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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 151031

> >>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.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I guess I wasn't able to pick out the rationalization level at all.  
I thought Dumbledore was very upfront about the fact that living at 
the Dursleys sucked, but it was better than being dead.  And he 
seemed to be saying that that was the choice he felt he had.

Honestly, I thought Dumbledore was being as forthright and 
forthcoming as he possibly could.  He did what he could to keep 
Harry alive, and Harry suffered because of it.  Because Dumbledore 
hated that Harry had suffered at all he put off telling Harry that 
he had been chosen by Voldemort to either kill or be killed.

I've seen a lot of hints and allusions to this speech being terrible 
and indicitive of Puppetmaster!Dumbledore, etc.  But I haven't read 
anything that says "here's where Dumbledore goes all creepy and 
manipulative".  (Not saying there haven't been posts saying such, 
just saying I either missed them or I've totally forgotten them. <g>)

> >>Ceridwen:
> 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:
No problem, every once in a while I'll polish off my L.O.O.N badge. 
<g>

I guess it all comes down to how abusive one thinks the Dursleys 
are.  Which is, I think, an agree to disagree thing.  (Not unlike 
abusive!Snape arguments.) I don't consider the Dursleys "horribly" 
abusive.  They're not good guardians, I agree. And yes living with 
them were "dark" years for Harry.  He did suffer in a way he 
wouldn't have if he'd lived with, say, Mrs. Figg.  But he did 
survive.  The Longbottoms were tortured into insanity but Harry 
wasn't touched.  I guess I think Dumbledore faced a horrible choice 
but made the best decision he could.

And I think he tried to be as upfront about his decision with Harry 
as he could be.  That he was aware of who the Dursleys were but that 
they were the best way Dumbledore could think of to keep Harry 
alive.  The idea that Dumbledore had no clue as to how Harry was 
treated would have been hard for me (and Harry, I'd think) to 
swallow, so I appreciated his honesty.

> >>Ceridwen:
> <snip>
> 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.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree.  It would have taken especially strong guardians to head 
that sort of rot (good word!) off.  Which is why I think Dumbledore 
did want Harry raised outside the WW.  However, I don't think that 
was why he chose the Dursleys.  As you said in the part I snipped, 
it's all about the blood protection.

> >>Ceridwen:
> <snip>
> 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.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Ooh, but it's a fascinating one.  I've often thought that Harry and 
James may have had a bit of father-son tension going on.  James was 
so very outgoing and Harry is much more introverted.  I can see 
James going on and on about various pranks he pulled and Harry 
worring that he had to do something similar to live up to his 
father's expectations but not really wanting to (shades of Harry and 
Sirius).  Or, in a moment of rebellion going for Slytherin House.  
Wouldn't that make for an interesting Christmas break at the Potter 
household. <g>  Pure speculation of course.

> >>Ceridwen:
> 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.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think you cleared up your view, yes.  I think it really does come 
down to how badly you think the Dursleys abused Harry.  That moves 
the bar on what Dumbledore traded to keep Harry alive, which in turn 
moves how coldly manipulative (or coldly practical, perhaps) 
Dumbledore comes across to each reader.  (To dismiss the danger 
Harry was in, that Dumbledore saw him as being in, is to dismiss a 
large chunk of the story, IMO.  If false beards and a move to 
Australia would have protected Harry, I imagine Dumbledore would 
have taken that option.  As you said, Ceridwen, you cannot dismiss 
the blood protection.)

Betsy Hp