[HPforGrownups] Dahl and the Dursleys (was:Re: Cruel, Mean, and Nasty/Follow the Owls...)

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 158876


> Betsy Hp:
> I've completely butchered your post, Magpie, to focus in on one
> thing: The Dursleys and Dahl.  You call them "Dahl-esque" and they
> *kind of* are, but in a really watered down way, IMO.  Dahl-lite, if
> you will (all the comedy, less of the evilness, maybe?).

Magpie:
Oh, I definitely used Dahl-esque to mean sort of reminiscent but not Dahl. 
I was responding to the idea that the Dursleys were cartoon characters 
rather than real characters, or like the other characters. The Dursleys 
aren't the villains, after all.  They just set up Harry having a sucky life. 
It makes the WW more attractive.  I remember somebody once, for instance, 
saying how odd it is that Harry thinks about how he never thought he'd hate 
anyone as much as Dudley until he met Draco Malfoy and they thought that was 
rather odd given that Dudley had had far more power over Harry as a bully 
than Draco ever did.  But it still makes sense--just be virtue of being a 
wizard, and certainly by his association with Voldemort, Draco is more than 
Dudley.

But they're still obviously bad on their own level. Not because they're 
horribly abusive, but because Harry's got to have no family.  I can accept 
them as one of the downsides to Dumbledore's plan for Harry, but I don't 
think they're a good thing or having no weight whatsoever (particularly 
since Petunia seems to have become a bit more real).

Carol brought up the Statute of Secrecy and Dumbledore's actions, and I 
thought that post put it really well when it came to some of Dumbledore's 
actions.  If we've got DD using magic to make taking Tom from the orphanage 
go smoothly, but he's supposed to be the ideal of goodness, it seems to me 
there's a few ways to deal with it.

One is to think Dumbledore has done something bad by RW standards--he should 
be honest with the woman and treat her with the same respect he treats 
wizards.

Another is to say that Dumbledore is the best we're going to get in this 
universe because the Statute of Secrecy is just a given that all Wizards are 
going to follow.  Asking for equality for Muggles is pointless and 
impractical.

The third is to actually consider Dumbledore's actions good by objective 
ethical standards.

Another is to sort of skip over it as a flaw in the book and explain it that 
way.  Or else it's not a flaw but something that requires you to take in the 
style and tone of the book.

I tend to approach it with a combination of 2 and 4.  1 and 3 are valid too, 
though they're talking about the book from outside of it.  But if we're 
doing those two things we're arguing our own versions of right and wrong, 
our reactions to the story.

-m