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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 158609

> >>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.
> <snip of quote>

Betsy Hp:
It does mean though, that Harry was't starved.  To be starved, one 
can not have access to food.  Harry gets food.  He eats.  Ergo, he 
is not starving.

Plus, I think this was more a case of Harry being sent to bed 
without dinner.  Not the best way to discipline a child, I grant 
you.  But hardly monsterous.  Or abusive. 

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

Betsy Hp:
Right.  And Aunt Petunia brings him food. So again, Harry isn't 
starving.

> >>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.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
You really think JKR is being that subtle?  She has Harry carving 
words into his own hand, and you think she'd shy away from showing 
Vernon land a blow?  Harry mentioning a beating?  Bruises? Why?

Basing an entire history of abuse on one instance of a panicked man 
grabbing Harry briefly by the neck (which, yes, isn't good behavior) 
seems quite a stretch, IMO.

> >>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:
Hmm, no I really don't think Harry has it so bad.  I mean, he 
doesn't have it *great* by any stretch, but he's not got it that 
bad.  I think he's more bored than anything else.

Now, I don't know if it's a current trend in children's books to 
suggest that boring a child or refusing them an icecream treat is 
abuse.  But from my reading experience, I wouldn't label Harry an 
abused child.  He's... put upon, I guess.

(As per real life, I wouldn't call Harry abused either, really.  The 
only hinky thing is the closet bedroom.)

> >>Alla:
> I rearranged the bits of your post around, Betsy. Sorry.

Betsy Hp:
No worries, I do it all the time. <g>

> >>Alla:
> 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...

Betsy Hp:
But in the Cinderella story the fairy godmother doesn't *cause* 
anything.  As soon as she shows up she starts Cinderella on the road 
to escape.  That's not Dumbledore's role at all.  And we see that 
straight off when we see him actually place Harry at the Dursleys.  
So I don't think you can parallel Dumbledore to the fairy godmother.

> >>Alla:
> ...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.

Betsy Hp:
Well frankly, I think this points to how weak or faint the 
Cinderella parallel actually is.  There isn't a real fairy godmother 
parallel, because that's not Harry's story.  The Cinderella angle is 
a spice, but it ain't the meat and potatoes.

> >>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.
> > <snip>

> >>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.

Betsy Hp:
But, if JKR were honestly trying to play a backtracking game, why 
wouldn't she *improve* Harry's treatment at the Dursleys?  Instead, 
all the evidence given for abused!Harry comes from later books.

I also think it's odd that we're supposed to think Dumbledore gave a 
straight forward answer to McGonagall.  She wasn't even supposed to 
be there.  And when does Dumbledore *ever* give a straight answer?

I'm more inclined to think that Dumbledore did like the idea of 
Harry not being raised as the hero of the WW, but that's not why he 
chose the Dursleys.  Sirius or Mrs. Figg could have easily raised 
Harry away from the WW.  Only they'd have been killed fairly early 
on.  That was the Dursley advantage, and that's why Dumbledore put 
Harry with them.

Betsy Hp