[HPforGrownups] Re: In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 158682

> Carol responds:
> since draco Malfoy was only about two months older than Harry, I doubt
> that Dumbledore had him in mind. However, I do think that in addition
> to the blood protection, which was apparently his primary
> consideration, I think he may well have had James's arrogance in mind.
> Suppose that Harry, James's son, grew up being treated as the savior
> of the WW without having actually done anything to earn that honor?

Magpie:
Oh, I didn't mean he literally was worried about him turning into Draco, who 
himself barely existed yet.  I meant that to me it seems more disturbing, 
not less, to suggest that growing up with the Dursleys is important because 
it would be bad if Harry were spoiled.  I mean, it's fine as an analysis of 
Harry as a character.  It's just not something I consider a justification 
for Dumbledore doing it.

Objectively, the idea of Harry growing up away from the WW is fine--if we 
were talking about a loving Muggle family who would just treat Harry like a 
regular (loved) child. But I feel like even that can quickly gets into a 
disturbing area because it's not Albus' child, it's no relation to Albus. 
Harry's parents never wanted him to grow up away from the WW--certainly not 
with Muggles who would hate him for being a Wizard.  Since the Dursleys 
wound up being cruel guardians, it gets uncomfortably close to making it 
seem like Harry's mistreatment was good for him because it's better than his 
being spoiled.

This is what Dumbledore seems to suggest, imo, when he talks about Harry 
showing up "not a pampered prince."  I remember I couldn't believe the 
character would have the nerve to say that--it sounded like he was 
congratulating himself on the great results of the home he put Harry in, 
taking credit for Harry's not being insufferable.  That line, iirc, drew a 
lot of criticism for DD.

The blood protection really saved the whole thing, imo.  It gives a reason 
Harry must be with the Dursleys that gets around any suggestion that DD is 
flat-out playing God and interfering in someone else's family.

Cliff here:
What Carol didn't say was "Look at Draco who grew up in the wonderful home 
of the Malfoys where he was given everything and deliberately turned out to 
be an overbearing boy who had almost enough hate to kill DD. It was much 
better that Harry didn't have it 'so good.'"

Cliff, who is what he is because of his hardships in life.

Magpie:
Exactly--but that's an awful thing to say.  The Malfoy's home was not 
wonderful in many ways, and Draco isn't automatically what Harry would be 
without the Dursleys.  It's one thing to say that Harry's hardships are part 
of who he is and he's good.  It's a totally different thing to suggest it 
was great of Dumbledore to place a baby with people who would hate him and 
mistreat him because otherwise he might be spoiled.  I'm sure there are 
plenty of people who had, for instance, abusive childhoods who accept them 
as part of who they are without wanting their own children to suffer the 
same abuse.

Why not give Voldemort the credit for Harry's personality?  It was good of 
him to take out that arrogant James and doting Lily so Harry would have to 
live with the Dursleys.  Dodged a bullet there.

And, of course, it's quite possible it's loving Lily's magical blood 
protection that kept Harry from absorbing the Dursley's negativity.

Tonks:
On one hand people are saying that DD is not God, but on the other they 
expect him to have the power of God. It can't be both ways. Either he is a 
human being with much wisdom, but making mistakes, or he is God and 
incapable of making a mistake.[snip] Hate Vernon if you must.  But DD is a 
good man, more than that he is the epitome of goodness itself, and I don't 
understand why that is not evident to everyone.

Magpie:
I would have thought people were explaining in great detail why it wasn't so 
obvious to them.  As you say, you can't have it both ways.  Either he's the 
epitome of goodness or he's a man who makes mistakes.  If he makes mistakes 
we can analyze them and hold the character reponsible for them. 
Dumbledore's actions bring up a lot of ethical questions. Ones that get 
worse to many of us when they're defended as good.  JKR's idea of what the 
epitome of goodness acts like might not jibe with everyone else's.

-m