(no subject)

[rhiannonmr]

Thanks everyone for the comments and responses to yesterday's post. I don't usually delve into my past and what has occurred in it because I really do not want to come off as a whiner. Life happens, you just got to get on with it and if you need help you get it. I remember once when the depression was eating away at me saying to myself that I could not and would not give in to it, because to give in would ensure that the bastards who victimised me won. Well there are days and there are days.

Nuff said about that. Bluntly wallowing just makes it feel worse sometimes and I don't want to wallow. Not sure what got me started with that post other than recently I was reading the latest wave of the Dusk til Dawn FQF and the theme is, no man is an island. For some reason there was a story in it that resonated. Okay for those who have no idea, it's slash and good slash at that. But there was a story that hit me where I lived. Harry was abused by the Dursley's and experiences all the effects of PTSD in it. Also, Voldemort was involved. It was hard to read and hard to take even if it was well done. I try to avoid the really gruesome abuse stories because I know I have a hard time reading them. I also think canonically they are whack. But this was very well done in the abuse not being uber explicit and believable in the author's universe. It also was not gratuitous. It was there for a reason and it wasn't a short cut like you see in so many of the ff.net fics.

The problem I have with abuse in so many of the fanfics out there is the writer has no clue as to the impact of severe abuse on the body or the soul of the person abused. There are a multitude of stories on ff.net where Harry is routinely raped, beaten, starved and such and he comes back as normal as ever. So not gonna happen. Abuse, even verbal abuse leaves scars. Some visible. Some not. avus  who is a professional can attest to this since he deals with it in his work. My exhusband who for all his faults really does care about his clients and does work well with them can attest to that also. So can my best friend who no longer works in the child protective services. So can I as a victim and a former social worker. Make no mistake: I do believe Harry is an abused child. But not on the scale some of these writers put it at. The abuse of Harry is a much more subtle thing. The overt neglect of his emotional needs combined with the physical neglect of his subsistence needs, ie clothing that fits, proper food to eat, a room to sleep in rather than the cupboard under the stairs all add up to abuse. But not this horrific abuse I see in some fics out there. I also cannot imagine that any of the Dursley's are sexual abusers. Frankly they strike me as being more afraid his magic is contagious than anything else.

I'm no expert here but I see Harry as getting less resillient as the books go on. If he loses anyone else close to him it may well destroy him in ways that won't be so obvious. The post OotP fanfic shows the fans see it too. Harry is not a happy camper and most of the fans are wondering why if Dumbledore knew the Dursley's would not love him he was left with them. I wonder too. The manipulative!Dumbledore writers see this as a way to ensure Harry was emotionally needy and ready to latch on to the first friendly face he saw. Others see it as good!Dumbledore didn't know they would be that way at all. I am not sure where exactly I fall on this one because it could well go either way. Part of me says yes he is a manipulative SOB and then part of me says he hoped they would see him as family and treat him as such. I guess my final opinion will come when I finish the series and think about it. But, the impression remains that yes he did know, and he left him there anyways.

I wonder if Harry will ever have a good close relationship romantically. I don't know that JKR will ship him with anyone and the whole Cho fiasco was pretty realistic. Boy didn't have a clue, and it showed. He knew at the end that she wasn't for him, but no I don't think he learned much else from it. Then again maybe he did and we'll find out in book 6. Damn can July 16 come soon enough?

Comments

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

and most of the fans are wondering why if Dumbledore knew the Dursley's would not love him he was left with them. I wonder too.

I think I'm a broken record here, but I honestly think the explanation that is being plugged in the books and in comments is "rock and hard place, no matter what you do something will suck" on Dumbledore's part. He sends Harry off there because he believes the child must be kept safe above all other things (which is partly selfish in the sense of 'we need him to defeat Voldemort eventually', but I'm less inclined to consider that 'selfish' when you think of all the people Voldemort has fucked up--think of Harry thinking about Neville's parents) and there is jackity jack in canon to propose a better and safer way than that. Sure, fandom can second-guess and throw out proposals to send him to Australia all they want, but sometimes reading fiction you just have to accept some things in the world as given.

I suspect Dumbledore knew it wouldn't be a cakewalk. The question of intervention vs. non-intervention is a messy one, but we also don't know the mechanics of how and why the protection works. But 'way to ensure Harry was ready to latch onto the good side and be dependent on them'? JKR probably ain't gonna write that, as she's already written something else.

[rhiannonmr.livejournal.com]

There is a part of me that says Dumbledore really did drop the ball here. But, and this is important, the one thing we forget is how old Dumbledore is. This is a man who was born in an era where children were seen and not heard. This is a man who when he attended school corporal punishments were still used. Did he use them as a teacher? Probably not, and he was most likely considered progressive for his time. What he considers abuse is likely more abusive than I would think.

The Dickensian upbringing of Harry is probably not considered all that abusive to a man Dumbledore's age. And for the most part Harry did survive it intact. He is still alive, still human and somewhere in him I think the memory of love exists and guides his choices.

[avus.livejournal.com]

I tend to agree with rhiannonmr about Dumbledore's age and what he thinks about Harry. But even more, I suspect Dumbledore's ignorance of family and what family means. We've only had a glimpse of his brother Aberforth & that goat. And there's nothing else mentioned. There's certainly no evidence or even hint that Dumbledore has ever had a family or been in a family as an adult. The responsibility of an adult to a child as a teacher or even as a Housemaster is much different than that of a parent. Gryffindor traditions of Houseparenting seem relatively hands-off. And Dumbledore would have had little or no experience with children younger than 11, by which, in terms of neglect, most of the deadliest damage is long done.

I think it's not only your series of bad choices, straussmonster, it's also Dumbledore's ignorance of what he was actually choosing for Harry. Maybe if he hadn't been limited by culture & background, he would have made the same choice. But maybe, too, he might have been more active in monitoring, intervening and being a "loving grandfather". Impossible to say, and JKR isn't likely to give us much help on that score.

There's a small area of history developing called the "history of parenting". Reading it is very instructive, horrifying, humbling and, occasionally amusing. There's a lot about parenting kids that we don't know, an awful lot. But, on the other hand, we are learning some things.

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

This subject has been debated about 1894785 times on HPfGU, but I don't think intervention would have been as easy as most of the fandom does. The Dursleys respond to threats and the abnormal with the worsening of conditions, not the lessening. In addition, what kind of deal did he make with them--non-interference pact? Magically necessary?

The revelation of what was in the letter with Baby Harry should/would tell us a lot. I tend to think the hints are more towards the "had to leave him and couldn't do things to mitigate that", and I also think that frankly, in the world as JKR has constructed it, it was to keep him safe. Look at poor Neville's parents--two bad-ass Aurors, tortured into insanity. Could anything but exceptional security have kept baby Harry safe? I think that's the lynchpin, right there.

(And also IMHO, while Harry has scarring and weaknesses because of his upbringing, he's not psychotic, truly deeply fucked up, or Tom Riddle. Why not? In part, because it could have been worse--and in part, because that's how it works in JKR's world. The myriad joys of fiction, you know.)

[avus.livejournal.com]

You could be right, of course. I certainly don't diagnose Harry as "psychotic", nor do I believe he is another Tom Riddle, though I fear that potential could be there. Fortunately, it doesn't seem to be realized. I do believe, however, that Harry is, to use your fairly non-specific layman's term, "deeply fucked up". To provide a tad bit more specificity, I don't believe he is "comprehensively, across all lines" fucked up, but he is a highly vulnerable child. Given what we know of Dursley child-raising, frankly, I don't see how a fairly severe attachment disorder wouldn't result. That, of course, is what I'm struggling with in my fic -- why isn't Harry more of a mess than we've seen so far? My story answer, of course, is only one answer. There are others. And there is so much we don't know. I don't diagnose Harry, specifically, with Reactive Attachment Disorder, which is the only diagnosis people in my field currently have. And that dignosis is quite new.

But there's also an ungodly amount of research, some of it very good research, actually, on attachment and it's mechanisms and problems. That hasn't yet worked its way out to diagnosis, officially. Though most of us who work with personality disorders and extremely problemmatic children recognize attachment issues.

It doesn't get any deeper than an attachment issue. Trust me on that. That's one of the key foundations of a person's self. Yes, that can be changed, unlike, say, basic "intelligence", but it sure ain't quick & easy, and the effects are pretty comprehensive.

Ah, but I ramble. Let's simply say, dear straussmonster, that we agree to disagree, as we so often & so pleasantly do. Unless, of course, you'd like more information (God help you!) or want to go another round.

[rhiannonmr.livejournal.com]

I tend to think Harry isn't more messed up because somewhere inside him is the memory of being loved by his parents. His first 15 months of life seem to be the biggest difference between him and Riddle. Riddle never had that love at any time in his life. Harry had it and even if he doesn't consciously remember it, I think it is still there in him.

The decision to leave him with the Dursleys was made within 24hrs of his parent's murder. Part of me thinks the decision was too hasty and if they'd sat down and thought it through they might have come to a different decision. Also, the idea that a *letter* was enough to make a deal with the Dursleys strikes me as naive to the point of ignorance. Perhaps Harry was safe from the outside world there, but he was most definitely *not* safe from his "family".

[avus.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on the importance of the first 15 mos of life. Unfortunately, my experience is that would not, alone, be a sufficient buffer to explain Harry. The neglect of the Dursleys, judging from what JKR writes, especially in that first book, but also the later on, is, indeed, comprehensive and profound. Even worse, they deliberately buffer Harry from other forms of love. Think of -- can't think of her name -- the batty cat woman. Arabella Figg? Yeah. She mentioned that she had to be bad to Harry, or the Dursleys wouldn't have sent him back.

They not only neglect, rage, and belittle, with the abundant evidence that another child is lovable (Dudley), but also promote anger and awfulness in others.

It really doesn't get any worse than that. And while JKR has given us no proof that they've done anything more to Harry, given Vernon's anger, well, let's just say that, even with the fear, I think we can count on Vernon being out-of-control and physically abusive. Sexually -- that's a bit more complex. Takes more than anger to molest a kid. Takes inclincation, too. Unless you're doing it out of pure love of causing pain. I don't see Vernon doing that. Dudley, who's been encouraged since birth to abuse Harry, might.

Well, I've rambled on enough about that. Never underestimate the effects of profound neglect starting early in life. Especially in the absence of on-going buffers, of which there appear to be none -- no caring adults, not even any peers or friends. While he's better off for his first 15 mos, that, alone, wouldn't cut it, in the absense of anything else. Pretty sure about that, unfortunately.

Dumbledore's decision -- well, that's pretty complex, too. I agree with you that JKR & Dumbledore very much play down the effects of neglect. He is, most assuredly, not "safe" from his family. But Dumbledore might be that dense. And, frankly, most people don't have direct experience with the effects of profound neglect. Abuse is much more common. Thank god, b/c this type of early neglect, actually, tends strongly to leave the deepest scars. Though that type of neglect, in my experience, is never, never not associated with other forms of abuse.

And the effects of abuse or neglect are extremely complicated to predict and guage.

[rhiannonmr.livejournal.com]

Every time I come back to it the only difference I can see in Harry's upbringing vs Tom Riddle's is that first 15 months. After that the similarities just grow and grow. The other thing is with Harry all of it is personal. It is not institutional neglect like Riddle suffered. It is his family that does it. There are hints that they beat him. Hell Vernon says they tried to beat the freakishness out of him to Hagrid in book 1 when Hagrid tracks them to that shack on the island. And Dudley's favorite game is "Harry Hunting" with his gang of thugs. So yes I think physical abuse happened, just not as often as the rest of it.

I don't believe JKR or Dumbledore know precisely what neglect can do to a child. Dumbledore makes it all about choices in the books and emphasises that in book 2, but I question his choices on several occasions. The idea he is all knowing and all wise is just bull.

I don't see them as sexual abusers though. As you say that takes inclination. Dudley is more problematic here. The kid has been raised to be an abuser, and I wonder if Vernon doesn't abuse Petunia when Harry isn't around? Scapegoating in such families is common but when one is away another is quickly found.

[avus.livejournal.com]

If Dudley were involved in sexually abusing Harry, it would fall, in Dudley's mind, more under the lable of sexual bullying, which does occur. That doesn't take any special "inclincation". And that Dudley codes it as sexual bullying, of course, Harry would code it simply as rape.

You have pointed to the most profound differences that I see between Tom & Harry. And these are, indeed, profound differences. You miss one possibility, with Tom -- peers could be something of a buffering influence, in two ways -- most everyone would have been treated the same, and he would have had no barriers to close friendships, plus he'd have a lot of people, coming in & out of the old-style orphanages, who were healthier, b/c they had more time w/, sometimes, loving parents. Poverty and parental death often led to children being left at orphanages as late as the 1930's, at least in the States.

I would also say, though, that personality differences would play a part, too. And the "specifics" -- "how", specially, Harry was abused and neglected by the Dursleys, "how", specially Tom was abused and neglected at the orphanage.

Again, there's a lot we don't know about this.