Do it yourself, because I can't write stuff.

 

I notice you don't deny the allegations.

 

I didn't knew, it was necessary. Or didn't care.

 

I'm not saying that this is the reason, or why it happened, but as I understand the wizarding world, sometimes, the most ridiculous explanations are more easily accepted than plausible reasoning.

It also makes sense why people would accept such a ridiculous explanation. Wizards are famiilar with how protections generally work, and in a sense, to say that the Potters' protections were somehow better (despite their deaths) would be harder pill to swallow than to say the child that survived somehow miraculously did it.

I think we get an idea of this if we look at Hagrid's statement:

Most of the main characters in HP were academics, aurors etc., the cream of the crop. HP doesn't really give us much screen time into the lives of the normal wizards, what they do, how they live, how they think, etc.

I think the general wizarding public thinks a bit differently, and would go with the ridiculous explanation more easily.

 

James and Lily Potter, possibly the most talented members of their generation who defied Voldemort three times already, in desperate defense of their only child, with help of arcane protections, sacrificed even their lives to destroy arrogant Lord Voldemort who came alone.

Is this explanation insufficient ? Was there any need to place Harry on a pedestal and assure that (in view of Dumbledore) he could not be raised in Wizarding World ?

Dumbledore is at least indirectly responsible that Harry needs protection of Bond of Blood in the first place and it is hilarious that he did not have decency to meet Petunia directly and inform her about situation or monitor Harry more closely than with help of not very useful Squib but in view of many people he is still paragon of all that is good and right.

Something like: Dumbledore is not a tool, so he does not make mistakes. Dumbledore is Chief Warlock, Supreme Mugwump and Headmaster so he does not desire the political power. Dumbledore is a paragon of good, so he does not lie. Dumbledore is JKR´s mouthpiece so of course he is always correct about ancient and mysterious magic and his actions are only in the best interest of Harry.

 

First of all, we do not know if it was widely known fact how talented James and Lily Potter were, and they had defined Voldemort three times. We only know they did because of the prophecy, which only a couple of people knew about.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think their actual defiances were even mentioned in canon, only that they did defy him thrice. So yeah, the way I see it, as far as the public knew, James and Lily Potter might have been talented people, but tha'ts all.

As Hagrid said, if Voldemort decided to kill someone, they were dead, no matter how talented they were. The only exception was Dumbledore. So yes, I don't think from what we know about the wizarding world that they would have so easily accepted that kind of an explanation.

I think this was best explained by Taure earlier. The likely explanation is that the blood wards needed it to be the Dursleys' choice, with no interference of any sort.

I'm not even going to comment on this.

 

I was paraphrasing the plot synopsis of some of the more aggressively insane Indy!Harry tripe, not making a grand point about Dumbledore's morality and motivations. Or being even remotely serious.

No, thank you. I can't write, and even if I could like fuuuuuuuck would I write something like that.

Good luck concealing that Harry survived. It'd presumably be pretty immediately apparent that there were two dead adults at the scene, and no dead children.

The impression I always got was that people leapt to the HARRY DEAFEATED VOLDEMORT SOMEHOW conclusion all by themselves without any prompting. And besides which, they're wizards; the inexplicable is presumably less crazy-sounding to begin with.

e: Or, alternately, I'm psychoanalyzing characters in a fantasy novel at 6 AM on a Tuesday. You decide.

 

I think you hit on something important here: A baby can be made into a hero. Adults even if they gave their very lives to save their son would always be looked on with a little suspicion.

 

Priceless thread. Marvelous debate.

Straight to the hall of shame.

Fun fact - game me an idea for a short story. Maybe something good will come out of this.

 

No, you don't. You can portray half of canon as wild exaggerations and blame deflection of a boy who more or less was exactly as Snape said.

The cupboard was a timeout, they never favored Dudley that damned hard, they rarely abused Harry for the random freakish acts, they did in fact make Dudley do some chores, the reason Harry is so skinny is because of Anorexia/etc, which was only fixed when Pomfrey bewitched him into eating more, Voldemort didn't kill himself, Harry shot him in the back with an AK and then denied it, etc etc.

Or you know, just have Vernon and Petunia not be utterly vile but still fearful and a bit panicky around magic. They know he can't help it early on, that just makes it worse, etc etc.

 

For my next story, I am thinking of Vernon and Petunia really fearing Magic, and fearing Harry as a result. They try to treat him decently, but they can't hide their fear that well, and he notices. After he had an accidental magic outbreak as a child that hurt other children (which was covered up by obliviators, though the Dursleys were not touched) they started to tell other families that he was a nice kid, but could "freak out" under some circumstance. They did it to preevnt more such incidents with worse consequences, but it led to Harry getting isolated like in canon. With only Dudley around who doesn't shun him that much - but who has his own friends - Harry retreated more into his own room.

 

You could do that, or you could stop posting forever!

I really want you to choose the second one.

 

Lead by example.