Dumbledore an actor in league with Voldemort (James Potter)

[Philosoph]

Yesterday, during a discussion of literature analysis among my students at Yale University this subject was addressed. Dropping our discussion of Beowulf (much quicker than I probably should have) we took the liberty of analyzing direct passages in Harry Potter books. As well as out-of-context responses generated by the author in interviews. (Lucky for us we had a few fanatics in the class who don't go anywhere without their proper Harry Potter resources.) So, after a half-an-hour we predicted the story can only go one of three ways, at this point.

Harry will martyr himself to get rid of Voldemort.

Harry will eradicate Voldemort and become an Auror in the suggested happy ending.

Harry will die and Voldemort will triumph.

I believe we can eliminate possibility three, based on the genre. Thus leaving us with its' predecessors. I believe we can also eliminate the first possibility, as the genre again is a kind of "happy-fiction" as is said in the literature world. Thus we have possibility 2 remaining.

It also in the author's habitual nature to introduce the least expected elements and redirect the flow of the story. (Much like a water slide banking a sharp turn to add to the experience) based on this I believe we must amend the possibility, or at least add to it. Ultimately it will remain intact, but there are several mind wrenching twists in store. (I don't believe anyone can dispute this much)

For example we have discussed and analyzed the great role of Lupin, in the future, a very key character (but that is a different subject all together.)

The first of two major surprises will be the revelation that James Potter is no more than Voldemort himself. This is a bold statement but no more so than the revealtion that Sirius was really a Harry's Godfather and Scabbers was Wormtail.

Returning to the point, the only time the two were ever together, they were alone, and no one was present to witness any difference. Also James was quite gifted and it is a surprise that he would take on the Dark Lord alone, and fall so easily. Without any word anywhere as to giving a noble, or bold fight. Also why wouldn't Lily have stood with him in the battle, surely they would have both tried to resist together, stength in numbers is a character of animal evolution for safety that is innate in everyone.

Wasn't it also james who had the slightest influence in making it be Wormtail (which is a direct rip off of Tolkein's wormtongue) and not Sirius be the one to, you-know-what? Also the couple had duped the dark Lord thrice, how better could they have done than James knowing exactly what he needed to do. How else would he know EXACTLY? And how better could he have gotten his wife (who should previously in Snape's pensive that she was more loyal to good than to him) restating: How could he have gotten her to allow him to kill the baby without her revealing him. (Since at this point the discovery of the prophesy meant he had to kill the baby, and she didn't know he was Voldemort)

So instead of continuing a game where he chased himself around, to protect his identity, his attack on his other-selves' family had to be real. Thus the duel between Voldemort and James was non-existent and Lily of course fell. Shock is not a viable ally in a duel. ( Now we must refer to the the special magic, mentioned in frequent places by Dumbledore, which protected Harry. Generated through her pure love, gained potency when mixed with her naivety, innocense, and sealed in power by James' betrayal.)

The story of Tom Riddle 50 years before being an easily concocted facade. Avery good one at fooling the wizarding world, and even better at fooling the reader.

Furthermore, in the pensive, James had shown more of his true colors. How he could easily disregard the feelings of others for a display of his own power, and how he was perfectly fine with hexing and jynxing people. With minimal or no reason. Which later would mature into curses and killings. A very self-serving mind frame.
(this prediction is somewhat based on a tip off given by a mutual friend to my class, who said this will surface itself in the 7th book.)

The second possibility, which may or may not tie in with the first. Is that Dumbledore the seemingly perfect, all-knowing sage who always has the power to defeat Voldemort and protect Harry Potter, isn't as innocent as he may seem. Though clearly not Voldemort himself (the two have dueled in person with Harry as a witness), Dumbledore is a very clever actor who uses the dark lords' power and his own to play a part. A very deep and twisted plot concocted by Voldemort himself.

He is the one who appoints Quirrel to the school and guides the boy, Harry Potter to search for the stone. He's the one who's always encouraging Harry Potter to do brave and stupid things. He's the one who wins his trust and the trust of everyone, including the reader, so to follow the natural method of suspense literature he must eventually surface himself in contradictory colors. Contrast himself from the false facade he wears, the unbelievablygood-guy is always the bad-guy. Don't believe me, read suspense literature.

We have reason to believe based on a few quotations in the books that Dumbledore is not Voldemort but is closely related to him (not by blood but by business.) [Which brings up another point, based on DD conversation with Harry in OOTP, it is quite likely , in the fashion that all bad guys do, that he plans of betraying Voldemort and taking his place.]

Dumbledore didn't have any real specifics to tell Harry when inquired as to how Voldemort found about the prophesy, leading us to the blatent conclusion that Dumbledore was in a perfect position to tell Voldemort himself.

Voldemort isn't stupid and he, like any competant conflict competitor, knows that he must have a very good source of espionage. A spy, of sorts, to be in a high position among the other side but who has true loyalty to him. This leads the moderately observant reader to falsely speculate this person is Snape. That is not true, at least not in full. This character, in literature, is called "a distraction."

As for people catching on and wondering about why Voldemort (Big V) doesn't kill Dumbledore, he makes up a cock-and-bull story about how he's the only wizard he's ever feared.

It all really comes together. Two passages we selected (hopefully their depth doesn't elude you. I'm not used to address a child aged audience, and certainly not used to taking up such a discussion with High-Schoolers, so this is a good experience for me.)

For example:
On the 12th line of pg 123 in the first book there is a symbolic representation made. There is a question suggesting an offering and an item, a foodstuff (signifying consumption and the content of the soul. "They always say you are what you eat") and the item chooses was the vegetable known most commonly for the number of eyes it posses. This is NOT a coincidence.

More to the point though,
line 25 of page 10 Dumbledore says something very, very implicative. On the surface the non-acute reader would glaze over it lazily but the profound statement is exactly that.

There are several examples time prevents me to type at the moment, the better ones. So, I would advise you to re-read the first book (that's where hints are that tell the entire plot, as is always inadvertantly true in every sequencial set of books) and look at it in depth, don't get swooped away by the story or you'll miss it all. The author is good at that.

Well that's all I choose to disclose for the moment.
Reginald Keenman PhD in Literature Analysis [/b]

[Enchanter]

i have never thought of that. It semms so likely when u break it down

[KBIG104]

You lost me on the "number of eyes" quote.

[Gwared]

Great, I love topics like this!

I agree with you about the three main endings and the reasoning behind which is the most likely, that is kind of a given.

However, how can James be Tom Riddle? Unless James killed Tom and then stole his identity as Voldermort?? Possible..but there is also the difference in eyes noted between Tom and James in CoS (and James’s likeness is discussed almost every book).

The inate animal argument; it is also inbuilt to protect the young, thus you have many animal kingdom models whereby one protects the nest while the other attacks the intruder.

The fact that they escaped Voldermort three times may or may not be particularly wonderful…all that is mentioned about the matter was in the prophecy and that there was that two families which had thwarted LV thrice bearing sons. Three times may have been below average, it is not mentioned. Harry himself has managed four and he is but a young boy.

Also if James were Voldermort he would be better served in watching Harry grow up whereby he could manipulate him from his side, or killing Lily and doing the same with even more influence.

I like the argument, and I’ve actually been treading the lines like this…but there are a lot of continuity errors between them. The wands importance (we know James and Tom got different wands and we surely know which of the two Voldermort uses) for example.

The second argument I see as more feasible, for every reason you point, but I have a few ponderings; Harry is linked to LV in the storyline and is supposed to have the necessary ability to beat LV only. Fawkes, I would also imagine would not be such a loyal pet (due to the symbolism of the phoenix being ‘good’) to an evil master.

Snape is, very obviously, the distraction and I would imagine he is accentuated much more than usual because this is a childrens book.

On the fear subject, I agree…LV did not show any signs of fear in the battle amongst the MOM…but DD did; towards Harry. Prehaps DD’s plan requires the fear Harry puts in LV to remain?

I cannot read the passages you describe because of the differences between the US and UK editions but I shall re-read book one to see what else I can learn.

[redhead2531]

Voldemort can't be James because James couldn't have overcame Voldemort 3 times if it was him. Maybe there is some wacky way he beat Tom Riddle 3 times at something stupid like cards or chess, but either way there is little or no chance that that is what happened at all. I don't believe there is any way James can be Voldemort because of the prophecy.

[highsorcerer]

All the objective evidence shows James and Voldemort are exactly what they appear to be.

The evidence is overwhelming, and begins with PS / SS, where James is show in the Mirror of Erised. It continues with the wizard photos Hagrid gives Harry.

In CoS, the chamber was revealed to have been opened 50 years previous. While wizards appear to age more slowly than muggles, we know that Harry's parents could not have been 50 years old when they conceived him. Why? Lily was in the same year as James. Plus, Petunia is a sister to Lily, and she's a muggle, as well as Vernon Dursley. Petunia would not have been able to detail the actions of her sister during Holidays (as she said in SS / PS) if Lily was that much older. Even if the Evan's were Squibs which had delayed aging, Petunia would still have needed to be close in age to Lily.

In PoA, Hagrid, Flitwick, McGonagall, and somebody else talked freely about Sirius Black and his betrayal of the Potters while Harry easedropped. They refer to the death and aftermath of the Potters. They would not have been talking for his benefit, as they did not know he was there.

In GoF, both James and Lily's echos come out of Voldemort's wand during the Priori Incantum malfunction. Voldemort could not and would not have killed himself.

[Iluvatar]

I agree that James and Voldemort cannot be the same person mainly because of the Priori Incantatem incident. Good thinking, Highsorcerer. That point is practically irrefutable.

I'd also like to add that it is unlikely that Dumbledore is in league with Voldemort. The evidence shows that Dumbledore knows the prochecy in its full. If he were on LV's side he would certainly have told him and Voldemort would have waited before attacking Harry.

[June]

Just to add on to the evidence that James is not Volemort... Rowling said in an interview that she'll never write something as cliche as that... definitely not Star Wars' version of "I'm your father, Harry" for Voldemort...

[fra-sirius]

i should take a bit longer to understand this theory, but i agree with June in sayin' that harry potter won't be another star wars

[Scellanis]

ok, what i'm wondering is....

1. when harry meets dementors in book 3 he hears James, Lily and Voldemort.......so James must need to have several voices....

2. as mentioned above james comes out of volde's wand

3. If Dumbledore is not the good person fighting against Voldemort then why did Voldemort need to get the Prophecy....Dumbledore should have told him.....and also if James was Voldemort why does Voldemort need to get the prophecy...Dumbledore must have told him of it or they wouldnt have known to get themselves a secret keeper.....

*stares at the quote stuff*

eyes in a vegetable?? im just wondering...if you want to quote the book why didnt you post the direct quote and then post the analysis of it....then perhaps we might stand more chance of understanding it.....

[fra-sirius]

eyes in a vegetable?? im just wondering...if you want to quote the book why didnt you post the direct quote and then post the analysis of it....then perhaps we might stand more chance of understanding it.....

that's a great idea!

[Philosoph]

Ah yes, I forgot the kind of audience I was dealing with here. My apologies.

Ok I'm only going to iterate this point once, so please pay very good attention.

In the Harry Potter book series almost everything is done from Harry Potters' eyes. In literature we call this character POV. (Point of View) This gives the author limitless flexibility at changing the flow at her descretion, since human capacity to perceive things incorrectly initially is incredible. She also, I have noticed, takes advantage of others incapacities as well. Not mention that the milieu the setting is in, there is an air of "anything is possible."

It is this sort of thing that led you to believe Snape was a bad guys in the first book. Quirell was a good one. It led you to believe that Hagrid opened the CoS, it led you to believe that Aragog was the Basilisk, it led you to believe that Harry might really have some innate eveil in him (the whole issue of the sorting hat and the parselmouth) it led you to believe that Sirius Black was a murderer, and a bad character. All of these lead ons were just in the first three books. I won't even begin on the next two, which you know as well as I have even more.

As you can see, the author is the definite habit of making srastic and incredible changes. The time turner (which is the worst part of teh series) was one example of how she can take advantage of her milieu fully.

I am out of time.
Reginald Keenman PhD in literature analysis

[AccioNiffler]

I think that this whole James/Voldemort thing is a little much. I think that you are supporting your theory well, Philosoph, but this is a children's series, and I think it's just going a little too far for young minds. I also have to agree with June:

Just to add on to the evidence that James is not Volemort... Rowling said in an interview that she'll never write something as cliche as that... definitely not Star Wars' version of "I'm your father, Harry" for Voldemort...

I have to say, if JKR does something like that, I'd lose all faith in her, lol

[Iluvatar]

Philosoph

I agree that most everything is done from Harry's point of view. However this doesn't change the validity of certain arguments that proove that James and Voldemort cannot be the same person.

1) James came out of Voldemort's wand in GoF
Harry witnessed this himself and we readers saw it (or rather read it) through his eyes. The mirror of Erised showed Harry his father's real appearance so there is little chance that Harry was mistaken when he saw his father emerge from the wand.

2) Harry hears three voices when the dementors are near. That of his mother, father and Voldemort. This is supposedly Harry's own memory.

As for the Time Turner. I don't find it as impossible or bad as you seem to think. I have given much thought to time paradoxes and have explained my theory in another thread, namely the thread entitled "Time Turner problem" This theory shows that the time turner does NOT allow unlimited possibilites and can only work under certain circumstances. I believe that JKR has been thinking along the same lines as I have and has been very careful how she uses the Time Turner in the plot.

I admit that I don't have a PhD in Literature Analysis, so forgive me if I am mistaken but I don't really see what Character POV changes in this given situation.

[Meg Boyd]

Philosoph,

hmmm...your post really made me think...I'm slightly imtimidated now that you as a member has a PhD and everything...yet I might be only a student in a senior AP English class, not at all close to your standards, but I do have an opinion and a brain...

As for the poll question my answer is not up there...I do understand your theory in full...yet I do not agree with it...it is possible to disagree with a theory and still understand it, right????

There are many ways in which the James is Really Voldemort theory works, and you have discussed them quite well...yet there are inconsistencies in that story...especially the priori incantem (sp?) and the two wands...there is a wand for every wizard out there...the wand meets the wizard...why would a person have two???? Yes, Ron Weasley had two wands, but the first was broken. Obviously if this had happened to James/LV then he would be using the younger of the two wands, correct???? We know this is false because in his duel with Harry in GoF, the wand cores create a reaction due to their relation as the same core. We learn in the first book that Tom Riddle's wand had the same core as Harry's and this would be the elder of the two wands...

If the Tom Riddle story was just a facade then that would involve nearly everyone in Hogwarts telling Harry lies, meaning nearly everyone Harry holds trustworthy would have to be lying to him and the students...yet even paintings and ghosts seemed to know about it, especially Myrtle, Tom's first victim. If everyone was in a conspiracy against him, than who does he have to love??? If we're talking about a kid's book, thats a bit harsh, don't you think?

Eyes (in their physical presence) are very important to JKR imagery of the characters. She has chosen to use eyes to convey the different personalities of her characters...for example LV's red eyes with cat like pupils, showing his inhumaness and lust for evil, or Sirius' lonely, hollow, dark eyes showing of his trials he had to bear during the latter part of his life, or Luna's wide eyes, to have wide eyes means to have an understanding of things around you and Luna does know quite a lot about the world around her, and even things that no one expects her too...now we look at Dumbledore's eyes...they are a clear, twinkling blue. To the simplest of children eyes like this mean some one wonderful and jolly like Father Christmas. However the clear aspect of his eyes really show who he is...DD is wise, and powerful...his eyes are so very clear because of his clear sense of wisdom that no other wizard or muggle has ever experienced...meaning his eyes are too wise and good to ever be in line with Voldemort...

And the kind of audience you are "dealing with " here might not be top notch university students learning with the best of the best spending their time over anaylsing a story...we are The Audience that JKR wrote the book for, she wrote it for people like us to enjoy...we aren't all "children", many of us are in secondary schools or in colleges, univerities and technical vocation schools...we aren't little five year-olds enamored with a tale about a boy with a magical broom...we apprieciate the awesome power of the written word...I enjoyed hearing every bit of your opinion, and I hope you do not have any cross feelings for my opinion because that's what it all is...an opinion. None of us will ever know what the real story is until the seventh book...so perhaps you are right, perhaps I am right, perhaps we are both wrong...but we will never know until the end...

Thank you very much for sharing you opnion will us, and Have a wonderful day

Carpe Diem

Meg Boyd