The Useless Character of Harry Potter

[Kirstini]

No: HPFGUIDX 69565

I think everyone's been a bit harsh on Josie. She doesn't say she 
doesn't like the books, she says she objects to a particular 
character. She was attempting to start an interesting debate, which 
some people have picked up on and run with, but others have just 
jumped on her and attacked without really thinking what they want to 
say properly. What I like about this list is that the discussion 
tends to be well-thought out and mature. Josie's statement was 
provocative, and raised an interesting point. Emailing her back a 
one-line little snark doesn't achieve either.
 
To be honest, I wasn't really that taken with Harry myself until 
PoA, and didn't properly realise him as a fully-fledged character 
until OoP. Up until this point, he can be quite transparent - as the 
reader is looking through him to get at the narrative, often 
elements of his character can be - not lost - but skipped over 
easily. Obviously, I realise that his transparancy in the first two 
books was part of a character development arc (to be replaced with 
his utter, pig-headed opacity in OoP. Did anyone else feel like 
shouting "GIT out of the WAY! I want to see what's going on over 
there!" at any point?). However, although this may be an odd thing 
to say about the title character and prime focaliser of a seven-book 
series, I was a little confused about aspects of his personality at 
first. There's a review on the cover of my PS hardback which says 
something like "I've yet to meet a ten year old who hasn't been 
entranced with the book - and the character of the eponymous Harry", 
and I'll admit freely that the first time I read it, I thought "what 
character?" Yes, he tends to "fight for the little guy", and makes a 
few noble statements, but his character, intially, is understated 
almost to the point of invisibility. Perhaps this is another one of 
the reasons why OoP jarred with so many of us on first read?

I also agree with Josie about Harry's more infuriating tendancies - 
stupidity. Oh yes. There's one boy who was never going to get Sorted 
into Ravenclaw, was he? There are some times in the books when I get 
infuiated that it's Harry and not Hermione, working away to get the 
right answers, who gets all the glory. However, after a few re-
readings I've noticed a very, very subtle building up of all the 
elements Harry is going to need to to take out Voldemort, which take 
the emphasis away from "books! And cleverness!". I expressed a 
little idea the other day (actually, I think it was at about five 
this morning...urf) that former teacher JKR was employing Umbridge 
and her quill to undermine teaching practises in UK schools. There's 
been a common complaint flitting round the papers for the past few 
years that the curriculum is becoming too exam-based, teaching only 
what pupils need to pass exams. Perhaps JKR's occasional putting-
down of Hermione serves a similar sort of purpose, drawing focus 
back to qualities which (I will finally admit) do exist in Harry. 

Do I digress? I'm no longer even sure where I was going in the first 
place. However, I would like to point out, to those who found 
Josie's post offensive - it was partly tongue in cheek. I'm sure she 
doesn't really want Harry, that fictional character, dead. Because 
if he was then there wouldn't be any other books about him still to 
come out, and we wouldn't be able to learn any more about all those 
other, more interesting characters. ;D

Kirstini
preparing flame-proof vest to withstand all the angry posts 
saying "Harry would make a really good Ravenclaw! He just chooses 
not to be one! Why are you on this forum if you don't like the 
books?" with a big, evil grin.