if harry was raised by mcgonnagle, he probably would've defeated voldemort in the first book and would've still made it back in time for tea, looking like it never happened, lol
Something else to add: JK Rowling herself dispelled the horcrux theory on Pottermore. She said the real reason the Dursleys were such jerks to Harry is as follows: "James was amused by Vernon, and made the mistake of showing it. Vernon tried to patronise James, asking what car he drove. James described his racing broom. Vernon supposed out loud that wizards had to live on unemployment benefit. James explained about Gringotts, and the fortune his parents had saved there, in solid gold. Vernon could not tell whether he was being made fun of or not, and grew angry. The evening ended with Vernon and Petunia storming out of the restaurant, while Lily burst into tears and James (a little ashamed of himself) promised to make things up with Vernon at the earliest opportunity." In this description Vernon hated Harry because he felt embarrassed by his father, who Harry uncomfortably reminded him of. What’s more, Harry doesn’t have the aggressive abusive effect on any of the other people in his life, other people he is around for years. If anything, Harry inspires the opposite in people-he makes them want to do good and more and better. It’s part of what makes him an excellent leader.
Yes-I was going to say the same thing-Harry doesn't have this effect on the other characters-certainly not to the same extent as the locket. Some of them dislike him but this tends to be for other reasons rather than some weird curse effect.
All good points, but just regarding the last point: Everybody else that Harry spent considerable time with, he met at the age of 11. Not 1. It's possible that Harry's own soul, which is stronger than Voldemort's, has an overall positive effect on those around him, but it took time to develop that way. At the age of 1, Harry was, well, a baby. Just a baby, with a piece of Voldemort's soul in him. Also, everybody else that we've seen Harry have any effect on were witches and wizards; the Dursleys are the only Muggles we see... and it is kind of odd that none of Harry's teachers growing up ever contacted social services about the family with two children who are quite obviously treated radically differently (although maybe not... Dumbledore may have had a hand in that). But the point is, maybe it has a more pronounced effect on Muggles. And third, I don't think anybody's trying to absolve the Dursleys of all blame. They were petty and small-minded people to begin with. J's just commenting on how the emotional abuse and neglect might have gotten so out of control. (one theory, at least. The truth is, though, plenty of families IRL act just like the Dursleys without any magical influence whatsoever. There's even a name for it. Scapegoating.)
You know who's a good example of a HEALTHY SLYTHERIN? Hiro Okumura - from 'Isekai Word Cheat', the Manga. He likes Books a lot, so you think first of Ravenclaw, but then you realize that: no, he's actually a Slytherin. A very, very healthy one. He's always thinking of his own benefit, but in a very healthy way, that is rather hard to describe. He's affecting everyone, but not manipulating anyone, if you get what i mean. He's also teaching people being polite - in a very rude manner though (lol)... He's practical and teaches people that most importantly. Mercy, Kindness and all that are indeed Positive BUT you can also NOT EXPECT them - you need to pay people for their work, for example. And that's just a summary about him.
Wait wait, James was a chaser and yes, being the captain of the quidditch team gives you the same rights of a prefect, Hermione says that when Harry becomes one in the sixth book
@ABIGAIL KIRK in some countries, they changed the translation and made James seeker, just like Harry became, thats why in the movies this played out this way... so fans dont get confused, in the original James is a chaser, in a lot of other languages (including my native, greek) James is a seeker just like Harry... i got confused a lot after reading the books in my native language and then in the original one... and i realized it after that this had happened
Everyone I’ll clear this up This is in America ( I can’t say for other countries ) Movie - James is seeker so it can be a special moment because Harry is like his father Book - James is chaser ( I don’t know why ) probably because it is the most common position
Could've fed the poor boy though... Like that was full child abuse. I would let it through if they were strict, and weren't too praiseworthy towards Harry as his image as the boy who lived.
tbh in this alternate timeline i could imagine harry and malfoy still being 100% rivals. two syltherin boys, both arrogant and feeling like a leader? they'd see eachother as competiton from day 1.
Roenais but Harry wouldn't be in SLYTHERIN. I think he was almost put in slytherin because a piece of voldys soul was trapped In him. So if VOLDY had never killed lily and James than Harry wouldn't be a horcrux so I don't think he would've been in slytherin he still would've been in Gryffindor. Just my theory.
But Scorpious Malfoy wasn't like Draco. Draco raised him to be better than himself. Wouldn't James who matured have done the same with Harry? And Harry's generous nature seems to come from James who despite his faults was pretty generous. He opened his home to Sirius and he financially supported Remus. Not to mention, he was friends with misfits rather than jocks. And he accepted a werewolf as a friend and became an animagus for him. Even Harry's nature of not being prejudiced against muggles/muggle-borns, half-breeds and werewolves despite being abused by various muggles (unlike Snape and Voldy) also seems to stem from his Potter DNA. James showed no such prejudice and his grandfather, Henry stood up for muggles.
Except if Harry had been brought up by Lily and James, he would have had his circle of friends, and he would have had expectations based on his father's skill, but "EVERYONE" wouldn't have known him, and he probably would have been fairly normal, since by all accounts both his parents were open minded and kind in most areas (slytherin and death eaters being James apparent exception) and if he didn't rebel against his dad's reputation he probably still could have turned out to be a natural leader, maybe even a better-rounded wizard if he'd grown up in the environment.
@Sylvia Schultz True, but James himself was pretty capable of generosity despite his privileged and pampered upbringing. Harry could still have been generous like James was, even if he grew up privileged. Remember that James still accepted a werewolf as a friend to the point of going an extra mile to keep him company during the full moon. And he showed not prejudice against anyone except those in Slytherin and into Dark Arts, so Harry would have been just as accepting of people.
They more despised James than Lilly, at least for Petunia. They were awful, but she WAS still Lilly's sister and Petunia even mentions this fact in the books, and is likely why they even took in Harry to begin with. Petunia let her jealousy of her sister fester and they never had a chance to make their relationship better, and Vernon did NOT help. But if Lilly had lived, I don't think Petunia would have held that grudge forever, and she likely regrets driving that wedge in on some level now that she will never get the chance to reconnect with her sister again.
Lilith Da Hobbit I also think that that theory about the Dursley’s has a problem because he should have had that effect on everyone at Hogwartz, especially those living in his room such as Ron.
@@conservativecatholic9030 being magic could have something to do with it. They may have a greater immunity than a muggle, and generally morale was high. The Dursleys were already pretty nasty people so the horcrux probably didnt corrupt them so much than it worsened the existing issue.
Having grown up in an abusive household, the Dursleys treatment of Harry made me instantly empathize with him, especially Dudley. Growing up, my step sister always was treated better than I was (which I don't blame her for, she's actually a wonderful human being and I love her deeply), so that moment at the beginning of Deathly Hallows where Dudley lets his guard down and respects Harry as an equal was especially powerful for me, and stands out as one of my favorite parts of the books. We can't choose who raises us, but that doesn't mean we have to resent those we were raised with, who have just as little control over their situation as we do.
disneyjunkie19 lol isn't that the same Lilly who abandoned snape for james who has a long history of bullying snape so I doubt Lilly would try to get involved in the parenting of father and son
God of destruction Champa yeah but your forgetting Snape slowly got worse as a person and James slowly got better. Snape ended up calling Lily a Mud-blood and joining the death eaters. Where as James realised the error of his ways and apologised proving to Lily that he could be better. I don't know about you but I'd much rather be with James than Snape after that
The problem with “the Dursleys aren’t to blame! Harry’s a horcrux!” is; Hermoine and Ron spend far more time with him. He has NO effect on anyone else he’s around a lot.
Yes but they ACTUALLY like him and the Dursley's had to have him in pretty much 24/7 close proximity at least until kindergarten or whatever is the British equivalent.
But they didn't ron and Hermione expend like 7 years with Harry and mostly the school days and some more, and the dursley spend 10 years every single day with harry
Well Dudley got kinder and Petunia admitted to having always loved her sister but that was over shadowed by her jealous so what if it was harry who kept them from making those changes sooner and just strengthen Petunias jealousy
"We don't ever get an answer as to why Lily marries James" a few minutes later "he apparently turns a new leaf in his seventh year." You literally answered your own question, J, lol. James grew up, stopped hexing people unless they attacked him first, which allowed Lily to see the good side of him (the side that took in Peter, an outcast, became an illegal animagus for a werewolf, and had Sirius come live with him when things got bad at home.) I don't think Harry would have turned out to be like Draco, had he been raised by J&L, I think he probably would have been more like Fred and George. Lily was a sweetheart, and James was inherently a good person. I assume he would have been raised around Remus and Sirius at least, and possibly Peter if he didn't turn on them. Lupin would have a hard time with work, though would have the help of his friends. So Harry would probably see a lot of Lupin in Ron and Hermione. And he would have still probably have avoided Draco, having heard of the pureblood elitists from Sirius. Possible he would have tried to convert Draco into being a better person, knowing people can change. Yes, Harry would have been a different person, but I don't think he'd be a bad person. Just mischievous, a little more confident, and just a fun-loving guy who was good at Quidditch.
realize the topic, but i think "oh, your dad's a big deal? im albus potter" works better. i mean jesus, being the son of the wizarding worlds biggest hero...nobody gets a "bigger deal" dad than harry's kids lol
If Dursleys were mistreating Harry because he is a horcrux, wouldn't everyone else he spends so much time with, like Hermione, Ron, Ginny, Dumbledore and basically everyone at Hogwarts, behave with him the same way? But they don't. Soooooooooo
Shimin Shamim well technically throughout the book, everyone around Harry starts to get irritable. Like how Hermione and Ron fought and at some point everyone was turning on him. The Dursleys were extra mean due to him living with them for so long 11 years! Also when Harry starts going to Hogwarts, they do get slightly nicer towards him (even if it wasn't much) because the effect decrease if you are away from it for a while. It could also mean that a human being a horcruxs could have a slightly different outcome on other compared to actual objects. (sorry if I misspelled or if thing I just said didn't make sense)
It depends on how the horcruxes work. I think the theory isn't bad, because horcruxes don't seem to have the ability to just create negativity and discord, but rather to amplify what is already there, and because they affect the owner specifically. The horcrux only affects the person who possesses it, not everyone in its vicinity, which is why it affected Ron the worst - he spent the most time wearing the locket. As his adoptive family, the Dursleys possess Harry in a way his friends and the Weasleys don't. The Dursleys already harbour negative feelings towards magic, and Harry by extension. Petunia was fearful (and possibly jealous) of Lily, and no doubt she's spent all her time telling Vernon and Dudley how dangerous magic is, inspiring the same fear in them. And they had to live with Harry year after year, unlike Harry's classmates, who at least get some time away from him. And Harry and Dudley do actually kind of have a moment where, if not friends, they at least aren't completely at odds - when Harry saves him from dementors. Whereas Ron, Hermione and Harry's classmates love Harry before they've even met him. He's a hero who saved the world, and he's winning house cups and killing it on the Quidditch field. There's no negative feelings towards him, as even those who would envy his fame recognise that being an orphan sucks. When you think about how all Harry's classmates turn on him in OOTP, I think this makes even more sense. The first time anyone has any real reason to hate Harry, and almost everyone turns on him in a way which seems so unreasonable to the reader - unless they';re under the influence of the horcrux
Charles Morton while your theory was incredibly well done and thought out, I have to disagree with it on a principle. 1.)There is a distinct difference for love of a celebrity and love on a personal level. Especially because you must know how easily people demonized celebrities. If Harry's horcrux was in full affect, even if it was just amplifying existing emotions, a lot more people would have hated Harry for his fame, likability, naiveté, etc. etc. and those feelings would have quickly amplified. Yet that did not occur. We know for a fact that Ron was jealous of Harry but he did not act on his jealousy because he knew that Harry was not at fault. 2.) If that theory was true, there is no way that Harry's roommates would put up with him that long if he was really negatively affecting your emotions. I have a roommate myself, and while she's a great person, you're bound to have arguments all the time over ridiculous things. The fact that these were not regularly occurring, or even frequent disproves that theory, and says a LOT about Harry's likability and his roommates' patience. 3.) A quick point, in Order of the Phoenix, they were all fifteen. There is no world, I don't care what magic exists, in which a bunch of jealous, angsty, emotional teenagers do not turn against each other. 4.) The entire idea of Harry secretly being at fault is a concept commonly associated with victim blaming, and on principle, no matter how convincing your argument was, I can not agree with it. (Sorry by the way, this is very long and tedious to read, [especially since they aren't even real] but I feel very strongly about defending the Potters and Marauders because of the unnecessary disdain they receive from the fandom due to distorted canon). Have a nice day/night.
I somehow don't think that Harry would've turned into Malfoy if he had been raised by James and Lily. James might've been an asshat but I have to believe he changed enough for Lily to fall for him, mostly everyone Harry meets seem to always be praising her, they often speak about how kind hearted and lovely she was (besides praising her abilities). So I'd like to believe that someone like that wouldn't go for a bullying prick? She would fall for whoever James became, the kind of person who would face off against one of the most powerful wizards alive, and who would sacrifice himself for his family. So, under the watchful gaze of Lily, he would've been just as kind and thoughtful, if not a little too brave and with a penchant for getting into trouble (he IS James' son, after all).
But Harry wasn't raised by his parents. Harry knew next to nothing to know about them, so any personality he had would be his own, so who really knows? Without the Dursleys he might have been raised completely different. If his parents had lived he might have been more arrogant like his father had been. We can't know what might have happened, we can only speculate.
Gio Zaffini you also only really see James through Snape's memory and therefore, Snape obviously didn't like him so he's gonna be a bit bias and rememeber James as worse than he might have actually been
Nope, the Pensive Memories are the most unbiased and clear-cut way to view anything. If anything, it gives James benefit of being cleared of context of several years of constant bullying not directly shown. And I'd have to argu about 'the gentle Lily'. She not only wanted to smile at her best friend's public sexuall-assault, she also left said best friend to be further assaulted in public. I would never do it to random human, let alone supposed friend.
Book Lover we don't know that James was entirely arrogant though. In the films especially, the only perspective shown on James is from Snape's, his school rival, point of view. Remember that James also, befriended a werewolf and underwent incredibly complex, likely excruciatingly painful magic between the ages of 13-17 in order to assist said friend. He also befriended Sirius, who was an outcast in his family, and likely very intolerant at first based on his upbringing. He also took Sirius in after he was disowned by his family. He even saved his rival from a possibly deadly "prank" setup by his friend, which included turning against previous bias and standing up to his friend. While his attitude towards Snape was unacceptable, we can hardly dismiss his entire being as "arrogant".
If Harry wud hv been raised by someone like Sirius, he'd still be the Harry we know. Either adverse conditions or the right guidance/loving environment make ppl empathetic.
If he had been raised by Sirius, he'd have likely turned out just like James and Sirius did in their youth. Cocky, brash, and overconfident in their appearance, skills, and abilities, but still a decent person at the end of the day that needs some growing up...aka, prolly dead before book 2 lol.
@Arel Murmu But why do you say Harry could be raised well by Sirius but not his parents? Lily was against bullying and arrogance while we're told James deflated his head and grew out of his bullying. So why isn't it possible Harry's parents would raise him right?
@David Ortiz Considering Lily was against arrogance and bullying and James had deflated his head and grown out of his bullying, isn't it at least possible Harry's parents would raise him right and not to be arrogant?
My favorite alternative to both answers, is... . . . Let McGonagle raise him. She wouldn't let him become another James/Malfoy and he would have defeated Voldy in first year and be back in time for tea.
If Harry corrupted the Dursleys , then why didn't corrupt Ron and Hermione and the other Gryffindor boys? He slept in the same room with them for about 8 hours a day.
The 2nd year people did indeed turn on Harry because of Voldy's soul but not because it was corupting them like it did with Ron but because it made Harry parseltongue which made him suspiciously fiting for the role of the heir of Slytherin. In 5th book people turned on him because someone framed him into participating in the tournament. It had nothing to do with Harry and the effects he could possibly have on the other students.
Wow. Really interesting perspective. I don't know. I would like to think Harry would always be the great wizard we know him as today, but you can't discount the effect his upbringing has on who he is. Thanks for the video J!
Except he was never great. Most of everything he has accomplish was because of feelings, luck, or help. Harry never had a distinct characteristic that made him a great wizard, but just a good guy main character what will always save the day because he is the main character. Harry is a good person, but not a good wizard.
Shineeey How many spells does he know? How much time did he trained? How many books has he read? How much research has he done? How much knowledge did he seek? Did he gain all of his power by hard work and being educated or did he gain all of these power to even surpass Voldermort, who had years of experience and training, because he's the main character?
@@Arthur-go2ow I think objectively they couldn't have been, but no part of this video actually addresses the idea of Harry growing up in a normal household, which James and Lily *might* have been able to provide, or the fact the situation Harry did come from actually makes him predisposed to BE a bully.
I don't know. Abusing and neglecting a child can't be excused because the child turned out okay. Both Harry and Voldemort grew up without love and both Harry and Ron grew up without wealth/power. The only child who grew up with both love and wealth/power was Hermione who is confident and morally astute. If she is the only example we have in this universe of someone who has it all, we could make the argument that Harry would've been very similar.
Elle Clements I don't think you understand that this isn't about what is moral or not, only what is the truth. Obviously abuse is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that it can create better people in certain circumstances.
+Flaiden She grew up with power as she knows it. Power doesn't have to mean access to the wizarding world. It can mean having valued opinions, wealth, or educational opportunities. E.g. Ron arguably doesn't have much power despite growing up in the Wizarding world.
+Flaiden She grew up with power as she knows it. Power doesn't have to mean access to the wizarding world. It can mean having valued opinions, wealth, or educational opportunities. E.g. Ron arguably doesn't have much power despite growing up in the Wizarding world.
+Bose-Einstein But a lot of moral arguments include exactly that factor- that the consequences can somehow justify the actions. The question they asked was (as a paraphrase) 'Do we mind that they were mean to Harry, given how he turned out?'. And I would suggest that the answer is Yes. We should still mind.
+Flaiden We are talking about pre-Hogwarts development. the first meeting between Harry and Draco occurred on the first day, in which their personalities and prejudices have already been established. Thus Hermione is entering a state of low status after previously being in one considerably higher.
Voldemort had hundreds of supporters and evidently even such protections as the Fidelius charm didn't help in the end. As the only bloodrelatives they were literally the only ones who could give fool-proof protection until Harry's adulthood. That sounds like a good-enough reason to raise the only one able to stop the genocidal rule of a megalomaniac leader who enjoys killing...
Dumbledore was ruthless about Harry's destiny anyway- he WAS WILLING TO KILL HIM TO STOP VOLDY- he didn't know FOR SURE that Harry would come back. I'm sure abuse seemed soft after that. Although, to be fair to Dumbledore, he does say to the Dursleys that their treatment of Harry was unacceptable, and a doubt he realised when he dropped him off they were that awful.
Chief Justiciar of England yes well done 👏 I didn't call the English language British. I just said that it was a British word because it's not a word Americans are familiar with, who also speak English. Therefore it is a British word.
But what does that mean? To which other insult could you compare it to? (I'm French but I do know a lot of insults in English thanks to american gamers, but english not so much)
Randall Flagg it means someone who is mischief - although it could be an insult it could also show Lily thinks of James as a lovable rogue as it is similar to words like 'rascal' - think Artful Dodger from Oliver
My philosophy for the entire series is: if things had started out good, they would've ended badly. Things had to start out the way they did, or the story would lose it's true meaning---or be called the Neville Longbottom series.
I have heard this point of view many times and I do agree to some extent that the Durlsey's did contribute this his personality I feel like he wouldn't turn out like Malfoy. First of all, you have to consider how much of Harry's personality was moulded by the Durlsey's and how much of it was it his own. I like to think Harry is still a good person in nature, In fact it is quite a testament to Harry how he still manages to have a heart of gold and not become bitter despite being raised in such conditions. Snape was also treated poorly at home and yet he came out of it bitter and cruel and even joined the Death eaters. This shows how the two are fundamentally different. Also, I feel like your judgement on James is a bit harsh. Yeah he is arrogant and yeah he is a bully but you have to remember that memory was from Snape's perspective and is biased and according to the other marauders, Snape wasn't just a helpless victim, he attacked the marauders just as much and was even hanging out with wannabe death eaters according to Lily. James was also still a good kid despite this. He befriended three outcasts and became an animagus in order to help his werewolf friend despite being raised in a society that is prejudice against werewolves. And surely, kind and passionate Lily would never had gone out, married and had a child with James if he had never changed for the better. Surely Lily would never let her son become as arrogant as James once was. In conclusion I believe that while Harry would be a bit arrogant and not nearly as humble as he would with the Durlsey's, his kind nature would still be retained.
i believe that everybody forget that Snape was a bully, too. And considering the character we know, he was probably one of those who hid behind his more powerful friends to make something and then, when James came to answer his attack, he was alone and unprotected bc that what fake friends are. Sure, James appeared like a bully, but only to Snape and only on his perspective and we don't know how the deal was when actually lonely, weak people were around and who he was really. We don't know James Potter but everybody seems so sure of themselves calling him in any way it just pisses me off. Harry wasn't humble when he was with the Dursley, he was abused. It's a totally different thing.
Yes, I agree completely. It really annoys me when people bash James for being a "bully" when we only get to see it through Snape's perspective. Can you really judge him based on one memory from a man who hated him when they were children. Snape isn't a poor innocent victim, he dabbled in dark arts, planned to use a dangerous spell on his enemies (The marauders), joined in with wannabe death eaters to use some dark spells on Mary MacDonald, another student and tries to brush it off as just a laugh. Even Lily who doesn't even like James at this point says "At least he doesn't use dark magic" and even wonders why Severus is so obsessed with the marauders. I could go on but we would be here all day. James Potter may have been arrogant and may have been a bit of a toe rag, but he changed for the better, he changed for Lily because he loved her unlike Snape who though he was entitled to her due to their friendship. Snape was abused but it certainly didn't make him humble, and it certainly didn't make Harry humble.
So true, my take on snape is that i think he was very smart and very very brave but nevertheless he was still an ass. Like why the hell did he have to torture nevil to the point where Snape became nevils boggart
One of the things with this is that Harry's parents didn't discriminate against the different types of wizards, they didn't believe that muggle-born wizards were worse than "pure-bloods." Draco Malfoy, however, was raised to believe that pure-bloods were supreme, and that muggle-born wizards were like dirt. Also, it's good to remember that some kids, once they hit that age, become sick of the fame they grew up with. Being that famous, you don't really have a lot of time to yourself, and I feel like he wouldn't have rubbed it in anyone's face. It's also worth noting that the kind of upbringing you have has a strong impact on who you are, so in his case the Dursleys taught him that discrimination and bullying is wrong, and people have feelings, even if they're different than you. If Harry had grown up with Lily and James, I think they would've taught him to be generous, kind-hearted, and non-discriminative. So, I think he would've turned out relatively the same, although missing his parents is a big point in the book. It's also worth thinking about that if Lily and James were still alive, that would mean that Harry and his family wouldn't have been attacked by Voldemort, and Neville could've been the chosen one, and Harry wouldn't be famous at all.
Although harry could have become more arrogant, he would still be raised by two members of the order of the pheonix, so i doubt he would be anything like malfoy, and he does seem to have his mothers traits of being kind and generous. But maybe instead of ron he would have been friends with neville, whos parents were also loyal members of the order
What about Ron, Hermione, Ginny, and Molly?! They loved Harry more than anyone else! They definitely would have felt the effects of Harry being a horcrux. The Dursleys just flat out hated Harry.
I never saw them as "hating" Harry but were purposefully tough on him to keep his wizard side a secret so that he wouldn't know. If they truly hated him they would have dumped him at the closest orphanage and that would have been that. But they choose to take him in even though Vernon couldn't handle the truth that magic was real and Petunia was always jealous her sister was the special witch. Even their final goodbye showed that they cared. But I suppose that is what is great about books, you can interpret things in many ways. Wanna see an abusive home for magical children just look at Matilda...she had it way worse than Harry and her parents gave her away without a second thought or care in the world. At least the Dursley's showed the slightest affection (very rarely). Myt only question was how did Hagrid give Dudley a pig tale against a muggle with no reprecussions when later Harry does one spell in self-defense of a muggle and all of a sudden it's a big to-do.
Warrka4 no, the dursleys hate magic and anything "abnormal" and punish Harry even for dreaming of "impossible" things like flying motorbikes. Also, loving/caring about someone and being abusive to them are not mutually exclusive, unfortunately.
Molly was in his presence only for few hours or days per year, Ron, Hermione and Ginny almost only in the school, the single most magically protected place in the country, which must have had protective effect on horcrux magic. Even the diary of Tom Riddle (50% of Voldemort's soul) took most of a year to force Ginny to throw it away. And she was carrying it on her body. Nobody got too close to Harry, some hug, sometimes, but they kept distance from this teenager, at least few feet. With baby, it is different, you need to carry it constantly, never leave it alone...
The Winsinator frankly I would just like to point out that if you have seen the deathly hallow's you would know that they do affect him and her defects Ron and Hermione am working with so it's just that the tiny piece and Harry is just so so small to work can't have a really big affect on them because there was so small that it cannot affect Ron Hermione Molly Ginny
Heart789456123 Actually, wrong. While not a good thing at all, it actually creates a necessity to be independent. Whether in a good way or not, that is all up to circumstances.
See i never think you should praise the Dursleys. The only way we see this kind human being, this young child who fights for his friends and those who he made his family is due to the kindness we can only see as a trait from his mother and cemented with the love he found at Hogwarts. The Dursleys never deserve praise, we should never think that Harry being with them was a good thing. The only evidence we have to possibly accept the Dursleys as reputable characters are the fact that he may not have been the chosen one; he would have been loved, with Sirius or with his parents, he would have been loved and we should never ask for more of that. Harry could have turned out so much worse if it was nothing but bad in his life, we see hints of it before Harry goes to Hogwarts but we only see a glimpse, the rage induced power that he holds that shows itself at the zoo and the reptile cage. Dont thank the Dursleys, dont even thank Dumbledore (even some of his actions are sketchy, lets be honest) but that the Weasleys and the Quiddach team...thank those who loved Harry because he was Harry.
Aryanna Silva you have a one sided view on things, sometimes the bad things a person's life can be good despite how horrible it is. I hope you understand this as you get older.
Would Snape have been a full blown Death Eater then? 🤔 Because I feel Lily’s death by Voldemort was the tipping point for Snape to fully join the good side and become a double agent for Dumbledore
@@Sakuya727 no. Snape wouldn't be a death eater. he would had been a corpse. without money to be found under imperius and dumbledore not having any reason to protect him, Severus would had earned a one way trip to azkaban were he would die, or worse, in a short time. his happier memories are with lily and he would had ended in azkaban because he betrayed her. there's no way he would be able to endure the dementors.
I personally think that it would have been better if Harry had grown up with his parents. Although i get were u r coming from i just think it would have been better for him because he would have already known who Malfoy was and known to stay away from him. Also his view on Muggleborns wouldn't be any different as Lily is one. He would also have Remus their which would influence his actions as Remus is known for being a kind person and would have told Harry to not judge a book by it's cover. Their is also the fact htat he would grow up knowing about the Weasley's and being good friends with them meaning his friendship with Ron would have probably started earlier then in the books/movies. James may have used to be a bad influence but this doesn't mean it would rub off on Harry. It eould also be good because he would have been able to actually spend time with Sirius who would have tought him lots of useful stuff and would be someone good for Harry to talk to whrn times get tough just like it is shoen in the 5th movie..........sorry i wroye so much
I would've loved it if A.) Harry's parents lived or B.) Sirius didn't die in the movie. It would've been nice to see Harry with a loving, caring family. If his parents lived it wouldn't have changed Harry (ok maybe a little). But just because Harry's living arrangement's change, it doesn't mean he will.
Miss Mysterious but one more thing you are ignoring. Harry’s humility. Harry would have been extremely arrogant had it not been for the Dursley’s. Harry may still not treat muggles and muggleborm badly but he wouldn’t care about them much
There is never, NEVER an excuse to let a child stay in an abusive home. Children who grow up without too much psychological damage do that despite that upbringing, not because of that upbringing.
This theory could work extremely well, but what about those who lived with him in Hogwarts? Wouldn't they all be affected by the small portion of Voldemort's soul in Harry?
You could say that other magical people would not be as strongly affected by the piece of Voldemort as muggles would. That it took a larger piece that came into closer contact with, like Ron with the Lockett in The Deathly Hallows.
@@slevinchannel7589 I don't believe in the approach that JK Rowling has the final say on every detail of the Harry Potter story or Wizarding World Universe. If you watch interviews with Vince Gilligan who was the lead writer and creator of Breaking Bad; he mentions how once you create something for the public it doesn't belong to you anymore. That how the public interprets the story is up to them, you can have differences of opinion. He also often mentioned how he and his other writers developed a dynamic of a "hive mind" where each person's creativity combined created something much greater than any of them on their own. It's not a perfect comparison given that BB is a TV Show and HP is a book series, but the logic is the same. If people want to believe this theory or not it's up to them, we shouldn't be looking to JK Rowling as some sort of judge on how we're allowed to think about the story. Her opinion is interesting yes, but "debunking a fan theory?" Just be glad you created something so great that fans are so enthusiastic that they continually imagine alternative interpretations of the story. To me this theory is brilliant, it fits with the theme of the larger story about people not being purely good or purely bad. In my opinion The Dursley's were average, but if provoked had a very dark side to them. Petunia's jealousy of her Sister and Vernon's suspicion as to Harry's Parents jobs were crucial as well. But like J said that doesn't seem like a logical reason to treat Harry the way they did. Yes, they still could have been cold, unaccepting/supportive, etc. without that being shocking. But to lock him in the cupboard suggests that they couldn't stand being in his presence. I love how J points out that the Dursley's being hostile towards the part of Voldemort inside Harry prepares him to face Voldemort. In a way the Dursley's indirectly teach Harry about everyone has a dark side, and weaknesses.
Which comment? I guess you’re referring to my first 🤷♂️ I’m saying the piece of Voldemorts soul wouldn’t affect wizards/witches the same as the Dursleys given they may have more tolerance/immunity to it
I was never taught how to vote They devoted that time to defining isotopes I wasn't taught how to look after my health But mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell
James wasn't nearly as bad as you make him out to be. We literally only saw the flashbacks of Snape's perspective of him, not his entire life story. Maybe he was an arrogant bully, but Snape tormented the Maruaders just as much as they teased him. Plus, Snape hung out with people who would grow up to be Death Eaters and had some pretty terrible morals. On the other hand, James was a hard working kid that made friends with social outcasts. He befriended a wizard whose pure blood supremacist heritage would scare away many others. He befriended a Werewolf and, instead of deserting him when he found out, he spent a ton of time to go through the painful process of becoming an animagi just to support him. He was a harmless and loveable trouble maker like the Weasley twins; even if he was a bully, its not like thats what he spent his whole life doing. He did so many other things, from being a Chaser to performing complex magic to make the Map and become and animagi as wellas studying well enough to become Head Boy, bullying Snape was probably his last priority. He also matured and realized the error in his arrogance in his later years at Hogwarts. Lily even fell in love with him, and she wouldn't fall in love with a jerk! JAMES IS A GOOD PERSON
Rachel Wood Actually, in the novels, James' position on the Quidditch team was NEVER specified. J.K. Rowling said in an interview however, that James IS a Chaser. The only time he is depicted as a Seeker is in the movies which aren't very accurate sometimes
harmless? you call very nearly committing sexual harassment harmless? (and that's only because snape pulled harry out before he finishes the memory, and didnt rowling say what wasnt written was implied?and why else would snape pull harry put if not because he didnt wish for harry to see him humiliated like that?) remus lupin while he was a werewolf was hardly an outcaast at hogwarts none the least because he was powerful but also because who else could say they are bestfriends with a werewolf? sirius black was also a powerful and good looking wizard at the time not to mention black agrees with james' prejudice against slytherin. snape was sorted into slytherin if james potter the then supposed model gruyffindor everyone likes bullies and attacks him by very nearly stripping him what do you think the lsytherins the people he spent 24/7 and whose dorm and house snape sleeps in would have done to him had he not agreed to them?he wasn't good looking and even if he was powerful there is always the marauders the good gryffindors that the teachers would pick oer him even slughorn liked lily but not snape exactly why would snape not hang out with the only other persons who would accept or at least pretend to accept him? Dumbledore obviously doesn't care for him or the other slytherins for that matter (why else would he humilaite them like that in book 1?) so he would not have fought for or protected a slytherin with no political power or name to him just because the slytherins like the rest of the school decided he would be a good target? yes, snape was wrong to hang out with them but he has no reason to hang out with people who bully or watched as he got bullied either, the slytherins would have easily manipulated him and with lily severing ties well how hard would it have been to convince that insecure, hormonal teen to side with people who at least pretended if not outright cared for him?
GalaxyDonutBookReviews I mean seriously, Sirius was his godfather and During that time (The beginning) the rumor that Sirius killed 13 people didn't start yet.
KiNG CLiPS ----I don't think 'borrowing' would be correct, since Sirius was already in Azkaban for the supposed murders of the muggles & Peter the Rat. Pretty sure the motorcycle was in the possession of the previous Order of the Phoenix---it's mentioned in the Hallows later that Mr. Weasley had been 'working on it'
RaRa Reyna I actually saw a fanfic of Remus and Sirius raising Harry after 6 years in Azkaban and Harry becomes friends not only with Ron and Hermonie (the latter figures out she’s a witch sooner BTW) but also with Neville and even Draco! It’s really good I’ll try to get a link.
But why should he be raised by Sirius but not James? I don't see how his godfather is better than his own father. With James, he'd be raised by all 3 Marauders, including Sirius. I wrote a fanfic with that premise.
As much as I love these theories I have to say that when he was talking about the horcrux part of Harry affecting the Dursley’s, it doesn’t work like that when he was at Hogwarts. If it worked the same way everyone that was close to Harry (Ron & Hermione) would’ve been affected.
Only people with priveleged childhoods say something like abuse was good because it led to character development. ABUSE IS NEVER GOOD, and "heart of the underdog" characters traits definitely don't excuse anything. We don't know how Harry would have turned out with James and Lily, because he never had a chance to grow up in love, but that's definitely not the same as blood supremacy and inherent superiority that Draco grew up with.
That's why he should have been raised by Sirius Black and Remus Lupin. He would understand the prejudice against the minority, he wouldn't be rich in the least and he would still get the TLC he needs.
I would like to add to the memory segment that our memories are often colored by our perspectives, so James might not have been quite that bad all the time. And to be fair, it's versus Snape.
1. Please remember that Harry chose to be a good person despite the bullying. Many people treat their horrible suffering at the hands of others as carte blanche for their faults and misdeeds. 2. Lily accepted James because he accepted her. He did not insult her the way Draco insulted Hermione. James grew out of his stupid snob habits. Not every kid in that situation does.
no, james insulted lily's intelligence and emotions by bullying her bestfriend up until the time they started dating and he grew up according to the book, james disrespected lily and her choices and ignored her wants and opinions and even went so far as to threaten her with violence
misaki sakagami Where the hell are you getting all of this from? Sure, James was a bully and a jock in school but just because he attacked Snape once during their time at hogwarts that doesn't mean he did the same to Lily in their adult years. Just because someone is a bully in school doesn't mean that they're going to be an abusive partner in their adult years. On that note, I think Snape's grudge against James (And by extension Harry) is childish as well. I know you loved Lily Snape but she made her choice with her own free will I don't expect you to get chummy with James anytime soon but to hold a grudge against his orphaned child is just despicable. No amount of "Always" is going to change that.
aish please use actual punctuation, for a second i thought you were saying i supported snily which i honestly dont, i think snape didnt love lily at least not in a romantic husband way like james loved lily, snape may have loved her like a sister or literally the only friend he ever had (no thanks to his own personality coupled with certain other slytherin prejudiced people who ensured he did not have friends apart from lily less they be victims of humiliating not to mention life threatening pranks themselves) actually there is evidence he only attacked snape once, the fact that instead of outright saying no, sirius said that james stopped pranking snape in front of lily clearly implies that the constant bullying was not in fact a one time thing, not to mention while the shack incident would have been enough for snape to want sirius in azkaban if for no other reason than he nearly killed 2 classmates, that OWL incident would not have been enough for both snape and sirius to hold that amount of grudge nearly 20 years later. i never said james was an abusive husband, no matter how much of a bully he was i dont believe he would have gone that far especially as he worked for 5 years possibly more (i dont think james would have taken advantage and believe he would have waited for lily to recover from cutting her bestfriend loose before making any moves) to get lily. i meant when they were growing up. if he truly respected lily he would have grown out of childishly pranking snape for no reason than "the fact that he exists" and that he wanted to be in slytherin by 3rd year and instead would have left snape alone if only to show lily that he did in fact respect her opinions and choices and had no intention of controlling who or what house her friends should be. if respected lily before the OWL incident, he would have also taken no for an answer and just asked to be friends or even just waited and then asked her if they could try if not then so be it, instead he chose to bully other students and show lily just how arrogant and rude he is which apparently was okay with lily since they did not use dark magic to bully. why that matters is beyond me
Mathias Kolding Sure, that's your opinion and I respect that. My opinion/theory is that a lot of people don't realize that we see James' past as part of Snape's memories. Now, I don't know about you but if I was bullied by someone in school then I would definitely see them in a very different light than someone who was said bully's friend. Harry (and by proxy us the readers) only see James' past from Severus' perspective which is NOT a neutral one. Sure, James MAY have been a bully but neither the reader nor Harry knows what happened between that point and the point where James married Lily. All I'm saying is that a lot of people take Snape's memories as law and don't consider that Snape himself might have exaggerated said memories in order to make himself appear as a victim in order to have peace with himself and in order to justify hating James and Harry. The James we see from Snape's memories is VERY different from the Snape who joined the Order Of The Phoenix to defend the innocent against Voldemort and it's impossible to say wether Lily made the right choice in marrying James or not. It's even impossible to determine if the version of James shown in Snape's memories even exists or not because the only perspective we have on that is a biased one. tl;dr. Snape may just be a huge liar to himself and consequently to Harry and the audience and it's impossible to say if Lily made the right decision choosing James over Snape.
even if i dont agree with her using an insult made when her bestfriend was being humiliated and bullied and having to be saved by the girl his crushing on as an excuse to cut ties with said friend on a time he truly needed her, i do agree that lily at that time made the logical choice as choosing snape while it may or may not have saved him (it could have gone either way then and snape's turning point was when lily was in danger) would have put a bigger target on both lily and snape, potter at least she was somewhat safe or as ssafe as a muggleborn can be in that war. while snape's recollection of memories from over 20 years ago could really have been incomplete or tampered with his feelings and what else has happened on top of that single event (and really memory is not the most reliable tool when recollecting anything that happened more than a 24 hour period unless there is some emotional and psychological trauma involved the effects of which may be both visible and not so visible depending on the trauma for example, severus will find it hard to remember what color shoes he was wearing the day of the shack incident but he will be hard pressed to forget short of employing repression, the flash of fangs or claws or even remus' transformation as a whole as evidenced and studied by professionals today) the fact that neither lupin nor black saw fit to detract, alter or disagree with what happened as told by harry pretty much proves that most if not all of what severus placed in that pensieve is true. the truth hurts more than a lie, why would snape alter that particular memory to shpw himself the victim if james' own actions was more than enough to shake whatever superhero pedestal harry and every other adult who condoned the marauders' bullying based on the fact that he was a gryffindor and therefor could not possibly do something so bad as bullying and simply being a teenager has placed james in?
Dudley needs only one room. I bet that he barely plays with any of the toys or even likes any. I think that they were just abusive and that they would never let him have that bedroom and Dudley is who they aim to please and seeing Harry happy makes Dudley unhappy so that is another reason
But sometimes, when mistreated people become famous overnight, they want to get revenge, and become even meaner than their bullies…so I don't think it's mainly because Harry was an "underdog" that made him so nice and open-minded
lpscatthy It's true that he might have become a different person but I think it's still wrong to say abuse was "good" for someone. I just think this is a really damaging way to talk about abuse. Many people in abusive households are gaslighted into believing they should be grateful for their abusers, and videos like this just further perpetuate the idea that if you grow as a person from an abusive or traumatic experience, then it's "good" that you had that experience.
Alyssa Iulianetti well, it kind of is if it helped you in the long run. Don't see what's actually logically wrong there, it's basically an appeal to emotion.
I'm not saying the story should be any different. It is a good underdog story. I'm just saying it's wrong to ever say it was a good thing that abuse happened.
I disagree, but ok. I think abuse and experience is what makes a person. The more struggle and the worst or better you become. Those who become worst are worst from birth. Those who do better are better from birth. So I just see the strong getting stronger. Now I'm not saying beat your kids, but life needs to be mean so we can learn. Not all has to be severe, but if you over come the sever then it was worth it.
You could have cited Dumbledore at the beginning of Half-Blood Prince, when he is chastising the Dursleys for abusing Harry, he says he is at least thankful they didn't ruin him like they ruined Dudley
The logic that his parents would make him arrogant is nonsense. James was not evil. He was like Fred and George (who hexed Dudley for no reason and nearly killed Montague). He was a responsible man. He was sorted and knew his priorities very well. If Harry was raised by his parents he would have had the NORMAL childhood. I guess he would hv had young siblings as his parents were still young. Having younger siblings would have made him responsible. Definitely, he would not be arrogant. His father at his school was immature (Snape too was immature, and unfortunately he never grew up), and fun loving like the Weasley twins ( they played several pranks and also hexed their foes. They hv confessed so in Ootp). Making James look like an evil man is rubbish.
He never said James was evil, just that he was kind of a jerk( which he was). So unless lily started seeing to much of James in of james in harry and started to curve that behavior he proably would have acted like a jerk to something that is also normal for a child.
S M V lily would also have had an affect on Harry, as she was so kind. I don’t think he would have grown up to be like Malfoy because he’s not even pure blood, and I don’t think James minded about blood purity either, seeing as he married a muggle born.
I'm so mad that Harry wasn't adopted by Remus or Sirius or even McGonagall! He would be the coolest kid ever if McGonagall had adopted him, Voldemort would have never stood a chance
There were reasons why they couldn't adopt him. There's the whole blood magic thing, first and foremost, which required Harry living with a blood relative of Lily's (Petunia) to work. Remus was a werewolf, and he can't take care of a kid when he can barely find work to support himself due to the stigma associated with that. Sirius was in Azkaban, enough said. And McGonagall- while I do agree that a Harry raised by her would be badass- doesn't have the kind of relationship with either Lily or James to justify her adopting their child.
agentrikamcgee yeah I think the dursleys were necessary but multiple people knew about Harry's abuse and didn't stop it. Dumbledore scared the dursleys so why didn't he threaten them more?
K 2 Perhaps it's because they'd be unable to produce any real proof of abuse. We don't know how the Wizarding World defines "abuse", after all, and reporting the Dursleys risk exposing Harry's location to the Death Eaters (who'd ingratiated themselves to the Ministry by then). And trying to report the Dursleys to Muggle authorities is just too risky (not to mention how hard it'll be to explain just how they know).
agentrikamcgee but Dumbledore watched over him and could've off the record told them "treat him better or else I'll use magic on you" they didn't know about the rules so they probably would've listened
K 2 That's exactly what Dumbledore did, or so the books imply. When Vernon tries to throw Harry out in the fifth book a Howler arrived and all it said was "Remember my last, Petunia" in Dumbledore's voice. Petunia went pale and insisted Harry had to stay. Then in the sixth book Dumbledore visited the Dursleys personally and scared the fuck out of them before taking Harry away.
Petunia was secretly envious of Lily. This is shown when she somehow managed to write a letter to Dumbledore who had to explain - very kindly - why she could NOT also attend Hogwarts. Petunia also always felt second-best, as if their Parents were more proud of Lily than of her. Therefore, her attitude to the Wizarding World came about as more of a protective shell initially until it became second nature. Because of this, she would have naturally have chosen a mate who would reinforce her beliefs. They would have bolstered each other up in all this to the point, actually, where it really took more of a toll on Dudley than anyone by the way they spoiled and coddled the boy. I only hope Dudley's redemption was permanent after he - almost - made friends with Harry in the end.
1. The Dursley family was already terrible before Harry came to live with them. I mean the first chapter in the very first book describes this. 2. They didn't let others know they weren't treating Harry properly. A good example comes from Dudley's birthday in book 1. Both when they are forced to buy Harry a treat they never intended to because the salesperson addressed him in what he would like, and later in the car when Dudley's friend let slip that Harry talked to the snake, they waited until he was gone and they were inside the house before Vernon laid into Harry. 3. Marge was the worst but she hardly ever saw Harry. 4. Being separated from Harry for 9 months would've reverted them back then if this were true, and yet they get progressively worse over the years. 5. Don't they have to be in close proximity to the horcrux to be affected? But the Dursley's kept Harry separated from them often. 6. If this were true Harry would've negatively affected all the people around him at Hogwarts and such. 7. His fellow muggle students should've been affected too, but the only ones mentioned for being mean were Dudley's friends who were bullies. 8. By this logic, the Malfoy's aren't evil either, but influenced by the horcrux in the diary they had for 12+ years.
I don't think his position was ever stated in the books, it was just said that he was a "great quidditch player". But yeah, JKR has said that he was in fact a chaser.
If Harry had grown up around wizards he would also probably associate fear with Voldemort instead of just anger and this would mean that he would be afraid to say his name and he probably wouldn't have been able to eventually defeat him. I think this because if he had grown knowing he was a wizard and that his parents had been killed by Voldemort then he wouldn't have been so curious to find out how to destroy this monster but instead he would probably have hid behind Remus and defend Peter Pettigrew who could have told Voldemort about his location taken blood from him raised the dark lord and then killed Harry in a single night.
G Rodriguez you're right Mouse click on our way was the worst person there because he called people my bloods and James Potter didn't that for or James would have been a good role model for Harry and Lily would make sure have a safe kind and humble and modest
Hey, Super Carlin Brothers! Pardon me, but: opinion incoming! I never bought that horcrux making the Dursleys assholes thing. Harry hangs out with Ron and Hermione on a daily basis for most of the year every year and they were never really affected even a little bit. In fact, in many cases, he was the one that could successfully defuse fights and stressful situations. Plus, if exposure to a horcrux was the problem, shouldn't the Dursleys be a little more calm and accepting even if only for the first couple days when Harry comes back during the summer if they had been removed from the influence, having no contact with him for almost an entire year? Yeah . . . I may be wrong, but . . . I think the Dursleys were just assholes . . .
Rose Storm I agree. Also I feel like Dumbledore could've done more to protect Harry. Like he could've threatened them into giving him a room and stuff. Multiple order members knew about his situation but didn't fix it?
K 2 that's why many people, including me, have a hard time not seeing Dumbledore as some kind of villain. Because there are many many times in the series when he seems to seriously be either incompetent or somewhat malicious. It's hard to tell which one would be preferable. Such as when, in the first movie, he did what I call The Fuckup, by sending the Slytherin students to the dungeons when there was a troll down there.
AnotherBookishLycanthrope WHY is everyone so offended about a youtube video about Harry Potter? Its just a stupid video, its supposed to fun, none of the abuse Harry went through ever happened! The abusers don't exist! The victim doesn't exist! Lighten up for fucks sake!
The Larch What Sarah said. Plus... Harry isn't real, the abuse he suffered wasn't real... but there are real people out there suffering the same thing. That's real abuse, and we all agree we shouldn't defend it. But we learn through media absorption, so it's is important that we don't start victim blaming our fake characters because then we will be teaching the younger generation that that's totally ok to do in real life.
AnotherBookishLycanthrope I was thinking the exact same thing! Others, please stop saying that it's just a fictional story, because literature has a bigger influence than you think, especially something as well known as Harry Potter. Fans saying that it's Harry's fault for the Dursleys actions is promoting the idea that it's okay to defend child abusers, fictional and real
@@thelarch5280 Just because the Dursleys and Harrys abuse was fictional doesn't mean that its not real. This things happen everywhere in the world and are very much real
The reason the Lockett effected Ron so badly is because it was only the third horcrux, meaning it had 12.5%of Voldemort in it, and even more with the diary and Ginny, since it was the 1st horcrux with 50% Voldemort. Harry was the last horcrux, so he had very little Voldemort in him, so the Dursleys couldn't have been great people in the first place.
How is neglecting a child a good thing? It just made Harry feel insecure and made him feel like he was a burden to everyone, and there's nothing good in that. And the fact that he is very nice to everyone was because he has Lily's heart, and James wasn't an asshole because Lily married him, and he sacrificed himself for his family, the only person that James didn't treat right was Snape, otherwise he was just having fun. Harry would have been just less insecure if Lily and James had raised him, or anyone for that matter. Mistreating a child can never be excused.
If Harry had that effect on the Dursley's and the locket had that effect on Ron, why did the students at Hogwarts, especially Ron and Hermione, not get irritable towards Harry? I mean, he literally spent 10 consecutive months a year for six years there.
The dursleys used the 3rd big room as Dudley's toy room where he kept all his toys, is the 2nd book Harry gets that as his bedroom and Dudley becomesfrustrated. This piece of information is not in the movies.
The same could be said for many protagonists, whose past trauma is integral to their motivation as heroes. That doesn't make the trauma good, because not everyone would respond the same way to trauma, and because there are minor good guys who don't have some great freudian backstory. Also, if not for the abuse of Merope Gaunt and Tom Riddle Sr., there would be no Voldemort.
This whole theory hinges on the idea that all rich kids end up like Malfoy. Its not about money, its about having parents who love and nurture you. If harry can be good despite the Dursleys' treatment, then he can be humble despite the benefit of money. Having that 'privilege' (hate that word) doesn't make you a bad person.
I Know this was made 4 years ago but you’re right,it’s a fact that kids don’t become like Maloy because of privilege,they are more likely to imitate the behaviour of their parents so spoilt parents raise spoiled kids but caring and considerate parents raise caring and considerate kids
I must disagree with the Horcrux part. think with me: Why did Harry had to live with the dursleys in the first place? Why couldn't he be raised by anyone else? There surely must have been volunteers! Well Dumbledore explains it the fifth book. Because in order for Lily's sacrifice to remain protecting Harry, the place he called home had to be shared with lily's blood (aunt petunia), turning that home to the only place where voldemort could not touch Harry. So doesnt that mean the part of voldemort living inside of harry would have no power In the Dursleys House?! unable to afect Harry's uncles?
Harry's childhood was character building and made him more humble, a valuable trait in any person ☺️ and he was far more grateful for magic and his friends than if he'd grown up with it (also he is fairly careful with his money considering he had practically nothing as a kid)
Josh Gerlach Right?! Plus, he could've even changed his memories for all we know. If Slughorn can do it, Snape could do it waaaay better. He's one of the best Occlumancy people ever!(I forgot how to spell the word for using Occlumancy.) So he could've given Harry fake memories, and conveniently all the people who could have corroborated his story are dead, except Petunia who Harry will probably never talk to again. Interesting...
katieduh Except that Lupin and Sirius accepted that Snape's worst memories to be true(Read Order of the Phoenix ).Sirius accepts her was bullying Snape with James and Lupin accepted that he was made a perfect to keep James and Sirius in check but he did nothing.
Snape's memories are completely his side of the story, and let's remember that he wasn't completely innocent either. We know that Snape did his fair share of bullying other kids too. EVERYONE has mistreated someone at some point in their life. Judging them completely from the victim's point of view is wrong. Yes, James bullied Snape, but that's not the only thing he ever did in his life, he was also an excellent friend and loving husband.
Memories in the Pensieve are objectives, you see the scene like it really happened, as far as we know. But it's right that James was not doing this during all his scolarity. But Lily really seemed to don't like his attitude. Until, according Sirius and Remus, he grew a little bit, and cease to be a jerk ^^
I feel like Harry living with the Dursleys makes it much easier to sympathize for Harry and feel bad for him. I remember when I read the first book, and hearing how the Dursleys treated him, made me feel bad for him a lot more and grow to like him a lot more even before he got to Hogwarts.
Vernon is already shown to be a horrible person before Harry arrives at the doorstep. He just gets sick of everything different once Harry is there because Vernon obsesses over what's "normal" and with a wizard in his house, it would probably just annoy him more.
I believe the reason as to why the Dursleys where so horrible to Harry is because as they said to "squash the Magic out of him." The more magical unexplained things that happened around Harry the harder they tried to suppress his magic. Because Petunia didn't want to lose to only link to her sister that she had left. And as everyone says Harry has Lilly's eyes. I can't imagine Petunia could look at Harry everyday and not only feel pain but love as well.
**clears throat** IN THE BOOKS JAMES POTTER WAS A CHASER, NOT A SEEKER. Edit: I can't remember where it said it, but I know it was stated somewhere Another edit: if you look at J's twitter, he confirms that James was a Chaser. Case closed.
Actually, it was never stated in the books what position he played, though he does take a snitch out of his pocket after his DADA OWL and play with it, which would imply that he was a Seeker
I actually knew what he was talking about when he was talking about the first book because I've finally started reading the books like 2 days ago and watched the movies in April 2017
james and lily were good people they would have raised harry to be good. James would have raised him to be like how he was after he was matured and lily was muggle born so he wouldn't believe in pure blood supremacy like malfoy does. I think he would be friends with the weasleys through the order of the phoenix and would be influenced by them
I agree. Harry didnt know of his wealth or fame until the age of eleven. With his parents there might not have been a reason to be famous but he still would of had wealth and would if had to experience in being grateful for the less expensive things in life.
Because the "Harry is a horcrux"-theory is pretty bland and stupid if you go deeper into it. It just excuses the Dursleys horrible behavior, giving a magical explanation rather than acknowledging that the Dursleys abused a child. That's the amazing thing about Harry Potter. The real tragedies aren't triggerd by some magical curse. They fight the same struggles and human problems that we face in our normal world as well. You can't neither blame magic for everything nor fix everything with magic, that's the point.
maybe cause it was a tiny piece of Voldys soul, and the Dursleys were with Harry 24/7 365 for 10 years and it would have affected them more over time, and Ron and Hermione didn't have that constant exposure for 10years straight... nut idk acctualy this is just something i thought of on the stop
Personally, I don't like the idea of asserting that growing up abusive situations like the one Harry was in makes victims better people. It takes away the work and recovery the victim puts into themselves and undermines accountability the abuser needs to take by uplifting it as something with a purpose.
I would like to see what would have happened if he ended up with sirius. if dumbledore knew that he was only a decoy secret keeper for the potters and that it was really peter, dumbledore could have cleared his name and harry would live with him. He would be even more rebellious and perhaps the fame would get to his head. Maybe Sirius would shield him from the wizard media
Hey this is fun and all, but maybe when talking about depictions of child abuse... don't make it seem like it's justified? The things Harry went through (although fictional) happen to plenty of people all over the world and it's kinda unfair to say to a person who's gone through neglect and abuse "hey at least you're a better person for it!" Cause they aren't. I can say from personal experience, abuse does not make you kind or thoughtful or a better person; It just makes you hurt.
Pastel Witch, you are completely right! My experience does not apply to everyone, I should have been clearer with that. I was trying to counteract the assumption many people (including the Carlin Brothers) have that abuse makes people better in the long run, when the truth is as complicated and nuanced as humans are. I'm still unsure what the "hero" comment is supposed to mean though, if you could clarify that would be nice
Lynnkie B its not the abuse that was good for him it was growing up away from the magical world and not knowing that he was significant that was. The Dursleys were what made that happen. Thats the whole reason Dumbledore left him with them. He needed someone that knew enough about the magical world to protect him from it if need be, which they did because there is no way the death eaters would think to look in the muggle world for the most famous wizard baby. Yeah sure he said that Dudley was good becuase he could see right through Malfoy but Dudley wasn't exactly an abuser. He was a bully (a child can't be a child abuser). Everyone gets bullied and I think everyone is stronger because of it. I am a firm believer that the hard shit in life is what shapes you into who you are. I have enough first hand experience to see that and it is questions like these that kind of help me deal with my past. Sure my life would be better at the time if x and y hadn't happened but how would it change me now?
if harry was raised by mcgonnagle, he probably would've defeated voldemort in the first book and would've still made it back in time for tea, looking like it never happened, lol
Correct me if I'm wrong, you saw the post about this.😏
McGonagall
Hello!
Cedric Diggory Thought you were dead...
I definitely agree with you :)
Something else to add: JK Rowling herself dispelled the horcrux theory on Pottermore. She said the real reason the Dursleys were such jerks to Harry is as follows:
"James was amused by Vernon, and made the mistake of showing it. Vernon tried to patronise James, asking what car he drove. James described his racing broom.
Vernon supposed out loud that wizards had to live on unemployment benefit. James explained about Gringotts, and the fortune his parents had saved there, in solid gold.
Vernon could not tell whether he was being made fun of or not, and grew angry. The evening ended with Vernon and Petunia storming out of the restaurant, while Lily burst into tears and James (a little ashamed of himself) promised to make things up with Vernon at the earliest opportunity."
In this description Vernon hated Harry because he felt embarrassed by his father, who Harry uncomfortably reminded him of. What’s more, Harry doesn’t have the aggressive abusive effect on any of the other people in his life, other people he is around for years. If anything, Harry inspires the opposite in people-he makes them want to do good and more and better. It’s part of what makes him an excellent leader.
Benjadict-Lowerdick quick! Get more likes on this comment than the video!
Yes-I was going to say the same thing-Harry doesn't have this effect on the other characters-certainly not to the same extent as the locket. Some of them dislike him but this tends to be for other reasons rather than some weird curse effect.
Benjadict-Lowerdick in
He embarrassed me slightly so i'm going to mentally and physically abuse his son for years. Sounds Realistic.
All good points, but just regarding the last point:
Everybody else that Harry spent considerable time with, he met at the age of 11. Not 1. It's possible that Harry's own soul, which is stronger than Voldemort's, has an overall positive effect on those around him, but it took time to develop that way. At the age of 1, Harry was, well, a baby. Just a baby, with a piece of Voldemort's soul in him.
Also, everybody else that we've seen Harry have any effect on were witches and wizards; the Dursleys are the only Muggles we see... and it is kind of odd that none of Harry's teachers growing up ever contacted social services about the family with two children who are quite obviously treated radically differently (although maybe not... Dumbledore may have had a hand in that). But the point is, maybe it has a more pronounced effect on Muggles.
And third, I don't think anybody's trying to absolve the Dursleys of all blame. They were petty and small-minded people to begin with. J's just commenting on how the emotional abuse and neglect might have gotten so out of control. (one theory, at least. The truth is, though, plenty of families IRL act just like the Dursleys without any magical influence whatsoever. There's even a name for it. Scapegoating.)
"Your dads a big deal? I'm Harry Potter!" That would have been a much more interesting timeline for the Harry Potter series to take.
Darth Sawlex agreed
That's basically the attitude of A Very Potter Musical, you need to watch it if you haven't.
@@callumbrunton2761 I love that musical!
I agree
You know who's a good example of a
HEALTHY SLYTHERIN?
Hiro Okumura - from 'Isekai Word Cheat', the Manga.
He likes Books a lot, so you think first of Ravenclaw, but then
you realize that: no, he's actually a Slytherin.
A very, very healthy one.
He's always thinking of his own benefit,
but in a very healthy way, that is rather hard to describe.
He's affecting everyone, but not manipulating anyone,
if you get what i mean.
He's also teaching people being polite - in a very rude manner though (lol)...
He's practical and teaches people that most importantly.
Mercy, Kindness and all that are indeed Positive BUT you
can also NOT EXPECT them - you need to pay
people for their work, for example.
And that's just a summary about him.
Wait wait, James was a chaser and yes, being the captain of the quidditch team gives you the same rights of a prefect, Hermione says that when Harry becomes one in the sixth book
Actually James was a seeker. His gold plated trophy-thingy said seeker above his name
He probably meant seeker
@ABIGAIL KIRK in some countries, they changed the translation and made James seeker, just like Harry became, thats why in the movies this played out this way... so fans dont get confused, in the original James is a chaser, in a lot of other languages (including my native, greek) James is a seeker just like Harry... i got confused a lot after reading the books in my native language and then in the original one... and i realized it after that this had happened
James is a seeker...remember harry saw james playing with the snitch
Everyone I’ll clear this up
This is in America ( I can’t say for other countries )
Movie - James is seeker so it can be a special moment because Harry is like his father
Book - James is chaser ( I don’t know why ) probably because it is the most common position
Could've fed the poor boy though...
Like that was full child abuse. I would let it through if they were strict, and weren't too praiseworthy towards Harry as his image as the boy who lived.
Yeah.. they did sort of starve him a little. It's like they wanted Dudley to get fatter than Harry to make it easier for Dudders to beat him up.
tbh in this alternate timeline i could imagine harry and malfoy still being 100% rivals. two syltherin boys, both arrogant and feeling like a leader? they'd see eachother as competiton from day 1.
Roenais True. Malphoy never had friends. Only lackies.
Purple Poet11 *Malfoy
Roenais but Harry wouldn't be in SLYTHERIN. I think he was almost put in slytherin because a piece of voldys soul was trapped In him. So if VOLDY had never killed lily and James than Harry wouldn't be a horcrux so I don't think he would've been in slytherin he still would've been in Gryffindor. Just my theory.
Shania20 I think the Sorting Hat is just an asshole.
Shania20 I assume they're talking about the timeline where Harry is raised "lovingly" by the Dursleys.
But Scorpious Malfoy wasn't like Draco. Draco raised him to be better than himself. Wouldn't James who matured have done the same with Harry? And Harry's generous nature seems to come from James who despite his faults was pretty generous. He opened his home to Sirius and he financially supported Remus. Not to mention, he was friends with misfits rather than jocks. And he accepted a werewolf as a friend and became an animagus for him.
Even Harry's nature of not being prejudiced against muggles/muggle-borns, half-breeds and werewolves despite being abused by various muggles (unlike Snape and Voldy) also seems to stem from his Potter DNA. James showed no such prejudice and his grandfather, Henry stood up for muggles.
Except if Harry had been brought up by Lily and James, he would have had his circle of friends, and he would have had expectations based on his father's skill, but "EVERYONE" wouldn't have known him, and he probably would have been fairly normal, since by all accounts both his parents were open minded and kind in most areas (slytherin and death eaters being James apparent exception) and if he didn't rebel against his dad's reputation he probably still could have turned out to be a natural leader, maybe even a better-rounded wizard if he'd grown up in the environment.
hahahahahaha
no one considers the cursed child because it is trash.
Glitch_FACE TCC is indeed trash, but Scorpius (and the first real characterization Draco Malfoy gets, like, ever) should not be overlooked.
"the first real characterisation draco gets. like, ever,"
half blood prince?
@Sylvia Schultz True, but James himself was pretty capable of generosity despite his privileged and pampered upbringing. Harry could still have been generous like James was, even if he grew up privileged. Remember that James still accepted a werewolf as a friend to the point of going an extra mile to keep him company during the full moon. And he showed not prejudice against anyone except those in Slytherin and into Dark Arts, so Harry would have been just as accepting of people.
The Dursleys were awful BEFORE harry. They despised lily and were just awful to anyone who wasn’t them.
Dursleys = ignorant, bias mean people = most self centered politicians.
They more despised James than Lilly, at least for Petunia. They were awful, but she WAS still Lilly's sister and Petunia even mentions this fact in the books, and is likely why they even took in Harry to begin with. Petunia let her jealousy of her sister fester and they never had a chance to make their relationship better, and Vernon did NOT help. But if Lilly had lived, I don't think Petunia would have held that grudge forever, and she likely regrets driving that wedge in on some level now that she will never get the chance to reconnect with her sister again.
Lilith Da Hobbit I also think that that theory about the Dursley’s has a problem because he should have had that effect on everyone at Hogwartz, especially those living in his room such as Ron.
@@conservativecatholic9030 if you just watched the movies, Ron gets progressively less useful and more whiny, so...maybe?
@@conservativecatholic9030 being magic could have something to do with it. They may have a greater immunity than a muggle, and generally morale was high. The Dursleys were already pretty nasty people so the horcrux probably didnt corrupt them so much than it worsened the existing issue.
Having grown up in an abusive household, the Dursleys treatment of Harry made me instantly empathize with him, especially Dudley. Growing up, my step sister always was treated better than I was (which I don't blame her for, she's actually a wonderful human being and I love her deeply), so that moment at the beginning of Deathly Hallows where Dudley lets his guard down and respects Harry as an equal was especially powerful for me, and stands out as one of my favorite parts of the books. We can't choose who raises us, but that doesn't mean we have to resent those we were raised with, who have just as little control over their situation as we do.
Eh. I think you're forgetting Lily Evans-Potter, and that she was perfect and wouldn't let no kid of hers be a brat.
disneyjunkie19 she wasn't perfect but with lily and James as his parents harry would have been a quite well rounded person.
Really was anything ever even said against her she kinda was just Mary sueish?
disneyjunkie19 lol isn't that the same Lilly who abandoned snape for james who has a long history of bullying snape so I doubt Lilly would try to get involved in the parenting of father and son
Yeah agreed.
God of destruction Champa yeah but your forgetting Snape slowly got worse as a person and James slowly got better. Snape ended up calling Lily a Mud-blood and joining the death eaters. Where as James realised the error of his ways and apologised proving to Lily that he could be better. I don't know about you but I'd much rather be with James than Snape after that
The problem with “the Dursleys aren’t to blame! Harry’s a horcrux!” is; Hermoine and Ron spend far more time with him.
He has NO effect on anyone else he’s around a lot.
Yes but they ACTUALLY like him and the Dursley's had to have him in pretty much 24/7 close proximity at least until kindergarten or whatever is the British equivalent.
And hermione hits someone and lobs a stone at Harry. I mean context but yeah
But they didn't ron and Hermione expend like 7 years with Harry and mostly the school days and some more, and the dursley spend 10 years every single day with harry
Well Dudley got kinder and Petunia admitted to having always loved her sister but that was over shadowed by her jealous so what if it was harry who kept them from making those changes sooner and just strengthen Petunias jealousy
Lady Lolipop Ron had all of his class and was his roommate
"We don't ever get an answer as to why Lily marries James" a few minutes later "he apparently turns a new leaf in his seventh year." You literally answered your own question, J, lol. James grew up, stopped hexing people unless they attacked him first, which allowed Lily to see the good side of him (the side that took in Peter, an outcast, became an illegal animagus for a werewolf, and had Sirius come live with him when things got bad at home.)
I don't think Harry would have turned out to be like Draco, had he been raised by J&L, I think he probably would have been more like Fred and George. Lily was a sweetheart, and James was inherently a good person. I assume he would have been raised around Remus and Sirius at least, and possibly Peter if he didn't turn on them. Lupin would have a hard time with work, though would have the help of his friends. So Harry would probably see a lot of Lupin in Ron and Hermione. And he would have still probably have avoided Draco, having heard of the pureblood elitists from Sirius. Possible he would have tried to convert Draco into being a better person, knowing people can change.
Yes, Harry would have been a different person, but I don't think he'd be a bad person. Just mischievous, a little more confident, and just a fun-loving guy who was good at Quidditch.
Facts
Cool idea man, love it!
ur comment is rlly long so i aint gonna read it but i liked it anyway
@@lixx0376 It looks a little long, yes, but its not actually when you start reading it
@@lixx0376 You have time for a ten minute video but not 30 seconds for reading a comment?
Oh, your dad's a big deal? *I'm Harry Potter.* Booyah!
What Amber Thinks You are dad is a big deal?
...
...
Oops
I read this right as he said it
realize the topic, but i think "oh, your dad's a big deal? im albus potter" works better. i mean jesus, being the son of the wizarding worlds biggest hero...nobody gets a "bigger deal" dad than harry's kids lol
I literally saw this as J said it
If Dursleys were mistreating Harry because he is a horcrux, wouldn't everyone else he spends so much time with, like Hermione, Ron, Ginny, Dumbledore and basically everyone at Hogwarts, behave with him the same way? But they don't. Soooooooooo
Shimin Shamim except the Dursleys are muggles, so they might be more susceptible
Shimin Shamim well technically throughout the book, everyone around Harry starts to get irritable. Like how Hermione and Ron fought and at some point everyone was turning on him. The Dursleys were extra mean due to him living with them for so long 11 years! Also when Harry starts going to Hogwarts, they do get slightly nicer towards him (even if it wasn't much) because the effect decrease if you are away from it for a while. It could also mean that a human being a horcruxs could have a slightly different outcome on other compared to actual objects.
(sorry if I misspelled or if thing I just said didn't make sense)
It depends on how the horcruxes work. I think the theory isn't bad, because horcruxes don't seem to have the ability to just create negativity and discord, but rather to amplify what is already there, and because they affect the owner specifically.
The horcrux only affects the person who possesses it, not everyone in its vicinity, which is why it affected Ron the worst - he spent the most time wearing the locket. As his adoptive family, the Dursleys possess Harry in a way his friends and the Weasleys don't.
The Dursleys already harbour negative feelings towards magic, and Harry by extension. Petunia was fearful (and possibly jealous) of Lily, and no doubt she's spent all her time telling Vernon and Dudley how dangerous magic is, inspiring the same fear in them. And they had to live with Harry year after year, unlike Harry's classmates, who at least get some time away from him. And Harry and Dudley do actually kind of have a moment where, if not friends, they at least aren't completely at odds - when Harry saves him from dementors.
Whereas Ron, Hermione and Harry's classmates love Harry before they've even met him. He's a hero who saved the world, and he's winning house cups and killing it on the Quidditch field. There's no negative feelings towards him, as even those who would envy his fame recognise that being an orphan sucks.
When you think about how all Harry's classmates turn on him in OOTP, I think this makes even more sense. The first time anyone has any real reason to hate Harry, and almost everyone turns on him in a way which seems so unreasonable to the reader - unless they';re under the influence of the horcrux
wow, mind blown. thank you!
Charles Morton
while your theory was incredibly well done and thought out, I have to disagree with it on a principle.
1.)There is a distinct difference for love of a celebrity and love on a personal level. Especially because you must know how easily people demonized celebrities. If Harry's horcrux was in full affect, even if it was just amplifying existing emotions, a lot more people would have hated Harry for his fame, likability, naiveté, etc. etc. and those feelings would have quickly amplified. Yet that did not occur. We know for a fact that Ron was jealous of Harry but he did not act on his jealousy because he knew that Harry was not at fault.
2.) If that theory was true, there is no way that Harry's roommates would put up with him that long if he was really negatively affecting your emotions. I have a roommate myself, and while she's a great person, you're bound to have arguments all the time over ridiculous things. The fact that these were not regularly occurring, or even frequent disproves that theory, and says a LOT about Harry's likability and his roommates' patience.
3.) A quick point, in Order of the Phoenix, they were all fifteen. There is no world, I don't care what magic exists, in which a bunch of jealous, angsty, emotional teenagers do not turn against each other.
4.) The entire idea of Harry secretly being at fault is a concept commonly associated with victim blaming, and on principle, no matter how convincing your argument was, I can not agree with it.
(Sorry by the way, this is very long and tedious to read, [especially since they aren't even real] but I feel very strongly about defending the Potters and Marauders because of the unnecessary disdain they receive from the fandom due to distorted canon). Have a nice day/night.
I somehow don't think that Harry would've turned into Malfoy if he had been raised by James and Lily. James might've been an asshat but I have to believe he changed enough for Lily to fall for him, mostly everyone Harry meets seem to always be praising her, they often speak about how kind hearted and lovely she was (besides praising her abilities). So I'd like to believe that someone like that wouldn't go for a bullying prick? She would fall for whoever James became, the kind of person who would face off against one of the most powerful wizards alive, and who would sacrifice himself for his family. So, under the watchful gaze of Lily, he would've been just as kind and thoughtful, if not a little too brave and with a penchant for getting into trouble (he IS James' son, after all).
Exactly! You don't have to have bad parents to know right from wrong. If you had good parents you'd also learn the same thing.
But Harry wasn't raised by his parents. Harry knew next to nothing to know about them, so any personality he had would be his own, so who really knows? Without the Dursleys he might have been raised completely different. If his parents had lived he might have been more arrogant like his father had been. We can't know what might have happened, we can only speculate.
Gio Zaffini you also only really see James through Snape's memory and therefore, Snape obviously didn't like him so he's gonna be a bit bias and rememeber James as worse than he might have actually been
Nope, the Pensive Memories are the most unbiased and clear-cut way to view anything. If anything, it gives James benefit of being cleared of context of several years of constant bullying not directly shown.
And I'd have to argu about 'the gentle Lily'. She not only wanted to smile at her best friend's public sexuall-assault, she also left said best friend to be further assaulted in public. I would never do it to random human, let alone supposed friend.
Book Lover we don't know that James was entirely arrogant though. In the films especially, the only perspective shown on James is from Snape's, his school rival, point of view. Remember that James also, befriended a werewolf and underwent incredibly complex, likely excruciatingly painful magic between the ages of 13-17 in order to assist said friend. He also befriended Sirius, who was an outcast in his family, and likely very intolerant at first based on his upbringing. He also took Sirius in after he was disowned by his family. He even saved his rival from a possibly deadly "prank" setup by his friend, which included turning against previous bias and standing up to his friend. While his attitude towards Snape was unacceptable, we can hardly dismiss his entire being as "arrogant".
If Harry wud hv been raised by someone like Sirius, he'd still be the Harry we know. Either adverse conditions or the right guidance/loving environment make ppl empathetic.
Arel Murmu would* have* people*
If he had been raised by Sirius, he'd have likely turned out just like James and Sirius did in their youth. Cocky, brash, and overconfident in their appearance, skills, and abilities, but still a decent person at the end of the day that needs some growing up...aka, prolly dead before book 2 lol.
If he would've been raised by his parents,he'd probably turn out like Malfoy
@Arel Murmu But why do you say Harry could be raised well by Sirius but not his parents? Lily was against bullying and arrogance while we're told James deflated his head and grew out of his bullying. So why isn't it possible Harry's parents would raise him right?
@David Ortiz Considering Lily was against arrogance and bullying and James had deflated his head and grown out of his bullying, isn't it at least possible Harry's parents would raise him right and not to be arrogant?
My favorite alternative to both answers, is...
.
.
.
Let McGonagle raise him. She wouldn't let him become another James/Malfoy and he would have defeated Voldy in first year and be back in time for tea.
Stolen
@@ravel8876 Geez its a meme, you can't steal something like that. It's not copyrighted
That would have been the next best choice to his parents not dying.
someone else already said this
@@lorelikesthings you realize I wrote this 2 years ago?? Right??
If Harry corrupted the Dursleys , then why didn't corrupt Ron and Hermione and the other Gryffindor boys? He slept in the same room with them for about 8 hours a day.
Maybe that's why he gets bullied at school also
Except everyone turns on him multiple times through out the series
because the dursleys are blood, and they already have less than kind psychologies.
Thoros he only gets bullied by Slytherin house cause how he chose not to be a part of them plus how he disrespected Draco first year.
The 2nd year people did indeed turn on Harry because of Voldy's soul but not because it was corupting them like it did with Ron but because it made Harry parseltongue which made him suspiciously fiting for the role of the heir of Slytherin. In 5th book people turned on him because someone framed him into participating in the tournament. It had nothing to do with Harry and the effects he could possibly have on the other students.
Wow. Really interesting perspective. I don't know. I would like to think Harry would always be the great wizard we know him as today, but you can't discount the effect his upbringing has on who he is. Thanks for the video J!
Except he was never great. Most of everything he has accomplish was because of feelings, luck, or help. Harry never had a distinct characteristic that made him a great wizard, but just a good guy main character what will always save the day because he is the main character. Harry is a good person, but not a good wizard.
B-But.... He's an accomplished Seeker and excels at Defense Against the Dark Arts.... And he becomes Head Auror.
Shineeey How many spells does he know? How much time did he trained? How many books has he read? How much research has he done? How much knowledge did he seek? Did he gain all of his power by hard work and being educated or did he gain all of these power to even surpass Voldermort, who had years of experience and training, because he's the main character?
Wotso Videos hiii Ravenclaw
Wotso Videos i
James and Lilly would never turn their son into Draco! They were good people
@Lillz Pops agreed if anything they teach Harry to be very humble.
but were they though
I said that
@@Arthur-go2ow I think objectively they couldn't have been, but no part of this video actually addresses the idea of Harry growing up in a normal household, which James and Lily *might* have been able to provide, or the fact the situation Harry did come from actually makes him predisposed to BE a bully.
Extremely amazing people
I don't know. Abusing and neglecting a child can't be excused because the child turned out okay.
Both Harry and Voldemort grew up without love and both Harry and Ron grew up without wealth/power. The only child who grew up with both love and wealth/power was Hermione who is confident and morally astute. If she is the only example we have in this universe of someone who has it all, we could make the argument that Harry would've been very similar.
Elle Clements
I don't think you understand that this isn't about what is moral or not, only what is the truth. Obviously abuse is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that it can create better people in certain circumstances.
+Flaiden She grew up with power as she knows it. Power doesn't have to mean access to the wizarding world. It can mean having valued opinions, wealth, or educational opportunities. E.g. Ron arguably doesn't have much power despite growing up in the Wizarding world.
+Flaiden She grew up with power as she knows it. Power doesn't have to mean access to the wizarding world. It can mean having valued opinions, wealth, or educational opportunities. E.g. Ron arguably doesn't have much power despite growing up in the Wizarding world.
+Bose-Einstein But a lot of moral arguments include exactly that factor- that the consequences can somehow justify the actions. The question they asked was (as a paraphrase) 'Do we mind that they were mean to Harry, given how he turned out?'. And I would suggest that the answer is Yes. We should still mind.
+Flaiden We are talking about pre-Hogwarts development. the first meeting between Harry and Draco occurred on the first day, in which their personalities and prejudices have already been established. Thus Hermione is entering a state of low status after previously being in one considerably higher.
There's no excuse and no reason good enough to leave a child in an abusive environment
AnotherBookishLycanthrope Seriously, what was Dumbledore doing?!
Voldemort had hundreds of supporters and evidently even such protections as the Fidelius charm didn't help in the end. As the only bloodrelatives they were literally the only ones who could give fool-proof protection until Harry's adulthood. That sounds like a good-enough reason to raise the only one able to stop the genocidal rule of a megalomaniac leader who enjoys killing...
Dumbledore was ruthless about Harry's destiny anyway- he WAS WILLING TO KILL HIM TO STOP VOLDY- he didn't know FOR SURE that Harry would come back. I'm sure abuse seemed soft after that. Although, to be fair to Dumbledore, he does say to the Dursleys that their treatment of Harry was unacceptable, and a doubt he realised when he dropped him off they were that awful.
*'I doubt' not 'a doubt.'
this
"She even calls him toerag. Whatever that means".
Ah, I guess that's just a British word 😂
It is British/UK slang
British? The language is called English.
Chief Justiciar of England yes well done 👏 I didn't call the English language British. I just said that it was a British word because it's not a word Americans are familiar with, who also speak English. Therefore it is a British word.
But what does that mean? To which other insult could you compare it to? (I'm French but I do know a lot of insults in English thanks to american gamers, but english not so much)
Randall Flagg it means someone who is mischief - although it could be an insult it could also show Lily thinks of James as a lovable rogue as it is similar to words like 'rascal' - think Artful Dodger from Oliver
My philosophy for the entire series is: if things had started out good, they would've ended badly. Things had to start out the way they did, or the story would lose it's true meaning---or be called the Neville Longbottom series.
I have heard this point of view many times and I do agree to some extent that the Durlsey's did contribute this his personality I feel like he wouldn't turn out like Malfoy.
First of all, you have to consider how much of Harry's personality was moulded by the Durlsey's and how much of it was it his own. I like to think Harry is still a good person in nature, In fact it is quite a testament to Harry how he still manages to have a heart of gold and not become bitter despite being raised in such conditions. Snape was also treated poorly at home and yet he came out of it bitter and cruel and even joined the Death eaters. This shows how the two are fundamentally different.
Also, I feel like your judgement on James is a bit harsh. Yeah he is arrogant and yeah he is a bully but you have to remember that memory was from Snape's perspective and is biased and according to the other marauders, Snape wasn't just a helpless victim, he attacked the marauders just as much and was even hanging out with wannabe death eaters according to Lily.
James was also still a good kid despite this. He befriended three outcasts and became an animagus in order to help his werewolf friend despite being raised in a society that is prejudice against werewolves.
And surely, kind and passionate Lily would never had gone out, married and had a child with James if he had never changed for the better. Surely Lily would never let her son become as arrogant as James once was.
In conclusion I believe that while Harry would be a bit arrogant and not nearly as humble as he would with the Durlsey's, his kind nature would still be retained.
i believe that everybody forget that Snape was a bully, too. And considering the character we know, he was probably one of those who hid behind his more powerful friends to make something and then, when James came to answer his attack, he was alone and unprotected bc that what fake friends are. Sure, James appeared like a bully, but only to Snape and only on his perspective and we don't know how the deal was when actually lonely, weak people were around and who he was really. We don't know James Potter but everybody seems so sure of themselves calling him in any way it just pisses me off. Harry wasn't humble when he was with the Dursley, he was abused. It's a totally different thing.
Snippy says who? He was a bully even as a grown up with kids who did nothing
Yes, I agree completely. It really annoys me when people bash James for being a "bully" when we only get to see it through Snape's perspective. Can you really judge him based on one memory from a man who hated him when they were children.
Snape isn't a poor innocent victim, he dabbled in dark arts, planned to use a dangerous spell on his enemies (The marauders), joined in with wannabe death eaters to use some dark spells on Mary MacDonald, another student and tries to brush it off as just a laugh. Even Lily who doesn't even like James at this point says "At least he doesn't use dark magic" and even wonders why Severus is so obsessed with the marauders.
I could go on but we would be here all day. James Potter may have been arrogant and may have been a bit of a toe rag, but he changed for the better, he changed for Lily because he loved her unlike Snape who though he was entitled to her due to their friendship. Snape was abused but it certainly didn't make him humble, and it certainly didn't make Harry humble.
Agree 100%
So true, my take on snape is that i think he was very smart and very very brave but nevertheless he was still an ass. Like why the hell did he have to torture nevil to the point where Snape became nevils boggart
One of the things with this is that Harry's parents didn't discriminate against the different types of wizards, they didn't believe that muggle-born wizards were worse than "pure-bloods." Draco Malfoy, however, was raised to believe that pure-bloods were supreme, and that muggle-born wizards were like dirt. Also, it's good to remember that some kids, once they hit that age, become sick of the fame they grew up with. Being that famous, you don't really have a lot of time to yourself, and I feel like he wouldn't have rubbed it in anyone's face. It's also worth noting that the kind of upbringing you have has a strong impact on who you are, so in his case the Dursleys taught him that discrimination and bullying is wrong, and people have feelings, even if they're different than you. If Harry had grown up with Lily and James, I think they would've taught him to be generous, kind-hearted, and non-discriminative. So, I think he would've turned out relatively the same, although missing his parents is a big point in the book.
It's also worth thinking about that if Lily and James were still alive, that would mean that Harry and his family wouldn't have been attacked by Voldemort, and Neville could've been the chosen one, and Harry wouldn't be famous at all.
Yeah, even James Potter, who was sort of a bully, was completely disgusted when Snape called Lily the M-word.
Although harry could have become more arrogant, he would still be raised by two members of the order of the pheonix, so i doubt he would be anything like malfoy, and he does seem to have his mothers traits of being kind and generous. But maybe instead of ron he would have been friends with neville, whos parents were also loyal members of the order
nevile: da tru mvp
“Ha ur dads a big deal” “IM HARRY POTTER” my fav line
What about Ron, Hermione, Ginny, and Molly?! They loved Harry more than anyone else! They definitely would have felt the effects of Harry being a horcrux. The Dursleys just flat out hated Harry.
I never saw them as "hating" Harry but were purposefully tough on him to keep his wizard side a secret so that he wouldn't know. If they truly hated him they would have dumped him at the closest orphanage and that would have been that. But they choose to take him in even though Vernon couldn't handle the truth that magic was real and Petunia was always jealous her sister was the special witch. Even their final goodbye showed that they cared. But I suppose that is what is great about books, you can interpret things in many ways. Wanna see an abusive home for magical children just look at Matilda...she had it way worse than Harry and her parents gave her away without a second thought or care in the world. At least the Dursley's showed the slightest affection (very rarely). Myt only question was how did Hagrid give Dudley a pig tale against a muggle with no reprecussions when later Harry does one spell in self-defense of a muggle and all of a sudden it's a big to-do.
Warrka4 no, the dursleys hate magic and anything "abnormal" and punish Harry even for dreaming of "impossible" things like flying motorbikes. Also, loving/caring about someone and being abusive to them are not mutually exclusive, unfortunately.
Molly was in his presence only for few hours or days per year, Ron, Hermione and Ginny almost only in the school, the single most magically protected place in the country, which must have had protective effect on horcrux magic. Even the diary of Tom Riddle (50% of Voldemort's soul) took most of a year to force Ginny to throw it away. And she was carrying it on her body. Nobody got too close to Harry, some hug, sometimes, but they kept distance from this teenager, at least few feet. With baby, it is different, you need to carry it constantly, never leave it alone...
You forgot Dumbledore left a note with the baby telling them what he would do if they dropped him off at an oprhanage. "Remember my last Petunia!"
The Winsinator frankly I would just like to point out that if you have seen the deathly hallow's you would know that they do affect him and her defects Ron and Hermione am working with so it's just that the tiny piece and Harry is just so so small to work can't have a really big affect on them because there was so small that it cannot affect Ron Hermione Molly Ginny
They where abusive.
End of story.
That's never good for a kid.
Ever.
Heart789456123 thank GOD for this comment
Agreed. The ends don't justify the means.
lpscatthy it didn't help Harry. He became who he is in spite of them, not because of them. They made it so much harder for him to be himself.
Heart789456123
Actually, wrong. While not a good thing at all, it actually creates a necessity to be independent. Whether in a good way or not, that is all up to circumstances.
Bose-Einstein I disagree, children who end up healthy physically and mentally do that despite having grown up in an abusive household not because of.
See i never think you should praise the Dursleys. The only way we see this kind human being, this young child who fights for his friends and those who he made his family is due to the kindness we can only see as a trait from his mother and cemented with the love he found at Hogwarts. The Dursleys never deserve praise, we should never think that Harry being with them was a good thing. The only evidence we have to possibly accept the Dursleys as reputable characters are the fact that he may not have been the chosen one; he would have been loved, with Sirius or with his parents, he would have been loved and we should never ask for more of that. Harry could have turned out so much worse if it was nothing but bad in his life, we see hints of it before Harry goes to Hogwarts but we only see a glimpse, the rage induced power that he holds that shows itself at the zoo and the reptile cage. Dont thank the Dursleys, dont even thank Dumbledore (even some of his actions are sketchy, lets be honest) but that the Weasleys and the Quiddach team...thank those who loved Harry because he was Harry.
Snippy Personality is partly based on genetics.
Aryanna Silva you have a one sided view on things, sometimes the bad things a person's life can be good despite how horrible it is. I hope you understand this as you get older.
If Harry's parents lived, then Snape would not have been at Hogwarts.
Would Snape have been a full blown Death Eater then? 🤔
Because I feel Lily’s death by Voldemort was the tipping point for Snape to fully join the good side and become a double agent for Dumbledore
@@Sakuya727 no. Snape wouldn't be a death eater. he would had been a corpse. without money to be found under imperius and dumbledore not having any reason to protect him, Severus would had earned a one way trip to azkaban were he would die, or worse, in a short time.
his happier memories are with lily and he would had ended in azkaban because he betrayed her. there's no way he would be able to endure the dementors.
“Siriously” in the captions👌
Ben B the captions are beautiful.
Ben b nice
I personally think that it would have been better if Harry had grown up with his parents. Although i get were u r coming from i just think it would have been better for him because he would have already known who Malfoy was and known to stay away from him. Also his view on Muggleborns wouldn't be any different as Lily is one. He would also have Remus their which would influence his actions as Remus is known for being a kind person and would have told Harry to not judge a book by it's cover. Their is also the fact htat he would grow up knowing about the Weasley's and being good friends with them meaning his friendship with Ron would have probably started earlier then in the books/movies. James may have used to be a bad influence but this doesn't mean it would rub off on Harry. It eould also be good because he would have been able to actually spend time with Sirius who would have tought him lots of useful stuff and would be someone good for Harry to talk to whrn times get tough just like it is shoen in the 5th movie..........sorry i wroye so much
Miss Mysterious So pretty much the same Harry
I would've loved it if A.) Harry's parents lived or B.) Sirius didn't die in the movie. It would've been nice to see Harry with a loving, caring family. If his parents lived it wouldn't have changed Harry (ok maybe a little). But just because Harry's living arrangement's change, it doesn't mean he will.
Miss Mysterious but one more thing you are ignoring. Harry’s humility. Harry would have been extremely arrogant had it not been for the Dursley’s. Harry may still not treat muggles and muggleborm badly but he wouldn’t care about them much
That was a long but... insightful comment.
I fervently agree!
There is never, NEVER an excuse to let a child stay in an abusive home. Children who grow up without too much psychological damage do that despite that upbringing, not because of that upbringing.
THIS
Anne ITS A FICTIONAL STORY ABOUT MAGIC STOP BEING OFFENDED
Pastel Witch Your*
Pastel Witch *your*
Her English is great actually.
This theory could work extremely well, but what about those who lived with him in Hogwarts? Wouldn't they all be affected by the small portion of Voldemort's soul in Harry?
Debunked by J.K.Rowling though.
You could say that other magical people would not be as strongly affected by the piece of Voldemort as muggles would. That it took a larger piece that came into closer contact with, like Ron with the Lockett in The Deathly Hallows.
@@slevinchannel7589 I don't believe in the approach that JK Rowling has the final say on every detail of the Harry Potter story or Wizarding World Universe.
If you watch interviews with Vince Gilligan who was the lead writer and creator of Breaking Bad; he mentions how once you create something for the public it doesn't belong to you anymore. That how the public interprets the story is up to them, you can have differences of opinion. He also often mentioned how he and his other writers developed a dynamic of a "hive mind" where each person's creativity combined created something much greater than any of them on their own. It's not a perfect comparison given that BB is a TV Show and HP is a book series, but the logic is the same.
If people want to believe this theory or not it's up to them, we shouldn't be looking to JK Rowling as some sort of judge on how we're allowed to think about the story. Her opinion is interesting yes, but "debunking a fan theory?" Just be glad you created something so great that fans are so enthusiastic that they continually imagine alternative interpretations of the story.
To me this theory is brilliant, it fits with the theme of the larger story about people not being purely good or purely bad. In my opinion The Dursley's were average, but if provoked had a very dark side to them. Petunia's jealousy of her Sister and Vernon's suspicion as to Harry's Parents jobs were crucial as well. But like J said that doesn't seem like a logical reason to treat Harry the way they did. Yes, they still could have been cold, unaccepting/supportive, etc. without that being shocking. But to lock him in the cupboard suggests that they couldn't stand being in his presence.
I love how J points out that the Dursley's being hostile towards the part of Voldemort inside Harry prepares him to face Voldemort. In a way the Dursley's indirectly teach Harry about everyone has a dark side, and weaknesses.
@@setbyyah5637 What?
Which comment?
I guess you’re referring to my first 🤷♂️
I’m saying the piece of Voldemorts soul wouldn’t affect wizards/witches the same as the Dursleys given they may have more tolerance/immunity to it
The Mitochondria is the Powerhouse of the Cell
Carter Womble
mitochondria?
I was never taught how to vote
They devoted that time to defining isotopes
I wasn't taught how to look after my health
But mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell
Wuddup t-shirt reference
Why is this here some kid in my school keeps saying this and R u him
What in cellular respiration? Yay dead memes
James wasn't nearly as bad as you make him out to be. We literally only saw the flashbacks of Snape's perspective of him, not his entire life story. Maybe he was an arrogant bully, but Snape tormented the Maruaders just as much as they teased him. Plus, Snape hung out with people who would grow up to be Death Eaters and had some pretty terrible morals. On the other hand, James was a hard working kid that made friends with social outcasts.
He befriended a wizard whose pure blood supremacist heritage would scare away many others. He befriended a Werewolf and, instead of deserting him when he found out, he spent a ton of time to go through the painful process of becoming an animagi just to support him.
He was a harmless and loveable trouble maker like the Weasley twins; even if he was a bully, its not like thats what he spent his whole life doing. He did so many other things, from being a Chaser to performing complex magic to make the Map and become and animagi as wellas studying well enough to become Head Boy, bullying Snape was probably his last priority.
He also matured and realized the error in his arrogance in his later years at Hogwarts. Lily even fell in love with him, and she wouldn't fall in love with a jerk! JAMES IS A GOOD PERSON
I'mReallyBadAtThinkingOfUsernames:D he was a seeker not a chaser
Rachel Wood Actually, in the novels, James' position on the Quidditch team was NEVER specified. J.K. Rowling said in an interview however, that James IS a Chaser. The only time he is depicted as a Seeker is in the movies which aren't very accurate sometimes
I'mReallyBadAtThinkingOfUsernames:D oh ok. I think the films aren't very accurate either I prefer the books a lot more
I'mReallyBadAtThinkingOfUsernames:D no not a good person, but just HUMAN.
harmless? you call very nearly committing sexual harassment harmless? (and that's only because snape pulled harry out before he finishes the memory, and didnt rowling say what wasnt written was implied?and why else would snape pull harry put if not because he didnt wish for harry to see him humiliated like that?)
remus lupin while he was a werewolf was hardly an outcaast at hogwarts none the least because he was powerful but also because who else could say they are bestfriends with a werewolf? sirius black was also a powerful and good looking wizard at the time not to mention black agrees with james' prejudice against slytherin.
snape was sorted into slytherin if james potter the then supposed model gruyffindor everyone likes bullies and attacks him by very nearly stripping him what do you think the lsytherins the people he spent 24/7 and whose dorm and house snape sleeps in would have done to him had he not agreed to them?he wasn't good looking and even if he was powerful there is always the marauders the good gryffindors that the teachers would pick oer him even slughorn liked lily but not snape exactly why would snape not hang out with the only other persons who would accept or at least pretend to accept him?
Dumbledore obviously doesn't care for him or the other slytherins for that matter (why else would he humilaite them like that in book 1?) so he would not have fought for or protected a slytherin with no political power or name to him just because the slytherins like the rest of the school decided he would be a good target? yes, snape was wrong to hang out with them but he has no reason to hang out with people who bully or watched as he got bullied either, the slytherins would have easily manipulated him and with lily severing ties well how hard would it have been to convince that insecure, hormonal teen to side with people who at least pretended if not outright cared for him?
I wish he at least grew up with Sirius.
GalaxyDonutBookReviews siriusly tho.
MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY
GalaxyDonutBookReviews I mean seriously, Sirius was his godfather and During that time (The beginning) the rumor that Sirius killed 13 people didn't start yet.
GalaxyDonutBookReviews I mean, why would Hagrid borrow the bike from a guy who rumoredly "killed" 13 people??
KiNG CLiPS ----I don't think 'borrowing' would be correct, since Sirius was already in Azkaban for the supposed murders of the muggles & Peter the Rat. Pretty sure the motorcycle was in the possession of the previous Order of the Phoenix---it's mentioned in the Hallows later that Mr. Weasley had been 'working on it'
“And that’s why Harry should’ve been raised by James. Or should he?”
No he shouldn’t. He should be raised by Sirius. 😂 I stick by my headcannons!
*Siris and Remus
@@rulersreachfan243 *Sirius
RaRa Reyna I actually saw a fanfic of Remus and Sirius raising Harry after 6 years in Azkaban and Harry becomes friends not only with Ron and Hermonie (the latter figures out she’s a witch sooner BTW) but also with Neville and even Draco! It’s really good I’ll try to get a link.
But why should he be raised by Sirius but not James? I don't see how his godfather is better than his own father. With James, he'd be raised by all 3 Marauders, including Sirius. I wrote a fanfic with that premise.
As much as I love these theories I have to say that when he was talking about the horcrux part of Harry affecting the Dursley’s, it doesn’t work like that when he was at Hogwarts. If it worked the same way everyone that was close to Harry (Ron & Hermione) would’ve been affected.
And probably Hedwig.
It affects those who hate him like Ron hates the necklace
Only people with priveleged childhoods say something like abuse was good because it led to character development. ABUSE IS NEVER GOOD, and "heart of the underdog" characters traits definitely don't excuse anything. We don't know how Harry would have turned out with James and Lily, because he never had a chance to grow up in love, but that's definitely not the same as blood supremacy and inherent superiority that Draco grew up with.
That's why he should have been raised by Sirius Black and Remus Lupin. He would understand the prejudice against the minority, he wouldn't be rich in the least and he would still get the TLC he needs.
write name here Ikr
I would like to add to the memory segment that our memories are often colored by our perspectives, so James might not have been quite that bad all the time. And to be fair, it's versus Snape.
Toe rag is an English term kinda meaning annoying/ pain in the butt
It's self-explanatory it's a rag you use to clean with your feet - it's not even worth using with your hand. The bottom of the bottom really
i thought it had something to do with the plant toe
I just was at that part and was gonna search it, thank you.
It's also what people used for socks before there were socks. No really. It's a thing. Look it up.
1. Please remember that Harry chose to be a good person despite the bullying. Many people treat their horrible suffering at the hands of others as carte blanche for their faults and misdeeds.
2. Lily accepted James because he accepted her. He did not insult her the way Draco insulted Hermione. James grew out of his stupid snob habits. Not every kid in that situation does.
no, james insulted lily's intelligence and emotions by bullying her bestfriend up until the time they started dating and he grew up according to the book, james disrespected lily and her choices and ignored her wants and opinions and even went so far as to threaten her with violence
misaki sakagami Where the hell are you getting all of this from? Sure, James was a bully and a jock in school but just because he attacked Snape once during their time at hogwarts that doesn't mean he did the same to Lily in their adult years. Just because someone is a bully in school doesn't mean that they're going to be an abusive partner in their adult years.
On that note, I think Snape's grudge against James (And by extension Harry) is childish as well. I know you loved Lily Snape but she made her choice with her own free will I don't expect you to get chummy with James anytime soon but to hold a grudge against his orphaned child is just despicable. No amount of "Always" is going to change that.
aish please use actual punctuation, for a second i thought you were saying i supported snily which i honestly dont, i think snape didnt love lily at least not in a romantic husband way like james loved lily, snape may have loved her like a sister or literally the only friend he ever had (no thanks to his own personality coupled with certain other slytherin prejudiced people who ensured he did not have friends apart from lily less they be victims of humiliating not to mention life threatening pranks themselves)
actually there is evidence he only attacked snape once, the fact that instead of outright saying no, sirius said that james stopped pranking snape in front of lily clearly implies that the constant bullying was not in fact a one time thing, not to mention while the shack incident would have been enough for snape to want sirius in azkaban if for no other reason than he nearly killed 2 classmates, that OWL incident would not have been enough for both snape and sirius to hold that amount of grudge nearly 20 years later.
i never said james was an abusive husband, no matter how much of a bully he was i dont believe he would have gone that far especially as he worked for 5 years possibly more (i dont think james would have taken advantage and believe he would have waited for lily to recover from cutting her bestfriend loose before making any moves) to get lily. i meant when they were growing up. if he truly respected lily he would have grown out of childishly pranking snape for no reason than "the fact that he exists" and that he wanted to be in slytherin by 3rd year and instead would have left snape alone if only to show lily that he did in fact respect her opinions and choices and had no intention of controlling who or what house her friends should be. if respected lily before the OWL incident, he would have also taken no for an answer and just asked to be friends or even just waited and then asked her if they could try if not then so be it, instead he chose to bully other students and show lily just how arrogant and rude he is which apparently was okay with lily since they did not use dark magic to bully. why that matters is beyond me
Mathias Kolding Sure, that's your opinion and I respect that. My opinion/theory is that a lot of people don't realize that we see James' past as part of Snape's memories. Now, I don't know about you but if I was bullied by someone in school then I would definitely see them in a very different light than someone who was said bully's friend. Harry (and by proxy us the readers) only see James' past from Severus' perspective which is NOT a neutral one. Sure, James MAY have been a bully but neither the reader nor Harry knows what happened between that point and the point where James married Lily.
All I'm saying is that a lot of people take Snape's memories as law and don't consider that Snape himself might have exaggerated said memories in order to make himself appear as a victim in order to have peace with himself and in order to justify hating James and Harry. The James we see from Snape's memories is VERY different from the Snape who joined the Order Of The Phoenix to defend the innocent against Voldemort and it's impossible to say wether Lily made the right choice in marrying James or not. It's even impossible to determine if the version of James shown in Snape's memories even exists or not because the only perspective we have on that is a biased one.
tl;dr. Snape may just be a huge liar to himself and consequently to Harry and the audience and it's impossible to say if Lily made the right decision choosing James over Snape.
even if i dont agree with her using an insult made when her bestfriend was being humiliated and bullied and having to be saved by the girl his crushing on as an excuse to cut ties with said friend on a time he truly needed her, i do agree that lily at that time made the logical choice as choosing snape while it may or may not have saved him (it could have gone either way then and snape's turning point was when lily was in danger) would have put a bigger target on both lily and snape, potter at least she was somewhat safe or as ssafe as a muggleborn can be in that war.
while snape's recollection of memories from over 20 years ago could really have been incomplete or tampered with his feelings and what else has happened on top of that single event (and really memory is not the most reliable tool when recollecting anything that happened more than a 24 hour period unless there is some emotional and psychological trauma involved the effects of which may be both visible and not so visible depending on the trauma for example, severus will find it hard to remember what color shoes he was wearing the day of the shack incident but he will be hard pressed to forget short of employing repression, the flash of fangs or claws or even remus' transformation as a whole as evidenced and studied by professionals today) the fact that neither lupin nor black saw fit to detract, alter or disagree with what happened as told by harry pretty much proves that most if not all of what severus placed in that pensieve is true.
the truth hurts more than a lie, why would snape alter that particular memory to shpw himself the victim if james' own actions was more than enough to shake whatever superhero pedestal harry and every other adult who condoned the marauders' bullying based on the fact that he was a gryffindor and therefor could not possibly do something so bad as bullying and simply being a teenager has placed james in?
The more I watch these kind of videos the more I keep thinking wow Voldemort was really stupid at times
Ramkumar Natarajan
Never let Voldemort plan your wedding
Cassidy Dingman lol
Ramkumar Natarajan, Ya think?
i thought that was very obvious
No they have one spare bedroom because Dudley has a room for all his toys
They also have a guest room used mostly for the aunt which was bigger than the broken toy room
Dudley needs only one room. I bet that he barely plays with any of the toys or even likes any. I think that they were just abusive and that they would never let him have that bedroom and Dudley is who they aim to please and seeing Harry happy makes Dudley unhappy so that is another reason
But sometimes, when mistreated people become famous overnight, they want to get revenge, and become even meaner than their bullies…so I don't think it's mainly because Harry was an "underdog" that made him so nice and open-minded
I don't think it's ever fair to say that growing up in an abusive home is better than growing up in a loving home.
lpscatthy It's true that he might have become a different person but I think it's still wrong to say abuse was "good" for someone. I just think this is a really damaging way to talk about abuse. Many people in abusive households are gaslighted into believing they should be grateful for their abusers, and videos like this just further perpetuate the idea that if you grow as a person from an abusive or traumatic experience, then it's "good" that you had that experience.
Alyssa Iulianetti well, it kind of is if it helped you in the long run. Don't see what's actually logically wrong there, it's basically an appeal to emotion.
I'm not saying the story should be any different. It is a good underdog story. I'm just saying it's wrong to ever say it was a good thing that abuse happened.
It's true, everything affects how we grow up, even abuse. But a video about being grateful to the Dursleys for that abuse is upsetting.
I disagree, but ok. I think abuse and experience is what makes a person. The more struggle and the worst or better you become. Those who become worst are worst from birth. Those who do better are better from birth. So I just see the strong getting stronger. Now I'm not saying beat your kids, but life needs to be mean so we can learn. Not all has to be severe, but if you over come the sever then it was worth it.
You could have cited Dumbledore at the beginning of Half-Blood Prince, when he is chastising the Dursleys for abusing Harry, he says he is at least thankful they didn't ruin him like they ruined Dudley
But then why wasn't the Weasley family affected? Or his teachers? (excluding snape) or even Hermione and Ron? He spent a lot of time with them...
No. Abuse and neglect in any form are never good for a child. I get what you're saying but no.
The logic that his parents would make him arrogant is nonsense. James was not evil. He was like Fred and George (who hexed Dudley for no reason and nearly killed Montague). He was a responsible man. He was sorted and knew his priorities very well.
If Harry was raised by his parents he would have had the NORMAL childhood. I guess he would hv had young siblings as his parents were still young. Having younger siblings would have made him responsible. Definitely, he would not be arrogant. His father at his school was immature (Snape too was immature, and unfortunately he never grew up), and fun loving like the Weasley twins ( they played several pranks and also hexed their foes. They hv confessed so in Ootp). Making James look like an evil man is rubbish.
S M V a video video to show the movie
S M V right
He never said James was evil, just that he was kind of a jerk( which he was). So unless lily started seeing to much of James in of james in harry and started to curve that behavior he proably would have acted like a jerk to something that is also normal for a child.
S M V lily would also have had an affect on Harry, as she was so kind. I don’t think he would have grown up to be like Malfoy because he’s not even pure blood, and I don’t think James minded about blood purity either, seeing as he married a muggle born.
Agreed. And Lily would have definitely not let Harry be raised like that
I'm so mad that Harry wasn't adopted by Remus or Sirius or even McGonagall! He would be the coolest kid ever if McGonagall had adopted him, Voldemort would have never stood a chance
There were reasons why they couldn't adopt him. There's the whole blood magic thing, first and foremost, which required Harry living with a blood relative of Lily's (Petunia) to work. Remus was a werewolf, and he can't take care of a kid when he can barely find work to support himself due to the stigma associated with that. Sirius was in Azkaban, enough said. And McGonagall- while I do agree that a Harry raised by her would be badass- doesn't have the kind of relationship with either Lily or James to justify her adopting their child.
agentrikamcgee yeah I think the dursleys were necessary but multiple people knew about Harry's abuse and didn't stop it. Dumbledore scared the dursleys so why didn't he threaten them more?
K 2
Perhaps it's because they'd be unable to produce any real proof of abuse. We don't know how the Wizarding World defines "abuse", after all, and reporting the Dursleys risk exposing Harry's location to the Death Eaters (who'd ingratiated themselves to the Ministry by then). And trying to report the Dursleys to Muggle authorities is just too risky (not to mention how hard it'll be to explain just how they know).
agentrikamcgee but Dumbledore watched over him and could've off the record told them "treat him better or else I'll use magic on you" they didn't know about the rules so they probably would've listened
K 2
That's exactly what Dumbledore did, or so the books imply. When Vernon tries to throw Harry out in the fifth book a Howler arrived and all it said was "Remember my last, Petunia" in Dumbledore's voice. Petunia went pale and insisted Harry had to stay. Then in the sixth book Dumbledore visited the Dursleys personally and scared the fuck out of them before taking Harry away.
Petunia was secretly envious of Lily. This is shown when she somehow managed to write a letter to Dumbledore who had to explain - very kindly - why she could NOT also attend Hogwarts. Petunia also always felt second-best, as if their Parents were more proud of Lily than of her. Therefore, her attitude to the Wizarding World came about as more of a protective shell initially until it became second nature. Because of this, she would have naturally have chosen a mate who would reinforce her beliefs. They would have bolstered each other up in all this to the point, actually, where it really took more of a toll on Dudley than anyone by the way they spoiled and coddled the boy. I only hope Dudley's redemption was permanent after he - almost - made friends with Harry in the end.
They did make friends in the end.
Mr. Dursley actually died a few years back
Particle Aww, I forgot about that. Great actor.
Particle rip Mr. Dursley
Particle RIP
No... m.imdb.com/name/nm0789716/
Particle well that sucks
I don't think the 'they treat him bad because he's a horcrux' is true, since Ron and Hermione are a thing wouldn't they treat him bad
But McGonigal said "I've been watching them all day! They are the worst sort of muggles imaginable, the true ly are-"
1. The Dursley family was already terrible before Harry came to live with them. I mean the first chapter in the very first book describes this.
2. They didn't let others know they weren't treating Harry properly. A good example comes from Dudley's birthday in book 1. Both when they are forced to buy Harry a treat they never intended to because the salesperson addressed him in what he would like, and later in the car when Dudley's friend let slip that Harry talked to the snake, they waited until he was gone and they were inside the house before Vernon laid into Harry.
3. Marge was the worst but she hardly ever saw Harry.
4. Being separated from Harry for 9 months would've reverted them back then if this were true, and yet they get progressively worse over the years.
5. Don't they have to be in close proximity to the horcrux to be affected? But the Dursley's kept Harry separated from them often.
6. If this were true Harry would've negatively affected all the people around him at Hogwarts and such.
7. His fellow muggle students should've been affected too, but the only ones mentioned for being mean were Dudley's friends who were bullies.
8. By this logic, the Malfoy's aren't evil either, but influenced by the horcrux in the diary they had for 12+ years.
*QUIDDITCH CHASER
James was a chaser in the books, not a seeker
I don't think his position was ever stated in the books, it was just said that he was a "great quidditch player". But yeah, JKR has said that he was in fact a chaser.
Thank you!
I always just assumed he was a seeker 'cause he was playing with the snitch that one time, but I guess the books never did state it
I'm pretty sure he was a seeker
If Harry had grown up around wizards he would also probably associate fear with Voldemort instead of just anger and this would mean that he would be afraid to say his name and he probably wouldn't have been able to eventually defeat him. I think this because if he had grown knowing he was a wizard and that his parents had been killed by Voldemort then he wouldn't have been so curious to find out how to destroy this monster but instead he would probably have hid behind Remus and defend Peter Pettigrew who could have told Voldemort about his location taken blood from him raised the dark lord and then killed Harry in a single night.
Let's not forget that while James is a bully he wasn't the worst as he didn't call anyone a mud-blood
G Rodriguez you're right Mouse click on our way was the worst person there because he called people my bloods and James Potter didn't that for or James would have been a good role model for Harry and Lily would make sure have a safe kind and humble and modest
“Your father will hear about this?
I’m Harry Potter, suck it.”
Hey, Super Carlin Brothers! Pardon me, but: opinion incoming! I never bought that horcrux making the Dursleys assholes thing. Harry hangs out with Ron and Hermione on a daily basis for most of the year every year and they were never really affected even a little bit. In fact, in many cases, he was the one that could successfully defuse fights and stressful situations.
Plus, if exposure to a horcrux was the problem, shouldn't the Dursleys be a little more calm and accepting even if only for the first couple days when Harry comes back during the summer if they had been removed from the influence, having no contact with him for almost an entire year?
Yeah . . . I may be wrong, but . . . I think the Dursleys were just assholes . . .
Rose Storm I agree. Also I feel like Dumbledore could've done more to protect Harry. Like he could've threatened them into giving him a room and stuff. Multiple order members knew about his situation but didn't fix it?
K 2 that's why many people, including me, have a hard time not seeing Dumbledore as some kind of villain. Because there are many many times in the series when he seems to seriously be either incompetent or somewhat malicious. It's hard to tell which one would be preferable. Such as when, in the first movie, he did what I call The Fuckup, by sending the Slytherin students to the dungeons when there was a troll down there.
Yeah, and Mcgonagall said they were the worst kind of people.... and that was when harry was a baby and before he lived with them.
The theory that Harry causes the Dursley's abuse sounds a bit too similar to victim blaming for me to be comfortable with the idea
AnotherBookishLycanthrope WHY is everyone so offended about a youtube video about Harry Potter? Its just a stupid video, its supposed to fun, none of the abuse Harry went through ever happened! The abusers don't exist! The victim doesn't exist! Lighten up for fucks sake!
AnotherBookishLycanthrope it wouldn't be victim blaming because its not Harry's fault it would be Voldemort's.
The Larch What Sarah said. Plus... Harry isn't real, the abuse he suffered wasn't real... but there are real people out there suffering the same thing. That's real abuse, and we all agree we shouldn't defend it. But we learn through media absorption, so it's is important that we don't start victim blaming our fake characters because then we will be teaching the younger generation that that's totally ok to do in real life.
AnotherBookishLycanthrope I was thinking the exact same thing! Others, please stop saying that it's just a fictional story, because literature has a bigger influence than you think, especially something as well known as Harry Potter. Fans saying that it's Harry's fault for the Dursleys actions is promoting the idea that it's okay to defend child abusers, fictional and real
@@thelarch5280 Just because the Dursleys and Harrys abuse was fictional doesn't mean that its not real. This things happen everywhere in the world and are very much real
The reason the Lockett effected Ron so badly is because it was only the third horcrux, meaning it had 12.5%of Voldemort in it, and even more with the diary and Ginny, since it was the 1st horcrux with 50% Voldemort. Harry was the last horcrux, so he had very little Voldemort in him, so the Dursleys couldn't have been great people in the first place.
0:56
Harry would have been better off with James and lily.
Or would he?
*VSauce music starts playing in the background*
New SuperCarlinBrothers video! I repeat! This is not a *drill*
I hope you aren't *screwing* with me. 😋
How is neglecting a child a good thing? It just made Harry feel insecure and made him feel like he was a burden to everyone, and there's nothing good in that. And the fact that he is very nice to everyone was because he has Lily's heart, and James wasn't an asshole because Lily married him, and he sacrificed himself for his family, the only person that James didn't treat right was Snape, otherwise he was just having fun.
Harry would have been just less insecure if Lily and James had raised him, or anyone for that matter. Mistreating a child can never be excused.
Lilly's "heart" isnt genetic, so your point is nil. He grew up with Harry's "heart".
If Harry had that effect on the Dursley's and the locket had that effect on Ron, why did the students at Hogwarts, especially Ron and Hermione, not get irritable towards Harry? I mean, he literally spent 10 consecutive months a year for six years there.
The dursleys used the 3rd big room as Dudley's toy room where he kept all his toys, is the 2nd book Harry gets that as his bedroom and Dudley becomesfrustrated. This piece of information is not in the movies.
So it's like how the murder Thomas, and Martha Wayne is a good thing due to the fact that without it there would be no Batman?
Pretty much.
The same could be said for many protagonists, whose past trauma is integral to their motivation as heroes. That doesn't make the trauma good, because not everyone would respond the same way to trauma, and because there are minor good guys who don't have some great freudian backstory.
Also, if not for the abuse of Merope Gaunt and Tom Riddle Sr., there would be no Voldemort.
This whole theory hinges on the idea that all rich kids end up like Malfoy. Its not about money, its about having parents who love and nurture you. If harry can be good despite the Dursleys' treatment, then he can be humble despite the benefit of money. Having that 'privilege' (hate that word) doesn't make you a bad person.
I Know this was made 4 years ago but you’re right,it’s a fact that kids don’t become like Maloy because of privilege,they are more likely to imitate the behaviour of their parents so spoilt parents raise spoiled kids but caring and considerate parents raise caring and considerate kids
I must disagree with the Horcrux part. think with me:
Why did Harry had to live with the dursleys in the first place? Why couldn't he be raised by anyone else? There surely must have been volunteers!
Well Dumbledore explains it the fifth book. Because in order for Lily's sacrifice to remain protecting Harry, the place he called home had to be shared with lily's blood (aunt petunia), turning that home to the only place where voldemort could not touch Harry. So doesnt that mean the part of voldemort living inside of harry would have no power In the Dursleys House?! unable to afect Harry's uncles?
Because Lily's love protected Harry when he was a baby but she died in the process so Lily sister were the only ones where Voldemort can't attack
Ya
Harry's childhood was character building and made him more humble, a valuable trait in any person ☺️ and he was far more grateful for magic and his friends than if he'd grown up with it (also he is fairly careful with his money considering he had practically nothing as a kid)
I think that Harry could still be a morally just and kind person even if he wasn't raised by those a-holes, the Dursleys.
Hell nah, they had my boy Harry living under some stairs. They sucked!
PowahSlap Entertainmint It's ya boi horry
Mcgonagall should have raised Harry. She would have been strict but better than the dursleys
It's hilarious that you pretend that Lily would let Harry grow up to be anything like James was before he deflated his head.
You expect Snape's memories to be 100% objective?
Josh Gerlach Right?! Plus, he could've even changed his memories for all we know. If Slughorn can do it, Snape could do it waaaay better. He's one of the best Occlumancy people ever!(I forgot how to spell the word for using Occlumancy.) So he could've given Harry fake memories, and conveniently all the people who could have corroborated his story are dead, except Petunia who Harry will probably never talk to again. Interesting...
yup is this his WORST memories. who knows what happened before or after these flashbacks. its not like snape didnt hex james too.
katieduh Except that Lupin and Sirius accepted that Snape's worst memories to be true(Read Order of the Phoenix ).Sirius accepts her was bullying Snape with James and Lupin accepted that he was made a perfect to keep James and Sirius in check but he did nothing.
Snape's memories are completely his side of the story, and let's remember that he wasn't completely innocent either. We know that Snape did his fair share of bullying other kids too. EVERYONE has mistreated someone at some point in their life. Judging them completely from the victim's point of view is wrong. Yes, James bullied Snape, but that's not the only thing he ever did in his life, he was also an excellent friend and loving husband.
Memories in the Pensieve are objectives, you see the scene like it really happened, as far as we know.
But it's right that James was not doing this during all his scolarity. But Lily really seemed to don't like his attitude. Until, according Sirius and Remus, he grew a little bit, and cease to be a jerk ^^
I feel like Harry living with the Dursleys makes it much easier to sympathize for Harry and feel bad for him. I remember when I read the first book, and hearing how the Dursleys treated him, made me feel bad for him a lot more and grow to like him a lot more even before he got to Hogwarts.
Slytherin,Ravenclaw,Hufflepuff,or Gryffindor?
Slytherin and Ravenclaw=Likes
Hufflepuff and Gryffindor=Comments
WHO WILL WIN?
GAMING-FRIENDS 101 #hufflepuffpride 💛🖤💛🖤💛🖤💛🖤
GAMING-FRIENDS 101 Hufflepuff
Gryffindor, of course
Puffelhuff
I'm Ravenclaw. It does not matter that i write, because likes are easier than comments.
Vernon is already shown to be a horrible person before Harry arrives at the doorstep. He just gets sick of everything different once Harry is there because Vernon obsesses over what's "normal" and with a wizard in his house, it would probably just annoy him more.
I believe the reason as to why the Dursleys where so horrible to Harry is because as they said to "squash the Magic out of him." The more magical unexplained things that happened around Harry the harder they tried to suppress his magic. Because Petunia didn't want to lose to only link to her sister that she had left. And as everyone says Harry has Lilly's eyes. I can't imagine Petunia could look at Harry everyday and not only feel pain but love as well.
**clears throat**
IN THE BOOKS JAMES POTTER WAS A CHASER, NOT A SEEKER.
Edit: I can't remember where it said it, but I know it was stated somewhere
Another edit: if you look at J's twitter, he confirms that James was a Chaser. Case closed.
Nope, he was a seeker in the books too
Wait really?! I feel like I should have remembered that... Do you happen to have the page where it said that? Thanks in advance. :-)
Actually, it was never stated in the books what position he played, though he does take a snitch out of his pocket after his DADA OWL and play with it, which would imply that he was a Seeker
Inkyminkyzizwoz I believed that he had just stolen it
All Stone says is that his father was "an excellent Quidditch player."
Tbh I'm just surprised harry isn't a psychopath
This brought back a memory of a scene in the movie to me when dudley opposes his fathers orders and walks to harry and hugs him in fear of his safety
Were the Dursleys good for Harry?
No!
The end
I actually knew what he was talking about when he was talking about the first book because I've finally started reading the books like 2 days ago and watched the movies in April 2017
Harry isn't the Chosen One we want. He's the Chosen One we need. Siriusly. *\
As long a J is on a video, no matter where you pause it, it will always be funny.
james and lily were good people they would have raised harry to be good. James would have raised him to be like how he was after he was matured and lily was muggle born so he wouldn't believe in pure blood supremacy like malfoy does. I think he would be friends with the weasleys through the order of the phoenix and would be influenced by them
I agree. Harry didnt know of his wealth or fame until the age of eleven. With his parents there might not have been a reason to be famous but he still would of had wealth and would if had to experience in being grateful for the less expensive things in life.
How come Harry's horcruxyness didn't affect Ron and Hermione throughout the series, or anybody else he is close to?
Because the "Harry is a horcrux"-theory is pretty bland and stupid if you go deeper into it. It just excuses the Dursleys horrible behavior, giving a magical explanation rather than acknowledging that the Dursleys abused a child.
That's the amazing thing about Harry Potter. The real tragedies aren't triggerd by some magical curse. They fight the same struggles and human problems that we face in our normal world as well.
You can't neither blame magic for everything nor fix everything with magic, that's the point.
maybe cause it was a tiny piece of Voldys soul, and the Dursleys were with Harry 24/7 365 for 10 years and it would have affected them more over time, and Ron and Hermione didn't have that constant exposure for 10years straight... nut idk acctualy this is just something i thought of on the stop
Personally, I don't like the idea of asserting that growing up abusive situations like the one Harry was in makes victims better people. It takes away the work and recovery the victim puts into themselves and undermines accountability the abuser needs to take by uplifting it as something with a purpose.
I would like to see what would have happened if he ended up with sirius. if dumbledore knew that he was only a decoy secret keeper for the potters and that it was really peter, dumbledore could have cleared his name and harry would live with him. He would be even more rebellious and perhaps the fame would get to his head. Maybe Sirius would shield him from the wizard media
Hey this is fun and all, but maybe when talking about depictions of child abuse... don't make it seem like it's justified? The things Harry went through (although fictional) happen to plenty of people all over the world and it's kinda unfair to say to a person who's gone through neglect and abuse "hey at least you're a better person for it!" Cause they aren't. I can say from personal experience, abuse does not make you kind or thoughtful or a better person; It just makes you hurt.
you just summed up my feelings about this video!
Dude, I thought we already went over this. The guy in the video tries to justify abuse. We went over this in our own comment thread.
Pastel Witch, you are completely right! My experience does not apply to everyone, I should have been clearer with that. I was trying to counteract the assumption many people (including the Carlin Brothers) have that abuse makes people better in the long run, when the truth is as complicated and nuanced as humans are. I'm still unsure what the "hero" comment is supposed to mean though, if you could clarify that would be nice
Pastel Witch The abuse my friend suffered didn't make him better, it made him take his own life. Your experiences don't apply to everyone either.
Lynnkie B its not the abuse that was good for him it was growing up away from the magical world and not knowing that he was significant that was. The Dursleys were what made that happen. Thats the whole reason Dumbledore left him with them. He needed someone that knew enough about the magical world to protect him from it if need be, which they did because there is no way the death eaters would think to look in the muggle world for the most famous wizard baby. Yeah sure he said that Dudley was good becuase he could see right through Malfoy but Dudley wasn't exactly an abuser. He was a bully (a child can't be a child abuser). Everyone gets bullied and I think everyone is stronger because of it. I am a firm believer that the hard shit in life is what shapes you into who you are. I have enough first hand experience to see that and it is questions like these that kind of help me deal with my past. Sure my life would be better at the time if x and y hadn't happened but how would it change me now?
harry was around ron and hermione for 7 years and they werent effected
Dudley:I.. I dont think your a waste of space
Harry: Smiles and says:see you BigD