Whose side are we on??

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 156115

> Magpie:
<SNIP>
> The idea applies to everyone, even the 
> good guys whose immature behavior (is that what we'd call it if it 
was 
> Dudley?) is the exception to their otherwise good intentions.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Oh, but that is  just what you said it - good guys' mistakes are 
**exceptions** of their good intentions IMO. And I am not talking 
about 
not talking about those mistakes of course.

And I am really not sure how Dudley example works here, because if 
Dudley's behaviour would be exception of his otherwise good 
intentions, sure, that's what I call it. The problem is - I don't 
see Dudley showing **any** good intentions, whatsoever, to me he 
exhibits only **bad** behavior, period. I have nothing to sympathise 
with Dudley, zero. That is of course plays a role in me not having 
any sympathy for him in Toffey accident, pig accident or anything 
else.

I am sure if JKR wanted to, she would have shown **some** 
sympathetic sides of Dudley' nature to make me feel anything for 
him. The fact that he is a Muggle just does not cut it for me, 
because Muggles like Dursleys IMO bring shame to the name of 
Muggle. :)


Hmmmm, does it all at the end comes down to justifying characters we 
like?

I hope not, because certainly if for example Harry stood in the 
Great Hall and started screaming Avada, I would certainly started 
hating him, and he is my very favorite character. 


Nevertheless, to me who the character is , plays a very big part. I 
did not consider **good guys** to be good guys just because I felt 
like it. I based it on their actions.

I am going to go off tangent and try to explain how **good guys** 
become good guys for me.

Before I could consider Ron and Harry stealing the car and getting 
to school in CoS nothing more than minor indiscretion, I saw them in 
PS/SS courageously going after Stone, Ron being ready to sacrifice 
himself, etc. So, yeah, **after** that, stealing the car was nothing 
but minor indiscretion to me. I knew that when it matters, Harry 
will do the right thing and Ron will give up his life to save a 
friend.

Before Harry wondered to Hogsmead in PoA, he and Ron go to Chamber 
to save Ginny.

After that brush with death, can I seriously think that Harry is a 
rotten person for going to Hogsmeade?

Um, no. It was the reckless behaviour, sure, but does it change to 
me on the big scale of things who Harry is?

What I am trying to say that after seeing him commiting acts of 
heroism, his indiscretions are so **less significant** to me.

And what do we see of Draco? Making fun of Hagrid status in school, 
person whom he **never** met before. I found it quite disgusting, 
personally.

Oh, and of course talking about wrong kind of the wizards did not 
make good first impression either.


Magpie:
> It' is, imo, the difference between an artificial world where 
those bad 
> characters only exist to be punished by us and a real world where 
even bad 
> people are people.  When I read the book I think JKR is writing 
the latter. 
> I can't imagine Snape existing in his present form in the former.  
The whole 
> Pensieve scene seemed to be showing this sort of point.


Alla:

Well, there is certainly a question of the degree. I don't want bad 
guys to be caricatures, but I sure prefer them to **not** get away 
from their punishment. There are books in which it is inevitable and 
maybe people want to see it in Potterverse too. I don't. 

I want evil punished in the books whether JKR will do it or not, it 
is surely her call, but I think I am entitled to hope for it.

I want Dudley to pay for ten years of Harry hunting, I want killer 
of Dumbledore to pay for what he did.

I want Umbridge to pay ( and JKR's it is fun to torture her gives me 
hope that she will be).

I do **not** want Voldemort to win or even to get away from Harry at 
the end.


Those are of course my personal preferences, but I believe that I 
see hints in the books that some of them may have a chance to come 
true.

Prepared to eat crow as always.

And that is why yes, I am tolerant to good guys issuing punishment, 
especially since I strongly suspect that JKR would not want Harry to 
dirty his hands with issuing punishment, but let other **good guys** 
do it.

That is again IMO very big factor why JKR makes Twins so ruthless 
sometimes, because Harry is more fleshed out character and if he 
decided to get after Dudley, that may not be so funny.

Ugh, babbling again.

> Betsy Hp:
> Isn't that a double standard though?  Shouldn't the twins get 
> *their* comeuppance for what they did to Dudley or Montague?  
> Shouldn't the DA kids get their comeuppance for turning Draco and 
> Crabbe and Goyle into slugs?

Alla:

No, I don't think it is a double standard, if one thinks that what 
was done to bad guys was punishment. Good guys are not supposed to 
get anything for punishing bad guys, IMO.



Betsy Hp: 
> Or have we decided that some of the children in these books aren't 
> quite as human as the DA kids or the twins?  *That's* the sort of 
> thinking that I find uncomfortable.  And, since JKR makes sure 
that 
> those being "punished" aren't blatently deserving of their fate 
(at 
> least in my opinion) I think she's thinking the same thing.

Alla:

Sure, I do think that some of the children in the books are worse 
than others, absolutely I do. Stressing the word **in the books** 
here. 

JMO,

Alla.