|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 3:09:56 GMT -5
I think the protection prevents any of the death eaters or Voldemort from nearing the place were Petunia and Harry live. This would still hold true until the beginning of the seventh book
|
|
sherza
Head Boy/Girl
Posts: 705
|
Post by sherza on Jul 1, 2012 3:16:38 GMT -5
He might've known, but you do have a point about the DE's not being able to get in.
And yeah, Voldie wouldn't have wanted to risk taking Harry on solo, not after the graveyard. He's got that whole wand problem to figure out first, doesn't he? And after fifth, he'dve been hurting hardcore after being ejected from Harry's body like that, so again, not the time to be trying to fight the brat, even if the wand issue had been fixed, which it hadn't.
Unfortunately, personally, I don't believe that Harry could be bypassed but the wards couldn't. Things just *don't* work that way. Either you're fully protected, or you're shit out of luck, not halfway.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 3:21:37 GMT -5
Well I just assume the things I stated above. In my opinion the blood wards are something like the age line in GOF. The age line doesn't see the body age but the actual age as the blood wards don't see the blood relation but the actual relation somebody has to Lily and Harry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Jul 1, 2012 3:42:30 GMT -5
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. Yeah, he admitted that he *KNEW* all the time that Harry was abused, to Harry's face, and then sent him back for two more summers of abuse. Great grandfatherly attitude, telling him basically "it doesn't matter how much you are abused, as long as you are alive long enough for my schemes to work and to get you killed by Voldemort when it suits me best." When his insistence to keep Harry in the dark about the prophecy under the pretention that he wanted him to have more of a childhood while already knowing he was abused got Sirius killed and the then admitted to the knowledge of the abuse and still sent Harry back, Dumbledore was done for me. That are not the actions of someone who cares for a child. |
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Jul 1, 2012 8:03:18 GMT -5
Dumbledore merely admitted that he knew Harry had a hard life, but because Harry probably didn't tell Mrs Figg or anyone else just what it was like, he didn't know that it was more than the Dursleys being rather strict disciplinarians.
Having been born in the latter half of the nineteenth century, Dumbledore probably had slightly old-fashioned views about things like discipline anyway. Not as old-fashioned as Filch by a long shot, but still fairly old-fashioned, especially since he grew up in Victorian times, and during the reign of Queen Victoria, pupils were still being caned for any infraction. Maybe Dumbledore thought that Harry's school caned its pupils and that Harry had been punished in such a way a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 9:04:09 GMT -5
Really good thought. It was even standard to punish pupils in Hogwarts physically in the time of Molly and Arthur. So it would be entirely possible that he assumed the same about the school Harry went to or that the Dursleys were an old-fashioned family. But that explanation may not even have been necessary as it never says that Dursleys besides Dudley physically abused Harry.
|
|
|
|
Post by AllyJackson on Jul 1, 2012 9:04:21 GMT -5
That theory could work. It certainly makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by viralic1 on Jul 1, 2012 9:14:25 GMT -5
I can kind of see it happening, but the only idea that really bugs me about Dumbledore knowing about it is knowing about the starvation. Even in his time, I can't see starving someone as a punishment being common.
|
|
|
|
Post by AllyJackson on Jul 1, 2012 9:17:27 GMT -5
Well, I know even today kids are occasionally sent to bed without dinner if they misbehave. He could think that's what was happening, I don't know. I haven't read the books in a while; need to get on that.  |
|
|
|
Post by viralic1 on Jul 1, 2012 9:19:43 GMT -5
True. I think that most parts of the problem was misinformation on both sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by AllyJackson on Jul 1, 2012 9:21:30 GMT -5
Absolutely. And most of the information we have to go off of is all so vague. Just hints and clues and no facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by viralic1 on Jul 1, 2012 9:24:06 GMT -5
Although I think part of the problem also is Madam Pomphrey seemingly failing at her job. As someone who is part of a medical team, even without the use of spells she should have spotted signs of neglect in Harry, and that's not including the "scans" she ran on him after almost every year.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 9:25:00 GMT -5
And it does say that the dursleys had never starved Harry. And I agree that if somebody misbehaves during dinner like throwing food or only complaining about it and not eating any I could imagine that there are some parents who would send their kid to bed without food.
|
|
|
|
Post by AllyJackson on Jul 1, 2012 9:26:54 GMT -5
Absolutely. That's how it's done in my family. You're not allowed to complain unless you'd like to leave the table.
|
|
|
|
Post by viralic1 on Jul 1, 2012 9:28:18 GMT -5
Actually, it does say that they starve him. In the second book, Harry even believes he will be dead before representatives from Hogwarts arrive to investigate why he never returned.
|
|
|
|
Post by AllyJackson on Jul 1, 2012 9:32:43 GMT -5
Yes, but not only could that be exaggeration from a desperate twelve-year old, but we have no proof that Dumbledore knew of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by AllyJackson on Jul 1, 2012 9:33:02 GMT -5
The whole dying part, that is.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 9:36:08 GMT -5
The locking up incident is really more extreme than anything other that happened to Harry. My statement meant the beginning of PS after the whole time we don't know anything about.
|
|
|
|
Post by AllyJackson on Jul 1, 2012 9:37:05 GMT -5
Yeah, it would help if we knew a bit more. J. K. liked to skip a whole lot of time, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by viralic1 on Jul 1, 2012 9:37:14 GMT -5
True. I still can't see Madam Pomphrey missing this though. And from a standpoint, the exaggeration could also be on the opposite side of the spectrum. While from a technical point he may know that he is being starved, he may want to try and deny it. Harry's always wanted to be normal, so if denying he was being starved or abused meant that he could be considered "normal", I can definitely see him saying he wasn't starved.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 9:40:11 GMT -5
Well but those are just his thoughts were he is pretty honest with himself in my opinion. And although during his school years he wanted to be normal before he went to hogwarts he wanted to be different than his family.
|
|
|
|
Post by AllyJackson on Jul 1, 2012 9:41:45 GMT -5
That's true. Remember he liked his scar before he got to Hogwarts.
|
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Jul 1, 2012 9:44:14 GMT -5
There's also the possibility that the fact that Harry is small is genetic. JK never mentioned how tall James Potter was when he was eleven, the only time we see an eleven-year-old James he's sitting down.
Plus, Pomfrey may have noticed that Harry's thinner than he should be, so possibly gave him potions to counter-act that whenever he was in the hospital wing, or even ordered the house-elves to mix them with Harry's food at meal-times.
I'm assuming that was the case, because the wizarding world probably had laws about healer/patient confidentiality, so Pomfrey wouldn't be allowed to tell anyone other than Harry what was going on, but could still try and do something about it while staying within the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by AllyJackson on Jul 1, 2012 9:46:59 GMT -5
That theory also makes a lot of sense. It certainly seems rather likely.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 9:49:35 GMT -5
Well that is not true if we set the same standards as our world. Here child-abuse has to be reported. Only an adult has the right to choose whether he would like to report the abuser or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by AllyJackson on Jul 1, 2012 9:52:10 GMT -5
What if she didn't know it was abuse, just thought he was being a stupid teenager or something?
|
|
|
|
Post by AllyJackson on Jul 1, 2012 9:55:07 GMT -5
Just playing the Devil's Advocate, here.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 9:56:28 GMT -5
I really don't think there were any signs of abuse that she could have missed. Because even though Dudley was large he couldn't have injured Harry very much.
And well to me it seems that all magical children are more resilient than we are and so Harry would have been perfectly fine (besides the injury that got him in the hospital wing).
|
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Jul 1, 2012 9:56:42 GMT -5
What if the wizarding world has no laws about child abuse?
JK seems to have alluded to that whenever she mentions Sirius talking about how he hated his parents enough that he ran away at sixteen.
And what about when Draco joined the Death Eaters, against his mother's wishes. That could also be considered child abuse, especially when he flinches the moment Madam Malkin touches his left arm, where the Dark Mark is branded.
Then there's also the way Lucius tells Draco not to touch anything when they go into Borgin and Burkes, like he expects to be obeyed and if he isn't, then there will be consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by AllyJackson on Jul 1, 2012 9:58:28 GMT -5
True. Having never been to their world, sadly, I could not say.
|
|
