Christian Forgiveness and Snape (was Would Harry forgiving )

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 164328

Carol:

<snipping>
> I'm not examining Dumbledore's intentions here, only noting that it
> really is for the best, IMO, that Harry was not brought up as a
> pampered prince or an infant phenomenon. I doubt that arrogance
like
> James's would have served Harry well. It might even have been
fatal.
>
> Carol, doubting that any other character, whether McGonagall or
Sirius
> Black or the Weasleys, could have succeeded as well as DD in
keeping
> Harry safe and fostering his development into the selfless and
> courageous person he will have to be to save the WW

Magpie:
But we can't really say that it's for the best, because Nightmare!
Harry who has all the worst qualities of lots of other characters
doesn't exist. How Harry turned out doesn't retroactively make the 
Dursleys' actions better. Lots of people have probably turned out 
well in response to bad situations, but that doesn't make the bad 
situations right. We wouldn't say poverty was a good thing because 
there are writers whose childhood poverty informed their work.

The other trouble for me in looking at the Dursleys as good for
Harry is that the position always seems to lead to arguing against 
normal parental affection as if it's damaging. Draco's family 
obviously has a lot of problems, and he himself has a lot of 
personality flaws, but sending sweets to your 11-year-old at 
boarding school is hardly a sign of pampering gone wild (Draco 
doesn't share Dudley's problem with gluttony either). Snape seems to 
have escaped the pampering curse and it doesn't seem to have done 
him any favors. James can be a bullying toerag, but was also capable 
of being courageous and selfless and not every parents nightmare by 
any stretch. Sirius' relationship with his parents seems very 
troubled, yet he was bullying right there with James. Barty Crouch 
claims his father never loved him and seemed to seek that out in 
Voldemort.

So I can't give Dumbledore props for fostering Harry's development
into a selfless and courageous person by sticking him with people
who didn't love him and made sure he knew it--nor can I see having a
child raised by people who are mean to him and don't love him as a
form of fostering selfless and courageous development. (He scolds 
them on their parenting in HBP too, having it both ways.) It's one
thing to argue that the Dursleys weren't so bad in the end or that
the final product of their upbringing is a pretty good kid, but
trying to go further always seems to result in making affection
damaging and well-avoided. The only solution to a problem the
Dursleys offered was in blood protection.

If one can say that a Harry who grew up with Wizard parents might
have been arrogant and spoiled one could just as easily say that if
Harry had grown up with Wizard parents--the right ones--he might
have been just as courageous and selfless as he is now, but with
less anger and a more loving spirit. We can say anything because we
don't know what would have happened. Actually, the Dursleys could
easily have been nice relatives whose main sin was that they were
ordinary. It would have made for a very different Harry, but not
necessarily a bad or spoiled one.

-m