[HPforGrownups] Re: An odd musing about Harry's attitude

[imhotep1]

No: HPFGUIDX 53904

Carrie wrote:
> But Snape, no. He's a teacher and Harry has to learn to 
> deal with him, the other students do - poor Neville. I remember after 
> the Pensieve Harry asks Dumbledore something and he says "Snape". 
> Dumbledore corrects him..."Professor Snape". So we aren't the only 
> ones noticing this! =) I think Harry might have been rude to Gilderoy
> as well, but he was just too self consumed to notice. He is often rude
> to Trelawney. On his first day of broom lessons he disobeys a pretty 
> straightforward instruction from Madame Hootch.
>  
>  But I think this goes right along with Harry's attitude that he 
> can break the rules, pretty much all the time. He sneaks around the 
> castle. Leaves the castle. Tries to catch his teachers doing stuff. 
> It seems to be his character that he feels he is above the 
> rules...Snape is right in that account. It seems to never occur to 
> HHR to take a problem to Dumbledore or McGonnagall. Like the students 
> are better able to solve the problems. 

I think everyone is sort of in agreement that the Dursleys get what they
deserve, but the Snape issue is the peculiar one to me.  When I read
through the books I kept wondering why didn't Harry just sit down with
Snape and voice his issues, trying to make peace with him (after, of
course, he learned Snape wasn't tying to kill him.)  By the end of PA I
was wondering why he didn't grab Dumbledore and Snape, sit them both
down, and ask what the heck is going on, tell me the whole story, I want
to know everything and work with you guys instead of sneaking around
behind your backs.

Of course,  I am not 14.  In fact, when I think back to when I was,  I
think Harry is rather mature for his age, and very responsible.  I would
have performed much more poorly in his position. 

Adults are allowed to break the rules when a more important need arises,
yet we expect children to follow these rules explicitly.  For example, 
adults tell children that fighting is bad, and to resolve their problems
through talking.  Adults, however, feel fully justified when they do
such things as going to war. Another example is we tell children to
follow any instructions they are given, but we hold war criminals
accountable even if they were "just following orders."  When exactly do
we expect children to make the leap from blindly following adult rules
to making exceptions based on the situation.  I don't think it's fair to
assume this happens magically at age 18.  

HHR are at that age when they are learning what it means to think for
them selves, and to make their own moral judgments regardless to the
explicit rules that are laid out for them.  Sometimes they make good
decisions, and sometimes they make poor ones (such as Harry's continued
distrust of Snape.)  However we judge them, I think it's only fair to at
least picture ourselves in their shoes, at their age, and ask what we
would have done.

Remember that they are Gryffindor, and as the sorting hat says,
"Gryffindor, Where dwell the brave at heart, Their daring, nerve, and
chivalry Set Gryffindors apart,"  when Harry breaks Madame Hooch's rule
during that first lesson, he did it because he is naturally a brave soul
who stands for his friends.  A Ravenclaw in the same situation might
have run and informed a teacher (that would be the wise thing to do, and
Ravenclaw are noted for their wisdom,) but Harry is Gryffindor, and he
does what he believes if right.

I don't think he ever believes he is above the rules, but I do believe
he sometimes feels that the situation at hand outweigh the rules.  At
the end of GoF Dumbledore is leading the lot of them (HHR, Hagrid,
Snape, etc.) in a battle vs. Voldemort AGAINST the wishes of MoM, and
possibly, if you fall into the Evil!Fudge crowd, against MoM itself. 
This is Dumbledore, the wisest, kindest character in the book, showing
the children that sometimes the situation at hand outweighs any specific
rules.

No, they aren't perfect, and they make stupid, childish decisions some
times, but they are children, and I think it's a little silly if we
forget to bear that in mind.

The zenit.org article that MarEphraim posted a link to in this thread
(message  53874) (just to make this a more philosophical discussion and
a little less a child psychology one)  When discussing if the Potter
books encourage relativism states that, 

"...the books clearly assume that goods such as love and truth are
objective.  But generally the complaints about the Potter books focus
not on any real evil deeds, but on infractions such as breaking the
school curfew; and these cases of rule-breaking are overwhelmingly
attempts to block some great harm." 

i.e.  rules can be broken if your motives are good.  This isn't
something you teach young children, because they don't understand enough
about how the world works to make informed judgments, but at some point
they have to start learning, and I think when the evil sorcerer who
killed your parents comes after you, that's as good a time as any to
start bending a few rules.

-Jeremy