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

[Doriane]

No: HPFGUIDX 92729

I was going through recent past posts, and since I am quite a 
defender of the Bad People, I couln't help answering this one.

Geoff said :
 
> Yes but it doesn't excuse the way in which [the Dursleys] treated 
> [Harry]. They have turned him into a "local eyesore" and made him a 
> deeply unhappy boy to punish him because his parents had the 
> temerity to get themselves blown up and the poor Dursleys had to 
> take Harry under their wing. 

Del answers :

For people like the Dursleys, that's a perfectly valid excuse. There 
are tons of people out there who think that life should always treat 
them right, and that they are entitled to try and destroy or at least 
modify whatever is bothering them. Their children, in particular, 
should only give them pleasure and reasons to be proud. If they 
don't, they get punished. Many kids get forcibly coerced into 
becoming whatever their parents dream them to become. With disastrous 
results in the end, of course.

Geoff :

> They are only assuming at the start that Harry might show magical 
> powers. And why has he shown them before his 11th birthday? Because 
> he has done it subconsciously when he is under threat - the 
> haircut, the brown jumper with orange bobbles, the boys in the 
> playground, the glass vanishing after he was pushed.....

Del :

Yes, but it can be safely assumed that Harry would have shown magical 
powers anyway, even if he had been treated right. It's apparently 
quite common for magical kids to exhibit magical abilities every once 
in a while. I remember reading about the kids talking about it in 
PS/SS. I'm pretty sure Lily did some funny things as a kid, and 
Petunia remembers that quite well.

Geoff :

> If Vernon and Petunia had had a little more thought, if Vernon's 
> actions had been less of a high class pachyderm and more of an 
> understanding person, he might have treated Harry on more of an 
> equal footing with Dudley. As a result we would have had a Harry 
> who was not a waif and stray and Dudley would not have developed 
> into a tantrum-throwing, bullying "pig in a wig". Mark you, we 
> might not have had such an interesting series of books......   :-)

Del :

What would be the gain for the Dursleys ?? They *like* Dudley being a 
bullying "pig in a wig", and they don't care about Harry being a waif 
and a stray. What you're asking is for the king to treat any orphan 
the same as the prince : why ever would he do that ? I know Harry is 
technically their nephew, but as far as they were concerned before he 
arrived, he was less family to them than the neighbours' son !

Geoff:

> See my comment previously. Harry might well have conformed under 
> those circumstances. His non-conformity is often the result of his 
> subconscious protection reflexes kicking in when /someone else/ 
> doesn't conform to reasonable behaviour.

Del :

I think Harry shows magic when he's extremely stressed, period. Just 
like Neville showed his magical abilities to save his life when Uncle 
Algie threw him out the window, Harry does magic to get himself out 
of situations that stress him. Whether those situations are created 
by ill-meaning people or not doesn't necessarily matter.

> > Kneasy:
> > Again true. But are they determined to kill Harry at Stonewall 
> > High? Anyway Harry saw S.H. as a refuge -  Dudders  and his gang 
> > weren't going there. 
> 
> Geoff:
> Only Dudley and Piers Polkiss I think... (PS "The Letters from No 
> One" p.28 UK edition).

Del :

Nope ! Dudley is going to Smeltings (?), and the others too I guess - 
not that it matters anyway : without Dudley to lead them, nobody 
would care much about Harry.

Geoff :

> On the DVD of COS, there are a series of interviews with members of 
> the cast and it is interesting to see what Fiona Shaw, who plays 
> Petunia, has to say:
> 
> "The extraordinary things about the Dursleys is that they are very 
> funny because they are very recognisable social aspirers and full 
> of that kind of dogged, low-ceiling imagination which means they 
> can't see beyond their material dreams".
> 
> The sort who cannot see the human needs of a child put into their 
> care who is the recipient of their displeasure as a result.

Del :

Hey, there are even *biological* parents who can't see the human 
needs of their children ! In fact, Dudley is as much a victim of his 
parents' behaviour as Harry, just not the same way. He knows only one 
way to fit into any society : brute force. He won't be able to deal 
with normal social situations where force can't help : you can't 
threaten a potential employer into hiring you, for example. And he'll 
live in fear forever once he discovers there are people out there who 
are even stronger than he is (which is bound to happen sometime soon).

Geoff :

> I wonder if they are also the sort who take everything that is said 
> literally and fail completely to see when there is an element of 
> leg-pulling going on?   :-|

Del :

Oh, so you mean you were just pulling our legs and you actually like 
Uncle Vernon ;-) ?

Del