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

[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.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

You would?

Children with mysterious magical powers in a culture with changeling myths have a ready-made explanation. Just because we don't have anything needing such an explanation in real life doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth considering if magical children started appearing.

And anyway, even if you would, don't tell me you'd hurt him just because he might be a species you previously knew only from fairy tales? How about trying to talk to the kid and see how this 'magic' works?

Of course I wouldn't. But not everyone is nice and accepting, and there's undeniably room in the human psyche for prejudice against the different. Just because neither of us would abuse our hypothetical magical children doesn't mean others wouldn't.

People who would hit their 'special' offspring would probably hit their up-to-Dursleys'-standard normal children too, if they displeased them in any way. In a world where magic exists, same would go for magical children. Most people would learn how to live with them, some would hate them for being different or even for existing. Nothing to do with magic.

For these people, it's not magic in itself that would prompt abuse, just unwanted difference. But just as some people might be homophobic but not sexist, or transphobic but not racist, some people will see magic as an unwanted difference whereas they wouldn't see dyslexia, blindness, or being gay as such.

As always, despite what Rowling says, the text clearly shows that wizards are much more inclined to crimes of prejudice and hate than Muggles. What a surprise. :)

Depends where said Muggles are and against whom they're prejudiced, really. And who knows - maybe foreign wizards are enlightened and tolerant, and the real reason so much diplomacy was needed for the Triwizard Tournament is that every other wizarding nation looks down on Britain.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

They still killed the kid. And there have been other things not related to religion, like the child who died from a lack of salt because his parents bought into the whole "salt is bad for you" pseudo-science. Most parents, even in the old days, were concerned for their children. How they showed this concern differs only by society. Keep the kid locked up and he or she won't be harassed by others; feed them poorly or don't vaccinate because that's the latest scare going around - it doesn't matter. The effects are the same. Remember, more parents who physically abuse their children think they're teaching them not to be bad so they won't get into a lot more trouble later on.

[cured4life.livejournal.com]

I think most parents who do abuse children are not thinking of the children at all. There is a big difference between discipline and abuse.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

Depends on your era and definition of abuse, I'd think. True abuse, yes - beating the kid, for instance. But many more-modern definitions of abuse include spanking, which, a couple or three decades ago, would not have been considered abuse except by a few. When discussing the HP books in particular, since I don't usually discuss any other books on-line so have no reference to those particular discussions, the definition of abuse for each participant comes into play. Parents who spank believe they are doing the child a service. In much earlier times it was believed by society(though not necessarily by individual members of society) that a good beating did a bad kid good. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" was an adage people believed because they thought it was good for the child though today we'd see it as abuse.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

Lack of salt has been known for centuries to be detrimental. Smothering is well-known to kill. The beliefs that brought about these deaths are more modern and go against established thought. A lot of beliefs which have gone against the establishment have later taken hold and even been right - think about the early experiments on human cadavers or the Sol-centric vision of the solar system - so it isn't odd to see people who should know better embracing new thought and practice. In the case of salt, for instance, it's well-known now that too much salt can be detrimental, too. Those parents could easily have known better since they knew about a newer theory (salt is bad for the heart) - they chose to follow the one and not the other and to go to extremes rather than taking the middle road. I sincerely doubt they put their beliefs above their child - I think that, because of their beliefs, they did the wrong thing mistakenly believing they would benefit the child. Same for the smothering death.

When someone does not accept their child's condition and instead tries to "cure" that condition (using "condition" to mean something that is a part of the person, not a temporary or potentially curable thing like pneumonia or the plague) they are bashing the child for having a condition which makes them different. The child is not good enough the way he or she is, the child must be brought within the parameters of "normal."

I agree that lack of sufficient information mitigates the intentions such as in the early blood transfusions. They needed certain information which they did not possess at the time. I also agree with you that there are other selfish reasons people may do things against their own, most certainly in the areas of belief and opinion or in Petunia's specialty, "what will the neighbors think?"

[sunnyskywalker]

For the parents around during Voldemort's first and second rises (and on the Continent, maybe Grindlewald's too), there's also the possibility that they noticed something was up and put the pieces together once their kid started showing signs of magic. Since their only other experience with real magic is scary, violent things getting hushed up, I can imagine some of those parents freaking out and wanting to protect their children from the wizarding world in any way they can - including trying to scare the kids out of using magic or trying to keep them hidden. Which could cause plenty of harm even if they are desperately trying to protect the kids from what they see as a worse danger. Considering how ultimately futile it would be, too, it would be quite sad.

[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....)

Re: idealism

[oryx_leucoryx]

So do you think Marvolo was following the same pattern Neville's family was?

Re: idealism

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

Or her magic was weak. Couldn't she accio that pot after some rattling around in the pensieve scene?

Fanatics and Merope the Rapist

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

No, I'm trying to point out that there are people out there (who consider themselves to be good people), who reject their children, abuse them, even kill them, because the children behave in a way the parents think abhorrent. And THOSE people consider ME abhorrent (and presumably you) for saying that kids shouldn't be rejected, abused, or killed.

See, we all agree that pathological parents would abuse their kids. What I'm adding is that certain ideologies promote behavior towards errant children that I (and apparently you) consider absolutely unacceptable. And people who otherwise would never harm their child, in fact do so, when the ideology insists.

Sorry, in your circles--and mine--it would undoubtedly be unthinkable to torture or murder a teen daughter for having sex. But there are countries NOW--in 2010--in which it's the law that this should be done. And there are people who emigrate from those countries who keep those beliefs (I'm thinking of that Swedish case).

I'm just saying, people can do terrible things to each other, even to their children, if they've fallen under an belief system that persuades them It's the Right Thing to Do.

Modern Britain is, I've been told, on the whole less religious than the U.S., where I live. Here, I can imagine some people--not most, but a significant minority--(the same ones who think fantasy evil for promoting witchcraft and want to ban or burn JKR's books--the ones who vote for the Tea-Partiers) reacting to the manifestation of magic... well, negatively.

If you're British, and want to say that no native-born Brits would do so, and that we Americans are culturally backwards for having such troglodytes among us--well, okay. Can't argue there.

I can't argue that's it's COMMENDABLE that a society have such citizens. Just that it's reality that mine, at least, does.

*

As to Tonks and Merope, "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle," right?

But regarding Merope--DD suggests that she perked up when her abusive father and brother were gone, BEFORE she induced Tom Sr. to run off with her. If she'd been treated all her life the way Ogden witnessed, she would have grown up perennially depressed and repressed in her development--mentally, emotionally, and no doubt magically. We're told--by Albus, who isn't always truthful--that she seemed a Squib when she was being systematically crushed by her father and brother, blossomed briefly with hope, love, and magical powers (and the impulse to commit rape on the man she fancied) when her persecutors were removed to Azkaban, and lost or refused to use her powers when she loosed Tom from her control and he revealed that he really didn't love her. In fact, utterly the reverse.

Really, if it was true that she REFUSED to use her powers afterwards, it might have been due to a crushing sense of guilt that she'd raped poor defenseless Tom. Because she did, and when she finally let him off her leash he told her so. (Almost certainly not in those words.)

And, you know, if she'd really WANTED to Merope could have found some way to take Tom back. If it weren't that she'd come to realize that she'd raped him, and repented, and wanted nothing more of him but his stolen child....

And Tom, of course, was apparently scarred badly enough by Merope that he never let himself love a woman. He never married again.

The plot bunnies breed. Curse you, Trixie!

Re: Fanatics and Merope the Rapist

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Here, I can imagine some people--not most, but a significant minority--(the same ones who think fantasy evil for promoting witchcraft and want to ban or burn JKR's books--the ones who vote for the Tea-Partiers) reacting to the manifestation of magic... well, negatively.

Periodically there will be news reports of some fundie thumpers getting their panties in a twist because someone who designates themselves as "wiccan", or someone who reads tarot cards for a living decides to move to their area.

Here in Connecticut, we have what are called "Blue Laws", so-called because they are bound up in many blue-covered volumes, dating from Puritan times. The laws are still on the books because there are so many of them.

So technically a baker can still be put into stocks on the town green (if any town green in the state still HAS stocks) for selling a loaf of bread that does not weigh at least a pound; ditto a man for kissing his wife on the Sabbath.

Up until the mid 1980s the Blue Laws still had a statute prohibiting witchcraft; it had been last modified in 1913, and was primarily used to prosecute con artists who'd tell someone they had a curse on them and if you paid them your life savings they'd remove the curse for you.

But by the 1980s there were other laws to prosecute such con artists, and there were now a growing number of New Age types who practiced card reading and astrology and other types of "fortune telling" who were being prosecuted under the old law by any neighbor who didn't like them.

Now the New Age types didn't have a strong organized lobby to get the old law repealed -- but it turned out that that last modification to the law in 1913 resulted in the New Agers gaining one of THE largest lobbying groups in the country.

Because that modification in 1913 took the phrase in the law that basically stated something to the effect that "witchcraft, astrology, tea-leaf and card reading, phrenology, and other so-called occult arts are prohibited", and inserted "psychiatry" before "and other so-called occult arts"!!! LOL

So the New Agers pointed out that if the state was going to prosecute someone for casting horoscopes, that it would also have to arrest every practicing psychiatrist in the state. Hence the entrance of the American Medical Association's lobbyists into the fray, and Connecticut's anti-witchcraft law, dating from the 1600s, was finally repealed in the late 1980s...

But if it weren't for the AMA, it's questionable whether the law would have been repealed at all, because there WERE a significant amount of thumpers who argued that repealing the law would encourage devil worship... :-/

Re: Fanatics and Merope the Rapist

[oryx_leucoryx]

But note that Merope and Neville show the opposite effect to abuse-for-not-displaying-magic-on-schedule. I don't know if that's because of their different genders or different House associations.

At least Hermione didn't lose power during the Ron/Lavender phase.