What's annoying about Harry

[Melody <Malady579@hotmail.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51389

First:
I was so waiting for Catherine to post in defense of Harry, and she
did not let me down.  <grin> I must say I greatly agree, which brings
me to my second point.


Second:
Tom wrote:
> But it's *boring* to always take that perspective. If I wanted that
> perspective, I wouldn't be on this list. I'd be re-reading the
> series all the time, which, ironically, I am anyways. ;-) It's much
> more interesting to try to look at things another way.

Yes it is interesting to walk around a work of art and look from
different perspectives, *but* it is rather rude to say that any
certain perspective (I assume you mean the stand in front of the art
and comment what it basically is) is "boring."  You tell us you are on
the list to learn perspectives, well that is Catherine's and Grey
Wolf's perspective.  I am sorry you do not think it high quality
enough, but it is honest and heart felt.  If you disagree, which
really what fun is the site if we all agree, then by all means post
your perspectives.  Just please don't call your detractors' views
boring.  Makes you seem very high and mighty.

Maybe you meant to say, their view was obvious.  Well - to be honest,
is anything so obvious in HP?  Does JKR ever write something
completely truthful?  Maybe your outcry is that they are being dubbed
into believing what JKR *wants* them to believe, and they are not
looking close enough for the clues of true character.  But boring?  My
dear, this series, no matter which perspective you chose, is not
boring.  How else could we post so much on this site, if this series
was so black and white?  But, one thing I think you need to
understand.  You can't have the "black" without the "white".


> What I find most annoying about Harry is his
> incredible stubbornness, his procrastination, his
> belief, along Snapian lines, that despite everyone's
> efforts to safeguard him, he's above the rules.
> And I can't *STAND* the way he refuses to listen to
> reason once he's had his mind made up.

Reason.  Reason!

Reason would never of given Harry, at the tender age of *eleven*, and
invisibility cloak.
Reason would not of given his a lute for Christmas.
Reason would of caused Hogwarts to be closed in CoS.
Reason would have Gryffindor loose their rainy Quidditch in CoS.
Reason would have Sirius back in Azkaban.
Reason would have realized that no contract is final, and Harry did
not *have* to be a Triwiz contender.

Really is Harry being taught "reason" is a good thing?

See- a Gryffindor fights of morality and goodness at any cost.  They
are not the lovers of fair play but rather the victory of good over
evil.  They do not bend the rules blindly for their own glory or
prestige, but for a higher cause.  A cause for humility itself.

Let me get to your examples...

Tom:
> PS/SS: Hagrid repeatedly tells HHR that it's
> "rubbish" that Snape would try to steal the stone.
> Do they listen? Nope. They instead spend the whole
> time trying to falsely prove that he is a thief and
> killer.

Oh, so the fact they were on the trail of the *wrong* thief is what is
wrong?  Or is it the fact they were on the trail at all bother you?
Hagrid told them Snape was innocent of the charges they accused him
if, but honestly, the only reason you even believe Hagrid is because
*Dumbledore* says Snape is on the side of good.  Really, given how JKR
has written Snape so far, I find it interesting Harry, who is so
"loyal" to Dumbledore, still has his doubts.  And besides, when is
Hagrid ever reasonable.


> CoS: First off, if Harry would just *tell* Dumbledore
> that he hears a strange voice, then we'd have gotten
> through the whole thing a lot quicker, IMHO.

Quicker?  Oh, what fun is *that*.  :)


> It's
> largely due to Harry's stubbornness that the attacks
> continue, whereas if he'd been honest in the first place,
> the connection that he's a Parselmouth would have enabled
> the staff to solve the problem.

So, the fact Harry can hear "voices" and talk parseltongue (which they
*did* know about, by the way, when Harry went to Dumbledore?s office.
 Snape learned it in the duel club.)  So what they did not know, and
may not of, was to make the connection as to why Harry heard voices.
Now, these same professors are completely ignoring MB&WTFT where
frankly, it is *obvious* the creature is a basilisk.  I mean, the kids
are turning to stone!!  What would make them go, "hey, Harry hears
voices, he can talk to snakes, this is a basilisk."  They are dense
enough to ignore the fact that the only long-living creature in the WW
animal world that turn people to stone is a *basilisk."  A basilisk
that just happens to be a snake that Slytherin *loves.*  Yea- they are
quite dense themselves.


> PoA: In the Shrieking Shack, it really bothers me that,
> first off, Harry and Ron refuse to listen to Lupin and Black
> because they're both too stubborn to entertain the notions
> that a) Black may be innocent, and b) Scabbers may be more
> than he seems to be.

That annoyed you?  That seems very human to me.  They had lived with
this rat, a rat with no magical ability to date, so why would they,
being young wizards, think anything more of Scabbers.  The pet shop
lady said he was an ordinary rat.  They have every reason to believe
that.

But can you honestly say at the age of 13, you would of been so open?
 You just saw a very large, very dangerous dog drag your best friend
into a tree and break his leg.  You get there to find out it is in
fact the person that you believe *betrayed* your parents.  You have
ever reason to believe that too.  McGonagall, Hagrid, Flitwick, and
Fudge all confirmed this.  They are a group to be believed on most
occasions I think.  So why, would you think Black and Lupin are doing
anything else but trying to talk themselves out of their crimes?

Really, I think the fact they did listen quite refreshing.  I would
think most people would have done what Snape did.  Well...what he
seemed to do there upon first read.  ;)


> But what REALLY annoys me is the way
> that they turn these same criticisms on Snape once he starts
> behaving the same way they were a few minutes ago. And then
> they attack him for it. Unbelievable.

Oh tell me you are joking.  Snape is, after all, acting like a person
that is not taking reason into account, which is precisely what you
are complaining about in this post.  Shack!Snape presented in that
scene not a drop of reason in him.

Also I have to MD comment, Snape was *trying* to goad Harry into his
actions.  Snape wanted Harry to react, he just did not expect Ron and
Hermione to do so also.


> I can't express how many times I've read these books and
> thought to myself "No, Harry, NO, just TELL Dumbledore, the
> truth" or "just LISTEN to Lupin, what's WRONG with you, it's
> clearly you who doesn't know what he's talking about!!!"

He is a boy.  Boys can be a little thick headed at times.  <g>

Ok, so can girls...

All I *can* hope is that Harry chooses wisely the times he listens and
chooses to ignore.  For one should not always listen to your elders
just because they are elder.


> I guess ultimately what makes Harry such a compelling
> character is that he's real, and real people don't always
> make the best decisions. And that's why I love him and his
> friends so much, and that's why I keep reading. But that
> doesn't make his bad qualities any less annoying.

No it doesn't.  I am glad he is annoying to a degree.  Gives his
character something to do, and reinforced what JKR wants us to
believe.  He is just a boy...with an extraordinary past.


Melody