Dumbledore on the Dursleys in OotP (LONG)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 151356

> Alla:
> 
> No, I really don't see that. Harry is not Arwen, Aragorn is not 
> Dumbledore. Let me ask you again, what right Dumbledore has to 
> decide that Harry does not want comfort? If Dumbledore does not know 
> how to offer it, that is one story, if Dumbledore decided that Harry 
> does not want it and proceeded with it, and then well, his offense 
> is worse in my book than I thought.

Pippin:

Well, Dumbledore can see into Harry's mind, so I suppose he does know
what Harry is feeling. Besides that, he probably knows that Harry was 
embarrassed by Molly's hug, (and has never tried to get another one)  
that he turned down all Mrs. Figg's attempts to get him to come over 
for tea, that his biggest fear about reliving his parents' deaths was 
that he would collapse and show weakness. Harry doesn't have the 
slightest idea of how to accept comfort. But even if he did,  Harry felt
like Arwen, like Bran, as if he'd lost a whole universe. How on earth do you 
comfort someone for that?

All Harry  wanted to do was rage at Dumbledore, and Dumbledore
accepted this and gave him the opportunity. He would have let him 
rage at Sirius (and may have expected that Harry would want to,)
because Sirius was beyond being hurt.

But he was not going to let Harry judge Hermione or Petunia or 
Kreacher, because Harry was not in a state to do it fairly. 

> Alla:
> 
> Pippin I am afraid I don't follow you. Please answer me one question 
> and then it will be much easier for me to understand how much we 
> differ. In your opinion did Dumbledore have a right to say what he 
> said about Sirius or not? Was it a morally right thing to do or was 
> it a wrong thing to do, but not maliciously, or was it something 
> else?
> 

Pippin:
Well, let's see what Dumbledore actually said:

Harry: And, and Hermione kept telling us to be nice to him--

DD: She was quite right, Harry. I warned Sirius when we adopted
Grimmauld Place as our headquarters that Kreacher must be treated with
kindness and respect. I also told him that Kreacher could be dangerous
to us. I do not think that Sirius took me very seriously, or that he
ever saw Kreacher as a being with feelings as acute as a human's --

Harry: Don't you blame--don't you--talk--about Sirius like --
Kreacher's a lying--foul--he deserved--

DD: Kreacher is what he has been made by wizards, Harry. Yes, he
is to be pitied. His existence has been as miserable as your friend
Dobby's. He was forced to do Sirius's bidding, because Sirius was
the last of the family to which he was enslaved, but he felt no true
loyalty to him. And whatever Kreacher's faults, it must be admitted
that Sirius did nothing to make Kreacher's lot easier--
<snip>
Sirius did not hate Kreacher. He regarded him as a servant 
unworthy of much interest or notice. Indifference and neglect often
do more damage than outright dislike...The fountain we destroyed
tonight told a lie. We wizards have mistreated and abused our
fellows for too long, and we are now reaping our reward.

Harry: SO SIRIUS DESERVED WHAT HE GOT, DID HE?

DD: I did not say that, nor will you ever hear me say it. Sirius was 
not a cruel man, he was kind to house-elves in general. He had
no love for Kreacher, because Kreacher was a living reminder of the 
home Sirius had hated.

--
Now, given that Dumbledore had the right to speak to Harry as an
adult and a fellow warrior, that he was not saying anything about
Sirius that he wouldn't have said to Sirius's face, and that he no
longer had the right to shield Harry from unpleasant truths, was
there anything in there that Dumbledore did not have both the
right and the duty to say?

Did Dumbledore have the right to let Harry go  tell Hermione
that her efforts to help Kreacher were misguided? Did Harry  have
the right, does anyone have the right, to say that someone 
deserved to be treated badly in the past because of what they
were going to do in the future? Does anyone have the right
to hold that a person acting under duress is morally responsible 
to the same degree as a free person? 

Did Dumbledore have the right to teach Harry to discount Kreacher's 
feelings by behaving as if  they weren't as important to him as Harry's
own? To pretend that the fountain told the truth and Sirius was 
indeed one of a  superior and benevolent race of beings who deserved 
only to be adored?

I don't think so.

Dumbledore was committed to telling Harry everything he was certain of,
and apparently he was certain of all  this  --in spite of that  you want
him to go back to hiding the truth to spare Harry's feelings? If he let 
himself do that again, even just for a day or two, where would it stop? 

I don't think Dumbledore thought he was strong enough and I am sure 
he was afraid that he wouldn't be given the time. In that sense, yes,
 I think his exhaustion and his human limitations played a part. 

Alla:
> I take it you argue that Harry is not angry about Petunia at all? Is 
> that correct? Are you arguing that Harry is really angry about 
> Sirius and Sirius only and he is perfectly fine with how Petunia 
> treated him?
> 
> I don't buy it at all. I think Harry has plenty of legitimate 
> reasons to be angry with Dursleys and that it all was there and 
> exploded at the end of OOP.
> 

Pippin:
Of course he's angry at the way Petunia treated him. I just don't think
he was ever angry that Petunia never loved him. What  indication has he
ever given that that's the case? Is there canon?

I think JKR had to give us that scene in HBP to show us how angry
Dumbledore was that Petunia had not loved Harry. But I don't think
Harry ever wanted her love any more than he wanted that goblet
Mundungus stole. It was just an excuse to be angry.

> Alla:
> Not for trying to keep Harry alive, but for what Harry had to endure 
> because Dumbledore made that choice. And in my book Dumbledore 
> became responsible for how Petunia behaves the moment he entrusted a 
> human being to her care. With the best intentions, yes, or at least 
> I hope so, but the moment Dumbledore made that decision he is fully 
> responsible IMO.

Pippin:
Um, you're saying that by taking Harry, Petunia placed herself
under Dumbledore's authority? Where is the canon for that? If she did not,
then how can Dumbledore be morally responsibility for her actions? 

(And Harry had not been starved when he first came to Hogwarts, which is 
what Dumbledore was talking about when he said that Harry arrived 
looking a bit less well-fed than he would have liked. )


> Alla:
> 
> Erm... why is that? IMO it is Harry absolute right to pour out his 
> very legitimate reasons to be angry at Petunia AND Kreacher. As I 
> said even though Kreacher cannot be blamed for all that occurred, 
> surely Kreacher is not a robot and responsible at least for his part?
> 

Pippin:
IMO, Harry is in no shape to see for himself whether his anger at 
anyone is legitimate or not.  Dumbledore can see that -- we 
can see it ourselves in the way that Harry decides that Snape is to blame. 
I think this goes to the whole point of what JKR is trying to say
about what prejudice is and where it comes from -- that when people
have been mistreated and are in the throes of anger and pain, it's almost 
impossible for them  to tell how much of their anger is justified.

Pippin