Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General)

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 124396


Alla:
And I wanted to quote again Phoenixgod's analogy from his 123415 
post:
"Regardless of whether or not Harry has transcended the limitations 
of his upbringing, it does not excuse the actions that put him in 
the situation in the first place.If I throw you into a room with axe 
wielding maniac suspecting that you're a master martial artist and 
will survive the encounter, that doesn't mean that my actions were 
right.Dumbledore abandoned Harry to people that none of us would 
want to know or live with. That is wrong regardless of Harry's 
mental resilience."<
 
Betsy:

See, this is a perfect example of hysterical hyperbole that seems to 
be developing around Harry's life with the Dursleys.  "Axe wielding 
>maniac"?!?!  Wha...?  The Dursleys never even *struck* Harry for 
> heavens sake. 

Alla:

Hysterical hyperbole? Petunia definitely tried to hit him with 
frying pan, but it is OK, right? Makes you stronger.

Let me post you another hypo. Suppose Dursleys tried to hit Harry 
multiple times every day, BUT all of those hits magically rebounced 
and Harry did not feel anything at all. Do you think Harry is abused 
in such situation or not?

 
Betsy:
And "abandoned"?  Harry wasn't doomed to live with the 
> Dursleys forever.  (And we'll just ignore Voldemort and his Death 
> Eaters -- because they're really sort of fluffy if you squint.)

Alla:

No, just first ten years of his life, when child needs love the most.

And I just had an interesting thought in my previous post. It seems 
that protection is not against DE, only Voldemort, unless I forgot 
something, in which case I will eat my words.
Why exactly Harry was left there? 
Because if Bella wanted to stop by privet Drive, it seems to me that 
she could do so.


Betsy:
Harry is alive.  Harry is sane.  Harry is remarkably self-
confident.  My goodness but Dumbledore let him down!

Alla:

Yep, he is. No because of anything Dumbledore did though, IMO.

By the way, I know you don't look in the interviews much, but JKR 
definitely considers Harry to be abused by Dursleys. Juli quoted 
this quote about Dursley being just as abused as Harry in her 123444:

"On Dateline, 2000 she said:
`I like torturing them,` said Rowling. `You should
keep an eye on Dudley. It's probably too late for Aunt
Petunia and Uncle Vernon. I feel sorry for Dudley. I
might joke about him, but I feel truly sorry for him
because I see him as just as ABUSED as Harry. "



Alla earlier
By the way, I suspect I am wrong on this one, so can somebody please
refer me to the quote , which says that Harry cannot be touched by
Voldemort's servants at Privet Drive? I must have been forgotten the
part, because if blood protection is only against Voldemort, then
Dumbledore's decision is even more shaky than I thought before.
 
Snow:
 
If Voldemort cannot touch him at the Dursley's neither can his 
followers. 
 
"
Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy's 
protection as long as he is in his relations' care. Not even I can 
touch him there
"GOF pg. 657
 
Not EVEN I can touch him there! Big one. 
 


Alla 
Thanks, but it does not exactly helps me.
Voldemort confirms that he cannot touch Harry there. Nowhere does he 
say that my faithful DE could not touch him.


Just my opinion,

Alla