In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 158761

Carol earlier:
> > 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.
>
Cliff responding to Carol:
> 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.'" <snip>

> 
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.
<snip>

Carol again:
First, to Cliff: I deliberately didn't bring in Draco because he
couldn't have been in Dumbledore's mind. James may well have been--he
was not only Harry's father, he was an example of what can happen to a
boy indulged by wizard parents because of his talents. He became "an
arrogant little berk" and a bully. I don't think Dumbledore dared risk
having that happen to James's son, whose life was so much more
important than James's. 

Now, to Magpie and those who agree with her: Think of the dangers of
placing Harry with a wizarding family. How would a loving wizarding
family avoid indulging a child that the WW regarded as its savior?
More important, how could they hide him? They'd want to show him off
in public or to every visitor. Every eye would be on Harry. Even if
they could somehow keep the DEs away from him, he'd be a celebrity
before he could talk. How could he avoid thinking that he was special,
turning into something worse than James? Already he has difficult
studying and paying attention in class. Would a kid who thought of
himself as the Chosen One, who had a fan club like Krum's from the
moment he got to school if not sooner, ever learn anything? Would he
learn resourcefulness and independence and true courage?

I am *not* saying that Dumbledore knew that the Dursleys would abuse
Harry, much less that he wanted or expected them to do so. I'm saying
that he knew the dangers of having Harry grow up as a celebrity and he
wanted to avoid them. Even if Harry somehow didn't grow up with a big
head, still he would have the burden of knowing what the WW expected
of him from an early age. I think that Dumbledore wanted to spare him
that as long as possible. And he did, after all, tell Petunia to raise
him as her own son. It's not his fault that she (and Vernon) didn't.

Of course, the blood protection was Dumbledore's primary
consideration. But I don't think less of him at all for not wanting
Harry to grow up as "a pampered little prince." If you combine an
upbringing like James's with early celebrity, you'll be very lucky to
have a normal, mentally and emotionally healthy child.

As I said, look at what frequently happens to child stars in RL. Look
at, say, Michael Jackson. I realize that what happened to him wouldn't
happen in the WW, but the consequences of celebrity, especially for
someone who did nothing to earn it, as in Harry's case, can be
disastrous. 

As for Harry's parents' wishes, they never anticipated that their
child would be the Boy Who Lived. If they had foreseen that view of
him, I think they'd agree with DD that an upbringing like Lily's would
be better for him than an upbringing like James's for a variety of
reasons--safety, of course, being the most important. But also, if
Harry really is to have the burden of saving the WW on his shoulders,
would they really want the whole WW pointing their fingers at their
infant son and making him a hero for something he didn't even do? I
personally don't think they would. It's a burden, and it can lead to
corruption. Better to let him grow up as Just Harry.

Carol, still believing that Dumbledore was wise to want Harry to grow
up away from the WW and emphasizing again that his *primary*
consideration was Harry's safety