PS Chapter Two

[hafl.livejournal.com]

- The manner in which Dursleys abuse Harry is so over the top, it is hard to take seriously.

- Harry can't understand why would Dudley want to get a bicycle, since he apparently hates sports and is fat. Clearly, Dudley is morally deficient.

- Harry's glasses are held together only by Scotch tape, because Dudley punches him into nose so often. In the previous paragraph, it was stated that Harry is so fast, Dudley can't often catch him. These two sentences don't mesh together well.

- Not only is Harry not afraid of spiders, but also likes his scar. A true Gryffindor.

- Dudley is so fat he is like a pig. Hahaha, fat people are pathetic. Unless they're matronly of course.

- Okay, Dudley has no trouble while counting his gifts one by one, but when he has to add two at once, he is suddenly having problems?

- Harry find it hard to feel sorry that Mrs. Figg has broken her leg. The power of love at work, ladies and gentlemen.

- Petunia "looking furiously at Harry as though he'd planned this" is actually pretty interesting. If I remember Deathly Hallows correctly, Snape had some measure of control over his magic even before he entered Hogwarts and Petunia knew about it. As far as she knows, Harry may have caused Mrs. Figg to break her leg.

- Dudley is so spoiled he knows he only needs to pretend to cry to get all he wants.

- Again, Vernon warns Harry about doing anything weird. This and all the accounts of Harry's mishaps really reinforces the idea that the Dursleys are scared of Harry and think he is in control of his magic.

- Now that's Harry's school is mentioned, how come nobody noticed him being abused by the Dursleys? I don't mean classmates, I mean the school administration. They should know that both Harry and Dudley have the same address and they should know that Dursleys are Harry's legal guardians. Why didn't anyone the teachers notice that Harry's probably malnourished, wears only old clothes and his glasses are constantly getting broken, while Dudley's fat and owns only new things? I don't know that much about British educational system, especially in the eighties, but it probably wasn't that bad.

- In the zoo, Harry feels compassionate towards the snake. At this point, he's still a sympathetic kid.

- Now, after the snake incident, Piers claims that Harry was talking to the snake. Okay, but Parseltongue is apparently just hissing. So is Piers saying that Harry was talking just a simplification to avoid the revelation that Parseltongue is hissing? Or, if Harry was using human speech, why did the snake understand him?

- The Dursleys reaction is actually completely understandable. From their point of view, Harry was using is magic and from all the incidents that were mentioned, this one is the only one, where Dursleys could reasonably think that Harry was trying to attack them.

- And at the end of the chapter, we are again reminded that Harry is lonely and abused and that there's something mysterious about him.

Comments

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/Of course, what every discussion of Dursley-abuse forgets is that ALL OF IT IS DUMBLEDORE'S FAULT/

Yes, now that we know that Dumbledore knew all about the Dursley's treatment of Harry, that decision really doesn't reflect too well on Albus. It's especially frustrating and galling, given that Dumbledore should really know better. Not just because he's supposed to be a wise old wizard, but because he's had personal experience with what happens with Muggles and magical children. Ariana was attacked by three Muggle boys because of her magic and was subsequently rendered insane. For his part, Tom Riddle grew up with Muggles and turned two of *them* insane. So, Dumbledore really should have known what a bad idea it was to leave Harry not only with Muggles, but with Muggles who hated magic. And now that we know that the whole "blood protection" excuse has a lot of holes in it, Dumbledore can't even use that as justification.

/and the fault of the Ministry, who seems to have ignored their saviour for over a decade after he saved them all./

The Ministry is incompetent to the point of being criminally negligent. Even after Bob Ogden saw for himself how horrible Marvolo and Morfin Gaunt were and how awful they were to Merope, the Ministry did not bother to send anyone back to the Gaunts' house to take care of Merope after her brother and father was sent away. She was left all by herself with hardly any options in poor conditions. Yet the Ministry never bothered to think of her again.

All of the inconsistencies with the Statue of Secrecy Laws could be viewed as symptoms of negligence as well. Underage wizards can get away with doing magic as long as they blame it on their parents. Meanwhile, wizards who have grown up solely with Muggles (Harry, Tom, Lily, Hermione, other Muggle-borns, etc.) not only have a greater responsibility to keep their magic secret (although apparently that never extended to Tom, as he was able to get away with practicing magic in the orphanage), but they have the possibility of growing up in an environment that ridicules, fears, and/or hates them, which can cause them to become emotionally unstable. The Ministry allows the parents of Muggle-born wizards to know about the wizarding world for the sake of their children, but that rule just assumes that the parents aren't terrible people who will make their children's lives miserable once they find out that they can do magic. What provisions have the Ministry made for children who are kicked out of their Muggle households for being wizards? Or do they just assume that any Muggle parent would be delighted to find out that their child possessed magic?

[oryx_leucoryx]

Regarding Merope, she was 18 so I can see the Ministry wouldn't think to intervene in her case.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

But why though? Even if Merope was legally an adult, Ogden clearly saw that she was abused, impoverished, and in poor health (mentally and physically). The dire circumstances that she was in weren't going to magically go away just because her father and brother were temporarily out of the picture. Even if she were forty years old, she merited help by her condition alone. I guess that the Ministry just isn't that big on social services.

[merrymelody.livejournal.com]

JKR seems fairly anti-intervention - look at how she treats the Ministry investigating accidents caused by teachers at Hogwarts.
(Not that they go about it particularly well, but then, she chose to write it that way - inept government interferes in independent school.)
Her thing seems to be more that Merope should have pulled herself up by her bootstraps or something (I love the comparison Dumbledore makes about how she wasn't as strong as Lily, as if their situations were in any way comparable, apart from both possessing uteruses. Oh, and the mention of how the Gaunts spent their money, like if the Weasleys are poor it's noble, but the Gaunts are just wasteful) and if she didn't, it was probably her icky Slytherin genes, but definitely nothing anyone could have affected, or should feel like they should.
(The end part in DH about Harry still hearing the helpless baby crying, but it becoming less and less important is probably the most chilling part of the books for me, but it's pretty emblematic of the series, imho.)

Types of Courage

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

"I love the comparison Dumbledore makes about how she wasn't as strong as Lily, as if their situations were in any way comparable, apart from both possessing uteruses."

You mean the bit where Harry says, "Why didn't she stay alive for Tom's sake," and Dumbledore replies, "She didn't have Lily's courage"? Because that's one of my least favourite parts of HBP (second only to the Sectumsempra scene). Somebody should tell JKR that the sort of courage required to carry on when you seemingly have nothing to live for is a completely different sort to the sort of courage required to stand up to a homicidal maniac. There's no way of telling how Lily would have coped in Merope's situation, or vice versa.

Re: Types of Courage

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

You mean the bit where Harry says, "Why didn't she stay alive for Tom's sake," and Dumbledore replies, "She didn't have Lily's courage"?

That bit is actually my absolute least favorite part of HBP, and is in competition for the part I most disliked in the series. Merope did not lack courage. She decided that she wanted to have the baby rather than abort it, and she had to struggle just to stay alive long enough to give birth. I'm pro-choice, so I'd never judge Merope if she'd chosen to have an abortion. (I'm sure there are magical ways to get an abortion in the WW, and whatever they cost, they'd be more affordable than remaining pregnant.) But to denigrate her for dying in childbirth rather than managing to continue to live for her child after it was born?

Dumbledore's imposition of the "courage" thing on the situation is inappropriate to begin with, since Dumbledore never met Merope, and had no way of being certain of why she died. Frankly, I think it's crazy to look at a starving woman who received no prenatal care, and who died in childbirth, and conclude that the problem had to do with the woman's *attitude*. Either Dumbledore was being an idiot, or he was feeding Harry a line.

But even if you're going to insist on viewing things in terms of courage, you're stacking the deck if you focus on Merope's death to the exclusion of her struggle to stay alive without sacrificing her son to do so. Lily was never presented with an ongoing struggle like the one Merope faced in the last few months of her life.

Re: Types of Courage

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

Either Dumbledore was being an idiot, or he was feeding Harry a line.

Probably the latter - Dumbledore also says something along the lines of "surely you're not feeling sorry for Lord Voldemort" in that conversation. Compassionate assassins aren't a good investment of time.

Re: Types of Courage

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/Frankly, I think it's crazy to look at a starving woman who received no prenatal care, and who died in childbirth, and conclude that the problem had to do with the woman's *attitude*./

I agree. Thousands of women around the world die in childbirth because of complications, because they don't have prenatal care, because they can't afford good midwives or doctors, etc. It has nothing to do with the amount of "courage" that they may have. Just the fact that Merope went to an orphanage so that her child could grow up in a place with caretakers instead of on the streets shows that she did care for Tom.

And I'm sorry, but the whole scene in DH of what actually happened the night that Voldemort attacked the Potters really disappointed me. What "courage" did Lily show there? Instead of Apparating with her baby or trying to fight off Voldemort, she screamed like an idiot and barricaded herself in the room, as if Voldemort couldn't have Apparated or blasted his way inside. And once he had cornered her, all Lily did was plead and cry. No insults, no defiance, no magic, no bargain, nothing. Her actions, along with her husband's stupidity in trying to attack Voldemort without a wand (where was the "courageous fight" that Voldemort told Harry about in the first book?), were really underwhelming.

[oryx_leucoryx]

JKR seems fairly anti-intervention

Which is so consistent of a former single mother who herself relied on government support.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

Yeah, Rowling's politics are even worse than her worldbuilding. On the one hand, she's a big supporter of the Labour Party; on the other, her books constantly portray the government as inept and bungling, and any government control is always portrayed as an unequivocal bad thing. Possibly she's one of those people who just vote Labour because of its reputation as the "nice" party, but who, if they really thought about it, don't have much in common with Labour at all.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

I have the feeling that JKR is not a particularly reflective person. It shows in her politics and her worldbuilding.

For all that she claims that Hermione and/or DD is her stand-in, I really see a lot of similarities between JKR and Harry. Very emotionally-oriented.

[mmmarcusz.livejournal.com]

JKR seems fairly anti-intervention - look at how she treats the Ministry investigating accidents caused by teachers at Hogwarts.

Seems odd that, for all her dislike of "big government" and state intervention, she goes and gives a million pounds to Labour...

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/Why the hell would any parents abuse their child just because he has some sort of special abilities?/

Carrie White's mother: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

How about parents who might try to cash in on the kid's magic, like making a certain horse come in or car and driver win or "find" some money laying around or take the house off the electrical grid or etc.?

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

Because it's unusual, creepy, and sufficiently different from standard human expectations?

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

People mistreat people based on difference all the time. One would hope they wouldn't do it to their children, but I can easily believe this could happen.

mentally or physically challenged, autistic

Children like this were often seen as changelings, and tortured in the hope of persuading the fairies to give the real child back. This was going on in some places in the 19th century. These days, autism, mentally and physically challengedness, albinism, etc are understood, but thanks to wizarding seclusion, Potterverse magic isn't, and the sort of people who would torture their "changeling" children might well do the same (or at least, they would if their fear of their children outweighed their fear of getting caught now that we have better laws against this sort of thing).

JKR's world is just like our own, except for the fact that magical children happen. They are born every year, everywhere around the planet. It's not unlikely that in such world, most people would hear rumors about these "special" children (Especially since it's so disturbing and creepy. ;)), even though they might dismiss them as urban legends – that is, before they have a specimen of their own.

Again, people knew that some children were different. They explained this as them being changelings. If there were rumours of children with strange powers (which is quite likely - the MoM can't memory-wipe everyone who may have seen something), some people would fall back on the changeling explanation (or demons, or aliens, or whatever). Of course, the whole way the wizarding world works is essentially the changeling mechanism, except that they don't give anything back.

In this case, they would probably try to learn more, rather than hurt the kid.

Not everyone would be so calm about their children having unexplained supernatural powers.

After all, even though JKR usually insists that Muggles are basically animals (while conveniently forgetting that she is one of us, too), she doesn't give too many instances of Muggles actually abusing wizarding kids.

Oh yes, but I think that's because she marginalises everything to do with the Muggle world (as you say, basically animals). Other than demonstrating how nice the heroes are and how horrible the DEs are, whether or not someone's Muggle-born doesn't really differentiate them at all from their fellows, and she hasn't thought about the Muggle perspective on thing at all, except to mock the Dursleys' parochialism (which though reprehensible, would quite likely be fairly common - Petunia can't be the only person who'd think magic freakish).

All the talk about {any aspect of her world} is just another way to force the reader to pity our poor Harry suffering in a cold, cruel world/marvel at Harry's courage and compassion. :p

Fixed that for you. :p

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

This is all very interesting because it's reminding me of a fanfiction backstory I wrote for a character (not Harry Potter). In my story, the character's mother treated him horribly when he was little (never let him play with any other children or go to school, kept him locked up in the house, sometimes forgot his own name) just because he was albino. The thing is, I was sure there were people like that in real life (though I went out of my way to make the mother appear as stupid as possible, just incase- she thinks albinism is contagious and you can have a premature birth just by reading about one in the newspaper).

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

In this case, they would probably try to learn more, rather than hurt the kid.

There have been well-meaning interventions which have hurt or even killed the children they were meant to help. Someone not too many years ago suffocated their autistic child trying out some muffling technique (I seem to recall that it was affiliated with some religious practice) to help "cure" him.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

witches get burned (OK, the last one is more of a 1600s thing, but there you go). Rowling's idea of the second half of the 20th century sure is a bit hard to take seriously.

Very definitely. But her belief there was this epidemic of witch-burning particularly annoys me. Yes, some of them were burned in Scotland, but in England they were usually hanged, if they were convicted at all. None of this happened around the time of Hogwarts' founding, of course.

Oh, did not. At least, not in the 1980s when Harry was born.

If your child started doing magic and you knew the myths, wouldn't you at least consider it?

Speaking of poor uneducated lowest class, is it just me, or do the wizards who aren't Snape, regardless of their blood status, always somehow manage to be rich, noble or both by birth?

Do Neville and Luna count?

If you are talking about wizarding kids being real changelings, uhm, now that's an idea I've never thought about... I always thought of magic as a hereditary thing, you know, that the Muggleborns are products of squib genes in the family pool, or the mother's fling with a wizard or something like that. :)

I was speaking metaphorically - though it would be interesting if that's where the legends came from in the Potterverse. Maybe the wizards are the more humanoid fairies to go with the elves, goblins, and banshees.

but after a while, you'll compose yourself and do whatever you must to work things out

Not everyone's going to take "whatever you must" particularly reasonably.

But I don't recall him ever mentioning the Creevy brothers looking malnourished or Justin arriving at Hogwarts with a black eye.

You have a point. But it's still about as believable as the Patronus charm being awesomely advanced magic.

This reminds me of how Neville's family tried to kill him in the hope of bringing out his magic - this is presumably an "It's Okay If You're A Wizard" moment.

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'm uncloaking from lurker status, because this thread is actually very similar to a conversation I had with another Potter fan a week or so ago...


You're joking, right? The things you listed are perhaps reasons to worry, but to abuse? I don't think so.

Actually, if a magickal child was born into a family of fundie thumpers (or to Christine O'Donnell, LOL), I'd expect both emotional and physical abuse would be meted out to the child who they would perceive as being "possessed by Satan" as soon as that child started doing anything in the least considered "occult"...ala Piper Laurie/Sissy Spacek in "Carrie".

But for the general run-of-the-mill non-magickal population, I'd think they'd actually find the unique abilities of their little wizard or witch quite intriguing at the very least. Any "abuse" on their part would be perhaps due to their exploiting their child's abilities, like who wouldn't consider taking a kid who can fly and giving them some gymnastic and dance lessons and then having them compete on talent shows?

Some parents might want to have their magickal child try to manipulate slot machines and roulette wheels, or effect the results of voting machines...but I think the majority would be happy dressing the kid up as an angel and creating the perfect Kodak moment by having the family gathered around the Christmas tree and the magickal child fly up and put the star on the tree...

And the parents would be estactic that their magickal child's could clean their room just by wiggling their nose or whatever! LOL

idealism

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

But people abuse their kids all the time, all over the world, when the kids do something the parents find outside the pale.

Examples: the friend who was thrown out onto the streets at 15 to prostitute himself or starve when his folks found out he was gay.

The girls who are killed by strict religious relatives for being sexually active or for trying to have a boyfriend from the wrong background (dishonoring the family,see, so they have to reclaim their honor by killing her).

And unlike plain old abusive parents, who might hit their kid for any reason or none, these parents will treat their kids okay while they seem to conform.

So, while YOU can't imagine mistreating a kid just because s/he doesn't conform to your standards of behavior, there are plenty out there who do.

So, yeah, I could see a parent convinced that magic is evil (a form of demonic possession, perhaps) mistreating their magic-using child. Or adopting draconian means to try to "cure" them. Doesn't Vernon express regret, next chapter, for not having tried the expedient of "beating" the magic out of Harry?

(And the horrible thing is, if Merope and Tonks are examples, inducing a severe enough depression might in fact be an effective way of stifling someone's magic....)