James and Harry and DD WAS: Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 164331

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
> >
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Oh, the people who love Harry would not have succeeded? Okay.
>
Carol responds:
I think, first, that Dumbledore also loves Harry. and, of course, we
can't discount the blood protection. But I also think that the other
people I listed don't know enough about Harry to protect him properly,
and they would not have understood the dangers of early popularity. 

Sirius Black would, IMO, have seen Harry as the reincarnation of James
(just as Snape does). In both GoF and OoP, he encourages Harry to take
risks for the fun of it as James did. Sirius Black at his best is rash
and reckless, and after GH he was bent on vengeance against Peter
Pettigrew--not a good model for Harry even if he tries to set aside
his hatred and anger for Harry's sake. He's also rich; note that he
gives Harry a Firebolt before he even knows him. Would he have
indulged Harry out of guilt for suggesting the change in Secret
Keepers? Impossible to say. Could he have kept Harry hidden away from
the DEs or a resurrected Voldemort? Unlikely. Would he have produced a
second James, a Harry who loved risks for their own sake and thought
highly of himself, assuming that he survived beyond the age of two?
Very likely.

McGonagall doesn't offer to raise Harry herself, so it's probably
pointless to discuss her in this context. I doubt that she could have
raised Harry herself and performed all her duties as Gryffindor
headmistress, Transfiguration teacher, and HoH of Gryffindor. She'd
have had to place him in some sort of WW daycare. Had she attempted to
raise him under such circumstances, she certainly could not have
avoided favoring Harry over the other students once he reached school
age given her treatment of him from the beginning of his first year.
Alternatively, she might have dropped out of teaching and raised Harry
much as her contemporary, Augusta Longbottom, raises Neville, trying
*not* to spoil him, but her affection for Harry's parents and her
belief that Harry is a special child would almost inevitably have
gotten in the way. Beneath her tight bun, McGonagall is an old softie,
and her affection for Harry's dead parents could easily have led to
indulgence of their orphan child. More important, it would have been
difficult for her to keep Harry hidden from others in the WW who would
hail him as a celebrity on the streets--and from Death Eaters who
would be quite happy to kill him.

The Weasleys certainly wouldn't indulge Harry with material goods, but
like McGonagall they might be tempted to treat him as someone special
from toddlerhood onward. Mr. Weasley is weak on discipline in any
case, and Mrs. Weasley might exempt him from the discipline she tries
to impose on their own children. (I can't imagine her screaming at him
or sending him Howlers.) If Harry were raised in the Weasley household
but given special privileges as the Boy Who Lived and an orphan who
needed extra love, it's possible that the other children, particularly
Percy and Ron, might become jealous of Harry, thinking he was loved
more than they were. And the Weasleys, with all their many children,
certainly could not have kept Harry's existence hidden, either from
the WW at large or from the DEs, once the children started to school
(unless Dumbledore or someone placed them under a Fidelius Charm to
keep them quiet, and we see how well that worked to protect the Potters).

Obviously, the blood protection, not protection from early celebrity
and pampering, was Dumbledore's primary consideration. But I also
think he was right to protect Harry from the dangers of seeing himself
as special for something he didn't even do, vaporizing Voldemort, or
surviving an AK through no skill or effort of his own. Dumbledore
can't just hope that Lily's genes will triumph over James's. Early
celebrity and indulgence are not good for any child, especially one
who somehow brought about the defeat and apparent death of a Dark wizard.

Sometimes, love isn't enough. Dudley's parents love him, after all, as
do Draco's (or at least his mother) and as (presumably) did James's,
and love in all those cases led to indulgence or overindulgence,
producing children who became bullies to varying degrees because they
thought they were special. And in Harry's case, "special" is a lot
more than being, say, a rich pureblood family's only son. Being
treated as special for having survived an AK and defeated the Dark
Lord as an infant could lead him to believe that he was invulnerable.
Love alone can't protect against that kind of danger. An arrogant and
overconfident Prophecy Boy won't be the Boy Who Lived for very long.

Dumbledore alone, I think, really understands that Harry must not
overestimate his abilities and powers, especially before they're
developed. He can only fully understand who he is and why he's special
by being taught gradually about his mother's sacrifice and the
Prophecy and the powers within his scar, which even DD doesn't fully
understand yet. An innocent, humble Harry has a greater chance of
survival than a Harry raised to view himself at the savior of the WW.

Carol, who is primarily concerned with the dangers of arrogance and
overconfidence for the boy destined to face Voldemort, dangers that
only Dumbledore fully understands