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

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 158721

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "julie" <juli17 at ...> wrote:

> 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...
> <snip>

Mike:
I may be oversimplifying this debate but here goes. 

IMO JKR set up the Dursleys as one dimensional cartoon characters, 
the typical evil step-mother syndrome. There was never any intention 
to make at least Vernon and Dudley anything more than the bullies we 
see and anything that happens to them is along the lines of the 
coyote getting his come-uppence in the Roadrunner cartoons. We 
aren't supposed to look at them any deeper than that for both what 
they do and what happens to them. Petunia, as Lily's sister, may be 
in for a little more depth, but I suspect any fleshing out she gets 
in book 7 will only make her a two dimensional character at best and 
may only serve to give her purpose for her cartoonish actions.

Sorry, that's the way I see all three of the Dursleys. Therefore any 
analysis of DD's or anyone elses actions/responses to the Dursleys 
is fruitless. Their one-dimensional purpose precludes any serious 
discussion regarding any *real* characters actions, responses, or 
responsibilities when interactions towards the Dursleys is 
concerned. In the way JKR is writing this story, the Dursleys just 
don't **count**!!

I'm saying critisizing or defending DD as far as how he handled the 
whole Dursley-raising-Harry issue is barking at the moon. JKR meant 
for the Dursleys to be cartoonishly abusive; locking him in the 
cupboard, feeding him essentially gruel, making him clean the 
kitchen floor with a toothbrush (OK, I made that one up ;-)), I 
mean, come on. Should we really be taking these people seriously? 
Should we really be debating DD's role or lack thereof in getting 
the Dursleys to treat Cinderella ... I mean Harry... better?

Did JKR try to rehabilitate DD in OotP and HBP, probably. But, to 
me, what's the point? The Dursleys are who she meant them to be and 
that's just fine IMO. I'm not going to beat up DD for not sending 
the prince with the glass sliper in sooner? No point, JKR needed 
Harry to suffer in his youth and had further comic relief planned 
against the Dursleys in every book so far, whether you found it 
funny or not, JKR (and I) did.



> Julie continues:
> 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...

Mike again:
Ooh, now there's a juicy topic.<eg> Someone over on 'Mugglenet' made 
the prediction that if JKR is going to really stun us with the most 
unlikeliest of turncoats, she'll flip McGonagall. Minerva has never 
really taken Harry's side in all the difficulties Harry has gotten 
himself into. Think about it. She either passed Harry off for DD to 
deal with, (think CoS wrap-up, Harry's name coming out of the GoF, 
Harry's vision of Arthur's attack) or she just punished Harry, or 
allowed punishments to stand, without hearing his side on the story. 
(think Norbert, Umbridge, Sectumsempra incident). If she wasn't such 
a sports nut, she probably would have just confiscated Harry's 
Firebolt and left it at that. Her solution to Harry's Dementor 
problem? Send him to the hospital!!

Although it strikes me as very unlikely insofar as what we have seen 
of Minerva through all the books, her flipping would be the biggest 
BANG of 'em all. Unlikely, but OH so tantalizing.

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

Mike, agreeing with Julie although I do have one Sirius post left in 
me :-)