"Some won't like it".

[prncssme]

No: HPFGUIDX 130011

"koinonia02" <Koinonia2 at h...> wrote:
> > Since we actually know so very little
> > of the life of Dumbledore how can we
> > say Harry has done more to defeat 
> > Voldemort and has suffered far more?

Eggplant:
> That's not playing fair. You can always say that my wacky theory 
> about character X can be defended if only we knew more about him 
> but Rowling just hasn't bothered to tell us about it. As far as 
> Harry knows and as far as we readers know Harry in 15 years has 
> done more than Dumbledore has in 150. That's probably why the 
> first book wasn't called "Albus Dumbledore And The Philosopher's 
> Stone".


And even if Dumbledore HAS done more against Voldemort, he was already a grown man when he did it. Harry has essentially had his whole childhood stolen from him. Even before he discovered the truth about LV and his parents' deaths, he'd had to endure what basically amounts to child abuse as a result of LV. When he does discover the WW, he immediately becomes a target again and had to face possible death at the age of 11...then 12...then 13... Harry IS exceptional because not only has he survived, he's done it at an age when most other kids are just barely able to function autonomously! So regardless of how much DD did or did not do in comparison with Harry, I think we can say that Harry has done more and suffered more in the fight against LV.

Now, is Harry's attitude rational? No, because as another poster mentioned, he's asking the wrong questions for the wrong reasons. But keep in mind, he's very much a teenager in OoP and is reacting like one. Nothing, and I mean nothing, seems fair when you're that 
age. The whole world seems like it's out to get you and in Harry's case, this is true. The WW is convinced he's a nutter, a madman's after him, and no one's telling him anything about said madman. If I'd done what Harry's done by the time I was fifteen, I think I'd have a bit of an entitlement complex as well.

- Sara