On the other hand (was Re: Disliked Uncle Vernon)

[huntergreen_3]

No: HPFGUIDX 92535

Kneasy wrote:

>>JKR dislikes Uncle Vernon? Can this be true?
Surely there's a mistake here somewhere.
<snip>
Has anyone ever considered the situation from Vernon's viewpoint?<<

HunterGreen (de-lurking to respond):
There doesn't seem to be much (or any) discussion on Vernon's POV 
does there? I hadn't really given it much thought until I read your 
post, and there is reason for Vernon to be justifiably upset. The WW 
has been unthankful and unrespectful of him and his family despite 
the fact he has taken care of Harry (albeit not very well) for about 
14 or so years now, and continues to pick him up from King's Cross 
every summer.

Kneasy continue:
>>We don't have fat dossier on Vernon, just a few facts from which we
can base some reasonable suppositions. Family man, wife and one
child, works hard, probably at senior middle management level, sole
wage-earner in the household, lives in the suburbs, a conformist.

<snip>

Some claim that Petunia (and by extension Vernon) are exhibiting
some species of jealousy or envy; I don't agree, it's fear. They are
frightened of magic, it's practitioners and what it can do. Strange
people can change the natural order of the world by muttering and
waving a bit of wood around. Performing cute tricks that may be
entertaining for on the surface, but the implications are terrifying -
there is no such thing as safety and security when a wizard is around.
The Dursleys are only too glad to get away from these horrible freaks
as soon as possible.

<snip>

A cuckoo child, foisted on to them by those they most fear. "Look 
after him." - was the additional phrase "or else" plainly stated or 
just implied?<<

HunterGreen:
This is where I first object to the way the WW treated the Dursleys. 
Do they knock on the door and explain the situation? Do they even 
have the option to say no? They wake up and find a baby sitting on 
their doorstep, the child of relatives they DON'T like or trust, a 
child that may eventually have the ability to harm their family with 
only a letter to explain why. The only thing they could do besides 
take him in was drop him off at an orphanage. To ANYONE this would be 
a shock...its quite admirable that they took him in at all (of course 
it would NOT have been hard in this situation to treat him decently).

Kneasy:
<snip>
>>But one day their hopes come crashing down, felled by the weight of 
a letter through the letter-box.

First option - denial. Nobody seems to have considered that Vernon's
actions might be motivated by concern for Harry. If he had said "Fine,
off you go to that Hogwarts place, get out and don't come back" what
would Vernon have lost? Nothing, in fact he might have gained some
peace of mind. "Got rid of the little tyke at last!" But no, he goes 
to great lengths to save Harry from this aberrant fate and is mocked 
for doing so.<<

HunterGreen:
I don't agree that his actions were motivated by any sort of concern 
for Harry. Obviously Harry *did* eventually go to the school and the 
Dursleys aren't rid of him. He wants to distance himself and his 
family from the WW, which is not possible if Harry knows he's a 
wizard and is running off to wizard school every fall. And he has a 
right to want that. Him and Petunia took Harry in, which makes them 
Harry's guardians, which means they should have a right to decide 
what he does and doesn't know (either about himself or his family) 
and what school he goes to. It might seem cruel or self-serving to 
keep Harry out of Hogwarts, but as long as Vernon is expected to keep 
Harry in his house he *should* have the right to decide that. But he 
doesn't, and those rights are thrown out the window after Harry turns 
11.


Kneasy wrote:
>>Vernon is by no means a 'nice' man; he's pompous, self-opinionated, 
a bully (though he would probably call himself 'blunt-speaking') and 
not given to introspection, but he is not evil. He doesn't like Harry 
and is not hypocritical enough to pretend otherwise, but Harry does 
live under his roof and his personal moral code requires him to 
protect Harry from what he considers to be dangers. 
<snip>
In return, threats. What can he do? It's not as if he could go and
complain to someone, who would believe him?<<

HunterGreen:
Exactly. Dumbledore is calling on Vernon and his wife to look after 
Harry, but they aren't even given full parental rights! Yes, the 
Dursleys aren't doing so good a job of it, but its not like once 
Harry leaves for school he's never coming back. They have the heavy 
burden (in their eyes) of explaining to the neighbors where he went, 
and they are *terrified* of anyone noticing anything remarkably odd 
about Harry or anything he's connected with (like owls coming to 
their house or Mrs. Weasley sending a letter covered in stamps). Yet 
they aren't given a choice in the matter besides just throwing Harry 
onto the street (which would cause attention from the neighbors).

Look what happens after they ignore the letters, more and more are 
sent, rather then just sending someone (good with muggle relations 
that is) to knock on the door and explain things to the Dursleys. 
When someone is finally sent, its Hagrid, which is NOT friendly in 
the least bit. Suppose the Dursleys HAD loved Harry and HAD been only 
interested in his best interests the whole time (which, as far as 
anyone knows at this point could be the case). Suppose they hadn't 
told Harry the truth about himself or his parents because they didn't 
want to scare him and because they believe the WW is not the place 
for him--then this big oaf comes charging into where they're staying 
and tells Harry *everything* against their objections. Had they been 
looking out for his welfare the whole time that wouldn't been too 
fair would it? But because they weren't, its okay somehow. The day 
after all this Hagrid disappears with Harry (to buy his school 
supplies) taking the only boat, and then drops Harry off at home, 
expecting the Dursleys to bring him to the train station in a few 
weeks. I see it as almost a miracle that Vernon and Petunia let him 
inside that night. 

Over and over again in each book, the Dursleys rights as guardians 
are ignored, yet they are expected to still let Harry have a room in 
their house. It wouldn't be that hard for the WW to give them a 
little respect (was it really necessary to get Harry by floo powder 
in GoF? Vernon had a darn good right to be upset, not only were they 
late, they 'destroyed' his living room). 
I was very much disturbed by how Vernon is treated at the end of 
OotP. They all walk up as a big group and *threaten* him, rather than 
at least attempting to have a *friendly* and civilized discussion 
about it. Personally I think they did Harry more harm than good 
anyway. Its not like Vernon is going to suddenly be nice to Harry 
because of this, all he'll do is be afraid of him again. Harry is 
almost 16, the Dursleys can't really hurt him the way they used to, 
so the whole thing only served to offend the Dursleys. Its not fair  
to expect Vernon to take someone in from a group of people he is 
justifiably afraid of, then *force* him to treat the person a certain 
way. Moody, Arthur and Tonks are lucky Vernon didn't just look at 
them and refuse to take Harry at all on those terms. 

-HunterGreen. (returning to lurkdom)