Do Heroes have to be perfect? WAS: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 176141

> Magpie:
>> <SNIP>
> I think two things happening in arguing, because there's just 
nobody 
> who wants their heroes to be perfect. I haven't heard anybody say 
> they want to read a book where the main character just demonstrates 
> good conduct throughout. But first if you don't like a character 
and 
> his actions bug you, their little actions probably are going to bug 
> you more. Sometimes people might lose sight of what's emotional and 
> what's objective, so little problems get blown up into big moral 
> issues. But second, some issues do mean more to some readers. Like, 
> somebody who can't accept Harry throwing a Crucio might have had no 
> problem with him using Imperius, even if they considered both 
> Unforgivables a mistake. 

Alla:

Unfortunately I am starting to lose the reason of why we are arguing, 
because even though I am sure we now disagree pretty strongly about 
whether Harry is a hero or not, I *do** agree with everything you 
wrote here.

I guess I am just saying that to me complaining about **actions** of 
the character does mean that person wants character to do the action 
differently - like same unforgivables - to not do them or whatever.

But again, I agree with what you wrote.

Magpie: 
> Or with Lancelot, you're saying you don't consider Lancelot a hero 
> because he slept with Guinevere, which proved he didn't love Arthur 
> etc. But someone could just as easily reply to that by saying that 
> *you* want heroes to be perfect. Is that really what you're saying, 
> though? Because reading that it doesn't sound to me like you want 
> your heroes to be perfect, it reads like you just think Lancelot's 
a 
> jerk and don't find him impressive. I wouldn't even be so sure that 
> sleeping with one's best friend's wife was a deal breaker for every 
> hero. Perhaps in a different story you might find it less 
despicable 
> because of the way it happened or way it was written. So for me 
your 
> saying "I don't think Lancelot's a hero--he slept with his best 
> friend whom he supposedly loved's wife and caused all these 
problems 
> for his own cause!" doesn't translate into "He can't be a hero 
> because he isn't perfect!" Arthur's imperfect too--probably every 
> hero you like is imperfect, so I don't think the problem is that 
> he's failed to live up to perfection. I think it's often more like: 
> I hate this hero, and here are all the ways he's an idiot. 
><SNIP>


Alla:

Well, not quite, but actually close. How to put it - the sleeping 
with best friend's wife to me actually **is** a deal breaker as to 
whether I would consider the character to be a hero, you know?

Not the only action, but among those action which take me to make it 
or break it in whether I will like the character.

It is weird, in the fictional setting, I can forgive the murder, if I 
can see the earth shattering remorse, but will have a much harder 
time forgiving what Lancellot did.

So, in a sense, yes, if somebody replies to me in response to 
accusation against Lancellot - you Alla want your heroes to be 
perfect. My answer will be - certainly, I want my heroes to *NOT* do 
certain things, you know?

Sleeping with the best friend's wife would be one of them. I am not 
sure if that translates in wanting the heroes to be perfect.

It would be like reading Harry sleeping with Hermione after her and 
Ron being married. Bleech. Do not get me wrong, I would care less if 
the hero engages in the affair with somebody's wife, whom he does not 
know - **in fiction**, **IN FICTION**. It is the betrayed best friend 
part that makes me angry usually.

 Have you ever watched the soap opera Sunset Beach? If you did, do 
you remember two brothers Ricardo and Antonio and Ricardo's fiancé 
Gaby, who slept with Antonio?

OMG, I thought this was the most beautiful love triangle ever, and 
all three of them were sympathetic people and I am sure those who 
said that Antonio and Gaby had a great chemistry were right.

But I **hated** Antonio, IMO the hypocrite priest and the coward who 
in my view betrayed his own brother. Nothing could make me forgive 
him and Ricardo was the only one I felt sorry for. I know it is often 
done in soap operas, but it was my first soap opera I ever watched in 
USA and I was, well, annoyed.

And that is why I feel that people who complain about Harry 
performing unforgivable **may** (again generalization, so of course 
not true for everybody) want their heroes to not do certain things.

IMO It does not mean of course that people want their heroes to be 
perfect in every aspect, I am sure it varies, but I guess I think 
that regardless as to whether person likes character or not, there 
are could be certain things person is not willing to forgive in the 
hero.

Like there is a reason why you would like a character, no? I mean 
good writing is important, but doesn't it also matter for you what 
character does or not does? Like one of the most endearing things in 
Harry I find to be his saving people thing. I think I would have 
liked him less without it, while I am sure some people find it rash, 
reckless, etc. But this is actions, so isn't it part of how character 
written?

Magpie:
<SNIP>
For me it's that I don't think saying which actions of Harry's bug a
person does not mean you want him to be perfect. It just means those
actions of Harry's bug you. These actions of Harry's do make him
seem less heroic to them, but that doesn't necessarily mean they
can't stand flaws in the character. They don't like these flaws of
Harry's (possibly at least partly because of the way they're
presented more than just what he does), or don't like these actions
of Harry's. But maybe they love, say, Snape and think he's a hero
and when confronted with his flaws think they're fine. So they do
like flawed heroes--they just like flawed heroes they don't think
are wastes of space.:-)
<SNIP>

Alla:

So basically you are saying that the person may be able to tolerate 
the very same flaw in Snape that the person is not willing to 
tolerate in Harry and vice versa?

Sure thing then – then to me it is clear that person is bugged by the 
character, not by his flaws, if person is complaining by Snape 
performing AK, but totally fine with Harry's Crucio and Imperio ;)

Or maybe person is bugged by different flaws in the character and is 
not willing to tolerate those, but is willing to tolerate the others. 
Sure, makes sense.

On the other hand ( oh boy, for someone who was not willing to talk 
about Unforgivables,I certainly talk a lot about them here. But just 
seems the best example) I have read plenty of arguments where people 
are just not happy with **anybody** using Unforgivables, you know?

Be it Harry, Snape or anybody else, so then does it have something to 
do with people being bugged by the characters, or by certain action 
in itself?


Oh Magpie, I think I am losing my train of argument. Help. 

Alla