CHAPDISC: PS/SS 1, The Boy Who Lived

[zfshiruba]

No: HPFGUIDX 187710

> Pippin:
> Suffering what? The standard of care in a modern British institution is higher
> than what Harry received at the Dursleys, I should hope. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I should hope so too. However the only orphanage in the fictional Britain that JKR let us observe (AFAIR) was the orphanage where young Tom spent his days and yes, I think that is considered suffering for Tom and for kids who suffered from him. And I am the last person to pity Tom Riddle.
> 
> Yes, I know this was few decades ago in the books, but since we are not shown anything else, I would think it is a valid assumption to make that this is what life in the book orphanages is.
> 
> Believe me, if this is not so, I think Harry would have been much better off in the good orphanage than with Dursleys.
> 

zfshiruba: First I'd like to say that no matter what the circumstances, leaving a baby on a doorstep is unacceptable neglect! What if it had rained, and baby Harry had gotten sick. What if some random person walking around found him first? What if a wild animal such as a raccoon or a fox attacked him? Or for that matter a domestic animal? I've got a teething kitten who thinks everything that moves is his play toy. What if Harry had gotten rabies? What if there had been a kid like Dudley in the neighborhood? etc.

Second, Does anyone know when the UK closed down the orphanages? I know that they're on the foster system now. Assuming there are still orphanages in HP's UK, I imagine Dumbledore would have some sort of bias against them/ be wary of kids coming from them, because of the last kid to come to Hogwarts from an orphanage: Tom Riddle. IMO, Dumbledore would prefer just about anywhere over an orphanage.

> Pippin:
> The pampered princes of the book: Dudley, Draco, Sirius, James, even Dumbledore
> himself, are they not damaged? Are they not selfish and unthinkingly cruel? 
> Harry, OTOH, is prone to depression and anger, but he generally is not selfish
> and at least he notices when he is being cruel.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> And we are back to the arguments about child who is growing with loving parents or loving family does not have to equal growing up a pampered prince. Harry does not owe swat for the good qualities in his character to Dursleys as far as I am concerned.

zfshiruba:

Sirius is not entirely a pampered prince. James is, but judging from the fact that Sirius had to run away from home, the way he hates Grimmauld, his behavior at school and frankly, his relationship with his mother's portrait: I would say that Sirius was, at the very least, subjected to extreme verbal abuse from his family starting the second they found out he was in Gryffindor. Sirius' selfishness and cruelty stems more from his hatred of everything his family was than pampered arrogance.

I wouldn't qualify Dumbledore as a pampered prince either; Growing up in a home like his, even if he mostly avoided Ariana, does affect you.

Speaking of hate, there is a cycle of abuse; Harry was abused, and honestly, it really could have gone either way; whether he ended up the way he is or he ended up like Tom Riddle or in a less extreme example Sirius: hating those who hated/hurt him. I'm not saying that every abused kid turns out to be an abuser, I'm just saying that it does happen.

Also Pippin, Harry is not selfish enough! For an example of a hero who grew up in a perfectly loving environment, with a hidden destiny, without being entirely selfish and unthinkingly cruel: King Arthur. Wow, it can be done. You can have a normal childhood and still be a hero! Also, Neville is not a pampered prince; Ron is not a pampered prince; Hermione is not a pampered princess etc. There is middle ground!
 
> Pippin:
> The point of the books, though, is that none of those conditions prevented
> people from fighting evil. You don't have to be a storybook good guy to do it.
> That's what is subversive of the genre, IMO.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I can produce rather long list of the fantasy writers where characters who are very far from being storybook good guys and fighting evil anyway.
> 
<SNIP>

zfshiruba: 
Yes, they're called antiheroes and no JKR did not invent them, and they aren't a new idea either!