Defending Percy ( was Percy Weasley )

[anthyroserain]

No: HPFGUIDX 105040

Del:

> But it is NOT obvious that the rules are wrong ! Fudge knew what he
> was doing when he refused to follow DD, but Percy and the rest of 
the
> WW don't know that. Percy hasn't met neither Harry nor DD since 
LV's
> return, he wasn't there at the parting of the ways. He's aked to
> follow Harry, DD and his parents *blindly*, even when *everything*
> points to the fact that they are crack-heads having collective
> hallucinations ! What's so wrong in refusing to do that ??


Katie:

As far as we see in the books, there's very little Fudge knows about 
that Percy doesn't. Percy acts as Fudge's spokesperson and ever-
present assistant (even at trials) and I see no reason to assume 
that Percy knows much less than Fudge.
  
"Blindly"? I would hardly say that. Percy has known, loved, and 
respected his family (and Harry) for considerably longer than any of 
the people he's currently following. Why does everything point to 
them all having collective hallucinations? The Daily Prophet and 
Ministry figures insinuate this, but I see little reason or proof 
that Percy should doubt his own family and all others he formerly 
respected.

Del:
> Could you define what you mean by morality ?

Katie:
The difference between right and wrong. I think Percy tends to 
believe in the importance and infallibility of the Rules, and stick 
to them even when they are obviously wrong (as in the Ministry's 
indifference to dementors attacking a student, for example.) I think 
that Percy sees the "right" action as being that which accords with 
the Rules and Authority. I don't see him as having an independent 
sense of good and bad. 


Del:
> Yes he does. He "realized" that DD, whom he respected very much 
just a
> few years before, has lost his marbles. And also that Harry, whom 
he
> quite liked, has turned into a dangerously delusive liar. Percy
> understood the concept very well, he just made a mistake in 
applying
> it. And considering the little info he had, it was a very easy 
mistake
> to make IMO.


Katie:
And what proof has Percy that Dumbledore has lost his marbles? Not 
much, I think (not at least until the "Dumbledore's Army" scene 
toward the end of OOTP, anyway.) When did Percy determine that Harry 
was as crazy as the Daily Prophet claimed? I'll say it again: Percy 
has known and respected DD and Harry for some time. Yet you're 
saying "considering the little info he had, it was a very easy 
mistake to make." Why should he immediately distrust his family and 
friends when he has admittedly "little information" to condemn them? 
Because he respects authority above all else. This is why I think 
he'd just as easily sever his ties to Fudge as he did to Dumbledore. 
Percy pays attention to which way the wind is blowing.


Del:
> I don't understand : why *should* he ? It was indeed Fudge who was
> wrong, not the Ministry policies. Once the Minister changes, the
> Ministry will realign itself, and Percy will do good to follow.


Katie:
Because the Ministry's policies WERE wrong and unfair under Fudge, 
and Percy believed them all the same. Percy knows Dolores Umbridge 
and her methods, and claims to have complete confidence in her. I'd 
love to hear someone try to defend Umbridge's fascistic policies at 
Hogwarts. 
  
Rather than follow whoever happens to be in power, what Percy ought 
to do is determine what right and wrong is, and follow that (and 
consequently leaders who follow it as well.)


Del:
> I don't see what moral implications you mean. Could you 
extrapolate ?
> And I don't see anything wrong with a big brother telling his 
little
> brother that his current best friend can lead him into big 
troubles.
> In fact, I find that admirable. Isn't it what we all want to do 
when
> we see an "innocent" kid fraying with "bad boys" ? Percy is 
thinking
> about Ron's future, and he's telling him to be strong and to take
> whatever measure might be necessary to protect himself from Harry 
and
> DD's crazy actions. I wouldn't call that "don't rock the boat", 
quite
> the opposite in fact.

Katie:
Well, let's look at what Percy says:
   "...I feel bound to tell you that Dumbledore may not be in charge 
at Hogwarts much longer and the people who count have a very 
different-- and probably more accurate-- view of Potter's 
behavior... Seriously, Ron, you do not want to be tarred with the 
same brush as Potter, it could be very damaging to your future 
prospects, and I am talking here about life after school too."

I don't think Percy is primarily concerned with Harry as a "danger" 
to his brother, because he gives no real evidence to support this. 
Instead, he says that the "people who count" don't believe Harry, so 
Ron ought to as well, to ensure future success. Percy isn't 
encouraging Ron to protect himself, he's encouraging him to get in 
with the right people.

 
Del:
> You say so yourself : Percy *can't* recognise that his source of
> authority is negative. It's not a choice, it's a natural inability.
> And just asking him to get over that inability is rather stupid. 
Percy
> needs to be *shown* the error of his way, not just told. But nobody
> has bothered doing that yet. All anyone ever says is that Percy is 
a
> stupid git for not seeing the truth, but none of them ever thinks 
of
> taking the time to go and talk to Percy in a respectful way, with
> logical proofs, not just "you must believe so-and-so". No wonder 
he's
> still at sea.

Katie:
Yes, this inability seems to be something in his natural makeup. I'm 
not saying this makes him categorically *bad*, I'm saying that 
reliance on the rules without regard for their content is extremely 
dangerous. I doubt that no one has considered talking to Percy in a 
respectful way. Molly adores her son and has tried to contact him, 
but Percy won't even talk to her. He doesn't even visit his badly 
wounded father in hospital. Yes, Fred and George are quick to 
dismiss Percy, as usual, but all others seem to be making every 
effort to talk to him and not succeeding.


-Katie