Harry at the Dursleys / DD's feelings about it

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 118490



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at y...> wrote:
> 
> > 
> 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.
> 

Very well.  In the *abstract*, Harry is better off not being 
a "pampered prince" or, if you like, a spoiled brat.  I don't think 
that is in any way controversial.  Nor do I think Alla is arguing 
that Harry would have been better off as a spoiled brat.  Rather she 
is trying to say that all children in normal homes are pampered, i.e. 
lovingly indulged, at times and to an extent, and Harry would have 
been better off being "spoiled" *to that extent.*  We might use the 
Weasleys as an example.

 However, we are not presented with this issue in the abstract.  *In 
the story*, that is accomplished through the medium of the Dursleys 
who are, yes, child abusers. Within the context of the story, the two 
issues are *not* separate. 

Now, I also agree, to get back to Dumbledore, that he might be trying 
to salvage all the good he can from a terrible situation.  That is, 
in OOTP he might have been trying to say "Well, you were alive and 
you were a pretty normal kid, not a spoiled brat, and those are the 
only two things I can find good about this horrible situation."  If 
that is indeed what he meant, I just wish he had come out and said 
it, rather than using the cryptic circumlocutions he employs.


Lupinlore