OoP: Dd's treatment to Harry and bondage issues

[Renee Daniels]

No: HPFGUIDX 63504

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Melody" <Malady579 at h...> wrote:
> Calimora wrote:
> > Dumbledore has to accept Harry as an intelligent and independent 
> > entity, something he could not do. 
> 
> Um.  I thought he already did that?  I mean.  Dumbledore always 
> gives Harry a choice and then leaves him *a lot* of maneuvering 
> room to accomplish his triumphs.  Sure, Dumbledore *helps* Harry, 
> but he in no
> way it coddling him or treating him like a child when it comes to
> letting him face a serious deadly creature like a basilisk.
> 
> 

Me (again):

True. DD is pushing Harry in to dangerous situations, but the hints 
he gives in this case are like cheat codes in video games. He 
said/belived the right phrase and BOOM he got the Best-Sword-in-the-
Game and Perfect Health. Harry, on his own, should have died, but DD 
left a fail safe. Im not critising DD's protectiveness in this case, 
Harry is only 11 after all. But DD doesn't say, "Next time find 
McGonagall" or "You should be more carefull" he 
says "Congradulations". He skims over the negative/upsetting aspects 
and encourages repeat behavior. Thus sparing a childs sensibilities 
while encouraging a 'Hero Complex.'

>> In the previous novels DD is 
>> hampered by his wish to keep Harry an innocent, aka a *child*. He 
>> does this,in a sense,by feeding Harry the information/equipment he 
>> needs to complete the task at hand. His aid may be oblique, but it
>> is usually a suggestion by DD which gets Harry to an through the 
>> previous 'final' confrontations. 
> 

Melody:
> So if a general of an army gives his soldiers guns, camouflage, and
> training, he is treating them like children?  It is the soldiers 
> that must go on that field, face the enemy, and reach the desired 
> goal.  
> 
> 

Me (again):
Actually, I thought of this comparison, and in an off-center way, the 
answer is "yes." The soldier is not expected to formulate strategy on 
his own. He is often kept in the dark about overall strategic 
objectives, as such it is the XO who bears the responcibility of the 
mission. A child is told to his home work. A soldier is told to 
capture his target. When (if) either asks why the answer generaly 
amounts to 'because I said so.' Thus parents take ultimate 
responciblity for _raising_ their kids and commanding officers take 
responciblity for their troops. 

>> As long as this is true, Harry is a 
>> child, in a scary situation, but taking his parents lead and doing 
>> his best to live up to expectations.

Melody:
> So, Harry is only "not a child" when he faces Voldemort/evil alone
> without any help or aid?  That is not adulthood; that is insanity.
> 
>

Me (again):

Harry is only 'not a child' when he desides to fight voldemort for 
his own reasons and not because it's expected of him. This actually 
occures at the end of GoF when Harry realizes how many lives LV's 
ruined. DD isn't privy to Harrys thoughts and doesn't realize that 
Harry is making his own decisions and reformulating his oppinions.
 
>>At the same time, DD's 'here's a hint, go save the day' approach to 
>> Harry's involvement helped build his 'Hero Complex.' 
> 

Melody:
> I was not aware Harry had a complex.  He seems *very* grounded to 
me.

Me (again):
'Hero Complex' is a barowed phrase; in this case it means that Harry 
will always try to save the day, not that he has a big head or is out 
of touch with reality.
   
 
>> I mean, what reason is there in PoA for DD not to have taken the 
>> Time-Turner, gone back, and saved Sirius himself? 
>

Melody: 
> Dumbledore was busy doing other things like pacify Fudge.  Only 
> Harry and Hermione could have saved Sirius at that time.  
> Dumbledore and Snape could work the MoM, and H&H could go back and 
> save Sirius.
> 

Me:
Three turns is three hours. Eight turns is probably eight hours. The 
time-turner can *make* the time.
 
>>But now, in the wake of Sirius' death and the devastation caused to 
>> the boy DD was trying to protect, Dumbledore must re-evaluate his 
>> own emotions and motivations, come to grips with his inablity to 
>> micro manage the human mind and (sans magic) and recognize 
>> Harry and his classmates as players instead of items to be 
>> protected.
>

Melody: 
> If Dumbledore was just trying to protect Harry and the crew, then he
> would have never given Harry the invisibility cloak at the age of 
> 11, never awarded points for his daring triumphs, or ever given 
> Harry the clues he needs to solve these mysteries.  Dumbledore is 
> encouraging Harry to fight thus putting him in danger not 
> protecting him from it.
> 

Me:
If you live near cliffs and your daughter shows an inclination to 
climb them do you;

a) Forbid it absolutely, so that eventually she sneaks out and does 
it on her own?

-or-

b) Buy her the equipment and instruction and make sure that you or 
somebody you trust is always there to catch her if she slips?

Previously DD bought the gear and kept a safty net handy. In OotP he 
forbid with out explanation. Since Harry already thinks of himself as 
a good climber he made the decision to take a couple of freinds an do 
it with out a guide/instuctor/net. He sliped. The point that is 
important to DD is that He Chose to go On His Own, without DD's input.

~Calimora (Who defines being freed and and freedom as two different 
things.)