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

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 163073

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <belviso at ...>
wrote:
>
<SNIP>
>
> 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.
>


All very true, Magpie.  One very justifiable response from the
Dursleys might have been "Just where the H#ll have you been the last
fifteen years?"  You drop the kid off, say and do nothing, and
suddenly NOW you want to be all concerned?

As I've said in another thread, DD's basic problem is that he begins
as a plot device and evolves, kind of, into a character while still
having to fulfill plot device functions.  This creates all sorts of
problems with consistency and internal logic, sometimes leading
the "epitome of goodness" to take irresponsible, idiotic, and
downright reprehensible courses of action (like letting an attempted
murderer run around free at Hogwarts).


Lupinlore, who is quite serious that if DD were God he would sign up
for the First Church of Satan, since cruelty and malice may be
tolerable in a deity but incompetence never is