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

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 175695

> zgirnius:
> I am afraid I do consider 'being a person who would not leave a non-
> evil person to die' synonymous with compassion, though I may be 
weird 
> that way. I would say Severus Snape demoonstrates compassion on 
> occasion. So to get a clearer idea of what I am supposed to mean by 
> that word...I looked it up. Merriam Wenster online defines 
compassion 
> as:
> 
> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/compassion:
> sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a 
desire 
> to alleviate it

Magpie:
It seems like some are setting a different bar for compassion--not in 
terms of what it is, because we all agree that there are moments 
where Harry shows compassion--but what they consider to be the kind 
of compassion that's particularly notable, especially in a hero or a 
story. And what would make compassion something particularly 
important to the series.

I'm with Nita on this--it means somebody who understands someone's 
pov from their own perspective, especially if it's a humbling moment 
with somebody you didn't think you could have understood. Harry 
really isn't challenged much this way. He feels compassion for people 
who mostly already exist in his comfort zone for compassion (the 
person's an orphan or has done a lot for him--even easier if they no 
longer exist) or he feels pity in a removed way. There's no moments 
where Harry has a big revelation about himself a la Elizabeth Bennett 
having to do with compassion or looking at others.

So does he ever show compassion? Sure. But not in a way that 
particularly stands out for me so that I'd think of it as being a big 
factor in the story. To me he seems to spend the entire series at 
pretty much the same level, connected to people only via things with 
which he feels comfortable about himself with it always obvious who's 
below him in the narrative. Someone recently, for instance, asked why 
Harry "owed" Draco a normal conversation. In the context that 
question was asked I think it was beside the point--nobody was saying 
he owed it to him, but that they expected part of Harry's development 
to involve the breaking down of this kind of hierarchy and seeing him 
as more of a person just like him. But at the same time the question, 
imo, very much reflected more the way the books see it. 

Harry (like his father, I think) has a saving people thing but 
developing a challenging compassion for people he's genuinely 
disliked, seeing himself as not so different from them (meaning 
really challing to himself, not with them working for him, or 
mirroring the things he most associates with his own suffering or 
pitying them from above) is not the thrust of the narrative. Nor does 
it have to be, but since it isn't I don't see compassion as very 
important in the books at all. The books don't have that much to say 
about it as far as I can see. Harry gets full props for being 
repulsed by his school enemies burning to death. He feels connected 
to other orphans. On things like Kreacher, again I agree with Nita. 
Harry needs something from Kreacher, and then Kreacher's story puts 
him on Harry's side. You say Harry feeling compassion before that 
would be fake, but I don't agree--particularly before Sirius was 
killed and Kreacher was just a lonely House Elf mourning his dead 
family with intruders destroying his house. I felt sorry for Kreacher 
there, Harry never did (and never had to since it turned out later 
that level of emotion from Kreacher was an illusion so Harry didn't 
have to ever care about that, and Kreacher still became a loving 
slave).

Zara:
> Though, I think the biggest mistake by Harry in the series occured 
in 
> OotP, and it led to the death of Sirius Black. Harry does recognize 
> his own responsibility in that death, and it pains him deeply. 
> (Though, naturally, the most responsible persons are Voldemort and 
> Bellatrix. And of course, he shifts the blame to Snape, which feels 
> soooo much better. But I never thought we were 'supposed' to 
believe 
> that was a good thing. It was one of those things that contrinuted 
to 
> my conviction that Snape would prove to have always been DDM!).

Magpie:
Maybe I'm forgetting this, but I don't recall Harry really working 
through this at all. He is aware that it feels good to blame Snape so 
he doesn't blame himself, but that's another element of the Snape 
relationship that isn't worked-through on page. Likewise Harry feels 
twinges of conscience after Sectumsempra which also go nowhere. 
They're just presented as a sign that Harry's got this covered. They 
don't need to be reflected on or worked through. So again, it doesn't 
seem like the story's really saying much about these things. Nowhere 
near what I thought was logical personally, which is why I felt 
like, "Wait, what about...?" Part of me is honestly still waiting for 
the end of HBP based on the story that seemed like it was being set 
up there--and that's not just a question of me wanting the story I 
wanted to see. It honestly seems more like the story setting things 
up and then moving on to other different things instead. I know that 
means I was wrong, but I don't think it's just me projecting 
everything.

> zgirnius:
> A technical point, but both the sword and the Hat are magical 
> artifacts that were once property of the mythical wizard, Godric 
> Gryffindor. The sword comes out of the Hat not because God, or 
> Justice, or some other force of Good makes it do so, but because 
> that's what the artifacts in question were bespelled to do by their 
> former owner. In my opinion, naturally. Griphook would say Godric 
was 
> wrong to cast such a spell, and I would not take sides on the 
matter.

Magpie:
He would--but surely it's more presented as a good thing that Godric 
did? Neville was a "true Gryffindor" and so it came to in--thank 
goodness, so he could kill the snake. There's no consideration in the 
story about Griphook losing it again, for instance. 

Zara:
> I can figure out whose actions I approve of, and whose not, on my 
> own. The thing is, there are things Harry does of which I do not 
> approve (like the Crucio on Carrow, for example). I just don't feel 
> that the author would tell me I am wrong. The author does not tell 
me 
> one way or the other how *I* should feel about it, she just tells 
me 
> Harry did it, and how he felt about it. Which is enough information 
> for me to condemn that action.

Magpie:
I wouldn't always say it's a question of the story telling us how we 
should feel--though I think that JKR does that quite often by letting 
Harry tell us how he feels about something or some other authority 
character tell us. Or else the narrator is quite good at pulling us 
along. I think where people more often are going on is the 
consequences of actions and what they say about what's happening. If 
somebody does something and there's no bad consequences for it and no 
need for any (as opposed to the things in the story that do bring bad 
consequences, often with the approval of characters we tend to listen 
to) that's saying something probably more clearly than having a 
designated character come out and explain why they were bad. There's 
plenty of clear examples of that in the books that I think stand out 
against other times that seem to be approved of by contrast.


It's not, I don't think, about having bunnies come out at the end of 
the chapter and tell the kids who was right or wrong, it's how the 
story goes that gives us the impression of what's being held up as 
valuable and right and wrong. I've no doubt, for instance, that 
Harry's saving the Slytherins in the RoR is presented as Harry being 
heroic. (I'd also think the way it's written as compared to Draco's 
saving Goyle also influences how the acts are perceived--something I 
think is also at play in the crying scenes of different characters. 
Harry and his friends do cry--Harry's tears are usually written about 
in a way different from other characters, iirc. Scenes where Hermione 
cries are written very affectionately, imo.)

-m