Dumbledore's nonintervention at the Dursleys, was Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 163045

> > We don't know what was in DD's letter, but if there was a non-
> interference
> > clause, it would explain a lot.  The WW considers breaking 
> contracts and vows to
> > be a very serious thing.  
> > 
>  
> Yes, if there were such it would be very helpful as far as 
> explanations go.  Unfortunately, as of now we are completely in the 
> dark as to that.  And, barring revelations from Portrait!Dumbledore, 
> I don't know how we would find out.  It isn't as if Petunia is 
> forthcoming with these kinds of things.
> 
> Of course Ron and Hermione will be on hand to provoke things, so 
> something might come out in anger.  I suppose DD might have left a 
> will or a pensieve moment, as well.  

Magpie:
I find it hard to imagine a non-interference clause from the King of i 
Interfere Whenever I Think It's Best. The guy left a baby on their 
doorstep in the middle of the night (for hours!) with a note. Would he 
really say, "Please take care of this baby...and I swear I won't ever 
interfere at all up until I take him to my school when he's 11 and 
you'll barely see him again?"  There's never seemed to be any doubt 
that Dumbledore was in charge of this kid ultimately when he wants to 
be. I'm not sure why he'd even think that kind of clause was 
necessary. More than one book has featured scenes where the Dursleys 
are intimidated into better behavior by the mere hint of Wizard 
interference.

-m