Harry and starvation

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 123534


Tonks wrote: 
> What I am saying is that sometimes things have a way of working out 
> for the best in the long run. <snip>
> 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. <snip>
Alla replied:
> 
> Ummmm, yes, absolutely good can come out of bad. I don't see how it 
> is relevant though to the initial assesment of  the situation.
> Sure, sufferings made Harry stronger. Does it mean that  because of 
> that what Dumbledore did was OK? Not to me, sorry. <snip>
>

Carol responds:
Here's a question for Alla and Lupinlore and those who feel as they
do. Leaving Dumbledore and his intentions out of the question, would
Harry really be better off without the treatment he received from the
Dursleys?

He can now endure hunger, privation, spiders, teasing and taunting,
and even physical abuse such as Umbridge's horrible quill and
Voldemort's Crucio, which hurt horribly but left no lasting impact.
His suffering has made him resilient. His early friendlessness has
made him self-reliant. Would he have been able to face Quirrel!mort in
his first year and Diary!Tom in his second year without his background
with the Dursleys? And had he not done those things, could he have
saved himself and Sirius from the boggart in PoA or survived the TWT,
much less the resurrected Voldemort, unaided, in GoF?

Please understand that I'm not defending the Dursleys or suggesting
that Dumbledore had any such intentions (other than preventing Harry
from growing up as a pampered prince and, of course, keeping him
alive). But think about it. Suppose he had been brought up in a
luxurious home with every need catered to. Even if he wasn't spoiled,
wouldn't he be "soft"? Or overprotected and timid because he'd never
been confronted and tested? 

Sleeping in a closet? Yelling? Punches from Dudley? Spiders on his
socks? A few missed meals? What are they in comparison with what he's
already faced at Hogwarts--a basilisk; a monstrous, man-eating spider;
a dragon; Dementors?--not to mention confrontations with Voldemort
himself, who fortunately is still not back to his full power and
strength. The Dursleys provided a training ground for later hardships
and challenges, just as the TWT helped prepare Harry for later
battles, some of which he has not yet fault. It won't stop with the
MoM. Things are going to get worse, much worse, before they get
better, if they ever do get better. If he's prepared, he'll have a
chance for survival. If he's not, he'll die.

It's not Dumbledore's fault that fate and Voldemort have chosen him to
be Weapon!Harry. It *would* be his fault if he allowed Harry to go
into that fight unprepared. But I think, with Tonks, that regardless
of Dumbledore's intentions and regardless of what he should or should
not have done, Harry's ten years of living with the Dursleys helped to
shape him into the person he needs to be to defeat Voldemort.

Please answer the question(s) and leave Dumbledore out of it for now.
We know what you think on that point. I want you to look at it from
this angle, not considering Harry's feelings but his unavoidable fate.

Carol, who is pretty sure that an upbringing like Hermione's would not
have served Harry as well as sleeping in that closet