Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry LONG

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 158495

> Betsy Hp:
> This is probably part of the breakdown of our views.  For me, in 
the 
> story-book pantheon of "bad parents" the Dursleys just aren't that 
> bad.  At least, not in my opinion.  I don't read a lot of 
children's 
> books and those that I have are a bit dated.  So "bad parents" 
tend 
> to be *really* bad in the books I've read, and the Dursleys come 
> across as mildly horrid but survivable. (Harry wasn't treated like 
> Cinderella, for example.  Washing a car and weeding a flower bed 
> does not compare to the drudgery of a scullery maid.  He was also 
> allowed to keep his name and his place in society.)


Alla:

Yes, this is part of the breakdown of our views - I consider beating 
child ( Harry's remark that experience taught him to stay away from 
the reach of Vernon's hands - paraphrase) and starving him to be 
very high on **horrid scale** of bad parents.



Betsy Hp: 
> I guess I just don't see that Dumbledore has all that much to 
answer 
> to for leaving Harry at the Dursleys.  It was the place where 
Harry 
> was the safest.  I expect any loving person would have done the 
same 
> thing.  Or lived with Harry ending up in Bellatrix's capable hands 
> because of their unwillingness to make the hard call.

Alla:

I just want to see it :) Not attack by analogy, but attack on Privet 
Drive and Blood protection kicking in, anything to show me that 
Harry's sufferings, "ten difficult and dark years" were for the 
reason of him to stay alive. 

 
>> Betsy Hp:
  <SNIP>But I do get 
the 
> sense that the WW works on the patron-client system.
> [see this fabulous essay here:
> http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/7250.html  ]
> 
> The Potters were Dumbledore's clients.  So yeah, Dumbledore had 
the 
> right to decide what to do with their son once they were killed.  
In 
> such a crisis situation it was Dumbledore's *duty* to get 
involved. 
<SNIP>

Alla:

Sorry, I read the first part and decided to ask whether you mind 
summarising the idea in a few sentences? Pretty please? :) Is the 
idea that WW works as medieval society? For protection they give 
themselves as sort of servants? I just don't see any proof that 
Potters indeed were Dumbledore's clients. Do we see that Potters 
came and asked for that protection? In fact, I see quite the 
opposite - they refused DD's offer to be their SC, so I do not think 
that Dumbledore had a right or duty to get involved.

Susan suggested to me offlist that it is sort of DD world in Jo mind 
in a sense. He gets involved because he is **it** of the sort. ( I 
am not misinterpreting you, right? :))

That is actually much easier to swallow for me as metathinking 
reason, but Jo specifically said for example that DD is no Christ, I 
don't know, I guess I can still consider him to be the **it** in the 
general philosophical sense. 



> Betsy Hp:
> Oh, I think part of it was James's and Sirius's arrogance in their 
> own creativity.  That they could outfox Voldemort without any 
help.  
> I don't think they actually distrusted Dumbledore.  For one, 
Hagrid 
> would have had something to say about that if there were even a 
hint 
> of such thinking.  For another, James does give Dumbledore his 
> cloak, and Dumbledore also has care of the Potters' Gringotts key. 
<SNIP>

Alla:

Yes, I understand the argument about arrogance and I specifically 
said that I do not buy this argument :), so I am looking for other 
venues specifically because I don't find this argument convincing, 
if you do buy this argument, then obviously this line of speculation 
makes no sense for you :)

You know? To make a long story short, I am crossing out the turning 
down Dumbledore offer to be a secret keeper because of James and 
Sirius arrogance completely, because I think that Lily was **not** 
arrogant, ever and that she was if not in charge of such 
decision,then certainly played active part and no, I don't buy that 
she would let James exclude her either. Sorry! I am ready to eat 
crow as always, but for now I am not considering this venue.

If somebody was telling James lies that DD is not to be trusted, 
then sure I can see Lily going ahead with the plan.

As to DD having a cloak and a key, well, I don't think that **if** 
Potters distrusted Dumbledore they distrusted him for a long time. 
The events were unfolding fast and they could have given DD cloak 
and key before somebody told them convincing lie about Headmaster.
Oh, and how Hagrid will know?
Just speculating of course.


> > >>Alla:
> > As a matter of fact, can anybody refer me to the quote where it 
is 
> > said that blood protection was the **only** way? Safest 
in         
> > Dumbledore mind, yeah.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Is there anything anywhere within the books suggesting that there 
> was another way of keeping Harry safe?  Because really, if we're 
> supposed to start doubting Dumbledore's call, than there needs to 
be 
> a suggestion of another way he could have gone *within the 
books*.  
> And I think it'd be really important to show that another 
character 
> had approached Dumbledore with that other possibility.

Alla:

Erm... yes, I do doubt Dumbledore's call in some instances as in 
trusting some people, so I see no reason why we cannot consider that 
maybe he failed to consider another option to keep Harry safe.

We are probably not supposed to doubt his word in this instance, but 
this is again plot dictated reason IMO as in story supposed to go 
this way.


>Katssirius wrote:
> >
> > It is interesting to me that JKR has chosen this contradiction.  
<SNIP> JKR comes close to negating one of the themes of 
> the series for the reader who notices.  Love was not strong enough 
> to protect Harry or he would have been placed with Sirius or 
Hagrid 
> or a host of other people.  Nope, love did not carry the day.  The 
> magic DD sneered at in Voldemort's cave, blood magic, is what 
worked 
> best.  I wonder if  JKR has noticed this contradiction.
> > 
> 
> Tonks:
> I see no contradiction. There is love and there is LOVE.  Lily's 
was 
> the greater and gave a protection in Harry's blood that Sirius' 
love 
> could not do. 

Alla:

I am afraid this contradiction is staring in my face too :)

But this is not the question of Lily's love v Sirius love for me. I 
mean, sure Lily's love is a great sacrificial love, although I would 
argue that Sirius love comes close.

This is the question of Sirius' love v Petunia love for me, which is 
to me is non-existant.

As I mentioned before we **do** see Lily's protection working not on 
Privet Drive. This is the protection given to Harry by her death. 
This is the protection because of which Quirrell cannot touch Harry.

This is not the protection of Petunia as far as I know. 

> Ceridwen:
<SNIP>
> A trusted person, or someone who wasn't seen to be smart or brave 
or
> treacherous enough, could start a whispering campaign like this.  
If it is
> anyone, I would go with Peter, who had his own reasons to pit 
allies against
> each other.

Alla:

Peter seems like an obvious candidate doesn't he? I am sure he is 
much smarter than he seems. Who else could that be?


> Lynda:
> 
> Perhaps familial bonds and the love that is instinctive among 
family (Lily
> and Petunia were sisters after all) will prove to be a stronger 
protective
> force than we yet realize.  JKR has said that there is more to 
Petunia than
> we have yet seen.  Perhaps the lingering of love for her blood 
sister will
> provide extra protection for Harry in the next book.

Alla:

I will be the first one to say that to me the love **should be** and 
is instinctive among the blood kin, but it does not always works 
this way unfortunately.

Having said that, IF in book 7 we will see that Petunia indeed 
**loves** Harry, then sure the contradiction will sort of be 
resolved.

Don't get me wrong - the protection of loving family is the best 
thing Harry could have received IMO, but the protection of people 
who treated him this way, I don't know.

JMHO,

Alla