HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look LONG SORRY

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 184510

> Montavilla47:
> Again, you're limiting the choices, although extending them to
> the concept of a "bribe."   I notice that you skipped right over
> the idea of talking to Petunia and letting her know what was
> going on.  You know, that approach did work with Snape, even 
> if he was bit distraught at the moment.

Pippin:
It worked with Snape? How? When did Snape ever abandon a grudge? Did
Dumbledore ever get anyone to stop hating someone else? 

Petunia had no use at all for Dumbledore and still less for Lily or
her child. What makes you think that Petunia would have
listened? The narrator in PS/SS notes, ironically as it turns out,
that Dumbledore did not seem to notice how completely unwelcome he
would be at Privet Drive. I'm sure he knew already that Petunia wasn't
about to invite any wizards in for tea.  

> Montavilla47:
> I have news for you, Pippin.  The people that love Harry are bullies. 

Pippin:
Yes and no. 

 Sirius qualifies, absolutely. But Neville?  Luna? Dobby?

A bully, according to the last article I read on the subject, is
someone who habitually uses unjustified aggression towards a weaker
person. I don't think that fits most of Harry's friends.

Ginny, Ron and Hermione tend to answer verbal aggression with spells
or blows -- that's detrimental to the public order (and any innocent
bystanders who happen to be in the way) but is it bullying? I wouldn't
say so, unless the aggression in question is coming from someone so
much weaker that a threat from them could be justly ignored. 

Fred and George habitually picked on Percy, but they were pretty
evenly matched, despite being two against one. Percy had age,
authority, twelve   OWLs worth of magic and Molly on his side. 

Hagrid and Dumbledore have the problem that they are unusually strong,
in very different ways. They'd have a hard time finding someone their
own size to pick on -- but Hagrid isn't habitually aggressive at all,
IMO. He doesn't go around looking for trouble, though he's easily
antagonized about some things. 

Whether Dumbledore would have been justified in being more aggressive
towards the Dursleys is what we're discussing here. 

He's tried being more aggressive in the past: "The time is long gone
when I could frighten you with a burning wardrobe and force you to
make repayment for your crimes. But I wish I could, Tom....I wish I
could...."

One of the mixed blessings of growing old is that you've had a chance
to try lots of things already. Dumbledore's tried scaring someone into
changing his ways. It didn't work. Strangely enough, he's had better
luck appealing to the best in people. Unfortunately in some cases,
there's not a lot to work with.


> Montavilla47:
> I agree with you that the letter wasn't intended to get Harry
> a bedroom.  A letter addressed to Petunia and Vernon requesting
> that Harry be put into a room, rather than a cupboard might have
> had that effect. 

Pippin:
 The bedroom wouldn't mean anything unless it was accompanied by some
actual interest in Harry's welfare. No amount of polite notes would
convince the Dursleys to care about that.

Dumbledore did ask that the Dursleys care for Harry as if he were
their own. The question is, what should he have done when they showed
they weren't going to do that?

Montavilla:
 A visit from Dumbledore, explaining that  no amount of negativity is
going to squash the magic out of  Harry might have had even more effect.

Pippin:
Don't you think it's a little odd that Lily, Hermione and Riddle had
all realized that they could do strange things before they ever got
their Hogwarts letter, while Harry's powers manifest so infrequently
that he never figured out that he has them? 

I'm not at all sure that Harry's powers weren't suppressed,
temporarily. And according to Jo, Harry's inability to do occlumency
is a result of his mistreatment. 


> Montavilla47:
> IIRC, they don't actually start starving Harry until they find out
that he lied to them and pretended that he'd be able to hex them
> any time he wanted to.  Once they realized that he couldn't—and he
> ruined Vernon's deal with his magic,  they locked him in his room.
> 
> It wasn't connected to the pig's tail, except in a most indirect 
> way. 

Pippin:
But that's my point. The Dursleys already know that  wizards can watch
the house, pursue them to the most remote and unlikely locations, and
 inflict pain and disfigurement at will -- I'd be scared to death. And
I'd stay scared. If a twelve foot bearded maniac knocked my door down,
twisted a gun out of my hands, and gave my kid a pig's tail, I
wouldn't forget about it in a hurry. 

But none of that stops the Dursleys from locking Harry in his
room and feeding him soup once a day through a cat flap.
Of course they're breaking Muggle laws and risking those penalties 
along with public disgrace. That doesn't stop them either.

I doubt that anything less than constant supervision would make a dent
in their behavior, and as we saw, Vernon couldn't take it.  And he has
a tendency to be violent. Perhaps he wouldn't be able to harm Harry.
But what if he harmed Petunia? Or tried to? 

> 
> Montavilla47:
> I don't think you can blame Harry's lack of hygiene on Petunia
> and Vernon.  They are, at that point, pretty much doing what
> Harry wants, which is leaving him alone.  The only thing they
> are balking at is having him watch the news with them.  How
> are they supposed to force Harry to bathe?  He's got a 
> murderous Godfather who'll hex them if they try.

Pippin:
They might, if they were such reasonable people as you suppose, tell
Harry that he's allowed to watch the news if he will keep himself and
his room cleaned up. 


> Montavilla47:
> I don't believe I used the word bribe.  That is your
characterization of  what could be a mutually beneficial relationship
between Dumbledore and the Dursleys.  It's not unreasonable for
someone who  assumes the care and feeding of a child to get financial
support from someone who leaves them with that child.  

Pippin:
What makes you think Vernon and Petunia would spend the money on
Harry? And the trouble is, if Dumbledore could turn Petunia into a
mushroom if she didn't, so could any other wizard. 

And that makes me wonder...

Funny thing, or maybe not, that Harry's accidental magic blows up Aunt
Marge, turns his teacher's wig blue, and frees a boa constrictor, but
never does anything drastic to Dudley, Vernon or Tuney.

It didn't occur to Petunia until Dudley was attacked that her own
family might be in danger along with Harry. But surely Dumbledore must
have been aware. 

If I were  Dumbledore, I'd  put have every shield charm he can think
of on the Dursleys, though  they might not be complete protection
against unqualified wizards like the Twins and Hagrid. Still, maybe
Hagrid didn't do such a bad job of trying to turn Dudley into a pig as
he thought. <g>

Montavilla:
It's also not unheard of  for the person leaving the child to *ask*
the other to take on the responsibility, rather than leaving the child
on their doorstep in the middle of the night.

Pippin:
Petunia  was asked, or the magic could not have taken effect. She had
to *allow* Harry house room. It's not like she doesn't know how to get
in touch with Dumbledore if she wants to talk. 

Pippin earlier:
> >  Young Dumbledore pretended to himself that a  display of wizard
power would be all it took to put the Muggles in their place, "only
the force that was necessary and no more" all justified in the name
 of benefits for wizards. 
> > 
> > Grindelwald showed him how wrong he was.
> 
> Montavilla47:
> Really? When?  I don't recall Grindelwald showing Dumbledore
anything about Muggles.  

Pippin:
I mean that when Grindelwald came to power, Dumbledore found that the
"force that was necessary" to bring Muggles under wizard control was
much greater than young Dumbledore had allowed himself to suppose.

Pippin