"A certain disregard for rules" (was Re: Harry's importance and...)

[karmakaze_kk]

No: HPFGUIDX 57230

> --- "karmakaze_kk" <sarudy at y...> wrote:
> 
>> Harry may not think all rules are pointless, but he does seem to
>> think they don't apply to him.  Sneaking out to stop Quirrell,
>> while heroic, was against all sort of rules.  (And, I should 
>> point out, put the stone in far more jeapardy than if he had 
>> simply stayed in the dorms as instructed.)>
> 
> You mean, Harry put the stone in more jeopardy than if he had
> allowed Voldemort to possibly get his body back and the stone to
> boot, thus achieving immortality?  

Not at all.

However, the administrator and teachers at the school were aware of
the threat and had taken steps to protect the stone.  And, as it
turned out, those steps had been adequate to the job.  Quirrell was
completely unable to retrive the stone from the mirror.  It was only
through Harry's intervention that it was retrived at all.  If Harry
had stayed in his dorm, as ordered, Quirrel would have been stymied at
that point, and the stone would have remained safe.

Harry, by believing that he knew better than Dumbledore and his other
instructors, and by believing that the rules should not apply to him,
placed himself and the wizarding world in greater danger than it would
have been otherwise.  If Dumbledore had not returned when he did, it's
possible Quirrel could have pried the stone from Harry, despite the
pain, and ressurected Voldemort right then and there.

Now, I'm not saying that Harry did not make the best decision
he could based on the information he had.  But his behavior 
does display a "certain disregard for rules".   I brought 
this example up originally as a counterargument to a postulate 
that Harry is in fact a conscientious rule-abiding student and 
that Dubledore was lying or mistaken when he characterized him
otherwise.

>> He works with Hermione to create a polyjuice potion (which they 
>> are  not allowed to make) using a book from the library (which
>> they were not allowed to have) to infiltrate Sytherine House
>> (where they are not  allowed to go), after drugging two members
>> of Sytherin (which has to be some kind of assault).  And that
>> was a stunt that didn't even pan out.>
> 
> How did it not pan out?  The Trio wanted to find out if Draco
> was involved with what was going on and they did.  The only
> one who really suffered there was Hermione, who became Cat Girl
> for a while.

Well, I considered to not have panned out because all they 
learned was that Draco was a dead end.  They really were 
expecting to learn something postive, not to confirm a 
negative.  And I would argue that Hermione was not the only 
person harmed in that adventure.  Crabbe and Goyle (as much 
as we dislike them) were drugged/enchanted and locked in a 
closet.  I think we'd all be rather upset if some Slytherin 
did the same thing to two Gryffindor.

>> Harry always thinks he has the best and most urgent reasons
>> to break the rules, but he does break them left and right.  
>> It's an attitude that says "I think I know what is important
>> better than the people who make the rules", which qualifies
>> as "disregard" for me.
> 
> I agree with you that Harry does indeed have a disregard for rules, 
> but I have to support him in his breaking them.  
> [snip]

I'll grant you that Harry gets away with his disregard for rules
because, quite often, they /don't/ apply to him.  He is quite 
the special case.

Of course, I'm sure Tom Riddle felt exactly the same way. :)

> --jenny from ravenclaw *************

- Karmakaze (who's starting to wonder if she could reclassify herself
to Sytherin, the way she's been arguing lately)