looong - musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer

[julie]

No: HPFGUIDX 158614


>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn@> wrote:
> >
> <SNIP>
> > I think it is unreasonable to think that Dumbledore 
> > didn't weigh all the possibilities when determining 
> > Harry's fate. He could have been left with a loving 
> > wizarding family, but there are problems, as Dumbledore
> > points out, with Harry continued existance in the British
> > Wizarding World. If nothing else, his exposure and the 
> > mass awareness of his location compounded by his fame. 
> > He could have been placed with a wizard family in say 
> > Austrailia, but that places him very far away from the 
> > protection of Dumbledore and those who care about his 
> > fate, and doesn't really guarantee his anonymity and 
> > therefore doesn't guarantee his safety. He could have 
> > been place in some muggle institution; orphanage, foster
> > care, adoptive parents. But those too have their 
> > drawbacks. Yes, they do have some advantages, but they
> > also have drawbacks.
> > 

Lupinlore:
> And therein is exactly the problem, isn't it?  JKR wants us to 
> believe that Dumbledore is the "epitome of goodness."  Frankly, 
given 
> his decision to place Harry with the Dursleys and his failure to 
> intervene firmly to stop their abuse of him (and other things not 
> pertinent to this thread) a lot of us just don't buy it.  Indeed, I 
> think if DD did consider all the options and the Dursleys was the 
> best he could come up with *for Harry*, then he is the very 
> definition of an incompetent old fool.  And if finding the best 
*for 
> Harry* was not his primary goal, if he in any way allowed Harry to 
be 
> abused for the "sake of the wizarding world" or any other such 
> utilitarian nonsense, then I think he is the very definition of an 
> ignoble old moron, not to mention an abusive monster.

Julie:
Dumbledore allowed Harry to be abused to a *degree*--and yes, it is 
about degrees of abuse, not just a matter of "abused" as a catchall 
for everything from sleeping in a closet to cigarette burns and 
sodomy and what all else--to keep Harry ALIVE. Go figure, Dumbledore 
decided an alive-if-mildly-damaged Harry was better than a dead-but-
had-a-great-childhood-while-it-lasted Harry. Thanks to the prophecy 
(or should I say, Voldemort's interpretation of the prophecy), 
Harry's fate *is* the Wizarding World's fate and vice-versa. 

As far as "all the options" go, we have no evidence that any other 
option would have kept Harry alive, from the angry Death Eaters to 
start, or from Vapormort as he eventually found ways to regain and 
use his power. Yes, you can say we also don't have concrete examples 
of how the blood protection actually works--except that we do have 
one. Against all odds, Harry is still alive. 

Like most of the debates here, we are working again with few facts 
and lots of assumptions. Some fans take Dumbledore and his words 
about blood magic as the truth, others think he is obfuscating at the 
very least, outright lying at the most. And I don't see many opinions 
changing in the near future. It's all a matter of faith, or lack 
thereof, I suppose ;-)
 
> Lupinlore, who really is mystified how JKR thinks she can sell that 
> epitome of goodness line in the face of DD's repeated failure to 
> protect Harry from abuse

Julie:
Maybe because of DD's success in keeping Harry alive so we can all 
read The-Boy-Who-Lived's story?

Seriously, what tips the scale for me toward a Dumbledore caught 
between a rock and a hard place but acting with the best intentions 
*is* JKR's "epitome of goodness" line. I believe this is Dumbledore 
as JKR sees him, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. 

Julie