Harry at the Dursleys

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 118459


Alla wrote:
> <snip>
> I am sure there are families who would treat Harry as a child first 
> of all, not as "boy who lived", I am sure such families could be 
> found, if Dumbledore wanted to.
> 
> I think I said earlier that I read "Dumbledore's" "not a pampered 
> prince" as a regret that Harry did not grew up as normal child, that 
> if Dumbledore could he would be happy to spoil Harry a little bit.
>  <snip>
> 
Carol responds:
I think that's a misreading. What Dumbledore actually says, after
explainig why he placed Harry with his aunt instead of a Wizarding
family that "would have been *honored* and delighted to raise [him] as
a son" (OoP Am. ed. 835) (his priority, as you say, was to keep Harry
alive,835), is 

"Five years ago, then, you arrived at Hogwarts, neither as happy nor
as well-nourished as I would have liked, perhaps, yet alive and
healthy. You were not a pampered little prince, but as normal a boy as
I could have haoped under the circumstances. Thus far, my plan was
working well" (837).

As I see it, he's *glad* that Harry is not a pampered little prince, a
condition he *contrasts* with Harry's normalcy. This attitude goes
goes along with his remarks in SS/PS chapter 1 to McGonagall about
raising him among Muggles so he won't know his own history before he's
ready to handle it.

McGonagall protests, "These people will never understand him! He'll be
famous--a legend . . . there will be books written about Harry--every
child in our world will know his name!"

"Exactly," responds Dumbledore. "It would be enough to turn any boy's
head. Famous before he can walk and talk! Famous for someting he won't
even remember! Can't you see how much better off he'll be growing up
away from all this until he's ready to take it?" (SS Am. ed. 13).

Admittedly Dumbledore, being Dumbledore, isn't telling McGonagall the
full truth, that he's placed a protective charm on the house so that
his mother's sacrifice will continue to protect him via Petunia, but
it's nevertheless *a* reason, one of his considerations though not the
main one. And McGonagall reluctantly agrees that it's valid.

I happen to agree that whether the wizarding family loved him for
himself or not, they would have ended up worshipping him and showing
him off and all the other children would point at him and want to be
part of his gang. Very bad for the ego; very hard to deal with
rationally. Think how hard it must have been for Prince William and
Prince Harry to live anything like a normal life. And they weren't
considered the saviors of their world as Harry was of his. Look how
people bow to him in the street and compete with each other to shake
his hand when he enters the Leaky Cauldron. Think how hard it would be
not to develop a swelled head if he had been treated that way from the
age of fifteen months. (Setting aside, of course, the distinct
possibility that he wouldn't have reached his second birthday with the
Death Eaters still at large.)

I still say Dumbledore was right that such an upbringing would have
been worse than being raised by Muggles, even with all the
deprivations and occasional abuse. This way Harry will earn his
celebrity status instead of having it handed to him. This way he will
know his own worth--and his own weaknesses--instead of taking the one
for granted and ignoring or denying the other. This way he will be
able to fight Voldemort when the time comes rather than being snuffed
out by him on the first encounter.

Although this isn't a real argument, I think it's worth noting the
perils of childhood celebrity in the RW. A significant number of child
actors have turned to drugs or committed suicide. Harry the "pampered
prince" wouldn't live to suffer a similar fate; he would simply fail
to live up to his own and the WW's expectations, to the detriment of
everyone except Voldemort.

Carol, thinking that Lockhart was put in the second book to illustrate
the perils of undeserved celebrity