You know, it was a fair question. And sure, we'll never know exactly but we can guess for our own sakes. And maybe someday someone will look upon this thread and think up an awesome epic story.

Ok i highly doubt that, but it really isn't up to you what people do or do not do. We already have people that are kill joys, and people who are looking to canon for every bit of information. We don't need someone who puts everyones threads down, just because they don't particularly feel it's pointless or a waste of time.

Thank you Dark Lord Guiliblee for defending my (admittedly) mediocre thread.

On with teh LuLz!

 

I would like to point out that Harry wasn't abused. At least not physically. The sentence in bold somewhat implies that Vernon regularly beat the shit out of Harry. I think you've been reading too much fanfiction. In canon he does live under the stairs, and there is some mention of emotional abuse (ie Boy, Freak), and Harry is made to feel worthless and a burden, but he was not physically abused.

 

Starvation is, in fact, severe abuse, by US law. Canon mentions that Harry was one of the smallest children in his group, and he was still small in Book4. He was locked in his room at the beginning of Book2, and fed once a day. I *presume* that the Dursleys at least made sure that he was given clean water, but that isn't ever mentioned or even implied.
Moreover, trying to brain someone with a skillet is "Assault with a deadly weapon" where I come from. Coupled with long-term neglect-to-the-point-of-abuse, it could even be considered attempted murder.

 

Yeah, that's physical abuse. Skillet to the skull? That bitch would bust your head. Rowling just didn't write all this horrible abuse 'cause it's a kid's book, but if you read into it, neglect, starvation and the occasional swipe in a kid's book can mean some serious shit in an adult's.

 

Where's all the Lulz gone?

Stupid kitty avatar for destroying my thread.

 

Oops. Sorry about that. Back to topic - it really is possible, even likely, that there is a draft of the letter floating somewhere in JKR's files. We'll probably find out when she decides she needs more controversy...

 

There is not sufficient evidence to say that the Dursley's starved Harry. Yes, it is mentioned that he is one of the smallest in his age group, but that could be due to genetics or some other reason. There is little to no evidence that Harry was starved or constantly hungry pre PS. And while they did lock him in his room in CoS, they did feed him and give him water. While it might not have been enough food to stave off hunger, it's a far cry from starvation.

 

Um, Letssee... "No meals for a week" sounds damn like starving the kid to me. It's *canon* that Harry came from an abusive household.

 

No meals for a week = dead.

 

He snuck out and stole food, remember? I think that's what happened anyways...

 

Actually, he's small, and didn't get any exercise, so he probably slept most of the time. He was "in training" for famine conditions, also. The longest I ever went without eating was three days, and I performed fairly normally the entire time. My parents never noticed. It takes practice, but it can be done. Think about it - way back when, starvation and famine were just a part of life. If you would die in a week, the species wouldn't have made it.

Of course, hydration is VERY IMPORTANT.

 

... I'd like to think that we as a species have come a long way since then for the kind of thing still to be applicable, Banner. >_>

But I digress. Where is the lulz gone?

 

See? I can use gifs.

 

????What are you talking about? People fast for 40 days at a time with nothing but water and there still alive. If Harry had water everyday but no food for a week he would still be alive.

 

There is a difference between literal proof and sufficient information for strong conjecture and probability.

To starve = to cause to suffer for lack of something needed or craved.

I would say, if he was hungry all the time, he was being starved. It is a plausible inference that he was underfed, always hungry, therefore starved. This is especially true when Dudley is put on the grapefruit diet. If they treated him that way after PS, or more importantly after his letter when it is said they started treating him better, I think starvation is a pretty safe bet.

You are right in that there is no literal proof. But in my mind, Harry being starved on occasion is just as plausible, no, more plausible than him being fed sufficiently.

 

Is that the same horse Harry marries in book 7?

Also ,any more guesses on what the letter said.

Oh and kitty avatar is back...again...

 

Fasting implies that you eat or drink nothing after sunrise and before sunset.

It all comes down to the rule of Three: 3 minutes without air, 3 days without water, or 3 weeks (give or take a couple days) without food, and you're a dead duck.

You're right though, a week with no food wouldn't kill him (assuming he had water), but it would probably fuck him up pretty badly.

 

No I mean the fasting where all you do is drink water but no food,my dad does it once a year. But thanks for agreeing with me.

 

He eats nothing for 40 days? That's impressive.

 

Must live on his fat reserves.

If I ever crash-land in the Himalayas, I'm sitting pretty.:mrgreen: