DD, the Dursleys, and Identifying with Muggles in Potterverse

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 158088


> 
> Pippin:
> 
> > Even if Dumbledore didn't use magic, his enemies would be
> > quick to accuse him of it if they thought there was an advantage.
> > Also, if Voldemort's servants realized what Harry was gaining
> > by the Dursleys protection and thought they could lever Harry out of
> > it by making a scandal about how he was being treated, they certainly 
> > would. So Dumbledore has an incentive not to draw their attention,
> > doesn't he?
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> Harry's location isn't a secret.  The Ministry certainly knows where
> he is.  If the ministry knows, the DE's know.  You don't have to 'call
> attention' to Harry, he's the most famous kid in the world and the
> DE's top target.  It's not like they're going to forget he's there and
> only be reminded if Dumbledore draws their attention! 

Pippin:
But no one apart from Dumbledore and Mrs. Figg seems to realize
how badly Harrry is being treated. I don't think the DE's would even
recognize that sleeping in a windowless room and wearing odd
clothes was mistreatment by Muggle standards unless somebody 
pointed it out to them, because those things are normal for
wizards. It would never occur to them that they could
get the Muggles themselves to order Harry out of the Dursleys
care -- unless someone brought it to their attention.

> > Pippin:
> > Does he? Who can Dumbledore trust with Petunia's life? Hagrid and
> > Arthur, but we've seen that they aren't much at Muggle diplomacy.
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> What about Lupin (ooops... forget I said that! <g>)?  McGonnegal? 
> Moody?  Kingsley, who blended right in as the PM's secretary, so is
> probably pretty good at Muggle relations? Hestia or some of the other
> Order members?  Dumbledore himself? 

Pippin:
Moody was impersonated by a Death Eater so successfully that 
Dumbledore didn't catch on for months. Give somebody regular access
to the Dursleys and there's no guarantee that the DE's couldn't subvert
or impersonate them. Dumbledore has to be successful every time,
the DE's only need to break through once. Anyway, what DD was
doing was working. Not perfectly, but the DE's were kept away,
Harry was bright-eyed, doing well in Muggle school, not hanging
rabbits from the rafters and not being tempted to experiment with
the powers he'd absorbed from Voldemort.  
 
> Pippin:
> > My point is the Dursleys aren't 'civilized human beings'. They're
> > holding it together by the skin of their teeth, disturbed enough to 
> > abuse the son they love deeply. 
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> Really? I thought they were caricatures of ordinariness, not portraits
> of people who are nearly insane and need to be handled with kid
> gloves!   You can see Dudleys by the score on any British street.If
> they were so fragile, surely we wouldn't be encouraged to laugh at
> their blustering in the face of magic?
> 
Pippin:

JKR does that to us all the time. She invites us to laugh at 
something as comically exaggerated, then shows us how we would
feel if it were real. We're left not knowing whether it's okay to 
laugh at the Dursleys and that's the point, IMO. She shows us that
something scary happens when we start thinking that other
people have been put into the world as object lessons in how
not to be  human. Our compassion shuts down all by itself,
no occlumency required. Yeah, Dudleys are all over the place. You
(that's the generic you) might even see one in the mirror. <veg>

Vernon might well be nearly insane. There aren't many characters 
that JKR says flatly can't change. Voldemort is one, Vernon is another. 
I think JKR regards that as a sign of a severely damaged individual.
Vernon is certainly acting paranoid in PS/SS. Suppose he'd killed
somebody with that gun, would we still think he was funny?

I think part of what JKR was showing us by having DD knock
the Dursleys on the head is that, yes, he would ding some sense
into them if he could, but it's not that simple. The Dursleys didn't
reason themselves into believing that magic is filthy and
contaminated and they won't be reasoned out of it. He can't
get them to change their minds about magic and accept Harry 
any more than he could change the WW's mind about werewolves 
or Lupin. And  *that* could be very important indeed.


> Sydney:
> 
> The DE's could have used that lever any time, if it was available to
> them.  They know where Harry is;  if they were actively after him,
> they could hang around his house for two hours and get the picture on
> their own.  
> 
Pippin:
They can't hang around a Muggle neighborhood -- they don't know
enough about Muggles to make themselves inconspicuous. And the
Dursleys treat Harry reasonably well when they're not in the house --
they don't want to make a spectacle of themselves. All the wizards
who witness first hand how the Dursleys treat Harry seem shocked --
except DD. Even Fudge cannot quite believe that 
Harry Potter savior of the WW is an outcast in a home where nobody
loves him. 

> Pippin:
> 
> > I think you're right, the real trouble is buying into the situation.
> > It would be easy to accept that Dumbledore has a mystical 
> > power to protect Harry because his goodness makes it so. 
> > In fact some of us seem to think that he *must* have such 
> > a power and are angry at him or at JKR for not letting him use it. 
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> It's not Petunia's blood protection that I have to suspend disbelief
> to buy.  I'm cool with the idea that Harry had to live with them. 
> It's the idea that it made sense for Dumbledore to vanish completely
> for 10 years, do nothing for another six, and yet that he could come
> down from On High and berate everyone as though his hands were clean
> here and there was nothing he could have done about how the Dursleys
> were treating Harry.  Harry's treatment starts improving as soon as he
> realizes he's a wizard and can threaten the Dursleys with implications
> that his friends will help him (he does that between PoA and OoP, I
> believe).  When Harry was three or five, that would have been an
> adult's responsibility.  That is, Dumbledore's.

Pippin:
So three year old Harry learns he's a wizard -- he won't be able to
disguise his powers, so he can't live with the Dursleys anymore. He's
dead. 

Five year old Harry threatens the Dursleys. They throw him out.
He's dead. Or they allow him to return and they are less cruel
but more neglectful, just like in PoA. But this is much 
more damaging for five year old Harry than it  was for fourteen 
year old Harry, who is reasonably well-socialized already and
can physically look after himself.  He begins to show signs of 
more serious psychological problems and has to be removed 
from their 'care'. 

He's dead.

I mean, if Dumbledore thought it would help to do any of the
things you suggested, don't you think he'd do them? 

Pippin