Dumbledore's Magnaminity

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 142957


> a_svirn:
> You are confusing me with someone else. I never said that Dumbledore 
> came at 11. But we do know that he came too late, because Petunia 
> was wearing her night-gear. If he wasn't calculating, than he was 
> careless of proprieties. Take your pick.  

Valky:
I answered that upthread, my pick is neither but it's closer to
carelessness than calculating. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142756



> a_svirn:
> Dumbledore IS a stranger to the Dursleys. He has no claim on their 
> hospitality because they don't want to have anything to do with his 
> world and with magic. Quite unlike Mrs Bennett who was more than 
> happy to claim acquaintance with Lady Catharine. 

Valky:
The problem is that there desire to not be involved in the Magical
World is not evident all their actions from Dumbledore's point of
view. It is evident that they want to deny Harry his heritage, and
that Petunia has had a falling out with her sister. But their reasons,
however we have them, are never given so explicitly to Dumbledore.
Dumbledore has, in fact, evidence to the contrary since Petunia has
accepted both his correspondences and Harry who is, by all accounts, a
link to the magical world for the Dursley family.

It could be said that from Dumbledore's point of view, Petunia was
grudgingly willing to claim her acquaintance with the Wizard world,
she did so and therefore Dumbledore is no stranger. They do have
something to do with the Wizard world, and it's not clear exactly why
they do so when they don't want to. Dumbledore isn't required to sort
out their internal conflict of interest for them, as long as they keep
that's their business, he is due their hospitality and only they can
change that with an unequivocal goodbye to all of it.

This train of thought leads us right back to our difference of opinion
about the howler so I had better offer my position on that while I am
here:

a_svirn:
I think we know the answer to this question. Getting rid of Harry
simply isn't an option. When Vernon had been pushed beyond endurance
and tried it in OOP, Dumbledore threatened Petunia, didn't he? 

Valky:
No, there is no determination in the text, AFAIK, that the Howler was
a threat of any kind. It was precisely an ominous reminder of 'some
thing' the nature of which we just do not know.


> > Valky:
> > All Dumbledore *ignores* <snip> is the Dursley's
> > embarassing themselves with their wanton greed and stupidity.
> 
> a_svirn:
> Would you care to elaborate? 

Valky:
Gladly ;D
Dumbledore turns his attention from the Dursleys to speak to Harry
after he has greeted them, offered some banter for good measure, sat
down and offered the gift of a fine bottle of his favourite drink to
them. He addresses Harry and answers Vernons questions, patiently and
politely until Vernon says greedily "He's been left a House?" - this,
everybody ignores, naturally. <g> Later Dumbledore ignores Vernon's
muttering "preposterous" at the WW custom of coming of age at 17, and
finally he refuses to answer the ridiculously stupid objection "Us..
mistreat Dudders? What d'you?.." 

Otherwise Dumbledore gives the Dursley's full and polite
acknowledgement, and it is they who fail to reciprocate the gesture.
  

  
> > Valky:
> >I can't honestly
> > understand where you'd get the notion that the writer strove for 
> > such a wholly contradictory character flaw. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> You shouldn't address this particular rebuke to me. I am not the one 
> who wrote the book.
>

Valky:
:D Oh I don't think so. I mean specifically that assuming JKR follows,
rather than contradicts, her character arcs would be logical. And
therefore assuming that her character behaved contradictory to
character is less logical than assuming he did.

In short it is the application of logic that underlines your
considerations in this discussion that I do not understand. JKR's
application of logic is a different question altogether - although it
is a related assumption.