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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 158592

> >>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.
 
> >>Lynda:
> So I take it Betsy, that the references to Harry being locked in   
> his room into which bowls of soup are pushed through the door-flap 
> and Harry always staying out of the reach of his uncle's          
> grasp/fist do not signify abuse to you either?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Not enough to get the Durselys into the pantheon of bad parents, 
no.  Harry doesn't drink some of his own blood in order to get the 
energy to break out of his room and search for food.  He hasn't had 
his ear burned into a mangled ruin by Vernon.  He hasn't had a 
mental breakdown from engineered isolation and stress.  IOWs, as far 
as "bad parents" go in books I've read, Harry's not in the most dire 
of situations.  And I've not even brought up Charles Dickens' little 
tots.

> >>Ceridwen:
> <snip>
> What is bothering me about this entire line of thought is the
> automatic assumption that staying out of reach of Vernon's "grasp/"
> equals out of reach of Vernon's "/fist". 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp
Personally, I think Harry was more thinking about Vernon man-
handling him.  Like when Vernon grabbed both Harry and Dudley and 
threw them out of the kitchen in PS/SS.  Since we've never seen 
Vernon spank Harry, let alone punch him, it seems a bit of a leap, 
IMO, to conclude that physical abuse has actually occured.  Even if 
JKR wanted to down play it (as Mark Twain does with Huckleberry Finn 
and his father, IIRC) she could have merely refered to bruises 
appearing now and again.

> >>Alla:
> So, basically what I hear you saying is that you would need
> **abuse** more spelled out for you to be convinced that it was
> indeed abuse?
> <snip>
> And of course JKR said that Harry was abused, Dumbledore as much
> as says it IMO in this infamous scene.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I'm not saying Harry wasn't abused to some extent.  (He was treated 
very unfairly.)  I'm not saying the Dursleys were good parents to 
him.  I'm not saying Harry doesn't suffer under their care.  What 
I'm saying is that compared to other books I've read where children 
suffered under bad parents, Harry doesn't have it so bad.

I'm saying that weighing Harry's treatment under the Dursleys 
against the blood protection they offer, I think Dumbledore made as 
good a call as he could under the circumstances.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > 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.

> >>Magpie:
> References to Cinderella is what I'm talking about. I mean, she's 
> not going to write a brutal abuse novel and no one would want her 
> to. But Cinderella wasn't beaten bloody either. She can't go to   
> the ball, she has to do chores when her step sisters don't, she   
> wears ugly clothes (Harry in broken glasses and Dudley's hand me   
> downs are the modern equivalent).

Betsy Hp:
I guess where I see the Cinderella parallel breakdown is in the 
intensity.  Harry does chores (from time to time, IIRC nothing is 
set routine), but it's Petunia working and sweating to keep her 
house and garden in tip-top condition.  If JKR were truly trying to 
parallel Cinderella I'd have expected Harry to wake up first, get 
breakfast going, start on a long list of chores to do before going 
to school.  Meanwhile Petunia should be lounging about, watching 
soaps and eating bon-bons.

And there certainly shouldn't have been any worries about leaving 
Harry home alone.  He'd have either been locked in his closet, or 
had enough work to keep him occupied.  Instead, the Dursleys seem 
more intent on keeping Harry bored.

> >>Magpie:
> She sits in the ashes, he sits amongst the cobwebs.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Except Harry also goes to school and he spends his free time 
wandering the neighborhood.  Unless he's been grounded.  He's not 
trapped amongst the cobwebs to the extent that Cinderella is trapped 
in her ashes.

Again, there is a *flavor* of Cinderella to Harry's life at the 
Dursleys.  But it's not a direct re-telling of the tale.  Petunia 
just isn't mean enough to play the wicked step-mother.  (Aunt Marge 
is a different story.)

We also have the "hidden prince" flavor going on too.  (I made that 
term up. Feel free to replace it with an official term if there is 
such. <g>)  And I think that's as important, if not more so, to the 
Cinderella flavor.  Throughout the opening of PS/SS, when JKR is 
establishing what life is like for Harry at the Dursleys, there are 
references to there being something special about this kid (oddly 
behaving strangers, odd memories and dreams, odd happenings).  
Something beyond the rather boring and drab life of the Dursleys.  
It's important that Harry holds himself as above the Dursleys (more 
quick witted, more imaginative) because he'll soon be shown to be 
above them. 

I see the Cinderella element, but I don't think it's the determining 
element.  Or at least, I don't think JKR was intending for it to be.

> >>Magpie:
> <snip>
> And that's fine because in both cases the fairy godparent arrives 
> and takes him/her away. Only in Harry's case the fairy godmother   
> also caused everything.

Betsy Hp:
Only, I think Hagrid fulfills the role of Cinderella's fairy 
godmother (down to punishing the step-brother).  Dumbledore is the 
guy who hid the prince.  So yes, Dumbledore caused everything.  But 
he never played the role of rescuer really.  He's pretty much been 
the protector from the beginning.  (e.g. We see him place Harry at 
the Dursleys.  Something Cinderella's fairy godmother does not do 
with her young charge.)

> >>Magpie:
> It's not a horrible abuse situation, but it's an unhappy life.

Betsy Hp:
I agree.

> >>Magpie:
> Which we can either accept was necessary for blood protection or   
> not. I can accept it, but it's not really dramatized in the story 
> that I can see. If you tell don't show, people probably question   
> more.

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, I don't want to try and argue that JKR did a great job showing 
us the blood protection in action.  I agree that she's not really 
done it.  (Or if she has she's not drawn our attention to it as 
perhaps she should have.)  I think she may have thought that merely 
having Dumbledore (and Voldemort, IIRC) *tell* us that it's so 
should have been enough (ooh, dangerous trying to read someone's 
mind!).  I do agree that showing works so much better.  

I *am* taking the blood-protection on faith.  I realize that.  Since 
there isn't anything in the text that questions the power and 
necessity of that protection I take it as a given.  Like electrical 
stuff not working at Hogwarts.  Damn the logic, full speed ahead?

Betsy Hp