A Harry Failure

[drmm_fuuko]

No: HPFGUIDX 58969

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Melody" <Malady579 at h...> wrote:

> DrMM wrote:

> >PS/SS: In the first book, Harry & Ron race into the bathroom to 
fight
> > a troll. They both could have run off to find a teacher and 
explain
> > what they saw but they rush in and fight it themselves. They never
> > consider the consequences, which could have been deadly.
> 
> Well they did not run off to fight the troll.  They ran off to find
> Hermione.  They found her and the troll trying to kill her.  So
> therefore, they saved her life because they did not run off to find
> the teachers but dealt with the situation at hand.  Frankly, they 
did
> not have the luxury of yelling for help.  Hey, that troll made a lot
> of noise.  You would think McG, Snape, and Quirrel would have 
followed
> the sound of breaking porcelain and pipes.  So that time, Harry and
> Ron were just being a good friend because it was Ron's fault that 
she
> was there in the first place.
 
But they could have told a teacher or Percy that they didn't think 
Hermione heard the announcement. Instead, they rushed off to find 
her, not considering that they might run into the troll. Yes, running 
in to save Hermione was brave & noble and all that ... It was also 
incredibly dangerous and they certainly didn't consider THAT when 
they decided to go after Hermione.
 
> >In a somewhat more iffy example, Harry rushes off to try and stop
> >Quirrel *by himself*. While he recognizes the danger, he at least
> >thinks he at least has a chance to stop him, which has always 
seemed
> >a bit arrogant to me. As we find out when we read the story, if
> >Hermione hadn't been there, Harry would have been stopped at the
> >second challenge.
> 
> The point I am trying to make is that Harry was slightly pushed to 
go
> after that stone and mirror.  He was shown how the mirror worked by
> Dumbledore himself, which was very fishy thing to do.  I mean, what
> reason did Dumbledore have to do that?  If he wanted Harry to see 
his
> parents, he could have shown him that picture book like he had 
Hagrid
> give him in the end.  I know, it does not *say* Dumbledore 
influenced
> that gift, but I like to think he did.  But that is a guess not 
fact.>>

Yeah, I know Harry was pushed to go try and get the stone, which is 
why I said it was an iffy example. I'm of the theory that Dumbledore 
knew all along what Harry & Co. were doing and he wanted them to go 
after Quirrel. However, Harry made his own choices. He didn't have to 
go after Quirrel.  Yes, going after Quirrel was brave but it was 
still a rash decision, that could have caused his death (and very 
nearly did).

> > He rushes off to the Forbidden
> > Forest, knowing full well how dangerous it is and nearly dies.
> 
> Well, Hagrid did tell him to do it.  Harry is anything if not
> obedient.  And Harry did have detention in the forest where he was
> rescued by a centaur the last time.

Harry obedient? I hope you're being sarcastic there ... Like I said, 
he knows how dangerous it is. Hagrid may have told him to go but that 
doesn't mean he had to. And being rescued by a centaur was luck. He 
saw how angry the other centaur was, so he should know better than to 
be expect to be rescued again if he's in trouble.
 
<< Well yes that was stupid, but then again like with Hermione.  Harry
> and Ron thought Ginny was dead or dying down there.  They were 
pressed
> for time.  Harry has gotten more confident in his abilities and 
knows
> now it is a snake.  He had luck with the last two snakes he had
> encountered in controlling them.  And now it was his fellow
> Gryffindor, best friend's sister, and his own cute crusher that was
> down there.  Harry's mind is focused when it is on a mission, and so
> far has *any* teacher really helped him defeat a bad guy?  Not by
> *Harry's* knowledge.  That happens without his knowledge.>>

They were pressed for time? Well, they took a few minutes to go get 
Lockheart, so it wouldn't have taken much extra time to get another 
teacher. Yes, Harry has been able to slightly control two snakes but 
this is not just any snake -- this is a Basalisk. He also knows that 
the Basalisk is being controlled by the Heir of Slytherin, so he 
should know that he won't be able to control *this* snake. But he 
goes in anyway.

And would Harry have to defeat the bad guys if he let someone else 
have a chance? :)

> > PoA: There are a lot of things that happen here.

> >He runs off to Hogsmeade, knowing that a killer is after his life.
> 
> And Harry was scolded for that by Lupin.  That was rash.  I will not
> disagree.  But Harry was properly told not to do that again.

Yes, Harry was scolded for that by Lupin. But Lupin is the only 
person that reprimands him that he's actually listened to. If 
McGonagall had caught him instead of Snape, I don't think Harry would 
have "gotten it." And I'm not fully sure that Harry learned his 
lesson. After all, he still rushes after Ron into a dangerous 
situation later.
 
> >When Ron is attacked, he again rushes straight into a dangerous
> >situation rather than asking for help.
> 
> Again.  Did he have time to?

*shrug* I think so. True, if Sirius had been a Death Eater, Ron 
probably would have died ... but if Sirius had been a Death Eater 
both Harry and Hermione would have died in the Shack as well. If they 
had decided to go for help, then only Ron would have died.

Harry rushes into situations without thinking of the danger. It's a 
very noble and self-sacrificing (and Gryffindor) trait, but not 
always the best one. Harry needs to learn to restrain this instinct. 
After all, he who runs away lives to fight another day. :)

> >If Sirius Black *had* been a
> >Death Eater, he would have been dead the minute he entered the 
door.
> >And while we don't know this for sure, if Harry had gone to the
> >school for help, someone else could have seen Peter and Sirius 
would
> >have been proven innocent.
> 
> Eh.  Not necessarily.  Harry was whisked away to a whole slew of 
DE's
> and they did not kill him.  They toyed with him, but did not kill 
him
> instantly.  And Peter would not have come out if someone else had
> found Black and *Scabbers*.  Why would Peter of transfigured?  He 
was
> safe as the rat, and no one would listen to Black's story.  They had
> not so far in twelve years.

Oh, it's possible that Harry would have survived. I just don't think 
it's likely. Sirius lured Harry to the Shrieking Shack to kill him. 
Voldemort lured Harry to steal his blood, to toy with him and THEN to 
kill him. I don't think Sirius would have wasted any time trying to 
play games and taunt Harry the way Voldemort does. He's certainly 
about to kill Peter first and explain later.

Peter wouldn't have transformed willingly but Dumbledore *would* have 
at least listened to Sirius -- and then he could force Peter to 
transform the way Lupin and Sirius did. All Sirius would need to do 
is keep a good grip on him, while explaining this to Dumbledore.

I don't think Dumbledore ever talked to Sirius before he went to 
Azkaban. He certainly listens to Sirius after he's captured.

> > In all of these books, Harry has survived out of luck and with the
> > help of his friends.
> 
> Hehehe.  Now, I do not agree with that.  It seems very clear to me
> that Harry is supported with a greatly hidden understructure of help
> even without MD there.  Dumbledore is investing much into Harry's
> education and protecting through Snape, Lupin, and all.  Dumbledore
> singled Harry out to show him the mirror's workings in PS/SS.  He 
sent
> the hat and Fawkes in CoS and told Harry in Hagrid's hut that "help"
> would come if he asked for it.  PoA is highly debated here, but I
> firmly believe Dumbledore had a hand in making sure Harry was safe 
and
> survived.  And in GoF, well the whole crew was making sure Harry got
> through the tasks.  And he did, but it was that last moment of Task
> three that changed everything.  but once again, there is too much to
> go into here about my views on Harry's hidden structure making sure 
he
> stays alive and successful.
> 

Well, it's possible that Dumbledore is keeping Harry safe from his 
own rash (& sometimes stupid) decisions. However, that would be 
included in my "friends" explination. And Dumbledore is human -- if 
he had been any later in PS/SS he admits Harry would have died. So, 
Harry could still have died. I still think a lot of Harry's survival 
is luck, rather than any special talent.

> I still am not sure Harry's failure will cause a death directly.  It
> seems so harsh and debilitating, but it would help him grow and 
focus
> more that is for sure?if it does not kill his spirit.  I think the
> failure will happen in book five, have him dealing with it in book
> six, and then out to conquer all in book seven.  It would be a nice
> arch of a story I think but probably very typical.  But then again, 
if
> you look at life, it can be.  After all, it is how he conquers which
> makes the story different.
> 

I think that a death would be the most effective kind of failure. 
Cedric's death in GoF is not enough. Cedric died because he was just 
in the wrong place at the wrong time; this may tell Harry how little 
Voldemort values life but it won't teach Harry responsibility. A 
death that he is directly responsible for will be far more effective.

A loss at Quidditch would be too trivial to teach a major lesson; 
besides, Harry already lost to Cedric in PoA.

There's a quote from Terry Pratchett I think is appropriate.  "You 
mean you need cool calculating bastards to save the world, do you?" 
(Thief of Time).

This is something Harry needs to learn. :)

DrMM (who was reading Fantastic Posts earlier and was astonished to 
find how many of her messages from 2 years ago were included)