Sportsmanship/legitimacy

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 151977

> >>Magpie:
> > <snip>
> > Now Cedric and Krum are under suspicion of seeing people in 
> > danger and not doing anything to help them because they only    
> > cared about getting points in a game.  That's a completely      
> > unfair slur on their character--and a pretty huge slur it is,    
> > too.  
> > <snip>

> >>Alla:
> Well, they DID care about getting points in the game, didn't they?
> Cedric is a great kid. great kids make mistakes too. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I'm not sure a boy whose willing to let other people die just so he 
can win a game can be described as a "great kid".  Sounds like a 
raging psycopath to me.  Cedric is seventeen years old, I believe.  
He's old enough to be considered intelligent and responsible, I 
think.  If he thought the other hostages would die if they weren't 
saved by their champions than he willfully decided that their deaths 
were okay as long as he got some glory.  Does that honestly fit in 
with the Cedric Diggory of canon?

Fleur and Harry were both equally panicked about this task.  Both 
Cedric and Krum were calm.  The judges decided (for whatever reason) 
that panic is better, has more moral fiber, than calm.  Which, 
actually fits in with how the WW does things.  But it don't impress 
me much.

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> Cedric knows what fair play is, but I do think that it is totally 
> possible that in this task he lost to Harry on "moral fiber" part 
> of evaluation.
> Does not make him a bad person to me at all.

Betsy Hp:
For me, if Cedric was willing to trade the lives of three children 
to win a game, he's a monster.  It's the sort of call Voldemort 
would make.

> >>Joe:
> <snip>
> A teenaged boy put aside competion and glory to help someone he   
> had never met and we are discussing if he has been given an unfair 
> advantage.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
No.  Harry put aside competion and glory and received, well, the 
competion and glory.  Which means he didn't sacrifice anything.  
Which means his noble "sacrifice", wasn't much of either.

Compare that with Richard Gere's character in the movie, "An Officer 
and a Gentleman".  

[SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE "AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN"]

In Officer training, Richard Gere and his fellow trainies run a 
difficult obstacle course as part of their training.  One of Gere's 
classmates has a particularly hard time at it, but Gere hits it 
hard.  There's a possibility he'll break the school record.

So they're down to their final bit in the training and it's make or 
break time.  The course needs to be completed, within a certain time 
IIRC, or they're out of the program.  Gere is blowing through the 
course, he's got it made, but his fellow student is struggling, 
badly.  Gere makes a decision to go back and talk the other student 
through the course.  So much for his breaking the record.

But when the two of them cross the finish line, their trainer (Louis 
Gossett, Jr.) is looking at Gere with tons of approval.  He may not 
have broken the school record, but he proved himself an officer and 
a gentlemen. (The audience cheers.)  *That's* noble sacrifice.  
*That's* proving your worth.  And no, Gere doesn't get put on the 
books.  He chose to sacrifice his personal glory to help another.  

[END SPOILER]

Harry *tries* to do a similar move.  But the judges don't let him.  
They turn it into a gimmick, a way for Harry to gain *points* of all 
the crass things.  By making it a way to curry favor they make the 
favor recieved bigger than the sacrifice made.  A proud nod from 
Dumbledore as Cedric took the lead would have meant much, much more.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > I'd also add that good sportsmanship is supposed to be it's *own*
> > reward.  That's the whole point.  That's why I think the actions 
> > of the judges actually *cheapened* Harry's decision.  They      
> > turned it into a question of winning or losing, when good       
> > sportsmanship should be above such petty things.  "It's not     
> > whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game" is not     
> > empty rhetoric.  And one shouldn't do humanitarian things for   
> > the reward.

> >>Pippin:
> Huh?  So they should stop awarding the Nobel Peace Prize because   
> it's unfair to other humanitarians?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Well, first off, the Nobel Peace Prize is not a sporting event.  And 
second off, people do not put their names in and then openingly 
compete for the honor.  Or at least, they're not supposed to be seen 
as doing so.  Other folks look around and pick some deserving person 
out of the crowd.  (Unless you're suggesting Ghandi was gunning for 
a Nobel Peace Prize when he choice his life work?)

But this actually goes to my point. (Or Steve's point actually, but 
one I agree with.)  The Triwizard Tournement is not a sporting 
event.  It's a political one.  The Champions are pawns, the games 
are all fixed, and popularity is more important than skill.  It's as 
corrupt as the WW.  Sportsmanship need not apply.

Betsy Hp