Harry at the Dursleys

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 118328


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:
> 
> > 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.

Pippin:

Empirically, it didn't. But imagine a puppy that's kept in the yard, 
never petted, and kicked when it does something wrong. It will 
grow up fierce and surly, likely to snap (I initially wrote snape) at 
anything threatening, but in no danger of dying, and capable of 
being  retrained once it was rescued.   Its littermate, kept 
indoors, petted, disciplined with love, will grow to be a gentle 
loving pet. But imagine the third puppy, who's kicked one week 
and cherished the next. It grows up to be an untrainable neurotic 
mess, who can be utterly gentle one moment and rip your throat 
out without warning the next. That's Tom (with apologies to 
Heinlein in Citizen of the Galaxy).


> 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.<

Pippin:
I didn't express myself well. "All time" in "all time low" means 
exceeding all others up to the present time. Harry was not 
routinely locked in his room and starved. Corroboration for this is 
in PS/SS ch 7 "The Dursleys had never exactly starved Harry,but 
he'd never been allowed to eat as much as he liked. Dudley had 
always taken anything Harry really wanted, even if it made him 
sick."  

IMO, Rowling is observing, in her satirical way, that Harry was 
healthier for being forced to undereat slightly than being allowed 
to stuff himself as Dudley was, just as he was healthier for being 
made to do cleaning and yard work than being allowed to sit in 
front of the TV and play video games all day long.

Pippin
who can feel countless generations of Yiddische mama 
ancestors cringing. What, you only had six pieces? You'll 
starve! But in other cultures, privation is supposed to be good for 
you.