Dumbledore's Magnaminity

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 142973

> Valky:
> I specifically said Petunia, Petunia has accepted both Dumbledore's
> letters addressed to her. The other correspondence you refer to was
> correspondence with Harry, The Dursleys had no obligation (or 
right)
> to accept or to refuse it as it wasn't their's.

a_svirn:
Well, it's not true either. Petunia did not accept the letter from a 
presumptuous old man. She accepted her little orphaned nephew. And 
what do you mean by this interesting turn of the phrase "accepted 
the letter", anyway? We do not usually *accept* letters. We 
*receive* letters. We *reply* to them when we feel like it. It's 
called *correspondence*. If we don't feel like replying, why, we 
ignore them. In which case it cannot be called correspondence by any 
stretch of imagination. There is also blackmail; that's a criminal 
offence. There is junk mail and hate-mail – that's not supposed to 
be reciprocal. Or do you mean to say that Hermione "accepted" the 
letter with bobotuber by simply opening it?

 
> Valky:
> And I'd say that their desire to *be* involved whenever it suits 
them
> to do so has been made abundantly clear also. They involve 
themselves
> by taking Harry in, deliberately interfering in and attempting to
> stamp out his wizardness and heritage throughout his life, 

a_svirn:

Confounded if I know how you arrive to this conclusion! The Dursleys 
involving themselves with wizarding affairs by trying not to have 
anything to do with magic? What would constitute their desire NOT to 
be involved with magic then? Honing Harry's magical skills? Cheering 
and applauding at his bouts of accidental magic? 


> Valky:
taking
> sudden interest in Wizard world matters if it might be profitable 
to
> do so (eg Grimmauld place). 

a_svirn:

Vernon did not interest himself with the wizarding world. He 
interested himself with his nephew and ward' financial affairs. As 
his guardian he was supposed to look into this little matter of 
inheritance in detail. I agree that he was driven by greed, rather 
than by concern for his ward's well-being, but coveting a nice bit 
of property in London is not the same thing as prying into wizarding 
affairs. 

> Valky:
If they really did not want to be involved
> the first step would be to not take Harry, as I have said. 

a_svirn:
Rowling seems to give us an entirely different view of the matter. 
Remember in PS:

 "But what should we do, Vernon? Should we write back? Tell them we 
don't want --" 
 Harry could see Uncle Vernon's shiny black shoes pacing up and down 
the kitchen. 
 "No," he said finally. "No, we'll ignore it. If they don't get an 
answer... Yes, that's best... we won't do anything....
"But --" 
 "I'm not having one in the house, Petunia! Didn't we swear when we 
took him in we'd stamp out that dangerous nonsense?"

Looks like they took in their nephew but did not agree to have a 
wizard around. 

> Valky:

>Just politely, since it would be very rude of me to assume you said
> that simply for that sake of being venomous and sarcastic. Would 
you
> care to elaborate? It seems you did not understand something I 
said. 

a_svirn:
Very well, lets do it blow-by-blow. "It could be said that from 
Dumbledore's point of view, Petunia was grudgingly willing to claim 
her acquaintance with the Wizard world"  No it couldn't. "She did so 
and therefore Dumbledore is no stranger" No, she did not and yes, he 
is. "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". The only 
thing they have in common with wizards is Harry and it's not by 
their choice they share him with them. So, to borrow from Lewis 
Carroll again:  "as it isn't, it ain't". 
 
> Valky:
> In an attempt to wrap
> the whole thing up I'll just say that I meant the howler was
> frightening, but I hold short of translating that into an overt 
threat.

a_svirn:
Very well, it was a covert threat. Does it make it any better?