Hogwarts Teachers - Lockhart (was History at Hogwarts) (was Re: Wizard Persecution )

[hickengruendler]

No: HPFGUIDX 126264


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> 
wrote:
 
> 
> Well, did the DEs think Voldemort was gone for good?  I don't think 
> we know that for sure.

Hickengruendler:

At least we know that they didn't do anything to find him. That's 
what Voldemort himself said during the rebirth in GoF. They are a 
sleazy pack who only help him, while he is powerful, and once he was 
gone, they only cared for their own safety. I still think that's 
pretty in character for what we know about Lucius Malfoy and the 
others. 

> Certainly Voldemort could communicate at 
> least during some periods of his ten years as a wraith.  Did he 
> communicate with some of the DEs?  I don't think we know.  This 
ties 
> in with the question of Voldy's wand.  Did the DEs save it after he 
> was killed?  Why did anybody do that if they didn't think he was 
> coming back?

Hickengruendler:

Well, I think the wand IS a plothole. Therefore I don't expect any 
answers in this point. However, in JKR's defense I didn't realize 
this until it was pointed out to me by other fans. But even if 
Voldemort communicated with some Death Eaters (which I doubt), he 
knows that his Death Eaters can't kill Harry. (Or, if the prophecy is 
wrong, at least he thought). Therefore to order them to kill Harry 
wouldn't make any sense, since he knows about the probably and knows 
that he, and not a Death Eater, has to kill Harry.
> 
> Besides, if Harry really wasn't in danger then Albus' moral burden 
> becomes even larger.  If the answer to "where else could Harry have 
> been safe those ten years?" was "Many places," as it would be were 
> the DEs not out after him, then the only defense Albus has is "I 
> thought Voldemort would be back, some day."  Let's see, ten years 
> worth of child abuse while Albus knew Harry could be safe other 
> places but he believed in Voldemort coming back some day.  So 
afraid 
> was he he didn't even dare to intervene at Privet Drive while Harry 
> was being abused.  Right.  Some wise, compassionate, insightful, 
> unselfish epitome of goodness THAT is.  

Hickengruendler:

But here you assume, that Dumbledore knew when exactly Voldemort 
would return. But Dumbledore didn't know, and therefore he put Harry 
to the save Dursleys, because it was theoretically possible, that 
Voldemort could return any day, trying to kill Harry. And Dumbledore 
explains all of this in the second to last chapter in OotP.
> 
> From the wizarding side its "We'll 
> let the kid suffer ten years of child abuse because Voldy MIGHT 
come 
> back during those ten years and we MIGHT be in danger."  In that 
> scenario, the Wizarding World, and Dumbledore, are so fundamentally 
> morally compromised they aren't worth saving.

Hickengruendler:

Well, I at least think that it was the best decision Dumbledore could 
make. It's all about keeping Harry safe. Voldemort might indeed have 
come back in those ten years, and in this case the first one in 
danger would have been Harry. Harry might havehad eight peaceful 
years, at, let's say, Lupin's place, but he might have died during 
his nineth. Not a good solution. I think Dumbledore knew, that 
whatever decision he would make, it would have been highly 
problematic, and I think he chose the least bad of all possibilities. 
I do agree with you that Dumbledore should have, if not threatened 
the Dursleys, than at least *reminded* them, that he has an eye on 
Harry and expects that they treat him at least civilly.