Dumbledore's Magnaminity

[lealess]

No: HPFGUIDX 143003

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" <muellem at b...>
wrote:
>
> arrgg...you are making me chew up my posts! Dumbledore HAS mentioned
> them, and there are plenty of references in the last 2 books:
> 
> p. 55 Am Ed Hardcover HBP:
> Harry, whom Lord Voldemort has already attempted to kill on a number
> of occasions, is in even greater danger now than the day when I left
> him upon your doorstep 15 years ago, with a letter explaining about
> his parent's murder and expressing the hope that you would care for
> him as though he were your own."
> 
> DD later states(same page) "You did not do as I asked.  You have 
> never treated Harry as a son.  He has known nothing but neglect and 
> often cruelty at your hands.  The best that can be said is that he 
> has at least escaped the appalling damage you have inflicted upon 
> the unfortunate boy sitting between you"
> 
> more...
> "However miserable he has been here, however unwelcome, however
> unbadly treated, you have at least, grudgingly allowed him
> houseroom."
> 

Well, I am chewing up my third post of my day on this, with a couple
of observations:  Does "expressing a hope" constitute a binding term?
Does "doing as I asked" mean that the other party has explicitly
accepted those wishes?  If I get into a contract, I *hope* the
contractor will do a bang-up job that will last forever, and I may ask
out of my powerful position as know-all customer, "I should feel it
meets all industry standards" -- but if industry standards are not in
the agreement and the contractor strictly adheres to the other terms,
I have no basis for expecting more.

Second, if Dumbledore says they should have treated Harry as a son,
and in basically the next breath says that they have damaged their
son... there's just an inconsistency.

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
>
> Dumbledore is then the third party in the entire thing.  Petunia 
> agreed to the Deal by accepting Baby Harry into her household--
> otherwise the magic wouldn't have worked.  (It's so nice that magic 
> provides these explicit delineations of acceptance and all of those 
> sorts of things.  You can't fool magic.)  Since Petunia agreed to 
> the Deal for which Dumbledore is the guarantor, he is well within 
> his legal and moral rights in coming to discuss the actions of the 
> parties.
> <SNIP>

I don't know much about guarantees, and I am probably not
understanding this.  Are you saying that Harry was offering...
something... and Petunia was offering room in her house, and
Dumbledore, as a guarantor, steps in and performs the contract if
Harry defaults?  Dumbledore was brokering the deal on behalf of Harry
(probably without legal authority, and Harry didn't have the capacity
to enter into an agreement himself), so wasn't Harry the party whose
performance he was guaranteeing?  If Petunia failed to fulfill her
part of the bargain, then she would lose her claim to... what, Harry's
blood protection?   It's all very confusing to me, and I may have it
mixed up.

It seems the Dursleys assumed a great deal of risk on behalf of Harry.
In a contract, they should have received something in return.  If
Dumbledore was a guarantor, he was supposed to make sure they received
whatever they were promised upon fulfillment of the contract.  When
Petunia seemed ready to default, he sent a Howler.  And if Harry
expressed a wish to move in with someone else, Dumbledore would have
delivered a stern lecture on his obligations to the Dursleys, or else
Dumbledore would have had to make good the contract himself.

I am not sure contractual analogies work in this situation.  It seems
more of a blood, morality, family obligation kind of thing, and given
the Dursleys, a hope and a prayer.  Which is why I agree that, quoting
Magpie:
> > When DD reminded her of this it may not have been that he was 
> > reminding her of some contract she entered into but simply 
> > reminding her that if Harry did not have a place in her house, he 
> > would not be protected.  Did she want her sister's child to die?  
> > If not, he stayed.
>
> colebiancardi: 
> Acceptance of the child, IMO, is a more-than-simply-implicit 
> contract, which includes the whole 'and this keeps the child alive, 
> as well'.
> <SNIP>

We may get the details of the whole explicit contract at some point,
another thing to add to the checklist for book 7!  I agree there is
more to Petunia than meets the eye.  I am wondering what the Dursleys
got out of taking Harry, except the knowledge they were doing the
right thing, at least initially.

On the other hand, maybe Petunia loved her sister and had a moment of
crazy compassion, then realized the danger she put her family into. 
Maybe she resented that Harry represented that danger.  Maybe she was
hoping against hope that Harry would be a Squib, not a wizard, or that
the family could guarantee by their behavior that Harry would never be
interested in magic, and thus endanger them all.  Note: I am *not*
saying that fear and loathing of the wizarding world excuse their
reprehensible behavior towards a child; I am just trying to see if
that behavior is understandable within any framework.

lealess