Harry's flaws and moral errors? was: Apologies and responsibility

[lady.indigo at gmail.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 139309

Lupinlore wrote:
> we have lost touch with some important aspects of social morality -
> - righteous anger being one of them. There is even plentiful 
> theological, and if you will specifically Christian, justification 
> for it. One only has to think of Christ addressing the Pharisees 
> with stinging taunts, or the driving the moneychangers out of the 
> temple in a fit of rage. Jesus was not always kind or patient, and 
> sometimes displayed a towering temper when confronted by evil and 
> hypocrisy.


Lady Indigo:
"Righteous anger" like automatically seething at the entire Order, including adults who knew far more about what was going on, for doing what they thought was best for him? Or wishing Snape dead because he blames him for Sirius? (Whether or not Snape deserves death, none of the things Harry knew of then would warrent that kind of extreme.) And I'm not saying that neither of these things are excuseable on their own, as Harry's certainly allowed to make mistakes and have a normal grieving process, but again, I rarely feel like he learns anything or sees any consequences from it, or even has strong moments of sobriety. It just seems to get *worse* as he gets older. Plenty of other heroes have had righteous anger. Batman, for example, is a fountain of it; his whole origin is built on revenge. I've never felt as nervous about any them as I've felt about Harry. I wish I could explain why that is a little better, but it's not a complete refusal to acknowledge negative emotions on my part. I'd enjoy very little fiction at all if I felt that way, and some of my favorite protagonists have been flawed, rebellious, and sometimes even slightly out of their minds.

Lupinlore:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "Harry progressing to doing things 
> that in the adult world would get you arrested." Do you mean 
> throwing Sectumsempra at Draco? That's true, I suppose, but not 
> very relevant considering the context. As has been mentioned 
> before, given wizarding powers of healing, wizards just don't seem 
> to take physical assault nearly as seriously as muggles do. 


Lady Indigo:
In my mind it doesn't matter. Harry had no idea what Sectumsempra did; it was like picking up a loaded gun without knowing whether it was a water pistol or an AK-47 and deciding it would be a good idea to *find out*. That curse could have been strong enough to kill, or it could have misfired and done something like amputate a limb, something that may have been beyond Pomfrey's potential to heal. Harry could have chosen to fire it in response to something as little as a taunt, instead of an Unforgiveable Curse. Whether or not it was just a student's notes, Harry had no idea what it was 
capable of or if there was a cure for it at all. I can't fathom how someone, even at the age of 16, even in a world with advanced healing, could ever see something labelled 'for enemies' and have their first urge be to use it and see what it does.


Lupinlore:
> As for the cheating accusation, I don't agree at all. Harry was 
> doing what he had been instructed to do -- i.e. prepare a potion. 
> He used somewhat different directions than the rest of the class, 
> it's true, however the potions he prepared were exemplery. 


Lady Indigo:
And since Potions is like a slightly more complicated cooking class I'm unimpressed. Harry did good Potions work without the book, even in spite of Snape, and the OWLs illustrate this. But it's the notes that made his work anything extraordinary. 

Lupinlore:
> He never claims to have invented the directions himself, 


Lady Indigo:
But he let everyone save for his friends believe that he did. It's the classic setup of cartoons and teen sitcoms, where eventually the kid is going to be sent off to some special school and so he has to come clean, but the 'why it's bad to lie' lesson is typically taught when the protagonist is a good five years younger and he learns his lesson. Harry got all indignant at Hermione when she told him it was wrong, had to be caught in order for the truth to come out, tries to cover it up, and then was upset that he had to suffer for it. Though Snape's method of detention was incredibly sadistic even for him.)


Lupinlore:
> he did not gain these directions in a dishonest manner, 


Lady Indigo:
What *would* have been a dishonest manner, then? Snape didn't give him permission to use the notes, neither did Slughorn, and they weren't some kind of officially approved hints and tips sheet.

Lupinlore:
> is not forbidden to use them, 

Lady Indigo:
Since he never asked an authority figure for permission and then recieved detention for doing just that, how do you know?

Lupinlore:
> and offers to share them with his classmates. 

Lady Indigo:
He offers the crib sheet to everyone. So?

Lupinlore:
> True, he receives praise from Slughorn, but it is obvious that 
> Slughorn is just seizing an excuse to butter him up. Had Harry 
> protested that he was following different directions, Sluggy would 
> undoubtedly have said "Nothing of it, dear boy! It just shows your 
> cleverness and initiative!"


Lady Indigo:
And as much as I love Slughorn, if I thought he was the last word on 
morality and ethics I'd certainly have no right to say anything about Harry.  He'd have said exactly that, yes, because he has plenty of other reasons to want The Chosen One in his special circle. But he'd have been full of it. I also doubt he'd have subsequently bragged about Harry's Potions abilities to everyone he met.  Harry also won Felix Felicis using those notes, though I do admit Hermione was being stubborn to refuse his advice.


Lupinlore:
> In any case, in no class that I have ever taught, and I have 
> taught many, would Harry's actions be considered cheating in any 
> way -- nor can I imagine any of my colleagues would have ever 
> looked upon them in that way. In the environment in which I now 
> work, a professional milieu outside of an academic setting, Harry 
> would be highly commended for initiative and flexibility of 
> thinking. 


Lady Indigo:
Then please explain how it illustrates these things at all. It was Snape as a student who understood the principles of potions, their ingredients, the way they were formed and the theory behind them. It was Snape through his own love of the subject and, I'd imagine, added study and experimenting that helped him find methods that were more effective than what the text taught. It was Snape who remembered beozars as an effective shortcut to antidotes. 
Harry did none of this. If Harry had, through the Prince's notes, found a better way to understand the underlying theory of potion-making and WHY adding a counterclockwise turn or a sprig of somethingorother was a good idea, if that assistance had gotten him to the point where he could be just as good and even add his own little additions to the recipies, then I wouldn't call it cheating. But all the book did was feed him better answers.  The beozar incident shows (and IMO proves) this especially. Harry took 
someone else's idea and presented it as his own. How is it anything else? Slughorn was a worse teacher than usual at that point, rushing straight through the explaination in an attempt to show Hermione off, but whether or not Harry would have understood the Equivalency Principle or whatever it was given enough time he had *no* idea what anyone was talking about just then. He'd have been completely lost. So he saw the Prince's idea, which only jogged his own memory after the fact (kind of like looking at someone's test paper and then saying 'oh yeah, I remember now' as if you'd always learned what you needed to learn), did what it told him to do and took the credit 
for it as his own. And at the end of the day, he still hadn't learned what the class was supposed to teach him.  

The best you could argue is that it's like buying a used textbook with the text already highlighted, though I think it's different in this case. It definitely doesn't mean he's 'a flexible thinker'. Morally flexible, maybe.  When Harry does does excellent, inventive work *without* the book is when I'll think all the praise was deserved.

Lupinlore:
> If Harry had published the HBP's directions under his own name, 
> THAT would be plagiarism and theft of intellectual property, but 
> Harry does no such. 


Lady Indigo:
No, he just lets Slughorn believe it was Harry's own idea. At one point to win a contest, no less.  

Lupinlore:
> Similarly, in my current professional environment, Hermione 
> would recieve high formal marks, but would swiftly gain the 
> reputation of being myopic and hopelessly hidebound with literal 
> and restrictive interpretations, and her chances for promotion 
> would be dwindling rapidly.
 
Lady Indigo:
And I agree with that. Hermione's intelligent because her mind makes 
connections quickly and she works hard, but she's not inventive or flexible at all, and in a professional environment that'd be a problem. They're not in a professional environment, though, and won't necessarily work in the same sort of place you do later. And I don't dismiss her anger as *just* jealousy, because Harry's inventiveness isn't his own and Hermione more than anyone would feel how unfair this is.

- Lady Indigo