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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 158600

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Actually I think the story line points more towards Dumbledore 
> > *not* being Sirius's patron. 
> > <snip>

> >>a_svirn:
> Um, no. While I agree that Sirius's family couldn't have possibly 
> been Dumbledore's clients (more likely they were patrons 
> themselves), Sirius himself is another matter altogether. As soon 
> as he joined the Order (and, by the way, those private armies do   
> make it look more like bastard feudalism, than like Ancient Rom,   
> despite what the essayist says), anyway, from the time Sirius      
> switched his allegiance to Dumbledore he had claim on his         
> patronage as well. That's how the system works – allegiance in    
> exchange for patronage. So the lack of interest on Dumbledore's   
> part suggests just that – lack of interest.

Betsy Hp:
I'm not sure I'd say that being in the Order makes one automatically 
Dumbledore's client.  Are there other patrons within the Order, for 
example? What about some of the more undercover members? But I think 
we're trying to find an exactness in something that I personally see 
as pretty foggy.  (In the end, much as I wish it were so, I do doubt 
JKR put enough thought into her world to set up a logical governing 
system.)

Going with the patron-client idea, Sirius is such an independent 
person that I think, newly freed from his parent's influence, he'd 
have resisted coming under anybody else's.  So I do think he was a 
free agent.  Which is why no one spoke for him when he was arrested.

Also, Dumbledore was obviously convinced of Sirius's guilt (which is 
interesting in and of itself).  He gives evidence that helps put 
Sirius away, so he doesn't appear to have a reason to feel any 
lingering loyalty towards a man who appears to have been betraying 
him for some time.  

> >>a_svirn:
> Who says anything about muggle laws?

Betsy Hp:
Sorry.  I thought you were trying to find a legal basis for 
Dumbledore's taking the placement of infant Harry upon himself.  
Since the WW seems to have only the bare minimum of laws, most bent 
towards keeping their world hidden from the muggle world, I take it 
as a given that there isn't any actual law governing the placement 
of orphaned children.

> >>a_svirn:
> We were discussing different social models, making parallels with 
> the real world. The essayist says the WW looks like Ancient Rom   
> because of the client-patron networks. I am saying that the fact   
> that these networks are illicit in the WW makes it look more like 
> Mafia.

Betsy Hp:
I don't think we've got any facts to work from, though.  I think 
there's a heavy *implication* that power and influence weigh quite 
heavily in the WW, which would logically give rise to a patron-
client set up.  And there are things that point to Dumbledore being 
a patron to various characters within the series.  But since we've 
not got anything saying "yes, this is so", it's hard to decide 
whether or not that system is legal within the WW. I do think there 
is nothing pointing to it being *illegal*.

> >>a_svirn:
> And I have trouble looking at the good guys from this angle. Kind 
> of different to distinguish them from the bad ones. Especially is 
> the best of the good guys is a local Don Corleone.

Betsy Hp:
Well, I'm not sure there is all that much distinguishing the good 
guys from the bad guys.  That's the beauty (and frustration) of the 
series.  Other than Voldemort and some of the more over the top 
Death Eaters, the shading between the black hats and the white hats 
is a nicely complex shade of grey.

Betsy Hp