Protection-Abuse / Patron-Client (was:re:Blood protection/ Dumbledore and Harry)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 158544

> >>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. 
> > <snip>

> >>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:
But since the Dursleys neither beat nor starved Harry, they don't 
manage to rank, IMO.  There needs to be bruising, fainting, etc., to 
make it into the pantheon for me.  Harry doesn't even manage an 
emotional breakdown because the Dursleys don't love him.  If the 
Dursleys are to rank, Harry needs to bleed.  And he doesn't.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > (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.)

> >>Magpie:
> They seem pretty Cinderella-like to me. He doesn't do the same    
> kinds of tasks as Cinderella but isn't the point that he's shunned 
> and made to wear rags etc. because he's hated the way she was? He 
> doesn't keep his place in society. I don't know how much worse the 
> Dursleys would have to be in order to hit Cinderella level given   
> Harry is living in a semi-realistic society.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I reread the opening to SS just to refresh my memory of how Harry 
was treated at the Dursleys.  Harry suffered from a *lot* of 
unfairness.  And boredom.  But that's about it.  And it's all 
relative to Dudley.

Harry has chores, Dudley doesn't.  Dudley has tons of cool toys, 
Harry doesn't.  Dudley gets an icecream treat, Harry has to make do 
with a popsicle.  Dudley gets taken on fun outings, Harry doesn't.  
Dudley watches what he wants to on TV, Harry has to make do with 
watching what Dudley wants to watch.  Dudley has *two* rooms, 
Harry's got a tiny little room under the stairs.  Dudley gets up to 
the minute new fashions, Harry wears badly fitting hand-me-downs.

So Harry is not in rags, he's not overworked.  I think there are 
*references* to Cinderella, but they're very, very mild.  Harry 
isn't responsible for keeping the house clean, fixing the meals, 
keeping the garden in order as I'd expect in a Cinderella mirror.  
Aunt Petunia does all that.  When she needs help, she calls for 
Harry (not wanting to bother her sweet Dudley), which isn't fair, 
but it isn't abusive really. 

Harry isn't even shunned.  He exists.  His parents exist. (Harry is 
a Potter, IOWs.)  He goes to school with Dudley, he's a part of the 
Dursley household.  When he's about to be whisked away to a world 
Vernon and Petunia fear, Harry is taken away with the entire 
family.  And he's treated pretty equally.  He shares a hotel room 
with Dudley.  He sits with the family for breakfast the next 
morning.  When Vernon buys his pathetic "supplies" for the island, 
everyone gets one bag of crisps and a bannana.  Including Harry.  So 
when Harry is contemplating his empty stomach, the entire Dursley 
clan is in the same boat.

Harry *is* low on the totem pole.  e.g. Petunia and Vernon get the 
bed, Dudley gets the couch and Harry gets the floor.  Harry also 
gets the nastiest blanket.  But, again, that's merely unfair.  I 
wouldn't call it abusive.

> >>Magpie:
> I can deal with Dumbledore doing something kind of brutal because 
> it was protect his Chosen One. It just makes it a little hard     
> later when Dumbledore tries to later on fulfill both the role of   
> fairy godfather and the person who organized the Cinderella       
> household without, you know, dealing with that. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
It all goes back to how brutal you think it really is (was) for 
Harry.  I don't think it was all that bad (for story-telling land).  
I suppose you have to factor in how big of a deal the blood 
protection is.  I think it's huge.  I think the story of the 
Longbottoms is supposed to show what would have happened if Harry 
hadn't had that protection.  (Sirius or whomever totured to 
insanity.  Harry either dead or in Bellatrix's hands.)

So for me, the scale tips more towards the protection side.  In 
which case Dumbledore's scene at the end of OotP works as far as 
dealing with Dumbledore's decision way back when.  But I recognize 
that this is because of how I weigh the two things (Dudley household 
vs. Blood protection).  Mileage may vary, and obviously does. <g>

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> Is the idea that WW works as medieval society? For protection they 
> give themselves as sort of servants?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Definitely not medieval.  And not that structured (master and 
servant).  More protector and protected, I think.

> >>Alla:
> I just don't see any proof that Potters indeed were Dumbledore's   
> clients.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Heh.  Well, I could say that Dumbledore's dealing with Harry is a 
proof, but that would be circular I fear.  There's Dumbledore being 
the keeper of James's cloak and their Gingotts key, I think.  
There's practicality there.  We also have Lily being muggle-born.  
Dumbledore as a champion for muggle-borns seems an obvious choice 
for Lily's patron.  And for James too, what with his parent's 
beliefs.  There's also their belonging to the Order.

> >>Magpie:
> It's a great essay--but long, yes. The basic idea is that the     
> Wizarding World doesn't really have a justice system where people 
> are really protected by the law. The way it seems to work instead 
> is that there are certain powerful wizards who can protect others, 
> and people ally themselves with them.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Yay!  I'm so glad you answered this.  I gulped at the idea of 
breaking the entire thing down into a sentence or two. <g>

While the essay suggests (IIRC) that there's a certain recognized, 
maybe even codified structure to the patron-client system in the WW, 
I think it's easier to imagine that it's all based on tradition.  
That's it's something more quietly done and not fully talked about.  
Just an underlying understanding that when one takes on, say, Arthur 
Weasley, Dumbledore will be standing there in the shadows.

> >>a_svirn:
> Well, patrons are supposed to have obligations as well as rights,
> you know. I'd say that a patron definitely has to take his client's
> Will into consideration.

Betsy Hp:
Yes, of course.  But if the client's will seems to cause more 
problems then it solves, the patron is quite able to choose a 
different direction without getting the MoM up in arms. (And part of 
Dumbledore's duty as patron for the Potters is to protect their 
infant son.  So he ignores their will to do so.)

> >>a_svirn:
> Besides, following this logic, Sirius was also Dumbledore's        
> client, wasn't he? It seems like in his case Dumbledore didn't go 
> out of his way protecting his client's interests.

Betsy Hp:
Actually I think the story line points more towards Dumbledore *not* 
being Sirius's patron.  He wouldn't have been naturally.  (I don't 
see the Blacks ever having someone like Dumbledore as a patron.)  
And based on the lack of interest Dumbledore took in 
Sirius's "case", it seems more logical to assume Dumbledore never 
did take on that roll.  Not until after the great escape, anyway.  
(It seems likely a change occured after that.  Especially as 
Dumbledore takes charge of Sirius's will at that point.)

> >>a_svirn:
> And while we on the subject, there is a salient point in the essay
> you seem to overlook. Unlike the situation in Ancient Rom, in the 
> WW patron-client relationships ARE NOT LEGAL. Which casts an      
> entirely different light on the whole situation, I'd say. After   
> all, Mafia also functions as a patron-client network.

Betsy Hp:
The essayist, Pharnabazus starts off by saying that the WW is "an 
extremely lawless place".  So things are done more on tradition and 
power (pretty much like the Mob, yeah).  In which case *within* the 
WW, what Dumbledore does is not only allowable, it's expected.  
Which was my point.  I'm not trying to say he followed Muggle laws.  
And honestly, I doubt there's really any WW law that covers this 
sort of thing.  (Why would there be?)

Betsy Hp