Dumbledore's actions again. WAS: Re: Snape and the "Chosen One" /JKR listening

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 153630

> PAR (speaking up): "Qui tacet consentit" (silence implies consent) 
> is actually a legal construct.  You can find a case law that 
> actually uses that exact terminology at 
> 
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.plcourt=us&vol=501&invo
> l=797
> US Supreme court in the case of YLST v Nunnemaker t01 US 97
> June 24 1991

Alla:

Heeee,me too, me too. :)


PAR: 
> And in fact this goes to the major problem I have with the HP 
> series. Often the case is presented as if DD had only two options: 
> Let Harry be killed or have him abused by the Dursleys. I don't 
> agree. He could have done many things. He could have told the 
> Dursely's any abuse would be reported (it is in muggle society so 
> why not in WW); he could have provided Harry a tutor (not EVERY 
> individual is going to be unable to teach HP because he's the "boy 
> who lived".  lots of kids are famous or important and they have 
> tutors. He could have sent Harry out of the UK (we see no evidence 
> of LV activities in say, Australia).  

Alla:

You see, THAT's what I see as unclear. I do think that JKR's message 
beyond DD's actions IS that he really and truly could not have done 
anything else except leaving Harry with Dursleys, I really do, BUT 
then I don't see anywhere in the text why the options you describe 
could not happen.

I mean, yes,  we have a hint that Dursleys could have thrown him 
out, I guess, but is it clear? Not to me anyways, because in OOP 
Petunia puts her foot down and contrary to Vernon's demands lets 
Harry stay.

Oh, and how could I forget Order threatening Dursleys at the end of 
OOP?

Fans speculated many different theories as to why they could not do 
so earlier. Do I see a clear explanation in the text as to why that 
was not possible to be done earlier? Um, sorry but no, I don't.

So, my only response to that scene was and is - where you idiots had 
been for those ten dark and difficult years?

I mean, I would swallow if it is explained that no way, no how 
intervention was not possible - come close to Dursleys and Harry is 
on the streets. I do NOT see anything to that effect in the text, I 
just don't.

Of course, story demanded Harry to suffer with Dursleys, I get that, 
but Cinderella effect dissappeared to me oh so very fast and I 
analyse DD actions as very "real person", not just "wise man"

I think it was Magpie :), who once wisely commented that those two 
DD facets are just impossible to put together nicely and we are just 
supposed to let it go.

She is probably right, but it is just so very hard for me to do, 
because Dumbledore, who did not do anything to help Harry IF he had 
the choice to do so, well does not come out as a good man  in my 
book :)

PAR:
For that matter, if DD doesn't 
> believe in the prophesy, why does HE act as if he does?  He 
needn't, 
> just because LV does. 

Alla:

Yep, precisely. That is IMO another changing the things from OOP - 
Dumbledore seems oh SO very certain that Harry HAS to killed or be 
killed. He sings a different tune in HBP - now prophecy is important 
only because Voldemort believes in it. Strange, IMO.

<SNIP>
PAR:
 He could confront Draco early -- would that put Draco at 
> risk? maybe. But better Draco, who IS guilty of attempted murder, 
> than Katie Bell or Rosemerta who are innocent victims.

Alla:

YES.

Alla:
<SNIP>
> And with Harry and Hermione, um, why would JKR  accommodate the 
fans 
> that wanted them together ( no offense intended to  H/H shippers) 
if 
> it is clearly turned out not to be important to her  vision.
Neil:
> Interesting that you bring up the subject of shipping.  I think  
book seven 
> will tell us clearly whether JKR accomodates fans or quakes to  
pressure.
>  
> I think that from book one, Rowling intended Ron and Hermione to 
be a  
> couple.  Obviously this sub plot is not critical to the main 
story.   If in book 
> seven they do indeed become a lasting relationship than I would 
say  that she 
> does not quake to pressure.
>  
> If on the other hand, they do not become a couple or that subplot 
is  totally 
> dropped than I will feel she has given into pressure either from 
the H/H  
> shippers or the movie giants who don't like that pairing.  I'm not 
saying  that 
> we will see H/H, but rather that the subject might be totally 
dropped and  left 
> for fanfiction to argue about for decades to come.  
>

Alla:

Apologies, Neil :) The only reason I brought the shipping in is 
because Pippin brought it up first as the example of JKR not 
accomodating the fans.

I was only saying that it is not important to the story, to her 
vision, that is why she would not.

I agree with you that Ron/Hermione were intended to be together from 
book 1 and I do not think that JKR has any intention of changing it. 
Sorry!

What I am trying to say in a very speculative manner that IMO JKR 
will cave in to pressure where she feels that the message she wants 
to send  is not getting through.

To go back to DD - IMO it is very important to JKR to get to fans 
that DD is a good man and that is why we get HBP scene, because in 
my book last scene of OOP smelled of Puppetmaster!Dumbledore way too 
much, which is totally fine, IF that is what author wanted to 
convey. But as said several times, I don't think that this is what 
she wanted to convey at all.

JMO,

Alla