Harry Potter and the Muggle World

FAN: Discuss various fictional worlds that don't qualify for SF.

Moderator: Steve

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7954
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by ray245 »

The Harry Potter Wizarding World does have 'ancient powerful magic' (tm) but it's generally quite limited. Sacrifice magic (of the kind which saved Harry) needs not only a sacrifice but a true sacrifice, one where the victim had a chance to live but chose to die anyway. The potion which resurrected Voldermort likewise needed a strange set of ingredients (Bone of the father, flesh of a servant, Blood of a foe). It's magic of life, death, love, hate, sacrifice and symbolism. It might be powerful, sometimes, but it's not the kind of thing you want to rely on. Your unbeatable house shielding charm isn't much use if it stops working every new moon.
I really enjoy this aspect of the Harry Potter series. Having too many instances of people beating each other with 'ancient powerful magic' tend to make the story a little too cliche after a while.

The fact that wizards are not all power mages capable of destroying nations actually gives the world have a sense of realism.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
User avatar
Ahriman238
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4854
Joined: 2011-04-22 11:04pm
Location: Ocularis Terribus.

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by Ahriman238 »

ray245 wrote:
The Harry Potter Wizarding World does have 'ancient powerful magic' (tm) but it's generally quite limited. Sacrifice magic (of the kind which saved Harry) needs not only a sacrifice but a true sacrifice, one where the victim had a chance to live but chose to die anyway. The potion which resurrected Voldermort likewise needed a strange set of ingredients (Bone of the father, flesh of a servant, Blood of a foe). It's magic of life, death, love, hate, sacrifice and symbolism. It might be powerful, sometimes, but it's not the kind of thing you want to rely on. Your unbeatable house shielding charm isn't much use if it stops working every new moon.
I really enjoy this aspect of the Harry Potter series. Having too many instances of people beating each other with 'ancient powerful magic' tend to make the story a little too cliche after a while.

The fact that wizards are not all power mages capable of destroying nations actually gives the world have a sense of realism.
Most powerful magical artifact in the series, with the possible exception of the philospher's Stone, has to be the ring. Why? Well, whoever has the ring ca make the spirit of DUmbledore manifest and explain himself andh is plans. Along with every legendary hero, inventor, historical figure, master of lost and forgotten magics etc. Knowledge is power, secrets twice as much, and the power to interrogate the dead is priceless.
"Any plan which requires the direct intervention of any deity to work can be assumed to be a very poor one."- Newbiespud
User avatar
Aniron
Padawan Learner
Posts: 193
Joined: 2011-07-25 10:07am

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by Aniron »

Ahriman238 wrote:Most powerful magical artifact in the series, with the possible exception of the philospher's Stone, has to be the ring. Why? Well, whoever has the ring ca make the spirit of DUmbledore manifest and explain himself andh is plans.
Dumbledore would never explain his plans, though. He would make the person who needs the most help do it on his own, in the hopes of growing, in a time of great peril. He is easily the most despicable character in the entire series.
So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.
User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 10361
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: CIC, Battlestar Temeraire

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by Eternal_Freedom »

On the other hand, having the ring means it would make investigating murder cases sooo much easier.

Also, I would think it would be entertaining to summon up Voldemort and taunt him about being dead.
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.
User avatar
Darth Yoshi
Metroid
Posts: 7342
Joined: 2002-07-04 10:00pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by Darth Yoshi »

Aniron wrote:Dumbledore would never explain his plans, though. He would make the person who needs the most help do it on his own, in the hopes of growing, in a time of great peril. He is easily the most despicable character in the entire series.
IIRC, getting summoned by the stone is supposed to be really unpleasant for the shade, insomuch as they can feel, since it's an unnatural state. So if Dumbledore was summoned and told he'd stay that way until he adequately explained himself, eventually he'd spill so that he could return to the afterlife.
Image
Fragment of the Lord of Nightmares, release thy heavenly retribution. Blade of cold, black nothingness: become my power, become my body. Together, let us walk the path of destruction and smash even the souls of the Gods! RAGNA BLADE!
Lore Monkey | the Pichu-master™
Secularism—since AD 80
Av: Elika; Prince of Persia
User avatar
Aniron
Padawan Learner
Posts: 193
Joined: 2011-07-25 10:07am

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by Aniron »

Why even use the ring for him to explain himself when the portrait exists?
So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.
User avatar
Glimmervoid
Jedi Master
Posts: 1344
Joined: 2005-01-29 09:00am
Location: Some were in the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm.
Contact:

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by Glimmervoid »

Darth Yoshi wrote:
Aniron wrote:Dumbledore would never explain his plans, though. He would make the person who needs the most help do it on his own, in the hopes of growing, in a time of great peril. He is easily the most despicable character in the entire series.
IIRC, getting summoned by the stone is supposed to be really unpleasant for the shade, insomuch as they can feel, since it's an unnatural state. So if Dumbledore was summoned and told he'd stay that way until he adequately explained himself, eventually he'd spill so that he could return to the afterlife.
Not really, at least the one in story use didn't show so. What you have to remember about the Deathly Hallows is that they're at least as much a subversion of the ancient magical artifact (tm) concept as examples of it.

To start with we have the story about Death creating the Hallows, all very legendary and mythic... Then we're told by Dumbledore that they're likely just the creation of three talented wizards. Next we have the items themselves. We have the elder wand, which is said to be undefeatable but gets everyone who wields it killed. Next we have the resurrection stone, said to bring the dead back to life, but in its one canon use it only brought back a group of shades (no different from a ghost or a the spirits that can come from the Priori Incantatem effect). The legendary use of the stone resulted in something even worse, a listless shade, not truly of the living world, and the knowledge of this drove the second brother mad. And third we have the cloak, said to be able to hide from death itself, but even the youngest brother passed on the cloak and welcomed death as an old friend in the end.

Even the books plays up these themes. In a standard ancient magical artifact (tm) story, the hero would quest for some powerful artifact then use it to defeat the villain. But that's not what happened in book 7. Harry did search for the Hallows, yes, but it was Volermort's use of the elder wand that doomed himself, not Harry's. It's also written into the wizarding fairy tale, where the youngest brother, who choose the least 'epic' gift is shown to be the best.

We must also ask how epic are the Hallows really. The wizarding fairy tale makes them very so (created by death and, even if two of the brother met nasty fates, their items were powerful). But how much is this the legend, which we're explicitly told by Dumbledore is likely untrue, and how much is is real? Is the elder wand really just a very good wand, which will give it's allegiance to strength as elder wands are want to do (see Pottermore). Does the resurrection stone really bring someone back from the other side or does it merely create echos and phantasms, reflections of those who've passed on like ghosts, portraits or the Priori Incantatem effect. Finally, can the cloak really hide from death or is it really just a very good and long lived cloak. We see people get around in the books. Mrs Norris can apparently find Harry (sound maybe), Dumbledore was able to use Homenum Revelio to find Harry and Alastor Moody's magical eye was able to do something similar (but whether it was seeing through the cloak or doing something strange, like seeing air currents, is unknown).

Rowling is clearly playing with the ancient magical artifact (tm) in Deathly Hallows but that's exactly what she's doing: Playing with it. As show by Dumbledore and his 'three talented wizard' line, we're not meant to take anything about the Hallows at face value.
Image
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Aniron wrote:
Ahriman238 wrote:Most powerful magical artifact in the series, with the possible exception of the philospher's Stone, has to be the ring. Why? Well, whoever has the ring ca make the spirit of DUmbledore manifest and explain himself andh is plans.
Dumbledore would never explain his plans, though. He would make the person who needs the most help do it on his own, in the hopes of growing, in a time of great peril. He is easily the most despicable character in the entire series.
In what possible way can you say that Dumbledore is more despicable than Voldemort? Or, for that matter, Grindlewald? Or Belatrix?

And I ask this as someone who doesn't think particularly highly of Dumbledore's methods to begin with.

In any case, Dumbledore did help and offer explanations on various occassions. He personally took out a Horcrux, did most of the work in trying to take out another, filled in Harry on all the other Horcruxes except the one in him, and was pretty much single handidly responsible for holding Voldemort at bay for two books. He didn't reveal everything, but frankly, he's the head of a faction in a civil war- and right or wrong, such people keep certain things classified from time to time. This should not be unexpected.
User avatar
Aniron
Padawan Learner
Posts: 193
Joined: 2011-07-25 10:07am

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by Aniron »

The Romulan Republic wrote:
Aniron wrote:Dumbledore would never explain his plans, though. He would make the person who needs the most help do it on his own, in the hopes of growing, in a time of great peril. He is easily the most despicable character in the entire series.
In what possible way can you say that Dumbledore is more despicable than Voldemort? Or, for that matter, Grindlewald? Or Belatrix?

And I ask this as someone who doesn't think particularly highly of Dumbledore's methods to begin with.
Wow. I forgot to put "one" in there. He's not as bad as them, no.
The Romulan Republic wrote:In any case, Dumbledore did help and offer explanations on various occassions. He personally took out a Horcrux, did most of the work in trying to take out another, filled in Harry on all the other Horcruxes except the one in him, and was pretty much single handidly responsible for holding Voldemort at bay for two books. He didn't reveal everything, but frankly, he's the head of a faction in a civil war- and right or wrong, such people keep certain things classified from time to time. This should not be unexpected.
Yet he didn't tell Harry how to destroy them. He should have told Harry everything before his fifth year, but as he admitted, his love for the boy got in the way. That makes him an irredeemable asshole. Harry went through so much crap without an adequate explanation and that was downright ridiculous. It was all in this "you need to grow" stuff that's prevalent in coming-of-age themes. But here, the difference is that lives were at stake. It's inexcusable. And why not tell Harry that he's a horcrux early on, before year six? Give him more time to prepare himself for his sacrifice.

Of course, the sword of Gryffindor was to be given to them, so Scrimgeour or whatever, screwed them for the time being. But having an idea early on on how to destroy teh horcruxes would have been nice.

I just really dislike book seven because it's a contrived mess. Its only saving grace is The Prince's Tale.
So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.
User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7954
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by ray245 »

Yet he didn't tell Harry how to destroy them. He should have told Harry everything before his fifth year, but as he admitted, his love for the boy got in the way. That makes him an irredeemable asshole. Harry went through so much crap without an adequate explanation and that was downright ridiculous. It was all in this "you need to grow" stuff that's prevalent in coming-of-age themes. But here, the difference is that lives were at stake. It's inexcusable. And why not tell Harry that he's a horcrux early on, before year six? Give him more time to prepare himself for his sacrifice.
Are you seriously saying that it is a good idea to tell a 15 year old teenager that he should sacrifice himself for the greater good? Without the benefit of hindsight, I hardly think such an action would actually be wise.

And why the hell are you getting so emotional and angry over the actions of Dumbledore?
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
User avatar
Aniron
Padawan Learner
Posts: 193
Joined: 2011-07-25 10:07am

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by Aniron »

ray245 wrote:
Yet he didn't tell Harry how to destroy them. He should have told Harry everything before his fifth year, but as he admitted, his love for the boy got in the way. That makes him an irredeemable asshole. Harry went through so much crap without an adequate explanation and that was downright ridiculous. It was all in this "you need to grow" stuff that's prevalent in coming-of-age themes. But here, the difference is that lives were at stake. It's inexcusable. And why not tell Harry that he's a horcrux early on, before year six? Give him more time to prepare himself for his sacrifice.
Are you seriously saying that it is a good idea to tell a 15 year old teenager that he should sacrifice himself for the greater good? Without the benefit of hindsight, I hardly think such an action would actually be wise.
Yes. I guess "lives were at stake" is a foreign concept to you. Everything hinged on Harry killing Voldemort, and Dumbledore knew this in Goblet of Fire with the "gleam of triumph" in his eye after Harry re-told how Voldemort was resurrected and as able to touch him without feeling any pain. Dumbledore knew, at that very instant, that Harry was a horcrux. he should have told him everything at that precise moment. What's hilarious is that, after everything Harry had been through, you think he wouldn't be able to handle logical reasoning as to why he would have to sacrifice himself. It's too bad that he only figured that out after mass death at Hogwarts and seeing the memories relating to Snape, Lily, and Dumbledore.
ray245 wrote:And why the hell are you getting so emotional and angry over the actions of Dumbledore?
I'm not angry. I just loathe the character.
So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Anrion wrote:Wow. I forgot to put "one" in there. He's not as bad as them, no.
Thanks for the correction, but it was still a stupid thing to post.
Yet he didn't tell Harry how to destroy them. He should have told Harry everything before his fifth year, but as he admitted, his love for the boy got in the way.
One can make a fair argument that there are some things a pre-teen should not be subjected to knowing about. Like the knowledge they have to kill or be killed by a mass murdering dark wizard. Didn't Dumbledore pretty much go over all this in book five? Granted, this is a weak argument when Dumbledore was fine with letting him go into deadly peril on an annual basis.

However, trying to protect someone you love doesn't make you bad. It might make you foolish, depending on the circumstances, but not a villain.
That makes him an irredeemable asshole.
No, it doesn't. It makes him a well-intentioned but arguably foolish man who at worst made a bad call in a difficult situation for good reasons. And to be fair, didn't Dumbledore basically admit that he made a mistake?
Harry went through so much crap without an adequate explanation and that was downright ridiculous. It was all in this "you need to grow" stuff that's prevalent in coming-of-age themes. But here, the difference is that lives were at stake. It's inexcusable. And why not tell Harry that he's a horcrux early on, before year six? Give him more time to prepare himself for his sacrifice.
Can you imagine what years of knowing he contained a piece of Voldemort's soul and had to sacrifice himself would do to someone psychologically? Especially a teenager? Harry would probably either suffer a breakdown, turn suicidal, or go into denial. None of these would be particularly conducive to his well-being or winning the war against Voldemort.
Of course, the sword of Gryffindor was to be given to them, so Scrimgeour or whatever, screwed them for the time being. But having an idea early on on how to destroy teh horcruxes would have been nice.
Harry knew a Basilisk fang managed it once, and Hermione did some research into it didn't she? Its not unreasonable to think they'd figure it out. Of course, the hard part is getting hold of the things that can do it, not knowing how to do it. And Dumbledore did try to help them in this respect, as you just admitted. Pity Scrimgeour got in the way.
I just really dislike book seven because it's a contrived mess. Its only saving grace is The Prince's Tale.
I don't deny its a contrived mess.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by Simon_Jester »

Aniron wrote:Yet he didn't tell Harry how to destroy them. He should have told Harry everything before his fifth year, but as he admitted, his love for the boy got in the way. That makes him an irredeemable asshole. Harry went through so much crap without an adequate explanation and that was downright ridiculous. It was all in this "you need to grow" stuff that's prevalent in coming-of-age themes. But here, the difference is that lives were at stake. It's inexcusable. And why not tell Harry that he's a horcrux early on, before year six? Give him more time to prepare himself for his sacrifice.
It seems to me that you have very peculiar standards for defining "irredeemable assholes."

For one, telling a teenager he's supposed to sacrifice himself as part of the Plan to Destroy Voldemort years ahead of time, grooming him for this role as a sacrifice far in advance, strikes me as rather perverse- perhaps it's "better" to do it than to not do it, but it's hardly the act of an "irredeemable asshole" to shrink from doing it.

Dumbledore is definitely shown to be a man ruled by his emotions- refusing to do what another person might do out of a sense of mercy, compassion, or friendship. But that description does not sit well with calling him an "irredeemable asshole," since it doesn't flow out of any personal cruelty, arrogance, or other vice. Quite the opposite, really.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7954
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by ray245 »

Aniron wrote:
ray245 wrote:And why the hell are you getting so emotional and angry over the actions of Dumbledore?
I'm not angry. I just loathe the character.
This just make you seems very petty and immature to me. It's not as if Dumbledore is a real person and he has wronged you in real life.
Yes. I guess "lives were at stake" is a foreign concept to you. Everything hinged on Harry killing Voldemort, and Dumbledore knew this in Goblet of Fire with the "gleam of triumph" in his eye after Harry re-told how Voldemort was resurrected and as able to touch him without feeling any pain. Dumbledore knew, at that very instant, that Harry was a horcrux. he should have told him everything at that precise moment. What's hilarious is that, after everything Harry had been through, you think he wouldn't be able to handle logical reasoning as to why he would have to sacrifice himself. It's too bad that he only figured that out after mass death at Hogwarts and seeing the memories relating to Snape, Lily, and Dumbledore.
In my opinion, openly telling a kid that he has to sacrifice himself for the greater good makes him actually makes him a much bigger asshole. Sending a teenager into depression is not a good idea if he is key to the war effort, nor is it going to help him develop as a person.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
Calanor
Redshirt
Posts: 15
Joined: 2011-10-27 06:04am
Location: Germany

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by Calanor »

Hello everyone, I hope you don't mind if I join this debate.
Simon_Jester wrote:For one, telling a teenager he's supposed to sacrifice himself as part of the Plan to Destroy Voldemort years ahead of time, grooming him for this role as a sacrifice far in advance, strikes me as rather perverse- perhaps it's "better" to do it than to not do it, but it's hardly the act of an "irredeemable asshole" to shrink from doing it..
It is actually debatable if Dumbledore didn't groom Harry to be a sacrifice starting from the day he left him on the Dursley's doorstep, on a night in November and wounded I might add. It veers into conspiracy theory territory, but Rowling wrote so many things that cast suspicion on his motivations and actions. How do you convince a child that killing themselves is the right thing to do for the good of the people? I don’t know, but it would require you to be in a position of power over them, hold their respect, control their living conditions, shape their sense of morality, and convince them that death isn’t the end, but will just be “the next great adventure.”

Dumbledore was almost wholly responsible for Harry’s upbringing. He set up the wards and he ordered Mrs. Figg to watch over him. He practically threatened Petunia into taking Harry in. He’s also the Chief Warlock, the head of the wizards judicial branch - and Sirius, the person who probably should have gotten custody of Harry, didn’t get a normal trial while Snape was let off scot-free simply on his say-so. Others claimed the Imperius-defence and walked free, despite Karkaroff testifying against them. He has many people loyal to him and one dedicated to watching Harry, and he is “surprised” that Harry was abused at his home. In the ten years of his stay at the Dursleys he didn't check a single time if everything was alright.

Furthermore, Dumbledore’s definitions of “love” are very strange and warped. For example, in OotP:
"But she took you," Dumbledore cut across him. "She may have taken you grudgingly, furiously,unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you
Okay, so actions under duress still allow love-powered blood magic to work. Does that mean rape is love?

Likewise, in the Halfblood Prince
“…you have never... shown the slightest desire to become one of Voldemort’s followers!”
“Of course I haven’t!” said Harry indignantly. “He killed my mum and dad!”
“You are protected, in short, by love! The only protection that can work against the lure of power like Voldemort’s!”
Well, with a man who killed your parents and then tried to kill you multiple times, it’s not love stopping you from joining him. That is just not being suicidal/braindead. Or hatred. Hatred is love, right?

His track record as headmaster during Harry's school career is likewise very fishy, and that doesn't even touch on his general performance and disregard of the safety of his students. Like storing the Mirror of Erised, an artifact with a highly addictive nature, in a completely unsecured room. Or the Cerberus, who was only seperated by a door that a first year unlocking charm could open from the student population at large.
ray245 wrote:Sending a teenager into depression is not a good idea if he is key to the war effort, nor is it going to help him develop as a person.
I don't think sending Harry back into an emotionally abusive environment after Sirius died (an event Harry blamed himself for) and he dropped the prophecy on him was beneficial to Harry's mental health.
User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7954
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by ray245 »

I don't think sending Harry back into an emotionally abusive environment after Sirius died (an event Harry blamed himself for) and he dropped the prophecy on him was beneficial to Harry's mental health.
Where else do you want to sent him to? Unless Harry is living with Dumbledore, there not too many places that is safe for Harry.

Dumbledore was almost wholly responsible for Harry’s upbringing. He set up the wards and he ordered Mrs. Figg to watch over him. He practically threatened Petunia into taking Harry in. He’s also the Chief Warlock, the head of the wizards judicial branch - and Sirius, the person who probably should have gotten custody of Harry, didn’t get a normal trial while Snape was let off scot-free simply on his say-so. Others claimed the Imperius-defence and walked free, despite Karkaroff testifying against them. He has many people loyal to him and one dedicated to watching Harry, and he is “surprised” that Harry was abused at his home. In the ten years of his stay at the Dursleys he didn't check a single time if everything was alright.
Well, it is quite possible that Dumbledore simply don't think that the Dursely's attitude and actions towards Harry counts as abuse, especially considering the environment he grew up in.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Calanor, I really think you're being rediculous with the whole Dumbledore supports rape thing.

As for Sirius, it is incredibly easy to explain why Dumbledore couldn't get Sirius free.

1. Did Sirius ever tell Dumbledore that he made Peter Secret Keeper? If not, Dumbledore had no reason not to believe he was a traitor.

2. Those who got off seem to have mostly done so by one of two means: claiming they were under the Imperious Curse, or switching sides and giving information on the Death Eaters. Sirius had no means of doing the latter, and as he committed his supposed murders after Voldemort's death, the Imperious Curse excuse would not hold up (since we have evidence of spells not surviving the death of the wizard who cast them).

3. Is there any evidence that Dumbledore was Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot at that time? In the trial memory scenes, it looks like Crouch is running the show. Maybe Dumbledore only got the position after Crouch lost support.

4. Sirius appeared to commit a mass murder in public in front of a lot of witnesses. The same is not nessissarily true for all those who got off.

5. Sirius was denied a trial by Crouch. Dumbledore is powerful, but I doubt even he had the clout to simply tell the Ministry what to do. In fact, we see very clearly during the series at various points that he does not have this power (Hagrid's arrest in book two, Buckbeak's execution in book three, pretty much everything Umbridge did). Yes, he got Snape off, but Snape had actually switched sides and helped Dumbledore. So Crouch would probably accept that as a reason to let him off, just as with Karkaroff. The same cannot be said of Sirius.

As far as Harry's home situation is concerned, I expect Dumbledore did know something of how miserable it was from Ms. Figg (and for that matter, he could have heard from Lilly what the Dursleys were like about magic), but what was he supposed to do? Harry needed the protection from being there. Sure, Dumbledore could threaten the Dursleys, but they had lots of wizards come and tell them to treat Harry better over the years. It doesn't seem to have made much of an impression. So what more could Dumbledore do, other than use magic (like an Imperious Curse) to force them to treat Harry well? Which would have been unethical.
User avatar
Darth Yoshi
Metroid
Posts: 7342
Joined: 2002-07-04 10:00pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by Darth Yoshi »

Baby Harry wouldn't have needed protection if he didn't have that whole Boy-Who-Lived target painted on his back. If Dumbledore hadn't leaked that out, Harry would have been just another orphaned victim of Death Eaters, albeit one whose parents took out Voldemort.
Image
Fragment of the Lord of Nightmares, release thy heavenly retribution. Blade of cold, black nothingness: become my power, become my body. Together, let us walk the path of destruction and smash even the souls of the Gods! RAGNA BLADE!
Lore Monkey | the Pichu-master™
Secularism—since AD 80
Av: Elika; Prince of Persia
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Darth Yoshi wrote:Baby Harry wouldn't have needed protection if he didn't have that whole Boy-Who-Lived target painted on his back. If Dumbledore hadn't leaked that out, Harry would have been just another orphaned victim of Death Eaters, albeit one whose parents took out Voldemort.
Okay, where is the idea that Dumbledore leaked "the boy who lived" coming from? The Death Eaters knew Voldemort was going after Harry, and Voldemort kills Harry's parents, curses him, and dies. Its not a huge leap from their to "something about Harry stopped Voldemort". Plus a number of individuals knew the prophecy.

Do you have any evidence for this claim or did you just pull it out of your ass?
User avatar
Darth Yoshi
Metroid
Posts: 7342
Joined: 2002-07-04 10:00pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by Darth Yoshi »

But how did anyone know that Voldemort tried to curse Harry? Only two people were there, one whom was in diapers and the other just got his body destroyed. The reasonable conclusion for someone who only knew that Voldemort had attacked the Potters would be that the Potters set up some sort of trap that got Voldemort after he killed them, not "Killing Curse bounced off Harry's head."

Moreover, there's a difference between knowing that a prophecy about the Potters or Longbottoms exists, and knowing that a prophecy specifically points to the two kids. And none of the Death Eaters who may or may not have known that the prophecy was about the kids would have been in any position to spread the "Boy-Who-Lived" story. So unless some hack at the Daily Prophet made a lucky guess, Dumbledore is the only one who could have started the story.
Image
Fragment of the Lord of Nightmares, release thy heavenly retribution. Blade of cold, black nothingness: become my power, become my body. Together, let us walk the path of destruction and smash even the souls of the Gods! RAGNA BLADE!
Lore Monkey | the Pichu-master™
Secularism—since AD 80
Av: Elika; Prince of Persia
User avatar
Darth Tanner
Jedi Master
Posts: 1445
Joined: 2006-03-29 04:07pm
Location: Birmingham, UK

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by Darth Tanner »

But how did anyone know that Voldemort tried to curse Harry?
There is that giant lightning bolt scar on his head! Maybe that was a clue to the world.
The reasonable conclusion for someone who only knew that Voldemort had attacked the Potters would be that the Potters set up some sort of trap that got Voldemort after he killed them, not "Killing Curse bounced off Harry's head."
Why is that reasonable? Voldemort had killed some of the mightiest wizards of the age without any of them 'trapping him' now this little boy survives not only a Voldie attack that flattened the house but also Voldie is gone and believed dead afterwards, it’s not too much of a leap to guess the only survivor had some role in this. And your idea of a 'trap' seems farfetched considering the majority of magic does not survive the casters death.
Did Sirius ever tell Dumbledore that he made Peter Secret Keeper?
No I don't believe so, Sirius said the change was a last minute thing that no one knew about, Dumbledore would have no reason to think Sirius innocent, especially as Sirius went a bit crazy afterwards.
Get busy living or get busy dying... unless there’s cake.
Calanor
Redshirt
Posts: 15
Joined: 2011-10-27 06:04am
Location: Germany

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by Calanor »

ray245 wrote:
I don't think sending Harry back into an emotionally abusive environment after Sirius died (an event Harry blamed himself for) and he dropped the prophecy on him was beneficial to Harry's mental health.
Where else do you want to sent him to? Unless Harry is living with Dumbledore, there not too many places that is safe for Harry.
Well, I would have expected him either staying at the castle with Dumbledore or with the Weasleys until the status of the wards at Grimmauld place could be ascertained. Or some random cottage in the country, really. There would be members of the order required to guard him either way. On further thought, sending Harry back after traumatic events without counseling into an environment without emotional support seems to be a recurring theme. First year he killed Quirrelmort in a quite gruesome way, second year the fight against the basilisk and Diary-Riddle (who appeared human enough to count as killing), fourth year Cedric's death and Voldemort's resurrection, fifth year Sirius and the ministry debacle, sixth year Dumbledore's death (Okay, that one return was Harry's own doing).
ray245 wrote: Well, it is quite possible that Dumbledore simply don't think that the Dursely's attitude and actions towards Harry counts as abuse, especially considering the environment he grew up in.
That's certainly possible, but in that case I wouldn't want such a person in charge of a whole school of children. Considering that Harry was forced to wear the extremely oversized hand-me-downs of Dudley despite the family being quite well off I wonder why no teacher or other person of authority made some inquiries. Although considering the shit people get away with in real life I can give that a pass without resorting to memory charms. Still, at least McGonagall who thought of them as "the worst kind of muggles" could have checked, or Remus for that matter.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Calanor, I really think you're being rediculous with the whole Dumbledore supports rape thing

As for Sirius, it is incredibly easy to explain why Dumbledore couldn't get Sirius free.

1. Did Sirius ever tell Dumbledore that he made Peter Secret Keeper? If not, Dumbledore had no reason not to believe he was a traitor.

2. Those who got off seem to have mostly done so by one of two means: claiming they were under the Imperious Curse, or switching sides and giving information on the Death Eaters. Sirius had no means of doing the latter, and as he committed his supposed murders after Voldemort's death, the Imperious Curse excuse would not hold up (since we have evidence of spells not surviving the death of the wizard who cast them).

3. Is there any evidence that Dumbledore was Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot at that time? In the trial memory scenes, it looks like Crouch is running the show. Maybe Dumbledore only got the position after Crouch lost support.

4. Sirius appeared to commit a mass murder in public in front of a lot of witnesses. The same is not nessissarily true for all those who got off.

5. Sirius was denied a trial by Crouch. Dumbledore is powerful, but I doubt even he had the clout to simply tell the Ministry what to do. In fact, we see very clearly during the series at various points that he does not have this power (Hagrid's arrest in book two, Buckbeak's execution in book three, pretty much everything Umbridge did). Yes, he got Snape off, but Snape had actually switched sides and helped Dumbledore. So Crouch would probably accept that as a reason to let him off, just as with Karkaroff. The same cannot be said of Sirius.

As far as Harry's home situation is concerned, I expect Dumbledore did know something of how miserable it was from Ms. Figg (and for that matter, he could have heard from Lilly what the Dursleys were like about magic), but what was he supposed to do? Harry needed the protection from being there. Sure, Dumbledore could threaten the Dursleys, but they had lots of wizards come and tell them to treat Harry better over the years. It doesn't seem to have made much of an impression. So what more could Dumbledore do, other than use magic (like an Imperious Curse) to force them to treat Harry well? Which would have been unethical.
I didn't mean to imply that he personally supports rape. It was meant as an exaggeration for his definition of love. If actions under duress or simply not joining a madman who is out for your blood count as love, what else does?

I don't require Dumbledore to simply free Sirius, just to make some inquiries that get the ball rolling. Like, actually talking with him one time and asking him why he did it. Or if he really was a Death Eater, what he might know about the Dark Lord's plans, other Death Eaters or the fate of some people that simply disappeared during the war.

1. Unfortunately unknown, as well as who actually cast the charm.

2. I doubt Voldemort personally cast the Imperius on each and every victim, and there were still dangerous Death Eaters running free that could have done it, like Bellatrix for example.

3. Unknown, but Crouch was only Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement at the time. We know that Millicent Bagnold was Minister of Magic, but not if Dumbledore was Chief Warlock. Conceded.

4. I don't have the books on hand to check, but I believe there was a case mentioned where a man under the Imperius killed his own family. On that count, can a secret keeper reveal the secret while he is under imperius? If he has one of those pieces of paper with the address on him certainly, but can he talk about it to others?

5. That is certainly true, but I wonder how much the situation in the books was a result of so many Death Eaters and Death Eater symphatizers allowed to run free and getting into positions of power over the years. It almost seems that Dumbledore literally can't do anything, his power and influence should have been much greater immediately at the end of the war. Especially because Crouch was out of power very quickly after his son's association with the Death Eaters and attack on the Longbottoms became public knowledge.

Concerning the wards, it's very unclear what actual protection they offered. Aside from the first book where his touch was deathly to the posessed Quirell, he didn't seem to be effectively protected in a personal sense. Quirrell could cast spells at him with abandon, and the Horcrux-Riddle likewise didn't seem to have any problems. Nor did any Death Eater, like Wormtail. It might be that only the Dursley house was effectively protected by the stationary wards, but how far did that protection extend? Could Snape as a marked Death Eater enter Privet Drive? Was he still protected at elementary school? Could a imperius'ed patsy enter, or somehow set fire to the house? I think mainly the fact that his location was unknown protected Harry in these early years.

Considering the usual prejudices against muggles I think it highly unlikely that the Dursleys would have gotten custody of a magical child if it had been up to the ministry.
Calanor
Redshirt
Posts: 15
Joined: 2011-10-27 06:04am
Location: Germany

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by Calanor »

Darth Tanner wrote:
But how did anyone know that Voldemort tried to curse Harry?
There is that giant lightning bolt scar on his head! Maybe that was a clue to the world.
The reasonable conclusion for someone who only knew that Voldemort had attacked the Potters would be that the Potters set up some sort of trap that got Voldemort after he killed them, not "Killing Curse bounced off Harry's head."
Why is that reasonable? Voldemort had killed some of the mightiest wizards of the age without any of them 'trapping him' now this little boy survives not only a Voldie attack that flattened the house but also Voldie is gone and believed dead afterwards, it’s not too much of a leap to guess the only survivor had some role in this. And your idea of a 'trap' seems farfetched considering the majority of magic does not survive the casters death.
How did people know about the scar in the first place without Dumbledore or one of his inner circle telling them about it? It wasn't as if Harry was paraded around in public. Furthermore, the killing curse normally doesn't leave physical wounds, so why do people believe that he survived one? Wormtail recovered Voldemort's wand before anyone could check it for spells, and the huge explosion certainly would suggest something more akin to a blasting curse.

If I were the average wizard I, too, would find it more reasonable to believe that Lily (who was known as a quite brilliant witch) or James got lucky with some backup plan that killed them along with Voldemort than the unprecedented event that a one year old did not only survived the killing curse but bounced it back in a much stronger fashion. After all, if the curse was simply reflected there should have been a body left of Voldemort. If Dumbledore truly had Harry's best interests in mind he would have announced that his parents were the responsible party, allowing him some more anonymity. Instead the Harry-defeated-Voldemort-via-reflected-killing-curse story seems to be the virtually unopposed official version of events.
User avatar
Darth Tanner
Jedi Master
Posts: 1445
Joined: 2006-03-29 04:07pm
Location: Birmingham, UK

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by Darth Tanner »

How did people know about the scar in the first place
Never actually thought about that, an interesting point.
Furthermore, the killing curse normally doesn't leave physical wounds
It causes statues to explode so its use can be highly destructive when used on inanimate objects, like a house.
if the curse was simply reflected there should have been a body left of Voldemort.
Hagrid at least says he believes Voldie is still alive and the Ministry seems to still hold that view, even if by Fudges later years it’s committed to the idea he will never return. Also why do you assume the people believe the curse must have been reflected, it could simply have gone wrong.
If Dumbledore truly had Harry's best interests in mind he would have announced that his parents were the responsible party
How does that help Harry if the death eaters still believe he was the original target? Also Dumbledore was not on the scene to spread that story, Hagrid, Snape and Sirious were first and presumably the story was out before Dumbledore could get out a lie. Alternatively he might have felt lying to the ministry about what had happened was a bad idea. How would he explain some miraculous ‘trap’ that he can’t replicate or even explain?
Get busy living or get busy dying... unless there’s cake.
Calanor
Redshirt
Posts: 15
Joined: 2011-10-27 06:04am
Location: Germany

Re: Harry Potter and the Muggle World

Post by Calanor »

Darth Tanner wrote:
Furthermore, the killing curse normally doesn't leave physical wounds
It causes statues to explode so its use can be highly destructive when used on inanimate objects, like a house.
You're right, I forgot about that. Though that does beg the question why clothing doesn't explode.
Hagrid at least says he believes Voldie is still alive and the Ministry seems to still hold that view, even if by Fudges later years it’s committed to the idea he will never return. Also why do you assume the people believe the curse must have been reflected, it could simply have gone wrong.

How does that help Harry if the death eaters still believe he was the original target? Also Dumbledore was not on the scene to spread that story, Hagrid, Snape and Sirious were first and presumably the story was out before Dumbledore could get out a lie. Alternatively he might have felt lying to the ministry about what had happened was a bad idea. How would he explain some miraculous ‘trap’ that he can’t replicate or even explain?
A spell or ritual gone wrong are certainly viable explanations, but it seems to me from the books that all public theories emphasize Harry's role.

How could the story about Voldie's defeat spread so quickly anyway? There were already people celebrating when Hagrid brought Harry to the Dursleys immediately after the attack. It isn't as if it happened right in the midst of Diagon Alley. Even if aurors or other people visited the Potters' house, they would only find the dead bodies of James and Lily with no reason to believe that Voldemort personally was involved. Death Eaters might have noticed because of their Dark Mark, but I doubt they would immediately go public with that. Additionally, I don't remember Snape being there, but that might be foggy memory on my part.

Unfortunately, we don't know how many Death Eaters knew of the prophecy and if they knew that Voldemort was specifially going after Harry or if he was simpy trying to wipe out the Potters because they had succesfully fought him several times to make an example. In the first case the story wouldn't make much difference, but if Harry was simply seen as a lucky survivor he wouldn't be in as much danger from free unrepentant Death Eaters as if he was hailed as the heroic babe who defeated Voldemort. After all, who knew that Harry was in the house at the time of the attack?

It's a bit of a mystery how Dumbledore knew anything about the details of the night anyway, the explosion should have destroyed most evidence and as you said he wasn't on the scene. The timeline of the events is a huge mess. How did he find out enough about the "Love-based protection" to raise the corresponding wards around Privet Drive in such a short time? When Hagrid arrived at Godric's Hollow he had already orders to bring Harry to his Aunt and Uncle, and McGonagall was staking the Dursleys out before she definitely knew of the Potters' death.

I'm sure that as soon as the ministry knew of the Boy-who-lived story they would have enquired after Harry's location and status, so I assume Dumbledore must have assured them of his safety. It wouldn't take much to downplay Harry's role, as a politician Dumbledore should be quite familiar with misdirection and weasel words. In fact, we know the protection was Lily's doing, but I see no reason to make that fact (or Harry's involvement) public. Aside from people in Dumbledore's circle like Snape or Hagrid the ministry should have no way of actually finding out about the details of the events.
Post Reply