[HPforGrownups] Re: Who is Harry's guardian?

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 158406

sunnylove:
> Why didn't he go to Dumbledore and tell him the truth instead of flying 
> off
> the handle and going after Pettigrew?  Dumbledore would have  listened. 
> Why
> did he risk Lupin and Snape's lives over a silly joke? And  why didn't he 
> grow
> up after the prank, like James did? Sirius is not mature  after Azkaban
> because he wasn't mature before.

Magpie:
No, he wasn't, but that has no bearing on whether he should be Harry's 
guardian or not.  Obviously I'm leaving out the extenuating circumstances 
that actually happened with Sirius seeming like a murderer, but I'm doing 
that because you seem to be arguing that Sirius was unacceptable as a 
guardian and therefore Dumbledore had every right to decide he wasn't 
suitable whatever the Potters said.  And there I just disagree. There's no 
indication that Sirius would have been irresponsible in terms of not taking 
care of Harry's basic needs--certainly he would have fulfilled more of his 
needs than the Dursleys did. You can't go down that road because obviously 
Dumbledore chooses to put Harry in the *worse* situation on that score.

In the real world, immature people can be parents, reckless people can be 
parents--as long as the child isn't being abused or truly endangered.  (This 
is a real issue in the real world, too, as there are people who would like 
to ban people from raising children because they don't live up to their 
standards as people, often due to superficial things.)

What the Dursleys bring to the table is the magical blood protection, 
period.  If it just came down to these people vs. Sirius as guardians Sirius 
wins hands down.  Who wouldn't think a loving single guy, flawed as he might 
be, wouldn't beat people who actively hate the baby for what and who he is? 
And who will mistreat him?

Sunnylove:
> I know James trusted Sirius, (and he made him godfather, which is not
> synonymous with legal guardian, BTW) and he probably would have been fine 
> with
> Harry if Voldemort had not marked him.  But this goes back to the 
> discussion at
> the end of OOP, the same hole DD fell into.

Magpie:
Right--which is why the other discussion is obscuring the issue.  It's got 
nothing to do with Sirius being a bad guardian, or the correct way to deal 
with an orphan, it's got to do with Dumbledore's plans for the Chosen One. 
He's not choosing the best home for Harry as a child, he's placing him under 
what he thinks is the best protection against a Death Eaters, with an eye 
towards Harry killing Voldemort later.  It's not even, imo, a question of 
the lesser of two evils because the alternative evil is all potential. 
Dumbledore is really choosing between alternative protections for 
Harry--does he grow up with a wizard under whatever other protections they 
could work out (the kind of situation he lives with when he goes to the 
Weasleys), or does he grow up under the blood protection?  There's not even 
any moment in canon that we can point to where he was protected by living at 
the Dursleys that I can think of at the moment.

sunnylove:
> Of course Dumbledore is imperfect.  We all are.  Does that mean  he should
> wash his hands of the whole affair and let Harry be murdered?  Dumbledore 
> did
> the best he could to protect Harry's life.

Magpie:
I think that's a bit of a false binary there.  It's not like the choice is 
either put Harry with the abusive people or wash his hands of the whole 
thing.  Dumbledore is making what he thinks is the best decision in terms of 
protecting Harry because he thinks the blood protection is the best 
protection he can give him, and he's doing it knowing that this will mean 
hard years ahead for Harry; he's already got plans for Harry beyond that. 
(He does wash his hands of that aspect to an extent.)  I think we're meant 
to read it more the way Sherry does, just accepting that this was what 
Dumbledore thought was best and let's just not think about the potential 
alternatives.  But I don't think it's written in a way to dramatize 
Dumbledore as completely without options.  He always has options, in a way, 
because as a character he's got so much power and freedom.  It's not total 
power and freedom, but it's a lot.

-m