Harry left at the Dursleys (Was Re: Plot in OotP)

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 118102


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> 
wrote:


snip.
 
> Yes, and this is actually what I meant, he supposedly loves Harry 
but 
> left him at the Dursleys without interfering with their abuse.  
And 
> you are right, the thing about not forcing people is coherent AND 
> ungratifying, as it essentially makes him an accomplice through 
> inaction.  It is one thing to decide for yourself not to object to 
> abuse.  It is quite another to stand aside and let someone ELSE be 
> abused, particularly a defenseless person and particularly a 
child.  
> If it goes this way I would acknowledge that JKR has connected the 
> dots, but not in a very skillful way if she truly wants us to 
believe 
> that Dumbledore is "the epitome of goodness."
> 
> But, as Alla says, we will have to see.  Perhaps she will indeed 
> manage to come up with some explanation that saves Dumbledore from 
> looking either foolish or an accomplice.
> 


Alla:

Well, that is not exactly what I meant. It is a given that 
Dumbledore left Harry with Dursleys and if we believe what he said 
at the end of OOP (which I am inclined to), he loves Harry.

So, I was asking whether you consider it to be good plotting or 
good "connecting of the dots" if the answer to the question why 
Dumbledore left Harry there to be abused will be simple - Dumbledore 
has to chose between Harry's survival and the abuse.

Believe me, I am very upset with Dumbledore, but I don't see how it 
makes him bad person if he honestly thought that the only place 
Harry can survive will be Dursleys. 

To make a long story short - what do you think is better nickname 
for Dumbledore "the accomplice in Harry's abuse or "the accomplice 
in Harry's death"?