Old, old problem.
dumbledore11214
dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com
Sat Apr 15 02:56:12 UTC 2006
No: HPFGUIDX 150949
Shamyn D. W. wrote:
>
> As a brand new member, I must ask you to forgive me if this
question
> has been asked and answered before.
Alla:
Welcome to the list!
Shamyn D.W.:
> Beyond JKR's furthering of her story, why was Harry placed with the
> Dursleys, who hated magic and magic users, in the first place?
>
> We are told that it was to maintain the blood magic protection
placed
> upon Harry by his mother. But for all anyone knew for sure,
Voldemort
> was dead. His followers were either being rounded up, or were busy
> covering their tracks. Even if it had been known for sure that
> Voldemort was NOT dead (all Dumbledore had to go on was a prophecy,
> remember), he was still too weak to be any kind of threat. Other
> kinds of magical protection would have been enough to protect
Harry.
Alla:
Dumbledore always believed that Voldemort indeed will be coming back
and IMO it is totally understandable that he would not want to take
a risk, even if as of then Voldemort was indeed too weak. I am not a
big fan of Dumbledore placing Harry with Dursleys, not at all, as I
said many times in the past, but I have to believe that Dumbledore
had Harry's best interests in mind, otherwise in my mind
Dumbledore "epithome of goodness" becomes rather monstrous figure,
if he did not.
So, to answer your question - yes, I believe it was a blood
protection and nothing more than that.
I mean, just look at what happened to Longbottoms, the parents of
another prophecy boy. That happened AFTER Voldemort was supposedly
dead.
Shawyn D.W.:
> So again we come back to the question: Why was Harry placed with
> magic-hating Muggles?
>
> Well, there *is* a possibility, although I don't doubt that most
will
> dislike it intensely. The reason? Harry's genetic heritage. More
> specifically, his parents' characters. <snip>
> It's a common belief that children inherit the temperament of
their
> parents, and in a society that's about a hundred years behind the
> times, it would have been even more so. However, it is well known
> that an abusive environment will often produce timid children. So
is
> it beyond the realm of belief that Dumbledore would think to modify
> what he would believe to be a too-strong personality in such a way?
Alla:
I have to apologise for voicing such a strong disagreement with your
first post. :)
But yes, this is to me beyond the realm of possibility. It is
obviously only my opinion, but I never saw Puppetmaster Dumbledore
lurking in the shadows of Potterverse.
May I ask you what in the books caused you to believe that
Dumbledore would do anything to modify anybody's personality,
including Harry's?
Isn't Dumbledore always for people making their own mistakes and
finding their own paths in life? Isn't he a bit TOO detached in the
books and his approach is not really hands on?
Besides, you seem to agree that Dursleys environment was abusive,
what makes you think that Dumbledore would condone what Dursleys
did, especially after his little speech in the beginning of HBP?
Shamyn D.W.:
> Even one of his strongest supporters, Minerva McGonagall, says that
> the Dursleys are "the worst sort of Muggles" and was against
putting
> Harry there, although she bowed to Albus' authority in the matter.
Alla:
Well, yes, of course in my book they absolutely are the worst sort
of muggles. I have to believe that Albus had no other choice
whatsoever, although yes, I can think of taking Harry of the
country, or something like that, but then there would be a different
story.
Because if he placed Harry for the reason you suggested, IMO he is a
monster and somehow I doubt that this is what JKR had in mind.
Again, only my opinion.
Oh, what part of Lily do you think needs to be modified in Harry?
Isn't that the point of all this - for Harry to discover the best
parts of his parents in himself in order to win his quest, NOT to
forget about them?
JMO,
Alla.
More information about the HPforGrownups
archive