Options
Harry Potter: Are The Dursley's Really That Bad??
XOXoAbbieoXOX
Posts: 1,150 Forum Member
✭✭✭
I know that for the first 11 years, Harry Potter was underneath the stairs and barely seen as part of the family. It was all about dear ol' dudders, but...do you think that seeing as they took Harry in when he was left on their doorstep rather than shipping him off to an orphanage means there is some goodness in their hearts after all?
I know it was never clear what was said in the letter that was written to them when Harry was left with them, given that Petunia seemed to strongly dislike Lily and was full of jealousy because she was the watch and herself, not, maybe the letter contained something which forced them to take care of Harry.
In my opinion, I do think there was some kindness there, after all, despite the fall out's they had over the years, Harry was always let back there. Although some could argue that they had an obligation, to be honest, if they'd really wanted Harry to go somewhere else, they could have sent him away.
I know it seems rather deep to think about this, but to be honest, it's something I've always wondered.
I know that Dudley redeems himself, so at least one of them turned out to be nice.
What do you all think?
I know it was never clear what was said in the letter that was written to them when Harry was left with them, given that Petunia seemed to strongly dislike Lily and was full of jealousy because she was the watch and herself, not, maybe the letter contained something which forced them to take care of Harry.
In my opinion, I do think there was some kindness there, after all, despite the fall out's they had over the years, Harry was always let back there. Although some could argue that they had an obligation, to be honest, if they'd really wanted Harry to go somewhere else, they could have sent him away.
I know it seems rather deep to think about this, but to be honest, it's something I've always wondered.
I know that Dudley redeems himself, so at least one of them turned out to be nice.
What do you all think?
0
Comments
yeah , I remember that , but which book is it in ? is it in the films as well ?
btw - are they in the last movie ?
Depending what they mean by redeems himself I would guess it happened in the last book.
They are not in the last film, but they are in Part 1
It's in the last book, should have been in Deathly Hallows part 1 but wasn't.
They did film those scenes for Deathly Hallows Part 1 but didn't include them for the final cut. You can catch those scenes on the DVD/Blu-ray.
The set up for the books needed the Dursley's to be awful to emphasise the "rescue" of Harry. And like most children's books, the adults are disposed of as quickly as possible.
Let's face it, had the Dursley's been very nice and had treated Harry as one of their own, there would have to be some explaination and exploration as to why a nice family interested in the wellbeing of their children would be at all happy to see one of their children shipped off to boarding school to learn about magic.
Bit career narrowing or what?
What if Harry pre eleven had showed an interest in becoming a doctor, lawyer, scientist, fireman, policeman or a soldier in the armed forces and the family was supportive of those choices?
Makes it all sound so serious which it obviously was. But the way JK writes the Dursley material makes me laugh every time. Harry is a strong lad and stands up the Dursley's all the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14uzbvzkQHo
However, taking it off topic a bit here, but the biggest crime was that this scene was cut from the film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrPM87KvK1Q&feature=related
It explained so much (especially for movie-only fans).
The deleted scenes prove once and for all that David Yates can't direct for shit. I've never seen a director add absolutely nothing to a moment like that. He could have made so much more out of every single emotional beat in the story. The Dudley scene is pathetically staged. No wonder it was cut, it's awful even by Yates's standards.
there is something in the books about it , dumbledore says something about harry being safe with them because they're muggles or related to harry's parents ... I forget now , someone will know .
I hope .
The reason he has to live with them is the charm left from Lilys death means that while Harry can call a place were his mothers blood still lives home, Harry can not be hurt there (by Voldy or his wrong dooers anyway) Hope that helps
Also, on Topic, Its like a prev poster says, The Dursleys need to be bad people for the story to work. However If we took them as real people then I'd say they was pretty vile people looking after Harry through fear of harm from people they fear, and cannot understand (Perhaps a drop of guilt on Petunias side too), but choosing to subject to him an less then happy upbrining.
Vernon isn't really a bad person, just none too bright. I think he actually believes he is doing the right thing. A few lines of his are very telling.
Dudley, in his final scene (book) is brilliant. Another one who is easily led and not very bright rather than being downright evil.
Children's books they may be and, while there are some characters who are black or white, so to speak, there are quite a few subtleties there too. Take, for example, two of the most important supporting characters - Snape (well, he's a main character really) and Draco. One of the reasons Half-Blood Prince is my favourite of the series is because it begins to show that Draco is conscience-stricken. Not one of the goodies by any means, but not totally bad either. The same goes for his mother, who might be a bit of a bitch, but who is willing to go against Voldemort for the sake of her son. Then there's Slughorn, who is obviously one of the good guys, but is also a very self-serving character who is only interested in people who can boost his reputation.
As for Snape, well he's the standout character of the whole series for me. Let's not forget that he was once a real Death Eater, long before he pretended to be one. And yet he is the ultimate hero of the books, happy to be seen as the bad guy and hated by those around him so he could do good.
The good characters aren't always completely good, and the bad characters aren't always completely bad. The Harry Potter series has plenty of grey areas too.
But that's much later in the series. The characters and the books grow up a lot over the whole series. But even then they rely on them being books for children and so the big questions don't really exist.
The first book is a straight up children's book. The only reason I read it at the time was because my oldest was 9/10 and reading it and I'd heard a lot of fuss about it.
It's a wonderful children's book, I remember getting a real sense of being at the start of something huge, something that would last for children long after all of us have gone. Much like the other children's classics.
But it is formulaic, no parents/adults to interfere with the adventures, adults are in supporting roles merely there to facilitate the main story of the children.
When (and if) you read any of the HP books without remembering they are written for children, great gaping holes start to appear and they fall apart.
Absolutely agree on the Roald Dahl front - when I picked up the first book, I was heavily reminded of the sort of antagonists he put in his children's books... they're very much comparable to Matilda's parents (in fact, I always pictured Mr and Mrs Dursley as looking like Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman, who play Mr and Mrs Wormwood in the film version of Matilda). They're the sort of adults that children really despise - obsessed with appearances and gossiping about the neighbours, and on the whole quite dull... It's effective, because it makes you identify with the protagonist that is alienated by them, and the most important character that you should care about in the whole saga: Harry Potter.
On the whole, the Dursleys aren't that bad when it comes down to it - as much as anything, they provide an excellent source of comedy in the books, and for that, it’s difficult to hate them.
Like the Malfoys their worst actions are driven by fear and ignorance, neither of which are evil, they're just things without which we would all be much better people.
She said that Dudley was the Muggle version of Draco, as in that they were both only children, both spoiled by their parents but in a way morally neglected, both raised to believe that certain types of people were inferior to them (with Draco it was muggle-borns and with Dudley wizards), and they were both typical bullies, yet cowards. Then Dudley eventually sided with Harry and began to respect him, as did Draco, whom without Harry, Hermione and Ron would have probably been killed.
I beg to differ.
Bellatrix?
Wormtail?
Barty Crouch Junior?
Quirrel?
Nagini
Don't worry, I'm nitpicking.
Quirrel I think regreted his whole timeshare-turban arrangement but by that point it was too late.
Evil people are not capable of love.
But she's also capable of murder. In cold blood. Cold blooded murder without any guilt whatsoever is just one of my personal criteria of evilness.