Why wasn't Harry Potter an Obscurial? 

let's not also forget that Harry already had a dark parasitic force inside of him. I don't think Tom Riddle lite would have shared his host.

sooo basically harry was so thick it protected him from being an obscurial. Awwh my stupid baby

One thing that I never see people mention is the fact that obscurials are RARE. We find out in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them that there hasn't been one for a very very long time, except for Credence and the girl Newt met in Sudan. They are so rare that when Newt initially suggests that the monster terrorizing New York might be one, people are extremely skeptical despite the fact that there is a lot of evidence to suggest this is true. It isn't that rare for there to be someone whose magic is suppressed, it's just that not all wizard children who are suppressed become obscurials. Temperament has some effect on it too I'm sure.

I always sort of assumed the guy on the back of the book was Nicholas Flamel. As he owns the Philosopher's Stone, he's almost a title character (even though he doesn't appear as an actual character in the story), so I guess he deserves a place on the cover. Either that or the illustrator was just told to draw a cool wizard to fill space.

do a theory on how Nicholas Flamel is Santa. I know it sounds silly but it makes a lot of sense, the elixir of life makes him immortal, he could use a time turner to get all of the presents on the kids houses in time, and uses house elfs to make all of the presents. It's dumb but kinda makes sense lol

"I made a theory and debunked it in one breath, go me!"

Maybe Harry not being an Obscurial also had something to do with the fact that he was a Horcrux...?

I like the way you speak! You're so articulate and I really liked this video. Plus, you're adorable. Great video!

I've not finished watching this but I always thought that Harry was just clueless to the fact he was a Wizard (until Hagrid told him) and wasn't suppressing his magic therefore didn't become an obscurial.

A quick search for "who's the character on the back of harry potter and the philosopher's stone?" brings up three possibilities: a young Dumbeldore, Quirrell, or Nicholas Flamel. Considering the rather obvious bulge in his pocket (likely the stone itself), and being the scholarly type, I'd hazzard a guess that Flamel is the most likely of the three as we never do get a description of him.

To me it's obvious why Harry never became an Obscurial, so I never ''wondered'' why he wasn't. He never knew magic existed, so he didn't have to, or try to, suppress anything.

I think for an obscurus to form, there needs to be conscious repressing of magical abilities. If I remember correctly, Credence knew about his mother being unnatural and was actively trying to stop himself from becoming like that due to the abuse he endured. Harry endured abuse, but like you said, he didn't even know that it was him that was doing the magic.

The person on the back of the book might be Nicholas Flamel.

I haven't finished the video, I'm posting here at the part where proof of Harry's neglect is offered... An obscurial seems to require knowledgeable suppression of magic. Harry was punished for his magic, but he didn't believe all those weird things were really caused by him, so he never tried to stop it. The Dursleys tried to supress his magic, but Harry never did. It worries me a bit that, if Ariana was an obscurial, Dumbledore should have known there would be a risk to Harry with the Dursleys of Harry becoming one, but then again, I'm not one of those people who think Dumbledore was entirely knowledgeable how the Dursleys might react to Harry and didn't realize the dangerous extent of their abuse until after Harry had come to Hogwarts. In fact, maybe that's why he's so angry at them in the sixth book? Because he's realised the risk Harry was at this whole time?

Why should Harry be an Obscurial? He never suppress his powers. By that logic every wizard or witch child that lives with Muggles should be an Obscurial.

*I did not watch the video yet* Harry never really supressed any of his power now did he? Dursleys never really told him he had magic powers and got mad to him for weird stuff happenning around him (in Harry's point of view). Harry never felt the psychological oppression about the usage of magic and continued using it whenever he felt scared etc. You know which HP character did? Dumbledore's sister (whose name is Ariana if I remember right). She was the only character I know who pursued herself to never use magic. And we all know how it ended. She burst with magical power killing not only herself but also her mother (again if I remember right). These sound like Obscurial. Also remind me at what age she died again ;)

NOTE: I AM POSTING THIS BEFORE I WATCH THE VIDEO, so please don't tell me that's what he said, or not what he said. This is an idea of my own, and if he agrees, good. I'll be somewhat right about something. My idea, theory if u will, is that because Harry's magic was ignored, not punished, that is the simple answer. The dursleys blamed any mystical happening on him, but didn't explicitly explain it was magic, so he figured weird things happened, and weren't his fault. Thus, the obscurial never developed. But this brings up another, less Important question, what if he had developed an obscurial? Since, he was a horcrux and all. Would it destroy the horcrux, or would the horcrux prevent the creation of an obscurial? Or something else?

OMG! Is that a first edition of the Philosopher's Stone?! You're so lucky!

I agree, he still used his magic, even though it wasn't conscious, so it wasn't constrained.

You're voice reminds me of every Harry Potter character ever

i think an obscurus only happens when a witch or wizard actively represses their own obscurus. harry's magical 'outbursts' are not obscurus outbursts, just unconcious magic. i think unconcious magic has been mentioned somewhere, just can't remember where. so since harry didn't have any shame or fear in his magical abilities, since he didn't know he had them, he could not have developed an obscurus. or maybe obscurusses are just very rare developments. thank you for the video and the interesting question it posed!

I don't think the guy on the back of the book is meant to be anyone, but I've always liked to think it's Nickolas Flamel.

I think this may have been why Mrs. Figg was assigned to babysit him, so if signs arose that this kind of darkness was taking root in Harry, she could inform Dumbledore and... I don't know, have him relocated? I know it was important for his safety to stay with the Dursley's, but priorities? I don't know that EVERYONE that represses their magic necessarily develops an obscurial, after all, Newt mentions in the film that they are exceedingly rare. It takes a specific person under a specific set of circumstances to create one and as long as he was being monitored and cared for, Harry wasn't automatically at risk.

There's a fanfiction I once read where they showed Dumbledore's letter to Petunia and in it, he asked her not to tell Harry about the magical world. I think this might be true because Dumbledore might have figured out obscurials are only created when someone knowingly has to suppress their magic. So he would have counted on the Dursleys not telling Harry that he was a wizard.

Because he didn't know that he had powers he couldn't repress them therefor he couldn't control them

it's simple: they had not come up with the idea yet.

why did Dumbledore leave Harry with 3 muggles? well mostly because of the family connection. he was right in the fact that if he was raised in the wizarding world as the boy who lived he may fall to the belife that he can do no wrong and become spoiled... he was also in danger of the death eaters that escaped. Dumbledore had lived a long time.. time enough to loose a hatred of muggles and see them as people too. he had also written back to Petunia as a child very sweetly explaining why she could not go to school with her sister. so he despite his trauma had a kind heart towrds muggles, wizards, and everyone. bear in mind he didn't have to be so kind to intelligent magical creatures like elves, and centaurs, merfolk, goblins and giants... he just was and thats why so many honored him at his funeral.

I wonder if the wizard on the back of your book might be Newt Scamander so pensive and wide-eyed and ready for an adventure.

Yeah I love your theories, like the pixar theory

The character on the back is Nicholas Flamel. It was confirmed a long time ago, I think.

I think Dumbledore didn't fear Harry becoming an obscurial like Ariana because he knew that the Dursleys didn't want Harry to know about his magic. Their attempt to rid his of magic was purely just not letting him know those incidents were magic, just that he was in trouble for being in association with the incident.

I always assumed that the guy on the cover was Dumbledore...only now do I realize that that doesn't fit.

I always thought the person on the back was Arthur Weasley, but Nicolas Flamel seems more likely

Harry never really suppressed his powers. Also, while the Dursleys were cruel, they didn't exactly beat him.

Harry wasn't aware of his magical powers, meaning that he wasn't holding them in, that's why he got in trouble but he couldn't explain why! People that are obscurials are aware of their magical abilities but try to hide it

Theory here. Dumbledore associated becoming an obscurial with physical beatings like how Ariana had been attacked and had figured the Dursleys would be too afraid of retribution of Harry's magic to do that. There was also the squib Arabella Figg (cat lady) who was keeping an eye on Harry. Also others have talked about Harry being a Horcrux so that could have also factored into it.

The person on the cover is the creator of the sorcerers stone. I can't remember his name right now

The wizard on the back of that book cover was drawn by a designer who wasnt given the book. He drew HIS idea of what a wizard would look like and based the image on his own father. In later editions that image was replaced by a drawing of Dumbledore, in robes.

There is a difference between beeing punished every time something unexplainable happens (Harry) and beliving to be doing something bad and supressing the magic inside you (Credence and Ariana). The Dursleys couldn't stop harry from useing magic but Ariana was so scared of her own power she CHOSE not to use them and Credence was scared of his adoptive mother. Both of them knew about magic and feared it, Harry had no idea. As is described in the second chapter of "the philosopher's stone" Harry did use magic. It couldn't build up inside him until it burst out of him in the form of an Obscurus, which is what happend to Ariana and Cerdence.

The character on the back is the first drawing rendition of Dumbledore before JK told them to change it you have a very rare copy of that book seamus

I think that Dumbledore was hoping that familial love would have taken root when he left Harry with the Dursleys.

I also have this copy of The Philosopher's Stone with the unknown wizard on the back. It is just a wizard the illustrator designed when asked to put some kind of wizardy person on the cover, Dumbledore was put on after a short run as there was a description of him in the book.

Well, leaving out the point you don't wanna hear/read, it'd be hard to find an other place for Harry. Parents:dead, Grandparents: dead, Godfather: "murderer", Lupin: on the run, Pettigrew: "dead". Harry would have had to grow up at Hogwarts or at the house of an other member of the Order of the Phoenix, but at the time his own family might have occured a better choice. And Dumbledore was older and wiser, had had more experiences, that could have effected him more. Since he already made up his mind about "the greater good" this seems likely.

Here's a hint of the character on the back "TROLLS TROLLS IN THE DUNGEON!"

Well, Dumbledore had 3 major (major) flaws that I've found. -Stubbornness/Egotistic -Crypticness/Over complicating things -Too Logical Now the 1st and second are the ones that affect why he left Harry with the Dursleys. He was too logical when it came to things like that and would often remove his emotions as reasoning. He was the literal definition of cold and calculating in these situations. Harry definitely had other blood relatives (like are you trying to tell me lily had literally no cousins, aunts, uncles, or grandparents?) (and aren't all purebloods related somehow? So wouldn't Harry would be related to them through his dad?) But Dumbledore didn't want to take into account the emotional, mental and physical abuse Harry would encounter in that home. He was thinking that most other pureblood families in Britain were dark (The Malfoy's, The Blacks, The Crabbes, The Goyles, etc) (although how cute would it have been if Harry had been raised by Andromeda and Ted with Tonks as his older sister??) And that the Dursleys already knew about magic so that was one less problem for him to deal with. So off he went leaving baby Potter with the Dursleys. The stubbornness comes into play in the way that McGonagall was strongly against it, and she was one of his closet friends and advisers, but he didn't care. His mind was made up. His ideas were the best and that's what they were going with. So that's why I think Dumbledore left Harry with the Dursleys. EDIT after posting this I realised that I don't know if they blood relations protection thing can only be Evans blood or if Potter blood would work too because it's part of Harrys blood. So hmu if you know the answer to that.

I wonder if Dumbledore let Petunia know about the dangers of an obscurial in his original letter to her. That's why they fiercely denied the existence of magic and not just Harry's expression of it.

Petunia always wanted to be a witch. Albus left her a letter and that's why she kept him in the first place. I believe she really does love Harry. She's just jealous and kind of scared. He knew she wouldn't really do major damage to him.

There are so many plot holes in Harry Potter that I try not to think about them. With that said, Harry not knowing he was a wizard explains why he wasn't an obscurial.

I had my book since it first came out and not once in all the year did I ever question it was on the back until now, though I do like the idea of it being Nicolas Flemmel and is that guy on the prints were the title is Sorcerer's stone?

The guy on the back of the cover is Nicholas Flamel (philosophers stone creator) I also have that copy of the book

Why didn't Tom Riddle become an obscurial

If I remember correctly: The guy on the back of the book is just a nameless wizard. The artist was asked to add something to the back of the book, so he drew a guy that looked like he imagined a wizard to look like.

You my favorite RU-vidr in the world

Maybe this is one of the things Dumbledore warned Petunia about in his ongoing correspondence with her (i.e. "Remember my last.")

No hate but even when I read the title I thought it was a stupid question lol just because Harry is so ignorant of his magic

Everyone knows Dumbledore can basically see into the future. He probably knew that the Dursleys would keep Harry from knowing his true heritage and thereby keeping him from developing an obscurous because he never had control over his magic due to not knowing he had it.

I think the person on the back is Nicholas Flamel

The character on the back of the book is jk rowlings father, as he was the original design of dumbledore, but the drawing was later changed to fit with the publishers wishes

I normally go to SuperCarlinBrothers for theories, but congrats. You've changed my mind about them being the only RU-vidrs out there with interesting and plausible theories AND adding humor into the mix.

In case this hasn't been said already.. The illustrator for the cover of that edition of 'The Philosopher's Stone' was Thomas Taylor and it was his first ever professional commission. Quote from him - "I was asked to simply 'provide 'a wizard to decorate the back cover'. So that’s the answer. The first wizard wasn’t anyone in particular. Except.. except he was, actually. He was based on none other than my own wonderful, magical father. Yes, my somewhat eccentric, embroidered skullcap-wearing dad is the wizard on the back of Harry Potter." You're welcome.

I believe Dumbledore left him with the Dursley's because (like Percy Jackson's mom, sally marring Gabe) it would hide Harry's "scent" from in this case the dark lord.

the character on the back of the original prints of philosopher's stone, was a fictional character known by his jpeg name 'wizzy'. He doesn't appear in the story and was designed by the illustrator at the request of Bloomsbury. In later prints 'wizzy' was replaced by Dumbledore due to confusion over who he was by fans.

Isn't it simply that Harry didn't even know he had magic so he couldn't really suppress it and create that physiological pressure it takes on them to hide their powers? :3 Credence had a wand and knew about his powers so he suppressed them knowing he had those powers. While Harry on the other hand used magic without knowing he had them and they acted based on his feelings.

That's quirrell on the back, in the sorcerers stone scene with the troll at Halloween, he is described as having his "purple turban askew." And the person on the back does have on a purple turban

can someone translate for this guy can't here over his braces

I reckon the dude on the back of the philosophers stone book would be Nicholas flamel or a young Dumbledore.

Harry wouldn't develop an obscuris because he never repressed his magic. He used his magic when he was one for a while, as we find out in the later books, and still used some magic at the dursleys.

Loved this video... not only nostalgic over Harry Potter but also braces and twin beds! haha Great job dude, keep it up!

without having seen the video, here's exactly why: Obscurials are created when you suppress magic for a long time. Harry learned of his wizarding skills when he was just a young boy, so he simply never had the time, not to mention, he'd also never suppressed his magic. It had manifested in many ways on many occasions throughout his early life (as explained in the books, but not shown in the movie except for that one scene with Dudley and the snake). Didn't take me 6 minutes to explain, did it?

I Know For a Fact That my Family Would’ve Been Proud if I Had Gotten Accepted Into Ilvermorney,Even Though They’d be Nomajs,I’d be a Mudblood,&,Proud

I think the person on the back of your cover is Nicholas Flamel

Holy crap I think I just realized something. Dumbledore INSISTED that Harry live with family despite how badly he knew they were treating him. Is it possible that being near family can help defend against the development of an obscurious? It obviously doesn't work in all cases because Ariana was living with family, but she also experienced an extremely traumatic event. It also points to the theory that the Dursleys treated Harry poorly because he was a horcrux. Horcruxes affect many relationships negatively in the HP universe. Petunia truly loved Harry, because she loved her sister, but the horcrux, and anxiety from her sister being murdered by a mad powerful wizard, caused her to treat him badly. However, the deep love she had for Harry shines through, past the horcrux, with the fact that Harry did not become an obscurial.

Lol, do you yell everything you say?

I was gonna debunk this theory, but you did it for me, *Sad Face* but the hell with it! Reason 1 why Harry couldn't be an Obscrial: He didn't suppress his magical abilities, his Aunt and Uncle did... Reason 2: He didn't know he had magic, and as soon as he found out, he embraced his powers. I must admit though, Good theory! (as usual)

Don't jump at me for saying this, but by the end of the last harry potter movie during the revelation, I kind of began to despise dumbledoor. Yes, he had the goal to end Voldemort in mind, yes, all his moves were calculated, but as snape puts it, he was keeping harry as a pig waiting for slaughter. Knowing the way dumbledoor's mind works, he wouldn't leave anything to chance. He wouldn't carry on without a plan b or c. So, knowing that harry may or may not defeat voldemort, he sends harry back to the dursleys over and over again, so in case plan a doesn't work, he would have plan b and c. Plan b, harry develops an obscuris and facing voldemort, destroys the last horcrux, naguini and voldemort himself, with harry being a casualty. Planc c, the obscuris at least destroys at least the horcrux inside of harry and the rest of the horcruxes have to be found by the order of the phoenix. Pretty ugly plan. But the reason why so much abuse didn't lead him to become an obscurial AFTER (1)

My question is why Dumbledore put Harry with the Dursleys in the first place. Apart from knowingly putting a baby in an abusive environment, which is unjustifiable in any case (at least imho), he risked Harry developing an Obscurus himself, which could have proven disastrous for the whole wizarding world. And wasn't his whole reason for letting Harry grow up with the Dursleys so he could grow to become this hero-figure he so desperately needed? Kinda hard to rescue the whole wizarding world when you die when you're only about 10 and very likely lose all control over your magic...

Harry didn't know he had magic so he couldn't suppress his magic, plus he stayed kind, loyal, friendly, caring even when his family treated him like crap. that's why he's my favorite character not because he's the main character

I re-read the Harry Potter series, especially the Philosopher's Stone to find out why Harry Potter wasn't an obscurial. Honestly it goes back to the letter Dumbledore left for them. I think Dumbledore knew the Dursleys hated magic, and since his own sister was an obscurial really had kept a close eye on them and why he had Mrs. Figg keep a very close eye on Harry and the Dursleys, and I truly believe that Dumbledore kept in very close correspondence with Mrs. Figg and signs for her to look for in Harry and the Dursleys and if their treatment of Harry did get out of hand Dumbledore would've made sure to get Harry out of there and to a better home. I do think in the letter to the Dursleys Dumbledore may have hinted at the possibility of an obscurial blossoming from Harry and after all though Petunia held her sister as a "freak" I think Petunia knew that Harry couldn't help being what he is, and as Dumbledore pointed out they still took Harry in. There are many factors why Harry didn't become an obscurial and they were, as the rest of the series, were put in place by Albus Dumbledore to ensure Harry had a decent childhood away from the fame until he was ready. I think Dumbledore employing Mrs. Figg to keep an eye on Harry was crucial to his keeping a subtle eye on him. Dumbledore knew how important Harry is and was to finally defeating Voldemort he would've intervened if any of the treatment of Harry would've resulted in him even going near the path of becoming an Obscurial.

Use more pictures, I don't wanna look at you all vid xP

He could never have something so dark living in him while he was still under the protection of his mothers love. Voldemort could not even touch him until he took Harry's blood. That's why he never became an obscurial.

The Horcrux inside Harry probably ate the Obscuritas as it tried to develop. Since it is apparent that Dumbledore knew about the Horcrux (or at least suspected) it's possible that he did not fear the creation of an Obscurial inside Harry because the Horcrux would have countered it entirely.

I believed the reason Harry wasn't an Obscurial was because he was already a horcrux and I don't think you can be both.

i want to point out the dursley never truly were able to make harry suppress his magic. the only time they get close to doing that is in the second book and it was only for a couple of weeks at the most. i think that is why harry was never an obscurial.

The guy on the back is supposed to be Dumbledore. It was put there by the publishers without JK's approval. She later had it changed. If I remember correctly that Dumbledore is only on the first edition and the first few printings. That is an extremely old edition. It's probably valuable. Show it to J Carlin. He knows how to identify the first editions. Here is a video of J Carlin explaining about rare Harry Potter books. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RxGNtTliRMs.html He talks about that person being Dumbledore.

My question is, why does the guy on the back of the book (who is probably Nicholas Flamel) have a freaking *PENTAGRAM* on the back of *HIS* book?

Dumbledore had so many bits and bobs in his office I'm sure he had some way of watching over Harry to make sure that in obscurus was not created and because he did not know he could do magic, Harry was thus protected from creating an obscurus while maintaining the blood protection created by his mother, but he had to stay with Petunia as she was the only blood relative to Harry and in order for Harry to stay safe there was no alternative to the Dursley's. Anyway, that's my idea convoluted as it may be thank you. (one more thing, it would not surprise me if Dumbledore had placed some sort of an alarm on number 4 Privet Drive in the event an obscurus begin to form)

I think that the person on the back of the book could be Nicholas Flamel, he was a major part. I have an ever so slightly different copy, that has a clear Dumbledore on the back. Great video! x

It's obvious, Dumbledore possibly knew that Harry's Aunt and Uncle would raise him with no knowledge of magic. As you know harry didn't know that he was magic until he turned 11.

Theory 1: Dumbledore probably knew the extent of what had to happen to become an obscurial since Ariana was one. That's probably why he let Harry stay with the Dursleys, because he knew it wouldn't get that bad. Theory 2: He needed to make sure Voldemort wouldn't find Harry, and keeping him with his muggle relatives was the best way to hide him. We can tell that Dumbledore always knew what was going on with Harry, so maybe he figured that he would keep Harry there until he showed signs of becoming one, and would then step in. Theory 3: He saw how people like Aberforth and the lady from Fantastic Beasts (don't remember her name) were able to calm the obscurial for the most part, and hoped that he would be able to control Harry long enough that he could use him against Voldemort. Like Grindelwald and Credence.

my mum had the book in 1997, and since there were no movies and no real talk of it (as hp was brand new) we decided that the person on the back was the artists impression of dumbledore, as on the later editions, he appears in that spot, except he looks more...dumbledore. we think this was an attempt to make sure everyone had the same interpretation of dumbledore when the movie came out.

Maybe it's sorta like why Sally Jackson married Gabe in The Lightning Thief. Maybe the Dursleys hid Harry better than any wizarding family would. (Btw Gabe's mortal stink hid the main character of the Percy Jackson series from mythological monsters for anyone who is wondering)

The person on the back is young dumbledore

The character on the back of Book One : HP and the Philosopher's Stone could be the wizard who shook Harry's hand in a muggle store long ago? Nicholas Flamel would be a better guess, though.

I think Dumbledore knew that the Dursley's wouldn't punish him for thee magic to the extent to cause an obscurial because Petunia knew about the wizarding world and I'm sure he would have informed her it was important for their safety that Harry's magic be kept hidden. Dumbledore probably also told Petunia that Harry needs not to preform magic but for him not to be punished from it, just discouraged until Harry could attend Hogwarts.

I think all of Harrys "out busts" are just normal things all young witches and wizards go through

I feel it's a little obvious but my theory is that Dumbledore sent Harry to live with the Dursleys simply because Dumbledore was never close with his family and wanted to give Harry a chance to be close with his. Because Ariana became an Obscuriel and sort of became "clinically insane" as us muggles would call it, Aberforth was close to Ariana and was always with her along with their mother. So Dumbledore never really connected to his family due to the fact they had different priorities. And when Dumbledore's parents died he knew he missed out. And when Ariana died he lost both of his siblings because well one of them died and the other blamed him for Ariana's death. So essentially, he just wanted to give Harry the chance he never had or at least didn't take advantage of to know and love a family. Wow that was a took a while to write. I will probably be commenting another devastatingly long paragraph on one of you videos about Harry Potter theories again someday soon. If you read this, till then 😁

EVERY fanfics that day dumbledore was manipulative explains that he wanted to be and to mould him and tbh I would put it past him, it was a risk but putting him in any other situation would have been possible to turn out someone that didn't have the bravery, brains or 'saving people' etc. it theveey most dumbledore knew the power burst of an obscurois and could've stuck Voldemort in front of Harry then provoked him

Harry didn't know he was a wizard. Credence and Ariana knew they had powers and couldn't use them.

Maybe Dumbledore was trying to restore his faith in muggles through leaving Harry w/ them? Also considering that Petunia wrote to Dumbledore all those years ago...