[HPforGrownups] DD and Harry and Dursleys Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 164345

> va32h agrees,adding:>

> Life with the Dursleys permitted Harry to make what in retrospect was > 
> his first and most crucial decision.

> The first wizard boy Harry meets is Draco - and Draco extends his > 
> friendship to Harry. Making Draco the first potential friend, wizard > or 
> otherwise, Harry would have ever had.Who would blame Harry for > wanting a 
> friend?  But it is Draco's resemblance (in look and > personality) to 
> *Dudley*, that leads Harry to decline that  friendship. > Harry ultimately 
> chooses Ron over Draco, which is symbolic of > choosing good over evil, 
> love over power, and so on and so on.

> Dumbledore surely regrets that Harry suffered during his time with > the 
> Dursleys, but neither he, nor we, should regret how he turned out > as a 
> result.


Magpie:

But doesn't that suggest Harry couldn't tell the difference between "good 
and evil" if he wasn't raised by the Dursleys? That's hard to believe--he 
might have thought Draco was a putz if raised by Sirius too (perhaps he's 
have the same feeling about the Malfoys as Ron did). James hated Snape 
without growing up with the Dursleys, and chose Sirius for his friend.

Nobody's regretting how Harry turned out. They're disagreeing with arguments 
for the Dursleys style of parenting Harry being a good intentional choice 
for Dumbledore to make--the best way to guarantee Harry being a good guy.

Carol:

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.

<snipping>


Magpie:

Or alternatively, since we're just speculating:

Sirius Black, having raised Harry in this alternate universe, sees him as a 
son. Harry isn't a stranger to him who looks like James the way he is in 
canon, so he doesn't have the same issues of wanting Harry to be James. 
Remembering his own family's arrogance, Sirius teaches him well not to think 
himself above others because of who he is.

McGonagall raises Harry to be more studious, and is strict with him. Like 
many women before her, she's able to be a teacher and raise a child, and the 
affection she feels for Harry is a source of strength for him. Perhaps he 
avoids certain things he's done in canon McGonagall doesn't approve of that 
get him into trouble.

Mrs. Weasley's star-struckness promts his brothers and sisters to prank 
Harry, who resolutely defines himself as not special to be one of them 
(seeing also how Percy stands out).

It's easy to come up with alternative scenarios that don't lead to disaster, 
because we have no alternative. I agree with wynnleaf's suggestion that 
Dumbledore's speech is JKR trying to defend him--though since it comes out 
of his mouth I do still have to consider it part of his character. But for 
me, "blood protection" is an acceptable reason to put Harry with the 
Dursleys with the abuse being an unfortunate price, but attempts to argue 
that "arrogance protection" was a factor, with the abuse there for character 
building, I can't understand. I don't see someone having affection for a 
child being a danger to good upbringing.

> va32h here:
>
> When it comes to discussion of Dumbledore's leaving Harry with the
> Dursleys, I feel it is unfair to look at the situation without
> considering the context of what it really is: an orphan-makes-good
> tale.
> Harry's suffering at the hands of the Dursleys is a convention of that
> genre. He gets treated badly, and we sympathize with him, and it is all
> the more sweet when his tormentors get their comeuppance.

Magpie:
Yes. But of course, Dumbledore doesn't have that for his reason, so for me 
it's necessary to find an excuse that doesn't require him wanting Harry to 
suffer for ten years on the off-chance that getting tucked into bed at night 
with a kiss might swell his head. One of the difficulties of Dumbledore is 
that in most Cinderella stories, the fairy godmother isn't the person who 
set up Cinderella's bad situation. If Harry had just been brought up by 
Muggles in a life that was hard, but not comically unloving, it wouldn't 
have been a problem.

I think that looking at Harry's personality, he doesn't act totally like a 
kid would probably act in this situation, because, imo, the story isn't 
about Harry dealing with a horrible home situation. It's not a realistic 
series about an unwanted child. The Dursleys are in some ways a cartoon 
version of the way a kid would complain about his real parents who don't 
mistreat him. (Betsy used to always argue something like this and I thought 
she was remembering it too rosily, but a re-read gave me the same 
impression.) So there's limited damage that the Dursleys seem to do. But 
it's still true that the Dursleys are all about making Harry grow up 
unloved, and that's just not character-building, logically.

va32h:
> But JKR can't really have it both ways, can she? She can't have her
> requisite horrible childhood for her hero, without having her story,
> which is set after all in modern time, be subject to modern standards
> of what is and is not abuse.

Magpie:
Sure, but that's why, imo, we need to stick with the blood protection being 
the reason Harry's at the Dursleys, and their treating him like the unwanted 
child is the unfortunte price to pay. It's only a problem if that part's 
supposed to be character building, and caring about Harry would have ruined 
him forever.

va32H;
> Interestingly enough, my daughter, who is 11, and her friends of the
> same age, have no problem with things like this. They accept the
> Dursleys, the very bad uncles in Lemony Snicket, and all sorts of
> situations that seem cruel to children.

Magpie:
They accept them--but do they argue that Harry would have been an awful 
child without them, incapable of doing the things he does now? Because I 
think we all accept the Dursleys as necessary and as part of the genre just 
as we accept Count Olaf. But Count Olaf and the death of the children's 
parents are part of the series of *unfortunate* events. They're not 
blessings because those Baudelaires would have been spoiled brats who 
couldn't tell the difference between good and evil if it hadn't happened. 
(Not that one couldn't write a story like that, probably a dark comedy. But 
we'd probably start off with the kid already being a horrible brat who 
changes. It could be pretty funny...as could a story where Harry was loved 
at the Dursleys and had to fight Voldemort as a spoiled, gluttonous brat.)

-m