|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 10:00:28 GMT -5
Well with Borgin and Burkes I understand that Lucius would not have wanted Draco to touch anything. There are really dangerous things there.
And well it wasn't child abuse with the dark mark that is completely different pair of shoes.
But other than that the theory is plausible.
|
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Jul 1, 2012 10:03:39 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). Those injuries were pretty bad. Harry was unconscious for some reason after stopping Voldemort in first year, he had an inept DADA teacher in second, who removed the bones in his arm after he broke it. The break probably wouldn't have had him in the hospital wing over-night, and then in third year they had the Dementors guarding the school. Fourth year there were the events in the graveyard, and the trauma that Harry experienced, watching Cedric die. He refused to go to the hospital wing in fifth year, when he was being forced to cut his own hand open, and the only times he was there in sixth year, were when he was visiting Ron, and then Bill, and when he gained a cracked skull during that Quidditch match. Obviously magical children are more resilient to normal activities than non-magical children, given how Harry didn't seem to suffer any physical problems caused by anything that happened when he was living with the Dursleys. The only medical problem he seemed to have was his poor eyesight, which could also have been inherited from his father, who also was described as requiring spectacles. |
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 10:05:01 GMT -5
Yeah or how Neville fell from his broom in PS and only had a broken wrist. He should have had much more if you go by our standards
|
|
|
|
Post by AllyJackson on Jul 1, 2012 10:05:15 GMT -5
He was unconscious because of magic depletion/exhaustion.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 10:06:20 GMT -5
Or he just fainted from the pain, kind of like the Longbottoms who went insane and he was just short of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by AllyJackson on Jul 1, 2012 10:06:38 GMT -5
True.
|
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Jul 1, 2012 10:10:10 GMT -5
Or he just fainted from the pain, kind of like the Longbottoms who went insane and he was just short of that. JK never did explain that properly. She never mentioned anyone else suffering from Magical exhaustion, so there is no way to know what caused Harry to fall unconscious that year. I would guess that he was magically exhausted, because how else would the protection work if it wasn't fuelled by his magic. |
|
|
|
Post by AllyJackson on Jul 1, 2012 10:11:08 GMT -5
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 10:15:51 GMT -5
Well like Dumbledore said, just the fact that Harry's mother had loved him so much that she would die for him given the choice, made it for Voldemort impossible to touch Harry. Therefore it is not necessary to assume a fueling by magic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Jul 1, 2012 13:00:41 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. What Dumbledore said was: Five years ago you arrived at Hogwarts, Harry, safe and whole, as I had planned and intended. Well - not quite whole. You had suffered. I knew you would when I left you on your aunt and uncle's doorstep. I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years."To me, that implies much more than just 'strict discipline'. While I can see your point about Dumbledore's more than old-fashioned ideas of raising children and it makes sense, it is still not an excuse to send a baby to where you know it would suffer. And Arabella Figg may not have known everything, but if *I* had to babysit one of two children in a family EVERY time the other was taken out for amusement and it was NEVER taken with them, but never the other way around, then my alarm-bells would have been deafening. Does that batty old woman actually think that is normal? And she thought it normal that Dudley got everything brand-new and Harry only garbage? In that case, she shouldn't be allowed around children, either. As for the blood wards, I still question if they ever worked properly. If it was Lily's love for her son that saved him and gave him the protection, how was Petunia of any use, seeing as she hated Harry? And Dumbledore insists on the wards working as long as Harry considers Privet Drive home - but after first year at the latest, he saw Hogwarts as his home. The wards should have fallen by then, or been so weak they were useless, and at the latest after the graveyard. It just doesn't make sense to me. So, for me they aren't a real excuse for sending Harry there any more. Besides, how are guardians a protection who would rather get rid of him? And magical children being more resilient doesn't excuse anything of what they were put through. But that seems to be a problem with the whole of Hogwarts, where bullying, endangering students for political reasons and abuse are business as usual. Maybe even a problem of the whole magical world - which doesn't endear it to me any bit. |
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Jul 1, 2012 13:12:10 GMT -5
I agree about the Blood Wards bit. I doubt they existed in the first place, and that Dumbledore used them as an excuse.
I'm not trying to come up with excuses, I'm just trying to think of possible reasons no one did anything to get Harry out of the Dursleys. They aren't necessarily true reasons, but they are possibilities.
And again, I agree with you about the bullying, endangering students and abuse as being business as usual in Hogwarts. In the books, the wizarding world did seem to be stuck in the middle ages or Victorian times, with the fact that they used candles and gas lamps for light, which leads me to think that there unfortunately are no laws to prevent child abuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Jul 1, 2012 13:29:19 GMT -5
Ok, that I can accept  My problem is, if JKR wanted her books to be set in such a time, she should have had them do just that. For our time, a lot of that stuff is questionable at best and downright criminal at worst, and I am uncomfortable with the message to her young readers - abuse and bullying are normal and completely acceptable, no adult will care and actually send you back to get more of it because it's for your own good. In a children's book set in our time, that's a problematic message. That JKR insists Harry was not abused makes things only worse for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Kaiserin on Jul 1, 2012 13:33:20 GMT -5
Kitty I agree with everything you said.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 13:53:02 GMT -5
Well the blood wards bit Dumbledore explained quite well in my opinion. There was no need for Harry to be loved in the location were he was put. The only things that were needed was a direct relation to Lily and the agreement to give a space to live to Harry.
And in my opinion anything can be considered dark and difficult after just having lost two parents. And in the end I believe that Dumbledore hoped that Harry would be treated better even if he didn't really believe it. And I still think there weren't any other options.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackroses77 on Jul 1, 2012 14:23:50 GMT -5
Well the blood wards bit Dumbledore explained quite well in my opinion. There was no need for Harry to be loved in the location were he was put. The only things that were needed was a direct relation to Lily and the agreement to give a space to live to Harry. And in my opinion anything can be considered dark and difficult after just having lost two parents. And in the end I believe that Dumbledore hoped that Harry would be treated better even if he didn't really believe it. And I still think there weren't any other options. I'm sorry but that just doesn't fly with me because in addition to the quote in book 5 there is also the following quote in book 6 from Dumbledore: "You did not do as I asked. You have never treated Harry as a son. He has known nothing but neglect and often cruelty at you hands." This proves that Dumbledore was aware of the abuse and yes neglect is abuse not to mention the cruelty part. So even IF the blood wards were legit and working properly there is absolutely no excuse for Dumbledore to not have gone to the Dursley's and put a stop to such treatment, and if threatening them didn't work I am sure there are spells that could have been used to stop the Dursley's from hurting, starving and overworking Harry. |
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 14:29:52 GMT -5
Well living in a cupboard is cruelty enough for me so I don't need to think about anything more. And of course the fact remains that it wasn't the best decision Dumbledore ever made, but as I stated much earlier, I believe that Dumbledore saw the necessity of a place were Harry was safe (from mortal Danger) no matter what happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackroses77 on Jul 1, 2012 14:45:01 GMT -5
That's what I meant about IF the blood wards were legit and working meaning it was the only safe place for Harry, but that doesn't stop Dumbledore from protecting Harry by going to the Dursley's and stopping the abuse. So since he knew about the abuse and didn't stop it that means he was actively condoning it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kaiserin on Jul 1, 2012 14:46:17 GMT -5
He did what was easy (for himself) rather than what was right.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 14:49:50 GMT -5
But the only thing that could have stopped the Dursleys from treating him like they did would have been an observation 24/7 and I think that is difficult to organize for 10 years. And even when he was being observed the treatment wasn't exactly good.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackroses77 on Jul 1, 2012 14:56:44 GMT -5
Like I said there have to be spells that could have been implemented to protect Harry such as the Dursley's being unable to commit acts of violence against him or that would take away their ability to deny him food or come to that take away there ability to harm him in any way, shape or form.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Jul 1, 2012 14:59:18 GMT -5
Then he should have taken the child away. There's NO excuse to sit on his arse and do nothing knowing the child was abused. It makes him as much the culprit as the Dursleys themselves. Damn, Dumbledore had enough connections, why not ward a place properly? Why could Harry not stay in Grimmauld Place later on? Don't tell me that abusive muggles who hate his guts and questionable blood wards are more safe than a wizard house under Fidelius, unplottable and guarded by wizards who could have actively defended Harry in the worst case - which the Dursleys could and would not have done.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 14:59:22 GMT -5
Well that would be something that Dumbledore wouldn't be able to do as it is much to similar to what he thought about in his youth. And even then we haven't heard about any Spell that takes away the free will except the imperious. And as Free Will is something we all treasure and wizards also treasure there wouldn't be any other spell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Jul 1, 2012 15:01:01 GMT -5
So what about Harry's free will? That one Dumbledore didn't care one bit for. Again, he should have taken Harry away if he couldn't guarantee his safety there.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 15:03:49 GMT -5
Well what about Harry's free will? And as I already explained I think the blood wards needed to be there until Harry was an adult because no matter what happened to Dumbledore, Voldemort or the Wizarding World, Harry was safe there from Death.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackroses77 on Jul 1, 2012 15:07:16 GMT -5
Well that would be something that Dumbledore wouldn't be able to do as it is much to similar to what he thought about in his youth. And even then we haven't heard about any Spell that takes away the free will except the imperious. And as Free Will is something we all treasure and wizards also treasure there wouldn't be any other spell. Actually you know what it doesn't matter if there are such spells or not, because Kitty279 is right. Even if the blood wards were real (which I don't think they were) there were better ways to protect Harry then leaving him with the Dursley's. He wasvjust as safe in Grimmauld so there was no reason another house with another family couldn't have been set up. And with wards set by Dumbldore and Dumbledore as secret keeper Harry would have been perfectly safe and in a loving environment. Thank you Kitty279 for getting me back on track  |
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 15:11:19 GMT -5
No that is exactly the problem. Nothing was as safe as the Dursleys. The Fidelius can be broken. All other protections can be broken. Dumbledore can die. They can torture him (Potion in the basin with the Horcrux???) to reveal the location. And other than Dumbledore doing granddad duty for ten years I can't see how Harry could have been safe.
Because after the war even two accomplished aurors (Frank and Alice) were tortured into insanity. What is better than two aurors as protection? Answer: Dumbledore and Blood Wards.
|
|
|
|
Post by readingwizard4 on Jul 1, 2012 15:12:15 GMT -5
Well what about Harry's free will? And as I already explained I think the blood wards needed to be there until Harry was an adult because no matter what happened to Dumbledore, Voldemort or the Wizarding World, Harry was safe there from Death. Safe from Death? What about the Dursleys? They didn't want him so could have killed him, what then? |
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 15:14:17 GMT -5
Which I also think wouldn't have been possible. And in all honesty I don't think any of the Dursleys could commit murder. I mean how would it look in the neighborhood |
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Jul 1, 2012 15:16:29 GMT -5
If the Dursleys had murdered Harry, they would be victims of the gossip mill that Petunia was part of. It would be too scandalous for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by werewulfking on Jul 1, 2012 15:17:22 GMT -5
Exactly my point |
|
