Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?

[lealess]

No: HPFGUIDX 142659

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" <Aisbelmon at h...> wrote:
> > lealess: Dumbledore realizes that Harry did not tell the Dursleys 
> > that he was coming that evening.  Then he steps over the 
> > threshhold without being invited in.  You are saying that him 
> > sending a note to Harry beforehand makes that OK?  So supposedly  
> > any correspondent could invite him- or herself over, if the person 
> > sent a note beforehand, and the Dursleys would have to accept it 
> > according to a code they probably don't hold to anyway?
> 
> Valky:
> That isn't even nearly what I said, lealess. They were afforded the
> opportunity to refuse Dumbledores visit because he sent a note. Yes 
> in the traditions of ettiquette it is not essential that the visitor 
> have a reply for an informal occasion such as this. Dumbledore had 
> every right to assume that his visit would be recieved.
> As a correspondent Dumbledore is obliged to make a customary visit
> anyway, so regardless of the circumstances of this one visit, 
> Petunia was given more than enough time to refuse the visit over the 
> past fifteen years when she could have written a letter formally 
> ending the correspondence, and/or shunted Harry out of the home 
> ending the relationship. Otherwise, the Dursleys should expect that 
> Dumbledore will call upon them.
> Finally I ask *you* now to explain *why it is GOOD manners* for them
> to have refused Dumbledore entry after his efforts to maintain 
> contact with them, his respectful forbearance for 15 years and his 
> call a harmless journey to call upon them that night, or as a_svirn 
> suggested, to  polite old man who has done the right thing in good 
> faith a criminal and a trespasser and scream him off your doorstep. 
> It's easy to see the reason they didn't was because they were 
> minding their manners.

The reason this argument doesn't hold water for me is that the
correspondence is all one-sided.  It isn't as if the Dursleys were
asking for Dumbledore's interference or his blessings.  They didn't
want to be part of the wizarding world, full stop.  They weren't
writing to him.  In fact, he seemed to know that they wouldn't really
welcome his visit.  He could have just picked Harry up and gone.  But
he had to do more.

You see, I had someone stalking me once, someone who would leave me
notes and flowers and gifts on the steps to the building I lived in,
things I never asked for and didn't want.  The notes had the usual
"I'm watching you" kind of language.  There was no return address to
write to, but when I left notes on the door politely refusing
(actually, saying the cops had been called and the neighbors alerted),
it didn't make a bit of difference.

Well, I wasn't actually injured, was I?  The cops even argued once
that someone who gave me a particular gift was really sweet and meant
well.  If my correspondent had ever showed up at my doorstep, the fact
that the person left letters and was "nice" to me wouldn't have
mattered much to me.  This person's respectful forebearance in not
turning a threat into reality -- I am not grateful for that.

I am not saying that Dumbledore is a stalker or malicious per se
(though I am wondering what he is forebearing on -- his judgment or
wrath? his wizarding prowess?).  But he is someone who feels his
concerns override everyone else's and his decisions are the only ones
that matter.  I do think he knew he wasn't really welcome, so he
coated his presence in pretend pleasantries and mead.  I do think the
Dursleys might see him as dangerous and malicious.  He is basically a
stranger who has given them "gifts" and notes, things they don't want,
with a threat behind them, because there is something he wants from
them.  If Petunia had the temerity to write to him and say, you're not
welcome, I bet he would have come anyway.  He felt he had the right to
interfere with their lives.

>SNIP
> > lealess:
> > If you are saying that Dumbledore wasn't rude, or arrogant, or 
> > just plain creepy, I don't buy it.  If you are saying he was out 
> > for some sort of weird but pointless revenge, that seems more 
> > likely. <snip>  if Dumbledore was in my house, I would have 
> > considered him rude, told him I really wasn't expecting him, and 
> > asked him to leave.  
> 
> Valky:
> In the midst of a World War? You would think it rude that he 
> protects you? Dumbledore gave the Dursleys a pause to make their 
> excuses while he stood at the doorway and they didn't. But supposing 
> you did, what would be your excuse in that moment. Dumbledore hadn't 
> been rude.
> 

If they asked for his protection, that's one thing.  We don't know
that they did.  They had this child thrust upon them, along with the
protection, because it suited Dumbledore.  And I wouldn't be surprised
if they "pay" when that protection ends.  (Again, I stress that I am
not defending the Dursleys' behavior towards Harry, which was
inexcusable.  Nevertheless, I can understand their hesitancy about
being involved with the wizarding world.)

Did Dumbledore give them a pause to make their excuses?  On the
contrary, he was waiting for them to invite him in.  When they didn't,
he strode in and took over.  He didn't ask permission.  He put the
words in their mouths.  He wouldn't brook excuses.

You asked for my excuse at that moment. I think it is in the last
quote above.  But in truth, I don't open doors without knowing who is
on the other side, so the interaction wouldn't have reached the point
the Dursleys' did, unless Dumbledore decided to break in through the
fireplace.  But wizards don't do that, do they?

The rules of etiquette you describe seem to be from a different
century altogether.  I doubt the Muggles of the 1990s adhered to them,
if they were even aware of them.  And I think Dumbledore had enough
contact with students and their parents to know that not even wizards
adhered to them, especially in a time of war, when caution had to be
exercised in opening doors to strangers.

lealess