Harry and starvation

[Tonks]

No: HPFGUIDX 123317


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:
> Alla:
> 
> If your theory is correct, than I am afraid Dumbledore is casted 
in even more immoral light to me. You are saying that Harry's 
childhood had only purpose and only purpose only - to train him as 
weapon and starvation is one of the means for it?

Tonks here:
I am not saying that DD planned it that way. As has been said by 
others DD had no choice to put Harry with the Dursleys. It was the 
only way to save his life. (Just accept that as a fact.)

What I am saying is that sometimes things have a way of working out 
for the best in the long run. Now I am not using the argument that 
you sometimes hear well meaning people say when some terrible thing 
happens and it turns out OK in the end. It was not the will of the 
gods, or God or even DD. But good can come out of a bad situation. 
The situation is not set up that way. It is not set up to have good 
come. But as they say "when life gives you a lemon, make lemonade." 

So what I am saying is that Harry had a hard time at the Dursley's, 
and the side effect of that was the same as the training that a monk 
gets. And that is good, because it prepared him to fight evil. I 
guess Harry could have rebelled against the treatment that he had 
and become an angry juvenile delinquent or something, but he didn't. 
He accepted things as they were and in coping with the situation, it 
made him stronger. Do you really think that the story would have the 
same impact if He had been just as spoiled as Dudley? "Rich brat 
becomes Super Hero" No, I don't think so. Super Heroes never start 
out that way, they usually have some sort of tragic beginning.

Tonks_op