What about McGonagall? (was Re: In defense of DD WAS musings

[julie]

No: HPFGUIDX 158708

Hickengruendler:

> 
> But his reason to give Harry to the Dursleys as given to McGonagall 
in 
> the first chapter is just awful. First of all, looking at Dudley, I 
> would argue, that if the Dursleys indeed had loved Harry and cared 
for 
> him the way they thought was best, he might very well have become 
> the "pampered little prince" Dumbledore didn't want him to be. 
Second, 
> the whole scene seems to suggest, that Dumbledore knew (or at least 
> suspected), that the Dursleys would be bad guardians, and he still 
gave 
> Harry to them, for a somewhat odd reasoning. But like I said, the 
> damage to Dumbledore's character was done by the second chapter of 
PS. 
> Giving Harry to the Dursleys, particularly in the light of the 
blood 
> protection, might still be understandable, but not stepping in, 
when 
> they treat him badly, or at least ask them how he's doing is really 
> unforgiveable. And no, having a Squib live nearby to tell him how 
> Harry's doing is not enough. If he heard, that it's that badly, it 
was 
> his job to do something against it, since he was the one, who 
placed 
> Harry in this situation to begin with. And this is, where the 
epitome 
> of goodness' part really doesn't work, since I do not see him doing 
his 
> best at all. And IMO, though of course I can't prove it, JKR 
realised 
> this as well. Obviously PS was already written and published, and 
she 
> couldn't undo it anymore, but she could give him a better reason 
for 
> his decision (the blood protection) and imply, that he genuinely 
> thought, that the Dursleys would treat him better (like she did in 
> HBP). Of course I can't prove, that this was an afterthought by 
JKR, 
> but IMO the first chapter of PS hints to this. Because strictly 
> speaking, we have Dumbledore lying at McGonagall here, when he does 
not 
> tell her, that his reason for give Harry to the Dursleys is the 
blood 
> protection. And I do not remember him ever lying in any other 
scene. He 
> might not tell something and keep his thoughts or knowledge to 
himself, 
> but he does not lie. This implies to me, that JKR didn't have 
developed 
> the blood protection at this time. (Though she did at the end of 
GoF at 
> the latest, when Voldemort told the Death Eaters, that he couldn't 
harm 
> Harry at the Dursleys). Therefore, yes, I think JKR realised the 
> problem and did her best to somewhat redeem Dumbledore's decision 
in 
> the later books (and probably did as much as much as possible), but 
it 
> still wasn't enough to redeem him completely, IMO.
>\

Julie:
I agree that the PS/SS reason was a pretty bad one. If DD had said
this might be a side benefit--hoping something good could come out
of an unavoidably bad situation--maybe. I also agree that DD had to
know the Dursleys weren't likely to be completely loving guardians,
as after all Petunia only agreed to take Harry "bitterly, grudgingly,
etc, etc." Not an auspicious start to guardianship. 

As for JKR backtracking in HBP, it probably is most likely that 
she realized the problem and tried to redeem Dumbledore. OR...

What if JKR deliberately planned it that way all along, that
Dumbledore would give McGonagall the "pampered prince" reason
instead of the "blood protection" reason? If so, why?

In all this discussion of Dumbledore's goodness or lack thereof
in regards to Harry and Sirius, I've wondered more than once now
why McGonagall has never had *anything* to say about Sirius being
put away in Azkaban. She was his head of house, but I'm not aware
of any point where she is known to have defended him or protested
his likely innocence. (Or have I missed something?)

So is it relevant that Dumbledore originally gave McGonagall 
a different reason for Harry's placement with the Dursleys  
than he later gave Harry? And is it relevant that McGonagall
never spoke up for Sirius when he was thrown into Azkaban?
Is there a reason she wasn't in the first Order? Is there
a significance to her being a student at Hogwarts at the
same time as Tom that we don't yet know about? 

Enquiring minds want to know...

Julie, figuring this Dumbledore debate is about played out
and it's time to move on to a new victim ;-)