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

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 118105


Nora:
> > Now, this doesn't fully address why Dumbledore didn't 
intervene there, but I think we have more coming there per 
comments about his  letter to Petunia, and the coherent if 
ungratifying resort of how  Dumbledore doesn't *force* people.  
That is to say, he lets people make their own mistakes.  

Lupinlore:
> 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."<

Pippin:
That would only be true if you think there had  to be a way that 
Dumbledore could have interfered and remained a good person 
as he sees it. This seems to me an objection about 
characterization or genre rather than plot. Tolkien said 
(paraphrasing) that in the world of faerie, one could imagine an 
ogre living in an ugly castle, because the evil of the ogre makes it 
so, but one could not imagine the home of a wise and 
benevolent king that was nonetheless sickeningly ugly. And yet, 
he added, in the real world, it would be amazing to find one that 
was not. 

Tolkien conceived of the magical world as a place where 
compromises were not only not inevitable but not possible, and 
Harry when he first arrives mistakes the wizarding world for such 
a place. But it isn't, as we should have known when we saw that 
Draco is just as welcome at Hogwarts as Harry is. 

Good and evil are more tangible in the wizarding world than they 
are in ours, but that doesn't make them more accessible to 
mortals. Indeed, it would be difficult for JKR to show the value of 
tolerance if she were simultaneously fantasizing about a world 
where compromise is synonymous with appeasement, as it is in 
Tolkien. 

Dumbledore can hold out for his high principles and fight the 
battle against evil alone (and inevitably lose) or he can work with 
those who agree that Voldemort is evil and want to see him 
defeated, even if their definition of goodness is not his. 

And really, judging by the way the Dursleys treat Dudley and 
Snape treats Draco, if they were ordered to be nice to Harry it 
wouldn't have helped at all. Bad enough to spoil a child out of 
excessive love, but to do it out of fear--I can't think of a better
way to create a monster.

But just as Dumbledore cannot chose the allies he would like, 
neither can Voldemort. I'm sure he would prefer to have an army 
of stone killers at his command. Instead he's got Malfoy. I really 
can't see Lucius drilling his cronies the way Harry did the DA. 
Sneak attacks, blackmail and poisoning are his style, with a spot 
of Muggle torture on the side; there was nothing in the job 
description about combat.   It's no wonder he was defeated by an 
army of teenagers. Anyway, most armies are composed of 
teenagers, and some have been led by them. 

I'm not surprised the DE's didn't want to use AK - the guilty wand 
can be identified with priori incantato. Much better to use an 
incapacitating spell that leaves no trace. I didn't have any trouble 
wondering why the kids got into the ministry so easily either, 
since we were told in GoF that the impostor Moody had blasted 
obstacles out of Harry's way so he could get to the cup. 

As for Sirius, he was thought to be mad, so  neither legilimency 
nor veritaserum would  have established anything. Dumbledore 
is more logical than most wizards, but that time it betrayed him. 
His initial premise was faulty and so his conclusion was also. 
Sirius was the Secret-Keeper, only the Secret-Keeper could 
betray the secret,  therefore only Sirius could have betrayed the 
Potters. QED.

I can't really blame him for not doubting his premise either. It 
was Sirius and James themselves who misled him about who 
the Secret-Keeper was. Alas they did their job too well.

Pippin