Dumbledore outright stated it in HBP.

 

I think there was a mention of the curse being lifted after Voldemort died, and that Hogwarts had a more stable Defence post afterwards. It might be fanon, though, the lines are blurred in my mind.

I hate to bug you once more, Garret, but Draco going there had little to do with Hogwarts prestige. Draco mentions Lucius wanted to send him to Durmstrang, but Narcissa did not want him so far away. She acted sweet and promiscuous and her son got to go to Hogwarts.

We know little of the magical world outside Britain, but perhaps it is tradition that clings the old pureblood families of Britain to Hogwarts. My impression is that the quality of the school has degraded. Powerful witches and wizards have come from Hogwarts in the past (Bellatrix Lestrange, Lucius Malfoy, Lord Voldemort, James Potter etc) but the quality of the students is decreasing.

 

Perhaps we should also consider the fact that Lucius himself had gone to Hogwarts. As a result, he knew the type of education that Hogwarts offered. He also had the knowledge that Durmstrang was pretty high on the Dark Arts. Thus, he wanted his son to go to a school where he could learn them and keep up with the family business.

 

Lucius probably wanted Draco to make useful contacts, and he surely had an eye toward Harry - espionage, at a minimum. I really CAN'T see him sending Draco (his only child and the heir to the Family holdings) to a poor school. No matter HOW firm a hold his wife has on his dick.

As for all those damn stories trying to justify Snape's abuse of Harry by saying that the DE children are watching him, that philosophy only works in a child's world, as well. Since there is NO WAY a teacher can get away with what Snape did to children every day ... Dumbledore HAD to have condoned it.

When I think about all the day-to-day evil that Harry had to surmount, starting from toddlerhood and continuing on and on and ON, I wonder that he didn't develop any of those self-destructive strategies that teenagers are so prone to do. I can't see Harry as a cutter, but anorexia or severe insomnia don't seem unreasonable. At least he never had enough money to develop a drug habit.

CAPSLOCK!Harry strikes me as a minor (and perfectly reasonable) reaction to the kind of stress he had to carry. That he never actually struck out at his tormenters is a pretty impressive achievement.

Perhaps JKR wanted to show her child readers that Harry had it bad but HE didn't turn violent or self-destructive.

It IS surprising that no one ever hit Skeeter with bug spray.

[ WAAY back when Gary Gygax had just released AD&D, I remember the "cantrip" spell list. (They were sub-first-level spells for apprentice magic users.) Most were extremely weak versions of spells: 'match light' instead of fireball, 'booklight' instead of the 10' light spell, band-aid instead of healing. I wish Harry had known the 'fly-swatter' version of "magic missle."]

 

That indeed seems to be her motive. Remember that the books started out as children's novels and slowly but surely progressed to become more and more dark. In a world where suicides are becoming more and more common, perhaps it was an effort on JKR's part to cause social awareness and show her readers that it is not be an appropriate thing to do. Suicidal tendencies in teenagers have been on the rise as many see it as a way out of their misery, whatever that may be.

Well, can't say that any of the magical people know what a bug spray is, or even how to use one. Besides, they deal with creatures that can be more irritating, even vicious than a common harmless bug (not Skeeter, of course).

 

No worries.

First off... let me say... I dont think that there is really a way to PROVE that Hogwarts is one of the greatest magical schools in the setting. For all we know the very best wizarding school might have a max total student body of 10, and is taught by some reclusive and brilliant wizard that makes Dumbledore, Voldemort, and all the other powerful characters in the series look like children playing with marbles.

But I honestly think we may be over analyzing things by trying to prove it or disprove it. The Author was clearly setting the stage with Hagrid's comments (oaf that he is) and continuing the trend by having rich and powerful families like Draco's attend the school.

Now as to you point about Draco and Durmstrang...Well, I think Lucius' motives in wanting Draco to attend Durmstrang are pretty transparent. Durmstrang has a standing policy of teaching the dark arts.. and that right there is the crux of the matter.

Lucius was a death eater...Lucius sees the power in the Dark Arts... he sees his son as his legacy... and he'd want draco to be well versed in the black arts as well for the power they provide. Therefore Durmstrang would be the place he'd want to send him. Sort of like if your family has a history of great military service, the fathers and grandfathers might want their sons attending west point.

Narcissa (as we saw in the Half Baked Plot) wanted to shield Draco from such things. She didn't want him to die or be a murderer. So that appears to be why she insisted on Hogwarts... in the hope that Draco would avoid such arts that seem to twist their user.

As to the presitige. Again, I think that we're not supposed to over think the situation (which we may be guilty of doing in this discussion). The three schools in the tri wizard tourny are Hogwarts, Durmstrang, and Beauxbatons for a reason. It's the author implying that the three schools are equal to each other. Therefore if they are equal, and even one of them is a "great school" then so too are the others.

It's a sort of implied quality by association with implied quality thing. Is there a list of great british magical schools in the story with hogwarts on top? No... saddly there isn't, we can only take what the author and characters tell us about the quality of the schools.

Some authors plan ahead and build a handbook and mythology to their setting first... I somehow seriously doubt that JKR does so. She just paints broad strokes and lets the reader assume the weight of building the setting in a more detailed way through their own imaginings.

 

Presuming that Harry, Ron, Dean, Seamus, Neville, Hermione, Lavender, and the Patil girl were the entire intake group for Gryff House, and that there weren't any others who simply were never mentioned, that's eight total.
Sly House got Draco, Pansy, Crabbe, Goyle, Blaise, Nott, Millicent, Daphne, and Davis, right? Nine more.
I can't remember offhand how many children were Sorted into Raven and Puff, but let's assume a fairly even split - leaving lots of room for error, we'll say twelve each. That means that the Entire Incoming Class is forty-one students.

In general, the classes are composed of only two houses each - so twenty or so students at a time. If nothing else, the student-to-teacher ratio is a good sign.

Another reason that Lucius might be willing to concede on Draco's placement - he WAS on the Board of Governors. He probably figured that he could help smooth out any little mistakes made by Draco or his friends.

 

That's a mighty fine resumé you've got there. Too bad it has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're talking about. You know your way around intel and military tactics! Congratulations. Now what does this have to do about justifying soldiers in war from an unbiased point of view? Nothing.

War is war. You can't make an analogy of cases robbery and murder and seriously expect that to hold.
Theft and homocide = single people doing an act heavily frowned upon by the vast majority.
War = two large groups killing each other while thinking they're in the right.

The very definition of a legal system is that everyone is equal under the law. And it should be doubly so when someone believes themselves morally right enough to define war crimes.
The fact that only one side got to write down the definition of a warcrime when both sides committed atrocities is a farce.
The fact that just a few decades later when previous allied nations did the exact same thing that was branded as warcrimes with prison sentences and executions raised no eyebrows nor any war crime tribunals is a travesty.

So what you have here is a situation where the winner takes all. I can fuck you over because I hold the bigger gun. There's no way to morally justify this other than seeing the loosing side as a lesser race, as animals not worthy of equality.

Are you a racist mister? <- Blatant flamebait but it gets my point across


----


Anyway, glad to see we're not the only ones going off on different tangents although maybe not quite in such a debating tone.

From my point of view the legal system in magical britain has always been extremely suspect and it's population sheep. There are some points in particular.

Skeeter tells her half-truths and fabrications. So as someone said previously, she is fully within her right as long as she can prove she didn't make it up. The books give off the impression that Skeeter is the only journalist in existance. Even after Hermione forced Skeeter to publish Harry's version it was still from Skeeter. Why her? There has to be other journalists with a more professional ethos or just people who're pissed off by that woman enough to drag her name down. How many can't that be? Just look up Skeeters sources and interview some other people, biased and unbiased.

Umbridge, all hints of legality on what she did is purely fanon speculation. Perhaps physical punishment is perfectly legal and accepted in the magical world, they are outdated after all. Perhaps Umbridge was fully in her right to threaten with the cruciatus. Remember that she didn't actually cast the spell, which she could use as an excuse. The educational decrees though afterwards repelled were from what I understood perfectly legal. Once again, a self-interest motivated journalist could easily have made something out of this. How would they know? Pissed off students -> Pissed off parents. Just one, that's all it takes.

Then there's Harry's trial. Dumbledore must be going senile not to use it to score political points. It was an unusual case with a full jury for a simple case of underaged magic. The statue of secrecy is to protect the secrecy but the only one that saw was his cousin in the first place who already knew magic existed thanks to Harry. And then when Harry is acquitted because of that catwoman's testimony, nothing. I'd expect fudge to keep his mouth shut but Dumbledore?
Come on. Does anyone seriously expect him not to find a way to let the story out? From somewhere other than the Prophet? Hah.

Point: JKR sucks at writing secondary characters.

 

It IS strange that AD is so very bad at manipulating the Press. It would be foolish for the old man NOT to have contacts at the Prophet, and utterly inconceivable that he not have excellent sources in the Ministry and on the Wizengamot. So why is he always caught on the back foot? (Well, other than as an easy substitute for actual plot development.)

 

As we saw in Deathly Hallows, Dumbledore had a fair share of skeletons in his closet - his dark past, association with Grindelwald, his sister's death, etc. Perhaps, his reluctance to go against the Press stems from the fact that people would seriously lose faith in him if these things became public knowledge.

Also, I think he did have some clout in the Ministry and the Wizengamot through which he was able to prevent the publishing of these facts when he was alive. But after his death, we all saw the truth come into focus, courtesy of Rita Skeeter, of course. It is absurd to think that Skeeter would not print them unless she was under pressure from someone high up in the hierarchy.

It may even be possible that Dumbledore had some blackmail material over her by virtue of which he was able to keep her under control. And I am not talking about something as small as being an illegal animagus. This logic clearly stems from the vehemence with which she wrote and published The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore. Remember that Dumbledore knew how to pull strings instead of outright challenging someone to a confrontation that he could easily avoid.

 

I'll admit I only spent a few minutes trying to read that book but how exactly would that be an issue? I mean how'd it be more likely for his skeletons to come out if he associate himself with the press?

 

Just like Snape was a caricature of the grade school teacher that each of us had - the one who nearly blighted our lives - the Umbitch is an example of a social-services/truancy officer gone mad with power. The idea of the Blood Quill being legal is frightening. My knee-jerk response is to say that it must be a banned or restricted item, because neither Snape or Filch ever used it. You KNOW they would. So far as we know, NONE of the students ever mentioned it to one of the teachers, or any adult. I remember one fanfic (don't remember which one,) where the next summer hols, the story FINALLY comes out. McGonnagall asks why no one talked, and Lee Jordan said something to effect that if no one was going to intervene to help Dumbledore's Golden Boy, then why bother? They certainly wouldn't help anyone else.

THAT might be a morals lesson - suffering in silence usually isn't the correct response. Now, Harry had NO precedent for trusting the adults in his life. Setting aside the Dursleys, Hagrid was pretty much useless in any important situation. Sirius was more than half crazy, and a degree of unreliable that clearly showed even to children. The kids went to McG during the Philosophers Stone, and she blew them off. Lockhart tried to inflict a fate worse than death on the kids when they asked for help in year2. Year3, Remus (who had never bothered to get in touch before) didn't take his potion, although he'd fought with the disease for decades, and tried to EAT them. Year4, Crouch used him to raise V, Skeeter was a vicious liar until forcibly muzzled, and AD never bothered to help in any of it. Snape told the Trio that they were moronic liars when Harry appealed to him for help about the DoM Vision. Poor Harry spent TEN YEARS being told that his parents were worthless drunks who carelessly killed themselves and nearly killed him. As soon as Percy left school, he started on the abuse-mistrust-abandon-Harry wagon. For that matter, where were the adults when Luna spent years being tormented by her Housemates?

In effect, Harry gave each authority figure in his life ONE chance to help him, and the adult ALWAYS let him down. In what weird and wonderful world would Harry EVER go to ANYone older than then Twins? And he trusted THEM mostly because they were Weasleys in good standing, and they all owed him.

The thing is, help WAS available. If anyone had gone to McG, she would have At The Very Least, arranged for all the kids to get proper medical treatment. Assuming that the Quill was legal, McGonnagal would have intervened SOMEHOW. As soon as Snape got privacy, he IMMEDIATELY tried to get in touch with AD and the Order. It must have taken A Lot of Major intervention to keep Social Services blind to what the Dursleys were doing.

I HOPE that JKR *meant* to show that one CAN usually go to your caregivers, the school administrators, or the cops for help. If one route is blocked, try another. And Keep Trying. The bullying situation at Hogwarts was insanely out of control ... sort of a metaphor for the British Wizarding World, now that I think of it. The wealthy had most of the 'authority figures' bending over backwards to serve them, the powerful had a hammerlock on those who were supposed to provide support, the odd or unusual were valid targets for everyone, most of the population just followed the herd (so long as it didn't take much effort,) and the best you could expect for the so-called 'arbiters' is that they ignore you.

If maybe JKR meant to put OUR problems into perspective, then she didn't do such a bad job. If she was trying to show her readership what NOT to do in an abusive situation, then she did a damn Fine job. Assuming her goal was to make sure that Harry ended up a 'Lone Hero,' well, she did it perfectly.

 

No, you misunderstood me. I am not talking about associating with the press. What I was trying to say is that Dumbledore never outright challenged the things that the press printed. Remember in GoF that he tells about the article about the ICW Conference in which Rita called him an obsolete dingbat. AD just laughed it off. It may be how he was, but IMO there was more to it than met the eye. May be he was just being polite, but the scene just felt to me like there was a certain amount of tension, a barely concealed animosity, by the way they spoke to each other, sugar-coated voices and all that.

It would appear that being who he was, he would find it easy to dispose off anything or anyone that went against him. But he kept from antagonizing the press especially, because maybe he feared they would take revenge by printing about his past. And what with him being Dumbledore, his enemies or the supporters of the Dark would jump on the opportunity to tarnish his image. Meh.

 

Maybe JKR's point is that you can be as evil, venal, and murderous as you like, so long as you are rich or at least you don't proclaim yourself a Dark Lord.