What's annoying about Harry

[Melody <Malady579@hotmail.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51411

Tom wrote:
> My point was that the series is already written from
> Harry's perspective. The things that Harry does that
> are annoying, we know why he does them. When he's
> stubborn, we know why. When he's disrespectful, we
> know why. We already know why Harry behaves the way
> that he does, because everything's from his point of
> view.

Are you saying a person is always honest with themselves?  The first
rule of history is that it is bias.  Even we are told Harry's "spoken"
view of himself, can that be taken as cold hard fact?  I can see why
you would say it is easy to defend what is written there as fact, and
I guess that is what you are saying, but I do not think it is such an
open and shut case.  A person that takes that view must stand up to
the scrutiny of this site as any others.

In fact, PRESSURE COOKER is a theory based on a straight forward read.
 It says, if I have this right Marina, what is reasonable assumed in
the text is what is assumed in the end.  Funny thing is, it still a
good theory, not boring, and gets as much scrutiny (well from us in
MDDT) as the rest.  A "boring" perspective by your accounts, but I
find it have a beautiful simplicity.  (It still is wrong though. <g>)


Tom:
> So, when someone speculates that Harry
> is out of line, that person is going out on a limb...
> and they know it in advance. All I'm saying is that the
> people who defend Harry really don't have to. I
> understand that they want to, and that the defenses are
> heartfelt. But it's not necessary, because we all are
> already acquainted with Harry's position.

Um...then why post your opinion if you do not want someone to post
against it?  Why else are we here than to debate?  Don't you *want* us
to disagree?  Obvious meaning of text is not always so obvious.  Us of
MDDT think MD *is* obvious.  We are surprised no one else agrees.  ;)


Tom about The Trio and Snape:
>What's wrong is that they, having no evidence of any sort, accused an
> innocent man of committing two very heinous crimes. And it sets the
> backdrop for the whole story through GoF. HHR continue to accuse
> Snape of all sorts of vile things, and he's never guilty. What's
> annoying about it is that they continue doing it - in other words,
> they don't learn from the previous mistakes, they just keep making
> the same ones.

Evidence?  They are making up their own reasons for hating Snape just
because he is mean to them?  Come now- we tell children to feel
strange men that offer them candy and are not dressed well.  Why would
they not sort of fear and suspect Snape?  It is in our childhood
education to not think highly of people that are so mean.

In PS/SS, Snape goes out of his way to make Harry uncomfortable.  He
consistently is rude, exactly, manipulative, and just mean to him.
And HRH are supposed to think him not bad?  Ok, maybe a thief is a bit
too harsh, but Harry has seen the scared knee.  He has the pain in his
scar when he thinks Snape is looking at him (how was he to know it was
Voldemort under the turban).  Harry even sees Snape threatening
Quirrell in the forest.  So really, he *does* have reason to suspect
Snape.

And in GoF, the Trio pretty much leave Snape alone.  They are still
suspicious, but they are not public about it.  They never accuse Snape
of anything in fact.  They do not say publicly he was a DE, which he
was, and never call him the bad guy.  And once again, Snape is not
exactly Mr. Innocent.  He is very publicly against Harry being a
TriWiz candidate.  He threatens him with the vertiserum.

I guess I see it as--HRH know Snape has yet to do something major
wrong, but that fact does not rectify the reality that he is a mean,
mean person to them.  Children are brought up to believe mean people
do bad things.  Maybe that is why Dumbledore keeps him around.  To
prove this notion wrong.  Funny though.  It is only proven wrong to
Gryffindors.  Slytherins miss out in that little life's lesson.


Melody (me) wrote:
> 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.)

Tom replied:
>That's right, they did know about it in Dumbledore's office.  But
>they could have known about it a lot sooner. And if Harry had been
>forthcoming a little earlier, the problem would have been solved.

So you don't believe my previous facts about how the teachers should
of know that animal was a basilisk?  The fact it is the only animal in
the magic world that turns things into stone is not enough for them?
Oh, but to know *Harry* hears voices, well then, that will unravel
everything.  they could parade Harry around talking in parseltongue
and get the snake to come out, so they could of killed him.  Oh yes,
that is a good plan.  They they can use a mirror shield thing as they
did in "Clash of the Titans" and watch the reflection of the
basilisk/Medusa and smite off his head.  Oh yes, good plan.

But you will say, I have no canon.  Well neither do you.


Tom again:
> Exactly - Snape would not appear to be reasonable, and Harry's exact
> criticism is that he won't listen to explanations - when HHR, five
> minutes before, had refused to listen to explanations. The way you
> see it, HHR's stubbornness is refreshing, and Snape's is annoying.
> But they're both a refusal to listen to explanations... except one
> is good, and one is bad.

No I don't think one is good and bad just because *Harry* thinks one
is good and bad.  HRH are being a bit stubborn, but for good reason.
They are 13, is a strange place with very bad guys in their opinion,
and with two stronger wizards.  they stubbornness is defensive, and
yet they *did* listen.  They did pause and calm down.  Snape did not.
 He took over and tied Lupin up, screamed at Hermione, and threatened
Black of death or soul sucking.  Snape's lack of reasoning is beyond
HRH's.  His is out and out driven deafness.

I guess I should be a bit compassionate to his side of why.  I guess.
 But since I am looking at this without the dishwasher (a sometimes
hard think to do), I will say he's lack of reason is scarier than
HRH's.  He *can* kill Black.  He can turn in Lupin on suspicions.  His
lack of reason is more deadly.  Besides, he is an adult.  He should
know better...but that is without the dishwasher.


Tom:
> So, Harry being stubborn = endearing. Snape being stubborn = insane.

No, I think Harry's stubborn is not endearing.  It almost ruined
everything, but really, it is his stubborn nature there that brought
out the truth.  I mean, would anyone, *anyone*, upon entering that
room say, "Here, let us sit down and talk about this.  Just dust off
that bit of mattress, so you Black (the accused betrayer of Lily and
James and murderer of 13 people) and you Lupin (his assumed
accomplish, a werewolf during this full moon night, and loyal friend
of Black) can sit and talk rationally, because y'all are obviously
rational people despite what you have against you to date."

Come now.  Anyone want to say they would?


Melody