Hagrid's Competence And Other Flaws

[ftah3]

No: HPFGUIDX 33966

I disagree with none of Cindysphinx's points, although I think the 
flaw mentioned below is not the knowing endangerment of children, 
rather it is the faulty idealization of magical beasts, no matter how 
dangerous other people think/know they are:

> 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.  

Well, no, Lupin wouldn't have done it because he doesn't have a 
(vaguely pathological) blind spot when it comes to large, dangerous, 
magical beasts.  My impression was that Hagrid figured that once the 
acromantula knew Harry et al were friends of his, they'd be safe ~ 
naive, but not willfull endangerment.  Whether that makes it less, 
equally, or more a black mark against Hagrid ~ shrug.

> 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.  

And that's your perspective on Hagrid.  On my part, I like Hagrid, 
gargantuan flaws and all, partly because of the terribly noticeable 
quality of his flaws.  His aren't the easy kinds of flaws.  His are 
the kinds of flaws that, maybe, you discover in a beloved uncle, and 
then you have to really struggle with how you now feel about him.  

Rowling really plays fast and loose with Good and Bad.  The most 
colorful, full-fledged and, to me, interesting characters are the 
ones in whom the mix positive and negative qualities makes your eyes 
cross.  I've really enjoyed the posts made by people who note Harry's 
flaws ~ Kevin Kimball keyed in on Harry's penchant for disobeying and 
lying; someone else took issue with Harry's off-handed manner toward 
Hermione's S.P.E.W. passion.  I find I can argue either way, 
depending on where my Devil's Advocate lands; but ultimately I do 
find that Harry is entirely imperfect.  In fact, he's somewhat 
realistic in that respect.  

Similarly, Hagrid.  Harry's flaws are, depending on your wishes/POV, 
easily smoothed over.  He lies *usually* to help someone (even though 
he also lies to have fun on occasion, and even when he's trying to 
help, he frequently lies first, without even considering an 
alternate, more honest approach to the problem [/devil's advocate]).  

Hagrid's flaws are more difficult in some ways to gloss over.  I 
regard Hagrid in a similar way to how I regard Snape.  I love both 
characters because they are interesting and surprising; I feel 
affectionate toward Hagrid despite his flaws, but I happily loathe 
Snape in spite of his positive qualities.  (If I enjoy a book, I tend 
to love to love or love to hate or love to not care a whit about all 
of the characters.  It's all good! says my inner book geek.)

On the other hand, if I were to meet them both in reality, I would 
have a difficult time accepting Hagrid's loveable qualities in light 
of his tendency to view the world (good/evil, danger to others per 
magical creatures) in an intensely, unfairly, and dangerously 
blindered manner; while I would probably cut Snape a huge break, 
attempting to forgive his eccentrically rotten personality in light 
of his good qualities.  (And actually, I would probably seek out 
Snape to challenge as a teacher, and as someone who, showing a meager 
nice side, could potentially have an even larger, though hidden, nice 
side.  Ack.)

To repeat a part of Cindysphinx's post:
> 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 

Thematically, it makes some sense, in terms of Good not necessarily 
being easy nor cut and dried.  

Thanks to a very positive first meeting with Hagrid, Harry is 
downright philosophical about Hagrid's defects.  Not having texts 
with me, I can't quote exactly, but upon escaping the acromantula 
Harry is not angry at Hagrid for putting he and Ron in danger, but he 
admits with little more than a sort of mental sigh that it's just 
like Hagrid to think that since the beast didn't eat him [Hagrid] it 
wouldn't eat his friends.  

So in Hagrid, Harry experiences the need to balance friendship with 
forgiveness, and it's to Harry's credit that he doesn't drop the 
friendship nor backstab Hagrid when faced with Hagrid's wierd 
behavior.  That's Easy.  The Hard thing to do will be to learn to 
accept, and not revile, Snape.  Harry has learned that Good Guys 
occasionally have glaring faults; it seems that as part of Harry's 
process of maturation, he will need to apply this to Snape.  He may 
not come to adore Snape, or call him a friend or mentor, but he could 
at least learn to view Snape's not-so-nice attitude philosophically, 
and give Snape the respect that his position and talent deserves.

Maybe.

Mahoney