Percy -- Weasley/Mitford Comparisons -- Rule-Breaking -- Cho (LONG)

Thu Apr 4 17:16:46 UTC 2002

No: HPFGUIDX 37423

Hi everyone --

Wow!  I'm overwhelmed with all the great discussions we've been having & am sorry to be jumping in a bit late on a few things.  

PERCY: 

Mary (who also said Percy *Had* to be EVIL) said:

<<<<<I really havn't been able to warm to his character at all (not 
for lack of trying!) He really is very very power hungry ("Prefects 
Who Gained Power") and I don't hold up much hope for his redemption.>>>>

Being ambitious or seeking power isn't *evil* though.  Plenty of people are highly ambitious & motivated for very good reasons.  Perhaps Percy has a sweeping vision for vast reforms in the Wizarding World society if he achieves his goal of becoming Minister of Magic (I believe he intimates that he has ideas for changes at one point in the series).  Being power-hungry solely for the *status,* albeit not particularly praise-worthy, hardly constitutes *evil* though.  

As for redemption, why does Percy need to be *redeemed*?  He's not a bad, evil person.  He's a good guy with some flaws (like most of us) IMO.  

<<<<From his sheep like following of Crouch Sr. to his mere lack of 
ability to 'let his hair down' he really hasn't shown any ability to 
survive in the real world, let alone in a war situation.>>>>>

The ability/desire to "let one's hair down" is a prerequisite for a successful life?  Hmmm...

<<<<<<<The only example of Percy acting as if he is proud of a family 
member is when Ron is being praised by Dumbledore for "the best game 
of chess..." at the end of PS.>>>>>

That may be only instance where Percy shows *pride* in a family member, but it's certainly not the only instance of him showing *concern* for a family member (worried about Ginny in CoS, wades out into the Lake after the 2nd Task in GoF).

Brewpub44 said:

<<<<<<<< It doesn't matter how ambitious he is, what he is planning to do with 
his life, how seriously he takes his career at the MoM. None of that 
is really relevant to that basic question. It would be the same 
question even if he pumped gas for a living.  <snip>

The whole key will be *how* he is convinced to turn against the 
family. What inroads could LV or others use to make him turn against 
his own family?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

But see, I think his *ambition* is a possible inducement to turn against his family.  His ambition is in fact relevant to the question of how he would be convinced to turn against his family.  

Gwen made some great points about how the "Percy is Evil" people pick up on Percy's blind adherence to rules & abdication of independent thought & decision-making:

<<<<<<<<<<Percy, in his youthful desire to please, and his naivete, tried to
prove he was up to the tasks set before him, and got caught in a
bureaucratic nightmare because he thought he was following Crouch's
orders. I think he's about to see the kind of obfuscation and red tape
and incompetence the Ministry is capable of, and I think that will
disillusion him.>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That's my take as well.  I think he must, at the beginning of OOP, realize how differently the outcome might have been if he'd questioned things a bit more.  I don't think this means a dramatic & immediate change in Percy though.  I do think there will still be conflict for Percy as he weighs his options.  But somewhere in the back of his mind, he now has learned some lessons IMO.

RED HERRING: Barb and John both commented that it strikes them as too "pat" for Percy to be duped into unwitting betrayal of the Good Guys as a result of his ambition.  I agree.  I tend to think that Percy is meant to mislead us into this conclusion.  The subtle evidence of Percy's concern for his family points, IMO, to Percy not becoming a pawn of the Dark Side.  I think Ron's remarks are meant to set up this very thing (red herring).  But then, I have another Weasley in mind as likely candidate for becoming an unwitting pawn of the forces of Evil so ....

Amber, my fellow Percy fan, commented:

Amber:

<<<<<Percy's early formative years were during Voldemort's first rise. I imagine rules did rule his life then. "Don't  answer the door, don't go outside, keep your brothers from leaving, watch the babies, don't ask what is happening, DO WHAT I SAY NOW OR WE MIGHT ALL 
DIE".>>>>>>>>

I love this!  It makes so much sense ....

WEASLEY/MITFORD COMPARISONS

Milz, I loved your post comparing the two families.  I knew nothing about the Mitfords.  Can you share more about what it is about Jessica Mitford that JKR so admires?  I've never investigated & now I'm curious.

RULE-BREAKING

First, I just wanted to note that one of the Philip Nel discussion questions is on this topic, and Amy Z is scheduled to present & discuss it in about 4 weeks IIRC.  Not that we can't have discussions now, but I know Amy won't want everyone to be all talked out on this ...  <g>

Porphyria, in addition to posing lots of excellent commentary & questions, noted:

<<<<Now Hermione goes back and forth between being portrayed as shrill when 
she insists upon rules and blithely breaking them herself. The text 
notes with audible relief the point in PS/SS where "Hermione had become 
a bit more relaxed about breaking rules since Harry and Ron had saved 
her from the mountain troll, and she was much nicer for it." But she's 
back to being a nuisance in CoS when she's the only Gryffindor (besides 
Percy) who's furious at Harry and Ron after the Anglia incident. Of 
course then she goes on to mastermind the polyjuice plot -- the point is 
that her rule-breaking usually shows her in more pleasant light.>>>>>>>>>

I think Hermione is meant to illustrate the distinction between breaking rules for good "higher" reasons & breaking them for self-gratification.  Once she has loosened up & been drawn into a friendship with Harry and Ron, Hermione becomes the Trio's conscience.  She's still quick to mention rules (disapproving of the Anglia arrival in CoS as Porphyria notes, being satisfied with Molly's howler to Ron as just desserts), but she's also perfectly capable of breaking rules and/or advocating breaking rules when there's a larger purpose (trying to learn the identity of the "person" behind the attacks in CoS).  I'd like to think about this some more actually and will definitely do so before Amy brings up this topic in a few weeks.

I also agreed with Gwen's thoughts on this topic.  

Yes, I'll definitely give this one some more thought.  This is one of the more intriguing questions about the series IMO.

CHO --

Okay, I cannot resist, even though Rita is well aware of my position:

Uncmark: "If Harry had been a little quicker and asked first, I think Cho would have accepted his invite  to the Yule Ball."

Rita: "I'm sure she would have, too.  She seemed genuinely disappointed that he asked after she had already accepted Cedric's invitation."

I maintain that she was sorry to disappoint Harry & was very kind in turning him down, but that is not at all the same thing as being sorry that she had already accepted Cedric's invitation.  It seems *highly* unlikely to me that she would have continued to date Cedric & develop a relationship with him after the Yule Ball if she were wishing, pre-Ball, that she could have been free to go with someone else (Harry).  I also think it's pretty likely that Harry just didn't notice that there was a developing (or even long-standing) relationship between Cedric & Cho prior to the Yule Ball (there's no evidence for this of course ... but we've seen that Harry doesn't always *see* everything in clear detail).  He notices them holding hands in the corridors after the Ball ... but it's at least possible this was going on beforehand but Harry only had eyes for Cho.  In any case, the Yule Ball was definitely more than a one-time date for Cedric & Cho, and it stands to reason that she had some romantic interest in him before the Ball for things to have developed as they did afterwards.  IMO of course.  :--)

Penny

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]