Old, old problem.

[Shamyn D. W.]

No: HPFGUIDX 150972

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" <ceridwennight at ...>
wrote:
> Ceridwen:
> Hi, Shamyn!  Welcome to the board!

Draeconin:
Thank you.

> Ceridwen:
> At the time when Dumbledore placed Harry with his relatives, all of 
> the Death Eaters had not been caught.  Loyal followers, as we saw 
> later with the Longbottoms, could be searching for Harry while still 
> covering their tracks.  We do know that there was at least one more 
> attack, that of the Longbottoms.

Draeconin:
Very good point.

> And, it isn't good to bounce a child from home to home. 

Draeconin:
Quite correct. But I don't doubt Harry would have welcomed *any* sort
of change to what he had to endure. Do you? It would have taken time
to adjust, but very little, imo.

> Harry needed to be placed in a stable environment, at a time when
> there was a  question as to where that might be.

Draeconin:
I'm sorry, but you consider the Dursleys a 'stable environment'?

>  Any WW family could turn out to 
> have a traitor/LV supporter in their midst (just as the Black family 
> had a 'blood traitor' in Sirius's refusal to go along with family 
> belief, or more directly, Barty Crouch Jr. in Crouch's household). 

Draeconin:
True, but it would have taken little to verify each member of a
family, especially if they started with an OoP member. (There would be
far more than are ever mentioned.)

> Ceridwen:
>  So if the self is informed by impressions gained from others, then
> Harry would have to earn the snobbish behavior rather than being
> born with it.

Draeconin:
But you're only looking at one facet of James' character.  He was a
Marauder - a prankster, rule breaker, etc, which implies headstrong, 
out of control, and so on.

> I'm interested in what you think of Lily.  As you describe her, she 
> is an admirable person (strong personality who thinks for herself).  
> You say yourself that she doesn't fawn all over James.

Draeconin: 
IMO, she probably was a *very* admirable person.  But if Dumbledore is
looking at Harry as the weapon that will one day destroy Voldemort,
he's going to want someone who will follow orders without question.


> What it seems you are saying regarding Lily is, that Dumbledore 
> doesn't want Harry to be independent or have a strong personality.  
> This brings manipulation into the mix.  So, what I am understanding 
> you as saying, and I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that 
> Dumbledore wants a Prophecy Boy who will naturally follow 
> Dumbledore's instructions, first because his personality was scared 
> out of him by the Dursleys (or beaten out of him, or humiliated out 
> of him, or whatever)

Draeconin:
Not that strongly, but that's the general idea. Controllable, but
still able to go to war.  That's one of the first things they do when
you join the military: take away your individuality - make you a part
of a unit rather than be your own person.  This would have been
Dumbledore's method of doing that.

> and second, because of the stark contrast between the way the
> Dursleys treated him, and the way Dumbledore and others on the
> side of Light (Hagrid in particular since he is the first of the WW
> Harry actually meets).

Draeconin:
Yes, well gratitude is a strong emotion that might lead Harry to
easily give his loyalty, isn't it?

> Ceridwen:
> This belief isn't so common in our world any more.

It's not? Funny - I still hear it all the time. But we're also talking
about the UK and a society about a hundred years behind the modern
Muggle world.

> The debate about Nature v. Nurture has swung back and forth, 

Draeconin:
Ah, you're talking about the scientific and intelligentsia communities
- not the common person on the street.  I'll grant you that attitudes
are changing, but not that quickly.

> A hundred years ago, if we can visualize 
> the WW as being that far sociologically behind the real world (and it 
> does seem to hold certain traditional values beside progressive 
> values) they would still hold to the idea that Nature and Nurture 
> both play a part.

Draeconin:
Ah, but which would they think more influential?  It seems to me they
still put a great emphasis on blood (inheritance). 

> The sort of 
> environment at the Dursleys, I would think, would produce a fighter 
> rather than a doormat or puppet, precisely because of the outright 
> dislike and animosity they show toward him and his parents.  Either 
> he'll cave in badly, or he'll stand and grow stronger.

Draeconin:
Big chance to take, isn't it?

>  If Dumbledore took Harry's parents' personalities into account,
> then he relied on James's arrogance and Lily's strength to keep
> Harry from caving, and make him into a fighter instead. 

Draeconin:
But here you're making my point. Thank you. *grin*

> A final thought on Harry's placement is that the Dursleys are his 
> only living blood relations.  It is common in most societies to try 
> and place an orphaned child with relatives whenever possible.  It is 
> expected that they will have a greater love for a child of their own 
> blood and will be more likely to raise him as part of the family, 
> because he is.  Petunia did indeed raise Harry like a part of her 
> family, only he was the part of her family that she despised or 
> envied or both, and her hatred and/or anger comes out at every turn.

Draeconin:
If I recall aright, they took Harry in because they were bribed.
Dumbledore promised to cover Harry's expenses. Well, we can see that
Harry didn't get the benefit of that.

> Dumbledore was right, in the end, to place Harry with his relations.  
> He may not have had a choice if the WW follows our practices of 
> placing a child with relatives, but whatever the reason, Harry became 
> stronger because of his time with the Dursleys.

Draeconin:
Again, you make my point.  Harry's placement with the Dursleys was NOT
so much for *his* good, but for Dumbledore's plans.