In Defense of DD (was Re: DD's dilemma)

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 126688


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marcelle" <celletiger at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> snippage...
> 
> celletiger:
> Kay, the way I see it is that we aren't aware of any relation of DD 
> to HP.  DD, as much as he avoids it, is in a political position, 
> just as any chancellor of a university is in a political position.  
> Thank goodness DD is not "political" in the sense that he can be 
> persuaded by money/power, (hey I'm from Louisiana). DD was simply 
> taking care of business that night.  It wasnt his responsibility to 
> take HP anywhere that Halloween.  In fact, its nice that a man of 
> his position did. Sure DD was a leader in the OoP, but then the 
> order should have been responsible for HP's future.  DD acted 
> quickly and obviously performed some charm that protected HP at 
> Privet Drive for the first fourteen years he lived there.  He put 
> Figgy on the Drive to make sure the kid wasn't in mortal peril. 
> Success is about managment skills, inculding delegation.  

I'm sorry but I have to disagree vehemently.  This isn't 
about "management."  This is about placing a child where he knew the 
child would be unwanted, unloved, and treated badly.  Further, DD has 
as much as admitted that he wasn't making this decision for charity.  
He VERY much had his own purposes in mind.  Thus, "political" figure 
or not, his actions cannot be seen as some sort of saintly act, but 
as a calculated move for which he must be held morally accountable.

DD thought 
> it impt enough to himslef deliver HP to the Dursleys.  DD alone 
will 
> have to answer for any heinous problems of HP's mental development 
> as a result of HP's tenure with the Dursleys, which since HP came 
> out rather well adjusted (I attribute the 'tude problem in OoP to 
> the tragic events of Gof), DD did what a prudent manager would do, 
> and HP turned out alright.
> celletiger

Well, nora (nrenka) has recently answered this one, so I will quote 
her:

I'd say the most important thing in the plot of the series is that
Harry has a very real and tangible reluctance to go to adults for
help, and this is a result of adults always having been unreliable in
his life. He doesn't tell Dumbledore what he's thinking and of his
odd experiences in CoS; he keeps mum about the quill in OotP out of a
desire to protect McGonagall. That kind of intense independence is
something that Harry takes to an extent which is distinctly unhealthy
(especially in the case of the quill).

There's no denying Harry's bitterness when he states about Petunia
that "She never loved me!". He's reluctant to engage with the
Weasleys, who are happy to try to be surrogate parents. Harry is
reluctant to let anyone know about his scar pains in GoF, but does
open up about that to Sirius, indicating the rare position of trust
that Sirius holds for him. Harry's inwardness can be strength, but
it's also a weakness, and it seems generated in part by the loveless
home of the Dursleys. He is lucky to have the support of his friends
as much as he does, and he is distinctly less functional when his
support net is decreased (when Ron is not talking to him). That
points to someone who really must have that support, not someone to
whom it is really just the icing on the cake.

Lupinlore now:

I will just add that I agree totally.  Harry bears many deep scars 
from his time at the Dursleys, and Dumbledore should acknowledge them 
and admit to his own culpability in their creation.


Lupinlore