The Dursleys as Icons (not)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 124493


The Dursleys are so grotesque and Harry's circumstances are 
so bizarre that in the first books the abuse has a surreal quality. 
The tendency is to see it as a metaphor, in which the Dursleys' 
mistreatment is not as bad as it can be, but is as bad as can be 
depicted in a childrens' book. 

But this illusion is shattered from Book Four on, with the 
re-introduction of  villains who actually draw blood. Post GoF, the  
Dursleys can no longer be seen as iconic child abusers without 
discounting the actions of Voldemort and Umbridge. JKR has 
once again given the readers an object lesson in the dangers of 
seeing people as symbols.

The realization is forced on us that in the context of this universe 
the Dursleys   could behave much worse than they do, and that 
leaves us with a conundrum: why don't they? I believe we will get 
an answer to this question--obviously Dumbledore "remember 
my last" and Petunia have some kind of agreement  that's going 
to be explained.


Shouldn't there be some middle ground between glossing over 
child abuse and treating it as a fate worse than death? It's one 
thing to acknowledge that abuse victims may suffer a lifetime of 
emotional hardship from the abuse and another to insist that 
they *must* suffer it, that they have no right to be healthy after 
what they've been through. 

If the Dursleys are comic relief, they're a very noir sort of comedy, 
considering that the child they adore was, after eleven years of 
their TLC, in much worse shape both physically and mentally  
than Harry was. 

Pippin