Living In A Cupboard

[AllyJackson]

For all we know it was all offscreen. Only J. K. knows . . .

[werewulfking]

I also really think that the cupboard scene is an indicator on how good I will like a story.
But I don't understand how some of you can think that Dumbledore actively prevented anybody from finding out about Harry's home situation. Because just when I try to remember the news about severe incidents of child abuse and even child death it is totally possible that the school neighbours and even social workers or other government employees can miss all the signs and the child has to suffer. And Petunia and Vernon always seemed to be the type of people who could explain away just about anything. They would just come up with a bogus story and everybody would look away because the truth would be too scary to face.

[AllyJackson]

Like St. Brutus's Institute for Incurably Criminal Boys? (Or whatever it was called )

[physicssquid]

Jun 30, 2012 17:07:27 GMT -5 werewulfking said:

I also really think that the cupboard scene is an indicator on how good I will like a story.
But I don't understand how some of you can think that Dumbledore actively prevented anybody from finding out about Harry's home situation. Because just when I try to remember the news about severe incidents of child abuse and even child death it is totally possible that the school neighbours and even social workers or other government employees can miss all the signs and the child has to suffer. And Petunia and Vernon always seemed to be the type of people who could explain away just about anything. They would just come up with a bogus story and everybody would look away because the truth would be too scary to face.

The Dursleys could also have paid the teachers to ignore anything they saw.
I did sometimes think that Harry's relatives were the muggle versions of the pureblood bigots with way too much money, like Lucius Malfoy, who seemed to have Fudge practically living in his pocket.

[AllyJackson]

Yes, I always thought that, too.

[werewulfking]

Yeah paying some teachers sounds like something they would do. And another possibility would be that they just said that Harry was an uncontrolable child and always got into fights or something which would also support the St. Brutus Story.

[AllyJackson]

Ugh, I always hated that they would do something like that, but at the same time it was rather clever . . . you know, for the Dursleys.

[sherza]

Jun 30, 2012 17:07:27 GMT -5 werewulfking said:

But I don't understand how some of you can think that Dumbledore actively prevented anybody from finding out about Harry's home situation.

Obliviate!

Dumbledore made it real clear that no one was to go anywhere near Harry until HE said so ... there were only a few chance encounters when Harry was well away from Privet Drive, far from the wards and Dumbledore's tracking charms (you know he did that).

After all, he's Albus Dumbledore. What he says MUST, therefore be true and right and Light, and no one need question any particle of wisdom that falls from his mouth, nor any decision he makes. Up until Fifth Year, this WAS how far much of the wizarding world was up that man's ass. He could literally do no wrong in anyone's eyes, and if he batted those baby blues at people and told them it was in Harry's best interest to not have any contact with the wizarding world, most folks would have obeyed without question.

[AllyJackson]

Batted those baby blues . . . ? So many disturbing mental images . . .

[werewulfking]

Well I think you may have missed my point. Of course Obliviate is one explanation but the far more likely one is that the people around Harry were just like people here in our world and just didn't notice it or did' want to accept the truth.

[physicssquid]

There's also the fact that the ones who would question him, would be either Death Eaters or at least Voldemort sympathisers, and therefore the kind of people who hate Dumbledore and Muggles.
Dumbledore was a canny man. He put Harry in a Muggle area, thereby making sure that the pureblood bigots wouldn't want to go anywhere near him, and then he told his sheep that the best thing to do was not give Harry any contact with the magical world. Remus could have asked to go see Harry, but the moment Dumbledore said it was too dangerous, then Remus would slink off with his tail between his legs, leaving Harry 'safe and sound' at the Dursleys.

[AllyJackson]

I think they both could be true. I imagine that most people would not see it/be persuaded to forget, but it's possible that Dumbles obliviated them just to be safe. Or maybe some were more observant than others and it became "needed".

[werewulfking]

Well that certainly is possible but I for one always assume that Dumbledore is the good guy and therefore don't go looking for faults when the fact remains that unfortunately not every abused child is discovered

[physicssquid]

Jun 30, 2012 17:58:10 GMT -5 werewulfking said:

Well that certainly is possible but I for one always assume that Dumbledore is the good guy and therefore don't go looking for faults when the fact remains that unfortunately not every abused child is discovered

Exactly. While I do believe that Dumbledore was manipulative, I thought he was trying to do the best he could under the circumstances.
He did admit, towards the end of book 5, that he made mistakes like any man, and in the second chapter of book 6, he had a go at the Dursleys for their treatment of Harry, which does not strike me as the kind of thing he would have done if he really had wanted Harry to be beaten and abused in order to be more mouldable.

[AllyJackson]

I'm not trying to say that he did. I'm admitting that these theories have their points. I honestly don't know what to think of no one ever noticing.

[Kitty279]

Jun 30, 2012 18:00:45 GMT -5 physicssquid said:

He did admit, towards the end of book 5, that he made mistakes like any man, and in the second chapter of book 6, he had a go at the Dursleys for their treatment of Harry, which does not strike me as the kind of thing he would have done if he really had wanted Harry to be beaten and abused in order to be more mouldable.

That could just have been a cover to make it look like he didn't plan for that to Harry. After all, his pawn and sacrificial lamb needed to trust him further, right? Even after keeping important things from him did cost the ilfe of his godfather?

[sherza]

Jul 1, 2012 1:41:01 GMT -5 Kitty279 said:

Jun 30, 2012 18:00:45 GMT -5 physicssquid said:

He did admit, towards the end of book 5, that he made mistakes like any man, and in the second chapter of book 6, he had a go at the Dursleys for their treatment of Harry, which does not strike me as the kind of thing he would have done if he really had wanted Harry to be beaten and abused in order to be more mouldable.

That could just have been a cover to make it look like he didn't plan for that to Harry. After all, his pawn and sacrificial lamb needed to trust him further, right? Even after keeping important things from him did cost the ilfe of his godfather?

Exactly! That shit is the sort of thing you do/say when you need to convince someone you're on their side.

If Dumbledore had *really* given two shits about Harry, he would have done something ... anything ... immediately after he discovered/realized that the Dursleys were being shit guardians. If Harry absolutely could not be moved, he could have mind-whammied them into behaving. If moving him was a possibility, give him to the Tonkses, or hell, anyone halfway sensible that isn't a Death Eater or sympathizer. Shit, for all he hated Harry, SNAPE would have been a better choice of guardian than the Dursleys. And that's saying something.

Instead, what does he do? 'Whoops, I screwed up.'. and 'Hey, Dursleys, quit that!'. REAL impressive!

[Dimcairien]

Well, in my RtB, Dumbledore bows in to Molly's relentless haggling and takes Harry from the Dursleys. Originally, he was supposed to live with the Weasleys, but once Sirius was proven innocent, the plan is for Harry to live with him.

I do like Dumbledore, but not nearly as much as I used to, so here's my reasoning on his choices and what happened with the Dursleys.

1.Harry never told anyone what happened, thus making Dumbledore unaware.
I've always thought that Harry never told Mrs. Figg anything because the Dursleys would beat the stuffing out of him if he told anyone and that person alerted the authorities. Thus, if Harry never told anyone, how could Dumbledore know beyond spying on the house? I highly doubt Dumbledore would do that because to put it simply, moral reasons. I also don't think he told McGonagall to spy out the Dursleys' house as I think she did that of her own accord.

2. Dumbledore believed that family is one of the most important things in the world.
Dumbledore probably thought that Petunia was still that eager twelve or thirteen-year-old who wrote to him, begging to allow her to attend Hogwarts. He thought that she could overcome her childhood grudge against Lily and reach down to find her love for her sister and nephew deep inside her heart. I think this because I believe Dumbledore is a believer in family and that they should be close. Yes, he had major problems with his family, but I think that he realized what he did wrong, but it was too late for everyone because they were either dead, imprisoned (maybe dead?), or refusing to forgive him (I've always thought that it was Aberforth's fault they didn't make up). Thus, Dumbledore probably thought that a family would love other members of it, no matter who they were. Even though he probably knew about Petunia's current dislike of magic, he hoped that she could see past it, but she didn't.

3. Dumbledore is a loving, caring, grandfatherly figure.
Dumbldore didn't know this though because Harry never told anyone. I do think that if Dumbledore had found out exactly how Harry was treated, he would've done something about it because I've always pictured him as a grandfatherly figure and no good grandfather would want anything to happen to their grandchildren or those they think of as their grandchildren.


4. Dumbledore is human, humble and admits to his mistakes.
Dumbledore made many mistakes and he admits to it. Unlike some of you, I believe it was a genuine apology and not something to make Harry like him more. Dumbledore is human, just like everyone else and as humans, everyone makes mistakes and has to ask for forgiveness. It takes great courage to admit a mistake and I think it was courageous of Dumbledore to admit the mistake he had made with placing Harry at the Dursleys. It was a mistake made out of ignorance, not out of deliberation. Yes, Harry's placement with the Dursleys was deliberate, but simply because they were Muggles and there was the mess with the blood wards. Dumbledore simply wanted Harry to grow up without knowing he was famous, thus growing up without an ego. He succeeded in that part, but not in the way he wished. Harry should've grown up like a normal boy, but instead he was downtrodden. Yes, he didn't have an ego, but he also didn't have much confidence.


Therefore, Dumbleodore had no clue about what Harry went through. His main fault regarding Harry's placement was his belief that a family would love no matter what. Yes, that is true, but it's only applicable to a proper family. A family is supposed to act that way, but it's quite clear that the Dursleys aren't a proper family. Dumbledore is simply a human who made an error, a grave one, when he placed Harry with the Dursleys, but he thought he was doing what was best for Harry.

(Sorry if this doesn't make a lot of sense. It's about 12:30 AM for me. I also didn't mean for this to turn into a lecture.)

[sherza]

Unfortunately, Dimcairen, your theory gets shot down by canon.

Dumbledore explicitly says he KNEW he was condemning Harry to ... less than ideal ... conditions. Ten dark and dreary years, or something like that, is the direct quote.

So Dumbledore knew that *some* level of abuse was going to be practiced. Before he placed Harry with the Dursleys.

Yeah. There's no redeeming that. Sorry.

[werewulfking]

Well in my opinion by the time the most obvious mistreatment could have been discovered (after the summer before Harry's second year) Harry always had something to threaten the Dursleys with so it wouldn't have been essential to move him.
And I still think that the fact remains that Harry needed a place where he could be absolutely sure that Voldemort couldn't reach especially in the summers before his six and seventh year.

[lucyolsen]

And Mrs Figg definitely knew something wasn't right. She even apologized to Harry for making sure she had a miserable time at her house, because that way he was allowed by the Dursleys to spend time there.

[werewulfking]

And Dimcairien's theory didn't get shot down by canon because in book 6 at least the quote is: "and expressing the hope that you would care for him as though he were your own" which means that he wrote that in his letter which he left with Harry.

[sherza]

Jul 1, 2012 2:34:25 GMT -5 werewulfking said:

Well in my opinion by the time the most obvious mistreatment could have been discovered (after the summer before Harry's second year) Harry always had something to threaten the Dursleys with so it wouldn't have been essential to move him.
And I still think that the fact remains that Harry needed a place where he could be absolutely sure that Voldemort couldn't reach especially in the summers before his six and seventh year.

Except for the whole 'Voldemort knew where he lived' thing. And also? The blood wards *should* have stopped working completely at the end of fourth year. Voldemort HAD HARRY'S BLOOD in his veins! Carried the same protection! Ergo, should have been able to waltz straight through the wards, because for all intents and purposes, he 'was' Harry, as far as those wards were concerned.

Also ... 'leave the kid in an abusive situation. He can threaten them to quit *most* of it' ...

There are not words enough in any language to describe how utterly heinous, callous, and completely heartless I find that sentiment.

[Dimcairien]

Did Voldemort know where the Dursleys lived? I was always under the impression that he didn't know as I would think the only person to know would be Snape, and I doubt he'd tell Voldemort that piece of information.

(It's been a few months since I've read the books, so sorry if this question is easily answered with a simple quote)

[werewulfking]

Well but the blood wards only relied on the fact that Petunia and Lily and Harry were related. It doesn't matter that Voldemort took Harry's blood he still isn't related to them.
And the second aspect the wards depend on is that Voldemort spilled Lily's blood which also is a fact that will never change.
Oh and Voldemort knew where Harry lived at least in Book seven. I think he knew even earlier but thought the prophecy and killing Dumbledore was more important.

[sherza]

Voldemort certainly knew by the end of sixth year, to be certain ... he had his Death Eaters circling overhead, when Harry left Privet Drive for the last time, remember? So he found out at some point ... and Harry's address would have been in the public records somewhere as of the summer before second year, thanks to that notice for underage magic. Worse, Lucius had Fudge's ear, and Fudge knew that the Accidental Magic people had been sent there to fix Marge the summer before third year ... it would have been entirely too easy for Lucius to get Fudge to tell him the address, and for Lucius to pass it on to Voldie.

Voldemort taking Harry's blood is *explicitly* shown to negate the 'blood protection'. Remember, Voldemort can touch Harry after he regains a body because of it! If he can bypass the protection on Harry's *body*, surely he can bypass wards that depend on that same protection?

[lucyolsen]

Right. I've said it before, that he took Harry's blood, and therefore got protection from Harry. He did not get protection from Harry's mother and Harry's father, and generations of Potters and Evans going back.

He would only be able to get protection from Lily's blood if he had used Lily's blood in the resurrection. This, of course, would be impossible, since he murdered her. He really doesn't think ahead, does he?

[werewulfking]

No they are two different things. One is that Harry's Skin his Flesh and blood (in which the love his mother felt for him was "preserved") kept Voldemort who has never felt such love from touching him. But after fourth year he got around this.
The blood wards depend on the fact that someone related to the woman he murdered lived in the same place as Harry. It didn't depend on his blood but on the relations to Lily. Which isn't only measured in blood.

[sherza]

Except ... it can't work like that.

Look, Voldemort's problem was that Lily protected Harry. When he took Harrys blood, he inherited that protection, because it was HARRY'S blood in his veins. Therefore, the body he inhabited was treated as being 'Harry'. 'Harry' doesn't get burnt by the blood protection. The blood wards on Privet Drive were based on that protection. Since 'Harry' now has that protection, he can bypass the wards.

Basically, you can't get protection from one aspect of the blood protection issue and NOT get protected against *all* of it.

[Dimcairien]

Jul 1, 2012 2:54:42 GMT -5 sherza said:

Voldemort certainly knew by the end of sixth year, to be certain ... he had his Death Eaters circling overhead, when Harry left Privet Drive for the last time, remember? So he found out at some point ... and Harry's address would have been in the public records somewhere as of the summer before second year, thanks to that notice for underage magic. Worse, Lucius had Fudge's ear, and Fudge knew that the Accidental Magic people had been sent there to fix Marge the summer before third year ... it would have been entirely too easy for Lucius to get Fudge to tell him the address, and for Lucius to pass it on to Voldie.

Voldemort taking Harry's blood is *explicitly* shown to negate the 'blood protection'. Remember, Voldemort can touch Harry after he regains a body because of it! If he can bypass the protection on Harry's *body*, surely he can bypass wards that depend on that same protection?

*facepalm* Whoops, forgot about that. I think I was meaning that most likely Voldemort didn't know Harry's location during the summer immediately after his resurrection (well, resuscitation if we want to get technical). Also, there isn't evidence of Harry being attacked by Death Eaters, so while Voldy might have been able to enter Privet Drive, his Death Eaters wouldn't have been able to.

Jul 1, 2012 2:56:46 GMT -5 lucyolsen said:

Right. I've said it before, that he took Harry's blood, and therefore got protection from Harry. He did not get protection from Harry's mother and Harry's father, and generations of Potters and Evans going back.

He would only be able to get protection from Lily's blood if he had used Lily's blood in the resurrection. This, of course, would be impossible, since he murdered her. He really doesn't think ahead, does he?

All goes to show he's an idiot. ;D

And I love your point about it only allowing him to contact Harry. So, if the blood wards are doing their job, only Harry can get attacked and the rest of the Dursleys (well, probably not Vernon) will be safe as they too share Lily's blood.