Harry at the Dursleys

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 118451


> Alla wrote:
<snip>
> My ONLY objection is considering Dursleys not abusive at all. As to 
> those readings, well let me just say that I consider to be 
> PamperedPrince!Harry to be Dumbledore's paranoya anyway, IF 
> Dumbledore considered it to be a danger EVER.
> 
> Am I being clear? The fact that Dumbledore may feel that he failed 
> Tom Riddle, does not give him a right to mistreat another kid, just 
> because Dumbledore afraid that this kid may go bad, BUT I don't 
> believe that this was the reason anyway, or I want to think so.
> 
> Again, to ME the only reading, where Dumbledore is a good man who has 
> to make a difficult choice is where he wants to save Harry and 
> realises that he cannot do it any other way but leave the boy with 
> Dursleys

Carol responds:
I think you mean possibility, not fact, regarding DD and Tom Riddle
since we still don't know much about their relationship or how Tom
came to have a wand with Fawkes's feather in it.

That aside, let's pretend that Dumbledore could have put Harry with a
wizarding family without risking his safety and theirs. Why do you
think that Pampered Prince!Harry is just Dumbledore's paranoia?

Suppose that Harry had grown up as a celebrity, knowing that he had
"defeated" Voldemort, treated as a hero just as if he had acted of his
own volition--a toddler deliberately deflecting the Dark Lord's AK
onto the caster. Wouldn't he have grown up at least as arrogant as
James, who was only a Quidditch player and only became popular after
his second year or so at Hogwarts (first-years don't normally play
Quidditch)? 

We're given the example of Lockhart to show what hero worship can do
to a wizard's ego. (We also have Snape making sure that something
similar doesn't happen to Harry by exposing his ignorance of the WW to
both Gryffindors and Slytherins on the very first day of Potions.) We
do see Cedric handling hero worship well, but he's seventeen and has a
calm and cheerful disposition (unlike Harry as we know him).

Do you really think that it was unwise of Dumbledore to want to
protect Harry from this sort of adulation before he was ready for it?
Wouldn't he think he was special already and that, having "defeated"
Voldemort as a baby, he could easily do so again without adequate
preparation? How could a "pampered prince" endure so much as a
"stupefy," much less a Crucio?

Suppose there were no question of abuse or even neglect involved.
Suppose it were a choice between Muggle relatives who would bring up
Harry in ignorance of his celebrity status and an adoring wizard
family that viewed him as a hero and gave him whatever he wanted
because he was "the Boy Who Lived"? I don't think that even the
Weasleys could have treated him as just another son, just a normal
wizard kid who needed an ordinary wizard upbringing. Godric's Hollow
would always come between him and normalcy.

Forget the Dursleys for a moment and tell me how an upbringing in the
WW, where every child knows his name, could possibly prepare him to
face Voldemort in the years to come. (Anyone who agrees with Alla on
this is welcome to respond. For that matter, so is anyone who agrees
with me!)

Carol, who thinks Dumbledore is right on this