Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader)

[nitalynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 175645

zgirnius wrote:

> Not my main point, but I did not want to let it pass - Ginny's lack 
> of crying does not have to do with a lack of compassion. She does not 
> cry *for herself*. The young man she loves is going to war, and she 
> does not get all weepy and woe is me-ish about it, and Harry 
> appreciates that. 

Nita:

Well, the young man is not dead yet, is he? Would Harry appreciate her
"toughness" if it prevented her from reacting to his death at all? And
if he died, and she did end up crying, would he want someone to
comfort her, or to look down on her "weakness"? Not that Harry thinks
about such things, of course...


> I think he figures if he was still with Cho, he 
> would be treated to a hysterical display about her being left alone, 
> yadda yadda (probably a bit unfair to Cho, but Harry is busy thinking 
> nice thoughts about the girl of his dreams <g>, I would be pleased if 
> my guy thought about his ex a bit unfairly in a similar manner).


I wouldn't. I'd rather be liked for my own merit than because I'm not
as bad as someone else. Actually, I feel a bit sorry for Ginny. I
wonder how supportive Harry will be when her parents die.


> But in DH, the hero is compassionate just like the guy in the Russian 
> folk tale you cite, and the recipients of this compassion come to his 
> aid, just as the animals do in the fairy tale. Kreacher is a notable 
> example. When Harry manages to be compassionate to him, he learns 
> valuable information and gains a useful ally who provides material 
> aid in the Horcrux hunt and joins the final battle on Harry's side. 


Er, that's not how it happened in my book. *First* Harry learns
valuable information, including that Kreacher was still loyal to
Regulus, LV's enemy. *Then*, with a lot of encouragement from
Hermione, he manages some compassion.


> Snape is another example. If Harry had walked away like Voldemort, or 
> had gloated from afar, he would never have gotten the information he 
> needed that only Snape had. Instead, he went to the dying Snape, and 
> was duly rewarded. (Snape, of course, had already helped Harry in 
> other ways he did not then at all know about, for other reasons - but 
> his final act for Harry was made possible by Harry's compassionate 
> instincts).


Watching someone die is an act of compassion now? Well, I don't know.
I don't think so.


> Harry did plan to double-cross Griphook, but to be in a position to 
> do so, he first needed to get him on his side! His rescue of the 
> goblin initially, and the grief and respect Harry showed for the dead 
> House-Elf Dobby, impressed Griphook enough to make him a temporary, 
> if not totally reliable, ally, without whose aid the break-in at 
> Gringotts would have failed.


Again, let's look at the sequence of events here. First, Harry asks
Griphook to lie for them. Without any reward or explanation, the
goblin does so. Under torture. Then, Harry buries Dobby, his devoted
follower who had just saved Harry at the cost of his own life.
Griphook is impressed, and agrees to help them further, in return for
Harry observing goblins' inheritance laws instead of wizards', for
once. Harry uses his semi-trust.


> Harry shows compassion for the Malfoys (most notably, by saving 
> Draco's life). Draco's mother returns the favor. Just the examples 
> that come to mind...


Well, I don't think Harry did it out of compassion. Do you? I think he
(rightly) sees himself as someone who wouldn't leave non-Evil people
to die, and acts accordingly. It's a good self-perpetuating cycle. Oh,
and by the way, Draco tries to save Harry by pretending not to
recognize him first.


Nita earlier:

> > Another thing I like about such fairy tales is that the awesomeness 
> is
> > usually divided between the Pretty and Clever, yet vulnerable Witch
> > and the Brave and Kind, yet sometimes blundering Hero. Yeah, the
> > gender roles are old and rigid (and, curiously, not that different
> > from JKR's), but at least there's some balance.

zgirnius:

> Are you saying this is lacking in DH? Hermione seems Clever enough 
> for me, Harry is Brave and Kind, and we also have Ron for more Brave, 
> and also Vulnerable, with both males managing to blunder. (And hey, 
> this mixes up the gender roles! <g>)


Nita now:

Yes, the potential for balance is there (not much of a mix up, though
- the fairy tale Witch is Ginny+Hermione, the Hero is Harry+Ron), but
somehow a lot of Awesomeness ends up focused on Harry.

This is a bit hard to explain. I just get this feeling of things
happening just to show how Wonderful Harry is while reading DH that I
don't get in the fairy tale. In fact, the entire Quest to kill the Bad
Guy becomes necessary only because the hero tries to lock his beloved
witch in her human form, and his attempt sends her back to her father
instead (some clever spell he put on her).

In other words, the hero messes up, realizes it, and then works hard
to undo the damage. I can sympathize with that. And for some reason I
feel like JKR loves Harry so much that she can't let him mess up and
be scolded for it, not even by himself. I mean, he makes a bad
decision about the goblin, right? Let's have some consequences! Not
because I want Harry to suffer, but because I want to sympathize with
him, and want him to grow. But no, the goblin is a bad, bad
double-crosser himself, so it doesn't matter. And, in fact, the goblin
property laws are *wrong* (see Neville's feat), so Harry did the right
thing after all. Don't you worry kids, Our Side is always Right.

Of course, sometimes fairy tale heroes get rude, lie and cheat without
reproach as well. But from an author who believes she's written "moral
books", I expect something else.


zgirnius:

> Nah, she did not. I admit my reaction is probably not 
> indicative...but if even Alla did not gloat, we were *not* meant to. 
> <bg>


That's my reasoning, too ;)

Nita