Protego/McGonagall/Ships/Tobias/HarryRelatives/Kreachur/MaterialThings/DH

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 164595

---  "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:
>
> ...
> 
> Carol wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/164270>:
> 
> << and [McGonagall] develops an equal fondness for 
> Harry, revealed by her buying him an expensive racing 
> broom and allowing him on the Quidditch team in his 
> first year when other first-years aren't even allowed 
> their own broom >>
> 
> I agree that McGonagall is very fond of Harry, but I 
> don't think the Quidditch stuff is evidence of her 
> fondness for him. It can all be so well explained by 
> her fondness for Gryffindor winning Quidditch matches.
> 
> ...


bboyminn:

Pure speculation but I don't think McGonagall actually
bought Harry a broom. Nor do I think the charged Harry's
own vault for it. I think it is much more likely that
the school bought a broom for Harry to use. That is, 
not only was the broom paid for with school funds but
was technically considered school property. I do think
however that if Harry did well at Quidditch, when it 
came time to leave Hogwarts, they would have allowed
him to keep the broom. 

Now there is nothing in canon to support this other
than a logical analysis of what a school is likely to
do. I simply don't see McGonagall taking the cost out
of her personal fund. I question whether they can
take money from Harry vault without some kind of, at
least implied, authorization. I do see the school
with substantial funds that the headmaster controls,
and therefore assume the school paid for the broom.
Technically the broom belongs to the school but has
been given to Harry not only for his use, but has be
placed in his keeping. Dumbledore and McGonagall being
the old softies that they are, would certainly let
Harry keep the broom after having successfully used 
it for 7 years. 


> Claudia wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/164278>:  
> 
> << Why were DD, McGonagall, and LV still single after
> all these yrs? ... >>
> 
> The Dumbledore/McGonagall ship used to be very popular,
> but I've *always* preferred the Dumbledore/Pomfrey and 
> McGonagall/Hooch ships.
> 
> Dumbledore is 150 years old. That gives him enough 
> time to have outlived several wives. ...
> 

bboyminn:

Indeed you are just assuming that these people are and 
always have been single. I see no reason why McGonagall
couldn't be married. She has dedicated her life to 
teaching, that's what she does. Any husband would have
to understand that. Being Head of House, it seems 
reasonably important that she live at the school. 
However, there is nothing to say that she and her 
husband don't meet up for lunch or dinner on weekends
and holidays, or that she doesn't spend all summer with
her husband and potential family.

Also note, that not all professors have a place at the
Head Table. I assume the teacher who have a seat at
the head table are the teachers who live at the school.
I equally assume that those teacher who do not have
a place at the table, do not live at the castle. They
go home to their wives and children at night. 

So, because, she is Head of House, McGonagall's teaching
contract includes room and board during the school
year. I'm sure this is true of many boarding schools.
There must be some teachers who are require either by
the school or by their own life circumstances to live
at the school. But that does not prevent them from
having husbands, wives, and children. 

As to Dumbledore and Voldemort, among other things, 
I think their genius isolates them. In a sense, it
is difficult to impossible for them to find an 
equal; some one who can relate to the world at the
same level as they can. "It's lonely at the top."
And this makes it difficult for them to find a 
romantic life partner that they can truly bond with
and relate to. I think more than anything the 
isolation of genius has kept Dumbledore and Voldemort
single. Though with Voldemort being a dillusional
power-mad megalomanic hasn't helped I'm sure.

I don't deny that Dumbledore might have had a wife 
at some time, but I'm sure she is long gone and
her passing was a very painful experience for him.
Consequently if Dumbledore was married at one time,
I think it was the one and only time he was married. 

> 
> Steve bboyminn wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/164483>:
> 
> << H[arry] doesn't value material things because he 
> has seen the material things don't bring happiness. >>
> 
> Harry *does* value (some) material things: the Nimbus
> 2000 and the Firebolt spring to mind. Didn't he *cry*
> over the Nimbus being destroyed? ...
> 

bboyminn:

No generalization is ever complete. I am not trying to
define Harry in his totality, I am merely trying to 
highlight an aspect of Harry. Further, I am trying to
contrast that aspect in Harry to that in Dudley. 

Dudley demands everything and values nothing. It is
consumerism for the sake of consumerism. Dudley's 
goal is to receive and keep receiving, but that 
having, using, savoring, cherishing what he has means
nothing. 

Harry on the other hand, while admittedly does value
material things in a healthy way, he does so for their
worth and true value. Not some false sense of how a
person is defined by their possessions. Not in the
sense that Draco is defined by his possessions as 
symbols of his wealth. Not is the sense that Dudley
defines and values himself based on the material 
objects he is given, but having no sense of their 
value or meaning.

Harry is not a consumer, he doesn't 'shop til he
drops', though he certainly has the money to do so.
He, in his own way, does value the few material 
possessions he has, but it seems a true sense of 
value rather than the false and empty values we
see in Dudley and Draco.

So, it is only true that Harry doesn't value material
things, when that statement is taken in the context of
how Harry's material values contrast with Dudleys. 

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn