Comments on Comments-NO SNAPE

[Milz]

No: HPFGUIDX 133567

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "casmir2012" <casmir2012 at y...> 
wrote:
> This post covers comments on Fleur, Ginny, Harry, Weasleys, OOC, 
> Hermione, Dumbledore, and Ron.  NO SNAPE THEORIES
> 
> Several have stated how bothersome it was to read about how the 
> Weasley's, particularly Ginny and Molly, treated Fleur.  I can see 
> your argument, from being on the outside looking in.  I can only 
say 
> that until you've met someone like Fleur in real life (and I mean 
> like her, not "kind of" like her), then maybe you can't understand 
> what's taking place at the Weasley's when Fleur is there.
> 

Or if you've been forced to live with someone like Fleur *cough*  
college roommate freshman year *cough*. I spend most of my freshman 
year listening to how "in Italy they" do X, Y, Z like A, B, C.

It's a type of casual arrogance and non-concern that Fleur-type 
people show that's sometimes mistaken for "old world charm".
> 
> I personally feel the Weasly's showed GREAT patience.  It wasn't 
> until they could come together over their love for Bill that they 
> found a common ground to build upon.  It wasn't until I saw Fleur 
> have this sort of Fortitude that I even starting to like her...a 
> little.  (I'm amazed she's able to love someone other than herself 
> and would love to know what exactly her and Bill's relationship is 
> based on...what attracts/motivates it).
>

I also have a suspicion that the Weasley's didn't think that Fleur 
truly loved Bill. 

> Ginny is an independant gal who likes her personal space.  Maybe 
you 
> don't like these kinds of girls...or maybe you don't want our 
beloved 
> Harry to like them...either way, She's just as much a "character" 
as 
> mad eye moody or fleur or luna.  I can see why she and Harry 
attract 
> each other.

Ginny has been given a really bad, bad, bad rap here in this group--
even when I was very active here 3 years ago. Most of it stems from 
Ginny's portrayal in PS/SS and CoS. Ginny, when we meet her is 10 
years old, her part in the story is really nothing but background to 
Ron's family life and she's portrayed in that way---whiny, spoiled 
baby sister with nothing really significant to contribute to the 
story. 

In CoS, Ginny is a year older and has a crush on Harry. She can't 
talk to him most likely out of shyness. And this is where all the 
anti-Ginny feelings stem: Ginny has no obvious characteristics that 
would be attractive to Harry because she's not attractive to "us". 
It's unfortunate that Ginny's attempt to resist Tom Riddle came too 
late, but hey, at least she tried.
 
>  As far as Harry is concerned, Ginny has all the traits 
> that made him like Cho: Quidditch player, pretty, smart, other 
stuff 
> I can't remember.

Also, Harry and Ginny are the only ones to come face to face with 
Voldemort (as Tom Riddle, but still) and live. That's something she 
shares with Harry that Ron and Hermione don't.
 
> If characters seem OOC, it's part of the growing up stage.  I think 
> it extremely unrealistic to expect kids/teens to maintain certain 
> characteristics (basic personalities, yes).  This is the very time 
> they are being molded!  The more comfortable they are with a 
> relationship/each other, the more free they feel to be snippish, or 
> to boldly express themselves.  Hermione acts like any reasonable 
> woman who has been cut to the bone.  Ron definately acts his age, 
and 
> I for one loved that Harry was becoming a man, taking the inititive 
> and making decisions instead of waiting for Hermione to make the 
> connections for him.  It's called progress/growing up....you don't 
> really expect them to stay in 13 year old relationships 
> forever ...right?  People complained when Harry had the gall to 
> exhibit teen angst in the last book, too.
> 

Exactly, the HP series is about Harry growing up, his coming of age. 
If Rowling were to stunt Harry's character, it would be contrary to 
the purpose of the series.

OoP and HBP are the first books in which the characters act their age.

> Dumbledore didn't come across much different to me, the only 
> difference is that we actually got to know him outside the fatherly 
> and concerned discussions at the end of the books.  Imagine DD 
being 
> something other than an answer machine after the woe...you mean he 
is 
> something more?
>

What's marvelous about the HP series is that the books are written to 
suit that year of a Hogwarts student. In other words, as the years go 
by and the characters mature, the point of view changes to match that 
maturity. No longer are adults undeniably wise and know everything. 
They become more human and their faults and weaknesses are more 
readily seen. If we honestly reflect in our own life experiences, I'm 
sure we can see that at some point when we realized that the adults 
in our lives didn't know it all and did make mistakes and bad 
choices. 

IMO, Dumbledore in OoP and HBP was the "real" Dumbledore: a man who 
makes mistakes, has pride and all the flaws of every other person in 
this world.

And as I've written in other messages, I think it's brilliant that 
Rowling was convince her readers that Dumbledore was infallable, when 
she's dropped so many clues in the previous books that he's not.
 
Milz