Desperate for affection and able to find healthy attachment is not even in the same ballpark. And, not all will move in that direction. Others will move in the opposite direction, shying away from contact because they don't understand it, or don't feel worthy of it, or for some other reason.

Don't confuse what some people do for how everyone reacts. Here's a little reading to help with the subject

And another (4)

Also, don't confuse perception with reality, nor anecdotal evidence with reality (unless someone's making an all encompassing statement that an anecdotal argument proves wrong).

 

When it comes to meaningful relationships, I would agree that those who grew up with neglect, have a very difficult time finding one.

But unhealthy relationships, or ones that have very little focus on anything but the physical, are very common for people who grow up neglected.

Of course, not everyone falls into the same line, but it's in my experience that most fall into the line of multiple, unhealthy relationships.

 

Or, they shy away from them altogether, according to the research upstream. So, Harry's reactions could swing either way. JKR pushed him in the direction of non-relational, except for a very few, very deep friends.

It's not too much of a stretch to write him as mentioned above from that.

Also, note my caveat

 

Now that I really think about it from a serious perspective, Harry Potter being quite tall isn't far-fetched. By the time the series is over, he is the exact height as his father who was described as tall multiple times throughout the books, even by Voldemort who was very tall.

A quick google check shows me that the average height for English men is 5'10. I can't imagine anyone of average height being considered tall, so James Potter would probably be 6 feet.

And remember, Harry was underfed and malnourished for the first 11 years of his life. If you're writing a story where he grows up physically healthy, him being 6'2 by the time he is an adult is very plausible. In fact, it's to be expected.

 

I have no problem with him being written as mildly good-looking, but if he's written as looking like Pietro Boselli it's quite unrealistic. Sirius remarks on how strongly he resembles his dad, who was said to be a good-looking bloke, so Harry is by no means very plain-looking. His seeming droolworthiness in the books is largely due to his incredible fame and his accomplishments, and even disregarding this caveats there's something alluring about mysterious, quiet, reserved guys who are not particularly lacking confidence.

As Minion rightly and painstakingly laid out, Harry could turn out a lot of ways physically, depending on background and circumstance, but even then, disregarding magic, they is no real way he's going to turn out looking like Ryan Gosling or Jason Momoa. I have no problem with him being written as reasonably tall, but being buff and having smashing good looks is more often than not a sign of incompetence from the author.

Why? Because it's largely unnecessary, and done as a way make an otherwise blandly, even poorly written character attractive. Unlike in the real world where looks factor a lot in success, status in the Wizarding World is seemingly rooted more with three or four main factors - wealth, magical accomplishment, and political acumen (you can throw in fame, but it's usually predicated on one of the afore-mentioned three anyway). Take some of the most influential or powerful characters in canon - Dumbledore, Voldemort, Snape, Moody, etc - the sort of standing they possess is hardly due to their looks. One is a very old man, one is noseless, one is a bat with greasy hair, and the last has pretty mangled face. Wizardingkind simply doesn't place a huge emphasis on physical attractiveness. Gyms are probably a strange concept to most.

To me, there's fewer things that scream "I can't write an believably attractive character!" more than making Harry 6' 5'', sculpting him at least half a dozen abs, and throwing in a super-duper face and dashing smile for good measure. Dapper, cultured Harry is fun to read. John Cena! Harry isn't.

 

I would read it.

 

https://www.fanfiction.net/s/11516452/1/A-Big-Happy-Weasley-Family

 

I said he was underfed and malnourished not starved.

He was described as skinny, with wobbly knees and a thin face.

If that's not underfed, I don't know what is.

 

Your advice is unneeded, as Harry being underfed is canon.

Maybe in a third world country being skin and bones, with legs so weak that your knees wobble, is considered healthy and well-fed.

I don't live in a third world country, though, so perhaps expecting children to at least walk without shaky legs is asking too much.

 

He was not described as having wobbly knees. He was described as having knobbly knees.

 

Which implies that his legs are too skinny.

--

Look, I'm not saying he was starved, but to say that he was well-fed?

"Five years ago, then," continued Dumbledore, as though he had not paused in his story, "you arrived at Hogwarts, neither as happy nor as well-nourished as I would have liked, perhaps, yet alive and healthy. You were not a pampered little prince, but as normal a boy as I could have hoped under the circumstances."

So, Harry was not starved, but was underfed.

 

In your own quote:

 

The knee thing depends on your genes....

 

Of course; I never said that Harry was some emaciated victim being starved for weeks and thrown into the basement.

I simply acknowledged the canon fact that he was not well-fed and skinny for his age.

---------- Post automerged at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ----------

I have a feeling some of you, and I'm not addressing any particular person, spent very little time reading quality literature and too much time reading fanfiction or drivel.

Quality authors do not hold your hand and spell everything out for you.

The author of the story gave us glaring hints -- and to be honest, calling them hints would be an understatement -- that Harry was not as healthy as he should have been.

The first hint is that Vernon and Dudley are obese. That tells us that the Dursley's do not lack in food.

The second hint is Harry being described as "small and skinny for his age with a thin face".

The third hint isn't so much a hint as much as the author bashing your head in "you arrived at Hogwarts, neither as happy nor as well-nourished as I would have liked"

If you lack the minuscule intelligence needed to put these pieces together and come to the conclusion that Harry was not well-fed or as healthy as a child his age should be, then there is truly something wrong with you

 

...Nobody is arguing that he wasn't as well fed as he could have been. They're pointing out that underfed is not the same as starved. You're ragging on us for not understanding the glaring hints about Harry's health in canon, whilst ignoring the equally glaring hints that Harry was, in fact, healthy. It says it right there, in the same fucking quote.

Not in peak health does not mean that you aren't healthy at all.