Dumbledore on the Dursleys in OotP (was:Re: Old, old problem.)

[Ceridwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 151020

Betsy Hp:
> I was confused about what upset you both about Dumbledore's speech 
> at the end of OotP, so I re-read it.  And I'm still confused.  
> Dumbledore never says anything about Harry's treatment at the 
> Dursleys being a positive thing.  He does the exact opposite, in 
> fact.
*(snip)*

Ceridwen:
I'm not so upset about the OotP speech as I am uneasy with the 
impression I got from it.  It does, on one level, sound like 
rationalizing a poor choice.  And it has added to speculation about 
Puppetmaster!Dumbledore, so I am not the only one who saw the kernel 
of this idea in it.

Of course, saying 'on one level' means there are other levels, and 
on other levels, say, the bald explanation rather than the excuse, 
it does work.  ;)

*(snip)*
> "You were not a pampered little prince, but as normal a boy as I 
> could have hoped under the circumstances." (ibid p.837)
> 
> Is this the offending statement?  Because I think that harkens 
back 
> to Dumbledore speaking of so many in the Wizarding World who'd 
have 
> been thrilled to call Harry their own.  Dumbledore never says 
> anything to suggest that the Dursleys kept Harry humble, but he 
does 
> spend a great deal of time stressing that the blood protection 
that 
> only Petunia could offer kept Harry alive.

Ceridwen:
I agree that the blood protection trumps all else in the 
consideration of where to place Harry.  Not pampering, not Rambo 
training, just the fact that Harry has the best opportunity to stay 
alive by being placed where this protection is the strongest.

It isn't any one statement in isolation that tweaks that little 
reservation.  But, if I had to pick a statement out of all that you 
posted, it would have to be:
"You had suffered.  I knew you would when I left you on your aunt
and uncle's doorstep.  I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and
difficult years."
This, I think, is the core of the idea that Dumbledore knew about 
horrible abuses but preferred not to step in, willfully leaving 
Harry at the mercy of his enemies.  'I knew you would (suffer)...  I 
was condemning you...' would be the active phrases.  By the way, 
thank you for typing all that out!

Betsy Hp:
> I do think Dumbledore wanted to avoid Harry being brought up in 
the 
> spotlight the WW would have turned on him.  But I don't think he 
> chose the Dursleys for that reason.  If Harry's protection hadn't 
> been dependent upon blood (and if Sirius had still been locked 
away 
> in Azkaban) I'm betting Mrs. Figg would have raised Harry in the 
> Muggle world.  (As a squib we've seen it's quite easy for her to 
> drop off the WW's radar.)  From this speech I got the sense that 
> Dumbledore left Harry at the Dursleys with great reluctance and 
> *only* because of the blood protection.

Ceridwen:
Yes, most definitely, the blood protection is the most important 
underpining (sp?) in the out of Hogwarts part of Harry's life.  
There can be no discussion about his placement with the Dursleys, or 
anything associated with it, without having to go back and point to 
this extrordinary protection.  Some people want to, or perhaps they 
want to explore other issues surrounding the placement without 
covering already established ground.  And that is more where we were 
going with the original discussion.  But I don't think the blood 
protection can possibly be seperated from Harry's placement.  Others 
may disagree, of course, but I'll argue an inseperable relationship.

I do agree that there was the possibility that Harry might have 
succumbed to Celebrity Rot, or whatever you want to call it, by 
being in the WW spotlight, as Snape supposed in SS/PS.  I think that 
line of Snape's had a double purpose - to show Snape's personality, 
and to underscore tacitly the dangers of his being raised as The Boy 
Who Lived rather than the (despised and feared) nephew of his Muggle 
aunt.  Yes, I do think Harry could have gone there - what child - 
what person - wouldn't have been in danger from it by being 
subjected to constant attention?  But I do not think it had anything 
to do with genetics, with James's teenaged personality as shown in 
SWM.

And, that is a tantalizing little gem, that Squibs can drop off the 
WW radar so easily.  There are so many possibilities to be played 
with there!

Betsy Hp:
> [It does raise an interesting question though.  If Sirius had been 
> free (and Harry's protection didn't depend on blood) or if Petunia 
> had been a witch, would Dumbledore have encouraged them to leave 
the 
> WW and live as Muggles in order for Harry to have as "normal" an 
> upbringing as possible?] 

Ceridwen:
Good question!  I've gotten close to wondering that same thing 
myself.  We see what happens to child celebrities all the time in 
the real world, and I do wonder if Harry might have gone that way if 
things had been different.  Sometimes, I wonder what he would have 
been like being raised by two strong and sometimes diverging 
personalities like James and Lily, but that's a completely different 
question.

Anyway, I hoped I answered for me.  The speech, no matter what its 
intent, did have the potential for leaving the door open to 
speculation which I think unfairly categorized Dumbledore as a 
manipulative puppetmaster.

By the way, I just asked my youngest, age 14, if she thinks 
Dumbledore is manipulative.  She says he is, but not in a bad way.  
She also said I'm obsessed about Harry Potter.  Me?  Obsessed???

Hmph.

Betsy Hp, who remembers a great deal of back and forth on how 
> Dumbledore spoke about Sirius, but not the Dursleys so much. 
(There 
> must have been a rip-roaring Snape discussion going on at the 
time). 
> <g>

Ceridwen, saying that any thread can morph into a Snape thread these 
days, stay tuned!  *g*