Dumbledore the Counselor (was: Dumbledore the General)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 124399


>>Phoenixgod: 
>Betsy, I have never made the argument that Harry is screwed up. 
Because he is amazingly well adjusted, considering and does have the 
core of strength that you talk about.<

Betsy:
You may not have made it, Phoenixgod, but others have.  Like you, I 
just don't see it.

>>Phoenixgod:
>Dumbledore is lucky that Harry has that core because he could have 
screwed the pooch over leaving Harry with the Dursleys. I argue that 
it doesn't matter that Harry isn't screwed up.  DD made a mistake by 
leaving Harry with the Dursleys regardless of whether or not Harry 
had the strength to endure it. It is not a good act to put someone in 
danger just because you suspect that they can survive it.  Morally 
wrong, no matter the outcome.<

Betsy:
It's interesting to me that when Dumbledore's plan works, it's called 
luck.  Maybe the bad behavior of the Dursleys should just be chalked 
up to *bad* luck?

In an earlier post I used the analogy of a Jewish family living in 
Germany during the 1930's sending their child to live over in 
England.  Now, ideally, the English family would treat the child as 
their own.  What if they didn't?  What if they gave the child a lot 
of chores, and favored their children over the foster child? And when 
the war forced a certain level of privation, what if the child was 
given the least amount of food?  Take it a step further.  What if 
they displayed a certain distaste for the child being Jewish and 
discouraged any practice of that faith?  Would you seriously argue 
that the parents were morally wrong for shipping their child out of 
Nazi Germany?  And if that child became the only survivor of that 
family, and left the farm in quite good emotional shape, would you 
still condemn his family for sending him to England?

I'm not sure why folks think that Dumbledore and Harry were living in 
a rainbow colored, My Little Pony, world where Dumbledore had a 
choice between the Cleavers of Leave it to Beaver or which ever 
family had Lassy and Timmy, and this twisted Norman Bates type 
family.  It was a bad situation all around and Dumbledore made the 
best choice he could.  And hey!  It all turned out okay.  But, oh 
yeah.  That was just luck.

>>Phoenixgod:
>And don't fool yourself into believing that the outcome couldn't 
have been bad.  Harry could have ended up a sociopath. He could have 
ended up spineless and afraid. He could have ended up a manipulative 
dark lord in the making.  He could have been so angry at DD that he 
might be willing to turn his back on the WW once he learned how 
important he was.
>The litany of bad ends that could have resulted from DD's 
interference are numerous. And all of them more likely than Harry 
ending up a basically good kid with strong morals.<

Betsy:
Yeah.  But it didn't.  The White Queen could have struck Ron in the 
temple and killed him before he hit the ground.  Grawp could have 
made contact with Hermione and squeezed her into an unrecognizable 
paste.  Harry could have veered left instead of right and ended up as 
dragon kibble.  Sirius could have failed to distract Lupin and three 
more werewolves could be roaming the Forbidden Forest.

The books are filled with litanies of possible bad ends that *could* 
have happened.  That's life in a war zone.  And it's unfortunate that 
Harry is in this game, but he *is* alive, he *is* relatively stable, 
and I think it has more to do with Dumbledore's careful planning than 
mere luck.  IMO, of course.

Betsy.  Let the snark games begin. <eg>  (Except, of course, that I'm 
going to bed.)