?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Mama Deb
mamadeb
.:::.:....... ..::...:
Mama Deb [userpic]
Harry as Spoiled Rotten

I just read post where someone said she didn't like Gryffindors, which is, of course, a matter of opinion.

But someone responding to her post said that Harry was a spoiled rotten brat, and, well.


I don't get it. I really don't get it. I mean, I'm not saying people have to like the character, but "spoiled rotten brat"? Brat is a matter of opinion, but "spoiled rotten"? The boy who lived in a cupboard until he was almost eleven? (I have to say, when I first saw "The boy who lived", I thought of it as meaning, "The boy who did nothing but live. Didn't hope, didn't dream, didn't care. Just lived." And, you know, that pretty well describes his pre-letter life.)

He was made the youngest Seeker in centuries and given a fancy broom. This is special, but A. he didn't ask for it and B. it wasn't personal. That is, McGonagall had a hole in her House Quidditch team roster. She needed it filled or there would be no Quidditch cup, and I'm guessing none of the second years qualified enough. She looked out a window and saw one of her Gryffindors flying spectacularly, and took action. It happened to be Harry. If it had been Neville or Dean or Hermione or Lavender who was doing that sort of flying, it would be one of *them* on the team, not Harry. If, on the other hand, there had been a decent Seeker on the team already, Harry probably would have lost some points. As it was, he managed to lose more points with McGonagall than Snape ever took off. Because he does get punished for his actions when he gets caught. And he doesn't protest those punishments, either. Not even in book five, when he should have.

He gets punished for Dobby's actions both at home and in the Wizarding world. He doesn't get punished in PoA for similar actions because Sirius escaped and he needed to be kept safe. And, yes, I do think that was because he was Harry, but *Harry* didn't ask for or expect such treatment. He expected to be expelled and wasn't even going to protest it. Because, you know, spoiled rotten kids never protest fair treatment.

When it comes to GoF - the only reason he got special treatment at all was because of Barty, Jr, and he'd have been extremely happy to not have gone through the Triwizard at all, thank you very much. He didn't want to do it in the first place.

As for OotP - he's left alone with those relatives of his after a major trauma - seeing a friend die, seeing Pettigrew maim himself, seeing his own blood being used to resurrect Voldemort and then fighting him, and let's not forget the ghosts of his parents and taking Cedric's body back to Hogwarts. And how is he rewarded? By being threatened with expulsion for saving his and his cousin's lives. Is he over the top? I'm surprised he didn't scream and shout so much in earlier books. In fact, he's remarkably nonviolent given everything - just loudness until the very end, and then he took all his anger and grief out on nonliving objects.

Comments

I don't get it either, and it's really a peeve with me. This is probably overly simplistic, but it seems to me that a lot of comments like that come from fans who really like Snape, Draco or some other Slytherin -- in other words, one of Harry's 'enemies' -- and they seem to find it necessary to put Harry down in order to justify their love for their own favorite.

I agree with what you've said here. I was actually kind of stunned by how gracious Harry was at the very end of OotP. If it were me I probably would've told them all to piss off and good luck killing Voldemort cuz I'm *out* of here!

You may be on to something. It may also explain a lot (not all) of the Dumbledore bashing. (I don't quite understand that. He was never called a perfect person, just a great wizard. And he is a great wizard, but he still makes mistakes. And each mistake costs him students' lives. This is a civil war between his own students - people forget that.)

I think that maybe those first sixteen months of life with Lily and James helped a lot.

I don't get it either, and it's really a peeve with me. This is probably overly simplistic, but it seems to me that a lot of comments like that come from fans who really like Snape, Draco or some other Slytherin -- in other words, one of Harry's 'enemies' -- and they seem to find it necessary to put Harry down in order to justify their love for their own favorite.

YES.

And I don't get that either. I don't understand why it is necessary to prove your hate for one character in order to demonstrate your love for another. I feel like people hate Harry nowadays in a way that is little more than a trend and it irks me because they are twisting his character to do so. Harry has flaws, absolutely, but not any of the ones he seems most often accused of.

Or not that they're putting him down to justify their liking another character but just that they get into the pov of that character so much they start seeing what that character sees in Harry: Snape's right! Harry is disrespectful to him in class! Only that character doesn't have the same insight into the character.

I mean, I think it's good to be able to say, "Well, think of how this looks to Snape/Draco/whoever," to understand their reactions and characters, but you can't lay all the blame for every other character's reactions to him entirely on Harry. You have to understand how both characters are getting to each other. Once you see things from each characters pov you have to get objective again--imo, anyway.