1. DLP Flash Christmas Competition + Writing Marathon 2024!

    Competition topic: Magical New Year!

    Marathon goal? Crank out words!

    Check the marathon thread or competition thread for details.

    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Introducing for your Perusing Pleasure

    New Thread Thursday
    +
    Shit Post Sunday

    READ ME
    Dismiss Notice

Do we need "cupboard Harry"?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Starfox5, Jan 17, 2015.

Not open for further replies.
  1. Starfox5

    Starfox5 Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Messages:
    247
    Here's a possibly heretical thought: Why exactly do we need Harry to be locked in a cupboard, etc. etc.? What would change if he had a normal childhood, in a normal room, with Aunt and uncle who dislike/fear magic, but treat him decently? Is the scene where they flee from letters really needed for Harry's story? Not knowing about his parents and magic can be explained as a security precaution, so he would not let slip anything and attract attention from Dark Wizards. Same for accidental magic. He doesn't need to freak out at Aunt Marge, he can have an accidental magic outbreak following a scuffle with Dudley, and run away to cool off, then meet Sirius in Year 3. He wouldn't be allowed to get to Hogsmeade "for Security reasons", not because his slip was not signed - same effect and result. For tragedy in his background he can see his family starting to fear him, or rather his magic, and realize that his very presence scares and hurts them, even though they try to not let it show, and try to cope.

    Does he need to be locked up in year 2, or can the Weasley kids simply overreact after the mails are blocked and visit in the stolen car?

    What exactly do we need "cupboard Harry" for in canon? It's one of the biggest reasons "Evil Dumbledore" or "Inept Dumbledore" is so common. If we drop the canon "abused orphan childhood", would the story be hurt or helped?
     
  2. Andrela

    Andrela Plot Bunny DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    5,048
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Silesia
    Because Harry Potter is a fairytale.

    And in fairytales the foster parents or aunts/uncles are evil and unreasonable.

    In fact, imagine if Harry Potter was about a girl witch living in the middle ages.

    Look at Cinderella.

    There are many tropes from fairytales in Harry Potter. We even have the cool godfather/godmother character.
     
  3. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign –§ Prestigious §– DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    37
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    6900
    No.

    /10 char
     
  4. Sesc

    Sesc Slytherin at Heart Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,216
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Blocksberg, Germany
    Because it's funny as fuck.

    Vernon nailing shut the door while humming “Tiptoe Through the Tulips” is a riot, as is driving the car across a field and Dudley complaining about missing The Great Humberto. It's a caricature, and an oh-so-funny one.

    Anyone who tries to view this as more than that is missing the point entirely (and everyone wanting to get rid of it arguably lacks a funny bone; the absurd is one of the best kinds of humour there is).
     
  5. Dark Syaoran

    Dark Syaoran No. 4 Admin

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    6,141
    Gender:
    Male
    FOR THE LULZ
     
  6. Skeletaure

    Skeletaure Magical Core Enthusiast ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,819
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    From an out-of-book perspective, the explanation is obvious: it's the classic Cinderella plotline. The Dursleys being shit makes the magical world seem even more magical.

    However, from an in-universe perspective...

    There are plenty of ways for Durlseys to be compatible with a nuanced Dumbledore characterisation where he is neither evil nor incompetent. We've discussed these ways many times. You simply refuse to even consider them, pulling fanon speculation to maintain your evil Dumbledore interpretation.

    The fact of the matter is: you want Dumbledore to be evil and you look for ways to justify it. Instead of looking for ways to reconcile Dumbledore's character to the Dursleys, you actively try to shoot down plausible explanations.

    Example explanation: Dumbledore honestly believed, from his position of magical expertise and knowledge of the strategic situation, that the bond of blood was the only magic that could 100% reliably protect Harry from Death Eaters. Petunia had to accept Harry freely in order for the magic to work, and thus Dumbledore could not interfere with Harry's treatment there because this would have violated the Dursleys' free will.

    This is a plausible explanation that "rescues" Dumbledore's character, but instead of embracing it you try to find obscure reasons to shoot it down.

    "But he could have bribed them". Firstly there's no real evidence that a bribe would be enough to overcome the Dursleys' magic hate. Secondly it seems likely that a bribe would break the magic -- Petunia isn't taking Harry freely, she's being paid to do so. That's not a bond of blood, it's a commercial contract.

    "But he could have checked in on him". Well, he did do so via Mrs Figg. The fact that he didn't interfere more directly would seem to indicate that he couldn't do so.

    And there we come back to your desire to interpret Dumbledore as badly as possible. When we're confronted with an ambiguity like Dumbledore not directly checking in on Harry, we have a choice of interpretations.

    I choose to believe that Dumbledore acted as he did with reasons. Dumbledore rarely does something arbitrarily, and the fact that he did take measured action (Figg) implies that it was not mere neglect but rather carefully thought out. As such, the conclusion is that something restricted Dumbledore from interfering more directly.

    You choose to believe that Dumbledore acted out of neglect or malice.

    Either interpretation is logically possible, but it is a choice. Further, I feel that my interpretation is more consistent with the rest of canon.

    In short, you're acting here in bad faith. You say you're looking for a way to avoid evil Dumbledore, but you're not doing that at all. You in fact relish it.
     
  7. Arrowjoe

    Arrowjoe Auror

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    612
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
  8. Starfox5

    Starfox5 Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Messages:
    247
    I would like a good Dumbledore that doesn't require me to either abandon my brain or my morals to write him as such.

    Though I cannot really expect much from a poster who thinks "Dumbledore knows best" after reading the books.
     
  9. Skeletaure

    Skeletaure Magical Core Enthusiast ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,819
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
  10. Starfox5

    Starfox5 Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Messages:
    247
    Sorry, your "reasonable explanation" is stupid and would not hold up to closer examination. It requires too much mental gymnastics, weird assumptions, and plain blind faith. It's too contrived to make sense. With that much warped thinking you could as well portray Voldemort as a champion for muggleborns, trying to point out how many purebloods actually died due to him, and how few actual muggleborn we see getting killed by him, and excuse the ones we see die as "needed sacrifices so the DEs do not cotton up to his plans to have them and the other purebloods kill each other off".

    If all we need is this, this, this, this, and this assumption and Dumbledore looks good, then he doesn't look good.
     
  11. Skeletaure

    Skeletaure Magical Core Enthusiast ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,819
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    The only assumption needed is to believe what Dumbledore says in OotP when he explains his actions.

    It is in fact you who is making all sorts of non-canon assumptions in order to find ways to disbelieve those statements.

    Without those assumptions there is no reason to disbelieve him.
     
  12. DerHesse

    DerHesse Unspeakable

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    723
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Frankfurt/Main
    For me at least it's a way to distinguish Harry from Voldemort. Both had a shitty childhood, but only Harry went on and became a decent human being.

    Tom Riddle: "So, your mother tried to save you. Yes, that's a powerful counter-charm. I can see now ... there is nothing special about you, after all. I wondered, you see. There are strange likenesses between us, after all. Even you must have noticed. Both half-bloods, orphans, raised by Muggles. Probably the only two Parselmouths to come to Hogwarts since the Great Slytherin himself. We even look something alike ... but after all, it was merely a lucky chance that saved you from me. That's all I wanted to know."

    The similarities right down to the upbringing and the way both see Hogwarts as their true home is very important especially to shape Harry's character. Plus denying Harry a happy childhood plants the seeds of revenge in him, I believe that was mentioned in Dumbledore's office after Sirius's death.
     
  13. golan

    golan Temporarily Banhammered DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2014
    Messages:
    567
    Location:
    Central Europe, for now.
    No idea, why most fanfic authors lack imagination to remove "cupboard Harry" in favor of neglected, but not abused Harry (OK, (step-)parental can be abuse, but, for the sake of the plot twist...). In that scenario, the Dursleys may not like him, but they also not actively seek to harm him like they do in canon.
     
  14. ihateseatbelts

    ihateseatbelts Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2014
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Where the mandem jam up to no good
    I think it's been said around here before, but the "cupboard under the stairs" actually isn't as terrible as it sounds. Granted, it's shit, but younger kids sleep in rooms of comparable size all the time. Hell, I sleep in a box room back in London - it's cosy once you get used to it.

    And yes, it's pretty much a box.

    Harry was neglected, certainly, but abused? I think that's a loaded word for many. Had he grown up somewhere else, there's literally no telling what he would be like. Would he have thrived in an environment where his natural curiosity was encouraged, rather than challenged?
     
  15. prtclehysics

    prtclehysics Third Year

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2014
    Messages:
    108
    No, but it is funny. One of the best parts of fantasy is how the normals react to the presence of "magic" JKR used her normals as comic relief. She also made sure to make them distasteful enough that people wouldn't feel bad about the cool wizards making life hard on the poor innocent muggles.
    Now in fanfiction this gets taken to the absurd. Where people either forget to take Harry out of the cupboard entirely. Or it seems like lately they forget that "Harry is a wizard". He can move/destroy objects without regard to the laws of physics. Muggles aren't really a threat to him.
     
  16. Jeram

    Jeram Elder of Zion ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    143
    High Score:
    1756
    No.

    Or more elaborately: That's just stupid.
     
  17. NuScorpii

    NuScorpii Professor

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2015
    Messages:
    434
    I do agree with Taure for the most part. It does explain Dumbledore leaving Harry on the doorstep, without actually discussing anything with the Dursleys beyond a letter. It would be the ultimate act of making sure that it was entirely their choice to provide Harry a home.

    That being said, I'm not sure Dumbledore convincing Harry to go back to the Dursleys' makes sense if we take that explanation. Wouldn't it be equivalent to him interfering in Harry's choice of considering #4 his home?

    If Taure or anyone else has a possible explanation for that, I'd like to hear it.

    Moving on:

    Putting Harry in a cupboard was likely one of the less abusive ways to make Harry have gone through similar life as Voldemort, and still choosing a different path. The entire series does put a good amount of emphasis on 'choice', and a Harry with a normal life would not be a good comparison to Voldemort on the matter of having made better choices in his life.

    What I can't understand is some fanfics trying to make his life at the Dursleys' worse than it's depicted in canon, as if the amount of abuse that Harry went through in canon just isn't grave enough for their plot.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2015
  18. Skeletaure

    Skeletaure Magical Core Enthusiast ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,819
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    Dumbledore specifies in OotP that Petunia accepting Harry freely was essential to seal the spell, but doesn't say anything about Harry choosing to live there freely. Which is lucky, as he was a baby at the time.

    Though after OotP, when Dumbledore explains why Harry is at the Dursleys, Harry doesn't make any objection, which seems to indicate he accepts Dumbledore's reasoning and freely chooses the Dursleys. A lucky thing too, as Harry continued to be protected there even at the start of DH. Voldemort couldn't touch Harry until he left Privet Drive.

    Given Voldemort's ability to assassinate high-ranking Ministry personnel (who would have had the highest level of magical protection possible), it seems likely that if Harry had been placed anywhere else, he would have died.
     
  19. Warburg

    Warburg Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2014
    Messages:
    278
    Location:
    Denmark
    Not necessarily. Voldemort had infiltrated the Ministry to a large degree and was likely able to gain crucial information to bypass protections and reveal secure and secret locations of the high ranking members. Hell, he might even have the Aurors protecting the VIP on his side. Harry's protection would not be handled by the Ministry if Dumbledore had anything to say abou it. It would be the job of the OotP, which wasn't infiltrated in this way and it's likely that Harry could've lived undisturbed elsewhere and managed just fine. Now if the Ministry was involved in the protection of Harry, that'd be a totally different thing and I could understand where you would be coming from.
     
  20. Skeletaure

    Skeletaure Magical Core Enthusiast ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,819
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    I think the Ministry would have been involved somehow. If Harry didn't go to his relatives then there would presumably have to be some official process determining a foster family, which would be prime opportunity for the Ministry to insert itself into his upbringing.

    Also, the Order seems to work with the Ministry on some things. The Tonks' safehouse, for example, was said to have been given all the protections that both the Order and the Ministry could give it together.

    Even if the Ministry isn't involved, there's strong evidence to suggest that the Ministry can simply declare the protections on a location void, collapsing them immediately. There's no resistance, the protections simply disappear. This is what happened to the Burrow in DH as soon as Voldemort took the Ministry.

    Being able to give Harry a protection beyond this Ministerial power would be a significant advantage. It obviously has limits or they could have found Voldemort easily, but those limits seem to be quite high, given the events of the Burrow.

    Even without this power, Voldemort seems to be able to bypass protections given time. Voldemort's killing of Amelia Bones took place in the summer after OotP, well before he had a firm grip on the Ministry -- Yaxley didn't get Thicknesse under the Imperius until the summer after HBP, and that was the key person they needed (head of DMLE). Voldemort's inability to access the Tonks' house shows he can't simply overpower entrenched protections, but it would seem that over time he can find ways around them or undermine them somehow.
     
Loading...
Not open for further replies.