Defending Percy ( was Percy Weasley )

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 105109

Mel wrote:

I, Del, wrote :
> > Where are the proofs that LV is indeed back ? 

Mel replied :
> Cedric's dead body?  That was a big piece of evidence and I was 
> rather disappointed that it wasn't said how his death of the AK was 
> explained by the Ministry as "a horrible accident".

Del answers :
I'd like to know that too. I'm sure they did have a convincing
explanation.

Mel also wrote :
> Also, both McGonagall and Snape heard Barty Crouch's confession, so 
> it wasn't just the word of DD and Harry.

Del replies :
I don't remember reading that Snape and McGonagall told *anyone* about
what they had witnessed. And I don't remember either that it was
revealed to the WW that Barty Crouch Jr had not died in Azkaban. Fudge
knows that, but I'm pretty sure Percy, just like the rest of the WW,
ignores that fact, and hasn't heard anything from Snape or
McGonagall's mouth.

Mel wrote :
> On top of that there was Fudge's 180 degree turn around regarding 
> Harry.  At least a little suspicous. 

Del replies :
A classic in the WW : remember Sirius ? And you can be fond of a
little kid one day, and realise the next day that he's turned into a
brat. Nothing suspicious in that.

Mel wrote :
> Not to mention if DD was going senile, wouldn't the ministry not "go 
> around "making his name mud", but try to get him to a Doctor? Also 
> suspicous to me.

Del replies :
In the eyes of the Ministry, DD is trying to start a panic. It's like
if someone famous said they had insider information that a nuclear
power plant was leaking : what matters is to make it clear that that
person is talking nonsense.

Mel wrote :
> Additionally, we have the disappearence of that witch (the one 
> Wormtail caught I've forgotten her name), Karkaroff running off on 
> his class, Crouch Senior's disappearence and ultimate death.  Then we
> have the word of his family, which one would think he believes 
> somewhat intelligent.  Either way, there wasn't a "smoking gun", but 
> there was a lot of strange unexplained occurences that at least 
> should ahve made Percy think twice, unless he's just the stupidest 
> person on the planet (which is difficult to believe; he was headboy)

Del replies :
Lots of weird things had been happening those last years in the WW.
There was no particular reason for Percy to believe that this time was
so vastly different.
Moreover, Percy was just 19, and he knew nothing of the world. He got
caught between 2 loyalties, faced with facts that contradicted what he
was told. He made the choice that seemed most obvious to him.

I, Del, asked :
> > How is believing that LV is back "right" ? How is defending one's
> > governing body "wrong" ?

Mel answered :
> In a democratic society defending one's governing body without proof 
> (in either direction) is unwise and unpatriotic.

Del replies :
And *fighting* one's governing body with no convincing proof is even
*less* patriotic and more unwise. Percy wasn't convinced by the
shallow proofs he was presented, so he went for the more patriotic
path. I do hope that when my son is nineteen, it will take more than a
single testimony from a teenage boy and a bunch of apparently
unrelated events to turn him against his country !

Mel wrote :
> LV was in fact back that's how it was right.  The government 
> "sweeping it under the rug" (see evidence above) was wrong.

Del replies :
Easy to say when you're privvy to the events, but Percy was not.

Mel wrote :
> Percy should have kept an open mind, gathered information on his own,
> and then made a decision.  It's the only patriotic thing to do.  Did 
> he think that Cedric Diggory dropped dead of his own accord?  Really? 
> Did he speek to Amos Diggory about it?  Did he speak to McGonagall or
> Snape?  Did he do anything, but kiss Fudge's feet?  

Del replies :
We don't know what he did. We still don't know how the Ministry
explained away Cedric's death. I don't see what Amos Diggory could
have told him except that he believed DD's explanation. Percy didn't
know about Crouch Jr and about Snape and McGonagall hearing his
confession. Harry did not tell his story to Percy face to face, and we
are not told that DD went to see Percy personally either.
And LV was still nowhere to be seen.

Mel wrote :
> The last post you were saying Percy was an adult.

Del replies :
Maybe I did, but he's still only a 19-year-old adult. Hum,
technically, that makes him still a teenager in fact.

Mel wrote :
> I agree, therefore his behavior is his own responsiblity not 
> Arthur's.

Del replies :
But when Daddy says "jump", Percy is supposed to ask "how high" ? How
logical is that ?

Mel wrote : 
> Also it wasn't Arthur that insulted Percy, it was Percy that insulted 
> Arthur.  Percy stated he had to struggle against his Dad's "lousy 
> reputation" and they've always been poor because of his lack of 
> ambition, etc.

Del replies :
Percy insulted his father *after* his father insulted him. Arthur
denied his son's accomplishment by telling him he was only a pawn
between Fudge's hands. That was denying everything Percy had ever
accomplished, all the hard work he'd ever done, not to mention his
natural talents and capabilities. I find that terribly insulting
indeed, and Arthur should have known better that to denigrate *Percy*
on *that* particular subject. Percy only ever took pride in, and was
ever only praised by his parents for one single thing : his "good
grades", his academic and work achievements. And suddenly Arthur
pulled the rug from under his feet by dismissing it all.
Moreover, Percy was basically right in what he was telling his dad.
Arthur might be well-liked by his fellow Ministry members, but he's
bound to be a bit of a joke too. He's obviously looked down upon by
his bosses (just consider what they gave him as an "office"), and
we've been told several times that his love for anything Muggle is
considered very weird by his colleagues. Not to mention that some
influent people like Lucius Malfoy do their best to crush him any time
they can. So I think Percy was right when he said that he's had to
battle his father's reputation. It wasn't a nice thing to say but it
was true. As for the accusation of the Weasley family being poor
because of Arthur's lack of ambition, it might not be completely true,
but it revealed what many Weasley kids feel : they hate being poor.
Ginny and the Twins might be disgusted by the fact that Percy dared
utter it, but I'm not so sure they don't agree with Percy on the fact
that being poor is horrible. Ron does anyway.

Mel wrote :
> Percy completely disrespected his father and left the house, how is 
> it childish that Arthur doesn't run after him?  Percy either comes 
> back or he doesn't, but I don't think Arthur should go after him.  
> He's an adult.

Del replies :
It's childish to wait for someone you love to come back without ever
making any peace gesture, no matter who was the offender. Harry did it
in GoF with Ron, and it was childish, but Harry *was* a kid. Arthur
should know better than to wait for Percy to come back. Percy is
barely an adult, he's a very young man full of conflicting instincts.
Arthur is much older and supposedly much wiser. He should try to show
more maturity than a 14-year-old kid.

Del