Putting words in other posters' mouth / Choices

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 136865

Combined answer to Susan McGee, Rizza and Vmonte.

---

Susan McGee,

I consider Tom to be a sociopath. I have given canon to defend that
opinion before. So I don't see any point in comparing anyone to him,
or in discussing the morality of his choices.

---

Rizza wrote:
"You do realize you're contradicing yourself right? You're demanding
cannon to prove her belief that Harry COULD NOT turn into a sexual
predator, yet you haven't, nor can you provide cannon to support your
belief that he COULD!"

Del replies
Not true. I HAVE given the short version of my reasons why I think
Harry, as described in the books, *could* turn to abusing Ginny. Not
necessarily in a sexual way, by the way, physical/sexual abuse is not
the only type of abuse there is.

Message 136037:

"* I see a boy who imposes his will on his girl.

* I see a boy who doesn't care to hurt his girl as long as it makes
things easier for him.

* I see a relationship that is deemed good because it makes the boy
happy, but nothing is said about the girl.

* I see a relationship where we don't know anything of what happens
when they are together.

* I remember that this boy had the habit of shouting loud and long to
force his female best friend to shut up in the last book.

* I also remember that this boy didn't care one bit what his former
girlfriend needed, and that he got angry when it was explained to him
what her emotional needs were. I remember that this boy had a mental
image of what he wanted his former girlfriend to be, and that he
didn't like it when she didn't conform.

* And of course, I remember that this boy was raised without love,
that he was emotionally abused or at least neglected as a kid, and
that he doesn't have a parental figure to turn to for counsel anymore.

For all those reasons and more, I see a boy who is a potential abuser
indeed. Maybe not a physical one, but an emotional one for sure."

Interestingly enough, *right after that*, I wrote:

"Now, I sincerely doubt that JKR would make Harry abuse Ginny. But the
fact remains that she gave many clues that he could be, and none that
their relationship is in fact healthy."

Could I make it any clearer and plainer?

Rizza wrote:
"Unless there is a sentence in any of the books that says Harry
himself believes he will or will not grow up to be abusive, or someone
says it of/to him, using those exact words. Unless I'm mistaken, the
said sentences do not exist. Because, whatever you pull out of the
books to support your theory, she could read it in a completely
different way. And vice versa."

Del replies:
Agreed. And if OoP!Harry had not happened, I would be the first one to
say that the presumptions concerning Harry should be ones of
innocence. However, OoP!Harry did happen, and that shattered my
positively pre-set view of Harry. I absolutely HATED OoP!Harry, and
even though I liked HBP!Harry much MUCH more, I still have this sour
taste in my mental mouth that reminds me that Harry has not always
been an angel, and that nobody has helped him deal with his issues yet.

Just so you know, I also believe that OoP!Harry was NOT really Harry.
I believe that his bad and short temper was a direct consequence of
his being linked to LV, that he was only reflecting LV's mental and
emotional state. But this is only a conclusion that I can make from
not-very-conclusive proofs, mainly the fact that Harry's behaviour
changed drastically at the beginning of OoP, and again at the
beginning of HBP. There's no definite proof that OoP!Harry was not due
at least in part to some violent streak in Harry's temper. So I can't
help but wonder if that streak exists or not. I BELIEVE that it
doesn't, but when imagining POSSIBILITIES, I can take it in consideration.

Rizza wrote:
"Message 136773, your third reply. That's what she was talking about,
not every other oppinion you've shared in this post. "

Del replies:
So I write about my own life in one post out of way too many for even
my own taste, and that's enough to say that I talk more about my life
than Harry's?

Rizza wrote:
"Are you telling me you DON'T think Draco is for being adherent to his
parents' principles?"

Del replies:
I don't think that Draco is what, exactly?

I guess the word is "wrong". And yes I do think Draco is morally wrong
to adhere to his parents' principles. However, this has nothing to do
with valuing family. We know that the fate of his parents is tightly
tied to Draco's success in his task. Should Draco not care about his
parents? If you answer is "no, he shouldn't, because they are jerks",
then how can you support the statement that JKR is teaching children
to value family? 

Teaching children to value family would be teaching that you should
still love your family, uphold their honour, and work for their good
(your own idea of good, not necessarily theirs), NO MATTER WHAT.
That's the way I see it, anyway. And this is not what I see in the HP
books. Not at all.

Rizza wrote:
"So should Sirius be condemned for breaking free and having a mind of
his own, rather than being a prejudiced psychopath who's main goal in
life is to annihilate those whom he belives to be beneath him? If he
had stayed with his family, that's exactly what he would have been."

Del replies:
I applaud Sirius for doing what he thought was right. But I condemn
him for speaking ill of them, and ONLY ill, even though they are all
dead. The closest thing to a compliment Sirius ever paid them is that
they were never DEs. Sirius kept going over the most negative
characteristics of his relatives. I don't call that "valuing family".
I totally understand why Sirius felt and acted that way, but I don't
think that we can say that JKR teaches children to value family.

JKR teaches children to value what is right over everything else,
including family. That's a message I quite agree with. But I can't
agree that JKR is teaching kids to value family, not when she clearly
supports all those characters who drop like old smelly socks those
family members whom they disagree with. That's all.

Rizza wrote:
"When another writer gets permission from JKR to write his/her own
versions of Harry's life, let me know. Until then, this is still JKR's
Harry Potter."

Del replies:
Granted, it's JKR's Harry. But the romance between Harry and Ginny
CANNOT be JKR's version of it, because she did NOT give us that
version. So this particular romance is BOUND to be each reader's
version of it. This was the problem that started that whole mess, if
you'll remember. HappyBoyfriend!Harry is NOT defined in canon, he's
totally dependent on how the readers want to see him.

Rizza wrote:
"Anyway, yes there is a difference, and I still choose to believe the
latter. Why? Because even if JKR decided to write fifty more books
after the seventh, she would not write Harry as an abusive man. He's
the main character, the hero, the one whom millions of children around
the world look up to, identify with in one way or another, "

Del replies:
That's what you (and I, but you don't seem to believe me on that
point) BELIEVE. But there's no PROOF of that. By not showing
HappyBoyfriend!Harry, JKR missed the perfect opportunity to show us
what kind of boyfriend Harry can be with someone he's got a real
connection to. So we have to rely on our BELIEF that JKR never meant
Harry to be a bad boyfriend, and that she expects us to imagine Harry
as our Dream Boyfriend or something. But she never gave us any proof
that Harry is indeed that Dream Boyfriend. So, within the confines of
THEORY, I challenged that belief, showing that the canon CAN support
Abusive!Harry. I fail to see why so many people find such a
*speculation* offensive.

Rizza wrote:
"Logical: reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent
manner. 
 
As far as I know you've been more contradictory to and inconsistent in
your statements than anyone else who's had a say on this topic. Are
you theorizing about Harry Potter who exists in JKR's "Harry
Potter..." series? Or are you talking about a Harry Potter who could
exist away from JKR's pen? Make THAT clear to me. Because you seem to
be arguing in both cases..."

Del replies:
Do you understand how canon-based speculation works?

Canon-based speculation, as its name indicates, is based on canon. I
HAVE used canon repeatedly to make my points, and AFAIK none of my
speculations go straight against a clear (ie non-subject to personal
interpretation) piece of canon.

Speculation, on the other hand, clearly indicates that, as DD would
put it (paraphrase), we are leaving the domain of hard facts to enter
the domain of theories and possibilities. So *by definition* a
speculation CANNOT be confined to the clear facts in the books. If it
is, then it's not a speculation, it's a fact.

Moreover, what I BELIEVE and what I THEORISE do *not* have to agree. I
think the confusion comes from the fact that many people don't seem to
grasp that point: I can freely theorise about something I don't
believe. I see no reason to limit my speculation to the areas that I
happen to believe. I find this stifling, to say the least. I believe
that many people on this list have written very elaborate theories in
which they didn't necessarily believe (most of the ESE! theories would
fall in that category, I think). That's what canon-based speculation
is about: taking the canon, and building from and around it.

Rizza wrote:
"*Rizza* who is suddenly reminded of the best phrase ever uttered in
this group- *AGREE TO DISAGREE*"

Del replies:
If you believe in that principle, then why did you challenge my right
to speculate about Abusive!Harry?

---

Vmonte wrote:
"If your argument is that Harry could be one in the hands of a
different writer then I'm not interested."

Del replies:
No, my argument is that Harry *as JKR has written him* CAN be an
abuser, and the only reason I know that Harry is NOT an abuser is
because I *believe* that JKR never meant him to be, and will never
mean him to be.

IOW, I have FAITH that Harry is not an abuser. But I do NOT have
KNOWLEDGE that he isn't. He has shown many signs that have troubled me
over the books (see above for a short summary of them), and only my
belief that JKR doesn't mean Harry to ever be abusive is preventing me
from actually believing that he might be (not that he is, just that he
might be).

However, just because I don't *believe* that Harry is abusive, is no
reason not to *speculate* about it. As I explained above, I do not
limit my speculations to what I believe. That would be boring and
extremely stifling. Sometimes, it's out of the wildest canon-based
speculations that very valuable insights into the characters or the
plot arise.

Vmonte wrote: 
"I'm reading JKR's Harry Potter not your fanfic about Harry Potter."

Del replies:
Good, because you would have to wait a long time to read a HP fanfic
of mine. I don't write HP fanfic, and I don't read it either.

Vmonte wrote:
"Yes, that is what I mean. If your family is a bunch of murderers or
Nazis you should not follow in their steps. It makes a lot of sense,
no? The Weasley's are a good family, Draco's, and Sirius's are not."

Del replies:
This has NOTHING to do with valuing family. This has to do with taking
the right path, no matter what obstacles your loved ones put in your path.

Vmonte wrote:
"So your a fool to give people a second chance? I don't see Dumbledore
as the fool, I see Snape as the fool."

Del replies:
Believing that someone has reformed in the face of mountain-sized (and
mounting still) evidence IS being a fool, IMO. Giving a second chance
to someone is not an end in itself: it's a means. A means for that
person to take a new start. But if the evidence points to the fact
that this person has not taken a new start and is still walking in
their old ways, then I think it is indeed foolish to keep trusting them.

Vmonte wrote:
"Again, I'm reading JKR's books not your fanfic. Harry was unable to
use the unforgivable curses on Snape because he doesn't have it in him."

Del replies:
I don't CARE that Harry didn't manage to make the Unforgivable curses
work. What I care about is that he TRIED. 

If someone takes a gun and shoots straight at someone else, I don't
care that they miss, I only care that they actually pulled the trigger
(excepting the cases of self-defense, which are not relevant to this
discussion).

Harry attempted to use curses that he knew were both evil and illegal.
There's no excuse for that in my eyes. Just like I would not excuse
someone who shot at someone else, even if they missed.

Vmonte wrote:
"Thank God that he is protected by JKR's will and not yours. What you
are seeing is a manifestation of your own head, not hers."

Del replies:
JKR did NOT show me what HappyBoyfriend!Harry looks like. Using my
imagination to speculate is absolutely fair game, IMO.

Vmonte wrote:
"I'm also going to add another comment here. You have a choice whether
to believe the factual Harry, the one that is printed on the page, or
 the Harry that is capable of anything, which resides in your head. "

Del replies:

1. Show me where to find the factual HappyBoyfriend!Harry.

2. I'm not the one who wrote that Harry was capable of trying to use
an Unforgivable. I would NEVER have believed that before OoP. That
episode taught me NEVER to assume anything about anyone anymore in the
Potterverse, not even Harry, the one person I thought I could be sure
would never fall that low.

Vmonte wrote:
"I actually appreciated this discussion because I can know understand
how Snape deludes himself about Harry. You do not understand Harry
anymore than Snape does, and that is very sad."

Del replies:
Thanks for the psychoanalysis, but I won't take your word for truth,
if you don't mind. For all I know, you might be the one who don't
understand Harry (and no, I don't BELIEVE that, it is just a
SPECULATION, got it?)

Del