Adults "failing" Harry (was: Themes in OotP)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 119911



> SSSusan:
>[...]I'm getting back to the question which was raised by 
HunterGreen as to whether it was *believable* that so many adults 
would have failed Harry in this way.<

Betsy:
I think that that Harry's status as an orphan actually does make the 
failure on the part of the adults in his life *very* believable in 
this kind of situation.  None of the adults, no matter how much they 
cared for Harry, had the authority to step in and make very sure that 
he was okay. 

>SSSusan:
> Sirius is the only "parent" Harry now has.  Molly in her own words 
says she's as good as a parent to Harry.  Their good reasons for 
keeping quiet were:  1) DD's orders and 2) their own fears and 
discomforts.  I'm questioning these very things.<

Betsy:
But "good as" is not the same thing as being an actual parent.  And 
to have Sirius and Molly as the stand in parents, when both of them 
have spent very little time (quality or otherwise) with Harry, serves 
to point out just how parentless Harry is.  A few weeks over a couple 
of summers and a few abbreviated conversations between moments of 
high adrenalin do not a parental connection make. 

Molly was probably the most persistent in trying to check on Harry's 
emotional health, but he hid from her when she tried, and I think, 
because he is not technically her child, she didn't feel like she 
could hunt him down and confront him as she would have felt the right 
to do with one of her own children.  (A good comparison would be her 
attempts to reach Percy.  If Harry had refused contact with Molly, I 
doubt she would have shown up on his doorstep, sweater in hand, like 
she did with Percy IIRC correctly.)  If you notice, Molly has never 
really raised her voice to Harry.  She lets her own kids have it, but 
Harry is a guest.  Much loved, but a guest none the less.

Lupin arguably knows Harry better than the other adults at 12 
Grimmauld Place having taught him for a year, but he'd be highly 
aware of stepping on Sirius' toes.  And Sirius, bless him, is a many-
issued man, and not really up for this kind of parenting.  I don't 
think Sirius had a clue, and I'm not sure that he'd have listened to 
any advice.  Certainly not from Molly, and probably not even from 
Lupin. 

So Harry, at a time when he needs parents the most, is heavily 
affected by the lack of said parents.

> SSSusan:
> Again, it's NOT really Harry's emotional health that I've been 
arguing here.  His emotional health would be NICE to have addressed 
at some point, but I'm talking about information, too -- about his 
safety and preparedness and having a feeling of knowing what's going 
on & his role in things, knowing that there are people he can trust 
to believe him & believe in him, as well as to provide SOME 
information.<  

Betsy:
Ah, and this is something that can be laid only at Dumbledore's 
doorstep.  He's the leader of this particular band of brothers and he 
decides who knows what.  And he obviously, and mistakenly, decided in 
the beginning to keep Harry as much in the dark as he could.  It was 
an old man's mistake, as he tells Harry at the end of OotP.  And his 
motives were very similar to Molly's attempts to keep all the 
children in the dark.  This is a war, and the more you know, the more 
you're involved; the more you're involved, the more danger you're 
in.  Better to keep the children safely tucked away where the 
darkness cannot touch them.

I think Dumbledore thought Harry would be soothed by Ron and 
Hermione's letters.  Children don't need to know exactly how an adult 
chases away the darkness; they're just happy to know the problem is 
being solved.

What both Dumbledore and Molly failed to see was that the "children" 
really weren't children anymore.  They'd already been exposed to the 
darkness.  And Harry especially had a right to a place at the table.  
What Dumbledore failed to remember is that you can't keep someone 
from growing up.  And to old man Dumbledore, Harry seemed so awfully 
young.
       
> SSSusan:
> I would say that the safety of the rest of the world is what's at 
risk in the decision *NOT* to tell him things!  If Harry can't be 
convinced that he needs to do X or Y, then the wizarding world will 
have to live with the consequences of his actions/inactions.<

Betsy:
And when Dumbledore felt that Harry was of an age to affect the 
Wizarding world, he planned on letting Harry in on things.  But at 
this point in the game, Dumbledore's plan was to keep Harry off the 
board.  So no actions or inactions to worry about.

> SSSusan: 
>I just spent some time in the post that was snipped giving an 
example of exactly what I thought DD could have done to have helped 
Harry see why he needed to take Occlumency seriously, without having 
to give him any dangerous specifics that Voldy might've been able to 
access.

[snip]
  
>[...]DD thinks it's *essential* that Harry learn to block the 
visions & dreams.  He tells Snape to teach Harry and lets Snape 
explain what's up & why.  DD himself makes no contact w/ Harry.  I'm 
arguing that EVEN JUST having had DD contact Harry with the news 
about Occlumency & the what's up & why might've made Harry believe in 
Occlumency's importance and that he must work at it & trust Snape.<

Betsy:
This was another miscalculation of Dumbledore's, though I think a 
more understandable one.  Snape is a teacher, a damn good one as per 
his NEWT successes, and he assigns Snape a teaching job.  Why on 
earth would Dumbledore have to explain to the pupil that he should 
listen to his teacher and take his lesson seriously?  And why would 
Dumbledore need to hang over the shoulder of a teacher he trusts and 
respects?  Dumbledore does underestimate the bad blood between Harry 
and Snape.  Though honestly, in a war situation it is odd that Snape 
is unable to handle a rebellious teenager.  (But I think that 
discussion is a whole other post. *g*)

> SSSusan:
> By and large I *like* DD, so I'm not trying to play the blame game 
> here and say everything is his fault.  I am trying to say that the 
> adults in OotP didn't do a very good -- perhaps even a very 
> believable -- job with Harry.  There WAS more they could have done 
> without having spilled *all* the beans.  And the results might have 
> been dramatically different.

Betsy:
Hopefully I've shown why I think the actions of the adults around 
Harry were believable, maybe even a little bit understandable.  Of 
course, Dumbledore was wrong.  He underestimated Harry's maturity and 
his ability to handle joining the war against Voldemort.  But I can 
see why Dumbledore made this mistake.  He loves Harry.  I imagine it 
would be hard to recognize exactly when the child you love is ready 
to pick up a sword and walk onto the battle field.  And I imagine 
you'd try and delay that time for a long as you possibly could.  So I 
don't think this was a ham-handed attempt on Jo's part to 
unnecessarily complicate OotP, but actually a natural outgrowth on 
the part of the characters. 

--Betsy, who's up way past her bedtime and so probably waxed far too 
poetic.