Morality and Harry Potter

[willsonteam]

No: HPFGUIDX 191838



, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
> 
> Many have argued that Harry was a nasty little boy who did nothing but flout the rules and get into trouble. If he were a good boy, he would have stayed in his bed and let the adults handle it. 
> 
> Let the adults handle it for better or worse, though we know, without Harry's help, it would have always been for worse. 
> 
> As I have strongly counter argued in the past. Harry may not have obeyed the rules, but he always did what was right. 

Potioncat:
Many? Really?
I can recall a number of threads that discussed rule breaking in general, sometimes Harry's specifically. Usually within a certain context but I'm not sure any list member really proposed Harry was a "nasty little boy who flouted rules."

Certainly if we are taking the point of view of another character cough*Snape*cough we could make a good argument for it. And I think there were times that a list member did that (may have myself, but couldn't swear to it.)  Lot's of times it may have seemed that way to other characters---but the reader almost always knew why Harry was doing something and understood his motives.

Any time a book is based on a youthful hero, he almost has to break rules to get past the adults in the story. And there has to be some reason the adults aren't 'there' for the events to occur. 

Certainly, if she wanted to write a different story, JKR could have made this Albus Dumbledore and the Sorcerer's Stone, or Severus Snape and the Sorcerer's Stone. In those cases, Albus or Severus would have had greater insight, greater presence of mind and it would have been much, much better for young Potter to stay in bed.

jmo, you know.
Potioncat