Concerns for Harry's Well-Being

[spikespiegelfletch]

No: HPFGUIDX 53669

Anne wrote:
> * What doesn't kill you makes you stronger -- living with the 
> Dursleys for almost 10 years made Harry touigher, more self-
> reliant, 
> and possibly more introspective than if he'd lived with 
> people who treated him in a more loving way. He might actually be 
> *too* self-reliant sometimes, but now he at least has Ron & 
> Hermione 
> to help him figure things out re: Voldemort and other baddies.
  
 
Ok, I just want to add my own thoughts to this, as I too, have read 
and reread the beginning of Philosopher's Stone, and thought a great 
deal about Harry's early childhood.  I haven't read the archives on 
this, so I don't know what has been said before, so I ask you to 
bear with me.  The amazing thing to me about Harry has always been 
his ability to keep going, survive, if you will, and not let doubt 
or low self-esteem (I hate that term) get in the way of what he 
feels he has to do.  Most children in his situation would have come 
out a lot more traumatized, their character destroyed in many ways.  
Harry is still good, kind, and sensitive, though I agree his 
upbringing would have given him more independence.  But another 
thought I always have, and maybe why I love the Weasley family for 
Harry, and support those who wish to see Harry and Ginny together, 
is that Harry has never, not once, had someone to say "I love you," 
to him after the age of one.  Never.  That just... I can't fathom 
that.  

  
  
Anne wrote: 
> * Somehow, being with blood relatives may have offered him more 
> protection against LV than if he'd lived with non-relatives.
> * The fact that Harry was living in the midst of lots of Muggles, 
> rather than in a community full of wizards, might have made it 
> harder 
> for LV to find him, and/or or easier for DD to set up magical 
> wards 
> around the Dursleys' house to protect Harry. Not to mention we 
> suspect at least one witch or wizard was placed in the vicinity to 
> help keep an eye on him (the Mrs. Figg theory).
   

I don't particularly agree with this, somehow.  I agree that Ms. 
Figg was probably there to watch over him, maybe even his secret  
keeper, like so many have proposed.  But I do think Voldemort always 
knew he was staying with the Dursleys, if you read his speech to the 
Death Eaters at the end of book four.  In summary, he basically says 
that Harry has had an ancient form of protection not even he knows 
about, and that he (Lord V) can't touch Harry while Harry is at his 
relatives.  I also don't know if the fact that Harry is staying with 
blood-relatives is relevant, I don't see any proof for or against 
that theory.
  
  
  
Anne wrote: 
> * The Dursleys, for whatever reason (perhaps we will find out in 
> OoP), seem to have a pathological fear of all things magical. They 
> refused to tell Harry not only the truth about his parents, but 
> also 
> the truth about him being a wizard. So Harry spent 10 years 
> completely unaware of both his own fame within the wizarding world 
> and the reasons for his unusual abilities. Dumbledore, knowing 
> that 
> Harry would eventually have to face Voldemort again (and again, 
> and 
> again), may have thought it was better for Harry NOT to grow up 
> being 
> fawned over as "The Boy Who Lived". (viz. the reaction of various 
> wizards he runs into during his childhood, e.g. the man in the 
> green 
> cloak who bows to him in the bakery).
 
  
I don't know about this as well.  We do know Dumbledore has not told 
Harry everything about Halloween 1981, which is obvious in what he 
says to Harry at the end of Philosopher's Stone.  And we know 
Dumbledore didn't want Harry growing up in the limelight (Chapter 
one of Philosopher's Stone).  But Hagrid apparently thought Harry 
would know he was a wizard and that his parents went to Hogwarts 
when Hagrid went to pick him up from the house on a rock in 
Philosopher's Stone.  So, I don't think Dumbledore meant for Harry 
to grow up not knowing anything, though he probably realized the 
Dursleys were more prone to let Harry remain in the dark.  
Dumbledore has never lied to Harry, but I do think he hides just 
about everything Harry would find important about his identity (i.e. 
we, and Harry, know virtually nothing about his parents or 
ancestors, and also where the Gryffindor's heir theory comes from).  
And as for my theory on Dumbledore, I think he'll pull a Yoda, and 
die, leaving Harry completely on his own (read the Pensieve chapter 
in Goblet of Fire: Rowling goes on and on about how Harry notices 
how old Dumbledore is looking now).
  
Anyway, back to the Dursleys.  I do think it probable that the 
Dursleys may be the ones to somehow have magic involved later in 
their lives, as Rowling stated in an interview.  Dudley would be an 
amusing choice for me, I would like to see Harry's reaction, and 
Dudley's struggles at Hogwarts (think how Malfoy would react to 
Harry's cousin!).  But I don't really think that likely.  For 
whatever reason, the Dursleys do have a morbid fear of magic, and 
yet they've kept Harry all these years.  That doesn't really add 
up.  Unless Dumbledore somehow threatened them in that letter he 
left with the one-year-old Harry on their doorstep, there has to be 
something else making the Dursleys let Harry stay.  I don't think 
it's a last stab at human decency.  I suppose we'll have to wait and 
see.  
  
As for the Petunia is a squib theory: I find that unsupportable. 
She's muggle-born, like Lily.  Meaning she's just a muggle.  She's 
have to be a muggle with wizard parents in order to be considered a 
squib.  
  
So anyway, there are my thoughts on the topic.  Guess we'll know 
when the Harry Potter Goddess herself (a.k.a. J.K. Rowling) lets us 
know.
  
Brittany