How being with Dursleys influenced Harry's character/Blood protection LONG

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 158603

> > Alla:
> > 
> > <snip> Are you 
> > asking whether my parents ever behaved like Dursleys?
> 
> 
> Tesha: 
>   No insult was implied, it sounds like you had an excellent
> childhood. I did too, but I remember crying on the porch once for
> being scolded for something I didn't do. I probably remember it
> because it was so rare. When Harry gets told off for doing 
something
> he never did, I feel closer to him, and maybe I feel a little 
lucky.
>


Alla:

Oh, none is taken; I was indeed just trying to clarify the question 
and as I said earlier, I don't question JKR decision to place Harry 
with Dursleys inside the story, I only question it if I start 
evaluating it "as if it is real".


> Pippin:
> This is a selective reading of canon, IMO. In PS/SS Harry has never
> yet been starved and is not afraid to be handled by Vernon, even
> roughly. <SNIP>

Alla:

Um, yes, he was starved in PS/SS, IMO. Harry sneaks for food, yes, 
but it does not make the Vernon's intention different IMO.

"Uncle Vernon waited until Piers was safely out of the house before 
starting on Harry. He was so angry he could hardly speak. He managed 
to say, "Go—cupboard—stay—no meals," before he collapsed into a 
chair and Aunt Petunia had to run and get him a large brandy.
Harry lay in his dark cupboard much later, wishing he had a watch. 
He didn't know what time it was and he couldn't be sure the Dursleys 
were asleep yet. Until they were, he couldn't risk sneaking to the 
kitchen for some food." - PS/SS, chapter Two.

And as we see in CS, Vernon corrects his mistakes by putting locks 
and Harry cannot sneak out for food anymore.

> 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 occurred.  Even 
if 
> JKR wanted to down play it (as Mark Twain does with Huckleberry 
Finn 
> and his father, IIRC) she could have merely referred to bruises 
> appearing now and again.
>

Alla:

As Wynnleaf pointed out Vernon chokes Harry, over nothing basically. 
If this is not a physical abuse, I don't know what is. I certainly 
don't want graphic abuse descriptions in the series, but to me JKR 
put enough references there to have no doubt that Harry was not just 
neglected but also physically abused. She shows it once or twice, 
Harry knows that he needs to duck from Vernon; Harry wants to stay 
out of Vernon's reach.
To me it is very clear, it is staring in my face, but as I said I 
understand if it is not staring in yours, since I have same problem 
with blood protection, you seem to have with physical abuse.

I need more **showing** of how it works, to be fully convinced that 
Harry's sufferings were not in vain, that blood protection where 
Lily's blood dwells specifically is what protects him from dying, so 
I guess I can understand that you want more showings of physical 
abuse to be convinced that Harry was indeed physically abused.

I am convinced as it is.
> 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.

Alla:

Um, okay. As long as we agree that Harry's treatment on his own was 
bad, I can certainly agree that there are fictional kids that had it 
worse. The impression I got from your previous post, sorry if I 
misunderstood you that it somehow exonerates Dursleys. IMO on their 
own without comparing it to Dickens or anybody else characters, 
Harry is hurt by Dursleys plenty.


Betsy Hp: 
> 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.

Alla:

It is certainly a possibility, as I said before I just want to see 
what exactly blood protection offers (for now I have seen Lily 
protection working nicely **not** in the place where her blood 
dwells, you know)

> > >>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.)

Alla:

I rearranged the bits of your post around, Betsy. Sorry. That is 
actually interesting. Of course any parallel can be made only to the 
certain extent, but just as Magpie I always saw DD as fairy 
godmother that caused everything, even though technically you are 
correct - Hagrid comes to take Harry.

But the reason I could never seen him as Godmother is because I 
found that the agency between him and DD is so strong.

He keeps saying that DD sent him, how much he respects DD, etc, etc, 
so even though technically Hagrid comes to me it is the same as if 
DD himself would have come.

wynnleaf:
<SNIP of the whole post>
> In the real world, abuse is not defined as "what kills the kid."  
Just
> because Harry wasn't in immediate danger of dying at the Dursley's
> hands doesn't mean he wasn't being abused.  

Alla:

Precisely, since my post is soo long, just wanted to stuck the 
agreement with yours :) Great post.

> > Random832:
> > 
> > For that, we need to remember the reason we were given for his
> > placement with the Dursleys before we'd ever heard of blood
> > protection: to keep him ignorant of the wizarding world. I think 
> one
> > reason it's often overlooked is because it's a lot less noble a
> > purpose than protecting him from harm, so it doesn't fit with the
> > "epitome of goodness" thing. But it was something that DD was 
> trying
> > to do, and it might well have been a significant factor in his
> > decision.


Alla:

Well, yeah, but I get the 
sense that JKR had been backtracking from this reason for placing 
Harry with Dursleys as much as possible in the later books.

Because you are absolutely correct, I agree with you - this reason 
does **not** fit with epitome of goodness nickname (oh boy, 
sometimes even me who loves JKR interviews and considers them to be 
very much canonical most of the time wishes that she would never 
called DD that, it would have been much easier for me to swallow his 
actions), because any reason to put Harry with Dursleys except 
survival, well is not what **epitome of goodness** does in my book.


JMO,

Alla