DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene?

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 158030

> Snow:
> 
> Ok first off I didn't `enjoy' it nor would I look for a reason to 
do 
> so but I can accept why the scene happened and can appreciate why 
> Dumbledore had reasons to act in such a manner given his past-
limited 
> choices in allowing Harry to live with the Dursley's to begin 
with. 

Magpie:
Well, I don't mind talking about these side issues, but the fact 
still remains that I was asked why I didn't enjoy the scene and 
tried to think of an answer.  Why didn't you enjoy the scene?  It 
seems like you're doing what I described here, saying that you 
didn't have trouble with Dumbledore's actions because you think he 
had reasons to act this way. 

Snow: 
> Dumbledore had no choice but to allow Harry to live with the very 
> people that would abuse him to a degree. To what degree this abuse 
> has affected him we can only surmise by his adult actions that he 
has 
> now portrayed. Has Harry been affected by the abuse from the 
> Dursley's and if he has, how is he displaying that affect? 
> 
> We are right back where you didn't want to be
at the beginning. 
> Dumbledore's actions in this scene are a direct result of Harry's 
> disgruntled upbringing. You can't separate Dumbledore's feelings 
> laying Harry (the wizarding world's only hope) on the doorstep of 
the 
> Dursley's from his suppressed (as I view it) limited actions when 
> last he spoke to the Dursley's in this very scene. 


Magpie:
Yes, I can separate those two things. Dumbledore made a decision to 
leave Harry with the Dursleys knowing it could be hard on him.  He 
doesn't like the fact that the Dursleys mistreated Harry.  The two 
things are easily separated, even as I understand that Dumbledore's 
motivated by his anger over their mistreatment of Harry.  Then there 
is the third aspect, which is how Dumbledore chooses to act in the 
scene.  I didn't enjoy watching his actions in the scene, so I 
didn't enjoy the scene, even while knowing he left Harry at the 
Dursleys for the blood protection and that he doesn't like the 
Dursleys because they mistreated Harry.
 
> Snow:
> 
> Now you are applying your own emotions to the scene. You don't 
like 
> being treated that way therefore you don't like the Dursley's 
being 
> treated the way Dumbledore treated them. I agree I don't like 
anyone 
> to be treated in a disrespectful way but how did the Dursley's 
treat 
> Harry and more so how did the Dursley's treat Dumbledore in this 
> scene; they never changed, they are still disrespectful and 
subtlety 
> abusive? 

Magpie:
Of course I'm applying my own emotions to the scene.  I was ASKED 
about my emotions to the scene, and this is what they are.  The fact 
that the Dursleys did worse to Harry doesn't change my irritation 
reading the scene.  My emotional reaction to the scene counts as 
much as someone else's does.  It's not like I'm hiding it.

Snow:> 
> I try to live my life by the turn-the-other-cheek analogy but 
there 
> are times when the cheek just gets to red to turn it again; after 
all 
> we are only human even if you are blessed with powers :) like 
> Dumbledore. 

Magpie:
So why didn't you enjoy the scene, since you said you didn't?  I 
don't feel like I owe it to Dumbledore or Harry to like the scene 
just because there's earlier scenes of the Dursleys abusing Harry, 
even some that might not annoy me as much.  It's not like I'm 
talking about real people and saying what Dumbledore did was worse 
than locking a kid in a cupboard and treating him like dirt for 
years.  I'm reading a children's book and reacting to the author's 
choices in the scene. The Dursley/Harry scenes have one tone and 
work one way, this one works another way.

> Snow:
> 
> I see it as actually repressed anger, which for the Dursley's sake 
> Dumbledore is a very fair and compassionate man because I would 
have 
> been way more insensitive than Dumbledore was in this scene if it 
> would have been my child or charge. 

Magpie:
And ironically, a scene of you being more insensitive might have 
annoyed me less-who knows?  Especially if it was your child.  
Obviously Dumbledore wouldn't abuse anyone the way the Dursleys 
abused Harry.  The scene still irritates me.

> Tonks:
> If a person with an IQ of 135 takes on a person with an IQ of 100 
or
> 110 and uses their "wit" as you say, isn't that using a "power" 
that
> the second person doesn't have?

Magpie:
What an odd way to erase this kind of power imbalance.  So if I 
started tipping people halfway out of wheelchairs to get their 
attention it would be on the level of making a reference in a 
conversation that goes over some peoples' heads?  

Sydney:
I'd rather think of what Arthur Weasely did, which was respectful but
expressive of his disdain. Arthur Weasley's takedown of the Dursleys
was so much classier to me. He was geniunely indignant and addressed
the Dursleys as equals, saying, as one adult human to another, I find
your behaviour apalling. And I certainly hope I don't go through life
with 'hey, at least I'm not a mass-murdering psychopath!' as a moral
baseline. I thought what Hagrid and the Twins did was absolutely
apalling and I really don't want to use it as a standard.

Plus, it's all over now. It's like the boss coming in after a project
has tanked and saying, 'well, you should have done this and that' and
having a go at a pipsqueak manager. Sure it's nice to see the
pipsqueak manager squirm, but 9/10ths of me is thinking, gee, boss,
and where were you when all this was going on, seeing as you appear 
to know everything and have all the power here?


Magpie:
Exactly. It's not like the scene filled me with rage, but I really 
didn't like it.  And the defenses of it unfortunately make it worse 
to me.  I don't feel the need to argue people into disliking it 
themselves if they didn't have the same reaction, but no one's ever 
been able to a) erase the power balance I see b) make it seem like a 
logical answer to the previous abuse of Harry or c) make the fact 
that DD isn't an actual psychopathic murderer make me feel ashamed 
of not praising his behavior.  What will these wizards do when the 
DEs are defeated, with no one to point to as worse?  Seems they'll 
always produce DE-types.  

Sydney:
You know, it reminds me a bit of the moment in the
new Star Wars movies when they test Anakin's blood for The Force. At
that point, the entire spiritual structure of the series just
collapsed. The Force wasn't something that was available to anyone.
It was available only to the very few who were born with it. 

Magpie:
Yes, that was totally horrifying.  More horrifying than in HP, I 
think, because with Rowling it's a genetic thing right off, and the 
magic doesn't have that spiritual aspect, imo.  It's like if only 
some people in the world had the access to electricity or something. 
Doing magic doesn't at all mean that you're the kind of person who 
sees with more than 5 senses or anything like that, it just means 
you can do magic. Sure a lot of the Muggles we see are really really 
ordinary, but so are some Wizards.

Tonks:

> I think of Muggles as those humans who don't see or don't want to
> see that there is a world outside of the world of matter as
> experienced by their 5 senses. I see the WW as similar to the world
> of the mystic or the spiritual world.

Magpie:
Well, I guess that's a way to look at it but it bears no resemblance 
to the WW that I've read about in canon, I have to say.  There the 
definition is a lot more practical and every single person reading 
the book is a Muggle, because none of them can do the magic in the 
books.  I actually don't know why you'd connect them to the mystical 
or spiritual world at all, because as a people they're not very 
mystical or spiritual at all. 

Alla:
I guess it never enters my mind that I can find myself in the
situation like Dursleys, because I **know** with absolute certainty
that I would never abuse a child, so I have no reasons to fear that
his family and friends would come after me with a vengeance, magic or
not :)

Magpie:
See, I understand exactly where you're coming from there, but for me 
I have the exact opposite reaction.  I know that I would never abuse 
a child, but it still seems far more important that that is not what 
I'm relying on to keep from having magic used against me.  I'm very 
very nervous at the idea that my behavior is what's keeping me from 
having magic used against me.  I just don't see any reason to trust 
that I'd always be one of the "good ones" and I consider it 
demeaning that my not having magic used against me is a reward for 
my good behavior.  

Alla:

I completely disagree. I think two are inseparable in this scene, and
in fact they should not be separated, because without Dursleys years
of abuse Dumbledore would not have come and would not have acted as
he did IMO.

Magpie:
Sure, I know that Dumbledore wouldn't have done it if they hadn't 
done what they did, but I don't think that automatically means that 
whatever Dumbledore did was the Dursleys' fault.  I think it's 
important to separate the two, even if one ultimately decides 
Dumbledore's reaction was completely right.  We both seem to have 
the same reactions about where Dumbledore stands in terms of his own 
culpability in Harry's situation. This scene was somewhat successful 
in making you feel differently than you did in OotP.  For me it made 
it worse, maybe because we saw the sitaution framed in a different 
way.  I'd love it if this scene did feel like it answered some 
problem I had, but I didn't feel that way, unfortunately.

Alla:

Well, yeah, because we cannot be, but would you have not taken the
opportunity [to do magic] if you could? I mean as I said earlier I 
would not want to live in Potterverse, but it is not like I hate it 
either, it is just not an escapism world for me, but a reflection of 
our world as I mentioned in the past.

Magpie:
Oh yeah, I'd totally take the opportunity to do magic.  Why not?

Magpie:
That's the
> thing--I'm not. I don't really know how people can always identify
with
> wizards. As characters, sure.

Alla:

Huh? Yes, of course as characters, how else we can identify with
them? I don't follow you. I identify with wizards I see as **good
characters" or **sympathetic characters" as human beings.

Magpie:
Sorry, what I meant was that as characters we identify with them as 
fellow-humans, and we identify with specific characters for specific 
reasons (I have felt the way Ron feels in this scene, for 
instance).  Or you identify with the good guys, etc.  But I was 
saying I don't know why a person would never identify with a Muggle 
since within the universe of these books we are all without a doubt 
Muggles.  Tonks has associated Wizards with people who are more 
spiritually aware, so I assume that means that wizards are a better 
kind of people (or a different kind, at least), but that's totally 
not what's in the books, imo.  And I don't know, I don't know if I 
like looking at it that way, like assuming that Wizards are really a 
metaphor for some special class of human being that presumably I 
am.  

Magpie:
But it's not like "we" as readers don't have
> a place in that world. Why would anyone assume that s/he would be
a wizard
> if this were all real? We can't do magic, we go to regular
schools, we get
> stitches and talk on the telephone.

Alla:

I don't follow you at all. Are you asking what would be the
advantages of being wizard if it was all real? Well, see above,
possibility to treat the diseases we cannot is first and foremost,
longer life span too ( Nooo, I am not talking about immortality,
hehe, but if my loved ones and myself could live say hundred and
fifty and be healthy enough, I would **love** that)

Magpie:
No no--I'm not asking what the advantages are to being a witch or a 
wizard.  I'm saying that within the rules of this universe you don't 
choose what you are one way or another.  So in saying "Why do people 
assume they'd be a wizard if all this was real?" I'm not asking if 
people would choose it, I'm saying why would you assume you'd be 
born as one of the elite? Maybe this is again a personality thing, 
but I naturally assume that if there's a super elite I probably 
won't be born into it.  I'd be ordinary.  What's call the Muggle 
World in canon is the world that I live in.  

-m