DD and Harry and Dursleys Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 164399

> >>Marion:
> Why do people find it so strange that DD put Harry with the        
> Dursleys? They were the only people that could give him the blood-  
> protection needed for the spell, and it would keep him safe.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I don't find it strange that Dumbledore put Harry with the Dursleys 
to keep him alive.  I do find it strange (and so refuse to accept 
<g>) that Dumbledore put Harry with the Dursleys to build his 
character.

> >>Carol:
> I didn't mention the Dursleys. I was talking about Dumbledore's
> secondary motive, the one he gave McGonagall, about protecting Harry
> from the dangers of growing up as the (supposed) child prodigy who
> defeated the Dark Lord. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I have been confused then.  I thought you were stating that being 
with the Dursleys was good for Harry because they managed to protect 
him from becoming an arrogant monster.  I do agree that it was 
probably a good idea to raise Harry away from the WW (just to avoid 
any rabid fans for one), but I don't agree that this is a positive 
that outweighed the badness of the Dursleys as guardians.

For me the *only* thing outweighing the negative aspects of the 
Dursleys' parenting of Harry was the blood protection that kept Harry 
alive.

> >>Carol:
> Now granted, having Figgy raise him would have been ideal in terms 
> of a knowledgeable guardian who would not abuse him, but even she   
> would have told him who he was and why he was with her. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Why?  I mean, why would Mrs. Figg feel compelled to tell Harry all 
about his parents' deaths and Harry's apparent defeat of Voldemort?  
I'm quite sure that if Dumbledore told her to leave that story alone, 
she'd have done it.  And she could have easily put Harry off with 
a "It was a bad thing and I'll tell you all about it when you're 
older.  Let's make a pact that I'll tell you everything I know when 
you turn eleven."

And if Dumbledore really was worried that Mrs. Figg would succumb to 
Harry-worship, then he could have put Harry with a truely ignorant 
family that were eager for a child of their own.  The man does have 
resources, as we've seen, time and again.

No, for me, the *only* acceptable reason for choosing the Dursleys as 
guardians was because Harry's life depended on it. 

> >>Carol:
> The Dursleys, whose limitations as guardians DD could not possibly 
> know (McGonagall doesn't explain why she considers them "the worst 
> sort of Muggles") can provide both the essential blood protection   
> and, theoretically, an ordinary life in which Harry will not be    
> exposed prematurely to fame and praise for a heroic deed he didn't 
> even perform.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I don't think Dumbledore is omnipotent, but I really don't think he's 
*that* stupid.  It doesn't take that much effort for a man with 
Dumbledore's observational skills to see that the Dursleys have some 
major issues.  Again, the need for the blood protection tied 
Dumbledore's hands.  It was the only protection he thought reliable, 
snd I'm willing to take his word on it.

But the idea that Harry was destined to become some sort of 
egotistical monster if his family loved him is... well, I see no 
canon for it.  And as Magpie pointed out, it's seems a rather odd 
parenting point for an author to make.

> >>Carol:
> (BTW, and I'm not defending the Dursleys, Harry didn't *live* in a
> broom cupboard.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I was using the phrase allegorically.  Harry was the Dursley's nasty 
little secret, and he knew they didn't love him.  You don't have to 
convince me the Dursleys weren't as abusive as all that.  But I do 
draw the line at them being good for Harry.

> >>Carol, who is *not* arguing that abuse builds character (though   
> bad things sometimes have good consequences), only that the         
> adulation of the WW, especially in his guardians, would have been  
> dangerous for Harry (as would being seen in public in the WW while 
> the Lestranges and Barty Jr. were at large)

Betsy Hp:
Right.  But that (in and of itself) wasn't a good enough reason to 
inflict the Dursleys on Harry.  There were many other ways Dumbledore 
could have provided such an environment.  The one thing, the only 
thing IMO, that made the Dursleys a valid choice was the blood-
protection.

Betsy Hp (who doesn't really see anything pointing to Harry being 
*this* close to being an egotistical psychopath, personally)