Harry, Neville, Dudley and the family

[sistermagpie]

I was making a comment on arwencordelia's essay about Dumbledore and went off on this slight tangent about

At this point it's almost kind of a joke in HP how you can ruin a child through too much encouragement. This probably comes from a number of things--we do live in an age where people have a ridiculous idea about self-esteem, sometimes to the point where you'd think anything less than praising everything a child does is abuse. There's also the fairy tale satisfaction of spoiled kids getting nothing while the kids who suffer (as the child reading is presumed to suffer in his own mind) because others are jealous are ultimately rewarded. As I said in my comment, I do find it kind of strange when Dumbledore's comment that Harry had to live with the Dursleys because otherwise he'd have been a "pampered prince" is totally correct and reasonable, as if there's no way Harry could have been raised by a loving wizard family and not been hideous, or as if there's no alternative choices besides Abused/Humble and Cherished/Spoiled. He could have been brought up in humble circumstances without abuse, for instance. Or had guardians who were strict but not cruel. Or raised by Muggles and therefore ignorant but not despised. Okay, for lots of reasons the fairy tale over the top-ness of canon is more satisfying. Still, you wind up with this kind of funny stylized world where everything is almost split between us kids who have it rough but are cool and those kids who get everything and are total assholes--which is perhaps how the world comes across to a lot of kids in their more self-pitying moments.

There are a number of ironies here not really explored. For instance, the fact that Voldemort possibly saved Harry from being a prick, and should we perhaps assume that a Harry raised by James and Lily would not have been as powerful or as admirable? And what does it say about the immediate repulsion Harry feels when he meets somebody like Draco Malfoy when Dumbledore appears to be saying that all Harry would have had to do in order to become another little "pampered prince" was be raised in the Wizarding World? Then there's also that neat little have-your-cake-and-eat-it-to quality to Harry's experience at Hogwarts. He has a lot of bad experiences, of course, but he also gets some moments of primal satisfaction when he gets attention, gifts or privileges denied to others. Presumably we're to see Harry as having earned these rare treats through suffering, but it's kind of funny that Dumbledore says Harry really needed to be raised in by the Dursleys to keep from being spoiled, only to be thrilled to be able to give him an invisibility cloak, allow him a broom, and-most obviously-turn a leaving feast for the whole school into a surprise for Harry and his friends even if it means dissing a quarter of the school. Harry’s moments of being special are outweighed by his suffering, whereas, for instance, anything like suffering Draco experiences is outweighed by his being spoiled.

Anyway, what I really found myself doing in thinking along these lines was thinking of Neville. Neville and Harry are paralleled a lot in the books, obviously. In OotP we're pretty much requested to compare them and think how one could very well have been the other. But I was thinking specifically about Neville's family. Neville, too, was raised in a harsh environment, though it was different from Harry's. The main thing Harry had going for him, I think, was that while he did have the Dursleys constantly berating him he also always had this ideal family to hold on to in his head. He didn't *want* to be the Dursleys and preferred to imagine his real parents were far better and would appreciate him. In fact, this again throws a sort of kink in the idea that Harry was made *humble* by the Dursleys, because let's face it, Harry knows he's superior to them even before the Hogwarts letter confirms it. He's been raised to expect unfair treatment and bad luck and be treated like dirt, but he doesn't believe he deserves this treatment.

Neville, of course, is another story. Unlike Harry, Neville does consider himself to be amongst family growing up. While the Dursleys reject James and Lily and claim they're just as bad as Harry is (or as good as Harry is, to us), the Longbottoms appear to love Frank and Alice and feel Neville will never live up to them. Harry has all trace of his parents hidden from him, but keeps naturally being like them (black hair, green eyes, natural flier, sense of adventure, alleged swaggering). In OotP Harry even gets to the point where he can criticize his father. Neville, meanwhile, seems to have grown up with his father always before him. Mrs. Longbottom appears to compare the two all the time--Frank was her beloved child, Neville the screw up. He both is and is not her son, because he is her son's son. In a rather wonderful symbolic idea, the Longbottoms *are not dead.* They are living dead, bodies blankly staring that are unable to give Neville any love or help but capable of demanding help and love from him. They're also kept alive by Neville's Grandmother, as opposed to Neville himself. Harry imagines what his parents were like based on what he needs; Neville is constantly told what they were in order to criticize him. In the same book where Harry begins to separate himself from his parents (his dad was a jerk, his mum had bad taste in men) we see Neville acting as a parent to his mother and avenging his parents’ attack with Bellatrix. Then, of course, there's Neville's wand being his father's. That's probably the most obvious symbol for how Neville's background is used against him.

In fairy tales I know Bruno Bettleheim suggests that the neat thing about the wicked stepmother is she neatly splits the idea of mother in two. A child can hate the stepmother who punishes and denies and is mean while still retaining the "good mother" who is his/her own as a memory. Harry and Neville are a great example of this. Harry can hate the Dursleys and Petunia without any guilt. Neville really can’t do the same to his grandmother—and he certainly can’t ever be angry at his poor parents for anything. All the anger he feels seems to be turned inward, though in OotP it seemed he might be following Harry’s lead and finding appropriate targets for it in bad people. (Sirius, of course, is a whole other story, as is probably Hagrid.)

I don't know where I'm going with this. I don't think these things in canon are saying something about different types of family...it's more like it takes different aspects of all families and splits them up. Like, being made to feel like a screw-up is something that happens in lots of families, not all of them unhealthy. Probably most kids, even those with loving parents, sometimes feel like they're just not living up to whatever they're supposed to be, or feel under pressure to achieve. Similarly, young kids have always identified with hapless Cinderella-characters like Harry and Neville. And plenty of those kids (us) have probably also had moments of being bratty and wanting lots of stuff and probably not getting it, or of being jealous of the kids we imagined did get it. But the narrative often separates these things for effect--anybody who's talked to me, for instance, probably knows that the Malfoy Borgin&Burkes scene to me is like watching Draco be treated very much like Harry and Neville, and some of Lucius' remarks really get my hackles up. It's not that the scene changes Draco other scenes, but to me it's part of a coherent, realistic and not unsympathetic character. Yet in that scene I often hear the parent defended in ways that Vernon or Neville’s Gran would, imo, not be. I'd say the one other time this sort of thing happens is often with Harry and Snape, where some people feel that Harry is bratty enough in Snape's class (or they like Snape enough or dislike Harry enough) to justify Snape's insults.

It's just all how you look at things, or something. Because in the real world, while there certainly are awful and abusive parents, it's obviously rarely so simple as "cool kid whose suffered" vs. "mean jerk who has not." The attitudes of the Dursleys towards Harry, and of the Longbottoms towards Neville, and the Dursleys towards Dudley, etc., are probably often just part of a far more complex relationship.

Comments

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Latching on to one thing I actually disagree with in this post, and that's *mild* -

I do find it kind of strange when Dumbledore's comment that Harry had to live with the Dursleys because otherwise he'd have been a "pampered prince" is totally correct and reasonable, as if there's no way Harry could have been raised by a loving wizard family and not been hideous, or as if there's no alternative choices besides Abused/Humble and Cherished/Spoiled.

I think that had Harry been raised in the wizarding world, it would have been very difficult for him not to have been affected by his overwhelming fame. Everywhere he'd go, he'd have been recognized by that scar and feted and celebrated. It would be an odd child who would not get a sense of entitlement from such treatment, even if his family were reasonable. Maybe even more so, because they would not be giving him his obvious due for saving them all. I'm not saying it would not be possible, but I think it would have taken extraordinary people to overcome this - people strict but loving.

On the other hand, that would not have happened if he'd been raised in a Muggle home, and Dumbledore did expect him to be better fed, so he didn't plan for Harry to be mistreated and neglected. However, he did allow Harry to remain in that situation - partially, I do believe, for the blood protection, but he must have other reasons, too. And yes, he had to have known. 1. Dumbledore knows almost everything and 2. Mrs Figg.

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

You say that Dumbledore didn't plan for Harry to mistreated and neglected. Which worked for me too - until I learned Dumbledore was a Legimens. In the first scene MacGonagall has spotted enough not being a Legimens to implore him not to leave him with the Dursleys, so I'm not convinced about what Dumbledore "planned" for.

[saturniia.livejournal.com]

But also, there's the idea that maybe using Legimancy (that's the correct spelling of the art, isn't it?) isn't always ethical; this throws Dumbledore's morals into question, but also allows for the idea that since Dumbledore didn't intrude into this Muggle family's thoughts, he must be better than Voldemort somehow.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

it would have been very difficult for him not to have been affected by his overwhelming fame

But it doesn't hence follow that he would be "spoiled". The way Harry is treated by other witches and wizards throughout the books shows that they don't think he's all that. I think it's more likely that Harry would be in the limelight for some time - right after Voldemort's downfall - and then the hype would subside, like all hypes are bound to. In canon, Harry appears as the hero to the magical community, because he had been kept away from them long enough for a cult to develop. Everyone's heard of him, but no-one's actually every seen him. Had he been raised by wizards, there would be no mythicism to his person. After all, Harry gets de-mystified pretty quickly after his entering the wizarding world: In PS, the whole of Gryffindor house turn against him after he loses points, in CoS, the whole school fears his badass-heir-of-Slytherin powers - not to mention the treatment he receives in GoF and OotP.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

This is the way I tend to view it as well. I mean, we do have examples of famous children in our own society. Prince William, for instance, is someone brought up in the limelight as a literal prince and while I'm not expert on the royal family, he seems to have grown up into a nice guy. Perhaps an even better example are child stars. The thing with Harry is, like you said, he suddenly finds himself famous at 11--it's not like he's 40 and has had time to really become his own person. This kind of sudden fame at a young age could easily be incredibly damaging.

When you think of real kids who went through this it seems like what's often the deciding factor is the family. Shirley Temple, by all accounts, wasn't a brat at all--and she was incredibly famous and adored. Some child stars are destroyed by the attention; some do well. The ones that do well often do so because their family treats them like any normal kid who isn't special, and are ready to set them straight if they start getting a big head.

In Harry's case he's really never been *normal.* The Dursleys treated him super badly, then he got to Hogwarts and was super famous because he'd become a legend. In fact, it's kind of funny that after Harry's one-and-only encounter with a wizarding kid who doesn't know him as the kid Dudley's gang says is persona non grata, nor as Harry Potter, Hagrid consoles him by saying that he shouldn't feel badly about the kid being obnoxious because if he's a Pureblood he's grown up hearing Harry's name as a legend.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

After all, Harry gets de-mystified pretty quickly after his entering the wizarding world: In PS, the whole of Gryffindor house turn against him after he loses points, in CoS, the whole school fears his badass-heir-of-Slytherin powers - not to mention the treatment he receives in GoF and OotP.

I don't know, treatment of him at school seems to waver as wildly as the disparity between his treatment by the Dursleys and say, the Hogwarts faculty.
The whole school doesn't hesitate in turning against him, which they don't appear (yet, anyway) to do to any other students; but he's also supported by them to an extent that no-one else seems to recieve: for instance, the treatment he recieves from the Gryffindors in PS is a shock precisely because he'd previously been 'one of the most popular and admired people at the school'. The OotP treatment (which is less harsh, imho, than the PS) is balanced by his house treating him as a 'hero'; as is GoF.

[starpaint.livejournal.com]

Very interesting theory, and I think (most of) it's very true. Harry has the Dursley's loathing ingrained in him as a child, so he's unfamiliar with positive attention when he comes to Hogwarts - and he's immediately swamped in it. So the Dursleys' half-neglect, half emotionally abusive obsession scars him, and he latches right onto the new fame when it comes.

Not that the rest of the situation helps at all. The WW has its mood swings in deifiying and vilifying Harry. The tabloids are the media; the obsession is mainstream, not fringe. His death-defying stunts, yearly adventures, resilience to all those pesky rules, and obvious favoritism from Dumbledore... the world doesn't have the chance to adjust with time, but it doesn't get used to his antics. It's as if Rowling designed everything specifically to make Harry shine, to make him the center of the universe. Not just for himself, for his friends, for the Order, and for Hogwarts, but the entire British wizarding world.

[tsarinakate1.livejournal.com]

in the book he exlains how harry has to go back and live with them, so maybe it was not just because he did not want him to be brought up spoiled, but maybe it was also for protection....

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, I think it was too. I was just thinking about conversations where that remark of Dumbledore's is taken as enough reason by itself, or even just a statement of fact, that the abuse Harry got at the Dursleys was the only way to save him from having a swelled head.

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

The attitudes of the Dursleys towards Harry, and of the Longbottoms towards Neville, and the Dursleys towards Dudley, etc., are probably often just part of a far more complex relationship.

While I do think that Neville is very much a mirror of Harry, and a conduit through which he expresses his own self-doubt, I think that Neville's situation with his Gran is far more complex and realistic than Harry's with the Dursleys. Well, not realistic, I do think people like the Dursleys exist --typical is what I mean. Most abusers truly believe they love their children, and the children truly believe they love them back -- that's where most of the harm is done.

As we go on, I think that the relationships are more and more treated realistically. Harry's fairy tale style abuse suddenly becomes his uncle trying to strangle him and burning jealousy of Dudley and awkward jokes about Vernon taking swings at him. Neville's Gran is presented and fleshed out, and we see the shadows of his parents who he can't hope to live up to. I think there's far less splitting, both of good/abused vs loved/spoiled, but also of mixed feelings being divided and directed at different people -- which is why Dumbledore's statement is so distrubing, actually. It doesn't match the world of the books, anymore.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think you're right, definitely about Neville. That one scene where we see him in OotP on the closed ward has all sorts of different things in it that are complicated and complex-not just about his parents and his grandmother but his relationship to the other kids. Previously Neville's family was perhaps more cartoony with stories of him being dropped out of windows and things--and in OotP we still have Neville telling us that yes his Gran knows the examiner, but she's spent years telling her how incompetent Neville is. But really there seems to be more to it that we just don't see in detail.

I think Neville's relationship with his grandmother could totally be a realistic relationship of which we only see a little bit--it's more realistic than the Dursleys at this point I think. I see a lot more mixing as well. Percy, for instance, is held up as an example by Molly but is constantly torn down by the twins. I think Sirius and his mother seem very similar to each other and I believed Kreacher when he said Sirius broke his mother's heart when he left home. And I already mentioned I don't see Draco as being constantly spoiled as he's sometimes described.

So I think it's all in there, this complexity, but sometimes it almost gets denied or not remembered--sometimes I feel really frustrated because I feel like I'm unpacking a scene and someone will say, "No! No! Stop seeing things that aren't there! That character is spoiled and two-dimensional!" or "That's a good character, so if they do something that seems bad you're just supposed to ignore it!" Or there's this swing back and forth so that there always has to be a victim and an abuser and those things can't ever blend together--for instance, once Snape is turned upside down he must be the Victim throughout childhood, abused by everyone. Or Sirius' family life must have been exactly like Harry's at a young age, where he was the good boy being abused by the bad family. I think the text leaves room for a lot more complications and real family trouble.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Presumably we're to see Harry as having earned these rare treats through suffering, but it's kind of funny that Dumbledore says Harry really needed to be raised in by the Dursleys to keep from being spoiled, only to be thrilled to be able to give him an invisibility cloak, allow him a broom, and-most obviously-turn a leaving feast for the whole school into a surprise for Harry and his friends even if it means dissing a quarter of the school.

You know, this argument always rubs me the wrong way. I think spoiling a child can happen on different levels, which vary in terms of quality, not quantity. Harry is granted more leeway than other kids (Although, to be fair, we don't know anything about how the other students are punished for breaking the rules. Fred and George have obviously ended up in the Forbidden Forest, too, and several times at that. Hogwarts might be lax at enforcing rules in general.), but it often happens because those who are in charge gain benefit from his rule breaking. Harry is not given the Cloak because DD likes him best of all, but because he needs Harry to use it; McGonagall gives him the broom because she needs him to win Quidditch matches. By granting him those favours, they instrumentalise Harry.

In any case, I don't think that any amount of gifts and the lack of punishment for breaking school rules is an adequate compensation for years of physical and mental abuse Harry was knowingly submitted to. Harry might be considered spoiled on a technical level (though for reasons mentioned above I am not convinced that he is), but this does not do away with the fact that he had been mistreated - and still continues being mistreated - on an emotional level. The argument strikes me as dangerous. It's a bit like saying that the child victim of sexual abuse didn't have it all bad, because she was bought pretty clothes and sweets and taken to the zoo by her abuser. Of course, in Harry's case, the people doing the actual physical abusing (the Dursleys) are not the same people who favour Harry (the Hogwarts staff), but basically, it all happens on Dumbledore's orders.

reply later magpie

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Forgive me for butting in, but you seem to be arguing the same point as Magpie: we (the audience) see, or are supposed to see Harry as earning his gifts (or being 'compensat(ed)') by suffering.

Your example (Harry's gifts don't negate his suffering) can be reversed, imho: Harry's suffering doesn't negate his privileges.
His privileges don't come close to compensating his background, or giving him the kind of fulfillment that a happier homelife may have; but just as his suffering is not made up for by his privileges, his privileges are still what they are regardless of his background.

It's a bit like saying that the child victim of sexual abuse didn't have it all bad, because she was bought pretty clothes and sweets and taken to the zoo by her abuser.

Oh, see, again, in my view, which obviously may differ, you and Magpie seem to be making the same point: a spoiled child's suffering isn't outweighed by their material benefits, but it can sometimes be presented in the text as if they 'have it coming'.

I'm very fond of this essay as an exploration of Harry's status as privileged/lack thereof, if you haven't seen it?
http://www.theennead.com/elkins/hp/archives/000149.html

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh you're right--I didn't mean it to come across that way at all! I absolutely agree that Harry is still being used, and see those things (the broom, the cloak) bother me a lot more because Dumbledore is turning around and sticking Harry with the Dursleys. It's why I thought Dumbledore's speech at the end of OotP (what I remember of it) was kind of stomach-turning, like now he wants to be all sentimental and he just loves Harry so much and wanted to make him happy with these gestures after he used him for so long. And the fact that he warns Harry how he would have been a pampered prince if not for his being placed with the Dursleys seems even more suspicious next to gestures like that.

I was just thinking that in terms of, like, how these scenes are satisfying to the average reader or to Harry is that they're satisfying because when it's the character you like, and the character you identify with, and the character you've suffered with, then the fact that he's getting special priviledges is even more satisfying, if that makes sense.

For instance, the way the leaving feast is set up, leaving aside whatever is going through Dumbledore's mind when he decides to withold giving points until after the contest is over just so he can personally grant them to Harry and turn defeat into victory, the reason it's presumably written that way in the text is so young readers get the satisfaction of seeing Harry snatch victory at the last second and so not only win the cup but grab it from the bad kids. So I'm just saying that, you know, the kind of thing sometimes described as "special treatment" can be used to be extra good.

And actually, the more I think about what you're pointing out here, it's an interesting misdirection. If you're focusing on how neat it is that Harry gets a special cloak or gets a broom when Malfoy doesn't and things like that, you're less likely to think about what Dumbledore or anyone else is getting out of it. What kid would, really?

[ackonrad.livejournal.com]

Then, of course, there's Neville's wand being his father's. That's probably the most obvious symbol for how Neville's background is used against him.

Which, thanks God, got split in two in the Department of the Mysteries battle. I actually see that as symbolic - JKR doesn't, IMO, approve of the way Neville's Gran treats him, and when Neville gets a wand that will be his, he will start distancing from his 'perfect parents'.

I honestly don't understand Harry's trust in Dumbledore, especially after finding out he's been the one who's taken care that Harry's childhood would be destroyed forever.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes, I like Neville having his own wand--and man, think about the implications of this woman sending him off to school with his fathers. WTF?

Though perhaps the idea that one's wand is all that important is sort of fanon. I mean, I know that's pretty much said in canon when Harry gets his wand, but then you have the Weasleys using hand-me-downs, and Neville does okay with this one once he gets that elusive confidence! Still, the idea of it symbolically is obvious--and Neville literally has to destroy the wand fighting to avenge his father's death before he can get his own. There's something a little disturbing in that, possibly, like he had to put himself in danger to get something that should have been his to start with.

I remember the first time reading OotP the line of Dumbledore's that freaked me out the most was his little joke about Harry being "a little less well-fed than [he'd] have liked." Because that line didn't come across to me as sarcastic or underplaying things, it seemed like Dumbledore really was dismissing the way Harry was brought up as being no big deal, like his plan was just so perfect. Especially since in that same book it seems like we see Dumbledore causing problems just that way right and left--he dismisses Snape's feelings about James/Harry, he dismisses Sirius' feelings at being cooped up at that house. He even has the nerve to tut-tut about Sirius' death being sort of his own fault because of the way he treated Kreacher--as if Kreacher's feelings, too, were easily handled. Ugh.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

JKR doesn't, IMO, approve of the way Neville's Gran treats him, and when Neville gets a wand that will be his, he will start distancing from his 'perfect parents'.

Or ironically, becoming more like them.
After all, Neville's now the big DADA success and apparently closer to Harry, and more similiar in personality.
I find that Rowling is constantly undermining her own apparent messages, in this case by reasserting how right Granny Longbottom is by tying up all of Neville's big success moments in him becoming more like Harry rather than achieving anything to do with his apparent own values/interests; while also criticising that she isn't seeing Neville as an individual but a person who needs to ape others.

[meteora-smt.livejournal.com]

Ok I think there is a difference of opinions. We both are right in a way. Anyways I have to say is that Dumbledore is a very complex person, he knows many things, he has hidden many things, and thats what I feel when he says he loves Harry so much and etc., There is obviously something Dumbledore is saying, we just don't know the full meaning, You see when he told Voldemort "there are worser things than death" J.K. Rowling said he means something, so well whatever Dumbledore says has a higher meaning to it.
I do find it kind of strange when Dumbledore's comment that Harry had to live with the Dursleys because otherwise he'd have been a "pampered prince" is totally correct and reasonable, as if there's no way Harry could have been raised by a loving wizard family and not been hideous, or as if there's no alternative choices besides Abused/Humble and Cherished/Spoiled.
Actually even I find it strange, but I believe in that blood protection thing (which I am sure we will come to know more about in the last 2 books), firstly he sent Dursley and Petunia a letter, basically you have to look at Dumbledore as a person, he thinks everyone has a good side to them, or something, he employed Snape, Hagrid after all, he must see something in them. You could say its just because they are loyal to him. Agreed. But is Barty Crouch Jr. loyal to him? Barty Crouch Jr. did lots of harm yet Dumbledore didn't want to kill him. And you could say about the blood protection thing that a death eater of Voldemort could have come and killed harry, but you have to remember about the prophecy, its obvious that noone besides Voldemort could kill harry, and Voldemort couldn't battle/kill Harry in that precise place, and the thing is we don't know much so I really can't say much, but I think there are many reasons Dumbledore has sent Harry to Dursleys. Well my opinions are that Harry has many lessons to learn, and Dumbledore does have his best interests at heart, look at parents, as a kid I really hated school and didn't want to go there and I suffered a lot there but my mom and dad made me go there because its good for me. I think that there is one line that Dumbledore said in HP that really hit the nail "the consequences of our actions are so vast, we really can't predict whats going to happen next" or something like that because I think that shows a lot, I mean Dumbledore is a great wizard but can we expect him to predict whats coming, the consequences, life in the WW is quite unpredictable. And the greatest weakness of Dumbledore is he thinks everything will end up good, or he has this feeling that there is a good side to everyone or something, you see he thought Snape and Sirius would get along later, and he keeps on talking about unity. This is what makes DD make many mistakes, he must have thought the Dursleys were good, and he had no need to intrude to their thoughts (besides that would be illegal in the WW). Well I guess thats the reason I don't really dislike Dumbledore but don't really like him either. I think he is a complex character and somewhere in between black and white, in the grey color area.
Its very difficult to decide where Dumbledore falls into, Usually when someone writes an essay defending Dumbledore, I talk about his mistakes, and when someone writes an essay about how ironic Dumbledore is, I defend him. The best thing is that we atleast know how humane Dumbledore is. He makes mistake, we can't expect him to be perfect or something even if he is a great and brilliant wizard, JKR keeps on showing us that he has his weaknesses. By the way I agree with you on the its not that simple such as the "cool guy whose suffered" vs. "mean guy who is spoilt", but again isn't it ironic that Voldemort who has suffered (fairly) is like the villain. Anyways that was a great and thoughtful post of yours, it opened my mind to some of the things, and I think we both are right, both characterizations do fit Dumbledore after all, so kudos to you for such a different post (I rarely see people talking about the different kinds of abuse) and hopefully you wont get offended(if I offended you in any way).

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I think after OotP the blood protection idea seems the real reason Harry's at the Dursleys (though he still seems kind of in danger there!) too--and there probably are other reasons besides that. I can actually believe that the Dursleys were the best choice here for reasons we don't know yet but Dumbledore does. I was more just thinking of discussions I've seen in fandom where that line of Dumbledore's is taken as a straight-up fact.

Usually when someone writes an essay defending Dumbledore, I talk about his mistakes, and when someone writes an essay about how ironic Dumbledore is, I defend him.

LOL! I'm like that too--there's very few people who fall just one way or the other in the books. Tom Riddle was a great example. I actually really like the idea of Dumbledore doing some not-good things in order to get what he needs for the war, but also wanting to be a genuinely nice person who loves him and has always done what's best for him (that combination of things can make for an excellent villain imo, and a flawed hero as well). I think that's very realistic, actually, and there are a lot of those types of things in the books. Like I said above, it sometimes seems more like it's fandom who makes things completely black and white. When I think about it, most of the "bad" characters in the book seem like they could be driven by some form of love amongst other things. I know JKR has said that Voldemort has never loved anyone, but I think most of the bad guys have a lot of emotional things driving them, you know? (And the good guys too, of course.)

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

Albus Dumbledore is an old man with a bad case of hubris.

He is one of the biggest frogs in the very small puddle which is the British wizarding world. And from what we saw in OotP it is clear that the British ww is hopelessly corrupt. He is not a visionary outsider attempting to redress wrongs. He is the quintessential *insider* with his own devoted followers, and he's had decades to work and this is the result. One seriously has to wonder what kind of a state the place would have gotten itself into if Dumbledore *hadn't* been around.

Dumbledore's background is one of the areas where Rowling messed up the balance. She gave him *too* many honors without the corresponding accountability for the state of Things As They Are. Dumbledore's chocolate frog card states that (by the time the card was issued) he was not only the current Headmaster of Hogwarts Academy but the Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederacy of Wizards AND the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot.

Excuse me, but the Wizengamot is the *Ultimate Governing Body* of Great Britain and Ireland! The MoM can't legeslate *anything* without first getting the Wizengamot's approval. And Dumbledore heads the Wizengamot. I would not be astonished to learn that the international Confederacy of Wizards is the same thing on an international level. And Dumbledore heads *that*. AND oversees the training of all young wizards in his constituency as the Headmaster of the *only* magical training institution in that particular wizarding nation.

Acording to what little internal canon evidence we have available, he became Headmaster by January 1957, when he hired Minerva McGonagall to fill his former position as Transfiguration instructor. We do not know how long it took him to pull off his hat trick and land the other two positions as well. (I have assumed that it is unlikely that the Chief Warlock or Supreme Mugwump would have been holding down a day job as a mere Staff). We may provisionally conclude that he did so before WoldWar I, since his public exploits (if any) during that period are not mentioned on it. It is small wonder that there are people who regard him as "the greatest wizard in modern times". It is small wonder that in 1990 a faction seemed to think that the office of Minister of Magic would be an appropriate next step. I'm not sure he wouldn't have taken it if the movement to place him in it hadn't come when it did. Dumbledore *knew* that Harry Potter would be ariving at Hogwarts with the entering class of '91. And it is clear that Dumbledore has every intention of being as much in charge of Harry Potter's training as humanly possible.

But really, what are the odds of *anyone* managing to juggle that combination, for decades, without dropping the ball? And yet he seems to have held onto all of these honors rather than groom appropriate sucessors. The wizarding world is a small puddle, true, but is this kind of doubling up really in its best interests?

Frankly, I am not convinced that the Headmaster is the least bit omnicient. Or even necessarily authentically "wise". He has access to several excellent information networks, and he knows how to use them. But they do not tell him everything, and much of his "wisdom" is probably just the side effect of a very long life, a good memory, and an ability to learn from experience (his own and other peoples'). This is wisdom of a sort But it is the sort that any intelligent wizard can put together if he pays attention and has 150 years to do it. It is not some overwhelmingly remarkable inborn quality. And Dumbledore *is* intelligent. He is undoubtedly brilliant in his own field. There is ample evidence to support this conclusion. But he is not brilliant overall. And he has made a great many more mistakes than the ones he admits to.

(continued)

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

Mind you, I mock at the "Evil!Dumbledore" scenarios that litter the online community. Rowlin stated in interviews at the outset that Dumbledore was "all that was good". So we are not likely to get any surprises in that regard. The Manipulative!Dumbledore readings are a fairer cop, but even those generally imply a far greater degree of consious intent to it than I think the situation warrants.

This is a man of long experience who has chosen to surround himself with children, and people half his age or less for decades. He has fallen into the habit of being convinced that he always knows better than they do. Nobody among his own followers (with the possible exception of his brother) has *challenged* him for decades. Of *course* he has fallen into the trap of believing that he is the font of all wisdom. Of *course* he keeps all the reins in his own hands.

This is a man who has overreached himself, and is only just now beginning to realize it.

As to Harry: I think the original reasoning was the blood kin angle. And Albus may not have had a choice. Lily's sacrifice->Lily's blood=protection from that particular enemy. At that level you can't necessarily rewrite the rules. And he admits that he had expected that the Dursleys to treat him better than they did. I suspect that he believed that he thought that you cannot undertake the care of a child without developing some degree of affection for him. With most people he would probably have been right. But the Dursleys are toughter nuts to crack than he bargained for. Mrs Figg managed to keep him at least somewhat in the loop and since she was unable to report anything worse than Dudley's bullying over the course of 10 years it undoubtedly seemed better to leave him there and try to repair any damage later than to lose the blood kin protections.

Despite the fact that Dumbledore already knew that Voldemort was in no position to harm Harry Potter during those 10 years. I am sure that he had that forest in Albania monitored. The whole charade about "protecting" the Philosopher's Stone reeks of set-up, and how would he know to set it up unless he knew perfectly well that Voldemort had left the forest and was on his way to England, and Hogwarts? The Philosopher's Stone was brought to the school as bait to keep him distracted from trying to destroy Harry Potter.

In fact, over those 10 years Harry could have been raised perfectly safely by anyone outside the ww (I agree that Harry was safer outside the ww), right up to the day Quirrell went into that forest. But if Dumbledore had permitted that, then the blood kin protection would never have been established, and that was a potential advantage that was too valuable to lose at whatever the price. In fact, it saved Harry's life when he confronted QuirrellMort in front of the Mirror.

But the fact remains that for all his intelligence and experience, for all of his good intentions and good will, Albus Dumbledore has never been a *parent*. So it is hardly to be a big surprise if he should turn out to be an unwise one.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

I like this post. Sorry to reply so late. It reminds me of a discussion we had on t_s. I think it was Ch13?

There are ironies here not really explored.

I don't know if JKR's aware of these, or even sees them as ironies at all.

For instance, the fact that Voldemort possibly saved Harry from being a prick, and should we perhaps assume that a Harry raised by James and Lily would not have been as admirable?

I think another big problem is that Lily and James as parents are sanctified. I mean, obviously Harry does this, since they died for him and all, but the entire plot seems centred around how their sacrifice is one that no other parent would possibly do (which in turn suggests that Harry is innately loveable/worthy in a way that other children are not) and that while they may have had failings as people, they would have been perfect parents and indeed, were. So while everywhere else, there's psychological realism, or at least, attempts at: Neville has his grandmother, who apparently loves him but criticises him; Ron has his overprotective mother (and slacker father, although that's not really confronted) and siblings; Draco has his father, whom he adores despite his failings as a parent (even if you were of the 'Lucius spoils Draco and gives him kisses and pony rides every two seconds, all else is FANON!11 Damn you Isaacs!' ilk, I'd say being a Death-Eater makes Lucius a pretty awful father. I mean, why is his kid alone in the woods while they're rioting?); with Harry there's the demonised Dursleys and the sanctified natural parents. So while I would find it extremely believable that a Harry raised by Lily and James would be spoilt by fame and wealth and talent and adoring parents, as these things tend to spoil people in the Potterverse; I don't know that HP-as-written-by-JKR with his parents wouldn't be presented as just Harry, but happier, since the idea of Lily and James making some kind of Dursley/Malfoy-esque parenting error is anathema, since the parenting problems in the HPverse are also value judgements on the kids, in a way. (Much like how you mentioned Lucius' parenting is often defended whereas say, the Dursleys or Granny Longbottom's isn't, because the child is seen as 'deserving' of the sharpness in a way Harry or Neville isn't.)

Dumbledore appears to be saying that all Harry would have had to do in order to become another little "pampered prince" was be raised in the Wizarding World?

Dumbledore's speeches never seem to make much sense. It's like how the end of CoS is supposed to stroke Harry - 'don't worry about those crazy similiarities! You made a choice not to do something Riddle did, which makes you much better innately (except of course, your choice wasn't based on morality anymore than Riddle's was, but whatever)', which sounds nice, except it does kind of raise the issue that if Harry had gone into Slytherin, he presumably would have been evil, according to Dumbledore's reasoning, which doesn't actually speak of much faith in Harry's character.
Which I don't mind, as I don't have much myself, plus I resent the whole 'Anyone is innately X or Y' which I feel the text so far is (unconsciously perhaps) saying; but it totally contrasts with the whole presentation of Harry's character which can suggest at times that there's no possible way Harry could ever have been (or even presently is) a pampered prince, because he instinctively has the right instincts.

Orphans

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

I think another big problem is that Lily and James as parents are sanctified. I mean, obviously Harry does this, since they died for him and all, but the entire plot seems centred around how their sacrifice is one that no other parent would possibly do (which in turn suggests that Harry is innately loveable/worthy in a way that other children are not) and that while they may have had failings as people, they would have been perfect parents and indeed, were.

Most of the books' POV is Harry's. So, of course we're presented with the perfect parents since we're reading his mind.

My mother was an orphan. She does exactly the same thing Harry does. She saves pics of her parents, and she idealizes them as the perfect parents who didn't live long enough to prove it. I grew up with it. Every time I fought my parents, as children will, she would end up dragging out the old chestnut of 'You don't know how lucky you are to have your parents with you! I would have given anything...'

Oy! She doesn't know that! She thinks she would always have obeyed, always have been good for them, never would have questioned them, and so on. I completely understand why she does this. Losing her parents when she was small, was a very great loss. She thinks she could have earned their presence if she'd been given the chance. She thinks she would automatically have known and understood the alternative. Her parents died when she was two and nine respectively, btw, but she was raised in the orphanage since she was two, with weekly visits from her father.

I'm waiting for Harry to turn on Ron, or Malfoy, or someone else - Neville? Could you imagine? - and tell them how lucky they are to have their parents. And, yes, I could see an extremely tense situation that would make him lash out at Neville about it, too. At least they're alive; at least there's hope. I think it would be completely in character for him to obsess about it, to the point where we at least would see it, if the person he was angry at, didn't. I think it may already taint his view of his friends and enemies.

Sorry to reply so late.

Yeah, me, too. But you raised a point I think about sometimes.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Then there's also that neat little have-your-cake-and-eat-it-to quality to Harry's experience at Hogwarts.

Yes, exactly. So Harry isn't quite in the 'cool kids who've had it tough' category anymore, at least at Hogwarts (neither is he exactly in the 'spoilt kids who've had it all' box either, and I'd say fandom was too black and white about seeing Harry/characters in general as either 'those mean popular kids' and 'poor downtrodden geeks' when the canon is much more complicated than that, but then the authorial voice takes the same tack.)
Not to mention, there's the whole 'How can anyone be shallow enough to care that Harry's had X and Y, when he hasn't had a decent background' issue, where anyone who's jealous of Harry is villified, yet Harry can be an intensely jealous character himself, and not just over understandable things such as Dudley's recieving the affection in the family (I always find it interesting that fics mention Harry being jealous of the love Dudley's gotten, when actually, it appears that he really is/was just jealous of the toys! ;) I mean, the Dursleys close-knit bond doesn't make him yearn for his own mother, it makes him laugh. And even with the Weasleys, the closest he has to a family, there's an initial moment of 'Aw, Mrs. Weasley hugged me like a mum' and yet it's fairly fleeting - from their meeting until the most recent book, Harry actually doesn't appear to feel much closeness at all to Molly. (Another hug in OotP, for example, goes unremarked. He even partially resents her describing herself as a 'good as' his mother. ((Of course, I think that'd be understandable for a number of reasons, none of which seem to come up, in favour of the old reliable: Harry has very little time for people who want to restrict his ability to do what he wants, when he wants. Even Sirius and Ron/Hermione can be cut out if they oppose Harry's desires.))
So Harry on one hand recieves the benefits that are viewed as petty when anyone else is envious, but also gets to be jealous when he doesn't get enough of them, at the same time as the narrative asserts that only superficial people would care about wealth/appearances/popularity/insert privilege.

We're asked to imagine...one could have very well been the other.

I don't know. I think that the idea of Neville being TBWL is sort of toyed with, and Harry no-one, but there's such a strong feeling of nature over nature in the HPverse. I think perhaps we're asked to consider what Harry's life would be like if he were 'no-one' and Neville was TBWL, but I think I'd be more interested in whether their personalities would be the same if Harry was raised by say, Granny Longbottom, or at least a Petunia who behaved that way; and vice-versa. Would he be Neville essentially, and seeking approval, or would he still be Harry-esque?

In fact, this again throws a sort of kink in the idea that Harry was made *humble* by the Dursleys

I know! God, I can only imagine what Harry would be like in the WW if his current incarnation is the humble version!
Not to mention, the Dursleys pay Harry attention in a way that say, Ron, Draco or Neville don't seem to get. Negative attention, of course, but they do make him the centre of their lives much like his loved ones later do.
And yeah, as you've pointed out, he has a much stronger sense of...self? entitlement? than the others: Ron appears very accepting that he doesn't 'deserve' as much attention as the rest of his family. Likewise Neville in his social circle.
Draco's a huge attention seeker from peers, which would indicate that he feels he doesn't recieve enough.

Alt Univ HP

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

God, I can only imagine what Harry would be like in the WW if his current incarnation is the humble version!

Harry could have, would have? been Draco. While James wouldn't have been obsessing on buying contraband and preparing the way for the Return of the Dark Lord, he would have been obsessing on himself. His position in the WW, his position in the Order, perhaps politics. He seems to have been rich enough not to have to worry about a job; what parent in the early years of marriage, when we know they probably married no more than two years before Harry's birth, and that would have been right out of school, would have had such a pile of galleons for their kid?

I don't think James, from what I've read, would have been any more of a loving, attentive parent than Lucius Malfoy. I haven't seen enough of Lily to be convinced either way, same for Narcissa. But just going by fathers, I do think Harry would have been closer to Draco than to Ron or Hermione in terms of background and needs.