HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look LONG SORRY

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 184514

> > 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? 

Montavilla47:
I was speaking of the time immediately after Lily's death when 
Dumbledore persuades Snape to go beyond his grief in order to
protect Lily's son.  I'd say that worked.  It didn't stop Snape from
hating Harry, but it did channeled his energies toward looking after
the boy.


Pippin:
> 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:
There's canonical evidence that Petunia would have listened to 
Dumbledore.  There is their previous correspondence (when she
wrote and asked to be allowed to attend Hogwarts), and there 
is the howler he sends in OotP.

It probably wouldn't have been an easy conversation, but then,
there are times when one has to choose because what is right,
and what is easy.  Telling someone in person that their sister
has died is the right thing to do.


> > 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?

Montavilla47:
Add to Sirius the names of Dumbledore, Fred, George, James,
Molly, and Tonks (although maybe she doesn't actually *love* 
Harry).

Dumbledore bullies Snape for years, and he bullies the Dursleys
during the only interactions we see between them (sending a 
howler is a form of bullying).  Fred and George bully Percy, 
Neville, and nameless first years (and Malcolm Baddock).  James
bullied Snape and other nameless students.  Molly bullies the
twins.  Tonks bullies Lupin into resuming their relationship 
immediately after Dumbledore's death.

I consider what Hermone does to Marietta bullying behavior, 
along it is much sneakier than straightforward aggression.

Pippin:
> 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.

Montavilla47:
The problem is what you consider "unjustified."  Hermione uses
aggression sometimes when the circumstances demand it, but usually
over-responds.  For example, in retribution for Rita writing lies (which
do cause Hermione a great deal of pain), she kidnaps and blackmails 
the reporter, essentially turning Rita into her pawn.

Marietta's betrayal of the D.A. was answered with permanent facial
disfigurement.  

Pippin:
> 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. 

Montavilla47:
>From what I see, Hermione tends to answer verbal aggression by 
cowering and saying, "It doesn't matter."  Unless it's Ron's, in which
case her responses run the gamut from answering back, to running
off to cry, to contemptuous silence.

I forgot about Ginny!  As I recall, Ginny hexes Zacharias Smith for
asking questions about something everyone is curious about and
attacks him physically for expressing his negative opinion about 
her Quidditch team.  If you look at her dialogue throughout OotP
and HBP, you'll notice that she rarely mentions anyone without
insulting them in some way.  (For example, she's the first one
in the books to refer to Luna as "Loony".)


Pippin:
> 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. 

Montavilla47:
Yet, Percy never uses any of those things.  Instead, he fumes
impotently while subjected to an unending series of practical
jokes.  The punishment they dole out to Percy is never justified.
It's all based on the very idea that Percy takes pride in things
they think are stupid (i.e., his Prefect status, Headboy status,
and Ministry duties).

Pippin:
> 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. 

Montavilla47:
I don't think that "picking on someone your own size" is what separates
a non-bully from a bully.  I think it's a matter of imposing your will on
others through intimidation, manipulation, or aggression OR excessively
punishing others for their "transgressions" (especially in the cases when 
you are acting as judge, jury, and executioner).

If people fight, that's one thing.  I don't, for example, think that
Ginny's fight with Ron constitutes bullying on either side (although
Ron certainly has no business calling Ginny a... whatever it was he was
going to call her).  It was a fight, pure and simple.

Nor would it be bullying for James and Severus to fight each other 
one-on-one.  But what James and Sirius did in SWM was definitely
bullying, never mind whether Snape was a match for them or not.


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

Montavilla47:
No.  That's what you're limiting the discussion to.  My point is that 
Dumbledore could have been more *engaged* with the Dursleys 
(without necessarily being more aggressive).


Pippin:
> 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...."

Montavilla47:
Hmmm.  Sounds like the only thing keeping Dumbledore from
being more aggressive with Tom is Tom's magical power.  In other 
words, if Dumbledore *could* bully Tom, he'd be quite happy to do
so.  

Sounds like he thinks that would be an effective solution, too.  If 
he were magically powerful enough to do so. :)

Pippin:
> 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:
And as far as we can tell, he didn't try at all in the case of the
Dursleys.  So, we'll never know if it would have worked or not.

> > 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.

Montavilla47:
It seemed to mean something to Harry.

Pippin:
> 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?

Montavilla47:
Something other than what he did.  Which was nothing.

> 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:
Which is odd, when I think about it, because I think Snape's ability
to Occlume is linked to his unhappy childhood.  I would guess
that he learned to shut down his feelings in response to his 
father's temper.


> > 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.

Montavilla47:
Right.  Because, other than the OWL that blames Harry for
any magic that happens at 4 Privet Drive, there is no oversight.

Not to link this to present day events, but I just heard a 
vice-presidential candidate blame the credit crisis on a 
failure on the part of government to provide oversight on the 
financial institutions of our country.  

Now, we know that Dumbledore was aware of what was 
going on at the Dursley's, because Arabella Figg was there to
spy on them.  But he apparently did nothing on that 
information.

The Hagrid incident did keep the Dursleys from putting
Harry back in the cupboard.  (That, and it would be harder
for Harry to pretend he didn't exist if he were rattling the 
cups everytime he moved in that cramped little space
during Vernon's important client dinner!)

Pippin:
> 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:
But there was a presence right there on the street who could have 
provided constant supervision, Arabella Figg.  And, as for Vernon
taking it, what choice would he have had?

And, as far as harming Harry, doesn't the blood protection
extend to Vernon?  I mean, is it only Voldemort that the 
blood charm protects Harry from?  Or is it all Death Eaters?
Or is it all people?  

How the hell does that blood protection work, anyway?

The idea that Vernon would take it out on Petunia is a 
bit absurd.  It's quite obvious that Vernon is more under
Petunia's power than she under his.  He's the one who is
afraid to tell her that weird cloaked people are talking about
the Potters.  He's the one who buckles when, in OotP, 
she tells him that Harry has to stay.


> > 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:
Then again, they might be afraid that if they do, he'll call on his 
murderous godfather to turn them into hedgehogs.  Then again,
perhaps he reeks so badly that the thought of allowing him to sit
in the living room for an hour is too much to bear. :)

My point isn't that the Dursleys are perfectly reasonable people.
My point is that you seem to think that the Dursleys will only
respond to threats, and then only for a short period of time.

And, as the books show, no one *ever* tries any approach
other than either ignoring them or threatening them, and
they do respond to the threats.  They respond so well that by
PoA, they are effectively neutered.  Harry and Vernon do 
negotiate an agreement (that Harry considers pretty good), 
in which Harry agrees not to hide his magical nature around
Vernon's sister in return for Vernon signing his permission
form.  In GoF, Vernon has no choice about allowing Harry
attend the QWC.  

If Harry had really pushed the thing about listening to the 
news in OotP, Vernon would have had to let him.  I think
Harry simply preferred to be anti-social.  He was, after all,
fifteen.


> > 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. 


Montavilla47:
I have no idea whether Vernon and Petunia would have spent the
money on Harry.  However, they were already spending money 
on Harry as it was.  Granted, it was as little money as possible, but
they did have to buy some food for him, and presumably he wasn't
wearing Dudley's old underwear in addition to his clothes.   

But we'll never know, will we?


> 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. 

Montavilla47:
Sorry.  I meant "ask in person."

Heh.  I wonder what would have happen to Dumbledore's plan if Petunia
had dropped Harry on the nearest orphanage's doorstep.


> 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.

Montavilla47:
Did Grindelwald actually have anything to do with Muggles when he 
came to power?  I don't think we know enough about his reign of 
terror to know.  For all we do know, it could have been (as Voldemort's
reign was) limited mostly to the wizards.