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

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 187777

Alla wrote:
<snip> 
> I was asking for anybody else discussing choices to protect baby Harry besides those that great Albus suggested.

Carol responds:
I don't think that would be in character for Dumbledore, who never discusses anything with anybody. And while I do think that the blood protection was necessary and served a purpose, I agree with you that DD's tendency to make decisions wholly on his own is a character flaw. However, I also understand completely why he didn't share the responsibility for Harry's protection with Sirius Black, who not only was a known risk taker whom even Harry later considers to be a reckless godfather, he was--DD had every reason to think--the man who had betrayed Harry's parents to their deaths. I can also see why he didn't share everything with young Snape, so recently a Death Eater, or Hagrid, who can't keep a secret to save his life. I'm not sure why he didn't share more with McGonagall. Too emotional, maybe, or maybe she already had too much on her plate, as DD likes to say?

But obviously he wasn't going to allow Harry's godfather, whose legal rights are extremely unclear, a chance to kill Harry after (seemingly) revealing the Secret of the Potters' hiding place to Voldemort for that very purpose. And Black immediately "proves" DD's judgment correct by (supposedly) killing thirteen people in front of about fifty witnesses.

Alla: 
> 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.

Carol responds:
But none of that has anything to do with the blood protection on Privet Drive, which was primarily intended to protect him while he went to school. And I don't see how Harry's facing Diary!Tom or Sirius Black was Dumbledore's fault, nor did he know that the Tri-Wizard Cup was a portkey that would take Harry straight to Voldemort (though I'll grant him a share of blame in the confrontation with Quirrell and the TWT, which I suppose he intends partly as a test of Harry's courage and resourcefulness).
> 
Alla:
> >  And even if Dumbledore means his own childhood, um, no I do not think he was a pampered prince,
> >
Carol:
I'm not sure that Dumbledore was referring to himself though his own childhood certainly illustrates the dangers of too much praise and freedom and too high an opinion of himself. Possibly he's thinking of James, who was both pampered and arrogant and, as far as I can tell, never developed the compassion and empathy that Harry develops throughout the series, beginning with Ron (in marked contrast to James's treatment of another boy from a poor family, Severus).
 
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>

Carol:
Just curious. Why do you hate the phrase? I think it applies beautifully to James and possibly to Draco and Dudley. I'm not sure about DD himself except that he certainly developed a high opinion of himself because his talents "entitled" him to do whatever he pleased and ignore his responsibilities (in contrast to the less talented but stubborn and determined Aberforth). 

> 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. <snip>

Carol:
His father was imprisoned when he was quite young, so he could not have been much of an influence, and his mother had her hands full with Ariana, whom Albus never had to take care of. She didn't even see a danger in his friendship with Gellert Grindelwald, whom she might have distrusted if she had been more observant. It's not a matter of spoiling and pampering so much as simply not supervising him or having any degree of control over him. And they must not have been poor if he intended to go on the Grand Tour when he finished school. I think as long as he kept the family's dark secrets, he could do anything else he pleased. Wild Aberforth doesn't seem to have had any supervision, either. (Not that I wholly blame Kendra; she was in a difficult position given what would have happened to Ariana if the secret had come out.) But, as I said, I'm not sure that the "pampered prince" remark applies to DD. His main concern (aside from Harry's safety) is that Harry's hiding place not be known to the WW at large; his secondary consideration is that fame not go prematurely to Harry's head. We see what happened to his father, who became an arrogant bully as the combined result of indulgent parents and renown (within Hogwarts) as a Quidditch player. Harry, in contrast, has learned humility and endurance of hardship from an early age. Granted, they're the result of mistreatment, but they serve him well in years to come. I don't think that James would have made a good Chosen One. He probably wouldn't have survived an encounter with Voldemort at age eleven or fourteen (setting aside what happened to him later).

> > > 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.

Carol responds:
At the time, DD was worried about loyal DEs who were nearly as evil and dangerous as LV himself, and, of course, he didn't know when a loyal DE or a dupe like Quirrell would come along to help restore him to a body. I wish it were clearer that the blood protection protects him against the DEs. The secrecy of his whereabouts may have been equally important, as well as the belief of DEs like Lucius Malfoy that LV was dead and the death or arrest of the most violent DEs. Imagine if Bellatrix or Dolohov had gone after Harry. 

I agree with you that we need more evidence of the effectiveness of the blood protection. One problem, for me, is that the blood protection seems to prevent the Dementors from returning, but it turns out that they were sent by Umbridge, not Voldemort, so maybe it was only Harry's Patronus Charm that prevented them from returning. So it's true that nothing happens to him (other than a few blows from Vernon or Dudley and neglect from Petunia) at the Dursleys. It's also true that DD, the Order, and LV himself all believe that LV can't harm him there. But the only "proof" we have is that the DEs don't attack while the protection lasts but they zoom in on Harry and the clones the moment the charm breaks. If only LV had tried and failed to attack him at the Dursleys and we'd know for sure that it's effective. As it is, we just have to take the word of all the characters. (There's also the blood protection within Harry that prevented Quirrell from harming him, presumably because Quirrell was possessed by LV at the time and/or because he was acting on LV's orders. So if the blood protection saved him from the AK in the first place and saved him from Quirrell, in theory it should work at 4 Privet Drive. But, then, it should also have saved him from the Basilisk, and that required Fawkes's Phoenix tears.

Sigh. In this instance, I think it's best to go along with the characters and believe that it's the best protection that DD or anyone else can provide. I do think he's much safer at the Dursleys than he would have been if he were visible to the WW at large from an early age and knew who he was (we know what happens all too often to child prodigies and child stars) and much safer than he would have been with Sirius, who would have been on the run with a small child and torn between caring for and protecting him, with no Secret Keeper and no blood protection and no Dumbledore to provide additional protection for him.

Oh, well. It's all necessary to the plot, all in character for Dumbledore, and, in the end, all to the good for Harry (the unintended consequences motif, with the Dursleys unintentionally making Harry stronger and more resilient.
<snip> 

Carol, snipping the rest of the argument to avoid repetition