CHAPDISC: PS/SS 1, The Boy Who Lived and Avatar SPOILERS LONG

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 187761

> Pippin:
> We know Fudge's idea of how to protect Harry: surround him with dementors. He also thinks it would take a squad of hit wizards just to cope with Black alone. Then there's Fudge's plan B: deny that any danger exists. Scrimgeour offers Harry the protection of aurors, but won't claim they could hold off Voldemort in person. They couldn't even catch Dumbledore.
> 
> Hermione thinks Voldemort wouldn't dare invade the Ministry, but when he does, no one can stop him from getting away.
> 
> Molly fears she can't protect her family from Voldemort, even with the Order to help her. And the clock backs her up. What part of "mortal peril" don't you understand?

Alla:

Probably the part where due to his sufferings at Dursleys Harry actually avoided the mortal peril.

I was asking for anybody else discussing choices to protect baby Harry besides those that great Albus suggested.

Because you know, when Harry goes to Hogwarts we all know how much the protection mattered (not much that is). Harry faced Quirrel!Mort, little Tommy, supposed murderer, who was not, real Voldemort, etc, etc, etc. It is the totality of circumstances which I find pretty damning for Dumbledore as person making good, moral choice, but I will address it more in another post.



>> > Alla:
> > 
> > Yes, I absolutely can and as I said upthread this is part of the reason why I find the execution of such choice to be so unconvincing, because Dumbledore adds this "pampered prince" crap to his rhetoric.
> > 
> > First of all I do not know when Dumbledore says it that he is talking about his  own childhood, I took it to mean that the love and care of the wizarding family for him means raising Harry as pampered prince.
> 
> Pippin:
> Is it crap  that kindness and care should be unconditional but  rewards and praise  go only to those who have earned them? 
> 
> IMO, Dumbledore (and JKR) think most children need some help learning to regulate their need for approval, just as they need some help learning to regulate their need for food. Praise and favors that he hasn't really earned have a sorry effect on Harry in HBP, just as Dumbledore feared they might, but at least it never became engrained.


Alla:

I can't help but ask - so the part of unconditional kindness and care applies to how Dursleys treated Harry how exactly?


> 
> 
> Alla:
>  And even if Dumbledore means his own childhood, um, no I do not think he was a pampered prince,
> 
> Pippin:
> While his family struggled with wayward Aberforth and impaired Ariana, Dumbledore was left free to rack up up every prize of note that Hogwarts offered, and correspond with the most noted wizards of the day. Then, having reached adulthood,  he was going to take a year long trip around the world and pursue a brilliant career. Would anyone but a pampered prince think like that? 

Alla:

If in your mind incredibly gifted student who wants to pursue his education is a pampered prince, then sure I agree he is a pampered prince. For me to make such conclusion I need to see more of Dumbledore's childhood, because to me pampered prince is something entirely different (and boy do I hate this phrase, sorry). <SNIP>

Pippin: 
> Then, of course, Kendra died, and he found out what life was like for people who weren't being handed the moon on a platter.

Alla:

That's just it, I do not feel like he was being handed moon on the platter, I feel that he was just that talented, I do not see his parents spoiling him, etc.

Pippin:  
> He was planning to reverse the course of natural death and lead the WW in a revolution all so he could get out from having to care for his family. That's quite a sense of entitlement, don't you think?

Alla:

Yes, still does not necessarily mean to me that he had a childhood of pampered prince.

> 
> 
> > Alla:
> > 
> > Oh? And how do we know that three wizards that approached him meant no harm? Maybe at least one of them was Voldemort's spy and was trying to find ways to get closer to Harry?
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> Living with a loving wizarding family wouldn't have prevented it. Quirrell approached Harry when he was with Hagrid as Carol already pointed out.

Alla:

And I did not say that it would have prevented it necessarily, but the opposite is true too IMO. 

> > Alla:
> > 
> > If Voldemort was alive all this time by the way, that would have been another way to convince me of necessity of blood protection.
> 
> Pippin:
> He returned to his body in GoF. Thanks to the blood protection, so he says, he never invaded Privet Drive. Meanwhile he or his forces penetrated Azkaban, the Ministry, the Burrow, Grimmauld Place and Hogwarts itself. 

Alla:

And if Harry would needed to go to Dursleys when Voldemort returned to his body I would have totally understand that.

> Pippin:
> You are saying, if I may summarize your argument, that you cannot believe Dumbledore made a moral decision to place Harry at Privet Drive because you are not convinced that Harry was really in danger. 


Alla:

Not exactly, I am saying that I cannot believe that Dumbledore made a moral decision because :

a) I am not convinced that Harry was in such danger that could not have been fought in other place; (mind you it is totally possible, just not 100% sure)

b) I am not convinced that the danger (which was certainly present) was of such degree that it was worth it for Harry to endure Dursleys;

c) I am not convinced that  protection actually **worked** at Privet Drive at least before Voldemort came back;

d) I am not seeing that it was worth for Harry to suffer at Dursleys even if he was protected there hundred percent, if he still was in mortal danger everywhere else including Hogwarts. Meaning, that maybe it was worth taking chances for him to stay with loving family, where his magic including fighting magic would have developed significantly and just as he was fighting death at Hogwarts, if needed he would be fighting it off at home.

e) All of the above does not apply if you agree that Dumbledore is a despicable bastard ;)


Pippin: 
> But it seems to me that the morality of Dumbledore's decision can only be judged by whether *Dumbledore* thought Harry was really in danger. Since JKR makes it clear that Dumbledore's perspective is not shared by the reader, we can't judge his state of mind until we've shifted our perspective to match what we know about his. <SNIP>

Alla:

I disagree. Dumbledore's complete perspective is not shared by the reader, but part of it is. And sorry for sound like a parrot that part (pampered prince one) I at least find pretty despicable and unforgiving.


JMO,

Alla