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

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 118181


Lupinlore wrote:
<snip>  
> > [Dumbledore] supposedly loves Harry but left him at the Dursleys
without interfering with their abuse.  
> And you are right, the thing about not forcing people . . .
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 responded:
> 
> 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"?

Carol adds:
Good point, Alla! Dumbledore really had no choice that I can see. LV
was gone but not dead, and at least some of the DEs (the Lestranges
and Barty Jr.) were at large and very dangerous. Harry had to be
hidden, and the blood protection made possible by Lily's sacrifice
(not to be confused with any charm Lily herself may have put on him
before GH) was his best, if not his only, chance for survival.

We also know that Dumbledore did not want Harry to be raised as a
"pampered little prince," adored and quite possibly spoiled. He must
not know that he was special until he was ready to understand what it
really meant to be the Boy Who Lived (paraphrasing from SS/PS chapter
1 and elsewhere). The consequences of such an upbringing, supposing he
survived to school age, might have been disastrous. He might have
become as arrogant as his father or worse (after all, his father was
only a star Quidditch player; he was the infant prodigy who somehow
defeated Voldemort). Or he might have become soft and coddled, used to
having every whim catered to (a la Dudley and to some extent, Draco).

I'm not saying that Dumbledore approved of the Dursley's occasional
abuse and frequent (or chronic) neglect. But to interfere might have
made matters worse, and the bad upbringing did have its advantages.
Harry already knew how to evade Dudley's bullying (at least some of
the time) through quick movements and accidental magic. He was thin
but tough; he was resourceful and resilient; he could endure hardship
(insufficient food, sleeping on the floor with a rag for a blanket at
the hut on the island, spiders in his cupboard). He could endure
taunts of schoolmates who laughed at his clothes and broken glasses.

I'm not saying that the Dursleys were right to mistreat Harry, but I
think that Dumbledore--if he knew about the abuse--probably realized
that it was not extensive enough to harm him permanently, either
physically or psychologically. It was not, in fact, all that different
from the upbringing of many a child in the Depression era, when food
and clothing were sparse and oranges were appreciated as rare treats
in children's stockings at Christmas time. At least Harry had a real
bathroom to use and not an outhouse, and he was not beaten with a
pepper tree switch or similar instrument of torture on the "spare the
rod, spoil the child" principle.

Dumbledore knew that Harry was in for hard times, that he would suffer
and be tested. It was better, probably, that he had some preparation
for what he would be facing, that he could already endure hardship
without losing his spirit rather than coming to Hogwarts never having
suffered anything worse than a stomachache or a runny nose. It was
better that he be raised by Muggles, not viewing himself as a hero for
passively surviving a Killing Curse and unwittingly deflecting it back
through no effort of his own.

Yes, Harry's survival was the best, the chief, the wholly sufficient
reason for placing him with the Dursleys. But there were other
reasons, just as there are reasons for letting Snape teach Harry both
Potions and Occlumency despite his sneers and occasional gratuitous
zeroes. Harry will have to face an enemy far worse than the Dursleys
or Snape, a Voldemort who (we hope!) has regained his power and
terror, an enemy almost beyond Harry's strength. He may even have to
kill that enemy (unless DD and Harry have misunderstood the Prophecy.)
And everything he has undergone so far, from the cupboard at the
Dursleys to Occlumency with Snape to the dragon in the TWT will help
him to prepare for that ordeal. Had he been indulged like Draco (by
his mother), he would be overconfident and far less prepared than he
is even now. And it will get worse before it gets better, if it gets
better at all. We have JKR's word for that.

JMO.

Carol