CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - Scrimgeour

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 179084

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" <prep0strus at ...> wrote:
>
> KJ:
> > 17.	Does anyone feel that the antagonism between Scrimgeour and Harry
> > is too contrived? Is it necessary to the plot?
> 
> Prep0strus:
> I realize that Scrimgeour
> is not nearly the character Draco is, but I'm curious whether anyone
> else had a response like mine, or whether people simply expected him
> to be and accepted him as this tertiary character with little impact
> or purpose of character.
> 

Montavilla47:
I missed out on most of the pre-HBP excitement about Scrimgeour--
I didn't read the teaser description of him and so on.  But I also found
him a disappointment.  Perhaps the point was to show that Fudge
wasn't really the problem with the Ministry--that no matter who led
it, it was never going to be effective?

The way that the ministry was portrayed in HBP came off to me like a
satiric response to government response to 9/11 and terrorism in 
general.  That's probably American bias, because in the U.S., the 
government was very ineffective (although the local response to the 
emergency was admirable--at least the firefighters and police were. 
I'd rather not start a debate on the command center or details like
that.)

There was also a lot of fuss and silly information--like the big
idea of duct-taping your windows and the Homeland Security
Alerts color wheel.  So, the safety brochures and Scrimgeour wanting
Harry to pop in to the Ministry to boost morale seemed like a 
take off on silly government P.R. plans. (And how was Harry 
supposed to "pop" into the Minstry, anyway?  He was at school
most of the year.)

But, all the same, I felt like neither Dumbledore nor Harry was 
giving Scrimgeour any help at all--which was really petty of them.
Would it hurt to give some moral support to the Ministry, now 
that it *was* doing the right thing?  

The thing that really annoyed me was Harry demanding that
Stan Shunpike be released, when he had nothing to go on but
rumors.  Sure, Stan Shunpike *most likely* innocent of 
involvement with the Death Eaters--but Harry should have 
been demanding a review of the evidence, instead of 
demanding that a prisoner be released simply because he
said so.  Why should he *assume* that there was no reason
to arrest Stan Shunpike?

It's sort of the same assumption that James makes about
his friends, isn't it?  

Montavilla47