Sirius, Sirus, and more Sirius/ Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry

[Tonks]

No: HPFGUIDX 158506

> Alla said:
> 
> What you just described is precisely manipulative Dumbledore I 
> detest so much, **but** it is certainly one of the possibilities, 
> but then Dumbledore should not have said so many times how much he 
> loves Harry IMO - not **weapon** Harry, but just Harry.

> It is those conflicting messages I get from Dumbledore that 
> frustrate me so much - if he indeed cares only for Harry as 
weapon, > come out and say so, the thing is I am not so sure he does.


Tonks:
I don't see DD's messages as conflicting. I do not see any 
contradiction between wanting to protect Harry for Harry's sake and 
protecting Harry for the sake of the world.  What I am saying is 
that Harry is very precious and his safety must take top priority.  
That is why the Supreme Judge of the Highest Court is the one to 
make the decision as to where to place him.  Just as in the Muggle 
world a Judge would make that decision.  In the middle of the night 
when a child is found in need the child is taken into protective 
custody and then a judge determines where that child will stay.  I 
see nothing cold and heartless about DD's decision. It was the ONLY 
one that was possible.  JKR has told us that, through the actions of 
her most benevolent and loving character.  

Alla said:
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.

Tonks:
As I understand the way the Blood protection works is that as long 
as Harry can call the place where his mother's blood resides `home', 
the protection exists for him.  Not just in the house, but in other 
places as well.  The *reason* that Harry is protected in places 
outside of the house is because Privet Dr. is his home.  The 
protection travels with him as long as he can call the place where 
*Petunia* lives his home. As long as he lives there he is protected, 
period.  He doesn't have to sleep there every night, but it has to 
be "home" to him.

Magpie said:
But I think the point K is making is that there's all this stuff 
about how it's love that matters, or who you are that matters, and 
then Harry has to live with people who don't love him because they 
happen to share the same blood. 

Tonks:
It is the loving sacrifice of Lily that makes the blood protection 
strong. It is not the blood in and of itself.  And it is not Love by 
itself. It is both.  I think that we are supposed to look at the 
whole Love-Sacrifice-Blood as one thing.  The books stress the fact 
of Love over *Purity* of blood.  Lily was a Muggle born and it was 
her sacrifice that makes the difference.  It is not the sacrifice of 
a pure blood.  So if Lily and Petunia were pure blood, yes, I might 
agree.  But they are of a Muggle family. There is the difference.  A 
Love Sacrifice from a Mud-blood beats a pure blood line. And who 
knows, maybe it somehow saves all Muggles in the end. Another way of 
looking at it is that the blood of a Muggle or Muggle born is the 
lowest thing to many in the WW. So to have that blood be protective 
because of the Love/Sacrifice is a major idea. 


A note on the Patronage idea:
Thank you Betsy Hp for the link to the essay on the Patronage system 
and the WW.  I think he really has a good handle on it. (He must be 
a history professor or something.)  It makes sense to me. He said 
that there are powerful people who because of their power and 
influence can protect those who will show loyalty in return.  In 
DD's case many of those whom he protects are members of the Order 
and James and Lily were members of the Order. So one could see the 
patron/client system at work in the events of GH.  I personally 
think it is a combination of patron and his position as leader of 
the WW. 

Alla said:
> 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.

Tonks:
Actually JKR said that "DD is not Jesus".  This is a very important 
distinction. 

SSS said:
I'm just saying that my gut reaction is that *Herself* thinks that 
this was DD's proper role. He'll make mistakes (not the least of 
which is just assuming Sirius'guilt), he'll regret how some of it 
played out (not the least of which is the Dursleys' eventual 
treatment of Harry), but I think we're supposed to understand that 
it was DD's place to make the choices here.

IOW, I don't think JKR expected quite so many people to think so
hard about alternatives to having "Epitome of Goodness" Albus
Dumbledore make the call the night of Godric's Hollow. I think it
was a "given" in her mind that that's just where the story started.

Tonks:
I agree.  DD is the Main Man. He is *IT*.  And IMO there is a very 
good reason for JKR giving DD this position in the WW. 

Tonks_op