Rule-breaking/Father-figures

[finwitch]

No: HPFGUIDX 38068

When Harry's rule-breaking..., it's
Book 1

1) Matter of survival (At Dursleys, mostly)
2) Saving someone else(Hermione from troll) or even entire 
Hogwarts/WW.(going for the stone)
3) Standing up for his friend (getting Neville's Remembrall after 
Draco stole it) - Harry has a far better reason for his "rule-
breaking" than Draco (who broke *two* rules, not just one - but 
didn't get caught even when other Gryffindors tried to report him!)

No problem, is there?

Book 2...
1) Survival matter by escaping from Dursleys
2) Having both recent and regular experience of stolen letters, and 
no letter duly delivered to him by any other means than a *personal* 
handing-down by an adult - Hagrid or Molly - sending a letter to 
someone is NOT a reasonable option, as post service can't be trusted. 
The two *must* get into Hogwarts somehow with their trunks. The car 
*is* the only way they see (and Ron's parents -- well, they can't 
know what happened to them, they *do* consider about them: "They can 
apparate") It's simply the *only* thing to do (other than miss school 
entirely, and that'd be worse, wouldn't it?)
3) Stealing potion-ingredients from Snape + getting into Dorms of 
another House -- they do this out of concern to lives of all 
students, they doubt Draco (Malfoy house-elf + the Diary) but, *are* 
doing this thing to learn if it's true - they *are* giving Draco the 
benefit of doubt (if they weren't they hadn't done it - they'd 
probably have done something else).
Giving benefit of doubt they *strongly* suspect with reason, whom 
they are very at odds with - this is a matter that *does* justify 
this - particularly as they don't have other means to do this.
4) And... Then, they *do* save Hogwarts when Harry kills the basilisk.

Book 3...
1) Harry leaves Dursleys due to having been unfairly accused with no 
means to defend himself, except magic or threat of it. It's only 
accidental magic that happens.

2) Hogsmeade: Harry tries to gain the required permission from diff. 
people: Dursleys, Minister of Magic and McGonagall.
Truth is, none of them qualifies as his guardian. Not in a way that 
it counts; Harry had moved away and lived on his own for a while.
In this, it is not fair and just for him not being able to go to 
Hogsmeade when *all* others of his grade do - just because he doesn't 
*have* a valid guardian to sign the note. Lupin is a father-figure - 
one who would be valid - but he lacks the status for it. It's not 
about Harry being excempt for his safety, it's about buraucracy, and 
while there is a reason, well...

And it never *was* about Hogsmeade, not really. Harry was trying to 
escape from the notion that he doesn't have anyone. None to care for 
him. Harry has a *serious* lack of a parent. Dementors and Hogsmeade 
permission make him painfully aware of his lack. He's desperate. 
Lupin acts like a parent when he comes back - but even he doesn't 
fully understand. Harry's trying to find help; tries to explain how 
the Dursleys aren't valid guardians but fails in his wordings and 
isn't even listened to... Not until he discovers that Sirius is his 
godfather, willing to care for him etc. Most of all, Sirius 
understands - his letter clearly shows that; Harry's found *someone* 
to be like a parent - Hogsmeade permission was nice, but finding 
Sirius more so.

3) Well, saving Sirius and Buckbeak from an injustice on Headmaster's 
permission/orders and assistance... what could be wrong with that?

4)the one *wrong* thing: Beating Malfoy under invisibility cloak 
(even when it *was* for Ron's sake).

Book 4--
Well, here Harry does most of his rule-breaking in order to fulfill a 
magical contract he didn't make himself part of and by refusing to 
let even Sirius tell him whom he may befriend himself with. He just 
doesn't realise it - or isn't able to put it in words, but he *acts* 
it.

-- Finwitch