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

[nitalynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 175709

zgirnius wrote:
<snip canon>
> In other words, by the end of the scene, Ginny *is* brought to tears. 
> (OK, we don't know this for a fact, but that was certainly how I, and 
> Harry, read it). Harry wants to comfort her, and is not remotely 
> annoyed by this reaction. 
<snip>

Nita:

Hmm, good point (although why Harry *can't* comfort her is beyond me).
Now I think that JKR simply wanted to mention that Harry finds many
things wonderful about Ginny, and the gibe at "weepy" people just
happened along.

Perhaps it just irks me because I used to be quite weepy myself, and I
don't get why a physiological reaction should be perceived as
"selfish". People usually cry when can't help crying, it's no more of
a choice than blushing. I'd be able not to cry in Ginny's situation,
but not in some others. I have no idea what I or Ginny would do in
Cho's place, so comparing the girls in this aspect doesn't make sense
to me.

<snip>
zgirnius:
> Nor was Kreacher a completely unknown mama animal worried about her 
> young. He was the guy who conspired to send Harry to the DoM. For 
> Harry to express compassion instantly, without learning anything 
> about Kreacher, would have been a far greater step than the fairy 
> tale hero's, to my mind.


Right. I think JKR never puts Harry in the fairy tale hero's
situation. Perhaps she doesn't see that kind of challenge as important.


zgirnius:
> He did not merely watch, he approached Snape. I do not believe Snape 
> could be saved at that point. If he could be, I think he himself 
> would have been the right person to do it. Snape has forgotten more 
> about healing than Harry knows at that point, it would seem to me. 
> 
> So what more could Harry have done for him than he did?
<snip>


I don't demand anything more of Harry in the scene. I simply objected
to including it in a list of compassionate actions. No compassion is
required, none is demonstrated. All is well :)


> Harry does comply with every request of the dying Snape, 
> including the last one, which is of no practical value to 'the 
> cause'. (Oh, man, that scene got to me...)

Yeah, it was an intense scene. Poor Snape :/


zgirnius:
> I don't think he did it for Harry. He is not pleased to be there, and 
> to be treated so by the Death Eaters.


Eh? How does that work? "I don't like these guys, so I'll randomly do
as this kid says while they break my bones"? IMO, he granted Harry a
favour.


<snip>
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. 


Well, I wouldn't call you weird just for disagreeing with me ;) I
think there are several possible motivations for such behaviour, and
compassion is only one of them.


> I would say Severus Snape demonstrates compassion on 
> occasion. 


It's hard to tell without looking into his head, IMO. Wouldn't it be
extremely difficult for him, just like being kind is difficult -
because he's too defensive and miserable?


zgirnius:
> 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
> 
> Harry's thought process as the Room of Requirement is consumed by 
> flame is as follows:
> 
> > DH, "The Battle of Hogwarts":
> > He swooped as low as he dared over the marauding monsters of flame 
> to try and find them, but there was nothing but fire: What a terrible 
> way to die...He had never wanted this...
> > "Harry, let's get out, let's get out!" bellowed Ron, though it was 
> impossible to see where the door was through the black smoke.
> > And then Harry heard a thin, piteous human scream from amidst the 
> terrible commotion, the thunder of devouring flame.
> 
> zgirnius:
> So, Harry thinks of the fate in store for Draco, and finds it 
> terrible. Draco sounds 'piteous'. I see both the sympathetic 
> consciousness, and the desire to alleviate the suffering, myself.


Nita:

Well, Harry probably thinks what Draco is thinking, but I doubt that
he feels what Draco is feeling. Or that he would ever welcome that
sort of feeling. It *is* a kind of sympathy, but a rational, removed
kind. "Ah, those poor unlucky bastards in the flames..." Still, it's
the most sympathy "the other" can hope for, so, in his moral universe,
Harry can be called compassionate, I suppose.


zgirnius:
> Word! Draco is one of *my* Good Slytherins. It's not about which side 
> he and his family are on in the war, it is about what he does. He 
> tries to drag Goyle, unconscious and twice his size, out of that 
> inferno instead of running for his life.
> 
> But the attempt to help out at Malfoy Manor is not why Harry rescues 
> him, as indicated in the citation above. So it in no way makes 
> Harry's action less than compassionate.


Again, I wasn't trying to say anything about Harry with that, but
rather about the way the story is built. I wonder if JKR thinks that
perhaps Draco wouldn't "deserve" being saved if he hadn't played that
part earlier.


<snip>
> zgirnius:
<snip>
> 
> Of course, once upon a time there was a lovely princess with flaming 
> red hair, who shut the door in the face of her old friend as he 
> strove to apologize to her for words he had uttered in a moment of 
> pain and humiliation. And a brave prince who had too much fun hurting 
> and humiliating that same old friend of the princess with his 
> friends. The prince and princess married and produced... Our Hero. If 
> that old friend had not become a Death Eater, word of a certain 
> prophecy would not have gotten to Voldemort... take it or leave it. 
> <eg>


Oh. That's an interesting take on the backstory... I like it a lot ;)


zgirnius:
> I suppose the loss of the sword and discovery of the Horcrux hunt is 
> not enough of a consequence? I do agree that Harry does not beat 
> himself up about it. 


The sword comes back as soon as they really need it, and I don't think
the discovery could be connected to Harry's decision. Er, maybe I'm
misremembering something, though.


> 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!).


*nods* And, as sistermagpie said, all that shifted blame simply
disappeared somehow. I have no idea what Harry feels about Sirius'
death now, do you? Oh, wait. Sirius said it didn't hurt and he seemed
OK. I guess that takes care of the problem. Hmm :/


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.


Well, I don't know what you think about interviews, but JKR did say
"Griphook was wrong - Gryffindor did not 'steal' the sword, not unless
you are a goblin fanatic and believe that all goblin-made objects
really belong to the maker." (
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0730-bloomsbury-chat.html )


> zgirnius:
> I agree within-book reproaches do not abound in the series. I guess I 
> don't have a problem with that. I can find them tedious, myself, in 
> other words which strive to guide me more in how I should think.
> 
> My 4 year old loves Starukha Shapoklyak from the Cheburashka 
> cartoons. After hearing the crocodile and his pals lecture her, I can 
> see his point. <g> Apologies to those not familiar with Soviet Era 
> animated cartoons. She's a (rather silly) 'villain' in a show for 
> young kids, that is in my view didactic about virtues like 
> friendliness, cooperation, and community service in ways I find heavy-
> handed.
<snip>


Nita:

I agree with your 4-year-old, she's a delightful little old lady! And,
while we're on the subject of rooting for the "wrong" side, I think
I've found another way to explain my viewpoint :) Let's take a look at
"Tom & Jerry". There's a big bad cat who wants to catch and eat the
cute little mouse. The mouse is booth good and the underdog, right?
Only, after you've watched a few episodes, you know that Tom usually
doesn't have a chance. He's doomed to a lot of violent (but, luckily,
cartoony) payback.

On a certain level, the HP series turned out similar, and that was a
surprise to me. I had expected all human characters except Voldemort
to be fully human, in the sense that Harry should be able to relate to
them. I'm not interested in heavy-handed moralizing, but I do think
it's important to understand how minds, including your own, work, in
order to make good decisions. I believe it's an essential part of
growing up. Apparently, JKR didn't agree, leaving me a little confused
after all the build-up.


Nita, not feeling as eloquent as she'd like to be