Harry at the Dursleys / DD's feelings about it

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 118475


Carol earlier:
> > 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.
> 
> 
> Oh, dear.  I think we need to be VERY careful with this type of 
> thing.  I know you aren't trying to justify child abuse, but still I 
> find it VERY hard to swallow that there is ANY situation, barring
the absolute dire necessity of survival, that would make this
acceptable -- spoiled, pampered prince or not.  And yes, even with the
entire wizarding world on the line.
> 
> Once again, I will point out that the key thing we are missing in 
> that speech of Dumbledore's in OOTP is his tone of voice.  Is he 
> saying this sadly, bitterly, self-mockingly, in a matter-of-fact 
> tone?  We don't know, and the meaning changes quite a bit, 
> depending.  My own reading of it is that his tone was probably self-
> mocking, that is he was ridiculing his own excuses and half-truths.
> 
> To bring in two quotes from JKR, she has said "Dumbledore is 
> goodness" and "If Harry were related to Dumbledore he would not have 
> had to live with the Dursleys."  Now, I suppose we might say she is 
> referring to a special case where Dumbledore could have raised Harry 
> without spoiling him, but IMO she is trying to send a clear message 
> that the *only* reason Harry ended up at the Dursleys was the 
> protection, and the stuff about not turning his head was an excuse he 
> was using to fend off Minerva (by the way, I'm not sure she agrees 
> it's valid -- it seems to me more that she lapses into silence 
> because she knows nothing she will say will change Dumbledore's mind).
> 
Carol responds (briefly):
All I'm trying to establish (and it's difficult when the only people
who respond to my post are those interested in--I might almost say
obsessed with--the Dursleys and child abuse) is that being brought up
as a "pampered prince" would have been a very bad thing for Harry. I'm
not talking about Dumbledore or his real motive, which we know to be
Harry's survival. I'm talking about why growing up as a "pampered
prince" would be bad for Harry. Let's leave the Dursleys and
Dumbledore out of it and look only at that.

Pampering is spoiling. Treating Harry as a hero would very likely
inflate his ego. Those are the points I made and supported upthread
and the ones I would like to see answered.

Carol, hoping she won't have to go upthread to retrieve her unsnipped post