Harry at the Dursleys

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 118310


> Pippin:
The Dursleys do not act like the kind of  abusive or neglectful 
parents  who are cruel and affectionate by turns, and expect their 
mistreated children to love them one day and can't be bothered 
with them the next. I think that Tom had a lot of treatment like 
that, and it made him  paranoid. The Dursleys always treat Harry, 
and each other, the same way, so Harry learns to think that people 
are predictable. He didn't have anyone to love or trust at the 
Dursleys, but at least his ability to love and trust wasn't 
destroyed. Tom's was.



Alla:

Oh, I got it. You are arguing that being mistreated all the time is 
better than being mistreated and being treated well in turns, 
correct? I strongly disagree, but at least I understand. No, we 
definitely don't see "circle of violence" in Dursleys' behaviour, 
but why are they better because of that?

Yes, Harry may have learned stability -  in a negative way. 
Stability, which should never be learned, IMO.


I most certainly don't see how such stability did not destroy 
Harry's ability to love and trust.


 Alla previously
"Yet life at Privet Drive had reached an all-time low. Now that 
Dursleys knew they weren't going to wake up as fruit bats, he 
had  lost his only weapon. Dobby might have saved Harry from 
horrible  happenings at Hogwarts, but the way things were 
going, he'd probably starve to death anyway" - CoS, p.22, paperback.
Sounds to me that he was being miserable enough there.<


> Pippin:
> 
> Miserable, yes, afraid he might die, yes, but not so unhappy that 
> he wished he would. The canon you have just quoted says that  it 
> was *never* worse than that. And what caused it? Interference 
> from the magical world, in the form of Dobby. 


Alla:

I am sorry? Child who is afraid that he will die of hunger is not 
miserable enough? I take exception to that, Pippin. And since that 
incident was horrible IMO, "never worse than that" really does not 
give much justification, IMO.