Werewolf Adventures, Boring Harry

[cindysphynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 34279

Mahoney wrote (about who the MWPP ringleader is):

> So, please to explain more of why you'd peg James?  Or is it just 
> because he's dead and won't argue?  ;-)
> 

Hmmm.  I'd say James mostly through a process of elimination.  We can 
eliminate Lupin and Peter as the ringleaders right away especially 
since McGonnagall tells us that Sirius and James were the 
ringleaders.  

I somehow feel (without any concrete basis in canon) that James was 
the thoughtful rational one and Sirius was the rash one.  (Sirius, 
after all, was the one who talked James into changing the 
secretkeeper).  Both were smart and popular, and they complimented 
each other, somehow.  So in a situation where Sirius and James cook 
up an idea to be animagi, I can't see Sirius coming to his senses and 
saying, "You know, James, I know we just spent three years learning 
to do this, but let's just forget the whole thing because someone 
might get hurt."  Sirius sure didn't care if Snape got hurt, so why 
would he care about the Hogsmeade villagers?

So what in James' character led him to go along with this plan rather 
than stand up to Sirius?  

Mahoney again:

<snip list of Manly and Unmanly conduct>

> However, Hagrid gets drunk (and worse, is a whiney drunk), cries, 
> runs and hides from problems, picks on a kid when his real beef is 
> with the father.  Not Manly.  At all.  Big wussy, Hagrid is, 
> actually.  *Embarrassing,* really.  The others make mistakes, sure, 
> but they don't make fools of themselves.  And if we took away all 
of 
> the flaws you mentioned from Hagrid, the main difference would be 
> that he wouldn't go about making an unmanly fool of himself.

Don't forget the pink umbrella business.  :-)

I think I see your point, although I have a tin ear for points made 
subtly and indirectly, so I may be wrong in what I'm about to say.  
But yes, certain of Hagrid's character traits are problematic for me 
because they are meant to show Tenderness.  Vulnerability.  Frailty.  
(I wouldn't use the term "Manly" only because it really isn't a 
gender issue.)

I just think I must have a personal preference for Tough Characters 
(and Tough People in real life, also).  I didn't like when Ginny 
cried at the end of CoS, for instance, which has nothing to do with 
Manliness.  I want to grab Hagrid by the shoulders and, with spit 
flying from my mouth, tell him to suck it up, for cryin' out loud.  
That's just the way I view how a person should respond to challenges 
and adversity of the sort Hagrid faces in the books.    

Hagrid is supposed to be a gentle giant, so JKR gives him these frail 
and vulnerable traits as part of that characterization.  It obviously 
works; millions of people love Hagrid, and I don't.  That doesn't 
mean JKR is wrong, and it doesn't mean I'm wrong.  It just means I 
would enjoy Hagrid more if he achieved being a gentle giant by being 
nice to people, loyal, supportive and understanding (which he does 
quite well) without being insufficiently Tough.  

Now, on to Amy Z's question about whether JKR would view Hagrid's 
faults (the vulnerability and frailty) as faults.  My guess is that 
she would not.  They are huge and intolerable faults in my mind 
because I value Toughness.  I have a hunch that she (and a whole lot 
of people on this list) would disagree because they also value other 
qualities like tenderness and vulnerability that don't make it onto 
my radar.

Jo wrote:

>I've been wondering lately if 
> many of the posters even enjoy the books as written, or if they 
feel 
> that they could personally improve them by changing the characters' 
> behavior, or plotlines.
> I think that the reason we're seeing this kind of nitpicking is 
that 
> it's been a year and a half since Goblet of Fire came out, and most 
> of the really juicy questions and puzzles have been analyzed to 
death 
> multiple times.  

Yes and no, I'd say.  Yes, I love the books.  Yes, I think they're 
great.  Great, but not perfect.  So yes, I do think there are plenty 
of places where they could be improved, and I don't mind discussing 
that or even suggesting alternatives.

But in my case, the reason I don't mind pointing out flaws or issues 
with the books is two-fold.  First, I think this board would be 
deadly dull if all we did is gush over everything we love about the 
books.  I think there is plenty of discussion of what is good about 
the books.  I can only talk about "What Makes Lupin Great" so many 
times before I get the urge to also talk about "What's Wrong With 
Lupin."

Second, there have been *many* instances in which I (or someone else) 
has pointed out an issue/problem/flaw they are having with some 
aspect of the books, and the resulting discussion convinces me that 
it really isn't a flaw or otherwise deepens my appreciation for the 
books.  One example is the recent discussion of whether the brawl 
between Lucius and Arthur was believable or a cop-out.  This scene 
bothers me less now that I understand the reasons others feel 
differently (although I am still not totally on board).  

I would, however, have to gently take issue with the idea that those 
who criticize an aspect of the books are nitpicking because they have 
nothing else to do until OoP comes out. I enjoy analysis of the books 
because I think the issues raised and resulting discussion are 
fascinating, and I'd have the same views if OoP comes out next month 
or next year.  Indeed, the fact that the books can stand up to our 
rather robust criticism at times shows that they truly are top-notch.

Cindy (who would make a dreadful labor and delivery nurse)