Skip to main content

harry potter - Did Dumbledore know Lockhart was a fraud?


Dumbledore seems a pretty shrewd guy. Simple question: did Dumbledore know that Lockhart was a fraud and wanted to prove it to the (wizarding) world, or did he genuinely believe Lockhart would make a good DADA teacher?




Answer



Dumbledore knew very well that Lockhart was a fraud. The wizarding world at large might have been fooled by Lockhart's theatrics, but Dumbledore was not fooled in the least. In fact, as Pottermore explains, Dumbledore was one of a very few wizards who suspected what Lockhart was actually doing:



He happened to have known two of the wizards for whose life's work Gilderoy Lockhart had taken credit, and was one of the only people in the world who thought he knew was Lockhart was up to. Dumbledore was convinced that Lockhart needed only to be put back into an ordinary school setting to be revealed as a charlatan and a fraud.



Other members of the wizarding community disliked Lockhart's exhibitionism--in fact, most of the Hogwarts staff, notably McGonagall, did not want Lockhart to teach at Hogwarts for that very reason. But to prove that Lockhart was, in fact, committing illegal actions in order to further his own reputation would be more difficult. The two wizards Dumbledore knew no longer had their memories, and it would simply be Dumbledore's word against Lockhart's. Yet Lockhart had to be stopped. His Memory Charms were criminal, not merely unethical.


Dumbledore needed a DADA teacher. Lockhart would be no worse than Quirrell, and Dumbledore believed that having him teach would expose him as a fraud. Furthermore, Lockhart could not steal other wizards' memories and accomplishments if he was teaching at Hogwarts. Short of having him tried and thrown into Azkaban (which, sadly, was not possible), proving him a fraud was the best way of protecting the wizarding community. Dumbledore's guess turned out to be correct: except for Memory Charms, Lockhart's magical skills were rusty. The Cornish pixie disaster and the failed duel with Snape both showed the Hogwarts students and staff that Lockhart's supposed accomplishments must be false. Eventually his behavior toward Ron and Harry not only proved his cowardice, but wiped his own memory. Dumbledore wanted Lockhart discredited, not injured, but at the very least the problem was solved. Lockhart's days stealing other people's accomplishments were over.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.
Post a Comment
Read more

harry potter - Did Dolores Umbridge Have Any Association with Voldemort (or Death Eaters) before His Return?

I noticed that Dolores Umbridge was born during the first Wizarding War, so it's very likely she wasn't a Death Eater then (but she is pretty evil -- who knows?). After that Voldemort was not around in a way that could affect many people, and most wouldn't know he was planning to rise again. During that time, and up through Voldemort's return (in Goblet of Fire ), did Umbridge have any connection with the Death Eaters or with Voldemort? Was she doing what she did on her own, or was it because of an association with Voldemort or his allies? Answer Dolores Umbridge was definitely not a good person. However, as Sirius points out, "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters". Remember that he also says that he doesn't believe Umbridge to be a Death Eater, but that she's evil enough (or something like that). I think there are two strong reasons to believe that: Umbridge was proud to do everything according to the law, except when she trie...
Post a Comment
Read more

aliens - Interstellar Zoo story

I vaguely remember this story from my childhood: it was about an interstellar zoo that came to Earth with lots of bizarre and unusual species, and humans would file through and gape at all the crazy looking creatures from other planets. The twist came at the end when the perspective shifted to the other side of the bars and we discovered that the "creatures" were traveling through space on a kind of safari. They thought they were the visitors and we were the animals. Neither side knew that the other side thought they were the zoo creatures. Answer Got it. Zoo, by Edward D. Hoch. Published in 1958. Link to Publication History Link to PDF
Post a Comment
Read more

Which Doctor Who works are canon?

I have been watching a Doctor Who documentary and they mentioned that Paul McGann did audio stories so he wasn't just a one-hit Doctor (and that there are novels featuring his Doctor as well). My question is: is Doctor Who canon just the show, or is it like Star Wars where some books and audios are canon and some are not? The documentary also shows that before 2005 they did audio stories where the Doctor is female and obviously that cannot be — not the female part, but the show doesn't count any female Doctors in episodes like The Day of the Doctor . Answer Nothing, and also everything The definitive piece of writing on Doctor Who canon is this blog post by writer Paul Cornell . I'm essentially going to be summarizing his post here, much less eloquently, but one section I want to quote directly is this: Nobody at the BBC has ever uttered a pronouncement about what is and isn't canonical. (As I'm sure they'd put it, being such enthusiasts for good grammar.) Be...
Post a Comment
Read more