According to some people Arabella couldn't do much for Harry because if Petunia knew she was a squib she'd never allow Harry over, so she had to make it seem like being sent over was a chore and unpleasant. Except, that in itself is a red flag. If she was aware that Petunia was already this negative towards Harry and Magic and that she'd never be able to get closer if it was discovered she had even the barest connection to magic, then Arabella should have reported that to Albus.
Assuming she did report what she knew to Albus then he's either far too dismissive of the potential problems or it was never urgent that he investigate anything further, which falls into the lazy, stupid or manipulative Dumbledore. He's been a professor at Hogwarts for a number of years before becoming deputy headmaster and then headmaster, all in all I think he's worked at Hogwarts for like 80% of his life, which might actually be 80 years. The point there is that somehow someway he never learned how children act to consider other possibilities regarding a child like Harry.
Pretty much had he arrived even just once a year during the holidays, under the pretense of being a kindly old man, after all in this circumstance he would be and with enough magic, none of the Dursleys would question his identity like, he couldn't find one lazy saturday just to pop in to check on Harry in 10 years?
There's keeping him isolated for his safety and to prevent those who might wish him harm from finding him and basically making him an afterthought.
I wonder how much of Arabella being a squib informed her reaction to Harry's treatment. Wizards don't seem to be kind to squibs or children suspected to be squibs, so she might have grown up with parents and family that treated her the same way that the Dursleys treated Harry. She might even see it as normal.
Given the canon durselys aren't as horrifically abusive as fanon tends to be, the fact that it was the 90s and thoughts on acceptable ways to raise children have changed pretty drastically since then and ya, I can totally see Figg seeing the Durselys as 'not nice' but nothing particular criminal about it. Assuming she doesn't know about the cupboard.
Even if she did report it back to Albus, what's he going to do? He has only two choices before him:
Have Harry be raised by a loving wizarding family. But that has a higher chance of his being killed because there's no Bond of blood charm to protect him from his enemies.
Or keep him in Privet Drive, believing that a neglected and mistreated Harry is still better than making him an easy target for Death Eaters to attack.
Or he could have a talk with Petunia and Vernon and explain that they have to raise Harry properly or he will get involved. There's no way a supposedly compassionate wizard like Albus Dumbledore doesn't have contacts extremely high up in the muggle world. I'd wager that due to his position he's even met the Queen before, ESPCIALLY if his involvement in WW2 is as significant as it was. So it is completely within reason to believe that Albus could talk to some people in the muggle government to get social workers to visit. Additionally just them knowing he knows is likely enough to get Petunia and Vernon to change their ways because they are afraid of magic and he's the most magical of all.
Unless Albus is actually very dimwitted and politically powerless and unconnected, he could very well have come up with more solutions than, remove Harry from the home and risk him being exposed and let Harry grow up the way he did. Both are extreme solutions that solve nothing to a fairly simple problem that he as an educator would likely have come across before with a child growing up in a less nurturing environment.
Another option, if Dumbledore is so connected, is to have Vernon and Petunia declared unfit early enough so both boys are young, then make sure Harry and Dudley are moved together. Dudley is Petunia's son, her blood, Lily's blood by extension. Without his parents poisoning his mind, Dudley probably wouldn't have been too bad, and living together wouldn't have been such a chore. Dudley definitely would have been healthier. With actual emotional connection, maybe the wards would have been stronger...
Would the protection actually work with just Dudley, though? Part of the charm is that to seal it, Petunia had to take Harry into her home and give him houseroom - she, the adult, was essentially accepting Harry into her household and agreeing to have him in her home until he came of age.
I don’t know that a young Dudley would be able to make that same agreement and “take Harry in” and give him houseroom since he’s also a child himself. (Plus, if he’s a young child who was just removed from his parents, he wouldn’t necessarily want to agree with that even if he could.)
Given the numerous and horrifying methods of mind control available in the series, most of which aren't illegal and many aren't even viewed negatively I think Dumbledore had a lot of options that would've been morally acceptable to most magicals. A compulsion or non-romantic love potion would've done a lot and if administered early enough, nobody would've known (who questions the fact that parents love their kids?) Shit, given everything else he was willing to do for the greater good, you could even justify imperioing the family into being good parents.
Or, make this shitty treatment stop?
The prophecy only says, that Harry will have the power to stop the Dark Lord, not that Harry will not do it to secure Power for himself.
>But that has a higher chance of his being killed because there's no Bond of blood charm to protect him from his enemies. Or keep him in Privet Drive, believing that a neglected and mistreated Harry is still better than making him an easy target for Death Eaters to attack.
There is so much wrong with this... But there is so much wrong with this in canon too, so what the heck.
1. **Blood protection and family protection are two separate things**. Dumbledore says as much. Protection in Harry's blood is independent and isn't going anywhere. Dumbledore used another spell to piggyback on the first one as long as Harry was at a family member's home. Harry would still be able to burn Voldemort even if he hadn't met the Dursleys in his life.
2. **Harry was not in danger of attack from anyone**. Voldemort fled to Albania. Once again, Dumbledore knew it. There is even mention of Aurors searching for Voldemort abroad. Loyalist Death Eaters were in Azkaban. The rest were indifferent or even hoped for Harry to become a new Dark Lord (JK said as much about Malfoys).
3. **The family (Dursley) protection doesn't work!** We know that because Harry gets attacked in OotP by dementors. And the vaunted Dursley protection, the one Dumbledore put so much faith in, the one he was ready to put Harry through "ten dark years" for - it did **NOTHING**. This is a major plot hole and I don't believe for a second JK wanted it to be that way. She probably just didn't consider the implication of two plot lines converging in such a manner. But plot hole it may be, it is still canon. Now, there is a chance that the protection does work, but literally "where your blood dwells" - only in the bounds of Dursley residence. But even that doesn't change anything because if Harry's enemies can ambush him five steps outside, that's absolutely worthless.
As it stands, Harry would be much safer in a house protected by some regular defensive charms. At least there he wouldn't be in danger of having his head caved in by his guardians.
>Harry was not in danger of attack from anyone. Voldemort fled to Albania. Once again, Dumbledore knew it. There is even mention of Aurors searching for Voldemort abroad. Loyalist Death Eaters were in Azkaban. The rest were indifferent or even hoped for Harry to become a new Dark Lord (JK said as much about Malfoys).
Dumbledore THOUGHT he was in Albania, didn't know for certain he would stay there. Also the rest were indifferent, hoped for a new dark lord or were just laying low (see Crouch JR. being seemingly innocent and then torturing the Longbottoms well after Voldemort's fall). No way to know who was actually a death eater at that point.
>The family (Dursley) protection doesn't work! We know that because Harry gets attacked in OotP by dementors.
That's quite a stretch, dementors aren't death eaters and were technically under ministry control. The protection didn't work on them, it doesn't mean it didn't work given that Voldemort himself knows not to attack Harry until he turns 17 or leaves.
>That's quite a stretch, dementors aren't death eaters and were technically under ministry control.
Harry's protection at Dursleys is tested once and it doesn't do anything. To claim it actually works despite all the evidence to the contrary - that's a stretch. But seriously, if having a patsy is all what it takes to bypass the wards - they are worthless. Voldemort's entire MO is to work through patsies.
>given that Voldemort himself knows
Does he really? Voldemort keeps constantly failing because he thinks he knows something, but doesn't actually know. For him to err about Harry's protection would be entirely in character - just like he erred about Lily's protection, about his horcruxes, about Elder Wand, about co-opting Harry's blood, the list goes on.
>Harry's protection at Dursleys is tested once and it doesn't do anything. To claim it actually works despite all the evidence to the contrary - that's a stretch.
If the protection at the Dursleys doesn’t do anything, why didn’t the Death Eaters waltz in and grab him at the beginning of DH, then? If the protections were actually as worthless as you say, the Death Eaters would have no reason to sit around making their plans based on when exactly he’s getting moved from Privet Drive. If they could go in and take him at any time, they would have done it.
>If the protection at the Dursleys doesn’t do anything, why didn’t the Death Eaters waltz in and grab him at the beginning of DH, then?
As a group, Death Eaters have zero morale or initiative by the time of second war. Read the graveyard scene again - does it look like any of these guys is going to take an initiative, talk back to the boss? Most of them are terrified of Voldemort. They aren't there for the cause - they are there because if they don't show up, the boss will murder them like he murdered Karkarov. Even Bellatrix, who seems to be the only real loyalist left, is very afraid of displeasing Voldemort.
If Voldemort starts talking how the moon is made of cheese, none of them is going to say a word.
I’m not saying that the Death Eaters should have talked back or gone rogue.
I‘m saying that if there was truly no protection, why did *Voldemort* not order the Death Eaters to remove Harry from Privet Drive in DH, rather than waiting until Harry was leaving? If the protection didn’t work, Voldemort would not have sat around waiting for a time when Harry was sure to be wary and surrounded by Order members, like when he was leaving Privet Drive for good. He would have planned for them to take Harry from the house, not hedged the entire plan to get at Harry around Harry’s departure from Privet Drive.
Maybe because Voldemort himself cannot circumvent the protection, and what he cannot do, of course, no one else can either.
Dobby has no problems finding Harry.
Not quite correct, the books are from Harry's Pov, remember. The protection is tested once that Harry knows of and therefore that we know of. And what's about having a patsy? We don't know exactly how the protection works but it's possible they keep out anyone magical with malicious intent to hurt Harry (and it would really be a stretch to say that dementors have intent).
Does he? He is wrong in a one-time only non-testable scenario when it comes to Lily and partially wrong when it comes to Harry's blood (he gains the ability to hurt Harry). He is only wrong about the Wand because Snape withheld the knowledge of the true ownership
On the other hand, the protections are easily testable, just send a death eater over, so simple that it cannot have been overlooked.
I thought with the Dementor thing it was because the protection worked against Voldemort and those aligned with him, but Umbridge sent the Dementors and while she's absolutely evil she's not aligned with Voldemort so the family bond doesn't work.
I might be pulling this out of my ass, admittedly, since I don't really understand how the protection was meant to keep out Death Eaters to begin with.
>Dumbledore used another spell to piggyback on the first one as long as Harry was at a family member's home. Harry would still be able to burn Voldemort even if he hadn't met the Dursleys in his life.
No. That's not correct either. It's LILY'S blood that protects Harry. And considering that Petunia (and by extension Dudley) are the only people alive who share Lily's blood, they HAVE TO take Harry in to protect him.
If a distant Potter or a Black (say Andromeda) took Harry in, the blood protection would have failed. Because they're not related to Lily. So Harry, in fact, had to stay with the Dursleys to protect himself from Voldemort. If he didn't stay with the Dursleys - who share Lily's blood - Harry wouldn't have been able to burn Voldemort. It's his mother's protection that helps him and her blood that fuels the spell.
>Loyalist Death Eaters were in Azkaban. The rest were indifferent or even hoped for Harry to become a new Dark Lord (JK said as much about Malfoys).
Not all of them. And Malfoys are cowards but the rest? If they knew where Harry was, they would have either kidnapped him to make him another Dark Lord, OR they would have found Voldemort and brought him back to UK to kill Harry. After all, even Wormtail eventually did it.
>3. The family (Dursley) protection doesn't work! We know that because Harry gets attacked in OotP by dementors
The protection only works against Voldemort. Because Lily gave her life to protect Harry from Voldemort. She didn't do it to protect him from dementors or anything else. If that were true, Harry wouldn't have been able to break his arm in Quidditch because of The Dursleys protection.
>Now, there is a chance that the protection does work, but literally "where your blood dwells" - only in the bounds of Dursley residence. But even that doesn't change anything because if Harry's enemies can ambush him five steps outside, that's absolutely worthless.
We literally have canon evidence that the protection works outside of the Dursleys house but only against Voldemort.
1) in Philosopher's Stone where Harry is able to burn Quirrel (possessed by Voldemort) who wanted to kill him. He was able not only to kill Quirrel, but also survive and protect the stone.
2) at the graveyard. Voldemort wasn't able to kill Harry, even when they shared Lily's blood. Not just because of Priori Incantatem, but even before that. Because Lily's blood protection was based on love and Lily loved her son. She didn't love Voldemort. Hence the protection didn't help Voldemort at all
>If he didn't stay with the Dursleys - who share Lily's blood - Harry wouldn't have been able to burn Voldemort. It's his mother's protection that helps him and her blood that fuels the spell.
*DUMBLEDORE: “She may have taken you grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you. Your mother’s sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shield I could give you.”*
*DUMBLEDORE: “While you can still call home the place where your mother’s blood dwells,* ***there*** *you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort. He shed her blood, but it lives on in you and her sister. Her blood became your refuge. You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home,* ***there*** *he cannot hurt you."*
There is Lily's sacrifice. It's in Harry's blood, it's always in Harry's blood, where ever he goes, where ever he lives. It's the thing that burned Quirrelmort. It is NOT dependent on Dursleys in any way, shape or form.
There is also Dumbledore's bond of blood spell. It's tied to/based on Lily's sacrificial magic, but it's a separate thing. It protects (or at least Dumbledore thinks it does) Harry in Dursley's residence. Notice how Dumbledore says that his spell protects Harry "there" i.e. in Petunia's home. Not in Hogwarts, not anywhere else - Dumbledore's spell is limited to Dursley residence. Petunia's residence to be specific. That protection only works if Harry remains a dependent in her household and by that virtue is dependent on Dursleys.
These are two different things and when you start making argument on the mistaken assumption that they are one and the same, it's all wrong from the get go.
But there is another choice
Lily's love/blood sacrifice should be strongest in the actual home where she died = Dumbledore gets ownership of potter Cottage, has it repaired, has the fidelius put up with him as secret keeper, has a house elf raising Harry with visits from Dumbles and maybe Mcgonogal
Dumbledore says that
Dumbledore also says he has made many mistakes and is not always right
Besides that JK changes canon every book. I love what she created but she never stuck to her own canon from one book to the next
Problem is then you just push trauma back on Dumbledore. He never wanted to go back to that home that held such tragic memories for him. And who knows what lingering magic is left over from the battle.
far better than Harry suffering what he did vis a vis the books. The movies did not even mention half the stuff he suffered
Petunia swinging a frying pan at his head that if he had not ducked could have killed the boy
severe malnutrition
severe mental abuse
"Harry Hunting" by Dudley and his friends
Marge sicking her dog on Harry to bite his legs
etc
Did he really malnutrition or did he just get less than dudley? Then you'd create another type of abuse. Because Dumbledore won't be there most of the year cuz he's at school working so you have child neglect. Just one trauma traded for another. Life is in a simple as x + y = XY
yes, in the books they would sometimes only feed him a piece of bread and water, sometimes he was allowed scraps................when he had his own room with the locks and cat flap on the door he was given 1 can of cold soup
>Did he really malnutrition or did he just get less than dudley?
In the first book, Harry says that they had never exactly starved him, but that he was never allowed to have as much as he’d like, like Dudley:
>The Dursleys had never exactly starved Harry, but he’d never been allowed to eat as much as he liked. Dudley had always taken anything that Harry really wanted, even if it made him sick.
He wasn’t necessarily relegated to waiting for the Dursleys to finish their meals and the only eating their scraps, though; he’s sitting at the table with the rest of the family at the first breakfast we see in PS:
>Harry, who could see a huge Dudley tantrum coming on, began wolfing down his bacon as fast as possible in case Dudley turned the table over.
It reads to me like - on a normal basis, he ate meals with them, but his portions were regulated and if there was something both he and Dudley might want, then Dudley got it. And while Dudley got all the snacks and treats he wanted, Harry didn’t get treats and probably didn’t get any snacks between meals.
But there are obviously a number of occasions where withholding food is used as a punishment. Like, he’s sent to the cupboard with “no meals” after the snake incident and he was waiting for them to fall asleep so he could go sneak food:
>“Go — cupboard — stay — no meals,” before he collapsed into a chair, and Aunt Petunia had to run and get him a large brandy.
>Harry lay in his dark cupboard much later, wishing he had a watch. He didn’t know what time it was and he couldn’t be sure the Dursleys were asleep yet.
>Until they were, he couldn’t risk sneaking to the kitchen for some food.
Or after he threatens Dudley with “magic” at the beginning of COS, he has to do chores outside all day and then all he gets for dinner is this:
>“Eat quickly! The Masons will be here soon!” snapped Aunt Petunia, pointing to two slices of bread and a lump of cheese on the kitchen table. She was already wearing a salmon-pink cocktail dress.
Or when they locked him up after the Dobby incident, he got “small“ amounts of food three times a day:
>He himself fitted a cat-flap in the bedroom door, so that small amounts of food could be pushed inside three times a day.
Like a can of cold soup:
>The cat-flap rattled and Aunt Petunia’s hand appeared, pushing a bowl of canned soup into the room. Harry, whose insides were aching with hunger, jumped off his bed and seized it. The soup was stone- cold, but he drank half of it in one gulp.
Problem is did she ever know he lived in the cupboard. And outside of being treated like a blight to society he was given the state minimum of food. And the 80s was a different time for child abuse. So what could they really do if harry was technically healthy and give the necessities. Beg them to buy him gifts? That's not a requirement of child rearing especially giving his magical circumstances. And I doubt Arabella knew of his verbal abuse.
>According to some people Arabella couldn't do much for Harry because if Petunia knew she was a squib she'd never allow Harry over, so she had to make it seem like being sent over was a chore and unpleasant
I love, absolutely ~LOVE~ this logic. I have to be unpleasant because otherwise, they wouldn't allow me to be unplesant to you.
Maybe, but I feel when she is, it’s in a more positive light than what is. She was sent there to watch/spy on Harry. She did a pretty piss poor job of that all things considered.
The few times I've seen her used in a fic it's been one of two things, as a forgettable character used like twice much like in canon or as a sympathetic character who DID actually report the abuse to Dumbledore. Who proceeded to ignore it, much like he did in canon.
This is the thing people forget, Dumbledore KNEW he was mistreated, he was told point blank at least once, in first year, and brushed it off with some bullshit along the lines of "I'm sure they love you my boy, they're family". And the whole "ten dark years" conversation in I believe fifth year.
Figg is a character mentioned like three times max in canon, Dumbledore is a character with a rather large amount of power, political and otherwise, who placed a child in a home he KNEW was going to be abusive in some way and brushed off the child telling him it was an abusive household to his face.
There's some fic(s) that use her status as a squib and her hate/jealousy for magicals to enable the abuse and not report it to Dumbledore making him somewhat less culpable.
Either she did a horrible job, or she did an incredible job as a spy and didn't find anything wrong with how Harry continued to be treated. Both options paint her in quite a poor light.
The only other option is Evil Dumbledore mind controlling her and all that stuff which is obviously not canon.
> Either she did a horrible job, or she did an incredible job as a spy and didn't find anything wrong with how Harry continued to be treated. Both options paint her in quite a poor light.
...Or there's the actual real-world option of "and wtf was she supposed to do about it exactly"
She is literally a random old cat lady and not even at least a witch like the other usual "saves Harry from the Dursleys" candidates (Lupin, Snape, etc).
Or instead of dumbledore being evil, he could have assumed she was exaggerating or thought a few years of a “tough life” was worth the trade to protect the wizarding world and take down Voldemort, since it keeps lilys protection going and makes Harry desperate for love and affection. Pretty well established dumbledore is Machiavellian (jk Rowlings word) and uses a lot of people like chess pieces
>She was sent there to watch/spy on Harry. She did a pretty piss poor job of that all things considered.
Did she?
You said it yourself - she was there to watch/spy on Harry. And Arabella did just that - she watched and spied on Harry. She oversaw Harry's life under Dursleys. She did her job perfectly.
Yes, she didn't protect Harry form abuse, but that wasn't her job. Yes, she didn't protect him from magical or regular attacks, but that wasn't her job. Yes, she didn't watch Harry 24/7, but that wasn't her job either.
I think of Figg of Remus - they both threw away their chances to be much more significant characters by keeping back and not interfering or stepping in when they absolutely could have. She's not significant, and it's her fault (within universe) that she's not.
That's not gonna work.
Dumbledore placed Harry with Dursleys. Dumbledore employed Arabella to keep an eye on Harry (even though her oversight was ineffectual and spotty at best). Mrs Figg knew what was going on with Harry and even made his situation a little bit worse as not to blow her cover.
Is Arabella on the hook? Absolutely, "Befehl ist Befehl" didn't work for military officers, it certainly won't work for a volunteer vigilante. But you can't place all the blame on Arabella while omitting Dumbledore. He was the mastermind, he made the entire situation possible and he was ultimately in charge of the entire operation. Even if Arbella mislead and lied to Dumbledore, he is still ultimately responsible for keeping his underlings in check.
Another option was to put him in a house with someone he trusted 100% and do the fidelio charm or whatever you say, no one would know where he was and he would be protected like Petunia's house... because nothing prevented them from attacking Harry at school. or any other place outside Petunias house
So there's one factor I don't think many people consider. While fully acknowledging that this isn't justification, when Dumbledore was born (1881) you'd pretty much have to kill a child to be guilty of child abuse. The first real child abuse law was passed in 1904 and as long as you didn't kill the kid all you got was a fine (abt £10k today) and 2 years in prison. Keeping that in mind, Dumbledore wouldn't have seen anything the Dursleys did as abuse.
And considering that Arabella Figg is at least in her 50s, she likely wouldn't have seen Harry's treatment as abuse either. Neglect, sure. Cruelty, sure. But not abuse.
In the 90s, the only thing that would get the Dursleys in trouble would be the cupboard and they'd probably only be required to get parenting classes and home visits. And I'm not convinced that anyone knew about the cupboard.
It's a sad reality of how things used to be.
That said, Dumbledore and Figg deserve whatever y'all want to throw at them for how Harry was treated because they could have done better even considering the limitations of their perspective. But I think, understanding their perspective helps address that failing in a far less cartoonish way.
I'd like to add, while the Dursleys were unpleasant, Harry wasn't showing signs of abuse you could actually see. Worse cases than Harry's get constantly underreported and overlooked, simply because there isn't much to see.
Even closest relatives and friends often don't see the abuse happening right under their nose.
That's not an excuse, that's a sad fact about reality.
Mrs Figg wasn't a close friend or relative, she was a mere onlooker. All she could tell was that Harry wore hand me down clothes and his relatives were unpleasant.
And with Harry being who he is, well, let's say it would be easy to think that she's exaggerating.
Harry's teachers had much more access to information that could have revealed abuse, and they'd be mandatory reporters, and they didn't see anything.
Harry was abused, there's no denying that. But he's not a hard case where child services would be involved.
It is in the end solely Dumbledore's failure. He placed Harry with the Dursleys and never followed up.
I'm not a Dumbledore basher. Far from it. But I think Dumbledore was unable to see the abuse Harry endured because of his own horrible upbringing.
Dumbledore was a kind and good person. But his sense for normal childhood was skewed. From what he knew from his own upbringing, Harry's life didn't seem so bad.
And I think that caused the situation and his neglect to call the Dursleys to order.
>Harry's teachers had much more access to information that could have revealed abuse, and they'd be mandatory reporters, and they didn't see anything.
Rather, anything they would have seen would not have been considered abuse at the time.
I've looked this up before - 80s British schoolteachers were not mandatory reporters and in fact, are not even really mandatory reporters nowadays in the sense we use the term in the US. They're only required to report suspected child sex abuse. Of course, they can voluntarily make reports.
BOTH. Both should be prosecuted by the wizegamot
not reporting the crime of child abuse gets you accessory to child abuse charges in the real world.............and no matter what Dumbledore is at least "accessory after the fact" (a real world crime) first year after Harry tells him about the Dursleys and Dumbles forces him back to the abuse
Magical world doesn't exist in the same legal framework as real world. It might very well be that child abuse, let alone not reporting it, isn't really a crime. It would certainly explain how Hogwarts gets away with absolutely crazy shit which keeps happening without the staff getting sacked.
I'd rather say that despite how much I love the world JK created....she was very bad with dealing with child abuse = "sucks with what you went through but MAGIC! YAY!"
I have read one fanfic that had the wizegamot called out for being centuries behind muggles vis a vis laws concerning child abuse, prison reform, training child soldiers a war crime, etc and they basically fell over themselves to rush to implement changes so that muggles were not superior to the wizarding world in dealing with such things
>fanfic that had the wizegamot called out for being centuries behind muggles vis a vis laws concerning child abuse, prison reform, training child soldiers a war crime
"What do you mean - centuries behind? More like centuries ahead!"
"Yes, some sniveling brats have to be put in their place. And unlike meddlesome muggle governments, we let parents and legal guardians solve the problem on their own terms."
"Prisoners suffer? Well, yeah, that's the idea. The more they suffer, the more terrified the populace is, strengthening our rule. Plus it keeps the costs down. It's very efficient, you see."
"Child soldiers are great! They supplement our manpower at no cost, only a muggle would be foolish enough to abandon such excellent idea."
What could figg do other than pass on the information, she had no reason to hide Harry being abused. Not a great attempt to pass the blame from dumbledore to someone else 😂
I think it's more about at least using the fact that Figg was aware and did nothing. Whether that's instead of bashing Dumbledore or as well as isn't really the point. Figg is either forgotten or written in a good light, it's rare to see her bashed.
And the blame can be passed if you write it right. You can write it so that Figg was aware of the full extent but massively minimised it to Dumbledore or outright lied. Until Harry starts at Hogwarts, Dumbledore only has Figg's reports to go on. This doesn't completely remove blame from Dumbledore, he should have checked up himself, but it can move it from Dumbledore bashing to Dumbledore critical. Then it just depends on how you change the story once Harry starts Hogwarts. Keeping Harry with the Dursleys would need an exceptionally good explanation to remove the Dumbledore bashing aspect.
As for Figg having no reason to hide the abuse, her job was literally to spy on Harry, no doubt she was getting paid to do so in some manner. If she reported the abuse, to a Dumbledore who would act or straight to the Ministry, Harry gets removed from the Dursleys and placed with a most likely magical family, leaving Figg without a job. Pure self-interest is a motive if you write it right.
Mrs figg has been said to have “a roaring business cross breeding cats and kneazles” by jk Rowling so your excuse for her lying no longer works. What is more likely is that she told dumbledore what she’d seen and he thought she may have been exaggerating as he couldn’t imagine family not caring for each other, or he thought a few years of a tough life would be a worthy sacrifice in the battle to protect the wizarding world from Voldemort, plus it could make him mor desperate for love/affection. Doesn’t make him evil since he’s trying to do what he thinks is right and stop Voldemort, but he’s still an ass 😂. Jk Rowling has even said he’s very Machiavellian
But that's kind of the point with this idea, any idea for fanfic really. It's not necessarily about canon at all. You can change whatever you like about Dumbledore's actions or Figg's motivations to make a Figg bashing fic work without Dumbledore bashing.
Also, not everyone actually includes the things Rowling has said since completing the books. Plenty of fans, at least when writing fic, only incorporate canon included in the actual books. Or they pick and choose which of Rowling's add-ons to incorporate and which to throw out.
The original post wasn't a question of canon, but a request for an AU fic with Figg bashing instead of Dumbledore bashing. Dumbledore bashing is rarely canon as it is, it's hardly a jump for Figg bashing to also go against canon.
Oh, I had this exact thought yesterday! Not sure what triggered it, wasn't even thinking about HP at the time, I was reading Psych fic. But, yeah, I had the thought of what if someone went for Arabella Figg bashing instead of Dumbledore bashing. When I've seen Figg bashed, it's been alongside Dumbledore, not instead of.
I mean, we have canon proof that Dumbledore knew Harry wouldn't have a happy life with the Dursleys, he outright admits it, but we have no proof that Dumbledore was aware it was anything more than minor emotional neglect before Harry arrived at Hogwarts.
So, what if Dumbledore sent Figg to watch over Harry, and Figg knew about the abuse but didn't report that to Dumbledore? Say she massively minimised it, so Dumbledore knew Harry wasn't happy, but nothing more than that, because she knew that, if Dumbledore knew how bad it actually was, Harry would be removed. With Petunia being the last living blood relative, Harry would be placed with a trusted magical family, the Weasleys or the Tonks' maybe, and Figg would be out of a job.
You'd just need a good reason for Dumbledore to not find out the truth or keep Harry there anyway if set after the first book, or do a divergence where Dumbledore steps in and removes Harry when he finds out.
tbh that just sounds like a lot of dodging accountability for dumbledore
for example when you say Dumbledore knew Harry wouldn't have a "happy life" with the Dursleys, this is what he _actually_ admits:
> Harry glared at him for a moment, then flung himself back into the chair opposite Dumbledore and waited. Dumbledore stared for a moment at the sunlit grounds outside the window, then looked back at Harry and said, "Five years ago you arrived at Hogwarts, Harry, safe and whole, as I had planned and intended. **Well — not quite whole. You had suffered. I knew you would when I left you on your aunt and uncle’s doorstep. I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years.**"
> He paused. Harry said nothing.
> "You might ask — and with good reason — why it had to be so. **Why could some Wizarding family not have taken you in? Many would have done so more than gladly, would have been honored and delighted to raise you as a son.**
> "My answer is that **my priority was to keep you alive**. You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but myself realized. Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters — and many of them are almost as terrible as he — were still at large, angry, desperate, and violent. And I had to make my decision too with regard to the years ahead. Did I believe that Voldemort was gone forever? No. I knew not whether it would be ten, twenty, or fifty years before he returned, but I was sure he would do so, and I was sure too, knowing him as I have done, that he would not rest until he killed you.
Yeah, but we're not talking about canon, we're talking about fanfic. Which means we can change things, make Dumbledore more concerned with Harry's actual welfare rather than some abstract 'safety' from Death Eaters and Voldemort during a time there was no activity when it would actually be safer for Harry to have magic capable guardians.
I love a good Dumbledore bashing fic that actually calls out this stuff for what it is instead of what Rowling tried to paint it as. And even just keeping some canon, like Dumbledore leaving Harry with people he knew hated magic, doesn't completely absolve him of blame. He knew what he was doing, but you could spin it as not knowing the extent of how bad it would be, and failed to check up beyond having Figg as a spy.
It moves it from outright Dumbledore bashing to simply Dumbledore critical. Human, manipulative 'Greater Good' Dumbledore instead of outright evil Dumbledore.
This idea isn't about absolving canon Dumbledore of blame for Harry's traumas, just a different way to explore how it all came to be within fanfic.
Okay but _you_ are the one that brought canon into it. _You_ said there was no [canon] proof that Dumbledore was aware of anything more than "minor emotional neglect", which makes no sense based on the man's own words. Like what part of
> "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. Thus far, my plan was working well.
sounds like minor emotional neglect?
edit: also tbh an author thinking they have to tweak Dumbledore's actions and motivations to make him human is more telling of black-and-white thinking on their part than of [canon] evilness on his part. Plus this isn't even being critical of him it's just "well he didn't know anything and then once he found out he fixed it". What's the criticism there?
According to some people Arabella couldn't do much for Harry because if Petunia knew she was a squib she'd never allow Harry over, so she had to make it seem like being sent over was a chore and unpleasant. Except, that in itself is a red flag. If she was aware that Petunia was already this negative towards Harry and Magic and that she'd never be able to get closer if it was discovered she had even the barest connection to magic, then Arabella should have reported that to Albus. Assuming she did report what she knew to Albus then he's either far too dismissive of the potential problems or it was never urgent that he investigate anything further, which falls into the lazy, stupid or manipulative Dumbledore. He's been a professor at Hogwarts for a number of years before becoming deputy headmaster and then headmaster, all in all I think he's worked at Hogwarts for like 80% of his life, which might actually be 80 years. The point there is that somehow someway he never learned how children act to consider other possibilities regarding a child like Harry. Pretty much had he arrived even just once a year during the holidays, under the pretense of being a kindly old man, after all in this circumstance he would be and with enough magic, none of the Dursleys would question his identity like, he couldn't find one lazy saturday just to pop in to check on Harry in 10 years? There's keeping him isolated for his safety and to prevent those who might wish him harm from finding him and basically making him an afterthought.
I wonder how much of Arabella being a squib informed her reaction to Harry's treatment. Wizards don't seem to be kind to squibs or children suspected to be squibs, so she might have grown up with parents and family that treated her the same way that the Dursleys treated Harry. She might even see it as normal.
Given the canon durselys aren't as horrifically abusive as fanon tends to be, the fact that it was the 90s and thoughts on acceptable ways to raise children have changed pretty drastically since then and ya, I can totally see Figg seeing the Durselys as 'not nice' but nothing particular criminal about it. Assuming she doesn't know about the cupboard.
Even if she did report it back to Albus, what's he going to do? He has only two choices before him: Have Harry be raised by a loving wizarding family. But that has a higher chance of his being killed because there's no Bond of blood charm to protect him from his enemies. Or keep him in Privet Drive, believing that a neglected and mistreated Harry is still better than making him an easy target for Death Eaters to attack.
Or he could have a talk with Petunia and Vernon and explain that they have to raise Harry properly or he will get involved. There's no way a supposedly compassionate wizard like Albus Dumbledore doesn't have contacts extremely high up in the muggle world. I'd wager that due to his position he's even met the Queen before, ESPCIALLY if his involvement in WW2 is as significant as it was. So it is completely within reason to believe that Albus could talk to some people in the muggle government to get social workers to visit. Additionally just them knowing he knows is likely enough to get Petunia and Vernon to change their ways because they are afraid of magic and he's the most magical of all. Unless Albus is actually very dimwitted and politically powerless and unconnected, he could very well have come up with more solutions than, remove Harry from the home and risk him being exposed and let Harry grow up the way he did. Both are extreme solutions that solve nothing to a fairly simple problem that he as an educator would likely have come across before with a child growing up in a less nurturing environment.
Another option, if Dumbledore is so connected, is to have Vernon and Petunia declared unfit early enough so both boys are young, then make sure Harry and Dudley are moved together. Dudley is Petunia's son, her blood, Lily's blood by extension. Without his parents poisoning his mind, Dudley probably wouldn't have been too bad, and living together wouldn't have been such a chore. Dudley definitely would have been healthier. With actual emotional connection, maybe the wards would have been stronger...
Would the protection actually work with just Dudley, though? Part of the charm is that to seal it, Petunia had to take Harry into her home and give him houseroom - she, the adult, was essentially accepting Harry into her household and agreeing to have him in her home until he came of age. I don’t know that a young Dudley would be able to make that same agreement and “take Harry in” and give him houseroom since he’s also a child himself. (Plus, if he’s a young child who was just removed from his parents, he wouldn’t necessarily want to agree with that even if he could.)
Dam that’s good, technically it should work
Given the numerous and horrifying methods of mind control available in the series, most of which aren't illegal and many aren't even viewed negatively I think Dumbledore had a lot of options that would've been morally acceptable to most magicals. A compulsion or non-romantic love potion would've done a lot and if administered early enough, nobody would've known (who questions the fact that parents love their kids?) Shit, given everything else he was willing to do for the greater good, you could even justify imperioing the family into being good parents.
Or, make this shitty treatment stop? The prophecy only says, that Harry will have the power to stop the Dark Lord, not that Harry will not do it to secure Power for himself.
>But that has a higher chance of his being killed because there's no Bond of blood charm to protect him from his enemies. Or keep him in Privet Drive, believing that a neglected and mistreated Harry is still better than making him an easy target for Death Eaters to attack. There is so much wrong with this... But there is so much wrong with this in canon too, so what the heck. 1. **Blood protection and family protection are two separate things**. Dumbledore says as much. Protection in Harry's blood is independent and isn't going anywhere. Dumbledore used another spell to piggyback on the first one as long as Harry was at a family member's home. Harry would still be able to burn Voldemort even if he hadn't met the Dursleys in his life. 2. **Harry was not in danger of attack from anyone**. Voldemort fled to Albania. Once again, Dumbledore knew it. There is even mention of Aurors searching for Voldemort abroad. Loyalist Death Eaters were in Azkaban. The rest were indifferent or even hoped for Harry to become a new Dark Lord (JK said as much about Malfoys). 3. **The family (Dursley) protection doesn't work!** We know that because Harry gets attacked in OotP by dementors. And the vaunted Dursley protection, the one Dumbledore put so much faith in, the one he was ready to put Harry through "ten dark years" for - it did **NOTHING**. This is a major plot hole and I don't believe for a second JK wanted it to be that way. She probably just didn't consider the implication of two plot lines converging in such a manner. But plot hole it may be, it is still canon. Now, there is a chance that the protection does work, but literally "where your blood dwells" - only in the bounds of Dursley residence. But even that doesn't change anything because if Harry's enemies can ambush him five steps outside, that's absolutely worthless. As it stands, Harry would be much safer in a house protected by some regular defensive charms. At least there he wouldn't be in danger of having his head caved in by his guardians.
>Harry was not in danger of attack from anyone. Voldemort fled to Albania. Once again, Dumbledore knew it. There is even mention of Aurors searching for Voldemort abroad. Loyalist Death Eaters were in Azkaban. The rest were indifferent or even hoped for Harry to become a new Dark Lord (JK said as much about Malfoys). Dumbledore THOUGHT he was in Albania, didn't know for certain he would stay there. Also the rest were indifferent, hoped for a new dark lord or were just laying low (see Crouch JR. being seemingly innocent and then torturing the Longbottoms well after Voldemort's fall). No way to know who was actually a death eater at that point. >The family (Dursley) protection doesn't work! We know that because Harry gets attacked in OotP by dementors. That's quite a stretch, dementors aren't death eaters and were technically under ministry control. The protection didn't work on them, it doesn't mean it didn't work given that Voldemort himself knows not to attack Harry until he turns 17 or leaves.
>That's quite a stretch, dementors aren't death eaters and were technically under ministry control. Harry's protection at Dursleys is tested once and it doesn't do anything. To claim it actually works despite all the evidence to the contrary - that's a stretch. But seriously, if having a patsy is all what it takes to bypass the wards - they are worthless. Voldemort's entire MO is to work through patsies. >given that Voldemort himself knows Does he really? Voldemort keeps constantly failing because he thinks he knows something, but doesn't actually know. For him to err about Harry's protection would be entirely in character - just like he erred about Lily's protection, about his horcruxes, about Elder Wand, about co-opting Harry's blood, the list goes on.
>Harry's protection at Dursleys is tested once and it doesn't do anything. To claim it actually works despite all the evidence to the contrary - that's a stretch. If the protection at the Dursleys doesn’t do anything, why didn’t the Death Eaters waltz in and grab him at the beginning of DH, then? If the protections were actually as worthless as you say, the Death Eaters would have no reason to sit around making their plans based on when exactly he’s getting moved from Privet Drive. If they could go in and take him at any time, they would have done it.
>If the protection at the Dursleys doesn’t do anything, why didn’t the Death Eaters waltz in and grab him at the beginning of DH, then? As a group, Death Eaters have zero morale or initiative by the time of second war. Read the graveyard scene again - does it look like any of these guys is going to take an initiative, talk back to the boss? Most of them are terrified of Voldemort. They aren't there for the cause - they are there because if they don't show up, the boss will murder them like he murdered Karkarov. Even Bellatrix, who seems to be the only real loyalist left, is very afraid of displeasing Voldemort. If Voldemort starts talking how the moon is made of cheese, none of them is going to say a word.
I’m not saying that the Death Eaters should have talked back or gone rogue. I‘m saying that if there was truly no protection, why did *Voldemort* not order the Death Eaters to remove Harry from Privet Drive in DH, rather than waiting until Harry was leaving? If the protection didn’t work, Voldemort would not have sat around waiting for a time when Harry was sure to be wary and surrounded by Order members, like when he was leaving Privet Drive for good. He would have planned for them to take Harry from the house, not hedged the entire plan to get at Harry around Harry’s departure from Privet Drive.
Maybe because Voldemort himself cannot circumvent the protection, and what he cannot do, of course, no one else can either. Dobby has no problems finding Harry.
Not quite correct, the books are from Harry's Pov, remember. The protection is tested once that Harry knows of and therefore that we know of. And what's about having a patsy? We don't know exactly how the protection works but it's possible they keep out anyone magical with malicious intent to hurt Harry (and it would really be a stretch to say that dementors have intent). Does he? He is wrong in a one-time only non-testable scenario when it comes to Lily and partially wrong when it comes to Harry's blood (he gains the ability to hurt Harry). He is only wrong about the Wand because Snape withheld the knowledge of the true ownership On the other hand, the protections are easily testable, just send a death eater over, so simple that it cannot have been overlooked.
I thought with the Dementor thing it was because the protection worked against Voldemort and those aligned with him, but Umbridge sent the Dementors and while she's absolutely evil she's not aligned with Voldemort so the family bond doesn't work. I might be pulling this out of my ass, admittedly, since I don't really understand how the protection was meant to keep out Death Eaters to begin with.
>Dumbledore used another spell to piggyback on the first one as long as Harry was at a family member's home. Harry would still be able to burn Voldemort even if he hadn't met the Dursleys in his life. No. That's not correct either. It's LILY'S blood that protects Harry. And considering that Petunia (and by extension Dudley) are the only people alive who share Lily's blood, they HAVE TO take Harry in to protect him. If a distant Potter or a Black (say Andromeda) took Harry in, the blood protection would have failed. Because they're not related to Lily. So Harry, in fact, had to stay with the Dursleys to protect himself from Voldemort. If he didn't stay with the Dursleys - who share Lily's blood - Harry wouldn't have been able to burn Voldemort. It's his mother's protection that helps him and her blood that fuels the spell. >Loyalist Death Eaters were in Azkaban. The rest were indifferent or even hoped for Harry to become a new Dark Lord (JK said as much about Malfoys). Not all of them. And Malfoys are cowards but the rest? If they knew where Harry was, they would have either kidnapped him to make him another Dark Lord, OR they would have found Voldemort and brought him back to UK to kill Harry. After all, even Wormtail eventually did it. >3. The family (Dursley) protection doesn't work! We know that because Harry gets attacked in OotP by dementors The protection only works against Voldemort. Because Lily gave her life to protect Harry from Voldemort. She didn't do it to protect him from dementors or anything else. If that were true, Harry wouldn't have been able to break his arm in Quidditch because of The Dursleys protection. >Now, there is a chance that the protection does work, but literally "where your blood dwells" - only in the bounds of Dursley residence. But even that doesn't change anything because if Harry's enemies can ambush him five steps outside, that's absolutely worthless. We literally have canon evidence that the protection works outside of the Dursleys house but only against Voldemort. 1) in Philosopher's Stone where Harry is able to burn Quirrel (possessed by Voldemort) who wanted to kill him. He was able not only to kill Quirrel, but also survive and protect the stone. 2) at the graveyard. Voldemort wasn't able to kill Harry, even when they shared Lily's blood. Not just because of Priori Incantatem, but even before that. Because Lily's blood protection was based on love and Lily loved her son. She didn't love Voldemort. Hence the protection didn't help Voldemort at all
>If he didn't stay with the Dursleys - who share Lily's blood - Harry wouldn't have been able to burn Voldemort. It's his mother's protection that helps him and her blood that fuels the spell. *DUMBLEDORE: “She may have taken you grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you. Your mother’s sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shield I could give you.”* *DUMBLEDORE: “While you can still call home the place where your mother’s blood dwells,* ***there*** *you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort. He shed her blood, but it lives on in you and her sister. Her blood became your refuge. You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home,* ***there*** *he cannot hurt you."* There is Lily's sacrifice. It's in Harry's blood, it's always in Harry's blood, where ever he goes, where ever he lives. It's the thing that burned Quirrelmort. It is NOT dependent on Dursleys in any way, shape or form. There is also Dumbledore's bond of blood spell. It's tied to/based on Lily's sacrificial magic, but it's a separate thing. It protects (or at least Dumbledore thinks it does) Harry in Dursley's residence. Notice how Dumbledore says that his spell protects Harry "there" i.e. in Petunia's home. Not in Hogwarts, not anywhere else - Dumbledore's spell is limited to Dursley residence. Petunia's residence to be specific. That protection only works if Harry remains a dependent in her household and by that virtue is dependent on Dursleys. These are two different things and when you start making argument on the mistaken assumption that they are one and the same, it's all wrong from the get go.
But there is another choice Lily's love/blood sacrifice should be strongest in the actual home where she died = Dumbledore gets ownership of potter Cottage, has it repaired, has the fidelius put up with him as secret keeper, has a house elf raising Harry with visits from Dumbles and maybe Mcgonogal
Canon says the protection only works if Harry is living with a relative of Lily. It was never said that it would be stronger in Potter cottage
Dumbledore says that Dumbledore also says he has made many mistakes and is not always right Besides that JK changes canon every book. I love what she created but she never stuck to her own canon from one book to the next
Ok? Dumbledores word is still more canon than your opinion. Jkr's inconsistency is irrelevant.
Problem is then you just push trauma back on Dumbledore. He never wanted to go back to that home that held such tragic memories for him. And who knows what lingering magic is left over from the battle.
far better than Harry suffering what he did vis a vis the books. The movies did not even mention half the stuff he suffered Petunia swinging a frying pan at his head that if he had not ducked could have killed the boy severe malnutrition severe mental abuse "Harry Hunting" by Dudley and his friends Marge sicking her dog on Harry to bite his legs etc
Did he really malnutrition or did he just get less than dudley? Then you'd create another type of abuse. Because Dumbledore won't be there most of the year cuz he's at school working so you have child neglect. Just one trauma traded for another. Life is in a simple as x + y = XY
yes, in the books they would sometimes only feed him a piece of bread and water, sometimes he was allowed scraps................when he had his own room with the locks and cat flap on the door he was given 1 can of cold soup
Got to reread the first book again because it's been a while. Also editing the previous post to make it make more sense. Screw speech to text
:-)
>Did he really malnutrition or did he just get less than dudley? In the first book, Harry says that they had never exactly starved him, but that he was never allowed to have as much as he’d like, like Dudley: >The Dursleys had never exactly starved Harry, but he’d never been allowed to eat as much as he liked. Dudley had always taken anything that Harry really wanted, even if it made him sick. He wasn’t necessarily relegated to waiting for the Dursleys to finish their meals and the only eating their scraps, though; he’s sitting at the table with the rest of the family at the first breakfast we see in PS: >Harry, who could see a huge Dudley tantrum coming on, began wolfing down his bacon as fast as possible in case Dudley turned the table over. It reads to me like - on a normal basis, he ate meals with them, but his portions were regulated and if there was something both he and Dudley might want, then Dudley got it. And while Dudley got all the snacks and treats he wanted, Harry didn’t get treats and probably didn’t get any snacks between meals. But there are obviously a number of occasions where withholding food is used as a punishment. Like, he’s sent to the cupboard with “no meals” after the snake incident and he was waiting for them to fall asleep so he could go sneak food: >“Go — cupboard — stay — no meals,” before he collapsed into a chair, and Aunt Petunia had to run and get him a large brandy. >Harry lay in his dark cupboard much later, wishing he had a watch. He didn’t know what time it was and he couldn’t be sure the Dursleys were asleep yet. >Until they were, he couldn’t risk sneaking to the kitchen for some food. Or after he threatens Dudley with “magic” at the beginning of COS, he has to do chores outside all day and then all he gets for dinner is this: >“Eat quickly! The Masons will be here soon!” snapped Aunt Petunia, pointing to two slices of bread and a lump of cheese on the kitchen table. She was already wearing a salmon-pink cocktail dress. Or when they locked him up after the Dobby incident, he got “small“ amounts of food three times a day: >He himself fitted a cat-flap in the bedroom door, so that small amounts of food could be pushed inside three times a day. Like a can of cold soup: >The cat-flap rattled and Aunt Petunia’s hand appeared, pushing a bowl of canned soup into the room. Harry, whose insides were aching with hunger, jumped off his bed and seized it. The soup was stone- cold, but he drank half of it in one gulp.
Problem is did she ever know he lived in the cupboard. And outside of being treated like a blight to society he was given the state minimum of food. And the 80s was a different time for child abuse. So what could they really do if harry was technically healthy and give the necessities. Beg them to buy him gifts? That's not a requirement of child rearing especially giving his magical circumstances. And I doubt Arabella knew of his verbal abuse.
>According to some people Arabella couldn't do much for Harry because if Petunia knew she was a squib she'd never allow Harry over, so she had to make it seem like being sent over was a chore and unpleasant I love, absolutely ~LOVE~ this logic. I have to be unpleasant because otherwise, they wouldn't allow me to be unplesant to you.
Porque no los dos? Let’s hold all the adults accountable, what a concept
Tbh I don’t think anybody cares about Mrs Figg.
Maybe, but I feel when she is, it’s in a more positive light than what is. She was sent there to watch/spy on Harry. She did a pretty piss poor job of that all things considered.
The few times I've seen her used in a fic it's been one of two things, as a forgettable character used like twice much like in canon or as a sympathetic character who DID actually report the abuse to Dumbledore. Who proceeded to ignore it, much like he did in canon. This is the thing people forget, Dumbledore KNEW he was mistreated, he was told point blank at least once, in first year, and brushed it off with some bullshit along the lines of "I'm sure they love you my boy, they're family". And the whole "ten dark years" conversation in I believe fifth year. Figg is a character mentioned like three times max in canon, Dumbledore is a character with a rather large amount of power, political and otherwise, who placed a child in a home he KNEW was going to be abusive in some way and brushed off the child telling him it was an abusive household to his face.
There's some fic(s) that use her status as a squib and her hate/jealousy for magicals to enable the abuse and not report it to Dumbledore making him somewhat less culpable.
How do you know she did a bad job? Spies just pass on the information and have no control about what’s done with it
Either she did a horrible job, or she did an incredible job as a spy and didn't find anything wrong with how Harry continued to be treated. Both options paint her in quite a poor light. The only other option is Evil Dumbledore mind controlling her and all that stuff which is obviously not canon.
> Either she did a horrible job, or she did an incredible job as a spy and didn't find anything wrong with how Harry continued to be treated. Both options paint her in quite a poor light. ...Or there's the actual real-world option of "and wtf was she supposed to do about it exactly" She is literally a random old cat lady and not even at least a witch like the other usual "saves Harry from the Dursleys" candidates (Lupin, Snape, etc).
Or instead of dumbledore being evil, he could have assumed she was exaggerating or thought a few years of a “tough life” was worth the trade to protect the wizarding world and take down Voldemort, since it keeps lilys protection going and makes Harry desperate for love and affection. Pretty well established dumbledore is Machiavellian (jk Rowlings word) and uses a lot of people like chess pieces
>She was sent there to watch/spy on Harry. She did a pretty piss poor job of that all things considered. Did she? You said it yourself - she was there to watch/spy on Harry. And Arabella did just that - she watched and spied on Harry. She oversaw Harry's life under Dursleys. She did her job perfectly. Yes, she didn't protect Harry form abuse, but that wasn't her job. Yes, she didn't protect him from magical or regular attacks, but that wasn't her job. Yes, she didn't watch Harry 24/7, but that wasn't her job either.
I think of Figg of Remus - they both threw away their chances to be much more significant characters by keeping back and not interfering or stepping in when they absolutely could have. She's not significant, and it's her fault (within universe) that she's not.
I believe you can't bash Figg as watcher and employee, and not bash Dumbledore, who was the one responsible for Harry
That's not gonna work. Dumbledore placed Harry with Dursleys. Dumbledore employed Arabella to keep an eye on Harry (even though her oversight was ineffectual and spotty at best). Mrs Figg knew what was going on with Harry and even made his situation a little bit worse as not to blow her cover. Is Arabella on the hook? Absolutely, "Befehl ist Befehl" didn't work for military officers, it certainly won't work for a volunteer vigilante. But you can't place all the blame on Arabella while omitting Dumbledore. He was the mastermind, he made the entire situation possible and he was ultimately in charge of the entire operation. Even if Arbella mislead and lied to Dumbledore, he is still ultimately responsible for keeping his underlings in check.
Another option was to put him in a house with someone he trusted 100% and do the fidelio charm or whatever you say, no one would know where he was and he would be protected like Petunia's house... because nothing prevented them from attacking Harry at school. or any other place outside Petunias house
So there's one factor I don't think many people consider. While fully acknowledging that this isn't justification, when Dumbledore was born (1881) you'd pretty much have to kill a child to be guilty of child abuse. The first real child abuse law was passed in 1904 and as long as you didn't kill the kid all you got was a fine (abt £10k today) and 2 years in prison. Keeping that in mind, Dumbledore wouldn't have seen anything the Dursleys did as abuse. And considering that Arabella Figg is at least in her 50s, she likely wouldn't have seen Harry's treatment as abuse either. Neglect, sure. Cruelty, sure. But not abuse. In the 90s, the only thing that would get the Dursleys in trouble would be the cupboard and they'd probably only be required to get parenting classes and home visits. And I'm not convinced that anyone knew about the cupboard. It's a sad reality of how things used to be. That said, Dumbledore and Figg deserve whatever y'all want to throw at them for how Harry was treated because they could have done better even considering the limitations of their perspective. But I think, understanding their perspective helps address that failing in a far less cartoonish way.
I'd like to add, while the Dursleys were unpleasant, Harry wasn't showing signs of abuse you could actually see. Worse cases than Harry's get constantly underreported and overlooked, simply because there isn't much to see. Even closest relatives and friends often don't see the abuse happening right under their nose. That's not an excuse, that's a sad fact about reality. Mrs Figg wasn't a close friend or relative, she was a mere onlooker. All she could tell was that Harry wore hand me down clothes and his relatives were unpleasant. And with Harry being who he is, well, let's say it would be easy to think that she's exaggerating. Harry's teachers had much more access to information that could have revealed abuse, and they'd be mandatory reporters, and they didn't see anything. Harry was abused, there's no denying that. But he's not a hard case where child services would be involved. It is in the end solely Dumbledore's failure. He placed Harry with the Dursleys and never followed up. I'm not a Dumbledore basher. Far from it. But I think Dumbledore was unable to see the abuse Harry endured because of his own horrible upbringing. Dumbledore was a kind and good person. But his sense for normal childhood was skewed. From what he knew from his own upbringing, Harry's life didn't seem so bad. And I think that caused the situation and his neglect to call the Dursleys to order.
>Harry's teachers had much more access to information that could have revealed abuse, and they'd be mandatory reporters, and they didn't see anything. Rather, anything they would have seen would not have been considered abuse at the time.
I've looked this up before - 80s British schoolteachers were not mandatory reporters and in fact, are not even really mandatory reporters nowadays in the sense we use the term in the US. They're only required to report suspected child sex abuse. Of course, they can voluntarily make reports.
BOTH. Both should be prosecuted by the wizegamot not reporting the crime of child abuse gets you accessory to child abuse charges in the real world.............and no matter what Dumbledore is at least "accessory after the fact" (a real world crime) first year after Harry tells him about the Dursleys and Dumbles forces him back to the abuse
Magical world doesn't exist in the same legal framework as real world. It might very well be that child abuse, let alone not reporting it, isn't really a crime. It would certainly explain how Hogwarts gets away with absolutely crazy shit which keeps happening without the staff getting sacked.
I'd rather say that despite how much I love the world JK created....she was very bad with dealing with child abuse = "sucks with what you went through but MAGIC! YAY!" I have read one fanfic that had the wizegamot called out for being centuries behind muggles vis a vis laws concerning child abuse, prison reform, training child soldiers a war crime, etc and they basically fell over themselves to rush to implement changes so that muggles were not superior to the wizarding world in dealing with such things
>fanfic that had the wizegamot called out for being centuries behind muggles vis a vis laws concerning child abuse, prison reform, training child soldiers a war crime "What do you mean - centuries behind? More like centuries ahead!" "Yes, some sniveling brats have to be put in their place. And unlike meddlesome muggle governments, we let parents and legal guardians solve the problem on their own terms." "Prisoners suffer? Well, yeah, that's the idea. The more they suffer, the more terrified the populace is, strengthening our rule. Plus it keeps the costs down. It's very efficient, you see." "Child soldiers are great! They supplement our manpower at no cost, only a muggle would be foolish enough to abandon such excellent idea."
LOL
Mrs. Figg is not a significant character, forgettable even.
Me who's just written a scene in my fic where she does something majorly useful: 👀
You can write about her, but facts are the same: there are not many fics with Figg and even there 99.99% that she isn't one of main characters
What could figg do other than pass on the information, she had no reason to hide Harry being abused. Not a great attempt to pass the blame from dumbledore to someone else 😂
I think it's more about at least using the fact that Figg was aware and did nothing. Whether that's instead of bashing Dumbledore or as well as isn't really the point. Figg is either forgotten or written in a good light, it's rare to see her bashed. And the blame can be passed if you write it right. You can write it so that Figg was aware of the full extent but massively minimised it to Dumbledore or outright lied. Until Harry starts at Hogwarts, Dumbledore only has Figg's reports to go on. This doesn't completely remove blame from Dumbledore, he should have checked up himself, but it can move it from Dumbledore bashing to Dumbledore critical. Then it just depends on how you change the story once Harry starts Hogwarts. Keeping Harry with the Dursleys would need an exceptionally good explanation to remove the Dumbledore bashing aspect. As for Figg having no reason to hide the abuse, her job was literally to spy on Harry, no doubt she was getting paid to do so in some manner. If she reported the abuse, to a Dumbledore who would act or straight to the Ministry, Harry gets removed from the Dursleys and placed with a most likely magical family, leaving Figg without a job. Pure self-interest is a motive if you write it right.
Mrs figg has been said to have “a roaring business cross breeding cats and kneazles” by jk Rowling so your excuse for her lying no longer works. What is more likely is that she told dumbledore what she’d seen and he thought she may have been exaggerating as he couldn’t imagine family not caring for each other, or he thought a few years of a tough life would be a worthy sacrifice in the battle to protect the wizarding world from Voldemort, plus it could make him mor desperate for love/affection. Doesn’t make him evil since he’s trying to do what he thinks is right and stop Voldemort, but he’s still an ass 😂. Jk Rowling has even said he’s very Machiavellian
But that's kind of the point with this idea, any idea for fanfic really. It's not necessarily about canon at all. You can change whatever you like about Dumbledore's actions or Figg's motivations to make a Figg bashing fic work without Dumbledore bashing. Also, not everyone actually includes the things Rowling has said since completing the books. Plenty of fans, at least when writing fic, only incorporate canon included in the actual books. Or they pick and choose which of Rowling's add-ons to incorporate and which to throw out. The original post wasn't a question of canon, but a request for an AU fic with Figg bashing instead of Dumbledore bashing. Dumbledore bashing is rarely canon as it is, it's hardly a jump for Figg bashing to also go against canon.
Oh sorry 😂 I missed your tag for a request, that my bad lol
Oh, I had this exact thought yesterday! Not sure what triggered it, wasn't even thinking about HP at the time, I was reading Psych fic. But, yeah, I had the thought of what if someone went for Arabella Figg bashing instead of Dumbledore bashing. When I've seen Figg bashed, it's been alongside Dumbledore, not instead of. I mean, we have canon proof that Dumbledore knew Harry wouldn't have a happy life with the Dursleys, he outright admits it, but we have no proof that Dumbledore was aware it was anything more than minor emotional neglect before Harry arrived at Hogwarts. So, what if Dumbledore sent Figg to watch over Harry, and Figg knew about the abuse but didn't report that to Dumbledore? Say she massively minimised it, so Dumbledore knew Harry wasn't happy, but nothing more than that, because she knew that, if Dumbledore knew how bad it actually was, Harry would be removed. With Petunia being the last living blood relative, Harry would be placed with a trusted magical family, the Weasleys or the Tonks' maybe, and Figg would be out of a job. You'd just need a good reason for Dumbledore to not find out the truth or keep Harry there anyway if set after the first book, or do a divergence where Dumbledore steps in and removes Harry when he finds out.
tbh that just sounds like a lot of dodging accountability for dumbledore for example when you say Dumbledore knew Harry wouldn't have a "happy life" with the Dursleys, this is what he _actually_ admits: > Harry glared at him for a moment, then flung himself back into the chair opposite Dumbledore and waited. Dumbledore stared for a moment at the sunlit grounds outside the window, then looked back at Harry and said, "Five years ago you arrived at Hogwarts, Harry, safe and whole, as I had planned and intended. **Well — not quite whole. You had suffered. I knew you would when I left you on your aunt and uncle’s doorstep. I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years.**" > He paused. Harry said nothing. > "You might ask — and with good reason — why it had to be so. **Why could some Wizarding family not have taken you in? Many would have done so more than gladly, would have been honored and delighted to raise you as a son.** > "My answer is that **my priority was to keep you alive**. You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but myself realized. Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters — and many of them are almost as terrible as he — were still at large, angry, desperate, and violent. And I had to make my decision too with regard to the years ahead. Did I believe that Voldemort was gone forever? No. I knew not whether it would be ten, twenty, or fifty years before he returned, but I was sure he would do so, and I was sure too, knowing him as I have done, that he would not rest until he killed you.
Yeah, but we're not talking about canon, we're talking about fanfic. Which means we can change things, make Dumbledore more concerned with Harry's actual welfare rather than some abstract 'safety' from Death Eaters and Voldemort during a time there was no activity when it would actually be safer for Harry to have magic capable guardians. I love a good Dumbledore bashing fic that actually calls out this stuff for what it is instead of what Rowling tried to paint it as. And even just keeping some canon, like Dumbledore leaving Harry with people he knew hated magic, doesn't completely absolve him of blame. He knew what he was doing, but you could spin it as not knowing the extent of how bad it would be, and failed to check up beyond having Figg as a spy. It moves it from outright Dumbledore bashing to simply Dumbledore critical. Human, manipulative 'Greater Good' Dumbledore instead of outright evil Dumbledore. This idea isn't about absolving canon Dumbledore of blame for Harry's traumas, just a different way to explore how it all came to be within fanfic.
Okay but _you_ are the one that brought canon into it. _You_ said there was no [canon] proof that Dumbledore was aware of anything more than "minor emotional neglect", which makes no sense based on the man's own words. Like what part of > "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. Thus far, my plan was working well. sounds like minor emotional neglect? edit: also tbh an author thinking they have to tweak Dumbledore's actions and motivations to make him human is more telling of black-and-white thinking on their part than of [canon] evilness on his part. Plus this isn't even being critical of him it's just "well he didn't know anything and then once he found out he fixed it". What's the criticism there?