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

[ornadv]

No: HPFGUIDX 142745

>a_svirn
>Well, what is his function? It's not like he has any right on Harry
>at all. He's neither his blood relation, nor guardian. In the year
>1981 he's not even his headmaster.

Orna:
I don't know for sure, but his function seems to be to give pupils 
and people the opportunity to develop themselves for what they are.  
I mean, there is a question of how he accepted Riddle to school, 
knowing how he had acted towards the other children, and towards DD 
himself. Even after the chamber of secrets had been opened, and a 
pupil had been murdered, he kept an eye on Riddle, but really not 
much more.. It is indeed very minor intervention, and in standard of 
how things should be run in our world – very substandard. (Not 
Verisatrum, not much of Legilimency, just to mention things, even I 
as a muggle know by now
). So it seems, that either we say, it's a 
fictional plot, in which place it doesn't really matter, or that his 
function is indeed a more detached one, having to do, with 
presenting people with some mirror to their actions, and letting 
them choose their path of life. (Hoping they will choose human and 
loving abilities). I think that his dialogue with Draco, when he is 
seriously endangered, seems to show that, that's his priority. IMO, 
that's why Draco is surprised (sneering, perhaps, but asking) that 
he doesn't want him to use the mudblood word, and the other DE gets 
enraged about him "talking". "Always the same weren't yeh, Dumby, 
talking and doing nothing, nothing. I don't even know why the Dark 
Lord's bothering to kill yer!..." 
I have the feeling, that like the DE, we sometimes want DD to do 
something. So things will fall in place. But the thing about love 
and true emotions is they can't be hoodwinked, or shortcut. 


>Bruce Alan Wilson:

>DD could have frightened or coerced the Dursleys to be 'nice' to 
>Harry, but he
>could not have forced them to LOVE him. Love cannot be forced. What 
DD >was
>able to accomplish is to make the Dursleys think about the way they 
>treated
>Harry and to feel ashamed of it. While 'shame' has been given 
a 'bad >rap' the
>last couple of decades, it can be a good thing if it can impel one 
to >change
>one's behavior from what caused the shame. 

Orna:
I liked the way you put it. I also think that his behavior wasn't 
pure revenge (it's anyway a very minor revenge, compared with the 
pain they have inflicted on Harry.) It's a way of having them think. 
Had he been more revengeful, their outrage would have drowned the 
shame, had he been more "polite", it would have stayed as a false 
dialogue, at best (more probably, he would have just stayed outside.
 I want to add, that IMO too much politeness in the face of Bullies 
is very confusing, because sometimes saying just how things are, 
helps knowing good from bad. Harry had the right to hear in front of 
the Dursleys, what their treatment of him is called like. 
And he had also something new for Harry, when he said that Dudley 
was treated worse than Harry – because Harry was sure to have envied 
Dudley, not recognizing that abuse can have many faces.  

Having said that, I must add, that after reading the various posts 
on the issue, I still don't like the Dursleys (who could?), but I 
have some more understanding feelings towards them: having to raise 
an "unwanted" child, representing their utmost fears, mocking by his 
mere existence the things they value above all – respectability, 
order, and non-magic, non-imagination, is a very severe task. It 
would be nice, if they managed to change, but after all adjusting to 
such differences in values, temperament wouldn't be easy – even if 
they were willing to grasp it as an opportunity. And it's true they 
didn't send him to an orphanage –but the tragic thing, as I see it, 
for them and for Harry was that they stuck in between – didn't get 
rid of him, and didn't move towards acceptance.


>Julie:
>I enjoyed seeing them get a little minor comeuppance, 
.The 
Dursley's >politeness is all veneer, a cover for their boorishness
>beneath.

Orna: 
Well, yes, it's a nice and not too destructive revenge. And having 
DD perform it, gives him his human perspective (along with his 
ability to fault) - human enough to enjoy some sweet and not too 
violent revenge. Makes him more human, less saintly, and same goes 
for me as a reader. 

Orna