Hagrid's Competence And Other Flaws

[cindysphynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 33963

Cindy wrote:

> > Hagrid gave Dudley (an innocent child) a pig's tail because he 
was 
> > angry at Vernon.
> 

Jo responded:

> Dudley an innocent child?  He's a horrid, mean, bullying brat.  I 
> completely reject the notion that because someone is a child, that 
> means they are not responsible for their choices no matter how 
awful 
> they are.  The pig's tail actually made me like Hagrid more <g>.

I think it is pretty clear that Hagrid was angry at Vernon for 
insulting Dumbledore, and he gave Dudley the tail.  What's going on 
there?  Is Hagrid, the magical towering giant, not brave enough to 
take on Vernon, a cowering muggle, so he puts a tail on a child that 
requires surgical removal at a hospital?  Hagrid admits that he 
wanted to turn Dudley into a pig, which if successful, couldn't have 
been reversed absent outside magical assistance?  And Hagrid, who is 
not a qualified wizard, performs this unnecessary bit of magic with a 
broken wand and could have accidently visited all manner of terrible 
consequences on the child?  And the incident left Dudley fearful as 
judged by his behavior in GoF?  No, Hagrid didn't score any points 
with me with that episode, regardless of how awful Dudley is.

Indeed, I'm unhappy with Hagrid's behavior in another important 
scene.  Karkaroff spits at Dumbledore's feet, which is not nice, of 
course.  Hagrid, who is bigger and stronger, responds with a fair 
amount of violence by slamming Karkaroff into a tree.  The reader is 
apparently supposed to be impressed with Hagrid's loyalty to 
Dumbledore.  OK, I get it.

I still don't like this scene, though.  I don't see Karkaroff's 
conduct justifies an attack by Hagrid, and I didn't think it did a 
whole lot for Hagrid's characterization in my eyes.  I guess if 
someone spit on the ground at my feet, I wouldn't find this 
sufficient justification to commit assault and battery, although I 
would probably be quite miffed.  This scene is consistent with 
Hagrid's characterization, but it is hardly a step forward in making 
me like Hagrid.

Cindy wrote:

> > Hagrid used magic to retrieve Harry when he was not permitted to 
>do 
> > so and asked Harry to keep it a secret.
> 
 
Jo responded:

> I was under the impression that Hagrid was authorised to use magic 
to 
> retrieve Harry and that it was only the above "pig's tail" incident 
> that Harry was asked to keep secret.
> 

OK, my facts were off, but not by much.  Hagrid asks Harry to keep 
quiet about the pig tail, which Hagrid wasn't supposed to do.  But 
Hagrid also tells Harry that he is not supposed to do magic once he 
retrieved Harry, yet Hagrid uses magic to power the boat.  Again, he 
tells Harry to cover for him:  "If I was ter -- er-- speed things up 
a bit, would yeh mind not mentioning it at Hogwarts."  So now the 
towering giant is breaking the rules and asking a child to cover for 
him just because he doesn't feel like rowing a boat?  

Cindy wrote:

> > Hagrid endangered Ron and Harry by encouraging them to enter the 
> > forest in CoS, which almost got them eaten by large spiders.
> 

Jo responded:

> Well, if they hadn't gone into the forest, how would they have 
found 
> out that Hagrid wasn't the one who opened the chamber?  They would 
> have continued to believe Riddle's diary, and Ginny (and likely 
> others) would have died.  Remember, Dumbledore is gone by now and 
>is 
> in no position to help.

The Monster Spider In The Forest scene just baffles me.  If I recall 
CoS correctly, Hagrid knows these life-threatening spider beasts are 
in the forest, and he puts Ron and Harry on a collision course with 
them.  Why?  To clear his own name?  I beg your pardon?  To save 
Ginny?  Well, OK.  But risking two lives to save one hardly seems 
like a bargain to me, particularly as there was no guarantee that the 
information the kids learn from the spiders would definitely save 
Ginny.  I guess I can't get past the idea that the adults should step 
up and handle problems instead of risking having two unarmed and 
untrained children get their heads pinched off by giant spiders.  
Somehow, I don't think a professor like Lupin would have suggested 
such a thing.  


Jo again:

> > Hagrid certainly has his shortcomings, but they are IMO more than 
> overcome by the good things he has brought to Harry's life.  He 
was, 
> after all, his first real friend and is possibly the most loyal 
> defender Harry has ever had.  That makes him ok, in my book.

I still can't figure out what is going on with Hagrid.  Hagrid isn't 
a failed characterization (like Lockhart, IMHO).  Instead, he is 
clearly someone we are meant to love deeply.  So why does JKR keep 
having Hagrid do these awful (IMHO) things?  Characters should have 
flaws, of course, and all of them do in the books to date.  But 
Hagrid has so many flaws and his actions are so inexplicable to me 
that I can't muster any enthusiasm for his character.  

Of all the characters we are meant to adore, Hagrid is the only one 
who doesn't work for me.  It's quite a shame.

Cindy (not ruling out the possibility that Hagrid can be redeemed)