go over very well, actually, since the other Death Eaters did the same.

turbinicarpus · Mar 31, 2015

macdjord said:
How likely is Malfoy to believe that? Or the reborn Voldemort? If he'd been inserted as a spy by V before the fall, then things would be different. As it is, he was better off trying to convince them Dumbledore was a fool - something they already wanted to believe - then trying to convince them he was still on their side without public evidence.

Another possible dimension is that Snape has to regularly converse with the greatest Legilimens alive. And, because said Legilimens would not hesitate to kill him, he can't just close or blank his mind, he has to, essentially, let Voldemort in and convince him that he is not plotting against him. That is, he has to construct and project a false reality in which he is a loyal Death Eater. It's helpful when the external reality matches.

Starfox5 said:
Well, I may be in the minority here, but I think a Dumbledore that's as experienced as the books want him to be would know exactly how to fool the Ministry and the aurors into believing Voldemort is back. At some point you you have to stop saying "Dumbeldore cannot do this, cannot do that", or you end up actually saying "Dumbledore's a weak fool who can't do anything".

I am not saying that Dumbledore cannot do it. I am saying is that fooling the ministry in this way is very risky. In particular, if anything goes wrong (and Voldemort in his people will do their utmost to ensure that it does) and the ruse is discovered, then further evidence of Voldemort's return --- including Voldemort showing up in the ministry --- could be dismissed as more of Dumbledore's forgeries.

Starfox5 · Mar 31, 2015

Pahan said:
I am not saying that Dumbledore cannot do it. I am saying is that fooling the ministry in this way is very risky. In particular, if anything goes wrong (and Voldemort in his people will do their utmost to ensure that it does) and the ruse is discovered, then further evidence of Voldemort's return --- including Voldemort showing up in the ministry --- could be dismissed as more of Dumbledore's forgeries.

Seeing that no such attempt was made when Voldemort was revealed, I do not think this is a danger. I also think, as I stated before, that if Dumbledore cannot fool Fudge, then he has no business trying to fight Voldemort. We can disagree as much as we want, but in this story, Dumbledore is not weaker than Malfoy. His main fault is that he doesn't want to act and is far too cautious for his and everyone else's good. When he has to do something, he does it well.

I am not saying that he'll kill Malfoy and frame Voldemort for it - there might be a better course of action - but whatever he will do will be done competently.

turbinicarpus · Mar 31, 2015

Starfox5 said:
Seeing that no such attempt was made when Voldemort was revealed, I do not think this is a danger.

He was revealed in the most dramatic way possible: a massive battle in the middle of the Ministry, with Dumbledore and Voldemort both present, with many of the Death Eaters --- including Lucius Malfoy --- captured. There wasn't much room for a cover-up there. If Dumbledore could purposefully orchestrate something like that, he probably would. (On the Way to Greatness by mira mirth (i.e., the best Slytherin!Harry fic) does that, basically.)

Starfox5 said:
I also think, as I stated before, that if Dumbledore cannot fool Fudge, then he has no business trying to fight Voldemort. We can disagree as much as we want, but in this story, Dumbledore is not weaker than Malfoy. His main fault is that he doesn't want to act and is far too cautious for his and everyone else's good. When he has to do something, he does it well.

Who could "fool" Fudge better in abstract is a meaningless question, I think. Fudge doesn't want to believe that Voldemort is back. It means a lot of headache for him, putting the country on war footing, sucking up to the Giants and the werewolves, etc., and it may mean yielding authority to the likes of Scrimegour. So, even if Dumbledore is twice as good at persuading (by any means necessary) Fudge in abstract than Malfoy is, he is still going to have an uphill struggle.

Starfox5 said:
I am not saying that he'll kill Malfoy and frame Voldemort for it - there might be a better course of action - but whatever he will do will be done competently.

Sure, I could get behind a more proactive Dumbledore.

Starfox5 · Mar 31, 2015

Pahan said:
Who could "fool" Fudge better in abstract is a meaningless question, I think. Fudge doesn't want to believe that Voldemort is back. It means a lot of headache for him, putting the country on war footing, sucking up to the Giants and the werewolves, etc., and it may mean yielding authority to the likes of Scrimegour. So, even if Dumbledore is twice as good at persuading (by any means necessary) Fudge in abstract than Malfoy is, he is still going to have an uphill struggle.

If Fudge is fooled into believing that Voldemort is back and into believing that everyone knows it, there's no uphill struggle. Canon showed that. In this story, Dumbledore will have to consider the goals and actions of the Watchers as well as the Ministry's and Voldemort's. That's trickier, but he simply can't wait and see anymore.

turbinicarpus · Mar 31, 2015

Starfox5 said:
If Fudge is fooled into believing that Voldemort is back and into believing that everyone knows it, there's no uphill struggle.

I was referring, in particular, to the notion of motivated reasoning, that Fudge would prefer Voldemort to not be back, since it disrupts his comfortable life and worldview, so he is going to take more effort to persuade in that direction than to the contrary, especially once he's invested his reputation and Ministry's resources into promoting the notion that Dumbledore is senile and that Harry is a liar.

Starfox5 · Mar 31, 2015

Pahan said:
I was referring, in particular, to the notion of motivated reasoning, that Fudge would prefer Voldemort to not be back, since it disrupts his comfortable life and worldview, so he is going to take more effort to persuade in that direction than to the contrary, especially once he's invested his reputation and Ministry's resources into promoting the notion that Dumbledore is senile and that Harry is a liar.

And that is of no consequence anymore as soon as Fudge believes that Voldemort is back and that he needs Dumbledore. Canon shows that Fudge didn't need to be persuaded anymore as soon as he saw Voldemort. He's, as you say, hard to persuade, but he is easy to fool.

turbinicarpus · Mar 31, 2015

Starfox5 said:
And that is of no consequence anymore as soon as Fudge believes that Voldemort is back and that he needs Dumbledore. Canon shows that Fudge didn't need to be persuaded anymore as soon as he saw Voldemort. He's, as you say, hard to persuade, but he is easy to fool.

It is of every consequence, because it affects the amount of evidence (genuine or falsified) that it would take for him to come to believe that Voldemort is back. Tricking is just persuasion minus ethical constraints. It doesn't automatically negate effects of motivated reasoning.

In the end, it was far more than just seeing a guy in a Voldemort costume: it took a devastated Ministry atrium, Dumbledore and Voldemort battling using magic no other wizards were reputed to be able to do, Harry Potter and captured DEs, in costume, including Malfoy. What subset of that would have sufficed? We can only speculate, but faking an insufficiently impressive tableau would have backfired, especially since Voldemort and DEs would have been in position to expose it.

Starfox5 · Mar 31, 2015

If Dumbledore cannot fake such a fight, he cannot defeat Voldemort in my opinion. It's not easy, but he's not an ordinary Wizard. Fudge was convinced before the captured Death Eaters and all were revealed and checked and such - the sight of the battle with Voldemort was enough. What would Malfoy do to expose it? "Hey, I know the Dark Lord was not there because he is in my mansion?"

Tomato · Mar 31, 2015

Starfox5 said:
I've got only vague plans for a sequel at this point. It would involve Harry and Hermione heading to Sunnydale, but I am not sure at which point - 3rd, 4th or 5th season? Should they become watchers, then they'll be sent to Sunnydale in Season 5 to (help) deal with Glory, but I am not sure if they'd be sent to help earlier than that. Adjusting to a TV series arc is a bit more difficult than adjusting to a book arc though. Unless one massively expands the story, a number of episodes would either be cut or skipped over. And as said already, I am not sure if the Mayor would be a danger big enough to send some of the rare wizards, wh have trouble with hellmouths anyway, over. Also not sure about Adam.

Another option is placing them in Wesley's role in season 3.

LurkerGuy · Mar 31, 2015

Whether considering posting them there as official replacement watchers, or as helpful adjuncts the considerations are nearly the same. Hellmouths interfere with their style of magic, so the amount their contributions are an improvement over a more standard watcher is lower in Sunnydale than elsewhere, so the Council will only want to send them if they judge they need that boost to reach an acceptable level of results (i.e. Probably yes if not sending is likely to allow an apocalypse, probably not if its just likely to get a slayer killed).

turbinicarpus · Apr 1, 2015

Starfox5 said:
If Dumbledore cannot fake such a fight, he cannot defeat Voldemort in my opinion. It's not easy, but he's not an ordinary Wizard. Fudge was convinced before the captured Death Eaters and all were revealed and checked and such - the sight of the battle with Voldemort was enough. What would Malfoy do to expose it?

Depends on exactly what Dumbledore tries and what resources the DEs had on the ground. It could be something as simple as Malfoy --- or maybe one of Fudge's bodyguards working for the DEs of his own volition or through the Imperius --- hexing Pseudomort, and the hex either connects and does real damage, exposing Pseudomort as an impostor or dispels the illusion or a conjuration. (Or, for that matter, Obliviate or Confound Fudge, which Dumbledore could also try, but that, again, is a plan that could backfire badly.)

Anyway, if you can write it plausibly, and it goes off without a hitch, I could buy it; and if it backfires horribly, I could also buy it; and if Dumbledore deems it too risky to try, I could buy that as well.

Starfox5 · Apr 1, 2015

Pahan said:
Depends on exactly what Dumbledore tries and what resources the DEs had on the ground. It could be something as simple as Malfoy --- or maybe one of Fudge's bodyguards working for the DEs of his own volition or through the Imperius --- hexing Pseudomort, and the hex either connects and does real damage, exposing Pseudomort as an impostor or dispels the illusion or a conjuration. (Or, for that matter, Obliviate or Confound Fudge, which Dumbledore could also try, but that, again, is a plan that could backfire badly.)

Anyway, if you can write it plausibly, and it goes off without a hitch, I could buy it; and if it backfires horribly, I could also buy it; and if Dumbledore deems it too risky to try, I could buy that as well.

Why would any DE other than, maybe, the inner circle attack "Voldemort" on sight? They might not realize that it's a fake, and be afraid to ruin one of their Master's plans - it wasn't as if they were privy to all his plans. Compared to Dumbledore, all the Death Eaters were kind of weak; the chance that they could hit and hurt him is rather low. Unless we assume that Dumbledore is not in Tom's league, at which point the whole "oppose Voldemort" thing is again a moot point.

macdjord · Apr 1, 2015

Starfox5 said:
"You know, just as you have to act the nice guys, remorseful victims of the Imperius, I have to act the nice guy, remorseful Death Eater. I didn't have the money to bribe my way out of Azkaban, and so I had to suck up to Dumbledore. But I hate it. Tolerating mudbloods! Toting the party line! I long for the time I can finally don the sacred robes again!"

I think it would go over very well, actually, since the other Death Eaters did the same.

Except they didn't. Oh, they officially renounced the Dark Lord and make a show of respectability - just as Snape refrains from outright hexing his muggleborn students. But none of them make any attempt to pretend not to be blood purists or to have given up on Voldemort's agenda. So why should Snape?

Starfox5 · Apr 1, 2015

Because Snape hasn't paid a bribe and has to rely on Dumbledore to keep him out of Azkaban. Also I do not believe those poor victims did sprout their blood purists views right away after Voldemort's defeat and openly pursued the same agenda that got their fellow Death Eaters sent to Azkaban.

turbinicarpus · Apr 1, 2015

Starfox5 said:
Why would any DE other than, maybe, the inner circle attack "Voldemort" on sight?

It's a hypothetical way a never really described plan by Dumbledore could be foiled. For that matter, keeping a high-ranking DE (or someone under Imperius by one) in close proximity to Fudge at all times seems like a good idea for DEs. (And, if the Imperius is ever discovered, they could blame Sirius Black.)

If you want to hash out what Dumbledore might try, how it might go wrong, what he might do about that, what countermeasures and contingencies DEs might have prepared if they don't know exactly what he is planning but suspect, and what counter-countermeasures Dumbledore might be preparing --- especially if it's for possible inclusion in the fic --- then that's one thing.

If your argument comes down to repeatedly proclaiming that Dumbledore should have been able to think of some highly reliable way to manipulate Fudge that Voldemort and the DEs couldn't anticipate or counter, and that it's a moral failing on his part that he didn't try anything of the sort, that's another --- and something that seems to me to be pointless.

Starfox5 · Apr 1, 2015

Pahan said:
It's a hypothetical way a never really described plan by Dumbledore could be foiled. For that matter, keeping a high-ranking DE (or someone under Imperius by one) in close proximity to Fudge at all times seems like a good idea for DEs. (And, if the Imperius is ever discovered, they could blame Sirius Black.)

If you want to hash out what Dumbledore might try, how it might go wrong, what he might do about that, what countermeasures and contingencies DEs might have prepared if they don't know exactly what he is planning but suspect, and what counter-countermeasures Dumbledore might be preparing --- especially if it's for possible inclusion in the fic --- then that's one thing.

If your argument comes down to repeatedly proclaiming that Dumbledore should have been able to think of some highly reliable way to manipulate Fudge that Voldemort and the DEs couldn't anticipate or counter, and that it's a moral failing on his part that he didn't try anything of the sort, that's another --- and something that seems to me to be pointless.

My argument comes down to the fact that we seem to have quite different views of the general competency of Death Eaters, Voldemort and Dumbledore. I do not think the Death Eaters are nearly as competent as you assume. I also base most of my assumptions on the canon events that led to Voldemort being revealed.

There seemed to have been no plan of Voldemort in place at all to prevent him being seen. No mask, no disillusion, no nothing. Even though he hadn't wanted to enter himself from the start so he'd not be seen - I suppose. The whole plan of Voldemort was "lure Harry to the DoM so he can get the prophecy and my Death Eaters can take it from him". Thoughts like "What if he calls Dumbledore or the Order for help?" never seemed to have come up at all. Even if we assume that there were steps taken to make the infiltration easier for Harry, it doesn't seem as any measures had been taken to prevent aurors to respond, much less keep control of the Minister. If they had had an imperiused wizard near Fudge, then he would have acted then and there to keep Voldemort's presencefrom becoming public I'd say, by ordering the aurors not to enter, or such. Or at least warning the Death Eaters or at the very least Voldemort to retreat.The Death Eaters even were in full regalia, and not in civilian robes. Without their masks they could have been posing as concerned citizens who just caught thieves red-handed - which would have been a great way to kill two birds with one stone: Get the prophecy, and frame Harry for a crime.

Why do you think that such bumbling fools would have all those counter-measures in place? They just about outed themselves in canon.

Granted, I do tend to assign Dumbledore a higher level of competency than to the Death Eaters, but isn't he described as one of the most experienced and skilled, and wisest wizards of Britain?

turbinicarpus · Apr 1, 2015

Starfox5 said:
Granted, I do tend to assign Dumbledore a higher level of competency than to the Death Eaters, but isn't he described as one of the most experienced and skilled, and wisest wizards of Britain?

That's the crux of the matter, I think: if we go by description and reputation, Dumbledore is, indeed, one of the most (and, in some categories, the most) experienced, skilled, wisest wizards in the world (not just Britain: he also headed ICW). But, if we go by that, Voldemort is his equal in skill, and what he lacks in wisdom, he makes up in cunning and ruthlessness, with his very name being feared more than a decade after his supposed death [1]; and his followers are, likewise able to match and even beat the best of the law (Aurors) and private militias (OotP) spell for spell.

However, as has been pointed out many, many times, neither of them quite live up to their reputations and descriptions on-screen.

The problem, I think, is elevating one side to match their reputation without elevating the other to match theirs. If Dumbledore is going to be clever and proactive in convincing Fudge of Voldemort's return, then Voldemort should be clever and proactive in countering Dumbledore's attempts to do so.

[1] Compare: within a year of Dumbledore's death, Rita Skeeter was writing an exposé on him.

Starfox5 · Apr 1, 2015

Pahan said:
That's the crux of the matter, I think: if we go by description and reputation, Dumbledore is, indeed, one of the most (and, in some categories, the most) experienced, skilled, wisest wizards in the world (not just Britain: he also headed ICW). But, if we go by that, Voldemort is his equal in skill, and what he lacks in wisdom, he makes up in cunning and ruthlessness, with his very name being feared more than a decade after his supposed death [1]; and his followers are, likewise able to match and even beat the best of the law (Aurors) and private militias (OotP) spell for spell.

However, as has been pointed out many, many times, neither of them quite live up to their reputations and descriptions on-screen.

The problem, I think, is elevating one side to match their reputation without elevating the other to match theirs. If Dumbledore is going to be clever and proactive in convincing Fudge of Voldemort's return, then Voldemort should be clever and proactive in countering Dumbledore's attempts to do so.

[1] Compare: within a year of Dumbledore's death, Rita Skeeter was writing an exposé on him.

Dumbledore never had the reputation of killing people who annoyed or insulted him. Or of having followers who do that for him.

Though while it could be that Voldemort is Dumbledore's equal in skill and cunning, it could also be that Voldemort only fared that well beause Dumbledore was holding back, or making mistakes. If I want to write a story that goes "canon-like civil war, just without comedies of errors and blunders", then yes, Voldemort would match Dumbledore's moves. But what if the story idea is "Dumbledore wises up, see what happens"? I don't really think that introducing changes only to cancel their effects right away with more changes is the one true way to write a fanfiction story.

I mean, what's the point in having a pro-active Dumbeldore if things contine like in canon? That story was already told. I might even use a variant of that in Patron, with Dumbledore trying to find out if Voldemort is actually back, and Voldemort hiding from him. But simply repeating the canon situation of "Dumbledore knows Voldemort is back, but cannot convince the Ministry of that fact"? I'd rather do something different than canon.

alethiophile · Apr 1, 2015

If you want to write a story where Dumbledore, as an agent in the story, acts as competently as the most extravagant of his reputation would imply, it goes like this.

Note that that story has already been written, and there's little real interest in rehashing it. Thus, you have to come up with some reason why Dumbledore doesn't just win offscreen, and never involve the children it's his job to protect. Any fic is going to have to deal with this.

Uncle Quentin's Spy (Harry Potter/Buffy) (Complete)

I trust you know where the happy button is?

Experienced.

I trust you know where the happy button is?

Shadowed Philosopher

Experienced.

Shadowed Philosopher

Experienced.

Shadowed Philosopher

Formerly 'Pahan'

Well worn.

Experienced.

Formerly 'Pahan'

Experienced.

Formerly 'Pahan'

Experienced.

Formerly 'Pahan'

Experienced.

Formerly 'Pahan'

Experienced.

Not too sore, are you?

Hanging out in your threads; Observing your posts

Formerly 'Pahan'

Experienced.

Well worn.

Experienced.

Formerly 'Pahan'

Experienced.

Formerly 'Pahan'

Experienced.

Shadowed Philosopher

Users who are viewing this thread