My Apology to JK Rowling

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Mari

Harry turned into an annoying whining little brat who wouldn't listen to his friends and thought he knew all and just because all turned out well in the end (somewhat) people think he's great. Maybe things would have gone far better if Neville had been sought out by Voldemort rather than Harry... *is poking *

No, because Harry was raised to get endure tough situations. Neville was pampered. Plus, Harry wasn't always wrong, was he? I'm thinking of #6 and Draco...

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

No, because Harry was raised to get endure tough situations. Neville was pampered. Plus, Harry wasn't always wrong, was he? I'm thinking of #6 and Draco...

Because having your parents killed, living with your cantankerous grandma, and getting constantly picked on by teachers and students alike is MY definition of pampering .

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Tessar

Because having your parents killed, living with your cantankerous grandma, and getting constantly picked on by teachers and students alike is MY definition of pampering .

No, but none of those events prevents pampering either. Harry didn't just have his parents killed: he had to live with the Dursleys. Can YOU do that?

[Tessar]

True, but Harry didn't get to visit his mind-wiped parents like Neville did. That was rather traumatic for Neville.

They lived different lives, but I think it's a VERY far stretch to say that Neville was any more 'pampered' than Harry was. Plus in a lot of ways Harry got treated like a rock star in the wizarding world, which was something Neville didn't get.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Tessar

True, but Harry didn't get to visit his mind-wiped parents like Neville did. That was rather traumatic for Neville.

They lived different lives, but I think it's a VERY far stretch to say that Neville was any more 'pampered' than Harry was. Plus in a lot of ways Harry got treated like a rock star in the wizarding world, which was something Neville didn't get.

Umm yeah, only when he wasn't being treated like the anti-Christ (books 2, 4, and 5).

By the way, has anyone deduced whether or not Neville married Luna?

[Tessar]

But Harry had a great deal of support from adults. Primarily teachers.

Are we just going to have to agree to disagree?

[hectorberlioz]

No, we're not. You're just so wrong, Tess .

Re-read the books. They're about Harry, not Neville ...however much I like Neville or everyone else.

[Tessar]

I'm not saying the books aren't about Harry instead of Neville. I agree the books are about Harry. That's the entire point... if Neville had become the chosen one, the books would've been about him instead of Harry.

But that doesn't make Neville pampered, or make Harry turn into any less of an annoying emo kid at some points.

[hectorberlioz]

Emo? Yeah, he had Voldemort's mind infiltrating his own! Ok, sure he was a little emo at times. But look at all the stuff he had to endure. And plus, I'm glad JKR didn't make him into the Perfect-Yet-Bland-Hero who is uninteresting compared to his sidekicks. Harry was as interesting and or even more interesting than almost anybody else in the books, and that's a huge feat for an author. So...that's why Harry's my favorite

You fangirls can have Snape, take him...

[Tessar]

Blech, I dislike Snape in general. I think his story was sad more than anything else... I never actually got to a point where I liked him.

[Mari]

*wholeheartedly agrees with Tess*
Though I do like Snape. He had a sad character. I can sympathize. Besides, it's great that he's not wholly evil as he was portrayed in the first one. Oh, and Harry could use a person not liking him. Kept him from getting too full of himself.

[hectorberlioz]

*tries to withhold lecture in which he explains Snape was good through all the books, and that it was all part of Dumbledore's plan*

(In case you haven't noticed, I'm suffering from "overzealous-reader-of-the-books" syndrome )

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I've been reading them myself and enjoying them. She's no master of prose, but then, neither was Tolkien. And while some continuity and plot points bug me from time to time, I love the characters, which is enough for a good read.

The characters are my favourite aspect of the books. No one is exactly as he appears. They're very real and layered.

And best of all, there is no obvious "good" or "evil". The only obvious good and evil characters are Dumbledore and Voldemort respectively. Everyone else, even Mr. Potter himself, is on a very complex spectrum.

I am currently re-reading the series. I love these books so much.

Welcome to the fold Hector, it's never too late to enjoy a good book.


Minor spoilers follow Brownie, might want to skip this bit until you're done the series.






SPOILERS:

Snape is a prime example of this. Throughout the books, Snape does not once give in to evil, or betray Dumbledore's trust. He takes huge risks to save people's lives. However, he is a terrible teacher; he's biased and mean (though he is good at controlling the class).

But, he's also brilliant at his subject. He's probably one of the greatest experts in Potions in the wizarding world as well as being a brilliant wizard in general. These skills do not help him be a good teacher though.

He is also unbelievably vindictive, to the point where he does flirt with being evil (his actions in the Prisoner of Azkaban, for example), but this is because in some ways he's extremely immature. He, a grown man, nurses a grudge against a teenage boy. I mean, seriously Snape? Grow the heck up. But he's also very mature in other ways, like how he deals with everyone but Slytherins and the other teachers thinking that he's evil; he ignores it. But he can't ignore the antics of a Harry Potter, even though he's just a kid.

One of the most complex characters in the books. It's great stuff.

[inked]

Nurvi,

"And best of all, there is no obvious "good" or "evil". The only obvious good and evil characters are Dumbledore and Voldemort respectively. Everyone else, even Mr. Potter himself, is on a very complex spectrum."

I despair of you, Nurv. Really I do. To make a statement like that betrays how little understanding you actually have of the books.

Have you even read them all? I mean really, Dumbledore a "good guy" after the revelation of his feet of clay and misspent youth?!

Point to one good thing Voldie ever did.

Harry is shown developing a sense of right and wrong and good and evil, and occasionally makes egregious errors, but not ever does he consistently choose the evil/wrong/error.

Nurv, did you read the books? Did you pay attention?

Brownie, pay no attention to Nurv's erroneous readings!!!!! She is a Death-Eater in disguise trying to beguile you into the Voldie Camp of "there is only power and those afraid to use it". Nurv has missed the boat and fallen into the Slough of Despair!!!

Inked, on his 9th re-read of the books and with the posts on Entmoot to PROVE Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt that he has the longest record and claim to "overzealous reader of the books syndrome" waaaaayyyyyyyy before Hector even thought of reading them!)

...end of rant......for now.....

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The characters are my favourite aspect of the books. No one is exactly as he appears. They're very real and layered.

I agree. Characters in HP are great, much more interesting and layered than in LOTR - *Gordis runs and hides*

The only obvious good and evil characters are Dumbledore and Voldemort respectively. Everyone else, even Mr. Potter himself, is on a very complex spectrum.

As Inked quite rightly pointed out, Dumbledore is far from perfect. Perhaps he is one of the most controversial guys out there. But for the accidental death of his sister, he could have turned out worse than Grindewald. And even after having turned wholly to "Good", he was still more interested in his little plots and scheming than in people around. It was so evident in the case of Harry, but there were other, worse mistakes.

For instance, I think Dumbledore had failed the young Tom Riddle miserably. He was the first of the "magical people" to find the boy, and all he did was to humiliate Tom, cutting off all the possibility to influence him positively afterwards. Dumbledore was quick to accuse and slow to understand what it must have been like for the very young, exceedingly proud and very powerful wizard to survive in this disgusting Muggle orphanage. I guess Tom was not the only one to steal there: it must have been common practice. Neither was Dumbledore interested to learn what the other children did or tried to do to him, making him retaliate with magic.
I wonder, perhaps at this time Dumbledore already knew that Tom was the last of the Gaunt family, descendant of hated Slytherins, that's why he was so unsympathetic from the start? Or was it his usual attitude?

Throughout the books, Snape does not once give in to evil, or betray Dumbledore's trust.

Well to start with, Snape had willingly joined the Death Eaters, even despite Lily's attempts to stop him. He had been genuinely attracted to Voldemort's ideas. But for Voldemort's hunt for the Potters, for Lily, he would have happily remained with the Dark Lord. Even had Voldemort spared Lily, Snape would have remained faithful to him.

He is also unbelievably vindictive, to the point where he does flirt with being evil (his actions in the Prisoner of Azkaban, for example), but this is because in some ways he's extremely immature. He, a grown man, nurses a grudge against a teenage boy. I mean, seriously Snape? Grow the heck up.

I don't think he flirts with being evil: he is evil enough by nature. It just so happens that he works for Dumbledore.
It would have been immature if Snape only hated James Potter for the pranks he and his pack of followers had played on him in school. But in fact he hated James for taking his Lily away from him, maybe also accusing him of Lily's death (had James not married Lily and got her with child, she would have been alive)- and that is an adult reason. Harry looked so much like James, but with Lily's eyes: seeing him every day must have been agony.

[hectorberlioz]

Actually, I would say Dumbledore was good. Not perfect, but good. The message of the HP books (one of them anyways) is that though there is good and evil, not all the good people are perfect (hence they turn evil, or struggle with it). Seems pretty Christian to me. Evil is a perversion of good and all that. As Sirius tells Harry, the world is not divided into Good People and Death Eaters.

That's not the same as saying "there is no 'Good' and 'Bad,'" rather he's saying the DE's aren't the only bad people out there.

In book one Quirrell tells Harry how his master (Voldie) taught him there was no good or evil. Would Rowling then go on to say the same thing? I don't think she would, and I don't think she did. She DID however put before us a much more complex explanation. The whole point of Harry's crises of faith in book 7 is to show 1) Dumbledore was just a man 2) Harry has to differentiate between seeing a person as right and all powerful/protective. Dumbledore WAS right about Harry/Voldemorte, and he was mostly right about how it would end. But he wasn't perfect or all-powerful like Harry imagined him most of the time.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Well to start with, Snape had willingly joined the Death Eaters, even despite Lily's attempts to stop him. He had been genuinely attracted to Voldemort's ideas. But for Voldemort's hunt for the Potters, for Lily, he would have happily remained with the Dark Lord. Even had Voldemort spared Lily, Snape would have remained faithful to him.

I don't think he flirts with being evil: he is evil enough by nature. It just so happens that he works for Dumbledore.
It would have been immature if Snape only hated James Potter for the pranks he and his pack of followers had played on him in school. But in fact he hated James for taking his Lily away from him, maybe also accusing him of Lily's death (had James not married Lily and got her with child, she would have been alive)- and that is an adult reason. Harry looked so much like James, but with Lily's eyes: seeing him every day must have been agony.

Spot on! That's what I always felt. I was always amazed how people could like Snape when there was nothing to like...despite the whole "he was going on Dumbledore's orders" thing.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I was always amazed how people could like Snape when there was nothing to like...

Haven't you heard that evil is attractive?

Snape is just likeable without any logical reason, and movie-Snape doubly so.

Tomorrow I go see HBP!!!

[inked]

Frankly, there's plenty of evidence in the books that Snape is likeable enough to the Slytherins. He's always making jokes and he hands out favors to Slytherins. He trashes all the other houses. He's very knowledgable in potions and the dark arts. In fact, he seems ingratiating at times. Draco likes him well enough until the last bit when he's a Death Eater himself.

Unless you fail to realize the books are all told from Harry's perspective ... which might be a bit off-centre, don't you think? ... you have to ignore a lot about Snape to like.

[Gordis]

Snape favors Slytherins as much as Dumbledore favors Gryffindors. Let us face it: the Marauders should have been expelled, Fred and George as well, maybe also Harry and K.