Dumbledore's Magnaminity

[rklarreich]

No: HPFGUIDX 143152

Roberta:
Some good points in response to my message; let's see if I can 
clarify what I really mean.

> SSSusan:
> I'm in agreement with Geoff on this one.  Look at the tense and the 
> statement of timing -- "we swore *when we took him in* that we'd 
put 
> a stop to that rubbish" [emphasis added].

Roberta:

True, but that doesn't mean that they knew him for a fact to be a 
wizard, just that they assumed he was likely to be a wizard and they 
intended to stamp it out of him.  If they were sure in their own 
minds of what he was, they would react to it the same way as if they 
had been told.

SSSusan:
> Also, Petunia does not imo 
> say, "I knew it!" in that "Aha! I was right!" kind of sense.  What 
> she says reads to me as incredulity -- TWICE saying "Knew!" and 
then 
> adding "*Of course* we knew!" [emphasis added].  To me, she's 
> expressing incredulity that someone would even question whether 
they 
> knew this information, NOT expressing an "Aha! See? We were right 
all 
> along!" confirmation-of-a-supposition kind of thing.

Roberta:

OK, it's a fair point that it wasn't an "Aha" moment, maybe I chose 
the wrong analogy here.  But again, the question is whether 
she "knew" because she was told or "knew" based on logical deduction 
based on Harry's parentage.  In either case, after ten years she 
might well be incredulous that anyone would question her knowledge.

For me, Petunia's statement that she "knew" can't be properly read in 
isolation from what she says right afterwards, "How could you be 
anything else, my dratted sister being what she was?" [quoted from 
memory].  To me, this bit clearly reads as EXPLANATION of how 
she "knew" Harry was a wizard.  It doesn't read as a separate 
statement that has nothing to do with "Knew!  Of course we knew!"  It 
reads as "Of course I knew, and this is how I knew."  If she had 
said "Knew!  Of course we knew!  BESIDES, how could you be anything 
else, my dratted sister being what she was?" then I would say she had 
a source of factual information about Harry's magical ability.

But I can accept that others read the passage differently; it really 
is a matter of interpretation.

> SSSusan:
> I'm getting confused here.  
> 
> It seems to me that what's being stated is that we DO know DD put 
> that kind of background information into the letter 
[Roberta: "which 
> is exactly what I said he put in the letter"] but that we CAN'T 
know 
> DD put in the information about Harry being a wizard 
[Roberta: "there 
> simply isn't canon"].  I don't understand that.  Aren't they both, 
> especially given Petunia's reaction which has been quoted, 
reasonable 
> assumptions?

Roberta:

Yes, and I was being careless with my phrasing here.

This all started (my involvement with this thread, at least) with 
Geoff insisting that it was canon that Petunia knew for a fact that 
Harry was a wizard from the time he joined their household.  I jumped 
in because I disagreed that it was canon.  I didn't mean to set 
up "rival canon" for what was in the letter while I was at it.

I was responding to Geoff's facetious challenge as to whether 
the "everything" Dumbledore explained in the letter was how to cook 
an omelette.  His implication (as I interpreted it, with apologies to 
Geoff if I misread him) was that Dumbledore must have told the 
Dursleys Harry was definitely a wizard and would be getting a 
Hogwarts letter in due course, because what else was there to 
explain?  I responded by suggesting a number of other things that 
would be relevant to such a letter, including how Harry's parents 
died and the blood charm.  I didn't mean to imply that we know these 
things were in the letter.  We don't.  All I meant to say was that 
there is plenty besides Harry's magical ability that could plausibly 
go into the letter.

So...

SSSusan:
> Is the argument that the background information on what happened to 
> Lily and James *is* canon, while the information about Harry as 
> wizard is supposition?  If so, I disagree.  There seems to me to be 
> no less evidence of the inclusion of the latter than of the former.

Roberta:

No, that's not the argument I intended to make.  To recap my points:

- We don't know what was in the letter.

- Dumbledore may have expounded upon the deaths of Harry's parents, 
the mechanism of the blood charm, and similar background information.

- Dumbledore may have told the Dursleys that Harry was a wizard and 
would be accepted to Hogwarts in ten years.

- Dumbledore may have told them both of the above.

- It is a valid interpretation of Petunia's remarks that she knew 
from the letter that Harry was definitely a wizard, but it is not 
canon at this point

Roberta