but shouldnt albus be like gellert at least when they were together? like werent they meant to be sort of the same? /gen
I mean, each to their own here, but I think them being 100% the same has no real basis in canon and that interpretation of them often feels like it stems from wanting to make them into a murder-husbands sort of deal. In the book and the information around their relationship that we get from JKR, they were different already at that point. Albus supporting Gellert in his ideas during those two months was horrible (and I am not saying anything else!) and yes, he also had an appetite for power (which, I believe, greatly was aided by how powerless and trapped he felt in Godrics Hollow after his mothers death)
They were alike in that they both were brilliant and powerful, and similar in that they both were lonely in their brilliance before they met the other. But Gellert is described as an "almost dark twin" for a reason; they are twinning in how they both are intelligent, powerful, ambitious and arrogant, but Gellert put all of that in another direction than Albus did already in and before 1899. JKR describes it as Albus losing his moral compass and that he filled in gaps in Gellert's personality with what he wanted to see due to being so in love with him. Albus supporting those ideas and aiding them that summer is in almost every way described as a dark, corruptive spiral he ends up in due to being so in love with Gellert. (In fact, even being compared to Bellatrix here; Albus that summer almost being a Bellatrix to Gellerts Voldemort.)
One quote from just a year after DH released being this; "“He’s an innately good man, what would make him do that. I didnt even think it through that way, it just seemed to come to me, I thought ‘I know why he did it, he fell in love.’ And whether they physically consummated this infatuation or not is not the issue. The issue is love. It’s not about sex. So that’s what I knew about Dumbledore. And it’s relevant only in so much as he fell in love and was made an utter fool of by love. He lost his moral compass completely when he fell in love"
And in DH, we see also their differences clear as day. Doge's eulogy, no matter how much trust you put in him, paints Albus as someone who made it clear during his school years that he didn't agree with his father's actions or bigotry. We also see Albus put his skills into academic pursuits, while Gellert got expelled for his violent behaviour. Even in their approach to the resurrection stone we see their difference; Gellert is implied to have thought of inferi armies, Albus wanted his parents back so he wouldn't have to be a caretaker anymore.
Even in 1899, in that letter to Gellert, we see Albus in a letter that almost comes across as trying to quell some of Gellerts likely more violent ideas, by first introducing the concept of Greater Good but also bringing up Gellerts expulsion and his use of force at his school as a mistake on his part.
For me, I just frankly don't see the appeal in making them identical. I personally enjoy the difference here, and seeing Albus as the inherently good man he is described to be also being capable of becoming radicalised, partly due to his family circumstances, partly due to love. I dont think him actually being considered as becoming radicalised that summer even has to take away from his culpability in aiding Gellert, because his actions still are his own, but I think that viewpoint and how they are described show a great deal of difference between the two. And I think it says a lot that Gellerts takeaway from that summer is how to use almost an utilitarian sort of speech that focuses on a "greater good" - because even in Albus's darkest time there, Albus still approach the horrible concept with sort of stressing the benefit for both wizards and responsibility towards Muggles rather than "Muggle torture" as Gellert's schemes are described as, and also talks about having scruples and clearly not having his whole heart into it. (Like of course, one could argue that the letter shows that Gellert too approach it from a "wizard dominance is good for muggles" but all the rest we see of him during that particular time is steeped in desire to commit violence towards Muggles in a way I don't think we actually see from Albus)
"Oh, I had a few scruples. I assuaged my conscience with empty words. It would all be for the greater good, and any harm done would be repaid a hundredfold in benefits for wizards. Did I know, in my heart of hearts, what Gellert Grindelwald was? I think I did, but I closed my eyes."
vs
"He vanished, with his plans for seizing power, and his schemes for Muggle torture"
both quotes I think show how different they were. Not to mention that their respective capacity for violence too is so different in 1899 - Gellert tortures Aberforth for daring to not only try to talk Albus down from leaving, but for raising his wand against them, something I don't think Albus that summer would even consider doing, it would be unthinkable to him.
I think both the idea of Albus as a poor softie that never did anything wrong and the idea of him and Gellert being just the same with just the same appetite for violence and harm are wrong. Albus, to me, is arrogant and manipulative but we know he feels shame and that he, despite that arrogance and power, actually does have a great capacity for gentleness and care too that Gellert mostly seems to lack (other than perhaps towards Albus)
And here I have mostly focused on their 1899 selves, but if we would get into their FB eras selves, we also see a great deal of difference between who and what kind of people respective man surrounds himself with. Albus's closest ally in the movies being Newt, and Gellert's being people from old pureblood families.
