Etiquette Shmetiquette (was Re: Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?)

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 142694


lealess wrote:
I agree that the Dursleys are bullies.  Did Dumbledore change  that
during his visit?  No.  All he did was frighten them and get  his petty
digs in.  Did he change years of abuse?  Did he even  explain how they
abused Dudley?  No.  All he did was give a  vicarious thrill to readers
eager for the Dursleys to be  punished.
 
Julie:
I'm thinking he expected the Dursleys to figure it out (how they  abuse
Dudley). Granted, they aren't exactly brilliant, but they must be  able
to reasont that one out! And while real threats might have forced  the
Dursleys to act differently toward Harry, it wouldn't make them feel 
differently, simply more hateful and resentful. Any physical abuse to
Harry was quite mild (going to bed hungry, living in a closet)  compared
to the emotional abuse of knowing he's not at all loved there (we  know
now from Harry's outburst on the subject that this is the thing that  truly
hurt him). And DD can do absolutely nothing to change that fact. He
can only point out his displeasure and make sure the Dursleys fully
understand it.  

lealess:
The Dursleys, or at least Petunia, were frightened of  involvement with
wizards, for good reason (Lily and James), and Petunia's  fear made the
family violently reactive to any hint of magic.  I'm not  excusing the
Dursleys at all.  But they are understandable.  Look  at the numbers of
people who turn their backs on neighbors in distress  because they
don't want to be exposed to risk.  For that matter, look at  the
parents who sell their children into slavery today.  It  isn't
uncommon, unfortunately.  So, the Dursleys are selfish hypocrites.  
But they are not the worst thing that could have happened to Harry in
the  Muggle world.
 
Julie:
I completely agree with you. This same principle applies in  discussions
about Snape's abuse of students as well. It's a matter of degree. The
Dursleys aren't the worst thing by far that could have befallen Harry. 
He could have been locked in that closet *all* the time, with no  school,
no socialization, etc--something also not that uncommonly done to  kids.
Add in sexual abuse, child pornography, broken bones, deliberate  burns,
etc, etc, and there is a litany of really nasty abuse the Dursleys  could
have inflicted on Harry, but didn't. Like most people they do have an 
ethical line, one that needs adjusting certainly, but it is there. 
 
Do you feel the same way about Snape, BTW? As a teacher he is
certainly no shining example. But his level of abuse is quite mild,  even
when it involves Neville or Harry. And even more than the Dursleys, 
Snape has his own ethical line when dealing with students. He'll 
verbally harass them, even deliberately frighten them, but he won't
physically harm them (except shoving Harry away, which was an
emotional reaction, not an intentional act meant to harm). 


lealess:
Let's examine Dumbledore's behavior.  He realizes Harry  didn't tell
the Dursleys he'd be around, yet steps into the house as if it  was all
fixed.  He interrupts Vernon with mild scolding right  away.  He
abruptly slings the family onto a sofa.  He chides them  for not
offering him drinks, as if they invited him there in the first  place.
He offers them a magical drink, which Harry imbibes, but... Harry  is
a wizard and they are wary of magic (and have you ever had mead  --
yuck).  He forces glasses of this liquor on them, without even  asking
if they want it.  Then he calls his little, hyperactive friend  over
(Kreacher), without a by your leave.  Finally, he tells them  the
protection they have had for fifteen years will end in a year, oh,  but
would they shelter the one exposing them to danger for another  year,
anyway?  Way to go, Dumbledore; you really made a stride forward  for
wizard-Muggle understanding.

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.
 
Julie:
I think Dumbledore *was* rude and arrogant. On purpose even ;-) I  also
think he deliberately parodied the social graces on purpose. It was
his way of saying "Here's what you think is important, so I'll do lip
service to it. And now here's what I deem important (your  reprehensible
treatment of Harry over the past 15 years)."
 
BTW, I also question whether Harry's presence is exposing the  Dursleys
to danger. I think Harry's *existence* exposes them to danger,  because
they are his only remaining relatives. And part of Dumbledore's  contract
with Petunia was that Harry's protection was the Dursley's protection.  If
they didn't take in Harry, they wouldn't be protected--and no matter  how
much they might protest that Harry meant nothing to them and they
didn't know where he was, would the Death Eaters or later Voldemort
believe that protest? Or bypass the chance to hex or torture the  Dursleys
even if they did? Without Harry present, they might well have been  doomed.
 
Petunia's occasional fearful reactions seem to support this theory.  She
also knows a lot about Dark Magic, and creatures like Dementors. She
knows her family is in danger simply because of her relationship to  Lily
and Harry. Dumbledore can't change that. And maybe he could have
hidden them in the Wizard Protection Program, but why should he help
them if they won't help Petunia's only nephew?

lealess:
If the Dumbledore of HBP was the same one we've known all  along, then
he was a surprise to me.  If there was something wrong with  him, some
dark magic working within him, some pressing deadline he was  facing,
some means by which he was exhausting himself, then his behavior  would
make a lot more sense.
 
Julie:
I think there was a pressing deadline Dumbledore was facing--his  death. 
It's time to wrap up all the loose ends, including educating Harry  about
Voldemort's past and the horcruxes, returning Snape to Voldemort's
camp, and making sure the Dursley's understand his  displeasure over
their treatment of Harry. 


lealess:
He had his little joke with the glasses, and some readers got  the joy
of seeing the Dursleys bullied, i.e., terrified by one of  superior
power to satisfy the psychological needs of the superior one.   But 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.   This
Dumbledore would come in anyway and lectured or laughed at me,  after
throwing me on a sofa and forcing a drink on me.  He was not a  polite
man.
 
Julie:
I enjoyed seeing them get a little minor comeuppance, because 
they deserved it. And while they might have been terrified and  bullied
by Dumbledore's superior power, so they have bullied Harry with their 
superior power as his guardians. What goes around, comes around ;-)
The Dursley's politeness is all veneer, a cover for their boorishness
beneath. Dumbledore knows that, which is why in this situation all
I can say is, etiquette shmetiquette. You go, Dumbledore!
 

lealess:
As for Harry's nervousness, I think that was a combination  of his
realization that Dumbledore enjoyed toying with the Dursleys,  combined
with his usual eagerness to leave that house.
 
Julie:
Harry has a sneaking suspicion Dumbledore is enjoying himself, but
I didn't get any vibe that he was nervous about Dumbledore toying with 
the Dursleys (i.e., that he feared Dumbledore might do something 
objectionable to them). But no kid wants to be around when adults 
are in conflict, they'd rather be long gone. And Harry's always eager 
to be long gone from the Dursleys anyway. 

Julie 

 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]