![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
The first time I've read "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone", I utterly hated it. Still do, as a matter as fact. And no, it wasn't the crappy writing or the story that upset me so much, but the awful character of Harry Potter.
Now, it isn't unusual for a children's book to start out with a disagreeable child as it's 'hero', but one would expect that child to undestand, through the course of the book, that it *has* been disagreeable, and then try to 'better itself'. "The Secret Garden" comes to mind.
Harry's story was different, however. I realised *how* different when Harry's attitude towards Snape didn't change after Harry had found out that his assumptions about the man had been false. Instead it was suggested by the author that Harry hadn't been wrong about Snape because "Snape was a mean bully of a teacher".
Point is, I never saw any "bullying mean teacher" at all. I saw a teacher who, when confronted with a disrespectful student in class tries to discipline said student, only to be frustrated by a manipulative Headmaster-with-an-agenda and an author who clearly can't stand anyone, real or fictional, being in authority over her self-insert protagonist.
For instance, in that infamous "first potions class" Snape's impromptu quiz is merely a reaction to Harry's insolence; Harry and Ron are making fun of Snape's introductory speech by "pulling up their eyebrows at each other". As I've said before, I've been in the same situation as a twelve-year-old, when a teacher, who turned and saw me whispering with a classmate, thoroughly embarrassed me, catching me out with an impromptu quiz. I hadn't been paying attention, and blustered and blabbered and I got the point: pay attention! I did not resent the teacher, or thought her "mean" because I had learned to respect a teacher's authority. And there's the rub.
I was born in 1965. All my teachers learned their trade in the fifties and sixties, if not earlier in some cases. Most of them, therefore, expected (quite rightly in my mind) their pupils to have learned to respect adults when coming to school, and as an extension to that, to respect a teacher's authority. And we did. So we learned a lot.
J.K. Rowling however, is of the opinion that her hero Harry is too good and important to pay respect to *anyone* (with the possible exception to her other self-insert Dumbledore), and certainly not to... certain groups of people.
Muggles? Barely human.
Slytherins?! Don't make me laugh.
And so Snape's attempts to have order in his classroom are constantly ridiculed as ineffective and "mean" and vilefied as "bullying".
Some of you might be so influenced by the autor's "voice" that you might agree with her. Ponder, however, the following excerpt from John Rosemond's, "Ending the Homework Hassle" :
In order for one person to learn something from someone else, that person must figuratively “look up” to the other. Without respect and admiration for the teacher’s knowledge and authority, the student will not learn much of value. At best, he may absorb lots of facts, but the likelihood is he will not be able to put them to much use.
Likewise, a child who does not come to school with a previously established respect for authority is not likely to become an effective learner. He will not understand why it is important for him to pay attention to the teacher or do what she (or he) tells him to do. He may also bring behaviour problems with him to school that further interfere with his ability to put his intelligence to good use.
He will probably interpret his teacher’s attempts to discipline him as indications they don’t like him. His parents, neither able nor willing to see their role in his problems, may even support this view. As he progresses through the grades, his attitude toward his teachers, and the educational process as a whole, will probably become increasingly cynical. In his mind, school will become a battleground of “me against them.”
His inability to understand the value of an education may lead him to drop out of school as soon as he is able. Regardless, he’ll probably drop out mentally sometime around junior high school. When he enters adult society, his disdain for authority, for the system, will follow and cause him untold problems throughout his life.
John Rosemond, Ending the Homework Hassle, pp 146-147
Does this not describe our Harry to a T?
So I urge you to take off the "Harry vision" goggles and look at what is really happening in those pages. Disregard all those mood-enhancing red herrings, all those "Harry saw Snape looking at him and knew that Snape was plotting evil deeds" and "Snape sneered" remarks. What the hell is a 'sneer' anyway? A grim smile? The world-weary face of a teacher who has too much of his plate and yet has to teach and guard a shitty little boy who clearly hates his guts?
Take away the disgusting bigotted remarks against Slytherins (so we must all think the worst of Snape for being the Ultimate Slytherin), take away the personal remarks about his greasy hair, his hooked nose and billowing cape (no wonder the American illustrator gave him whiskers, he sounds like the parody of a 19th century villain who constantly twirls his whiskers!) and take away Harry's misinterpretations of the man's actions (see above), and what do you have left?
Now, it isn't unusual for a children's book to start out with a disagreeable child as it's 'hero', but one would expect that child to undestand, through the course of the book, that it *has* been disagreeable, and then try to 'better itself'. "The Secret Garden" comes to mind.
Harry's story was different, however. I realised *how* different when Harry's attitude towards Snape didn't change after Harry had found out that his assumptions about the man had been false. Instead it was suggested by the author that Harry hadn't been wrong about Snape because "Snape was a mean bully of a teacher".
Point is, I never saw any "bullying mean teacher" at all. I saw a teacher who, when confronted with a disrespectful student in class tries to discipline said student, only to be frustrated by a manipulative Headmaster-with-an-agenda and an author who clearly can't stand anyone, real or fictional, being in authority over her self-insert protagonist.
For instance, in that infamous "first potions class" Snape's impromptu quiz is merely a reaction to Harry's insolence; Harry and Ron are making fun of Snape's introductory speech by "pulling up their eyebrows at each other". As I've said before, I've been in the same situation as a twelve-year-old, when a teacher, who turned and saw me whispering with a classmate, thoroughly embarrassed me, catching me out with an impromptu quiz. I hadn't been paying attention, and blustered and blabbered and I got the point: pay attention! I did not resent the teacher, or thought her "mean" because I had learned to respect a teacher's authority. And there's the rub.
I was born in 1965. All my teachers learned their trade in the fifties and sixties, if not earlier in some cases. Most of them, therefore, expected (quite rightly in my mind) their pupils to have learned to respect adults when coming to school, and as an extension to that, to respect a teacher's authority. And we did. So we learned a lot.
J.K. Rowling however, is of the opinion that her hero Harry is too good and important to pay respect to *anyone* (with the possible exception to her other self-insert Dumbledore), and certainly not to... certain groups of people.
Muggles? Barely human.
Slytherins?! Don't make me laugh.
And so Snape's attempts to have order in his classroom are constantly ridiculed as ineffective and "mean" and vilefied as "bullying".
Some of you might be so influenced by the autor's "voice" that you might agree with her. Ponder, however, the following excerpt from John Rosemond's, "Ending the Homework Hassle" :
In order for one person to learn something from someone else, that person must figuratively “look up” to the other. Without respect and admiration for the teacher’s knowledge and authority, the student will not learn much of value. At best, he may absorb lots of facts, but the likelihood is he will not be able to put them to much use.
Likewise, a child who does not come to school with a previously established respect for authority is not likely to become an effective learner. He will not understand why it is important for him to pay attention to the teacher or do what she (or he) tells him to do. He may also bring behaviour problems with him to school that further interfere with his ability to put his intelligence to good use.
He will probably interpret his teacher’s attempts to discipline him as indications they don’t like him. His parents, neither able nor willing to see their role in his problems, may even support this view. As he progresses through the grades, his attitude toward his teachers, and the educational process as a whole, will probably become increasingly cynical. In his mind, school will become a battleground of “me against them.”
His inability to understand the value of an education may lead him to drop out of school as soon as he is able. Regardless, he’ll probably drop out mentally sometime around junior high school. When he enters adult society, his disdain for authority, for the system, will follow and cause him untold problems throughout his life.
John Rosemond, Ending the Homework Hassle, pp 146-147
Does this not describe our Harry to a T?
So I urge you to take off the "Harry vision" goggles and look at what is really happening in those pages. Disregard all those mood-enhancing red herrings, all those "Harry saw Snape looking at him and knew that Snape was plotting evil deeds" and "Snape sneered" remarks. What the hell is a 'sneer' anyway? A grim smile? The world-weary face of a teacher who has too much of his plate and yet has to teach and guard a shitty little boy who clearly hates his guts?
Take away the disgusting bigotted remarks against Slytherins (so we must all think the worst of Snape for being the Ultimate Slytherin), take away the personal remarks about his greasy hair, his hooked nose and billowing cape (no wonder the American illustrator gave him whiskers, he sounds like the parody of a 19th century villain who constantly twirls his whiskers!) and take away Harry's misinterpretations of the man's actions (see above), and what do you have left?
I could maybe consider Obliviating yourself if the only occasion we see it done was by Lockhart and lets' face it, he was not a great Wizard. Just how would you do it? Hold your wand to your head and say Obliviate. You would forget what you were doing halfway through. I don't think it possible to cast a spell on yourself, we never see one person doing it apart from the Amamagis and that seems to be an incantation.
The big problem with false memories is that they are so patently false. Yes, you could have someone else hide it and then Obliviate their memory, but truthfully I don't see what it was that Harry did that was so wrong. You know most people don't go grave-robbing in the UK, there's a fairly strong taboo against it, think Burke and Hare. Voldemort was the exception to the rule. All Harry would have to do was magically transfer the Wand to the Tomb and not tell anyone. I think that was probably what he did. The Tomb was in plain site and everybody would know if it had been disturbed. Voldemort went to a lot of trouble to hide and protect his Horcruxes and each and every one of them was found. And he told no one. Not only that, because the places were so hidden he didn't know they had been destroyed till well after the fact. I think Harry did the simplest thing and it was also the best thing. Remember just because it was in the Tomb does not mean there wasn't a spell or two on the Tomb to protect it.
For anyone but Harry, who was first protected by Lily's sacrifice, then by having the wand that was the brother of Tom's, then by Albus, then by sharing Tom's blood. He never actually fought Tom with his own power or abilities. No, Harry's fights with Tom are no indication of his ability in a fight against anyone else. Severus beats Harry with hardly trying. And we see how to beat Harry in OOTP. Force him to give up is wands by holding someone as a hostage. But anything works - Accio his regular wand from his pocket. Anyone who gains control of any of Harry's wands (and he has 3 by the end of the battle) is Master of the Elder Wand. They know this is how it works because he gave the whole exposition in that silly stand-off with Tom.
Just how would you do it? Hold your wand to your head and say Obliviate. You would forget what you were doing halfway through.
Not true, because the spell only starts operating once you complete the incantation.
I don't think it possible to cast a spell on yourself, we never see one person doing it apart from the Amamagis and that seems to be an incantation.
Ludo Bagman casts Sonorus on himself several times. Also, the kids learn to transfigure themselves in 6th year. Then there is the unaided flying we see in DH.
You know most people don't go grave-robbing in the UK, there's a fairly strong taboo against it, think Burke and Hare.
Anyone who really wants the Elder Wand is beyond taboos, someone like that isn't 'most people'. It would be way too easy to track it down. Tom's case was different because few people knew Riddle was Tom in the first place (thanks, Albus), few people knew what Horcruxes were (the knowledge was suppressed by Albus and I'd guess also by Tom, each for a different reason; by now only old families that managed to remain independent of both might possibly still have the information; though Harry's speech in the Great Hall may have generated new interest in those of the wrong inclination), and nobody besides Horace and Albus even considered the possibility that he made more than one.
But here both Harry and Tom acknowledge in public that the Elder Wand was real, everyone sees it, they receive what looks like clear evidence that Harry is, as he claims, the master, as well as detailed information how that happened. Anyone with an interest would know rumors reporting what was said and would know to obtain either of Harry's wands. Once s/he has one and finds it isn't made of elder, s/he would think where someone like Harry might think of hiding the real one. There are several places to try, but not all that many. (BTW if protecting the tomb could have helped, why didn't Albus instruct Severus to do so? Either it isn't much help or Albus wanted Tom to gain physical access to the wand.) Harry might have enough warning to move the wand then - unless the thief does hir search prior to disarming Harry.
I think the fact that false memories are possible is why wizarding justice is messed up. The ones in the know don't want the general public to find out so they avoid using Pensieves in court because they don't want the tales of arguments about authenticity of memories to become public knowledge.
As for Harry, the boy is emotionally stunted, self-centered, not very thoughtful. Has very little ability to think beyond 'how can I please Dumbledore' and 'people I don't like are evil, people I like are the greatest, especially if they admire me, give me stuff or let me get away with stuff'.
His words to Al are supposed to show how much he has grown, but they show how much he still misses the point. He tells Al that being a Slytherin isn't all that bad because Slytherins can still be brave, even braver than Gryffindors. He doesn't tell Al that bravery isn't the only measure of humans that is of value (and perhaps there isn't one measure that trumps all others). Which goes to show the pernicious outcome of sorting young, under-socialized children by their character or values, to be raised in rival subcultures, a practice that continues in the following generation. The next Dark Lord (or Lady) is just around the corner as the series ends.
“You see what you expect to see, Severus,” said Dumbledore, without raising his eyes from a copy of Transfiguration Today. “Other teachers report that the boy is modest, likable, and reasonably talented. Personally, I find him an engaging child.” JK Rowling The Deathly Hallows.
I think he is all of those things and so it would seem does the largest part of Harry Potter fandom. After all it is named after him. He is the undisputed hero of the books and his action are those of a very brave and recourseful hero.
First, his poor leadership of the Order between Moody's death and the battle, see Terri's essay I had linked to. Second - because he is a wizard. Wizard society simply lacks the collective accumulated knowledge we Muggles have in the areas of history, moral philosophy, psychology and political science to even approach anything of a well functioning political system. So, what do you base your assessment of Kingsley on?
That sentence from Albus was apparently made early in PS. How could he say that he personally found him an engaging child if he never interacted with him at that point? He was just making stuff up to antagonize Severus.
My assessment of Harry is based on his behavior as shown in the books. Quoting Dan Hemmens from memory, the series is a story about someone repeatedly failing to grow up. Being brave and sometimes resourceful (but often just plain lazy, passive, entitled and bratty) is not what I'd look for in a reformer. Nor would I want one who is shown at the very end of the series giving tacit approval to Muggle-hexing. Now, if I thought a coalition of say, Percy, Draco and Neville was working together behind the scenes there'd be some hope for improvement, but again, not much, simply because of the insular nature of wizarding society.