Old, old problem.

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 150951

> Shamyn D. W./Draeconin:
> ...
> 
> 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.  ...edited...
> 
> So again we come back to the question: Why was Harry placed with
> magic-hating Muggles?  
> 

bboyminn:

Never fear asking an old question, if you asked it wisely. When new
members come in they reframe old questions and present new
perspectives, and that allows us to talk for years about the same
issues. So, welcome and great question.

You mention that Voldemort was dead and his followers were being
rounded up, but is that really true? Remember, that Harry was
delivered to Privet Drive scarcely 24 hours after the attack on
Godric's Hollow. I don't think that in 24 hours, anything was
resolved. People were still trying to determine exactly what happened
that fateful night. The status of Voldemort, and even more so, that of
his Death Eaters was very unclear. 

In all likelihood, the few days, weeks, and months immediately after
Godrics Hollow were probably the most dangerous time of all.
Leadership was uncertain, secondary leaders might try to move in to
fill the power vacuum left by Voldemort, there might be last ditch
desperate efforts by the DE's to make one last decisive stand. The
volatility of the time is confirmed by the fanatical attack on the
Longbottoms roughly a year after Godrics Hollow. Just as people were
beginning to let their guard down, the Death Eaters rose again.

So, Dumbledore is face with several problems. First, he must make sure
that Harry survives in the short term. At the Dursleys, Dumbledore was
able to offer Harry what I will refer to here as 'Double-Blood
Protection'. In a sense, Harry is twice protected. He is first
protected by Lily's sacrifice, but Dumbledore re-enforced that
protection by adding to it the protection of blood; ie: the protection
of family.

Additionally, the protection of family kept Harry out of the wizard
world and secluded during that volatile and critical time after the
events of Godrics Hollow. 

Next Dumbledore had to make a longer term decision. Perhaps after five
years or so, Harry could return to the wizard world and live with a
wizard family. I'm sure Dumbledore considered that possibility. But,
is that really wise? Is it really wise to have Harry lurking about the
wizard world in plain sight? Is it wise to have him eating dinner at
the Leaky Cauldron? Is it wise to have Harry lounging about at a table
outside Fortescues eating some ice cream? Harry presence in the wizard
world couldn't help but create a stir. Everywhere he went, he would be
notice. Where he lived would be well known. It would have made it very
easy of a lone fanatical suicide assassin to attack Harry. 

At five, six, seven, even eight years old, Harry would have little
grasp of lurking danger or how to protect himself. So, I think
Dumbledore decided that it was best to keep Harry out of the wizard
world altogether. Unpleasant as the Dursleys was, it did offer Harry
powerful protection, and helped keep him out of sight. Dumbledore's
first priority was to keep Harry safe, and any sense of keeping him
happy would have to wait until later. 

Once Harry began attending Hogwarts, there was really no way to fully
hide Harry, but at the Dursley's during summer holiday, Harry was
still more protected than anywhere else, and he was somewhat secluded
from the rest of the wizard world. Again, yes, it was unpleasant, but
it did give Harry the highest level of protection and reasonable
isolation, and did help keep him alive to fulfill his destiny.

That's my opinion of Dumbledore's reflective process in making the
decision he made. Keeping Harry isolated, safe, and alive trumped all
thought of happiness or a pleasant life.


> Draeconin:
>
> 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.  James was an 
> egotistical hellion, ...
> 

bboyminn:

I can't say that there wasn't some small element of that in
Dumbledore's subconscious, but as a conscious decision it strikes me
as a bit eugenics-like. While Dumbledore would naturally have some
concern about Harry's character development, I don't see him behind
the scenes tugging at the strings like the Puppet Master that many
others see. That simply seems too contrived and too cold for Dumbledore.

I do think that Dumbledore considered every possibility for Harry's
disposition, but in the end, the protection of the Dursleys, both the
blood protection and the isolation, was just too overwhelming not to
use it. 

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn