Percy is a true Weasley (very long)

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 97645


I was reading the Yule Ball Incident between Ron and Hermione 
yesterday, and I was suddenly struck by how similar this incident is 
to the fight between Percy and his dad. It also led me to remember 
some other Weasley incidents.

When Ron discovers Hermione with Viktor Krum, he gets overwhelmed 
with jealousy and becomes extremely nasty to her. Let's review some 
of the things he tells her :

1. She's fraternizing with the enemy (ie : she's a traitor).

2. Viktor intends to use her to spy on Harry.

3. Viktor wants her to help him, not Harry.

I can't help but be reminded of what Arthur Weasley tells Percy 
(according to Ron and the Twins) when he discovers that Percy was 
made Junior Assistant to Fudge :

1. Percy is serving the wrong side (Fudge instead of DD) (ie : Percy 
is a traitor).

2. Fudge intends to use Percy to spy on Arthur and DD.

3. Percy should be helping DD, not the Ministry.

Now, what's *very* funny in my idea is that we seem to 
*automatically* consider that Ron was wrong while Arthur was right ! 
Why would that be so ?

1. Because Ron had his reasoning clouded by jealousy while Arthur 
was supposedly thinking straight ?
I'm not so sure. Just because he was mad with jealousy doesn't mean 
Ron couldn't be right : after all, Viktor *could* very well have 
intended to use Hermione against Harry ! And just because Arthur 
*seems* okay with his lowly position at the Ministry doesn't mean he 
wasn't mad with jealousy when he learned that his son had made it 
way higher than himself in barely a year.

2. Because we trust Hermione and we don't trust Percy ?
Yep, that would be more like it. We trust Hermione to see the truth 
of people and to not be swayed or deceived, while we see Percy as a 
git that can be flattered into doing anything stupid. Well, it's 
true that in *this* instance, Percy happens to be wrong, but how 
could he not be, considering the little info he's had access to, and 
the surroundings he's been living in ? Let's see :

- As Harry painfully discovers in OoP, pretty much nobody will take 
his word on LV's return, and even havind DD as a back-up isn't 
enough to cut it. So why do we expect Percy to know better ?

- After 2 years as Prefect and one year as Head Boy, Percy must have 
noticed DD's tendency to keep things secret and to reveal only what 
he sees fit. That wouldn't necessarily entice Percy into trusting DD 
with his life and career.

- It doesn't seem like Percy was told much about what happened 
behind the scene in GoF. For him, the news of LV's return probably 
came out of the blue. His family expects him to follow them blindly, 
but it doesn't look like they gave him any good reason to.

- Percy has been working at the MoM for a whole year. It's quite 
normal that his loyalty should shift from DD to Fudge. And since 
Percy wasn't there when Fudge denied the naked truth, and wasn't 
apparently told about it before the Awful Row (and even then ?), 
he's got simply no reason to doubt Fudge's ways.

3. Because Hermione is a nice girl, Arthur is a nice father figure, 
and Percy is a pompous git ?
Yes, for sure. After all, Percy has *always* been a pompous git, 
right ? And Arthur has always been a nice father figure, right ? So 
when we have to choose between the two, we side with Arthur. But how 
nice was it to crumple Percy's happiness with such a horrible 
*supposition* that Fudge *only* did it to spy on Arthur ?! Arthur 
doesn't *know* that, and he's definitely got no *proof* of that ! So 
who ever gave him the *right* to say that to Percy ?!

I see you coming : "But it's obvious ! Why else would Fudge take 
Percy ?" After all, Percy just got questioned for not noticing how 
strange Mr Crouch had been acting all year. I agree. But I'll add 
that Percy was *the last person* to be able to notice and to have 
the right to report Mr Crouch's strange behaviour ! Percy started 
working with Mr Crouch barely a few weeks before Crouch was 
Imperioed and started misbehaving. How was Percy supposed to know 
that this wasn't Mr Crouch's normal way of reacting to stress and 
tiredness ? He didn't *know* the man well enough. And even if he did 
suspect something, who was he to go and report the man, what would 
it make him look like, how valid would his testimony have been ? 
Percy was a fresh out-of-school assistant, who was he to go and blab 
on his respected boss ?
On the other hand, there are several people who *should* have 
noticed Mr Crouch's strange behaviour and who *should* have done 
something about it ! First of them being ... Fudge himself ! And I 
think that's why Percy wasn't punished : because the MoM didn't want 
to bring anyone's attention to the fact that they hadn't done their 
job concerning one of their own *again*. They'd already made a huge 
mistake with Bertha Jorkins, they probably weren't ready to admit 
doing it again with Mr Crouch so soon.
As for taking in Percy as his own Junior Assistant, I can find at 
least one good reason for Fudge to do that : Percy doesn't seem to 
have done such a bad job at filling in for Crouch. The boy is 
extremely capable, brilliant, talented and responsible. He's a true 
golden boy. *And* he's got ambition, unlike his father. Why then 
shouldn't Fudge take him in ??

4. Percy said horrible things to Arthur, so he must be wrong.
Ah yes, the famous "we wouldn't be so poor if you weren't so lousy". 
I agree, it's horrible. But I'm not so sure it isn't true. All the 
Weasleys admit that Arthur was held back because his views aren't 
popular with the Ministry. So yes in some way, Arthur did keep his 
family in poverty. But of course, it's all a matter of integrity : 
we can't expect Arthur to renounce his opinions just in order to get 
more money, can we ? Well no, of course, and I'm sure Percy would 
agree with that, when he's not upset. But we have to remember that 
when he said that, Percy was a) thoroughly disappointed that his 
father wan't proud of him for landing such a good job, and b)quite 
rightfully angry at his father's insinuations that Percy had been 
manipulated. And just like Ron said terrible things to Hermione when 
upset, so did Percy say horrible things to his father at that 
moment. After all, it is very likely that Percy suffered a lot as a 
kid from being poor, so it's logical that it shoud all come out 
under stress.
As for the "I've had to battle your lousy reputation ever since I 
got in the Ministry", I'm afraid it's quite possibly true. We see 
how Malfoy considers Arthur and his family. If most people at the 
Ministry hold the same view of Arthur, Percy *must* have suffered 
from being Arthur's son quite a few times. And the fact that he 
feels like he's the only one who feels that way, and he can find no 
support whatsoever at home, cannot help.

So as far as the Awful Row goes, I'm of the opinion that the guilt 
is shared, and that Percy acted just like another Weasley boy we 
know might have done in the same conditions.

As for his stubborness in refusing to relent and forgive and make up 
with his family, I'm afraid it's simply another Weasley trait. All 
throughout Ron and Harry's fallout in GoF, we see Ron fighting 
*against* his natural instinct, and refusing point-blank to talk to 
Harry as long as Harry doesn't apologise, even though Ron is the one 
who started it all. If there hadn't been the First Task, the 
situation could have lasted forever. Not even Hermione's negociation 
efforts brought any good.
Even Arthur doesn't show the good exemple to his son. When he comes 
accross Percy at work, he ignores him just as much as Percy ignores 
Arthur. We learn of Molly trying to talk to Percy, but I can't 
remember reading about *Arthur* going to Percy's. And if Arthur, the 
adult, the father, can hold a grudge against his son, why should we 
expect Percy, the youth barely out of adolescence, to do any better ?

About the jumper incident : we learn that Percy returned his 
Christmas present unopened, which was mean, I agree. (But is it any 
meaner than Harry shouting at Ron when Ron comes to *check on him* 
in the Common Room, even if that forced Harry to cut his 
conversation with Sirius short ?) But I'll point that we don't know 
anything about the *circumstances* surrounding this mean act. For 
example : was there a letter attached to the package ? If there was, 
and Percy opened it first, and it contained one more tactlessly 
phrased intimation to stop sulking and come back home (the Weasleys 
aren't too good at diplomacy, are they ?), I wouldn't be overly 
surprised that Percy would just send the whole thing back where it 
came from.

And finally, I'd like to point out that we can't dismiss all the 
proofs we had before OoP of the love Percy has for his family. In 
CoS, he's sick with worry when Ginny disappears. In GoF, he loses 
all pretence and runs into the sea to check on Ron at the end of the 
Second Task. Percy obviously loves his family, as any good Weasley 
does. And it's precisely why he sends the Infamous Letter to Ron in 
OoP : to help Ron choose what Percy thinks is the good way. Because 
we have to remember one last thing : the Weasley kids have always 
been taught to stand up for their beliefs. And isn't that what Percy 
is doing ? Just because his beliefs are wrong doesn't mean he's 
evil. Percy *thinks* he's doing what's good, that's all that matters.

Percy is a true Weasley. That's even precisely why he's in trouble 
now.

Do I see a way out ? Yep, even though the way JKR talked about Percy 
during the last chat doesn't give me much hope it will happen. If 
Percy is indeed a true Weasley, then he will show up on his parents' 
doorstep any day, now that the truth has been revealed. He might not 
be able to formulate any kind of excuses, but that shouldn't be a 
problem. I expect Arthur and Molly are waiting for the slightest 
sign from Percy to take him back.

Congratulations to those who've read all this :-) What do you think ?

Del