Harry Potter: Character Analysis

Dumbledore might argue that he was doing it to preserve a rallying point. Much like the ministry wanting Harry to show up so that people will think the are doing things, Dumbledore might have realised that a powerful icon like Harry is important to keep his side focused.

Rallying point for what; for the fight against Voldemort; if Voldemort was killed, defeated, even at the cost of Harry's life, people are going to feel glad. Sure they'll feel sorry for harry, call him a martyr and erect statues for him, give him a couple of Order of Merlin's, but they would be relieved that Voldemort gone IMO.

Dumbledore's job was to resist Voldemort, not to preserve Harry IMO.

Yes, people do horrible things in war. People in war situations are put under incredible strain. Some will snap, while others will just take advantage of the situation. I don't think we should throw morals to the wind in times of war though. I think that most nations have it right. They have signed on to the Geneva Conventions and they try to prepare their troops mentally for war such that they do not become savages. They then use the threat of court marshal as an added incentive to get those soldiers who may be prone to waiver to also think twice about committing atrocities.

But that's how it happens in a war, our emotions and our feelings and our state of mind is also to be taken into account, most of the sane guys do make mistakes, in a war it is understandable and it is not immoral IMO.

If I am going to hold every action which is dubious at best and downright wrong at worst to a morality, I am going to place additional strain of those who are fighting the war for my sake, who are placing themselves in danger, whose families may lose the husband, father or son so that people like me can live in peace, well, I think that's not fair. :)

So, that when faced with the opportunity of killing a POW, purposefully harming a civilian or stealing, the troops might decide not to do those things. This will help to "save their souls" and make war just a bit more civil (and a sort of pact will be formed with the enemy such that everybody will be a bit more civil. Just like in the "Iterative Prisoner's Dilema", people will start being "nice" to ensure that the other side stays "nice")

Yes and that's absolutely necessary, but do you know just how many actions could have been seen as immoral in the war with Afghanistan and Iraq? And how many justifications have been made for actions for a war that need not have been started in the first place IMO.

Conventions are on paper; yes they probably hold good for the massacres and mass killings, but those are very few; the really immoral acts come in smaller acts which go unnoticed in the sheer magnitude and scale of the war IMO.

I somewhat agree with you here but I also think his initial actions were influenced by different things. Snape he had always disliked and distrusted, even if Snape told him the truth at that point I don't think he would believe him, at least not with out seeing the memories, but his actions were almost all to do with his feelings about Snape.

I think I differ with you about how Harry would have received the truth from Snape. Harry had always heard only good things about James; James was a hero, James was this and that, he had seen Sirius and knew how affectionate and loving Sirius was to him, He loved Sirius as well, and yet in the SWM, Harry never thought even for a moment that Snape must have done something evil to james and Sirius for them to behave the way they did IMO.

Even when he thought Snape was a bully, a nasty mean, small minded person, Harry sympathised only with Snape and was shocked and horrified by what he considered completely wrong behaviour on his father's and Sirius's part and he was so disturbed that he risked Umbridge and spoke to Sirius and Remus IMO.

So I that's Harry's greatest quality; his willingness to listen and give people another chance; to live and let live. I think he would have listened to Snape IMO.

Only Snape was not in a position to tell anything to Harry IMO.

I think I differ with you about how Harry would have received the truth from Snape. Harry had always heard only good things about James; James was a hero, James was this and that, he had seen Sirius and knew how affectionate and loving Sirius was to him, He loved Sirius as well, and yet in the SWM, Harry never thought even for a moment that Snape must have done something evil to james and Sirius for them to behave the way they did IMO.

My impression was that Harry was 15, young, and was appalled that his father might pick on Snape just for the heck of it and because Sirius was bored. He also sympathised with Snape. However, I feel that you are carrying Harry's feelings too far if you believe that his sympathy translated to a lessening of his dislike for Snape and garnered any trust for Snape. Harry couldn't care less that Snape called his mother a Mudblood and that Snape cut his father's face. Harry didn't even seem to notice that Snape was threatening James and Sirius during the fight. All he cared about was his dad and he thought his mum was all right, even though she humiliated Snape and told him to wash his underwear "Snivellus". That was because she had been defending Snape and he turned around and called her a filthy Mudblood.

But we learn in HBP that Harry did notice Snape call his mother a Mudblood - he remarked that Snape hated her too because he had called her that (HBP). So it wasn't like he didn't notice the other things, I feel he just didn't care because Snape was acting in the scene exactly the way Harry thought he would act: throwing out a dark curse in an retaliatiatory attack and calling his mum a filthy little Mudblood.

After he saw this, Harry did not go to Snape and speak to him to sympathise; he didn't try to be kinder to Snape, he showed little trust in Snape at all. After asking Snape to warn Sirius, he still went to the ministry because he didn't trust Snape, imo.

Furthermore, after that, Harry found out that Snape had helped to kill his parents; he watched Snape kill Dumbledore and then he experienced Snape unfairly attacking and belittling him at the end of HBP. By the end of DH, he saw Snape cut off George's ear in battle and then fight with McGonagall and the professors. In other words, there was even less reason to listen to anything Snape had to say. Just seeing Snape, Harry "boiled up with hatred" in DH - Sacking of Severus Snape.

So I would have to agree that Harry would not have listened to anything that Snape had to say unless Snape placed him under the imperius curse.

Even when he thought Snape was a bully, a nasty mean, small minded person, Harry sympathised only with Snape and was shocked and horrified by what he considered completely wrong behaviour on his father's and Sirius's part and he was so disturbed that he risked Umbridge and spoke to Sirius and Remus IMO.

As I said, that is because the person he loved the most in that scene were his mother and father. He loved Sirius also, but he was most concerned about his father - he didn't even think about Sirius' behavior until he was actually talking to him - that is how concerned he was over his father. In my judgment, he didn't assess Snape's behavior at all - he knew he behaved badly in that scene, but I feel he expected Snape to behave badly so there was no surprise. He felt sorry for Snape, but not sorry enough to change anything about the way he felt about Snape.

But later Harry understood things better. He himself laughed when Draco was turned into a ferret in front of a crowd of people - he thought it was great for Draco to be humiliated. He did say at the time that if Snape were someone like Draco, then he could understand his father's behavior - but in reality, Snape was acting just like Draco, calling people Mudblood and using dark magic in the scene. So imo, Harry's concern about his dad overpowered his ability to take in the finer details right afterward, but later as shown in HBP, he would remember. By the end of OOTP, Harry's feelings improved for his dad to the point where he was defending him against Snape, but worsened for Snape to the point where he tried to lay blame on him for Sirius' death; all his earlier sympathy forgotten. Of course after seeing the memories, Harry knew just how poor Snape's behavior had been - his mother ended her friendship with him due to his behavior and way of thinking.

So I that's Harry's greatest quality; his willingness to listen and give people another chance; to live and let live. I think he would have listened to Snape IMO.

I would have to respectfully disagree for the reasons I gave above.

Only Snape was not in a position to tell anything to Harry IMO.

This is true. I feel that either he was going to use trickery to get Harry to look at the memories, or he was going to imperius him and force him to look at them. As it was, Harry seemed gullible in the book due to his believing that the memories were unaltered and also agreeing immediately to a christ like sacrifice of his life. But JKR's plot depended on these things.

[QUOTE=wickedwickedboy;5089513]I do feel he was preturbed when he saw Tonks show up, because I feel he thought at least one of the parents should remain for Teddy - apparently Remus did too. But Tonks too was an Order member, a fighter and too, she seemed to be extremely concerned about Remus. So I am not sure what was going on with her.QUOTE]

I think one of things that has to borne in mind is that no soldier going into to battle thinks that they will be the one to die. I remember watchng an old tv show, (it's still one I watch regularly) 'The World At War' and an infantryman who survived Omaha Beach described it, he remembered standing in the landing boat and looking around him at his comrades and thinking "You poor b****ds." so when JKR puts Remus and Tonks in the battle she could be construed as giving them this mindset, you don't die, you make the other person die.

That changed in GOF(gleam of triumph) and from then on Dumbleodre worked to save Harry and defeat Voldmeort; as he himself says, he did not care for the lives lost and he was willing to sacrifice many lives to save Harry IMO.

Now I think this whole war fought on this principle is immoral. Why should so many people die for Harry? What is so special about him? Is his life more valuable than Snape's, Moody's or others?


Yes, I think Harry's life was more valuable in that only he had the possibility of defeating Voldemort. If Dumbledore wanted that outcome (and he did) then Harry must be kept alive at all costs. Dumbledore knew of the prophecy from before Harry's birth and he knew the faith that Voldemort put in it. He was the only person to know that Voldemort had earmarked Harry as his vanquisher so Harry had to be kept alive until all was done.

What I'm not quite sure of from the timelines is whether Dumbledore told Snape Harry must die after the "gleam of triumph" when he realised Harry's "death" would not be permanent, or whether it came before and he was expecting Harry to stay dead. It would make a difference in my mind as to whether he was willing to sacrifice Harry at all.

His statements in OotP when he tells Harry he put his life first and didn't care how many other lives were lost doesn't mean that Dumbledore didn't care for the people who died or regretted their deaths. He certainly hadn't intended for Sirius to die and surely regretted that. He is talking to Harry in the aftermath of that shock and certainly wasn't saying "I let your Godfather die rather than you." But IMO he is telling Harry that he loves him and has made some poor decisions because of that - mostly not crediting Harry with the maturity to understand the situation he was in.

Regarding the 7 Potters plan, I don't believe it was set up to cause the deaths of Order members - it could just as easily have been Harry and Hagrid who died, and there was a good chance they would all get away. In fact Moody only died because Mundungus betrayed him and opted out. I think Albus would have expected an old warrior like Moody to get away. It was a perilous plan for a perilous time.

Well, those are my thoughts! Do argue!:lol:

What I'm not quite sure of from the timelines is whether Dumbledore told Snape Harry must die after the "gleam of triumph" when he realised Harry's "death" would not be permanent, or whether it came before and he was expecting Harry to stay dead. It would make a difference in my mind as to whether he was willing to sacrifice Harry at all.

Dumbledore told Snape that Harry must die nearly two years afetr the gleam of triumph. We are shown that conversation in "The Prince's Tale", and it is clear from interna; evidence that it follows their argument in the Forest that Hagrid told Harry about (from HBP), which we also see in Snape's memories.

Though this seems to be moving into Dumbledore analysis territory. :)

Though this seems to be moving into Dumbledore analysis territory. :)
True enough!

Back to Harry, but still on the same topic - did Harry react at all to being told that Dumbledore loved him? It seemed to me when I read it that it went over Harry's head as he was so angry and distressed over Sirius. He certainly never looked at Dumbledore as a grandfather figure but always as the wise old professor. (I think if a headmaster of mine had told me he loved me - in a fatherly way of course - I'd have been quite shocked)

True enough!

Back to Harry, but still on the same topic - did Harry react at all to being told that Dumbledore loved him? It seemed to me when I read it that it went over Harry's head as he was so angry and distressed over Sirius. He certainly never looked at Dumbledore as a grandfather figure but always as the wise old professor. (I think if a headmaster of mine had told me he loved me - in a fatherly way of course - I'd have been quite shocked)

Dumbledore said enough to let the reader know he had at least great compassion for love for Harry, imo. However, I felt like Harry was only half sympathetic with Dumbledore's feelings because the elder wizard told him that he'd been protecting him since his parents died, but Harry was probbly wondering why he left him to be abused by the Dursleys. Harry probably figured that the environment had been so unhealthy and traumatic for him, being raised at Hogwarts with a nurse maid would have been better - and it is just as safe from intrusion. There was a pretty big discrepancy between Dumbledore's words and his past acts, imo. Dumbledore's line about his keeping Harry protected was more important than other's dying was also a bit of a slap in the face because those "others" Harry cared a great deal for.

Well, those are my thoughts! Do argue!:lol:

:lol:

Yes, I think Harry's life was more valuable in that only he had the possibility of defeating Voldemort. If Dumbledore wanted that outcome (and he did) then Harry must be kept alive at all costs. Dumbledore knew of the prophecy from before Harry's birth and he knew the faith that Voldemort put in it. He was the only person to know that Voldemort had earmarked Harry as his vanquisher so Harry had to be kept alive until all was done.

I agree; but Harry's life was valuable only to defeat Voldemort was what I was trying to say and only as a an argument! Dumbledore said that he did not care for the lives lost if only Harry would live (I assume that was post GOF -- gleam of triumph), but before that too, I think Dumbledore had a plan, which was sacrificing Harry, since Voldemort did not have Harry's blood in him, in order to defeat Voldmeort once and for all IMO.

His statements in OotP when he tells Harry he put his life first and didn't care how many other lives were lost doesn't mean that Dumbledore didn't care for the people who died or regretted their deaths. He certainly hadn't intended for Sirius to die and surely regretted that. He is talking to Harry in the aftermath of that shock and certainly wasn't saying "I let your Godfather die rather than you." But IMO he is telling Harry that he loves him and has made some poor decisions because of that - mostly not crediting Harry with the maturity to understand the situation he was in.

I agree, what I had written was only for the sake of argument about morality. :)

I am sure Dumbledore regretted all the deaths and he was trying to tell Harry that he loved him, and Harry still has people who love him and care for him, perhaps not like his parents, but surely like Sirius did and he, Dumbledore was one of them IMO.

But that statement from Dumbledore is also telling. Dumbledore is such a private person, and really this was probably the only time in his life (KC was after his death) that he really opened up to talk about his emotions and feelings. I think the intense grief made Dumbledore open up a little as well. He was trying to comfort Harry IMO.

Regarding the 7 Potters plan, I don't believe it was set up to cause the deaths of Order members - it could just as easily have been Harry and Hagrid who died, and there was a good chance they would all get away. In fact Moody only died because Mundungus betrayed him and opted out. I think Albus would have expected an old warrior like Moody to get away. It was a perilous plan for a perilous time.

I think the 7 Potters was set up to start Voldemort on the Elder wand. :D

I really think Dumbledore had no options and he did take tough decisions based on the war; he acted as a leader should have IMO.

Dumbledore really planned impeccably and thought about every little detail, after properly and correctly assessing the characters of Harry, Snape and Voldemort and he succeeded as well IMO. :)

True enough!

Back to Harry, but still on the same topic - did Harry react at all to being told that Dumbledore loved him? It seemed to me when I read it that it went over Harry's head as he was so angry and distressed over Sirius. He certainly never looked at Dumbledore as a grandfather figure but always as the wise old professor. (I think if a headmaster of mine had told me he loved me - in a fatherly way of course - I'd have been quite shocked)

Have answered in the Harry and Dumbleore thread! :)

Harry Potter, The-Boy-Who-Lived, The Chosen One.


Dumbledore said enough to let the reader know he had at least great compassion for love for Harry, imo. However, I felt like Harry was only half sympathetic with Dumbledore's feelings because the elder wizard told him that he'd been protecting him since his parents died, but Harry was probbly wondering why he left him to be abused by the Dursleys. Harry probably figured that the environment had been so unhealthy and traumatic for him, being raised at Hogwarts with a nurse maid would have been better - and it is just as safe from intrusion. There was a pretty big discrepancy between Dumbledore's words and his past acts, imo. Dumbledore's line about his keeping Harry protected was more important than other's dying was also a bit of a slap in the face because those "others" Harry cared a great deal for.
I never thought about Harry being raised at Hogwarts under Madam Pomfrey's care. That would be quite interesting. He would have definitely come out a different person and not always for the better. I can see that Harry might not feel completely sympathetic with Dumbledore for Dumbledore leaving him with the Dursleys. Was Dumbledore watching him grow up? Did he know what was going on? He knew Harry was not in the state he should have been in when he arrived at Hogwarts in September of 1991.

And for the Harry fans/those who think Harry's the most qualified, please follow the link in my siggy!

I never thought about Harry being raised at Hogwarts under Madam Pomfrey's care. That would be quite interesting. He would have definitely come out a different person and not always for the better. I can see that Harry might not feel completely sympathetic with Dumbledore for Dumbledore leaving him with the Dursleys. Was Dumbledore watching him grow up? Did he know what was going on? He knew Harry was not in the state he should have been in when he arrived at Hogwarts in September of 1991.This is an interesting idea, one that I've not heard suggested before. I think the reason Dumbledore didn't have Madame Pomfrey raise Harry was because of the protection that Lily instilled in him when she gave her life for him. Though the Dursleys' house was not the safest place for Harry on an emotional/psychological level, the Dursleys' house was the safest place he could be physically. Also, I suspect Dubledore truly didn't want Harry to be influenced at all by the wizarding world while he was growing up. I can also not blame Harry for having negative feelings toward Dumbledore for allowing him to grow up with the Dursleys. But overall, Harry is not a very negative person. He is very tolerant and forgiving in most situations. Thus, I think in the end, Harry did forgive Dumbledore.

This is an interesting idea, one that I've not heard suggested before. I think the reason Dumbledore didn't have Madame Pomfrey raise Harry was because of the protection that Lily instilled in him when she gave her life for him. Though the Dursleys' house was not the safest place for Harry on an emotional/psychological level, the Dursleys' house was the safest place he could be physically. Also, I suspect Dubledore truly didn't want Harry to be influenced at all by the wizarding world while he was growing up. I can also not blame Harry for having negative feelings toward Dumbledore for allowing him to grow up with the Dursleys. But overall, Harry is not a very negative person. He is very tolerant and forgiving in most situations. Thus, I think in the end, Harry did forgive Dumbledore.

I would agree that the Dursleys was the physically safest place from Voldemort, but I feel that it was physically unsafe in terms of everything else. Harry didn't get enough to eat and Dudley physically mistreated him as well.

What I think is that Dumbledore was all right to place him there, he simply needed to ensure that he was not abused. I feel Dumbledore had the power to do this, he was just negligent and did not do it. I agree that Harry forgave him this grave wrong.

Yes, but living with the Dursleys also toughened Harry up for the real world. It made him independant, and not relying on other people for his needs, which is definitly a good thing. It made him stronger, because he was able to put up with some terrible conditions.

Well from Dumbledore's point of view, I would agree. His plans for Harry were even worse in the long run. Perhaps that is how he was thinking. But Harry truly was a saint to forgive Dumbledore all that he did with respect to his life. I don't really think "sorry" was enough, but then again, I'm no Harry Potter.

But Harry truly was a saint to forgive Dumbledore all that he did with respect to his life. I don't really think "sorry" was enough, but then again, I'm no Harry Potter.

Harry loved Albus like a father for most of his life. That is not something he could let go of. I think that's why he was able to forgive Albus so easily.

Of course Harry has grown up a lot by the time we get to DH. And I think that as he matured and became an adult, I believe that his assessment of Albus would become more objective ... but clearly he never lost his love for the old man.

I don't think 'sorry' was enough either, myself. :) It's right up there with the 'poor Severus'.

(A bit off-topic but as bad as Albus's plans for Harry seem to be, I think it is worth noting that James and Lily seem to have no ethical problems about it at all, when they meet Harry through the Resurrection Stone. They don't protest in anger about their son going on a suicide march; indeed, they actively seem to encourage it!)

(A bit off-topic but as bad as Albus's plans for Harry seem to be, I think it is worth noting that James and Lily seem to have no ethical problems about it at all, when they meet Harry through the Resurrection Stone. They don't protest in anger about their son going on a suicide march; indeed, they actively seem to encourage it!)
That may be true. But I have a feeling that if they were alive, it would have been a whole different story. Harry needed his parents' strength at the time he used the Resurrection Stone, not their anger, in my opinion.

I don't think 'sorry' was enough either, myself. :) It's right up there with the 'poor Severus'.
:agree:
And I think that as he matured and became an adult, I believe that his assessment of Albus would become more objective ... but clearly he never lost his love for the old man.
This is where I think Harry and Dubmledore differ. Harry is able to love - and he loves with devotion, with sincerity, and he accepts his loved ones as they are - with all their flaws and faults. Dumbledore, on the other hand, is only able to talk about love, IMO. He's not a particularly empathic person. I even doubt he cared about Harry as much as JKR wants us to believe. He did love the boy in his own way, but I'm not sure Dumbledore had ever had the ability of reaching out to and empathizing with other people like Harry did.

(A bit off-topic but as bad as Albus's plans for Harry seem to be, I think it is worth noting that James and Lily seem to have no ethical problems about it at all, when they meet Harry through the Resurrection Stone. They don't protest in anger about their son going on a suicide march; indeed, they actively seem to encourage it!)

Weird, given that these were the people who had given their lives so that Harry could live. I often hear people critisizing Severus for accepting Dumbledore's plan and not doing anything to ensure that Harry survived. Well, if Harry's own parents didn't see a problem with it... :relax:

That may be true. But I have a feeling that if they were alive, it would have been a whole different story. Harry needed his parents' strength at the time he used the Resurrection Stone, not their anger, in my opinion.

Susan, that is a very good point and I agree wholeheartedly. :) I totally agree that James and Lily would have had a very different reaction to Dumbledore's chilling plans for their son had they been alive!

I think there really is a sense in which Harry is controlling the Resurrection Stone: not that his loved ones in their spirit-form are his puppets, but he calls on them in love and they respond to him with the love he needs.

Waaaah. :upset:

This is where I think Harry and Dubmledore differ. Harry is able to love - and he loves with devotion, with sincerity, and he accepts his loved ones as they are - with all their flaws and faults.

Just so. :agree: This is probably the quality I love most about Harry, alongside his courage. :love: There is something very genuine and passionate about the way Harry loves. He doesn't do emotion by half-measures. :lol: And there is something very genuine about his affection for Dumbledore.

I think there really is a sense in which Harry is controlling the Resurrection Stone: not that his loved ones in their spirit-form are his puppets, but he calls on them in love and they respond to him with the love he needs. Waaaah. :upset:

I feel if this was true, Cadmus' fiancee would not have been sad. He did not want her to return and be sad with him - he wanted her to be happy and live with him forever. He called on her in love and desire and she responded to him with unhappiness and being meloncholy. DH says it was because she did not belong there and imo, she knew what the outcome would be, imo. In my judgment that shows not only autonomy, but her ability to know what will occur in the future.

In HP Universe, I feel it was pretty clearly shown that those who return to emobdy their earthly spiritual forms know what is going to happen.

In GoF, Lily tells Harry that his father is coming and wishes to speak with him. Then James comes along and gives Harry instructions, 'we will linger for only moments, but we will give you time, you must get to the portkey, it will return you to Hogwarts, do you understand, Harry?' How could he know that with all of the Death Eaters present and Voldemort as well? Anything could have happened.

In DH, James tells Harry that he is nearly there, very close and they'd stay with him until the end. How would he know any of that either? Centaurs could rush in and make complete madness of the scenario and everyone scatter - putting off the meeting between Harry and Voldemort till another time and more events could cause it to occur even later than that. Lupin then tells Harry that Voldemort would make his death quick - that he wanted it over. How could he know that? Voldemort has always toyed with his victims and he did so in GoF. He wanted it over then too. Neither James or Lupin spoke of possibilities, they spoke in language of certainty.

That I believe is what JKR was trying to show with spiritual embodiment of those in the afterlife. Like Cadmus' fiancee, the spiritual forms have their own minds and if they would have stopped Harry in life, they would have stopped him in death if they felt it was necessary. If they had been eager for him to die, they would have allowed him to die in GoF - where he would not have died due to the blood exchange, but been vulnerable to death after Voldemort attempted to kill him and without recourse but to end up dead.

BY Raelis: Weird, given that these were the people who had given their lives so that Harry could live. I often hear people critisizing Severus for accepting Dumbledore's plan and not doing anything to ensure that Harry survived. Well, if Harry's own parents didn't see a problem with it...

Snape adopted Dumbledore's plan, believing Harry would die. The four who returned knew what had happened ('we are so proud of you'; 'you have been so brave') so they knew all that Dumbledore knew and that Harry had a very good chance to live - at least. But as I pointed out above, they also appeared to know what was going to happen, so they were not adopting Dumbledore's plan. Harry felt betrayed by Dumbledore in that moment and they didn't address that either which would have made him feel better. They knew Dumbledore had yet to join them and was waiting for Harry - JKR said Dumbledore had not yet 'moved on'. From JKR's point of view, these four people loved Harry whereas Snape loathed him, which is why there is that distinction in my judgment.

Dumbledore's plan was a poor one with respect to Harry, but it would be successful and imo, the four that returned knew that. Otherwise the scene makes no sense because due to Cadmus' fiancee, we know that their reactions are their own, not just what Harry wanted them to feel - and to say that the four would want him to die when they'd all sacrificed their lives for him - and placed the whole wizard world above their son - godson - son's godfather - when they had not done so in life, does not make sense to me. ;)

I Snape adopted Dumbledore's plan, believing Harry would die.

Snape adopted Dumbledore's plan, knowing that Harry could not live; as long as he did, Voldemort would too. And since this information was given to him by Dumbledore, I think Snape realised there was no other way and that for Voldmeort to be vanquished Harry had to die. I don't think there was anything wrong or unethical about it.

Snape adopted Dumbledore's plan, knowing that Harry could not live; as long as he did, Voldemort would too. And since this information was given to him by Dumbledore, I think Snape realised there was no other way and that for Voldmeort to be vanquished Harry had to die. I don't think there was anything wrong or unethical about it.

It was both wrong and unethical, but obviously it had to be done. Snape was the kind of man tht coud understand this, otherwise Dumbledore wouldn't have untrusted him with this information to begin with.

I think the reactions of the 4 who returned in DH was perfectly natural. It was hardly the moment to start questioning Harry about whether he should go ahead or not when the lad had spent time screwing himself up to make the sacrifice. I don't think those closest to Harry would have wanted him to die (even Harry didn't want to die) but they knew their purpose was to keep his courage up and give him comfort. Which they did. Whether they knew for sure that he would return we can't really say, but if they knew as much as someone above me pointed out, they may well have known that. But to say that to Harry would have taken away the sacrificial element which was later to save Neville and his other friends from Voldemort.

Exactly. The four were not people who gave up. They did what was best for the wizarding world. They were part of the Order. They were in the fight. They knew this was necessary.

Harry has think he's sacrificing himself for it to be a sacrifice. If he thinks or knows he's going to live its not a sacrifice and then the protection doesn't work.

I love that in DH, Harry's ability for leadership really comes full circle. It's almost as if his leading of Dumbledore's Army and his leadership of the fight in the Department of Mysteries in OotP was a prelude, a warm-up, for his real leadership in the final book. And the support that his friends give him in all of the books helps Harry further, because they trust him with their lives. I also really like the fact that Harry is a reluctant leader, who is not grasping for power, but who is leading because he has to and because he has a job to do.

According to the Snitchseeker Set Report Teaser, there will be a scene which features Harry and a waitress:
and it is rumored to have Harry flirting with the waitress.

I brought this here from the HBP thread cause this is where it should be discussed.

So, is it only me? or does someone else in here agree this is way out of character.
Harry always struck me as the shy guy that has trouble speaking to girls. To have him flirting with a waitress to me is like way out of character.not real, not Harry...
Anyone agrees?

So, is it only me? or does someone else in here agree this is way out of character.
Harry always struck me as the shy guy that has trouble speaking to girls. To have him flirting with a waitress to me is like way out of character.not real, not Harry...
Anyone agrees?

I guess, for me, it depends on the quality of the flirting. If he flirts like the Fonz or Joey from Friends, I would agree that it would be terribly out of character. If he flirts like Potsy or Chandler/Ross, I could see it (anybody remember when Ross tried to flirt with the Pizza delivery girl and he starts talking about chemicals they put in gas to make it smell?)

Didn't Dan say that he uses his own style of flirting skills in the movie and that those consist of staring at a girl until she notices? I could see Harry doing that. Harry in the books does try to flirt a little with Cho and if he follows a similar model with the waitress, then I would be okay with that. To quote the Pizza girl "That was flirting? Wow"

I guess, for me, it depends on the quality of the flirting. If he flirts like the Fonz or Joey from Friends, I would agree that it would be terribly out of character. If he flirts like Potsy or Chandler/Ross, I could see it (anybody remember when Ross tried to flirt with the Pizza delivery girl and he starts talking about chemicals they put in gas to make it smell?)

Didn't Dan say that he uses his own style of flirting skills in the movie and that those consist of staring at a girl until she notices? I could see Harry doing that. Harry in the books does try to flirt a little with Cho and if he follows a similar model with the waitress, then I would be okay with that. To quote the Pizza girl "That was flirting? Wow"

Yeah I guess this would make a lot more sense , for some reason I read flirting and I inmediately think of the Joey type. I bet Harry could do the staring thing ,that I find more possible.A lot more fitting to his personality IMO. Even so, I dont really see Harry flirting. I really dont... But probably that is just me.

[QUOTE=wingardium713;5117758]I guess, for me, it depends on the quality of the flirting. If he flirts like the Fonz or Joey from Friends, I would agree that it would be terribly out of character. :QUOTE]:lol:

I can't picture Harry hitting on a waitress Joey style (How ya doing? :lol:) That would be comedic and for all the wrong reasons. I think the staring tactic is within his character. He may stare at a waitress awkwardly or something and try to start up a conversation.

I agree with montse though that the scene is probably unnecessary and a bit strange. I know they want to show that Harry has matured and is a full blown teenager at this point, but I think his interactions with the girls at hogwarts and ginny would have easily depicted his growth as it did in the book.

I know they want to show that Harry has matured and is a full blown teenager at this point, but I think his interactions with the girls at hogwarts and ginny would have easily depicted his growth as it did in the book.

Exactly, why add this scene , we will see how much he has grown , how fancible he is with Ginny and Romilda.This scene really annoys me. I just don´t see it fitting . (ok, I have said that enough times already)

Please let's move the discussion of this scene to The All-Inclusive HBP Thread (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=117694), and leave this thread to analyze book!Harry's character. Thanks!

From the Snape thread
posted by wwb
You may recall that after Sirius hit the scene, things became better for Harry at Privet Drive due to the fact that they were in fear of his godfather - the murderer. Harry would not have the abusive treatment to report that he had when he was younger, imo, and Sirius kept in contact with him so Harry could have reported anything if he wanted - to my knowledge, Harry never reported anything. Further, that is why when Sirius died, Lupin, Moody and Arthur spoke to Vernon directly, indicating that if he mistreated Harry, he would have to answer to them. They could only base their action on what Harry told them because Dumbledore made it clear Harry had to remain their for his protection.

That was all Harry. Sirius never came and spoke to the Dursleys for Harry and neither did Remus. Dumbeldore came only because he knew he'd be dead and he wanted Harry to stay with the Dursleys until his 17th birthday IMO.

Once Sirius escaped, it was Harry who took advantage of Dirius's Azkaban status and frightened the Dursleys. I don't think Sirius or Remus came to talk for Harry and to tell the Dursleys to behave and not ill treat Harry IMO.

From the Snape thread


That was all Harry. Sirius never came and spoke to the Dursleys for Harry and neither did Remus. Dumbeldore came only because he knew he'd be dead and he wanted Harry to stay with the Dursleys until his 17th birthday IMO.

Once Sirius escaped, it was Harry who took advantage of Dirius's Azkaban status and frightened the Dursleys. I don't think Sirius or Remus came to talk for Harry and to tell the Dursleys to behave and not ill treat Harry IMO.

It was at the end of OOTP; Arthur, Moody and Remus all spoke to Vernon in fact. Scared him witless too. :lol:. I believe Sirius had told Harry to keep in contact so he coud ensure all was going okay - they wrote to each other that summer according to Harry.

:tu: You are correct Wicked! I completely forgot about that. :blush: :D

That was after Sirius died, though.

For over 15 years Harry was left to fight his battles with the Dursleys by himself. No one came to his rescue when he really must have needed it IMO.

Well, I suppose it would have looked fishy if strange people were interfering with Harry's home life, especially before Harry even knew he was a wizard. Imagine Petunia throwing pots and pans at Harry and then suddenly, out of the blue, this cloaked man appears out of nowhere to stop her! It would be a bit weird and uncomfortable for many reasons, IMO.

Well, I suppose it would have looked fishy if strange people were interfering with Harry's home life, especially before Harry even knew he was a wizard. Imagine Petunia throwing pots and pans at Harry and then suddenly, out of the blue, this cloaked man appears out of nowhere to stop her! It would be a bit weird and uncomfortable for many reasons, IMO.

I don't agree. Dumbledore could have disillusioned himself and come; he could have come the way he did in HBP; Remus could have used muggle transportation and come to see Harry, once in the 11 years. The Dursleys would have treated him a lot better. It only took one letter with "Cupboard under the stairs" for Harry to get a second bedroom IMO.

But no one goes; not even Sirius, until end of 5th year when everyone frighten Vernon, so that harry could grieve in peace. They could have done this a lot sooner. Sirius could have portkeyed here once, or even sent a "Howler" if he could not leave GP (though if he could go to King's Cross) then he could visit Harry once IMO.

But Sirius, Dumbeldore and Remus don't bother IMO.

JKR wanted Harry's homelife to be as grim as possible to serve as a contrast between that and the wonder of the wizarding world.

JKR wanted Harry's homelife to be as grim as possible as a contrast between that and the wonder of the wizarding world.

And that is the best explanation for it I have seen on these boards.

I love how in the Goblet of Fire Harry is almost blinded by his compassion (some might say bravery?) so much so that he is determined to save everyone at the bottom of the lake. It was funny when I first read it, I was totally sucked in & never contemplated that they would obviously have been saved regardless?

I love how in the Goblet of Fire Harry is almost blinded by his compassion (some might say bravery?) so much so that he is determined to save everyone at the bottom of the lake.I think this shows how integral compassion and bravery were to Harry's character - as well as his "saving people thing". I too never really stopped to think that no one would be hurt during that task, so I really identified with what Harry was trying to do. It shows how selfless he was - that he was thinking about keeping others safe no matter what. This trait manifests itself in some way, shape or form in every single book.

I think his strength is the obvious: his love and compassion. He was also forgiving (Draco's mom and his cousin for example). I felt his main weakness was the understanding of what was in stake for him. If he had known at 11, I think he wouldn't have taken it as seriously.



I think Sirius' death gave him that motivation to kick Voldemort's butt. Same with his parents, in which got him ot this situation. Also Hedwig was his first pet (R.I.P *sniff*).



Well, his sacrifice and his disarming charm obsession. He only used the UC a few times, but still preferred the disarming charm, even when he defeated Voldemort.

I don't agree. Dumbledore could have disillusioned himself and come; he could have come the way he did in HBP; Remus could have used muggle transportation and come to see Harry, once in the 11 years. The Dursleys would have treated him a lot better. It only took one letter with "Cupboard under the stairs" for Harry to get a second bedroom IMO.

But no one goes; not even Sirius, until end of 5th year when everyone frighten Vernon, so that harry could grieve in peace. They could have done this a lot sooner. Sirius could have portkeyed here once, or even sent a "Howler" if he could not leave GP (though if he could go to King's Cross) then he could visit Harry once IMO.

But Sirius, Dumbeldore and Remus don't bother IMO.Once he did discover that he was a wizard and met the wizards he came to know, people like the Weasleys did have him over to their house for the summer. Sirius couldn't have visited, since people thought he was a murderer. Dumbledore was likely busy with work. Remus, I don't know. Though, judging by Vernon Dursley's reaction to Ron phoning him and his reaction to wizards in general (he even got a bit ticked by Molly Weasley's invitation to Harry to see the Quidditch World Cup), it seems the best idea to avoid surprise visits, especially when the Dursleys are in the house (which is often). As far as Dumbledore's visit in HBP, remember that he wasn't received too well, so I can see why such visits would be kept to a minimum.

Once he did discover that he was a wizard and met the wizards he came to know, people like the Weasleys did have him over to their house for the summer. Sirius couldn't have visited, since people thought he was a murderer. Dumbledore was likely busy with work. Remus, I don't know. Though, judging by Vernon Dursley's reaction to Ron phoning him and his reaction to wizards in general (he even got a bit ticked by Molly Weasley's invitation to Harry to see the Quidditch World Cup), it seems the best idea to avoid surprise visits, especially when the Dursleys are in the house (which is often). As far as Dumbledore's visit in HBP, remember that he wasn't received too well, so I can see why such visits would be kept to a minimum.

I feel that Dumbeldore, Remus and after 3rd year Sirius could have come to Harry's home. Even if they were not well received, the fact they were there for Harry, would have made the Dursleys treat Harry better.

If Sirius could not have come, because he was in hiding, he could have sent an owl! That would have scared them! By third year, most knew that there was no love lost between Harry and the Dursleys. Harry could not even get his Hogsmeade form signed by them IMO.

A Howler from Dumbledore, made Pertunia stop Vernon from kicking Harry out before start of fifth year IMO.

If Sirius could not have come, because he was in hiding, he could have sent an owl!

Sirius sent several owls and Harry sent some too according to his POV in GOF.

That would have scared them! By third year, most knew that there was no love lost between Harry and the Dursleys. Harry could not even get his Hogsmeade form signed by them IMO

But after that, Sirius sent him a letter of permission.

Sirius sent several owls and Harry sent some too according to his POV in GOF.

To the Dursleys? When was this? I don't remember at all. :)

But after that, Sirius sent him a letter of permission.

That was to Harry. I was talking about the Dursleys. We don't see any of them before end of fifth year and after Sirius died, to either owl the Dursleys or go to Privet Drive and talk for Harry IMO.

To the Dursleys? When was this? I don't remember at all. :)

They were writing one another. Recall in a later letter he told Sirius some of what was going on and that is why Sirius returned to England.

That was to Harry. I was talking about the Dursleys. We don't see any of them before end of fifth year and after Sirius died, to either owl the Dursleys or go to Privet Drive and talk for Harry IMO.

Moody, Lupin, and Arthur spoke to the Dursleys at the end of OOTP after Sirius died; and had quite an impact on the Dursleys actually. In the previous book, they were treating him better because they feared Sirius, the murdering godfather - and Arthur came along early before summer's end and collected Harry. That was when the twins left Dudley with his tongue on the floor.

They were writing one another. Recall in a later letter he told Sirius some of what was going on and that is why Sirius returned to England.

I agree. But I was meaning something else. I was talking about Sirius's letters to the Dursleys. To tell them to treat Harry properly IMO. What you have mentioned are about Sirius's letters to Harry for the Triwizard Tournament IMo.

Moody, Lupin, and Arthur spoke to the Dursleys at the end of OOTP after Sirius died; and had quite an impact on the Dursleys actually.

Exactly. And that helped so much. But it came after 15 years and after Sirius's death IMO.

In the previous book, they were treating him better because they feared Sirius, the murdering godfather - and Arthur came along early before summer's end and collected Harry. That was when the twins left Dudley with his tongue on the floor.

That was Harry, using Sirius to get himself a better life. Sirius, Remus or Dumbeldore 3 people who IMO should have checked on Harry but they did not.

Could it be that Albus did not tell Remus or Sirius where Harry lived before each of them met Harry?

In any case, we're getting slightly off-topic. :)

So here's another question: what influenced do you think a visit from a wizard/witch would have had on young Harry's character? Would it have made him more rebellious to the Dursleys, knowing that someone out there cared about him?

And along a similar vein (questions from the opening post) - How do Harry's formative years with the Dursley's influence the person he is now? Would he be the same person if his parents had lived? If he had been sent to live with another wizarding family? If he had been sent to an orphanage like Tom Ridde?

So here's another question: what influenced do you think a visit from a wizard/witch would have had on young Harry's character? Would it have made him more rebellious to the Dursleys, knowing that someone out there cared about him?

Very likely. :p

From Harry's POV, I would have loved to see him get the love and support he needed while he was still a young boy. He was stuck in an abusive home for ten years. :sigh:

From a literary POV, Rowling wanted a fairy-tale sort of atmosphere so she makes her boy hero's childhood as Dickensian and horrible, in a macabrely comedic sort of way, as possible, in order to provide a contrast between that and the wonders of the wizarding world which are his birthright.

Obviously it would have meant a great deal to Harry to have some contact with his own world, before the visit from Hagrid.

And along a similar vein (questions from the opening post) - How do Harry's formative years with the Dursley's influence the person he is now? Would he be the same person if his parents had lived? If he had been sent to live with another wizarding family? If he had been sent to an orphanage like Tom Ridde?

In a real life situation, the abuse Harry suffers in the Dursley home would have meant his growing up to be a more damaged person than Rowling presents him to be. She presents him as a normal boy with normal hang-ups and flaws.

I think the suffering he went through as a child (the suffering of neglect and emotional abuse and even physical abuse -- Petunia doesn't always feed him properly and she and Vernon allow Dudley to bully him) gave him an increased capacity for compassion. I think that quality was there in him anyway (I think he got that from his mother!), but probably it would not have emerged so much if he had not had such a difficult and lonely childhood.

I always find it significant that Harry, in DH, recognises that he, Snape and Voldemort were all "the lost boys of Hogwarts". :cool: That is his natural empathy speaking.

I think Harry would have had the same basic personality if his parents had lived and had brought him up: a "modest, teachable, likable" child, just as Dumbledore described him. James might have indulged his son a wee bit now and then but I can't see Lily allowing him to be spoiled. I think their experience of terror in the war would have had an influence on how they brought Harry up.

And if he had been brought up by another wizarding family, who loved and accepted him as their own son, he would still be the same Harry, but without the sharper points of suffering he endured in his early childhood.

As for the orphanage option, orphanages ceased to exist in Britain a few decades ago. So Harry would not have gone to an orphanage in 1981, because such institutions no longer existed. He would have been taken into care, and remained in the care system, if the Dursleys had not been compelled to take him by Dumbledore. (The aspects of British Muggle culture in the books are not meant to be exact representations of UK culture as it really is, IMO. :) They are deliberately exaggerated. )

Could it be that Albus did not tell Remus or Sirius where Harry lived before each of them met Harry?

Or that they did not ask. :D And Albus knew anyway. :)

So here's another question: what influenced do you think a visit from a wizard/witch would have had on young Harry's character? Would it have made him more rebellious to the Dursleys, knowing that someone out there cared about him?

And along a similar vein (questions from the opening post) - How do Harry's formative years with the Dursley's influence the person he is now? Would he be the same person if his parents had lived? If he had been sent to live with another wizarding family? If he had been sent to an orphanage like Tom Ridde


He would have been a lot more confident and perhaps a bit arrogant, but I think he would have been more or less the same. Had his parents been alive too, I think Harry would be the same (I hope :D).

Orphanage :: I think Harry wopuld have been just the Harry we saw. :)

Harry's powerful motivation was his parents' death at the hands of Voldmeort, who was now coming after him. And from the begining, (Hagrid and Ron and others) Harry had been warned against Slytherin as the bad House and for Gryffindor as the good House and he had been sold the idea of the Gryffindor ideals as the best IMO.

Also, he had a lot of support in Dumbledore and others, who steered him in the right direction and his inherent nature, which allowed him to be steered IMO.

In a real life situation, the abuse Harry suffers in the Dursley home would have meant his growing up to be a more damaged person than Rowling presents him to be. She presents him as a normal boy with normal hang-ups and flaws.

I think that Harry is unique in his own right. He had an understanding of the Dursley's that allowed him to cope. I think Harry recognized in the Dursley's, as with Snape, that it wasn't Harry that they disliked. It was everything that Harry represented that they disliked. How could they dislike Harry, for they never really knew Harry to begin with? Instead they obessed over anything abnormal/not approved by society (look at Petunia reading the tabloids and Vernon obsessing over the neighbor who watered the lawn)--but that's veering off topic a little. The point being I often read Harry as being resigned to the Dursley's treatment of him because he never felt personally offended by it...he didn't like it, was embarrassed occassionally but we never see the same kind of burning hatred for them that Harry displays toward others throughtout the series. Because he knows, inherently that he, as a person, was not what was percieved by others. harry never expected love, so there was no hurt--no pressure to be something he wasn't.

On the other hand, contrast Harry with Neville for a moment. You would expect more of a Neville type persona given Harry's upbringing. But Neville, whose grandmother loved him (if not admired him), is far more damaged than Harry on many levels. Neville never was able to separate his Grandmother's love for him from his Grandmother's love for his father. Neville hobbled himself because he could not see his Grandmother for what she was---mourning Frank for so many years---and that it really had nothing to do with him. Harry was able to make the distinctions.

This is a rare quality in people. In real life they are the people who rise above the abuses of their past and go on to great things. I believe that Harry would be one of those people.

Yeah, there are people like that. Children are abused and actually end up very strong, even as children. I did a practical in children's legal protection services and I was surprised at how well adjusted some of the children were.

Still, Harry had a really hard young life, and I didn't meet any children who went through that much abuse actually end up okay. Too, his life didn't get any easier once he got to Hogwarts; he had to deal with Snape's negative treatment, that of stray DEs like Lucius and evil oddballs that came along like Quirrell and Moody Jr. Also, he was always in terrifying situations like the Chamber, the 3 headed monster, etc. He did elect to do those things, as JKR has indicated she wished him to be mischievous, but it did seem a little out of charcter overall because you would expect that he'd be more vulnerable and insecure.

The thing is, he had inherited his dad's arrogance, strength of character and sense of humor, so those things helped (likely from Lily too, although we didn't see her much). Plus he inherited their compassion and desire to do what was right - along with a desire to save people. So that came through - strong genes I guess. In addition, he was 'special' as Dumbledore pointed out. He had more of the "love" substance they were studying in the MOM in a greater degree than anyone else in the wizard world - in whatever form it takes on in a person. So that I am sure helped him as well, as it did in so many ways. :)

1. How do Harry's formative years with the Dursley's influence the person he is now? Would he be the same person if his parents had lived? If he had been sent to live with another wizarding family? If he had been sent to an orphanage like Tom Riddle?
I think that his experiences with the Dursleys are the reason he is who he is. If he'd been living with his parents, there wouldn't really be a story. If he had gone to live with another wizarding family he would have known exactly what his story was, and that might have made him bigheaded...which is exactly what Dumbledore was worried about. If he'd been taken to an orphanage then he wouldn't have had the bad treatment that makes him what he is.

2. When do we first see evidence of Harry's "saving people" thing? Is this a strength or a flaw? What do you think of his final sacrifice?
I think that we see it almost immediately he turns up at Hogwarts- his sticking up for Neville is the first time we see an inkling of it, but his first true "saving people thing" was in the second book when he goes to save Ginny. It is both a strength and a flaw. It's a strength because he's actually saving people, even if it is for his own buzz, but it is a weakness because he can put others in danger when he is saving people. His final sacrifice is exactly what I'd have expected of him.

3. Harry's natural curiosity was stifled by the Dursleys. "Don't ask questions!" but it comes out it full force once he gets to Hogwarts. How does this curiosity serve him through the books? Has he truly lost it after Dumbledore's death or will it return as he hunts for the horcruxes?
It's always gonna be there I think! It did return for the Horcrux hunt, but once he'd finished I think that it will manifest itself in different ways. His curiosity was a weakness because it got him into trouble a lot, but it served him well in other ways because he helped other people and found out important things with it. I think this curiosity will serve him well as an Auror.

4. What do you think are Harry's greatest strengths? What weaknesses did he overcome as the series progressed?
I think that all of his strengths are also weaknesses and vice versa. His curiosity and his "saving people thing" already discussed are two of the main ones here. Also his ability to love is a strength, but he sees it as a weakness at times...exactly the same as Voldemort sees it.

5. How have each of the losses Harry has suffered helped to define who he is?
The loss of his parents defined exactly who Harry was in my opinion, at least to begin with. The losses of friends throughout the series made him hungry for revenge, which isn't always a good thing.

6 Dumbledore tells him that his pure heart is what seperates him from Voldemort and his Death Eaters. What examples have we seen of this pure heart?
There are examples of this all the time. His pure heart makes him want to face danger alone, not wanting his friends to become involved, right from the beginning. His pure heart makes him loathe the Dark Arts and those who practise them. It is also shown when he goes out of his way to save people, although others sometimes see this as a curse rather than a blessing.


7. What do you think of Harry's use of Unforgivables in DH?
They are called Unforgivable for a reason. However, if he hadn't been shown them, he wouldn't feel the need to use them. I realise why he used them, and he did only use them in extreme cases. However, this was usually when he lost his temper, and it's a bad thing to use an Unforgivable curse through temper loss, exactly like someone who would never beat up/stab/shoot someone unless they lost their temper. It's a dangerous thing...

8. Why do you think Harry forgave Snape?
He realised why. He was totally unaware that Snape loved his mother, and when he realises that he did, his hatred for Snape softens. It was Snape's fault that his parents were dead, but Harry knew that he regretted it every day that he lived, and he felt that this was worth forgiveness, as Snape must have been in extreme emotional pain every day of his live since Lily Potter died, and his face, with his mother's eyes, must have been pure torture to him. Harry realised this, and he thought that this deserved forgiveness.

9. JKR tells us that he and Ron became Aurors and revolutionized the department? Do you think this was a good choice for him? What changes do you think he might have made?
I think he may have made many mistakes before he actually revolutionised the department (we know what he's like!) but on the whole it was an excellent choice for him.

I completely agree. I also think Harry never named his son for Lily.

I don't see what other possible reason Harry would have for giving his middle son the name of Severus. Harry never got to know Snape well, and I feel he greatly disliked the Snape he did know. Moreover, Harry was aware that Snape loathed him and his past treatment of Harry supported that, imo. So I don't see that Harry would have any personal reason for wishing to do it.

In my judgment, Harry loved his mum and felt that since Snape had wished to honor her sacrifice and attempted to do so (albeit not very well, imo), and in doing so bravely spied and was needlessly killed in the line of duty - well I think Harry wished to pay tribute to what Snape had tried to do for his mum. That was the only positive emotion Snape ever had toward the Potters (Lily Potter), because he loathed both him and his father.

I mean I agree that it was something Harry wanted to do on behalf of his mother, but I don't think it was something he did for Snape in relation to himself. Otherwise I think Harry would have named his children after many people, like Moody and Kingsley and all of the other people that had assisted in the war. But none of them had attempted to honor his mother or father directly by doing so (to Harry's knowledge) only Snape had tried. Harry forgave Snape where he failed in that regard (the mistreatment and belittling), and what was left was the spying and dying which was also 'for Lily'. Note that he also honored Sirius and Remus and his parents and Dumbledore, but not solely because they wished to honor his parents (they all did) - but he happened to love them or in the case of Dumbledore, at least carry a good amount of affection. But I cannot say that is true of Harry when it came to Snape. It would be very strange indeed because Harry never found anything at all positie about Snape that would engender those feelings (and the same goes for Snape relative to Harry), imo.

Okay, now if ANYONE is Brave it is Snape!! *heart* Snape*Heart*

What has that got to do with Harry Potter's character thread? :rotfl:

It would be very strange indeed because Harry never found anything at all positiv about Snape that would engender those feelings I disagree. Harry tells his son that Snape was one of the bravest persons he ever knew. And Harry did learn a lot of positiv things about Snape when he looked at the memories and finally understood Snape. I agree that the fact that Snape had loved Lily was important, I think it enabled Harry to see Snape without the filter of their feud.
Harry now saw all Snape had done since he had changed sides, the risks he had taken, his loyalty to Dumbledore and what he had done for Harry. He now valued how brave Snape had been, how much he had suffered.
IMO Harry would never love Snape as he did his parents, Sirius, Lupin and Dumbledore, but he felt the deepest respect for him and to honour that he named his son Severus.

I disagree. Harry tells his son that Snape was one of the bravest persons he ever knew. And Harry did learn a lot of positiv things about Snape when he looked at the memories and finally understood Snape. I agree that the fact that Snape had loved Lily was important, I think it enabled Harry to see Snape without the filter of their feud.
Harry now saw all Snape had done since he had changed sides, the risks he had taken, his loyalty to Dumbledore and what he had done for Harry. He now valued how brave Snape had been, how much he had suffered.
IMO Harry would never love Snape as he did his parents, Sirius, Lupin and Dumbledore, but he felt the deepest respect for him and to honour that he named his son Severus.

I respect your opinion, but I don't see it that way. Snape did nothing whatsoever to earn personal respect and regard from Harry. Meaning, I think he did something that Harry wished to honor - namely - those good things he did in relation to Lily - Harry's beloved mother. Harry admired bravery I think and that Snape had shown it to honor his mother was why he named his son as he did, imo.

But Harry was not a fool. He well understood that while Snape had spied and done other things for Dumbledore, which took bravery, it had been done for Lily - not for him and not for his father and the sacrifices they had made or to honor their efforts or James' death. Harry also knew his mother would be very unhappy about Snape's behavior toward him as well as his constant belittling of James before Harry. Also, JKR said that Harry understood Snape loathed him. So Harry was not suddenly in lala land and forgetting all of those cold hard facts. But he forgave Snape for his shortcomings because Snape was a very small man and Harry knew it. He didn't approve of Snape's past behavior though, and there was nothing in the memories to change anything about Snape except the fact that he was not on the evil side and that he wasn't precisely because of his emotions for Lily.

One cannot forget that no matter what, Snape did not just start the ball rolling that got Lily killed and then try to make up for it by doing things in her honor - he also got the ball rolling that got Harry's dad killed and he didn't try to make up for that and stated so much in specific terms, plus belittled the man his whole life - and every incidence included belitting Harry as well. So Harry forgave this stuff, but one does not suddenly adopt high regard for a man of Snape's character and behavior - especially because Snape behaved in such a negative manner toward Harry and that is all Harry knew of Snape. The memories reiterated Snape's loathing of him and disdain for him and his father - they did not provide that Snape was 'just kidding around or sorry for it' - he meant every word. Harry would have no self respect for himself at all if he turned around and adopted regard for a man who had behaved like that toward him and continued to loath him and feel about him as he had till he day he died. So I do not place any personal "feelings" on Harry when it comes to Snape. He saw the brave act for his mum and that is what he wished to honor. But I cannot contribute any other emotional response to Harry in terms of the naming. It would make no sense to me.

Harry was also not the type who was portrayed as one who would go ga-ga over unrequited love the way that some people might. It as his mother - married to his father and he loved them both very much, so that was the relationship and love he admired, imo, not Snape's version which was accompanied by hatred spewed at Harry and his father out of acute jealousy (directly related to Snape's emotions for Lily). That is not something honorable or admirable in any way shape or form, imo. So all that was left was Snape's emotions for Lily in terms of the brave acts that inspired and I feel that is what Harry honored.

Harry did not tell his son that Snape was a good man, a loving man, a compassionate man, a properly behaving man, a kind man, a good and gentle soul, or someone he even liked - nor did he name any single other characteristic that one might associate with a naming. Instead, he said the only thing he felt about Snape - the only good thing that he could possibly say: Snape was very brave. And that bravery was directly a result of Snape's emotions for Lily, Harry's mum and that is why he honored it. Harry knew other VERY brave men and women, and he did not name his kids for them in order of bravery in his eyes - that was not what he was doing. None of those others had done it for his mum and that was the distinction, imo. Those that had done it for his mum and dad apart from Snape, were already honored by Harry, but not only because they were brave and worked toward honoring BOTH of his parents' sacrifices, but also because they showed him love and he loved them in return (Sirius, Remus, Dumbledore) - and of course he named his kids Lily and James for love of his parents and the sacrifice and love they had and continued to show him. Snape was an anomoly in the naming. He was not loved or even liked by Harry at all, imo, the memory did not wipe out 6.5 years of mistreatment and abuse, bullying and torment. All that it did was enable him to see another side of Snape - that side which held onto a positive emotion for Lily which made him do some brave acts. That it also made him do some terrible things out of jealousy and dislike was forgiven by Harry because he was a way bigger man than Snape who was shown to be unable to forgive during his lifetime, imo.

I agree with almost everything you say wickedwickedboy, particularly with your last sentence!
The one point I don’t agree with you is that Snape’s bravery was directly a result of his emotions for Lily, I respect your view on it, but IMO Lily was friends with Snape because she saw the good and the bravery in him. I think Snape really saw the error of his (Death-Eater-)ways [like Regulus did. I think both had still scruples and for both there was a blow that made them turn around] and he tried his best to vanquish Voldemort, not just for Lily but also for himself.
I also think Harry gave him credit for the comfort he was to Dumbledore during his last year (probably because I do ;) ) and he was ashamed by how he had thought of and talked about Snape. He is the better man :)

Jo said that bravery is the character trait she admires most, and she made it very clear in HP, so calling Snape probably the ‘bravest man I ever knew’ is no little thing.

I agree with almost everything you say wickedwickedboy, particularly with your last sentence!
The one point I don’t agree with you is that Snape’s bravery was directly a result of his emotions for Lily, I respect your view on it, but IMO Lily was friends with Snape because she saw the good and the bravery in him. I think Snape really saw the error of his (Death-Eater-)ways [like Regulus did. I think both had still scruples and for both there was a blow that made them turn around] and he tried his best to vanquish Voldemort, not just for Lily but also for himself.

When did he show bravery in his youth? To me he was shown to be vulnerable and insecure, which JKR later reiterated. Everything from wanting to join the Death Eaters for power (more than he wanted to remain friends with Lily) to creating dark curses for his enemies, to calling Muggleborns terms of prejudice and finding excuses to make those who did good acts look like bad people - well that all seemed to me to be behaving in a cowardly manner with with respect to facing up to issues. His conversations with Lily when he constantly turned the topic, making accusations, also spoke to that in my opinion. So I don't see why Lily would think Snape was brave at all - I feel she would think just the opposite. But I agree she saw the good in him, we were just never told what it was in canon, imo.

I would agree that Snape saw the error of his death eater ways - I think that was made very clear in DH. However, I don't feel he came to terms with having the proper regret or remorse for all of his past deeds - although he did with some of them. But I feel he knew they were wrong, he just stopped considering the matter at that point in his thinking, imo. There is certain behavior that Snape exhibited that would be impossible for anyone but a mentally disabled person to exhibit if they were truly remorseful for some of the things he did. But the point was that he went on to change in as far as his "after Death Eater" stint and I do believe he rejected evil.

I also think Harry gave him credit for the comfort he was to Dumbledore during his last year (probably because I do ;) )

:rotfl:. Okay.

and he was ashamed by how he had thought of and talked about Snape. He is the better man :)

I agree Harry is the better man. But I don't think there was any call for him to feel ashamed. He should only feel ashamed if he wronged Snape - but Snape did help to kill his parents and Snape did kill Dumbledore and Snape did pretend to be a loyal Death Eater, purposely fooling Harry. So there was nothing that Harry could have or should have done differently. At the time he spoke, he felt Snape was evil - and Snape did actually do all of those things. If anyone should have felt bad for their behavior it was Snape, imo. Harry forgave Snape, but there was nothing about any regret for his past behavior or words because in my opinion, Harry felt - and continued to feel - they were all warranted based on the knowledge he had at that time. It wasn't like Snape was faking it when he was treating Harry cruelly - that had nothing to do with his faking at being a Death Eater.

Jo said that bravery is the character trait she admires most, and she made it very clear in HP, so calling Snape probably the ‘bravest man I ever knew’ is no little thing.

For JKR and possibly for Harry. But that doesn't mean that others were not probably the bravest also or that one decides that someone is a prince of all men, no matter that their past behavior was cruel and bullying - especially to children, simply because they are brave. As I said, I agree that Harry admires bravery, but he would not have honored Snape's bravery if it had not been done in order to attempt to honor his mother, imo. He knew many brave men, so that reasoning just does not stand up. It doesn't work when you consider he also knew Dumbledore, who proved himself far and away very brave in facing dark lords, choosing to die for the cause and actually fighting Grindelwald and Voldemort. He faced down the Ministry and the wrath of everyone he knew, including Snape and Harry. So I think Harry would see him also as probably the bravest man he knew if he were trying to convince his son to go to Gryffindor - of course he'd have lots more examples to use :lol:.

I am willing to accept JKR's means of showing Harry was a big man and desired to honor his mother and father by giving the middle name of his son for someone who had likewise done so (cuz from a big man standpoint, Snape did it for both of his parents - as protection and spying, etc., for Lily in order to protect Harry would be something James would want too) - so from Harry's view (not Snape's) it honored both of their sacrifices. But if JKR was attempting to say that Harry gave the name for any traditional reasons (love for the person, in gratitude for their kindness and/or overall good character), then I would have no respect at all for that portion of the story because Harry felt none of those things toward Snape throughout the series and the memories contained nothing that would make him change his mind, imo. They were not about Snape feeling differently about Harry - right in the memory it showed Snape discussing Harry and James in his usual nasty manner and JKR did not slip that in by accident, imo.

Hey guys, in the interest of keeping this thread about Harry, let's take discussion of Snape to the Severus Snape: Character Analysis v.9 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=117791) thread and discussions of Snape and Lily to the Snape and Lily: Joint Character Analysis v.3 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=117144) thread. Thanks. :)

I don't see what other possible reason Harry would have for giving his middle son the name of Severus. Harry never got to know Snape well, and I feel he greatly disliked the Snape he did know. Moreover, Harry was aware that Snape loathed him and his past treatment of Harry supported that, imo. So I don't see that Harry would have any personal reason for wishing to do it.

I think the reason was that Harry started viewing Snape differently after the memories. I think once the war was over, he saw Snape's actions, all of them in a different light and slowly understood them and as he understood them, his perspective of Snape changed too IMO.

It was this change of Harry's opinion of Snape that resulted in Harry's understanding of Snape and later on naming his son after Snape IMO.

I think the reason was that Harry started viewing Snape differently after the memories. I think once the war was over, he saw Snape's actions, all of them in a different light and slowly understood them and as he understood them, his perspective of Snape changed too IMO.

It was this change of Harry's opinion of Snape that resulted in Harry's understanding of Snape and later on naming his son after Snape IMO.

Well I respect your view, but my reading of the canon did not allow me to reach that conclusion. JKR's contention that Harry knew Snape loathed him until he died fit with my analysis of the canon so I accept that was Harry's understanding. In my judgment, there was nothing about the memories that would change Harry's viewpoint on Snape as a person with respect to his personal behavior toward himself and others. Harry did have the fault of arrogance, imo, and as such, his self esteem would not allow him to see others through rose tinted glasses merely because they had emotions for his mother and father. I feel Harry saw individuals for who they were and that would include Snape. I feel that if JKR wanted us to understand that Harry's complete viewpoint had changed, she would have had him say more than Snape was brave. However, she did not and that was all Harry felt that was good about Snape, imo, or he would have added more in order to convince his son that the man he was talking about had other outstanding characteristics that should make little Albus appreciate Slytherin. However, there simply were no other good points to mention with respect to Snape's character, imo, from Harry's point of view.

Naming one's son after another person is IMO not done lightly. Harry named his other 2 children after his parents. His second son was named after Albus Dumbledore and Severus Snape, not say Remus Lupin, Hagrid, Arthur or even Fred. These were people Harry knew and loved.

But Snape got a place higher than all these people IMO in both Harry's heart and mind, equal to Albus Dumbledore. That was what I feel led him to name his son after Snape. If there had been only gratitude or a need to honour his mother or anything else; Harry would have been content to clear Snape's name in the WW, get him an Order or 2 of Merlin and speak nicely about him in public IMO.

I don't know if Harry did all this; but I am quite sure he felt very deeply and extremely positively about Snape, for otherwise I feel he would not have named his son Severus.

Naming one's son after another person is IMO not done lightly. Harry named his other 2 children after his parents. His second son was named after Albus Dumbledore and Severus Snape, not say Remus Lupin, Hagrid, Arthur or even Fred. These were people Harry knew and loved.

Well I respect your view, we just see it differently. Harry did name his son lightly when it came to Snape, imo, if we are speaking in terms of the definition you presented. I don't characterize it that way, but if that is how you see my opinion, I can respect that.

But Snape got a place higher than all these people IMO in both Harry's heart and mind, equal to Albus Dumbledore.

I wonder how you thought I might respond to that. :rotfl: I'll leave it to your imagination, which I am sure is quite accurate.

That was what I feel led him to name his son after Snape. If there had been only gratitude or a need to honour his mother or anything else; Harry would have been content to clear Snape's name in the WW, get him an Order or 2 of Merlin and speak nicely about him in public IMO.

Well I think JKR would have done that, but she wished to show just how big of a man Harry was. There was no better means to do so, in my judgment, than to have him forgive and look at the good Snape did - spy bravely for his mum's honor. And Harry was aware it also honored his father, even if Snape didn't wish to think it did - James would have wanted Snape to offer to help protect Harry too. I feel Harry also understood that those negative things Snape did, purportedly aimed at his dad and him, were also aimed at his mum. So Harry's decision in my view, merely shows how great of an individual Harry was. He saw the big picture which would make his parent's proud.

I don't know if Harry did all this; but I am quite sure he felt very deeply and extremely positively about Snape, for otherwise I feel he would not have named his son Severus.

I would respectfully disagree; I mean we didn't see Snape return in the forest did we? But if it is important to your interpretation that Harry feel that way, I can understand. I simply don't find any basis in canon for that belief myself. My above explanation fits with my interpretation. :)

But Snape got a place higher than all these people IMO in both Harry's heart and mind, equal to Albus Dumbledore. That was what I feel led him to name his son after Snape. If there had been only gratitude or a need to honour his mother or anything else; Harry would have been content to clear Snape's name in the WW, get him an Order or 2 of Merlin and speak nicely about him in public IMO.

TGW, like you I love that Harry named his youngest son after Severus. However, there is a whole missing piece here ... the piece that JKR never wrote. I read DH fully expecting Snape to die but also hoping against hope that JKR would confound my expectations and actually write a huge, cathartic, 'clearing the air' confrontation between Severus and Harry.

She didn't. :sigh:

But had she done so, then the naming of young Al Severus might have made a lot more sense.

As things stand, I have to accept what I was given. I think it rocks that Harry was able to forgive Snape and name his son after him :) but it does strain credulity, because it's such a personal and intimate thing to do. And that doesn't make sense because JKR never wrote any kind of relationship between Harry and Snape except raw antagonism. :sigh: Even when one takes into account -- and I certainly do -- the deeper picture we get of Snape in The Prince's Tale, there is still something missing.

But we should keep this discussion about Harry, not Snape ... so I hope I am being on-topic when I say that I can't believe that Harry would have esteemed Snape higher in his mind and heart than Remus, or Arthur, or *cough* Hagrid (Hagrid annoys me intensely as a character, so you'll have to forgive my cough there. ;) ) That just isn't possible. He loved both Remus and Arthur dearly (I can't bring myself to mention Hagrid, sorry) and they both loved him, and showed it.

The naming is what it is. :) I am content with it, in itself ;) but I still say there is a whole missing piece there. Ah, well.

I wonder how you thought I might respond to that. :rotfl: I'll leave it to your imagination, which I am sure is quite accurate.

:lol: Yes!

Well I think JKR would have done that, but she wished to show just how big of a man Harry was.

She already did this when she had Harry walk to the Forest among a host of other things which Harry did over the years that marked him as a special kind of a person IMO.

There was no better means to do so, in my judgment, than to have him forgive and look at the good Snape did - spy bravely for his mum's honor. And Harry was aware it also honored his father, even if Snape didn't wish to think it did - James would have wanted Snape to offer to help protect Harry too.

Harry if he wished to honouring his parent's wishes, I think he would have spoken highly of Snape or written about his contribution to the war and how much it helped all of them. Harry went on to name his son after Snape, just like he named his son after James IMO.

That is the comparison IMO. James, Lily, Albus and Severus were who Harry named his kids after.

I feel Harry also understood that those negative things Snape did, purportedly aimed at his dad and him, were also aimed at his mum. So Harry's decision in my view, merely shows how great of an individual Harry was. He saw the big picture which would make his parent's proud.

If Harry really saw it like this, I am sure he would not have named his son Severus; the names of his kids was the love, honour, respect and regard Harry showed James, Lily and Albus, by singling them out to tell the world how he saw these people. He named Albus, Albus Severus, adding Snape to the list of Albus, James and Lily IMO.

I would respectfully disagree; I mean we didn't see Snape return in the forest did we? But if it is important to your interpretation that Harry feel that way, I can understand. I simply don't find any basis in canon for that belief myself. My above explanation fits with my interpretation. :)

I feel we did not see Snape return in the Forest as well as Dumbledore because Harry had still not processed everything he saw in Snape's memories and he was feeling betrayed by Dumbledore at that time IMO.

That feeling did not last because he went on to name his kid after both of them IMO.

@Pearl_Took; I agree that had Harry named his son aftre both Albus and Snape within few days of the war, it would have looked...not so well.

But Harry named his kid after many years, years which we are not privy to and in which we see Harry's thoughts clearly changed from say his sixth or seventh year, when he wanted Snape dead IMO.

Just like we saw Snape turn to the Light and and grow, I think Harry's thoughts too changed after seeing the memories and in the years later he came to regard Snape as someone who was important enough to name his kid after IMO.

@Pearl_Took; I agree that had Harry named his son aftre both Albus and Snape within few days of the war, it would have looked...not so well.

Yes, indeed. :D :err: Harry had to process an awful lot about Albus, let alone Snape. :lol:

But, as you say, this is all nineteen years later. :) :cool:

Just like we saw Snape turn to the Light and and grow, I think Harry's thoughts too changed after seeing the memories and in the years later he came to regard Snape as someone who was important enough to name his kid after IMO.

Well, I had no trouble reaching that conclusion when I first read the Epilogue. :D :)

:lol: Yes!

:lol:.

She already did this when she had Harry walk to the Forest among a host of other things which Harry did over the years that marked him as a special kind of a person IMO.

Nah, she hadn't. She only showed how compassionate and selfless Harry was, imo. It did'nt show his capacity to forgive and single in on the good like Jesus might.

Harry if he wished to honouring his parent's wishes, I think he would have spoken highly of Snape or written about his contribution to the war and how much it helped all of them. Harry went on to name his son after Snape, just like he named his son after James IMO.

Well I can respect your view. I myself do not like a fairy tale view for the end of the series, so I look at it in a way that to me is more realistic. I mean if the series was of the sort where Albus grew up and named his children Harry Ron and Horace Draco, then so be it, but I didn't really see the series that way.

That is the comparison IMO. James, Lily, Albus and Severus were who Harry named his kids after.

Well I guess that Sirius continues to be ignored from SWM forward, thankfully, not by Harry. :rotfl:.

If Harry really saw it like this, I am sure he would not have named his son Severus; the names of his kids was the love, honour, respect and regard Harry showed James, Lily and Albus, by singling them out to tell the world how he saw these people. He named Albus, Albus Severus, adding Snape to the list of Albus, James and Lily IMO.

Do you feel that Harry believed James didn't want Snape to promise to help protect him? Do you think Harry felt his mother wished to see Snape treat him in a cruel and bullying manner? I don't. I feel James and Lily were in tune with one another in the afterworld - both wanting the best for their son and Harry knew that, imo.

I feel we did not see Snape return in the Forest as well as Dumbledore because Harry had still not processed everything he saw in Snape's memories and he was feeling betrayed by Dumbledore at that time IMO.

Yes Harry was angry with Dumbledore and feeling betrayed by both he and Snape, imo. And he called on those he knew loved him and would do and had done all in their power to show him their love. And that was my point.

That feeling did not last because he went on to name his kid after both of them IMO.

I agree, it did not last. Harry was indeed a big man. He overlooked the betrayal and anger and in the case of Snape, he overlooked his loathing and pain from the past behavior and tried to find the good. The good was that Snape promised to try to protect him so that Lily's sacrifice would not be in vain - and from Harry's view, it also worked toward his dad's sacrifice not being in vain. So that was honor toward his parents, something he decided to honor - he loved his parents very much. Harry knew Dumbledore had also treat him in a wrongful manner, but he forgave that also and just found the good in Dumbledore - and there was much more to find than in Snape, imo, which is likely why the child got the first name of the two collaborators.

In hate admitting this but to be honest I have always found Harry's charatcer to be boring... He always makes things right in the end (more or less) and it is very uninteresting... The other characters in this series (Sirius, Ron, Snape, Hermione...etc) are waaaay more complex and flawed and wonderfully interesting and Harry for the most part just seems like....blah... It is just my opinion... Harry Potter is a hero... he is just a very boring one... :)

I’ve finally brought myself to reread HBP. This book has been one of my least favourite because of the “shipping” aspects. Now I’ve found another reason to dislike it: in my opinion, this book completely butchers Harry’s characterization.

I get that he’d never been perfect, and it had never been JKR’s intention to turn him into a fluffy goody-two shoes. Harry is flawed, and I like him that way. But, you know, there has to be a limit somewhere. It’s not even the hexing and the repeated attempts to use the Unforgivables that I’m talking about… It’s Harry’s complete lack of reaction to what he had nearly done to Malfoy (the Sectumsempra incident).

Oh, of course he was horrified at first (who wouldn’t?), but he got over the initial shock impossibly fast. In fact, after Snape healed Malfoy, the only thing on Harry’s mind was how the unpleasant situation was going to affect him, what consequences he’d have to endure… He lied about the Potions book because he didn’t want to part with it/lose his status of the best Potions student/disappoint Slughorn/whatever. He protested when Snape gave him an impossibly mild punishment – his mind was immediately occupied with the lost chance to win the Quidditch cup. He was bitter and upset afterwards – but his feelings had nothing to do with the incident itself and everything to do with the fact that he had let down the Quidditch team/ brought Hermione’s righteous anger upon himself/possibly lost a chance to ask Ginny out. Not even for one second did he think that he had nearly turned into a killer. It didn’t even occur to him to feel just a bit of gratitude to Snape for saving both Draco and Harry - Draco from dying, Harry from having to live with a terrible burden of guilt/tearing his soul apart/being expelled or sent to Azkaban,etc. Yes, he did say that Draco healed all right “thanks to Snape”, but did he actually feel grateful? Just a wee bit? Did he think something along the lines of “Thanks God Snape happened to be nearby and got there in time… Thanks God”. Not really. Did he think that he in fact got off very lightly? Nope. Actually, he found his unbelievably lenient punishment “particularly irksome” because it was interfering with his Ginny-snogging… Really. Harry had to suffer through copying out detention cards and could not play Quidditch and enjoy the weather… What a heavy price to pay for almost murdering a fellow student… :rolleyes:

Oh, and the fact that after the incident Harry got cured of his “Malfoy obsession” instantly is also pretty interesting. I understand his priorities drastically changed when he finally got the chance to spend his extra energy on Ginny. :eyebrows: But, you know… Harry had been literally stalking Malfoy during the whole school year. And when he finally stumbled upon something really interesting (Malfoy CRYING, saying that that if he fails the task, he’ll be KILLED), he forgot about it in, like, five seconds. He drove Malfoy out of his mind completely. I find that weird and inconsistent with Harry’s earlier behaviour. What happened to his compassion? And where did his famous curiosity go?

All things considered, Harry's astonishing lack of remorse and indifference towards Malfoy led me to a rather painful dissapointment in him. Harry risking his life to save Draco in DH is still admirable, of course :tu:. But it doesn't explain or negate his odd behaviour in HBP... which is why I find Harry's characterization in the last two books terribly inconsistent.

I'd be very interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this matter.

Yes, indeed. :D :err: Harry had to process an awful lot about Albus, let alone Snape. :lol:

I disagree about Albus. It seemed to me that after the conversation in King's Cross, they returned to more or less the same footing as before, except with Harry no longer needing a guardian. The description of Harry, following the defeat of Voldemort, wanting to go to only one place (the Headmistress' office), the descriptions of him basking in Albus's (the portrait's) approval...to me it seems all was forgiven (and most did not need to be - based on Harry's reactions, I can only suppose he believed Albus had always plotted and planned in order to make Harry's survival possible despite the odds).

I get that he’d never been perfect, and it had never been JKR’s intention to turn him into a fluffy goody-two shoes. Harry is flawed, and I like him that way. But, you know, there has to be a limit somewhere. It’s not even the hexing and the repeated attempts to use the Unforgivables that I’m talking about… It’s Harry’s complete lack of reaction to what he had nearly done to Malfoy (the Sectumsempra incident). Oh, of course he was horrified at first (who wouldn’t?), but he got over the initial shock impossibly fast. In fact, after Snape healed Malfoy, the only thing on Harry’s mind was how the unpleasant situation was going to affect him, what consequences he’d have to endure… He lied about the Potions book because he didn’t want to part with it/lose his status of the best Potions students/disappoint Slughorn/whatever.

Oddly enough, I have been thinking about this for quite some time now. I think Harry lost the plot during the sixth book and there was no excuse for it. For all his compassion and ability to love, I don't understand much of what goes on here. I understand (shockhorror!) is hatred of Snape; in his shoes, I too would likely hate Snape. But I can't understand his utter indifference to comprehend what he almost did to himself- he almost tore his soul in two, and thought little of it despite his recent education to that same effect and end. So I agree with you, it seems quite a deterioration in Harry's character and it really causes a degenerative effect in his humane aspects- which is again retracted in the following book, and so I view this moment as an inconsistency to deal with the relationship between him and Ginny.

He protested when Snape gave him an impossibly mild punishment – his mind was immediately occupied with the lost chance to win the Quidditch cup....Actually, he found his unbelievably lenient punishment “particularly irksome” because it was interfering with his Ginny-snogging… Really. Harry had to suffer through copying out detention cards… What a heavy price to pay for almost murdering a fellow student… :rolleyes:

Apologies for editing the quote Raelis, it was a bit long to be prudent for me to write it all out again! But again, I here agree with you. It seems to make Harry quite plastic. As you state, he was always imperfect and flawed, like every human being, but this doesn't even truly relate to Snape and how Snape "did wrong" by him in "yet another" instance. It's nothing to do with Snape, but all to do with Harry's lack of comprehension at what he had just done. Can anyone explain to me any situation in which, given Harry's position, one would be so very complacent? He wasn't, at this time (or any other, imo) hardened deliberately by any sense of war- in fact he was just setting out on the serious journey laid out before him.

Oh, and the fact that after the incident Harry got cured of his “Malfoy obsession” instantly is also pretty interesting. I understand his priorities drastically changed when he finally got the chance to spend his extra energy on Ginny. :eyebrows: But, you know… Harry had been literally stalking Malfoy during the whole school year. And when he finally stumbled upon something really interesting (Malfoy CRYING, saying that that if he fails the task, he’ll be KILLED), he forgot about it in, like, five seconds. He drove Malfoy out of his mind completely. I find that weird and inconsistent with Harry’s earlier behaviour. What happened to his compassion? And where did his famous curiosity go?

I do find that inconsistent, knowing as I do that hurting someone severely has consequences oftentimes beyond what we would otherwise think to imagine. I don't understand- can't understand, in fact- why we saw this difficult and unprecedented change in Harry. Yes, he liked Ginny, arguably more than that, and wished to be with her. But does that outweigh his outrageous behaviour and his intention to harm without thought?

I view this as a discrepancy and I am aware that those fans of Harry might vote to say that it was the effect of Voldemort working in his head- but after all, that was not truly an issue for me until DH. But Harry's anger had stretched way back, right to GoF when he needed to be in the know and when he needed to see what was going on, to the detriment of others due to his undying curiosity- which here was discarded for a girl? He resisted Veela, Fleur, many other girls.. only to fall at the feet of Ginny and miss some vital clues. I have previously wondered why JKR chose to write this way in HBP, because it seemed inconsistent with Harry's (flawed) but overall good persona and characteristics. I still like him as a character, but it does read as a bit inconsistent, imho.

It's nothing to do with Snape, but all to do with Harry's lack of comprehension at what he had just done. Can anyone explain to me any situation in which, given Harry's position, one would be so very complacent? He wasn't, at this time (or any other, imo) hardened deliberately by any sense of war- in fact he was just setting out on the serious journey laid out before him.

:tu: Exactly.

I view this as a discrepancy and I am aware that those fans of Harry might vote to say that it was the effect of Voldemort working in his head- but after all, that was not truly an issue for me until DH.

I will disagree with those fans of Harry who will want to use his connection to Voldemort as an excuse - first of all, it's a cop-out; second, the Harry of OoTP was quite different, and the bit of Voldemort in him did not prevent him from feeling sorry for his hated teacher. Not only was he horrified at what his father and Sirius had done to Snape, he could not let this issue go and mulled it in his head over and over again. He cared about what had happened to his nemesis, he empathized with him, he saw him as a human being for the first time in his life. He questioned his father's sense of morality. Harry's angst and internal conflict over what he'd seen in the Pensieve took a significant deal of page space. Yet after nearly having killed Draco his emotions are pracitically unaffected...

But Harry's anoldemort ger had stretched way back, right to GoF when he needed to be in the know and when he needed to see what was going on, to the detriment of others due to his undying curiosity- which here was discarded for a girl? He resisted Veela, Fleur, many other girls.. only to fall at the feet of Ginny and miss some vital clues.

Maybe it was because Ginny actually approved of Sectumsempra? :scared:

I will disagree with those fans of Harry who will want to use his connection to Voldemort as an excuse - first of all, it's a cop-out; second, the Harry of OoTP was quite different, and the bit of Voldemort in him did not prevent him from feeling sorry for his hated teacher. Not only was he horrified at what his father and Sirius had done to Snape, he could not let this issue go and mulled it in his head over and over again. He cared about what had happened to his nemesis, he empathized with him, he saw him as a human being for the first time in his life. He questioned his father's sense of morality. Harry's angst and internal conflict over what he'd seen in the Pensieve took a significant deal of page space. Yet after nearly having killed Draco his emotions are pracitically unaffected...

I feel what you have said about OOTP is exaggerated. He mulled over his worries about his father (not Sirius at all) on several pages, expressed sympathy for Snape in 1 line exactly, there was no angst ridden conflict over Snape, he didn't think about him at all aloud in his POV, but just his dad and only mentioned he never thought he'd feel sorry for Snape when he was with Sirius (and if one likes, he also indicated that if Snape were like Draco, then he could see Fred and George treat him that way and indeed Snape was in many ways he later found out). So there was no grand display of sorrow for Snape, but rather a lot of intense questioning about his father and all in just a few pages. Then after Career's advice - a chapter later - the issue was completely dropped. Harry was hating Snape again without showing any sympathy or marked difference two chapters later. There is nothing in canon that says Harry saw Snape as a human for the first time - or that he hadn't seen him as a human before - he merely said he didn't think he'd have sympathy for him - understandable considering Snape's treatment of him. But that all went zipping out of the window in the Chapter following Career's advice when Snape returned to his normal negative behavior and behaving in a vindictive manner, destroyed Harry's flask and gave him a zero mark. So I feel your interpretation places much more empathy and sympathy than Harry actually felt, considering he never gave Snape a single thought in his POV except that analogy to Draco and later said he'd felt sorry for him. That sympathy was real, but fleeting, imo, ignored until he spoke with his godfather, dying after he spoke to Sirius and dead by the next chapter when he had potions, imo.

I've heard tell that Harry didn't want to watch SWM a second time due to what happened to Snape - but imo, it was all of it; not wanting to see his dad's face cut or his mum called a mudblood by Snape, nor his dad and Sirius taunt Snape. It is important to recall that for all the sympathy Snape may have drawn due to his friendship being lost in that moment, by the second time Harry was to watch it, he also had grand sympathy for his parents because Snape had helped to kill them. And in the balance, a hex wars compared to killing, it is evident that the latter would draw more sympathy from him for his parents, imo.

In HBP, Harry found out Snape helped murder his parents. Lifting Snape up with his own spell I am sure seemed pretty mild in comparison to helping to kill - so you know, he would entirely hate Snape. He properly mulled that over and even questioned Dumbledore about it. Feeling sorry for his beloved parents due to Snape's nefarious past behavior and his empathy for his mum and dad and anger and heightened hatred of Snape was well written to me. That is how I feel anyone would feel toward someone who'd helped to murder their parents - and put that together with the fact that Harry was now looking at the utter gall of Snape to have treat him the way he had for 6.5 years in light of the fact he'd help to kill his parents - and Snape had belittled his dad right along with Harry himself. So I think he'd have a lot of righteous anger and loathing for Snape as a result. Then Snape killed Dumbledore and that of course sealed the deal for him. And recall prior to finding any of that out, Harry was highly distrusting of Snape anyway feeling like he wanted to harm or kill him (recall the verbal shield against Snape in the classroom and his arrogant, impertinence?) So his feelings toward him were magnified in HBP.

But I have no idea what you wanted from Harry after sectumsempra. He showed remorse for his stupidity. What did you want him to do? Pull his hair out and wail before Slytherin house on his knees? :lol:. I mean, I think readers would have gotten bored watching Harry lament for more than a few pages either in OOTP or HBP - and I would not expect him to react like Hermione - she tended to rather over do things. Ginny was right that it was time to drop it, although I agree she didn't put it very well. I actually thought it quite normal that he would drop his charging after Draco once he'd almost killed him. However, his curiosity was not completely halted - he still followed him and overheard about Draco's dad/Bella and later knew he'd gone to the ROR. But part of his sympathy for Snape in OOTP had been the fact that he was unaware of Snape's own guilt in the matter (he didn't know it was Snape's spell he was lifted with, sectumsempra was his specialty, and so saw him as far more innocent than he was at that time, imo). But with Draco, Harry knew the score. He knew he'd tossed crucio at him and all of the others things he'd been capable of doing in the past - and even back in OOTP he'd made the analogy with Snape and Draco - but despitre Snape throwing dark curses and exhibiting blood prejudice in SWM, things Harry would contribute to Draco, he didn't consider Snape might indeed be like Draco until later. I personally thought Harry's behavior was written perfectly - a balance between realilsm and entertainment. ;)

One point though is that I don't feel Harry was at all inconsistent, rather he matured into his character. It may be a character that some don't like, but it was his. JKR said he had a fault of arrogance and losing his temper ('hothead' as Dumbledore put it.) When it came to certain people like Umbridge, Snape, Draco and others who were antagonistic toward him, he was, imo, rightfully resentful of them. But in HBP, in light of all that he learned about Snape and Draco - and Voldemort - I felt his tumultous reactions and resentment, together with his own growth where he showed more autonomy, arrogance and hot tempermant, was well done and displayed a side of Harry that we'd only begun to see in OOTP. In DH, he was still all of those things. I don't know if a lot of concentration is focused on the end where he fulfilled his extreme compassionate nature (another aspect of his character), but prior to that, he was losing his temper all over the place, angry throughout and arrogant and impatient with everyone, imo.

Oh, of course he was horrified at first (who wouldn’t?), but he got over the initial shock impossibly fast. In fact, after Snape healed Malfoy, the only thing on Harry’s mind was how the unpleasant situation was going to affect him, what consequences he’d have to endure… He lied about the Potions book because he didn’t want to part with it/lose his status of the best Potions student/disappoint Slughorn/whatever. He protested when Snape gave him an impossibly mild punishment – his mind was immediately occupied with the lost chance to win the Quidditch cup. He was bitter and upset afterwards – but his feelings had nothing to do with the incident itself and everything to do with the fact that he had let down the Quidditch team/ brought Hermione’s righteous anger upon himself/possibly lost a chance to ask Ginny out. Not even for one second did he think that he had nearly turned into a killer. It didn’t even occur to him to feel just a bit of gratitude to Snape for saving both Draco and Harry - Draco from dying, Harry from having to live with a terrible burden of guilt/tearing his soul apart/being expelled or sent to Azkaban,etc. Yes, he did say that Draco healed all right “thanks to Snape”, but did he actually feel grateful? Just a wee bit? Did he think something along the lines of “Thanks God Snape happened to be nearby and got there in time… Thanks God”. Not really. Did he think that he in fact got off very lightly? Nope. Actually, he found his unbelievably lenient punishment “particularly irksome” because it was interfering with his Ginny-snogging… Really. Harry had to suffer through copying out detention cards and could not play Quidditch and enjoy the weather… What a heavy price to pay for almost murdering a fellow student… :rolleyes:

I would suggest that this is not inconsistent with Harry's character as revealed to us in earlier books. On the contrary, I find it fits. His reaction here, to the near-death of Draco, matches almost perfectly with that of Sirius Black to the near-death of Severus back in their schooldays. A reaction, I would add, we never in the observe Harry criticizing. (I don't mean to Sirius - Sirius is an adult, and in their limited time together Harry has better things to talk to him about...I mean in his internal dialogue). I think both boys are enabled in their non-examination of the seriousness of what they might have done by the fact that their almost-victims walk away taking no permanent harm.

If anything is inconsistent with Harry's previous characterization, I would say it is not this scene, but Harry's rescue of Draco in the Room of Requirement in DH. I think this shows Harry's growth in understanding through DH.

I see him as acquiring or exhibiting, over the course of the first six books, some problematic tendencies. He develops a prejudice against Slytherin House, which meeting Slughorn, and seeing Draco decide not to kill Albus at the end of HBP, help to start to dispell. He also exhibits a self-righteous attitude towards the mistakes of others (not just Slytherins). (For example, his response to assorted people when they try to explain that the people making whatever mistake is under discussion were young is to point out that he is too - the implication being that he would never make such mistakes. Among those he so condemns are James and Sirius for their bullying of Snape in the Worst Memory, Snape and Regulus for becoming Death Eaters, and Albus for his involvement with Gellert Grindelwald).

In the Epilogue, in his comments to little Albus, we see the process is complete, IMO. Why are we not shown it? As a very perceptive poster (Pippin) at another forum (HP for Grownups) I visit wrote...how realistic would it be for teenaged Harry to display a total understanding of Snape, the character that spawned a thousand viewpoints and countless threads? He gets "the basics", let's say - their commonality of childhood experiences (with Riddle as well), Snape's impressive achievement as Dumbledore's spy, and Snape's motivation.

In the long run...well, I think Harry concluded that the world is not divided into good people and Death Eaters. Not in the sense that there are shades of gray in between - but in the sense that the distance between the two is not nearly so great and unbridgeable as Harry wanted to believe as a boy. Harry picked the right side in the war, but can he condemn someone, despite his later, sincere remorse and atonement, for prejudice? Attachment to the Dark Arts? Ingratitude to someone who saved his life? Trust in the wrong friends? Thoughtlessness?

Not if he is honest with himself, in my opinion.

In the long run...well, I think Harry concluded that the world is not divided into good people and Death Eaters. Not in the sense that there are shades of gray in between - but in the sense that the distance between the two is not nearly so great and unbridgeable as Harry wanted to believe as a boy. Harry picked the right side in the war, but can he condemn someone, despite his later, sincere remorse and atonement, for prejudice? Attachment to the Dark Arts? Ingratitude to someone who saved his life? Trust in the wrong friends? Thoughtlessness?

Not if he is honest with himself, in my opinion.

If that is all there was, I'd agree. But add: killing his parents? killing or aiding and abetting in the killing of many during his stint as a death eater? bullying and cruel treatment of children? These things remain to be condemned in Snape's behavior. And of all of those things you mentioned, the ingratitude for James saving his life is also something that should be condemned (as shown, imo, in Draco showing minimal cordial gratitude for the same deed by Harry). Also, a longstanding hatred of an individual, and transfering same to his son bourne of jealousy and vindictiveness of youth - and years of cruel mistreatment Harry faced as a result. So yes, Harry could and should have condemned Snape for those things because they are things he could not, even in hindsight approve of.

Attachment to the dark arts, chosing the wrong friends, common thoughtlessness and wrongs where remorse was had, should not be condemned, I agree. But it is the things in the first paragraph that Harry had to forgive - recall he did forgive - so there had to be something right? :lol:. So the idea that Harry could not condemn at all, would mean there was nothing to forgive, but there was. Even if I didn't like Harry's parents, I would understand his need to forgive Voldemort, Peter and Snape for their part in killing them. Harry's point of view would be much more emotional than any reader's of course, so there was a real need for forgiveness on his part, imo. (And by the way, I do feel he forgave Peter and Voldemort also, because holding a grudge against either of them for what they'd done to him and his family would be no better than holding one against Snape for all time.)

I agree Harry came to understand the shades of grey idea, he saw it clearly in himself. But I would respectfully disagree that Snape was so complex so as to leave Harry rendered stupid with respect to reaching any conclusions about him. I feel he rightly understood that Snape's basic character was that of a small man in many ways and that was one of the reasons that Harry could forgive, imo. What I feel is more intense is his realization that big men, he himself, his father, Sirius, Kingsley, Dumbledore, Lily, Hermione etc., these people too required forgiveness and it could be more difficult to do because the idea arises that they should have known better. But Harry's ability to forgive himself (for Sectumsempra, smashing Dumbledore's office, his treatment of Lupin, Ron, Hermione, Draco, and a myriad of other wrongs) allowed him to work through the process. Bascially, Harry wasn't a fanboy of anyone except perhaps his parents - as parents.

All things considered, Harry's astonishing lack of remorse and indifference towards Malfoy led me to a rather painful dissapointment in him. Harry risking his life to save Draco in DH is still admirable, of course :tu:. But it doesn't explain or negate his odd behaviour in HBP... which is why I find Harry's characterization in the last two books terribly inconsistent.

I'd be very interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this matter.

The only reason (and it's pretty lame BTW :D) I can think of is that Harry had already decided Draco was a DE. The crucio Draco cast at Harry among other things (like Draco's conversation with Snape about the UV) convinced an obssessed Harry that Draco was indeed a DE. And I think at that time Harry's mind distinctly divided DEs from the others. And after the events of the Dept. of Mysteries, Harry's feelings IMO would have only grown more hardened towards the DEs, who he may have stopped seeing as people and more as those to defeat.

Because of the fact Harry saw Draco as a DE, I think the sectumsempra, which had Harry cast on any other, would have made him feel horrible for the rest of his life, cast on Draco made him shrug it off; he was more intent to protect his Book and while he was glad I think he did not kill Draco, I feel he was able to dismiss it from his mind quite easily, once he knew Draco would be alright. Had Draco died; I think that would have changed Harry, even though the sectumsempra was in self defence, I don't think Harry would have been able to forgive himself.

I think he came on to zg's conclusion below a little later IMO.

posted by zgirnius
In the long run...well, I think Harry concluded that the world is not divided into good people and Death Eaters. Not in the sense that there are shades of gray in between - but in the sense that the distance between the two is not nearly so great and unbridgeable as Harry wanted to believe as a boy. Harry picked the right side in the war, but can he condemn someone, despite his later, sincere remorse and atonement, for prejudice? Attachment to the Dark Arts? Ingratitude to someone who saved his life? Trust in the wrong friends? Thoughtlessness?

Not if he is honest with himself, in my opinion.

:agree: :tu:

If that is all there was, I'd agree. But add: killing his parents?

Canon makes clear, and IMO Harry accepts, that Snape did all he could to try and prevent the deaths of Harry's parents, and that he never sought their deaths. (He certainly did not kill them, I hope I do not need to cite the relevant bits of DH!) Snape did not think through the possible consequences of reporting the prophecy to Voldemort, and Lily (and James, but it is beside the point I am about to make) was murdered as a result of the complex chain of events that followed. It seems to me that Harry has a parallel life experience that would help him to understand both how easily such a thing can be done, and what it feels like afterwards, to understand one's own responsibility for the death of a loved one. That would be the events at the end of OotP, when Harry's ill-considered venture to the Ministry led to Sirius's murder.

Cruelty would also be something Harry cannot consider himself innocent of - he discovered, in DH, that he was capable of the same intent to cause pain and delight in his power to cause it that Bella spoke to him of in OotP (when he cast a Cruciatus Curse on Amycus Carrow).

And of all of those things you mentioned, the ingratitude for James saving his life is also something that should be condemned (as shown, imo, in Draco showing minimal cordial gratitude for the same deed by Harry).

I did mention this one. :D Harry showed ingratitude towards Severus, who saved his life in PS/SS. It is my opinion that Harry must have come to see this before he decided to name little Albus.

The other alleged crimes of Snape I am ignoring, since Harry never knew of them, nor seemed to care. Possible other DE crimes of Snape did not matter to Harry - he has never in the text of the series wondered about them or expressed horror at them, so I see no reason to suppose they were a factor in his thought process about Snape.

Attachment to the dark arts, chosing the wrong friends, common thoughtlessness and wrongs where remorse was had, should not be condemned, I agree.

I am not listing things that I, personally, according to my own code of morals, can or cannot condemn. I am arguing that Harry himself was guilty of the same wrongs for which you condemn Snape (we could argue about degrees, but I am not making an argument here about who is better, Harry or Snape, but how I think Harry came to feel about Snape in the years between the end of DH and the birth of little Al Potter, and why). I believe that Harry, in considering Snape, their relationship, and his own actions in the war, realized this, and that Harry therefore came to better understand how and why Snape acted as he had.

But I would respectfully disagree that Snape was so complex so as to leave Harry rendered stupid with respect to reaching any conclusions about him.

My point about Harry's lack of understanding was not that he could never understand, but that it is more credible to suppose he did so over a period of time and as he grew more fully into an adult life, rather than (as many, myself included, had hoped for) in one knock-down, drag-out confrontation between the two characters while Harry is still a teen.

I feel he rightly understood that Snape's basic character was that of a small man in many ways and that was one of the reasons that Harry could forgive, imo.

I don't see why Harry would want to name his son after such a person, nor why his wife would agree if Harry explained the meaning of that name to her in such terms.

What I feel is more intense is his realization that big men, he himself, his father, Sirius, Kingsley, Dumbledore, Lily, Hermione etc., these people too required forgiveness and it could be more difficult to do because the idea arises that they should have known better. But Harry's ability to forgive himself (for Sectumsempra, smashing Dumbledore's office, his treatment of Lupin, Ron, Hermione, Draco, and a myriad of other wrongs) allowed him to work through the process. Bascially, Harry wasn't a fanboy of anyone except perhaps his parents - as parents.

I find it quite telling that the dead among your "big men" all ended up providing names to Harry's children. (James, Sirius, Lily, Albus). To me, this is proof enough that Harry would place Severus in the same list. :)

And of all of those things you mentioned, the ingratitude for James saving his life is also something that should be condemned (as shown, imo, in Draco showing minimal cordial gratitude for the same deed by Harry).

I actually cut Draco some slack here. He was in a state of complete shock, after having just seen Crabbe get burned to death.

Even if I didn't like Harry's parents, I would understand his need to forgive Voldemort, Peter and Snape for their part in killing them. Harry's point of view would be much more emotional than any reader's of course, so there was a real need for forgiveness on his part, imo. (And by the way, I do feel he forgave Peter and Voldemort also, because holding a grudge against either of them for what they'd done to him and his family would be no better than holding one against Snape for all time.)

There is no canon, IMO, to indicate that Harry ever forgave Voldemort. Voldemort died completely unrepentant. He never showed any remorse whatsoever for having murdered James and Lily, or for his other many crimes. To expect Harry to forgive this, particularly when Voldemort remained unrepentant, is utterly unrealistic, and I can't see anything in canon that indicates that Harry did so. And Voldemort's crimes against Harry and his family far exceed the wrongs committed by Snape, so I don't see any comparison there.

The same goes for Peter. There is no solid canon that Harry forgave Peter, save his rather casual comment to Dumbledore in the King's Cross chapter about Dumbledore guessing that Peter might have had some capacity for remorse.

Harry and Ron tried to save Peter from being strangled by his own silver hand because they were decent people. I think it's a big stretch to infer from this that Harry actually forgave Peter. The canon for this is ambivalent at best.

JMO. :)

Canon makes clear, and IMO Harry accepts, that Snape did all he could to try and prevent the deaths of Harry's parents, and that he never sought their deaths. (He certainly did not kill them, I hope I do not need to cite the relevant bits of DH!) Snape did not think through the possible consequences of reporting the prophecy to Voldemort, and Lily (and James, but it is beside the point I am about to make) was murdered as a result of the complex chain of events that followed. It seems to me that Harry has a parallel life experience that would help him to understand both how easily such a thing can be done, and what it feels like afterwards, to understand one's own responsibility for the death of a loved one. That would be the events at the end of OotP, when Harry's ill-considered venture to the Ministry led to Sirius's murder.

But you are talking about forgiveness I believe. Forgiveness has nothing to do with condemning the act of someone. Handing over the prophecy to Voldemort to have some baby and its family killed did not become a worthy or good act merely because Snape tried to undo it. It was still a completely vile act that requires condemnation. This is why the forgiveness was necessary.

Btw: Snape's act was not a mistake. He did it on purpose (delivering the prophecy) - so it is entirely dissimilar from the Harry/Sirius situation, imo.

Cruelty would also be something Harry cannot consider himself innocent of - he discovered, in DH, that he was capable of the same intent to cause pain and delight in his power to cause it that Bella spoke to him of in OotP (when he cast a Cruciatus Curse on Amycus Carrow). I did mention this one. :D Harry showed ingratitude towards Severus, who saved his life in PS/SS. It is my opinion that Harry must have come to see this before he decided to name little Albus.

Well you made my point. Harry would condemn himself for any ingratitude as well as any cruelty - and he would likewise condemn Snape for his. Your question asked should Snape be condemned for these certain acts, my answer was yes. I didn't say Harry didn't forgive him, he did. But he still condemned him for them, just like he did himself - as you have indicated.

The other alleged crimes of Snape I am ignoring, since Harry never knew of them, nor seemed to care. Possible other DE crimes of Snape did not matter to Harry - he has never in the text of the series wondered about them or expressed horror at them, so I see no reason to suppose they were a factor in his thought process about Snape.

Well we were not discussing the factors in Harry's thinking. We were discussing those things which he might condemn in Snape's behavior. Your rhetorical question made it seem as if you felt there was nothing to condemn since he changed sides. But my point is that all he did wrong should be condemned. Those things he felt remorse for should be forgiven. But Snape never felt remorse for bullying the kids or many of the other things he did, so for those things he remains condemned - and forgiven by Harry. Harry didn't use remorse, regret or attempts to make up for wrongs as a basis for his personal forgiveness, imo, that was immaterial. He forgave independent of those things, the positive factors simply make it easier to do so. But the forgiveness itself is something Harry had to do for himself.

I am not listing things that I, personally, according to my own code of morals, can or cannot condemn. I am arguing that Harry himself was guilty of the same wrongs for which you condemn Snape (we could argue about degrees, but I am not making an argument here about who is better, Harry or Snape, but how I think Harry came to feel about Snape in the years between the end of DH and the birth of little Al Potter, and why). I believe that Harry, in considering Snape, their relationship, and his own actions in the war, realized this, and that Harry therefore came to better understand how and why Snape acted as he had.

Well I feel you are mistaken, although I respect your idea. But canon disproves it, imo. Harry did not bully children or give a prophecy to a dark lord to have a child killed. Harry did not mistreat anyone's son out of jealousy or dislike. Harry did not belittle and taunt his peers. Nor did he take part in having anyone's parent's killed. Harry did not do many of the things Snape did that showed him to be a very small individual, imo. Thus, I do not feel Harry arrived at his ultimate beliefs about Snape on the basis you have provided (a comparison to himself). I feel he saw Snape for who he was and forgave him.

I agree Harry did terrible and negative things too - everyone in canon did, but not to the extent or in the particularly deplorable manner in which I feel Snape did, which is how I feel Harry saw it (speaking of those on the good side of course.) If Harry was basing his judgment solely on a comparison between him and Snape, he would not have ultimately forgiven Snape, imo, because from Harry's point of view, he would never behaved in the manner or carry out the actions Snape did as listed in the first paragraph. Harry simply had a far greater amount of compassion overall. That is to say, on an act by act basis, Harry wouldn't get very far in his forgiveness toward Snape, because many of Snape's actions (behavior) were simply not comparable to anything in Harry's reality, imo.

I do agree that Harry's own actions served to assist him in reaching his ultimate level of maturity - but he didn't evaluate everyone in his life by those standards, imo, that would not only be unfair, but highly unrealistic because everyone is so different based on their backgrounds, environment, experience, character, etc.

My point about Harry's lack of understanding was not that he could never understand, but that it is more credible to suppose he did so over a period of time and as he grew more fully into an adult life, rather than (as many, myself included, had hoped for) in one knock-down, drag-out confrontation between the two characters while Harry is still a teen.

I agree. But I only disagree that he understood it using the reasoning you gave above. I think that would be highly idealistic as there is no comparison between Snape's behavior and Harry's except in a very superficial way (making Snape comparable to everyone in the series in the same exact light.) Snape was not like anyone else in the series, however, although similar in ways to many. But he had his own characteristic behavior, outlook, attitude and understanding which I feel Harry fully recognized. Coming to grips with it did not mean justifying everything Snape ever did and reaching the conclusion that the man merited no condemnation for anything at all. That does not make sense to me I am afraid.

I don't see why Harry would want to name his son after such a person, nor why his wife would agree if Harry explained the meaning of that name to her in such terms.

I agree. He most certainly did not give his son the middle name of Severus due to Snape's being a small man of the character type he was. It had nothing whatsoever to do with that, imo. The naming, imo, was to show honor for what remained after Harry forgave. Snape had attempted to honor his mum and thereby attempted to honor his father, like it or not (as both would want him protected). Based on Snape's character, I think Harry felt he'd done the best he was capable of - but the fact that he'd made the attempt on behalf of his parents was sufficient.

I find it quite telling that the dead among your "big men" all ended up providing names to Harry's children. (James, Sirius, Lily, Albus). To me, this is proof enough that Harry would place Severus in the same list. :)

Proof is that the person who made Harry make the determination (JKR) also called Snape a small man (among other negtaive attributes). So that was Harry's thinking too (as she said Harry knew all of this, including the fact that Snape loathed him unfairly to his death - but even if one doesn't accept that, the point is that Harry did see Snape for who he was, not a justified version, imo.) Fred and Moody were also big men, and dead men. But Harry didn't give his sons either of their names in honor. But neither of them had purportedly acted on behalf of honoring his parents either.

Harry wasn't naming his sons after "big men" - that was not my point at all. Harry named his sons/daughter for his parents, Albus and Sirius because he loved them. They showed him an incredible amount of love in too many ways to name. I cannot say the same for Snape in either direction - so there was more to it when it came to Snape, obviously, imo. Luna/Lupin whichever way one sees the other name, was also a beloved. That is the distinction. An honor purely for love and in the case of Snape, Harry was honoring for a different reason as I have indicated above, imo.

I actually cut Draco some slack here. He was in a state of complete shock, after having just seen Crabbe get burned to death.

I do as well, that is what I meant. :tu:. I was actually referring to the civil nod he gave in the epilogue, showing he was not miscontruing Harry's saving him as something else (i.e., for a nefarious motive).

There is no canon, IMO, to indicate that Harry ever forgave Voldemort. Voldemort died completely unrepentant. He never showed any remorse whatsoever for having murdered James and Lily, or for his other many crimes. To expect Harry to forgive this, particularly when Voldemort remained unrepentant, is utterly unrealistic, and I can't see anything in canon that indicates that Harry did so. And Voldemort's crimes against Harry and his family far exceed the wrongs committed by Snape, so I don't see any comparison there.

The same goes for Peter. There is no solid canon that Harry forgave Peter, save his rather casual comment to Dumbledore in the King's Cross chapter about Dumbledore guessing that Peter might have had some capacity for remorse. Harry and Ron tried to save Peter from being strangled by his own silver hand because they were decent people. I think it's a big stretch to infer from this that Harry actually forgave Peter. The canon for this is ambivalent at best. JMO. :)

I disagree, respectfully, because one of the most important lessons Harry learned, imo, was not to hold onto longstanding grudges against anyone. That included Voldemort. Instead, one recognizes their wrongs, condemns them for them and even recognizes a person like Voldemort was completely lost an unredeemed for all time. But there would be no gain at all and only a personal loss for Harry, if he kept a fuming grudge based in unforgiveness in his heart against anyone. So I feel Harry forgave them in his heart in order to free himself. Harry's capacity to forgive was phenomenal, but it paid off in gold, because it left him content as a human being. This is what I was attempting to explain to Zara. Harry forgives and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the person feels remorse or regret for their deeds done against him or whether they worked to try to undo their bad deeds - that certainly makes it easier to forgive, but it is immaterial to being able to be freed from the tortorus chains of an unforgiving heart. Otherwise he'd start chomping at the bit everytime he thought of Voldemort and imagined him killing his parents - his nightmares would never end (ditto for Peter, sans the nightmares.)

I disagree, respectfully, because one of the most important lessons Harry learned, imo, was not to hold onto longstanding grudges against anyone.

I can see how that applies to Snape, as we see Harry's forgiveness right there in canon.

That included Voldemort. Instead, one recognizes their wrongs, condemns them for them and even recognizes a person like Voldemort was completely lost an unredeemed for all time. But there would be no gain at all and only a personal loss for Harry, if he kept a fuming grudge based in unforgiveness in his heart against anyone. So I feel Harry forgave them in his heart in order to free himself.

I think that Harry was perfectly capable of maintaining fuming grudges. :) He never forgets what Umbridge did to him, scarring his hand quasi-permanently, as he forcefully reminds Scrimgeour.

That is not to deny that Harry has a great capacity for forgiveness, he certainly does. But he is not portrayed as a saint either. He does not forgive in every single case. Had he never found out the truth about Snape, he would have carried right on hating him. We often see Harry reacting with anger and hatred in the series: that is why he is a believable character. He loves greatly, and he can also hate greatly.

Harry's capacity to forgive was phenomenal, but it paid off in gold, because it left him content as a human being. This is what I was attempting to explain to Zara. Harry forgives and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the person feels remorse or regret for their deeds done against him or whether they worked to try to undo their bad deeds - that certainly makes it easier to forgive, but it is immaterial to being able to be freed from the tortorus chains of an unforgiving heart. Otherwise he'd start chomping at the bit everytime he thought of Voldemort and imagined him killing his parents - his nightmares would never end (ditto for Peter, sans the nightmares.)

But surely it was much easier for Harry to do all of this because he succeeded in killing Voldemort. :huh: Voldemort was out of Harry's life for good and Harry didn't have to be tormented by him any more. And he had, at last, avenged his parents' deaths.

And, in fact, Harry himself becomes the avenging angel, so to speak. He is the one who carries out the judgement on Voldemort and becomes the means by which Voldemort dies.

I agree that hatred is a totally corrosive and destructive thing, a terrible thing. But I do think it was probably easier for Harry to let go of any hatred he felt once Tom Riddle was dead. Justice had been served.

Nah, she hadn't. She only showed how compassionate and selfless Harry was, imo. It didn't show his capacity to forgive and single in on the good like Jesus might.

I think we have that too; when Harry takes Ron back as his friend; once in GOF and then in DH. Harry forgives quite a lot IMO. Ron, unlike Snape did not hand over any Prophecy, but he let down Harry at crucial times; in DH, had Hermione followed Ron when he asked her, and with her bag too (Phineas's photo was there); I think Harry would have lost the war.

Harry showed his capacity to forgive in both those incidents.

Well I can respect your view. I myself do not like a fairy tale view for the end of the series, so I look at it in a way that to me is more realistic. I mean if the series was of the sort where Albus grew up and named his children Harry Ron and Horace Draco, then so be it, but I didn't really see the series that way.

For Albus Severus to do that, Ron and Horace Draco should have touched him in a way that would want Al to place these two people on par with Harry IMO.

Well I guess that Sirius continues to be ignored from SWM forward, thankfully, not by Harry. :rotfl:.

Sirius was ignored in canon. JKR did not make it official LOL; his name like the Slytherins who came to fight is not there in the books. Only James, Lily, Albus and Severus. :D

Do you feel that Harry believed James didn't want Snape to promise to help protect him?

But Snape did help Harry IMO. How could have Harry won the war without Snape's help?

Do you think Harry felt his mother wished to see Snape treat him in a cruel and bullying manner?

I feel they really had no choice. Spies for the Light who are considered DEs by the Dark side cannot treat the BWL, who killed their Lord and Master when he was only 15 months old nicely and still be a spy. Even with the treatment Snape gave Harry, he was suspected by the DEs as being a traitor to their cause IMO.

I don't. I feel James and Lily were in tune with one another in the after world - both wanting the best for their son and Harry knew that, imo.

I don't know about James, but I would think Lily was being very ungrateful if she felt that Snape treated Harry badly, when she knew Snape was a spy and was doing the most dangerous job IMO. I would like to think that James too would be very grateful, but seeing Sirius's comments to Snape in POA and in OOTP (Occlumency), I am not so sure.

But Harry here on earth knew; knew that Snape was one of his greatest protectors, the others being his parents and Albus IMO. And Harry showed all of them, that he knew how much these four had cared for him, had loved him and had done so much for him. I think that was what JKR was trying to show us in the epilogue through Harry.

Yes Harry was angry with Dumbledore and feeling betrayed by both he and Snape, imo. And he called on those he knew loved him and would do and had done all in their power to show him their love. And that was my point.

That was because Harry had still not processed what Snape and Dumbledore had done for him. I remember writing this before; Harry at Dumbledore's funeral weeps for the last and the greatest of his protectors who had died leaving Harry all alone, but what Harry did not know was there was even at that time, another man who did at times even despicable jobs (killing Dumbledore, watching Charity die and perhaps killing someone here and casting the crucio on someone there) to keep his place so that he could help Harry win the war.

It was such people Harry after the war processed, understood and accepted, accepted as he did his parents IMO.

So that was honor toward his parents, something he decided to honor - he loved his parents very much. Harry knew Dumbledore had also treat him in a wrongful manner, but he forgave that also and just found the good in Dumbledore - and there was much more to find than in Snape, imo, which is likely why the child got the first name of the two collaborators.

If he wanted to honour his parents, surely Harry would not have named his son after Snape IMO. There is no connection between Snape and Harry's parents, in way that Harry would need to honour Snape for his parents. James hated Snape and Lily told him to get lost. And Harry knew that too. So if he was naming his kid after Snape I think it was for Snape alone.

If Harry believed Snape was a man who loathed Harry, who hated Harry and helped him without even liking him, I very doubt Harry would name his beloved son after this man. No one would want to name their kids after bullies and nasty individuals; it would be like naming a kid after Dung! But Harry did not see Snape as the bully or a nasty individual; he saw Snape as the bravest man he had ever known and his affection for Snape made him name his son after him, just as his affection towards Albus made him name his son after him too IMO.

One names their kids after other people because one is so inspired by these people that they would not mind their kids taking after these people IMO.

That is also what Harry tells Albus Severus. He says this boy was named after 2 people who were not only Headmasters, but one of those was the bravest man Harry ever saw. And if Albus would get into Snape's House in Hogwarts, it could only be a matter of pride; to be like the man he was named for IMO.

[QUOTE]On the contrary, I find it fits. His reaction here, to the near-death of Draco, matches almost perfectly with that of Sirius Black to the near-death of Severus back in their schooldays.

I agree with this comparison, but I'd like to point out that Sirius was never described as having this great, almost mystical ability to LOVE. And Harry was supposed to have this innate compassion and pure heart which he supposedly inherited from his mother. Was Harry as unique and different from Voldemort as Dumbledore suggested? :hmm: He was much too cold and calculating in that scene in the bathroom, IMO (after the shock wore off).

I think both boys are enabled in their non-examination of the seriousness of what they might have done by the fact that their almost-victims walk away taking no permanent harm.

Yes, I thought about it as well. And I dislike this about Harry. But he was not in the same situation as Sirius. By that moment ha had already risked his life in MoM and seen and experienced much more than teenage!Sirius had. You'd think Harry'd treat death more seriously after his beloved godfather's tragic demise (which was also partly his fault).

I agree with you that Harry did acquire some problematic tendencies in the previous books - shrugging off the case with Montague in OotP would be a good example. Still, the situation with Draco is completely different. This is something Harry directly participated in, he saw Draco in a pool of blood, he was covered in Draco's blood, he was damn lucky that Snape happened to be in the neighbourhood... What if Snape hadn't shown up?.. What if Draco had actually bled to death? I can't believe any of these thoughts never occured to Harry, not even for a minute. I'm not suggesting he should have been angsting about it for several chapters, but some reaction would have been nice. Some thoughts about possible consequences (which have nothing to do with Quidditch or Ginny) would have been welcome.

If anything is inconsistent with Harry's previous characterization, I would say it is not this scene, but Harry's rescue of Draco in the Room of Requirement in DH. I think this shows Harry's growth in understanding through DH.

I would agree, but I still find the overall characterization contradictory precisely because we are never shown what led Harry to this drastic change of heart when it came to Draco. JKR chose to never address the issue of Harry's questionable behaviour in HBP, she never had him just sit and analyze what he had done, she never had him come to any sort of understanding... In HBP he couldn't care less what he'd almost killed Draco. In DH he suddenly saved him. In HBP he's reckless and callous like young Sirius Black. In DH he's almost a saint. :shrug: Was it because Draco somehow proved his worth by failing to kill Dumbledore and refusing to identify Harry in the Manor?

In the Epilogue, in his comments to little Albus, we see the process is complete, IMO. Why are we not shown it? As a very perceptive poster (Pippin) at another forum (HP for Grownups) I visit wrote...how realistic would it be for teenaged Harry to display a total understanding of Snape, the character that spawned a thousand viewpoints and countless threads? He gets "the basics", let's say - their commonality of childhood experiences (with Riddle as well), Snape's impressive achievement as Dumbledore's spy, and Snape's motivation.

I completely agree about Snape, but, IMO, the situation with Draco in HBP was not just as complex. I'd say that the realization that you were this close to becoming a murderer would also fall under the category of "the basics" - something most sane people would understand if they were in Harry's situation. Which is why I find his massive lack of reaction (or remorse) so puzzling.

In the long run...well, I think Harry concluded that the world is not divided into good people and Death Eaters. Not in the sense that there are shades of gray in between - but in the sense that the distance between the two is not nearly so great and unbridgeable as Harry wanted to believe as a boy. Harry picked the right side in the war, but can he condemn someone, despite his later, sincere remorse and atonement, for prejudice? Attachment to the Dark Arts? Ingratitude to someone who saved his life? Trust in the wrong friends? Thoughtlessness?
Not if he is honest with himself, in my opinion.

:tu:

[QUOTE]The only reason (and it's pretty lame BTW :D) I can think of is that Harry had already decided Draco was a DE. The crucio Draco cast at Harry among other things (like Draco's conversation with Snape about the UV) convinced an obssessed Harry that Draco was indeed a DE.

Still, Draco's "No one can help me... He says he'll kill me" might have given Harry some clues. :lol: That may be everything wasn't what it appeared. That conclusion was really easy to come to. Harry's tendency to divide the world into black and white sometimes bordered on downright stupidity.

I think that Harry was perfectly capable of maintaining fuming grudges. :) He never forgets what Umbridge did to him, scarring his hand quasi-permanently, as he forcefully reminds Scrimgeour.

That is not to deny that Harry has a great capacity for forgiveness, he certainly does. But he is not portrayed as a saint either. He does not forgive in every single case. Had he never found out the truth about Snape, he would have carried right on hating him. We often see Harry reacting with anger and hatred in the series: that is why he is a believable character. He loves greatly, and he can also hate greatly.

He certainly was I agree - he hated Voldemort, Bella, Lucius, Draco, Crabbe, Goyle, Filch, Umbridge, the Minister, Snape, the Carrows, Kreacher, and more at times; spitting angry in fact. But the lesson JKR began teaching Harry in OOTP and HBP that one does not hold hateful grudges, despite there being reasons to hold others in dislike because it harms the individual doing the grudge holding. Lupin mentored Harry on not carrying grudges even if one had reasons to continue holding the person in dislike. Dumbledore carried on the lesson; he didn't hate Voldemort and he had every reason to do so. Harry kept seeing it as none of those people suffered the loss he had at Voldemort's hands (which was partially true). He also saw Voldemort as a pure evil being - which Mentor Sirius explained was the wrong way to look at it.

There was absolutely no point in Jo sharing these mentoring moments with us if the wrap up was that Harry was to remain hatefully holding grudges and unforgiving. Forgiveness does not mean you justify the person's actions or limit it to being given out only when the person who wronged you tried to make up for their misdeeds or apologized. Forgiveness is self-cleansing and allows one to empty their heart of hatred and resentment. I don't mean to say Harry never again felt those things in his life - he likely did - but not toward the dead because there was absolutely no point in it. To sit mulling or even thinking about Snape behaving in a bullying manner, Voldemort killing his parents, Peter betraying them, Bella killing Sirius, or any of the other myriad of things he could dwell on, would only be harmful to him.

JKR didn't only have Harry forgive Snape. She had him forgive Kreacher first, who had betrayed Sirius to his death and laughed about it. That didn't mean Harry suddenly loved Kreacher and saw all of his past wrongs as justified - nor did it mean Kreacher aplogized or came to see his acts as wrong (he may have, but there is no canon that he did.) It was all about Harry and his learning to forgive in order to let go of that burning resentment and anger he carried that culminated in hatred for these people. That is what he let go of through forgiveness. In my view, he did so for Voldemort and Peter as well, because if he did not, he would become embittered about it.

I would respectfully disagree that Harry was not portrayed as a saint in ways. To me he was. He sacrificed himself for the entire wizard world - that has saint written all over it. He forgave where others would never do so, that too has saint written all over it. We can forgive small wrongs, but Harry forgave catastrophic ones that would be considered life ruining. And he forgave without apologies and regret expressed by those he forgave. In that way he was quite saintly to me. However, I agree that his entire character was not portrayed as a saint. He would likely get angry and such in the future, but he did learn the lesson of letting go of longlasting grudges, imo. It renders his forgiveness of Snape meaningless if he did not, imo. I mean, what is the point in forgiving and then sitting around dwelling on Snape bullying the students? Snape never apologized or appeared to regret that, he seemed to have enjoyed it - like Kreacher with his spewing nasty comments at non-pure bloods at #12 G. But Harry isn't going to sit around thinking about those things or imo, he hasn't really forgiven in his heart. So it wasn't about the person having made everything right in Harry's eyes - that is too high a standard for anyone to live up to. It was all about Harry making things right for himself by letting go of his resentment and anger toward all of those who had wronged him, be it massive or in a small way.

But surely it was much easier for Harry to do all of this because he succeeded in killing Voldemort. :huh: Voldemort was out of Harry's life for good and Harry didn't have to be tormented by him any more. And he had, at last, avenged his parents' deaths.

I have repeatedly said that mitigating factors make things easier to forgive some than others (Snape's effort to undo his deed; Peter's moment of mercy; Dumbledore's grand apology and confession, Kreacher becoming a happy chef, etc.) But the fact that some would be harder (Voldemort, Bella, Draco) doesn't mean that Harry would not make the effort to do so. That is because the lessons that JKR was having him learn (discussed above) finally sunk in and were the foundation for his ability to forgive Snape, Kreacher, Voldemort, Bellas and others like them.

And, in fact, Harry himself becomes the avenging angel, so to speak. He is the one who carries out the judgement on Voldemort and becomes the means by which Voldemort dies.

Making it easier to forgive, but it would still be difficult as there was nothing else really to help mitigate Voldemort's actions.

I agree that hatred is a totally corrosive and destructive thing, a terrible thing. But I do think it was probably easier for Harry to let go of any hatred he felt once Tom Riddle was dead. Justice had been served.

Precisely. That is why he it would ultimately be easier to offer forgiveness and let go, imo, rather than if there was nothing whatsoever to help Harry feel any mitigation. Perhaps Bella would be a good example of someone for whom there was no mitigation - but for Harry to hold a life long grudge against her would just be stupid, imo. I feel he learned to let go to the extent where even in a most difficult case like Bella, he was able to forgive and let go (mind you one cannot let go without forgiveness, it is impossible, imo.) Otherwise, Harry would have been the most bitter adult alive - he was the most wronged individual in the series, imo.

I think we have that too; when Harry takes Ron back as his friend; once in GOF and then in DH. Harry forgives quite a lot IMO. Ron, unlike Snape did not hand over any Prophecy, but he let down Harry at crucial times; in DH, had Hermione followed Ron when he asked her, and with her bag too (Phineas's photo was there); I think Harry would have lost the war. Harry showed his capacity to forgive in both those incidents.

That is not comparable to forgiving someone who killed your parents (Voldemort) or who helped (Snape/Peter) or who killed your beloved godfather (Bella) or who cruelly mistreated you (Umbridge/Snape), imo. Forgiving friends happens all the time, everyday, to everyone. That didn't show him to have a great amount of capacity - everyone knew he loved Ron and Hermione and a squabble between them would not change that, imo.

But Snape did help Harry IMO. How could have Harry won the war without Snape's help?

Much easier, in my judgment.

If he wanted to honour his parents, surely Harry would not have named his son after Snape IMO. There is no connection between Snape and Harry's parents, in way that Harry would need to honour Snape for his parents.

None at all? Why was it that Snape promised to help protect Harry?

James hated Snape

If you are sticking to book canon (i.e., no James Sirius in the Epilogue), then you cannot make this claim; James never said anything of the sort in canon. So I would have to say the rest of that statement could not follow.

If Harry believed Snape was a man who loathed Harry, who hated Harry and helped him without even liking him, I very doubt Harry would name his beloved son after this man. No one would want to name their kids after bullies and nasty individuals; it would be like naming a kid after Dung! But Harry did not see Snape as the bully or a nasty individual; he saw Snape as the bravest man he had ever known and his affection for Snape made him name his son after him, just as his affection towards Albus made him name his son after him too IMO.

While you may believe that, JKR doesn't. She is the one who said Snape loathed Harry to his death and she is the one that had Harry and Ginny hand out middle names. So apparently she does feel that one can honor despite being hated by a person - where that person also attempted to honor one's parents (even if they only did a half-productive job of it). That was the twist she decided to add to the tale to make it unique. I haven't seen it before, so to me it was.

One names their kids after other people because one is so inspired by these people that they would not mind their kids taking after these people IMO.

I doubt Harry wants Albus to grow up and behave in a bullying and cruel manner with children and his peers; hold jealousy and dislike in his heart and take it out on the world and be embittered and vindictive. Nor do I feel he wishes that the kid hold grudges or unrequited love based on a fantasy throughout his life - so I would have to respectfully disagree.

That is also what Harry tells Albus Severus. He says this boy was named after 2 people who were not only Headmasters, but one of those was the bravest man Harry ever saw. And if Albus would get into Snape's House in Hogwarts, it could only be a matter of pride; to be like the man he was named for IMO.

He was referring to Dumbledore. ;)

To throw in my two cents about Harry not considering having nearly killed Draco...It's quite possible that Harry didn't want to come to any epiphany about Draco being sympathetic. He's pretty deep-set in his dislike of the Slytherins, Snape and Draco included, and it takes tons of information through the whole of DH for Harry to even unconsciously process the idea that Snape is a decent human being. Perhaps the fact that Draco walked away unscathed and Ginny was a distraction allowed Harry to escape from thinking about Draco and his own foolish wand waving.

Just a thought. :D

To throw in my two cents about Harry not considering having nearly killed Draco...It's quite possible that Harry didn't want to come to any epiphany about Draco being sympathetic. He's pretty deep-set in his dislike of the Slytherins, Snape and Draco included, and it takes tons of information through the whole of DH for Harry to even unconsciously process the idea that Snape is a decent human being. Perhaps the fact that Draco walked away unscathed and Ginny was a distraction allowed Harry to escape from thinking about Draco and his own foolish wand waving.

Just a thought. :D

Yes, it is very possible, but in this case I feel Harry's great compassion and ability to love are highly exaggerated. Because empathizing and sympathizing only with those people you like is not really that difficult. :shrug:

But actually, as I have already mentioned, Harry was feeling sorry for Snape in OoTP. What changed? :hmm:

Harry showed the same amount of sympathetic regret after Sectumsempra that he showed for Snape in OOTP - as written. If people interpreted his response to be greater, that is a reader's perception issue. But if you look back (which I did yesterday), there is simply no expression of sympathy except the one made to Sirius which was qualified at best "I never thought I'd feel sorry for Snape". In HBP, Harry laments what he did immediately afterward and that's it. He was feeling sorry for Draco too in that moment. Nonetheless, in neither case did he show overt sympathy; his responses were completely consistent, imo.

His reaction here, to the near-death of Draco, matches almost perfectly with that of Sirius Black to the near-death of Severus back in their schooldays.

Thanks for pointing that out I hadn't noticed it - I think it's a really interestin parallel :)

I still find the overall characterization contradictory precisely because we are never shown what led Harry to this drastic change of heart when it came to Draco. JKR chose to never address the issue of Harry's questionable behaviour in HBP, she never had him just sit and analyze what he had done, she never had him come to any sort of understanding...

Ironically that’s one of the main reasons why I find it in character! Throughout the series Harry shows a marked ability to assess, judge and/or analyse the actions of others (His father, Lupin, Dumbledore, Snape, Ron etc.) and an equally marked inability to do the same about himself. To me the fact that JKR does not address the issue of Harry’s behaviour is simply an extension of his PoV controlling the narrative. :)

I'd say that the realization that you were this close to becoming a murderer would also fall under the category of "the basics" - something most sane people would understand if they were in Harry's situation. Which is why I find his massive lack of reaction (or remorse) so puzzling.

I think that denial is a tactic Harry uses is such big very emotional situations. He chooses to use it when Sirius dies because he knows deep down that he has played a part in Sirius’s death but is more comfortable blaming someone else. As someone has already pointed out the fact that Draco walked away alive and (eventually) well made a big difference – this time he didn’t need to blame anyone so he could just sweep it under the carpet metaphorically speaking. It’s not an unusual reaction; far from it :), but it is disappointing.

He was referring to Dumbledore. ;)

Um, no: [paraphrase]: He was a Slytherin and probably the bravest man I have ever known.

I think Harry's capacity for love is more emphasized by Dumbledore because Dumbledore knows that Harry has to embrace this difference between him and Voldemort. It's like a parent repeating a valuable lesson to their child again and again until the kid is annoyed. :lol: It doesn't make the lesson any more important or true by the repetition, but it does serve to teach the child.

IMHO, Harry is quite ordinary in many ways-- and that helps the reader relate to him. It's the fact that he ends up doing extraordinary things that makes him seem amazing. But in truth, a lot of it is done through luck, good friends, and by simply trying to succeed. This doesn't diminish Harry's deeds, but instead humanizes them.

Um, no: [paraphrase]: He was a Slytherin and probably the bravest man I have ever known.

Hence the wink. :lol:. Good to see ya.

Yes, it is very possible, but in this case I feel Harry's great compassion and ability to love are highly exaggerated. Because empathizing and sympathizing only with those people you like is not really that difficult. :shrug:

But actually, as I have already mentioned, Harry was feeling sorry for Snape in OoTP. What changed? :hmm:

The way I see it is - Maybe, because in HBP Snape got the job he wanted and was still bullying Harry. But Harry knows DADA, and wasn't going to put up with it anymore. Harry could see that Snape's character wouldn't/couldn't change and he lost all compassion for his SWM episode. Then later, he kills Dumbledore right in front of Harry, setting up the mood of DH.

I know it would mitigate any good feeling I might have been considering, to have this nasty creature continue to act this way after he had seen my painful memories and knew I was good in DADA (my favorite subject and not having been negligent in studying), and still be bullying me any chance he got. (But that's just me.) Harry is much more compassionate than I am and more forgiving. Once someone has lost my trust, it will take a miracle to get it back. Thankfully, Harry is far better than me.

IMHO, Harry is quite ordinary in many ways-- and that helps the reader relate to him. It's the fact that he ends up doing extraordinary things that makes him seem amazing. But in truth, a lot of it is done through luck, good friends, and by simply trying to succeed. This doesn't diminish Harry's deeds, but instead humanizes them.

I would respectfully disagree. We didn't see anyone else at Harry's age defeat a Balisk, overcome the temptation of the mirror, whip out a mega patronus through love; depossess themselves of Voldemort the same way; show so much love for those around him, including magical creatures, that they were willing to fight and even die for him. That doesn't count his more 'wow' moments like defeating the dragon with his flying ability and overcoming the underwater death plunge. Harry was the most amazing magician in the series, imo, "luck and good friends" is Snape's derrogatory opinion and I wholly disagree with him. He lacked the compassion and wisdom to truly understand Harry's greatness. For all of Hermione's pulling rabbits out of a hat, it wasn't those kind of magic tricks that would be most material to Harry in the end, imo. JKR took pains and more pains to show the magical nature of love/compassion. Then had Dumbledore explain Harry had an abundance of it that was greater than anyone else had. Yet for some reason, this message seems to get lost in the shuffle of magic tricks...despite the huge moment in OOTP when Harry defeated Voldemort, without a wand, and against one of Voldemort's grandest magical charges against him to that moment - and Dumbledore was helpless to do a thing about it - as were his friends - and there was no 'luck' involved. (*without a wand* should be ringing numerous bells in people's heads by the end of DH, btw.)

But actually, as I have already mentioned, Harry was feeling sorry for Snape in OoTP. What changed? :hmm:

Sirius died. Harry played a part in his death and needed/wanted soemthing to aliviate his own guilt, so he turned to his favorite person to blame - Snape. I feel that the book is quite straight foward about it my self :)

Harry showed the same amount of sympathetic regret after Sectumsempra that he showed for Snape in OOTP - as written. If people interpreted his response to be greater, that is a reader's perception issue. But if you look back (which I did yesterday), there is simply no expression of sympathy except the one made to Sirius which was qualified at best "I never thought I'd feel sorry for Snape". In HBP, Harry laments what he did immediately afterward and that's it. He was feeling sorry for Draco too in that moment. Nonetheless, in neither case did he show overt sympathy; his responses were completely consistent, imo.

I completely disagree. Where is it shown on page that Harry felt sorry for Draco? Where is it shown that Harry fully understood that he had almost turned into a murderer? He was horrified for a couple of seconds, that's true; but was there remorse? No. First thoughts that come into Harry's mind immediately after the incident have nothing to do with Draco. Instead he starts thinking about quite trivial things - Quidditch, his marks in Potions, his book. One can assume that it was some sort of a defence mechanism - Harry was still too shocked to process what had just happened, and he'd need some time for the horror of the situation to fully register in his head. But this is not the case. Harry still refuses to take the situation seriously and is only upset because he's lost his chances to play in a Quidditch match, dissapointed his Housemates and is nagged by Hermione.

The only hint of remorse tha we get on page is this: "'But he healed all right, didn't he? Back on his feet in no time.' 'Yeah,' said Harry; this was perfecly true, although his conscience squirmed slightly all the same. 'Thanks to Snape.' (HBP, The Seer Overheard). " In my opinion, this weak reaction is not proportionate to what had happened. Harry's total lack of introspection and refusal to be critical of his own actions are inexplicable and unforgivable. Why? Because the consequences of Harry's rash act could have been so much more severe -for both Draco and Harry. And Harry was old enough to undestand this. His unbelievable luck saved him one more time, but yet again he refused to learn a lesson from it.

Also, Harry felt very resentful towards Snape for assigning him a detention during an important Quidditch match. I'd really like to know what punishment Harry himself would consider appropriate in this case. Did he even think he deserved a punishment?

Sirius died. Harry played a part in his death and needed/wanted soemthing to aliviate his own guilt, so he turned to his favorite person to blame - Snape. I feel that the book is quite straight foward about it my self :)

This is not what I meant. I meant that Harry was capable of understanding and empathizing with his enemy before. Why wasn't this so with Draco in HBP?

That is not comparable to forgiving someone who killed your parents (Voldemort) or who helped (Snape/Peter) or who killed your beloved godfather (Bella) or who cruelly mistreated you (Umbridge/Snape), imo. Forgiving friends happens all the time, everyday, to everyone. That didn't show him to have a great amount of capacity - everyone knew he loved Ron and Hermione and a squabble between them would not change that, imo.

I think Harry found himself able to understand and forgive Snape, because he saw what Snape did to atone for his acts as a DE. Just like he felt like comforting Dumbledore at KC because Harry understood how much Dumbledore had strived to make amends, I think Harry also understood the same from Snape.

Much easier, in my judgment.

How?

None at all? Why was it that Snape promised to help protect Harry?

For Lily. But Lily had nothing to do with it; it was Snape's love for Lily which made him turn to the Light; Lily did not talk with him, persuade him and helped him turn to the Light. That is what I mean.

From Lily's and James's side there was nothing. Snape turned because of some factor; in this case it happened to be Lily IMO.

If you are sticking to book canon (i.e., no James Sirius in the Epilogue), then you cannot make this claim; James never said anything of the sort in canon. So I would have to say the rest of that statement could not follow.

Agreed. :) I drew my conclusions based on James's Statements in the SWM to Lily. That did not sound friendly and neither do their interactions that we saw make me feel James looked at snape favourably. :)

While you may believe that, JKR doesn't. She is the one who said Snape loathed Harry to his death and she is the one that had Harry and Ginny hand out middle names.

Yes; the main difference being one was in the books and another her own opinion about what she thought Snape's thoughts were about Harry IMO. If she wanted that to be shown in the books, she should have not said Albus Severus. :D

I doubt Harry wants Albus to grow up and behave in a bullying and cruel manner with children and his peers; hold jealousy and dislike in his heart and take it out on the world and be embittered and vindictive. Nor do I feel he wishes that the kid hold grudges or unrequited love based on a fantasy throughout his life - so I would have to respectfully disagree

I agree; that was why I feel that had he did not think so about Snape, if he had he would not have chosen that name for his son.

He was referring to Dumbledore. ;)

LOL! As a Slytherin?

posted bt Raelis
But actually, as I have already mentioned, Harry was feeling sorry for Snape in OoTP. What changed?

I think it changed when Sirius died.

Oh! Kittling has already answered. I agree with her. :)

This is not what I meant. I meant that Harry was capable of understanding and empathizing with his enemy before. Why wasn't this so with Draco in HBP?

Sorry I misunderstood you :) - I think though that the two situations are different in that in OotP Harry witnessed someone else doing something he felt was wrong & he's never had a problem passing judgment on others imo. In HBP he does something terrible (although it was a mistake), I think it is this diferance that is the key - lack of introspection and refusal to be critical of his own actions are a constant theme in the series imo :)

[QUOTE]Throughout the series Harry shows a marked ability to assess, judge and/or analyse the actions of others (His father, Lupin, Dumbledore, Snape, Ron etc.) and an equally marked inability to do the same about himself.

:tu::tu::tu: Exactly!

I think that denial is a tactic Harry uses is such big very emotional situations. He chooses to use it when Sirius dies because he knows deep down that he has played a part in Sirius’s death but is more comfortable blaming someone else. As someone has already pointed out the fact that Draco walked away alive and (eventually) well made a big difference – this time he didn’t need to blame anyone so he could just sweep it under the carpet metaphorically speaking. It’s not an unusual reaction; far from it :), but it is disappointing.

It may be a normal reaction for some people, but Harry is constantly praised for his unique compassion.

I think Harry's capacity for love is more emphasized by Dumbledore because Dumbledore knows that Harry has to embrace this difference between him and Voldemort. It's like a parent repeating a valuable lesson to their child again and again until the kid is annoyed. :lol: It doesn't make the lesson any more important or true by the repetition, but it does serve to teach the child.

Still, in light of the situation with Draco Dumbledore's waxing poetic about Harry's pure soul and generous heart rather falls flat, IMO.

By the way, I want to point out that I'm referring to Harry's characterization in HBP and HBP only. He did some admirable things in DH, but that won't stop me from trying to analyze and understand his behaviour and motivations prior to that.

It may be a normal reaction for some people, but Harry is constantly praised for his unique compassion.

I suppose I question whether his compassion is unique compared to others or unique in comparison to Voldemort - part of who's soul was attatched to his.

Personally I go for the later - Harry seems very ordinary to me most of the time; which is in itself extrodanary given the quasi-horucruxness he has to endure. jmo :)

I completely disagree. Where is it shown on page that Harry felt sorry for Draco? Where is it shown that Harry fully understood that he had almost turned into a murderer? He was horrified for a couple of seconds, that's true; but was there remorse? No. First thoughts that come into Harry's mind immediately after the incident have nothing to do with Draco. Instead he starts thinking about quite trivial things - Quidditch, his marks in Potions, his book. One can assume that it was some sort of a defence mechanism - Harry was still too shocked to process what had just happened, and he'd need some time for the horror of the situation to fully register in his head. But this is not the case. Harry still refuses to take the situation seriously and is only upset because he's lost his chances to play in a Quidditch match, dissapointed his Housemates and is nagged by Hermione.

The only hint of remorse tha we get on page is this: "'But he healed all right, didn't he? Back on his feet in no time.' 'Yeah,' said Harry; this was perfecly true, although his conscience squirmed slightly all the same. 'Thanks to Snape.' (HBP, The Seer Overheard). " In my opinion, this weak reaction is not proportionate to what had happened. Harry's total lack of introspection and refusal to be critical of his own actions are inexplicable and unforgivable. Why? Because the consequences of Harry's rash act could have been so much more severe -for both Draco and Harry. And Harry was old enough to undestand this. His unbelievable luck saved him one more time, but yet again he refused to learn a lesson from it.

Also, Harry felt very resentful towards Snape for assigning him a detention during an important Quidditch match. I'd really like to know what punishment Harry himself would consider appropriate in this case. Did he even think he deserved a punishment?

I don't disagree with you. My point was not that Harry was overly sympathetic toward Draco, but that he was equally stingy with regard to his sympathy for Snape in OOTP.

OOTP: right after SWM:

"He knew how it felt to be humiliated in the middle of a circle of onlookers, knew exactly how Snape had felt as her father had taunted him"

The next time the word "Snape" appears on page 9 pages later:

"Whoops," [Snape] said softly, another zero, then, Potter."

Harry was too incensed to speak....

And then 7 pages later:

"I just never thought I'd feel sorry for Snape." Harry said heavily.

And that's it.

Flash forward to HBP after Sectumsempra:

"No-" gasped Harry. Harry did not know what he was saying: he fell to his kees beside Malfoy, who was shaking uncontrollably in a pool of his own blood."

[...]

"Harry was watching, horrified by what he had done, barely aware that he too was soaked with blood and water."

[...]

"I didn't mean it to happen" said Harry..."I didn't know what that spell did."

[...]

"he felt stunned, it was as though a beloved pet had turned suddenly savage. What had the Prince been thinking to copy such a spell into his book?"

[...]

"...Harry to stare into the cracked mirror, feeling sicker, he was sure, than Ron had ever felt in his life."

[...]

"I'm not defending what I did!...I wish I hadn't done it, and not just because I've got about a dozen detentions. You know I wouldn't have used a spell like that, not even on Malfoy..."

And that's more or less it.

I fail to see that Harry showed greater sympathy in the first scene than the second toward either of the Slytherins. In the second case, much of it was shown through remorse naturally because he'd actually been the one who'd done the deed rather than his beloved father. But his feelings were very commisserate in both cases, imo. Perhaps you have other canon I was unable to find? You added that Harry's worries went to other matters rather than to Draco - but that is exactly what happened in OOTP. Harry's worries where overwhelmingly centered on his father and what kind of boy he was, not on sympathy for Snape.

I suppose I question whether his compassion is unique compared to others or unique in comparison to Voldemort - part of who's soul was attatched to his.

Personally I go for the later - Harry seems very ordinary to me most of the time; which is in itself extrodanary given the quasi-horucruxness he has to endure. jmo :)

:tu::lol: Given that Voldemort knows nothing of compassion whatsoever, it really is not a compliment to Harry! I mean, Filch would probably be an epitome of compassion compared to Voldemort!

Filch would probably be an epitome of compassion compared to Voldemort!

:rotfl: I hadn't thought of it quite like that :blush: but yes I guess that is what I said :whistle:

This is not what I meant. I meant that Harry was capable of understanding and empathizing with his enemy before. Why wasn't this so with Draco in HBP?

I answered the same as kittling. :)

I think Harry empathised with Snape in the SWM, because of various factors; the main reason I think was for the first time Harry saw Snape in a different light; he saw Snape in a way that he could identify with and that was the most important feeling IMO. Sirius and James looked to be having fun at Snape's expense, much like Dudley did to Harry IMO. That was the comparison Harry made and suddenly it looked as if Harry and Snape were on one side with James and Sirius on the other. Snape was Harry and James, Dudley IMO.

With Draco, Harry did not identify or symphatise with his problems; because he did not see Draco humiliated or attacked. He saw Draco as a DE only who was in despair and then turn around in rage to attack him with the crucio.

The main difference between Harry's views of Snape and Draco I think is, with Snape, Harry identified with Snape because of the way he was treated; with Draco that was not there, because Harry was intent on catching him and exposing him as a DE IMO.

This is not what I meant. I meant that Harry was capable of understanding and empathizing with his enemy before. Why wasn't this so with Draco in HBP?

Could it possibly be the difference in perspective that Harry was viewing both of these situations from. In SWM, he is a passive observer, which possibly made it easier for him to empathise with Snape. Whilst in the Sectumsempra incident he was an active participant. I think it is often much easier to be critical of a situation that you are not involved in than one you are. Not, that I am excusing Harry's attitude in the Sectumsempra incident in anyway, just trying to understand it.

Going on and on with this comparison is unfair to Harry, imo. I listed on a page back the evidence from the book showing that Harry was not more sympathetic in OOTP. If it is believed that he was, I would appreciate some canon support for the contention. There are only two sentences expressing anything close to sympathy for Snape and more for Draco - so I fail to see that this contention is even true and it is an unwarranted hit on Harry's character, imo.

For me it's not the lines the character uses to express anything; it's the content in the even one line that would matter more. I see Harry's naming Albus Severus, which is not many lines when one sees the hate Harry had for Snape through all the 7 books which would run to chapters possibily; but for me that name Albus Severus said Harry had accepted Snape along with James, Lily and Albus; speaking about his bravery told me how highly he regarded Snape's work; higher than the many brave people Harry had known.

I think in the same way; in OOTP Harry may not have had many lines saying good things about Snape; but the few lines and his shock I think expressed a lot more for Snape than his actual words IMO.

I fail to see that Harry showed greater sympathy in the first scene than the second toward either of the Slytherins. In the second case, much of it was shown through remorse naturally because he'd actually been the one who'd done the deed rather than his beloved father. But his feelings were very commisserate in both cases, imo. Perhaps you have other canon I was unable to find?

Well, given that we read the same books, it is unlikely I'll be ever able to provide the canon examples that you have never seen. :) I can only say that I read the scene in question in a completely different way.

It is spelled out right in the text that Harry feels sorry for Snape and empathizes with him. You've just provided examples for that. He also contemplates the situation and analyzes his feelings about it for a long time.

There's no such thing when it comes to Draco. Harry is horrified, yes. He feels sick, yes. It's a perfectly normal reaction. Once the shock wears off, however, nothing suggests that Harry feels anything remotely close to regret. The "I didn't know what the spell did" quote is not a confirmation of Harry's remorse - it's a natural striving to justify himself. If Harry feels guilty, why does he argue with Snape about the punishment? If Harry is still horrified, how can he think about Quidditch at this moment?

But I think I should cut Harry some slack in this scene - he's still shocked and doesn't quite understand what has just happened. Usually the full realization hits a bit later, after a person has had some time to calm down and process things in his or her head. Nothing of the sort happens to Harry. Your next quote - "he felt stunned, it was as though a beloved pet had turned suddenly savage. What had the Prince been thinking to copy such a spell into his book?" is followed up by Harry's thinking what Snape would tell Slughorn, what Slughorn would say about Harry's Potions success, etc. Again, the trivial things which have nothing to do with remorse or real understanding of what could have occured. (Actually, this quote can be interpreted as Harry being angry with the Price for landing him into trouble.)

In fact, Harry ends the evening feeling unbelievably cheerful. I understand that he was happy that Ginny supported him, but honestly, if he really felt that horrible, wouldn't it have irked him just a little to hear from her that Sectumsempra was OK, that Draco got what he deserved? That Harry was justified in having nearly disemboweled Draco?

"I'm not defending what I did!...I wish I hadn't done it, and not just because I've got about a dozen detentions. You know I wouldn't have used a spell like that, not even on Malfoy..." I consider these merely empty words spoken to shut Hermione up, because we are not shown that Harry actually believes in what he says. Actually, we are shown quite the opposite. He's trying to defend himself and his use of the book, he feels bad because he had let down his Housemates and because Ginny might go out with Dean again... IMO, he really needed to think about his priorities. His recklessness and stupidity nearly had fatal consequences for both Draco and him, but he chooses not to give it much thought... In fact, he doesn't think about it at all. It seems it wasn't the situation itself that made an impression, it were the unpleasant results (detentions, his Housemates' dissapointment) that Harry really cared about.

Does he accept his punishment as something he really deserved? Doesn't seem so. Does he understand that he got off cheap? If he does, the book doesn't tell.

So all those quotes you've kindly provided don't work for me because of the context in which these quotes are given in the books.

Could it possibly be the difference in perspective that Harry was viewing both of these situations from. In SWM, he is a passive observer, which possibly made it easier for him to empathise with Snape. Whilst in the Sectumsempra incident he was an active participant. I think it is often much easier to be critical of a situation that you are not involved in than one you are. Not, that I am excusing Harry's attitude in the Sectumsempra incident in anyway, just trying to understand it.

It may be true, but why didn't Harry think about himself then? He literally imbrued his hands with blood, he didn't turn into a murderer (something like Voldemort) only due to sheer dumb luck. It must have made a bit of impression on him.

Well, given that we read the same books, it is unlikely I'll be ever able to provide the canon examples that you have never seen. I can only say that I read the scene in question in a completely different way.

It is spelled out right in the text that Harry feels sorry for Snape and empathizes with him. You've just provided examples for that. He also contemplates the situation and analyzes his feelings about it for a long time.

But that is my point. Harry doesn't contemplate the situation and analyze his feelings about any sympathy for Snape for a long time. What he analyzes and contemplates is who his dad was at the time and if he remained the same person. That is all he thought about, nothing to do with any sympathy for Snape at all. And if you are reading sympathy into his thoughts about his father, then why don't you read sympathy into his thoughts about himself concerning the Sectumsempra matter? That is the point I am making. In addition, Harry didn't do anything to Snape in SWM - his father did. It was Harry that did Sectumsempra on Draco, so he had to feel personal remorse as well as sympathy. There is no remorse in SWM.


There's no such thing when it comes to Draco. Harry is horrified, yes. He feels sick, yes. It's a perfectly normal reaction. Once the shock wears off, however, nothing suggests that Harry feels anything remotely close to regret. The "I didn't know what the spell did" quote is not a confirmation of Harry's remorse - it's a natural striving to justify himself. If Harry feels guilty, why does he argue with Snape about the punishment? If Harry is still horrified, how can he think about Quidditch at this moment?

But you are trying to convince me of the wrong thing. I agree with you. :lol:. I don't think he showed much sympathy for Draco and his remorse was fleeting - just after he did it. Then he went on to think about himself and the problems he'd have as a result of the situation. His last line made it clear that he knew he'd been wrong and regreted it, but there was no overwhelming sympathy shown for Draco except for immediately following it when the guy was on the ground bleeding to death.

But I think I should cut Harry some slack in this scene - he's still shocked and doesn't quite understand what has just happened. Usually the full realization hits a bit later, after a person has had some time to calm down and process things in his or her head. Nothing of the sort happens to Harry. Your next quote - "he felt stunned, it was as though a beloved pet had turned suddenly savage. What had the Prince been thinking to copy such a spell into his book?" is followed up by Harry's thinking what Snape would tell Slughorn, what Slughorn would say about Harry's Potions success, etc. Again, the trivial things which have nothing to do with remorse or real understanding of what could have occured. (Actually, this quote can be interpreted as Harry being angry with the Price for landing him into trouble.)

In fact, Harry ends the evening feeling unbelievably cheerful. I understand that he was happy that Ginny supported him, but honestly, if he really felt that horrible, wouldn't it have irked him just a little to hear from her that Sectumsempra was OK, that Draco got what he deserved? That Harry was justified in having nearly disemboweled Draco?

"I'm not defending what I did!...I wish I hadn't done it, and not just because I've got about a dozen detentions. You know I wouldn't have used a spell like that, not even on Malfoy..." I consider these merely empty words spoken to shut Hermione up, because we are not shown that Harry actually believes in what he says. Actually, we are shown quite the opposite. He's trying to defend himself and his use of the book, he feels bad because he had let down his Housemates and because Ginny might go out with Dean again... IMO, he really needed to think about his priorities. His recklessness and stupidity nearly had fatal consequences for both Draco and him, but he chooses not to give it much thought... In fact, he doesn't think about it at all. It seems it wasn't the situation itself that made an impression, it were the unpleasant results (detentions, his Housemates' dissapointment) that Harry really cared about.

Does he accept his punishment as something he really deserved? Doesn't seem so. Does he understand that he got off cheap? If he does, the book doesn't tell.

So all those quotes you've kindly provided don't work for me because of the context in which these quotes are given in the books.

I agree.

OK, but why didn't Harry think about himself then? He literally imbrued his hands with blood, he didn't turn into a murderer (something like Voldemort) only due to sheer dumb luck. It must have made a bit of impression on him.

I agree. I think he might have done. It would be expected. But he didn't, he simply was not the type to display overt sympathy.

Note I have agreed with all you said, which should indicate to you that what we are discussing was not the issue I raised. My point was that in SWM, there was no more evidence that Harry was showing sympathy than what we saw here. If you interpret those 2 lines in OOTP:



"He knew how it felt to be humiliated in the middle of a circle of onlookers, knew exactly how Snape had felt as her father had taunted him"

and

"I just never thought I'd feel sorry for Snape." Harry said heavily.

to be packed full of much more meaning, then I respect your view. But I don't see how those two lines show Harry feeling more empathy and sympathy for Snape than he did for Draco. His action of falling to his knees over the bloody boy spoke to his sympathy as did his very remark that he would never want to do anything like that to Draco. In fact, in the ROR in DH, Harry commented that he "never wanted any of this to happen" [to Draco and friends]. So it wasn't like he felt no sympathy for his enemy - he felt as much as he'd felt for Snape (who he considered his enemy too.)

My only point is that you originally asked why Harry had changed and I contend that he did not change at all. He reacted similarly in both situations, showing minimal sympathy and his mind overwhelmingly on something else having nothing to do with sympathy at all.

In OOTP, as I pointed out, Harry's very next thought after the night of SWM toward Snape was that he was "so incensed he could not speak" with him for breaking his flask. So his sympathy clearly did not extend to giving Snape any quarter at all in regard to how Snape might feel in the wake of his viewing the sensitive memory. That is the only point I am making. I agree with you on how Harry responded to his Draco fiasco.

Harry simply was not the type to ever show a grand display of sympathy - even later on in DH. He walked in circles around a crying Hermione and said not a word. He watched Ginny break down in tears (the whole family actually) over Fred and noted Lupin/Tonks and moved off to dwell in his misery alone, offering no comfort and asking for none. When Sirius died, he didn't want sympathy then either and he simply got angry - he didn't run off to a quiet corner and cry. When Hermione was being tortured and Ron was in agony, Harry offered not a shred of sympathy, he was all business and only a small line about his heart feeling heavy or something was tossed in when she was wailing. When Hermione ran off crying over Ron, Harry followed her and if I remember correctly, he just stared at her :lol:, he offered no hug or overt sympathy.

That is Harry's character, he does not get overly sympathetic, ever. So in OOTP, he was simply not feeling all of the empathy and sympathy you indicate, imo, he was being "Harry" which is noting and feeling sympathy, fleetingly, and moving on to other matters of concern to him. That is simply who he was portrayed to be, imo. All the agonizing was over James - pages of that - but just two lines where he actually considered Snape. Point in fact, he surely felt sympathy for his mother being called a filthy Mudblood and humiliated in front of that large crowd. However, he never mentioned that at all. It was a fleeting feeling like all of the other sympathy he may have felt (when his father's face was cut or when the boys were talking loud about werewolves and Lupin became anxious.) Harry is stingy on sympathy in his POV and I don't think it is fair to read more into his feelings in one section because perhaps you feel more sympathy - when he expresses similar amounts via his POV and words in other sections of the series. If those two lines mean Harry was feeling tons of sympathy in OOTP, then I see no reason whatsoever that any two lines after Sectumsempra cannot be interpreted in the exact same way. However, I simply feel he was just not an overly sympathetic kind of guy.

Harry simply was not the type to ever show a grand display of sympathy - even later on in DH. He walked in circles around a crying Hermione and said not a word. He watched Ginny break down in tears (the whole family actually) over Fred and noted Lupin/Tonks and moved off to dwell in his misery alone, offering no comfort and asking for none. When Sirius died, he didn't want sympathy then either and he simply got angry - he didn't run off to a quiet corner and cry. When Hermione was being tortured and Ron was in agony, Harry offered not a shred of sympathy, he was all business and only a small line about his heart feeling heavy or something was tossed in when she was wailing. When Hermione ran off crying over Ron, Harry followed her and if I remember correctly, he just stared at her :lol:, he offered no hug or overt sympathy.

That is Harry's character, he does not get overly sympathetic, ever. So in OOTP, he was simply not feeling all of the empathy and sympathy you indicate, imo, he was being "Harry" which is noting and feeling sympathy, fleetingly, and moving on to other matters of concern to him. That is simply who he was portrayed to be, imo. All the agonizing was over James - pages of that - but just two lines where he actually considered Snape. Point in fact, he surely felt sympathy for his mother being called a filthy Mudblood and humiliated in front of that large crowd. However, he never mentioned that at all. It was a fleeting feeling like all of the other sympathy he may have felt (when his father's face was cut or when the boys were talking loud about werewolves and Lupin became anxious.) Harry is stingy on sympathy in his POV and I don't think it is fair to read more into his feelings in one section because perhaps you feel more sympathy - when he expresses similar amounts via his POV and words in other sections of the series. If those two lines mean Harry was feeling tons of sympathy in OOTP, then I see no reason whatsoever that any two lines after Sectumsempra cannot be interpreted in the exact same way. However, I simply feel he was just not an overly sympathetic kind of guy.

This is the other side of Harry, then, isn't it, the side of him which is far from saintly. :) Indeed, all of this paints him as unpleasantly self-absorbed and emotionally detached. :shrug:

To make it clear, I don't think that is the sum total of Harry. Please remember that Harry is my favourite character, bar Severus. :lol: I think all of the above is more indicative of him being emotionally stunted in some way.

His reflection that one of the many good things about Ginny is that she is "rarely weepy" always strikes me as significant: Harry is, frankly, rubbish at handling women's feelings. :) (I think he is crashingly insensitive to Hermione in DH, actually.)

Which is why I am sceptical about claims about Harry's saintliness. That he is astoundingly brave is beyond question. That he is prepared to make a deeply heroic act, in order to save the wizarding world, is also beyond question.

However, JKR does also portray Harry as a very ordinary, and very flawed, hero.

Which is precisely why I like him.

To throw in my two cents about Harry not considering having nearly killed Draco...It's quite possible that Harry didn't want to come to any epiphany about Draco being sympathetic. He's pretty deep-set in his dislike of the Slytherins, Snape and Draco included,

I agree, this is in fact one of the reasons I brought up the parallel of Sirius, who had a similar deep-set dislike of Snape (and, I would surmise based on the train scene in "The Prince's Tale" and his comments about his own family, of Slytherins more generally as well.)

Yes, it is very possible, but in this case I feel Harry's great compassion and ability to love are highly exaggerated. Because empathizing and sympathizing only with those people you like is not really that difficult. :shrug:

But if the discussion is about consistent characterization...this IS how Harry was portrayed through six books, more or less. We have a couple of glimmers of him talking a wider view in his short-lived identification with Snape in OotP (though I think what Harry most got worked up about was distress at his father's hanged image, rather than lot sof sympathy for Snape, his "enemy") and his beginnings of pity for Draco at the end of HBP. Whether Albus sensed the possibility, or as Ignisia suggests, fostered the idea, this idea of Harry the compassionate and ober-loving in my opinion did not come to full fruition until the final chapter of the book.

I do think, though, that you are taking a somewhat black/white approach to Harry and "love". While the fact that Harry mostly limits his empathy, sympathy, and love-motivated actions to those he loves throughout the first six books, I don't agree this makes him run-of-the-mill. From the very first book in which we meet him, Harry is exceptional in what he will do for the people he loves. He gets into huge trouble helping Hagrid out with Norbert(a) and in the end of the book resolves to go up against a dangerous Dark Wizard. That his motivation stems from love and sympathy for his friends is run-of-the-mill, I would agree, but the extent to which he is willing to act on that motivation is remarkable. This continues to be the case throughout the books.

Ironically that’s one of the main reasons why I find it in character! Throughout the series Harry shows a marked ability to assess, judge and/or analyse the actions of others (His father, Lupin, Dumbledore, Snape, Ron etc.) and an equally marked inability to do the same about himself.

Yes, Harry is simply not an introspective person. If he has grown up and changed, we will only ever discover that by looking at what he does. In my opinion, his actions throughout DH do allow us to trace a learning process, the final culmination of which (sans any angtsy thoughts) is his remarks in the Epilogue.

It’s not an unusual reaction; far from it :), but it is disappointing.

Not casting any aspersions on any real people here other than myself...but surely this disappointing reaction is not something none of us here can recognize in ourselves? The fantasy setting and hugely dramatic circumstances seem to call for a different reaction, but I don't think that's really fair to Harry/the other characters. I have no doubt I would react with all the guilt and angst anyone could wish for if I carelessly almost killed someone while doing something illegal (though the odds of this are vanishingly small), but I find the reaction quite believable in a "real-life" setting and situation of less drama. I'm sure I have, and will again, fail to take responsibility for smaller ways in which I may have/may again, hurt other people in little ways. Does the fact that Harry has such a colorful life and more scope for violence and mistakes really make him a worse person? It's not how I see it, anyway.

(I would say the same about all the other characters, as well - Snape hanging out with future Death Eaters I find equally understandable for the same reason. They were also just the kids in his dorm, for example.)

It was Harry that did Sectumsempra on Draco, so he had to feel personal remorse as well as sympathy. There is no remorse in SWM.

There's no remorse, but there's shame for his father and Sirius. It's very close, IMO.

But you are trying to convince me of the wrong thing. I agree with you. :lol:. I don't think he showed much sympathy for Draco and his remorse was fleeting - just after he did it. Then he went on to think about himself and the problems he'd have as a result of the situation. His last line made it clear that he knew he'd been wrong and regreted it, but there was no overwhelming sympathy shown for Draco except for immediately following it when the guy was on the ground bleeding to death.

Then what exactly are we arguing about? :lol: (Except that I disagree strongly that the examples you gave indicate sympathy or genuine remorse on Harry's part - I've already explained why I interpret them in a different way. This just isn't the way remorse works, IMO.)

If you interpret those 2 lines in OOTP to be packed full of much more meaning, then I respect your view. But I don't see how those two lines show Harry feeling more empathy and sympathy for Snape than he did for Draco.

But there's no need for me to seek any additional meaning in these lines. he first line clearly indicates that Harry knew what it was like to be in Snape's shoes - that is empathy. The second line - Harry himself says that he felt sorry for Snape.

That is Harry's character, he does not get overly sympathetic, ever.

Yeah, well. I agree with you. That line about Harry's conscience's little squirm still galls me, though. If I'm not mistaken, his conscience positively ached in the previous chapter when he wanted to ask out Ron’s sister. :lol:

[QUOTE]But if the discussion is about consistent characterization...this IS how Harry was portrayed through six books, more or less. We have a couple of glimmers of him talking a wider view in his short-lived identification with Snape in OotP (though I think what Harry most got worked up about was distress at his father's hanged image, rather than lot sof sympathy for Snape, his "enemy") and his beginnings of pity for Draco at the end of HBP.

I saw his characterization as incosistent because I was absolutely sure Harry's sympathy for Snape (and yes, he did feel sympathy, he said so himself, short-lived that it was) marked the beginning of his growth and maturity. I was wrong. :lol: Still, I have to wonder why JKR even included this episode in OotP. I thought the point was to remove those black/white glasses Harry was wearing and give him some food for thought, have him grow up a little. And I thought Harry's empathy for Snape was extremelty important in this regard. If it didn't actually matter, and Harry at the end of HBP was exactly the same person he had been at the end of OotP (minus the tantrums), then what was the point?

I do think, though, that you are taking a somewhat black/white approach to Harry and "love". While the fact that Harry mostly limits his empathy, sympathy, and love-motivated actions to those he loves throughout the first six books, I don't agree this makes him run-of-the-mill. From the very first book in which we meet him, Harry is exceptional in what he will do for the people he loves.

I disagree that it makes him exceptional. We have Ron, Hermione, Sirius, Snape and many other characters which went to great lengths for the sake of the people they cared for and were every bit as willing to sacrifice their lives for these people. Actually, Snape sacrificed his whole life for a mere memory of the person he loved. This is exceptional. Sirius was living off rats to be able to render some support to Harry. This is also exceptional. Ron and Hermione would give their lives for their friend without a moment's hesitation, so Harry is hardly unique in this.

I thought it was the ability to extend his compassion to other people, maybe even those he did not like personally, that made him unique. Obviously I was wrong again. :argh: :lol:

So what exactly is it that makes Harry's compassion and love so much different from exactly the same feelings of others?

This is the other side of Harry, then, isn't it, the side of him which is far from saintly. :) Indeed, all of this paints him as unpleasantly self-absorbed and emotionally detached. :shrug: To make it clear, I don't think that is the sum total of Harry. Please remember that Harry is my favourite character, bar Severus. :lol: I think all of the above is more indicative of him being emotionally stunted in some way. His reflection that one of the many good things about Ginny is that she is "rarely weepy" always strikes me as significant: Harry is, frankly, rubbish at handling women's feelings. :) (I think he is crashingly insensitive to Hermione in DH, actually.) Which is why I am sceptical about claims about Harry's saintliness. That he is astoundingly brave is beyond question. That he is prepared to make a deeply heroic act, in order to save the wizarding world, is also beyond question. However, JKR does also portray Harry as a very ordinary, and very flawed, hero. Which is precisely why I like him.

Well I don't think it is a black and white issue. Harry is not a complete saint, he just behaves like one in ways (sacrificing himself for the world, etc.) I feel you are correct that in other ways he is very normal. I am not sure why that would be a problem... JKR said that - he had characteristics of a saint, not that he was actually St. Harry.

All heroes are flawed - from Frodo to Anakin to Luke to the chronicalites - I've yet to read any popular literature with a perfect hero. But Harry was far from ordinary and it was his capacity for love that made that the case (see below)

There's no remorse, but there's shame for his father and Sirius. It's very close, IMO.

I don't understand. Harry can't feel remorse for something he did not do. He felt shame at his dad and Sirius, but he also likely felt shame at Snape for calling his mother a filthy mudblood and using dark magic to cut his dad. He felt sympathy for Snape, but likely also for his mum's humiliation. But these were all feelings he had about other people - not something he felt himself and chastised himself for. He verbally chastised himself for Sectumsempra, on page. He said he was not defending himself, that he had been wrong for what he'd done, even to his enemy - that is remorse. But I agree there was no overt sympathy or long pulling out of the hair and wailing on his knees in remorse. That was not Harry's style. :lol:.

But there's no need for me to seek any additional meaning in these lines. he first line clearly indicates that Harry knew what it was like to be in Snape's shoes - that is empathy. The second line - Harry himself says that he felt sorry for Snape.

We agree he felt sympathy. We just don't agree that he also felt it for Draco when he fell into the puddle of blood at the boy's side. That is a clear indication of both sympathy and remorse to me. But I respect your view that it is not. I grant you it isn't much - but it was all I expected from Harry.

I saw his characterization as incosistent because I was absolutely sure Harry's sympathy for Snape (and yes, he did feel sympathy, he said so himself, short-lived that it was) marked the beginning of his growth and maturity. I was wrong. :lol: Still, I have to wonder why JKR even included this episode in OotP. I thought the point was to remove those black/white glasses Harry was wearing and give him some food for thought, have him grow up a little. And I thought Harry's empathy for Snape was extremelty important in this regard. If it didn't actually matter, and Harry at the end of HBP was exactly the same person he had been at the end of OotP (minus the tantrums), then what was the point?

This is why I feel you are overstating Harry's sympathy in OOTP. If he really, truly had the deep and insightful sympathy you speak of, then I do not feel that he would become "so incensed at Snape he could not speak" a few pages later (the first time he next sees him). He would have still been lost in his sympathy and understanding for Snape and made at least a minimal effort to restrain himself to see Snape a little distinctly. But his description of Snape was exactly the same - he described Snape as looking gleeful and taking vindictive pleasure when he broke the flask - and that was BEFORE he said he'd felt sorry for Snape to Sirius - and he never apologized for invading Snape's private pensieve (he did to Dumbledore). Harry simply did not get that sympathetic - or empathetic. I think that is why it seems very consistent to me. I think he reacted to the Draco situation the same way. The Hermione and Ron situations too - and he loved his friends. So his version of sympathy was perhaps not similar to yours or mine, but it is his version. :lol:.

I disagree that it makes him exceptional. We have Ron, Hermione, Sirius, Snape and many other characters which went to great lengths for the sake of the people they cared for and were every bit as willing to sacrifice their lives for these people. Actually, Snape sacrificed his whole life for a mere memory of the person he loved. This is exceptional. Sirius was living off rats to be able to render some support to Harry. This is also exceptional. Ron and Hermione would give their lives for their friend without a moment's hesitation, so Harry is hardly unique in this.

I thought it was the ability to extend his compassion to other people, maybe even those he did not like personally, that made him unique. Obviously I was wrong again. :argh: :lol:

So what exactly is it that makes Harry's compassion and love so much different from exactly the same feelings of others?

You are asking for the entire series to be written in answer. :lol:. It wasn't that Harry's love and compassion were different, it was that he had a greater capacity for it. I wrote out several ways in which JKR showed this, but that was only a drop in the bucket. From book 1 through 7, we had example after example of this. JKR didn't write Snape saying Harry was mediocre and unexceptional so we could nod our heads in agreement and disagree with Dumbledore when he declared Snape was mistaken. Harry's successes were not all "luck and friends" as I pointed out. Harry himself scoffed at the idea that his greatest gift was "love" you might recall. He asked the very same question you did. Voldemort scoffed at it most of all, especially at the final battle - and Harry, finally understanding it was true, informed Voldemort that together with knowledge he had Voldemort didn't, love would save him again. Time after time JKR showed Harry's love and compassion work in MAGICAL ways that others simply could not do.

Harry came out all right, despite his traumatic childhood at the Dursleys. Harry came out all right, despite his hellish enounters with Voldemort. Harry fought off 100's of dementors with a spell he hadn't yet mastered, but mastered it in the moment. Buckbeak came flying from helping Hagrid, who he loved, to help Harry, who he felt was in greater need. The centaur risked his life, stomping away Mini-Voldemort rescuing Harry. Fawkes flew to Harry's rescue, in his time of need. Harry chucked Voldemort from his body while possessed, when there was no magic that even the greatest wizard of the time, Dumbledore, knew that could help. Harry alone was the worthy master of the Hallows. Harry sacrificed himself for the wizard world. I could go on and on, but all of these things, many grandiose, were a result of Harry's great capacity for love and as we saw in canon, did not happen for others.

It is easy to lose sight of this, I think, because Harry could also be arrogant, disdainful, hateful, quick tempered, non-sympathetic, jealous, disregarding and temperamental at times. These things people I think feel detract from the idea of love. After all, hate is it's opposite. But what is being overlooked is that Harry had the capacity, but that does not mean he was always using it to the fullest. We saw it throughout in big moments as I have indicated, and in small ones as well. In between, he was not always using the full capacity of his ability in that regard. However, when he did, it came through for him like no one else, because he just had gobs of it to draw on.

That is what JKR set out to show throughout the series; it was subtle, contradicted, and yet blatantly elaborated upon as well. It was scoffed at by many, even Harry - but Dumbledore never blinked an eye and never retracted his stance that in the end, it would all come down to Harry's great capacity for love. Harry unwittingly made use of it earlier on, unsure what was going on and wary about the idea of 'love' powering his ability - but he grew into the knowledge and showed more acceptance of it as time went on (he stopped asking "how" he managed to do things - for example, when he apparated Dumbledore sidelong in HBP when he'd never done it before. Dumbledore remarked that he wasn't worried about being apparated by a rank beginner with no experience - even though it was terrifically difficult magic and Harry had only just learned regular apparation a short time before. And Dumbledore's only reason was because he was "with Harry". Not something a person would trust to a "mediocre" young magician who had only shown heightened skills in DADA. :lol:) By DH, Harry firmly believed, which is why he made an affirmative statement to Voldemort that "love" would save him yet again. At that point, he knew he could draw upon it.

To back this up, other acts of love/compassion by others were highlighted, showing its power throughout the series, as you pointed out. Lily sacrificing her life for her son and James for his wife and son; Ron jumping into the lake to rescue Harry; Snape spying, Molly moving in on Bella, Dobby rescuing Harry at all costs, Narcissa lying to try to save Draco, Sirius racing to the MOM knowing he was a moving target, Draco refusing to leave the ROR without the unconcious Goyle. These acts were brave and motivated by forms of love for another or others. However, none could draw it in the abundance Harry could, and JKR reserved the greatest feats for her hero as that was what made him a formidable magician. Harry did those things the others did too - he sacrificed himself and rescued his enemy like his parents; he moved in to defend others, etc., but he went on to do things the others did not by and through his capacity for love.

I always smile when I hear people say that if Harry hadn't been the Master of the Elder Wand, Voldemort would have taken him out. He wasn't the master the 5 other times Voldemort tried and failed, so point to Harry. His capacity for compassion/love gave him far more resources than Voldemort could possibly fathom and understand - which is why he scoffed and ultimately why he was defeated.

Overall, I sometimes get the feeling that people got quite a different impression of Harry than I did. He is often characterized as a goody two shoes - which I feel is way off. Other times, he is construed as a overly arrogant hothead, angry and rather mean all of the time - which is pretty off to me as well. He was arrogant at times, a hothead, angry and even mean - but that was only a slice of his character. He thought way more than he spoke, he felt way more than he showed and he was in addition to the negatives I named, extraordinarily compassionate - like his parents, only moreso as if he got the combination of theirs and more; he was kind, a great listener, insightful and considering. He was immature and took quite a while to grow up, but he had an innate sense of fairness that helped him out a lot in his immaturity. He was loving and responsible, loyal and trusting...and mischievous. In the end, he was human in ways and saintly in ways, crazy reckless in ways and still had a touch of arrogance and holding back on displaying his every thought and feeling. That is the character I found and I liked him.

That is a good observation. I would have even been okay with Harry telling Al he named him after Lily's best friend. I could have lived with that because I think until the mudblood incident Snape was Lily's best friend. However I still have issues with Harry saying Snape was the bravest man he ever knew when he knew so many men who IMO were braver. Sigh, still love Harry though. ;)


See, I think I might disagree. But I might not, we'll see...
Yes, others were very brave. Like Lupin, and Sirius and Dumbledore and Tonks - I could go on - but not one of them put themselves into as much danger as Snape. He was always there, with Voldy and lying to him. Voldemort could have so easily found out, if Snape had slipped just one tiny bit. So yeah, pretending to be Voldemorts puppet, in my opinion, is probably the most danergrous postion you could put yourself in. So yeah... I do disagree!!! I do think Snape was the bravest. But he was a lot of other things too. I think I might like Snape more if his motivation was less selfish.

I picked all of them except planning and insight, since Hermione usually was responsible for those. Although Harry helped plan stuff and sometimes had great insight, they're definitely not his greatest traits.

I think I might like Snape more if his motivation was less selfish.

I think most if not all of those involved in the war, fought for reasons which could be called selfish IMO. Everyone had a reason to fight the war IMO. Harry for example, fought the war because Voldemort had killed his parents. He was also forced to fight because Voldemort was actively hunting him, having chosen him as the boy mentioned in the Prophecy. So Harry had to either give in or fight back. He had no choice. Most of the Order members had a reason to fight, if only it was because they wanted their children to live in a safe and a Voldemort free atmosphere. Motives are generally personal IMO. I don't think they are selfish; I think they are reasons which enable people to stand up courageously and fight even in the face of adversity IMO.

Harry's motive wasn't selfish - he sacrificed himself for the entire wizard world. I think that is the most selfless thing he could have done.

I agree; Harry was selfless; but his motives were personal and can be called selfish. Had Harry's parents been alive, then Harry would not have been fighting the war they way he had. Motives are always personal and personal actions always have a chance to be called selfish IMO.

If I would call Harry selfless and I do, I think it would be for his extraordinary habit to live and let live. He was not forgiving anyone per say, but he's kind of accepted people for what they were and I love that quality about him; I think that's selfless; with most people he could take offence, starting from the Dursleys, and yet he shrugs them off and gets on with life.

I agree; Harry was selfless; but his motives were personal and can be called selfish.

I would respectfully disagree. His motive was to die so that Voldemort could be killed. He got nothing out of that for himself, imo.

I think most if not all of those involved in the war, fought for reasons which could be called selfish IMO. Everyone had a reason to fight the war IMO. Harry for example, fought the war because Voldemort had killed his parents. He was also forced to fight because Voldemort was actively hunting him, having chosen him as the boy mentioned in the Prophecy. So Harry had to either give in or fight back. He had no choice. Most of the Order members had a reason to fight, if only it was because they wanted their children to live in a safe and a Voldemort free atmosphere. Motives are generally personal IMO. I don't think they are selfish; I think they are reasons which enable people to stand up courageously and fight even in the face of adversity IMO.

The difference is in the fact that those people did not fight only for personal reasons. Everyone had some personal reason - to protect themselves if nothing else - but that wasn't the only reason they fought. They fought because it was the right thing to do - they worried about other people as well as themselves - they took steps to protect muggles and muggleborns where they could. They aren't selfish at all because they care about what happens to others just as much.

That's where Snape stands out because the only reason he did anything was because Lily died and he felt that Voldemort had betrayed him by killing her. He didn't care about Harry or anyone else in the wizarding world. He wasn't fighting because it was the right thing to do. Where everone else was motivated by a lot of different things to protect the wizarding world in general from Voldemort, Snape only had a singular motivation - wanting revenge because Voldemort betrayed him and killed Lily. As Jo said, Snape would not have done anything if Lily had not been killed - he would have stayed loyal to Voldemort.

That's very different from Harry. James and Lily being murdered was a factor in why Harry wanted to fight, but it was not the only reason. He was also motivated by what happened to Neville's parents, what happened to other innocents who were tortured or killed, and what could happen to more innocents if Voldemort did take over. Harry would have fought against Voldemort either way because it was the right thing to do. The only difference is that he probably wouldn't have been a central figure in it under those circumstances. But he would have fought - just as his parents had fought and just as his friends and other loved ones fought - because defeating Voldemort was for the benefit of everyone - not just himself.

The difference is in the fact that those people did not fight only for personal reasons. Everyone had some personal reason - to protect themselves if nothing else - but that wasn't the only reason they fought. They fought because it was the right thing to do - they worried about other people as well as themselves - they took steps to protect muggles and muggleborns where they could. They aren't selfish at all because they care about what happens to others just as much.

I agree with Meesha's definition of "selfish", at least how tend I use it. To me, Harry is not selfish, even though he has personal reasons to fight and will personally gain from the defeat of Voldemort, because he also cares about what will happen to the people around him and doesn't want them hurt.

I agree with Meesha's definition of "selfish", at least how tend I use it. To me, Harry is not selfish, even though he has personal reasons to fight and will personally gain from the defeat of Voldemort, because he also cares about what will happen to the people around him and doesn't want them hurt.

I agree. :tu:.

I agree; Harry was selfless; but his motives were personal and can be called selfish. Had Harry's parents been alive, then Harry would not have been fighting the war they way he had. Motives are always personal and personal actions always have a chance to be called selfish IMO.

It's funny Dumbledore assumed that Harry's motivation for fighting Voldemort was first and foremost avenging his parents. I don't remember the exact quote, but in HBP he said something to the effect of "If Voldemort hadn't killed your father, would you have this powerful desire to get revenge? Of course, not!". And Harry doesn't object. He even says "Of course I wouldn't want to join Voldemort! He killed mom and dad!".

I wouldn't call Harry's motivation selfish because I don't think wanting to protect those you love is selfish, but I do think that when he was marching off to his own death he thought about the people he loved, and the greater good was not on his mind.

Harry would have fought against Voldemort either way because it was the right thing to do. The only difference is that he probably wouldn't have been a central figure in it under those circumstances. But he would have fought - just as his parents had fought and just as his friends and other loved ones fought - because defeating Voldemort was for the benefit of everyone - not just himself.

Perhaps at the age of 17 he would. Seeing as he starts "fighting" rather early in the series, forgive me if I'm a bit reluctant to agree that he would've fought "either way".

In the beginning Harry doesn't have much choice - he can either roll over and die, or fight to stay alive. As the story progresses and grows up and becomes aware of other circumstances surrounding the rise of Voldemort, his motivation is beginning to change to encompass "the greater good".

One thing you keep forgetting is: people Harry cared about were all at one point or another been targeted by Voldemort. It's their good his fighting for, alongside his own, not the general well-being of the magical community - I don't see him thinking of Centaurs or Ministry employees when he sets out to act on the prophesy...

Having said that, the greatest credit I can give him is that he is never covert about his motivation. Harry acts his thoughts and beliefs, and that is precisely what makes him an interesting character to follow: you actually watch him change before your eyes.

I think Harry was fighting for the general well being of the magical community, not just those he knew and loved. Harry was the type of guy that quickly came to love all types of magical creatures and beings, and the fact that they came to his assistance speaks to that, imo. Naturally his friends and loved ones are included in those he walked into the forest to save, but I believe he felt he was doing it for everyone. He didn't want anyone else dying for him and frankly, there were not too many people left who were that close to him - the Weasleys and his close friends. But he rescued the budding Death Eaters as possible (Draco/Goyle), so clearly his capacity for saving people included everyone and not just Ginny, Ron and Hermione or anything like that, imo. :lol:.

Perhaps at the age of 17 he would. Seeing as he starts "fighting" rather early in the series, forgive me if I'm a bit reluctant to agree that he would've fought "either way".

In the beginning Harry doesn't have much choice - he can either roll over and die, or fight to stay alive. As the story progresses and grows up and becomes aware of other circumstances surrounding the rise of Voldemort, his motivation is beginning to change to encompass "the greater good".

One thing you keep forgetting is: people Harry cared about were all at one point or another been targeted by Voldemort. It's their good his fighting for, alongside his own, not the general well-being of the magical community - I don't see him thinking of Centaurs or Ministry employees when he sets out to act on the prophesy...

Having said that, the greatest credit I can give him is that he is never covert about his motivation. Harry acts his thoughts and beliefs, and that is precisely what makes him an interesting character to follow: you actually watch him change before your eyes.

Well, that's the thing - it was never just about his parents for Harry. Nor was it just about people he knew and cared out. Those are factors, but they were never the only reasons that Harry fought.

At the age of 11, Harry tells Ron and Hermione that he's going through the trap door and he doesn't care if he will be expelled for it or not because it's important. And when he lists out the reasons why it is important, it is not his parents that come up first. His first thought is what he knows about what it was like when Voldemort tried to take over before - he doesn't want that to happen again. His second is that there won't be any Hogwarts to get expelled from because Voldemort would flatten it or turn it into a school for the Dark Arts - which would be an issue for all the students there, not just Harry. Third, he thinks about what Voldemort will do to his friends and their families - and he doesn't even know their families at this point. The fact that Voldemort killed his parents is the last thing he thinks of. It's significant, but it's not the only reason he wants to stop Voldemort and it's not the most significant thing to him.

At the age of 12, Harry's concern is for the students being attacked. He wants to solve the mystery to stop the attacks. Colin Creevey - Harry didn't know him very well and found him rather annoying. But the attack against Colin still motivated him - as well as Ron and Hermione - to get moving with their plan. Justin Finch-Fletchely - again, someone that Harry doesn't know very well. Penelope Clearwater - Harry didn't know her at all. The only person he knew that was attacked was Hermione. But he had already decided to try to stop the attacks before that happened. There are some personal reasons as well, but they aren't the only reasons and Harry's primary concern is protecting the other students by stopping the attacks.

POA is the first time where it is truly personal for Harry because the threat is against him directly rather than the school or other students - at least until the end. Confronted by the man he believes betrayed his parents, Harry cannot bring himself to kill - and when he finds out Sirius is innocent, he immediately cares for him and he stops him and Lupin from killing Pettigrew. He feels guilty that Sirius had to go back into hiding because he let Pettigrew escape and he wants to do something to help Lupin in the end because he feels bad he lost his job. He barely knows these men at this point. There is a tenuous connection with his father through them, but they haven't had enough time to form any strong bond between them. At this point, Harry cares because they were innocent victims.

GOF also puts the threat against Harry directly - and this time the threat is real because Voldemort is coming back. So he does have some personal reason there as well. Still, his primary concern is for others. He was last to come back in the second task because he wanted to save everyone - even the little girl he didn't know - and waited down there to make sure they were all saved. In the end, he saves Gabrielle as well as Ron. That's just the type of person Harry was - he didn't know the girl, but he didn't want her to be hurt. Also in GOF, Harry thinks about how Voldemort has torn families apart and ruined lives. He is not thinking about himself or anything that is to his benefit. He is thinking of others and the pain that Voldemort has caused them.

The same holds true in each book. There is always at least one moment that shows that Harry is not just fighting because his parents were killed. He was fighting because it was the right thing to do - because Voldemort presented a threat to the wizarding world as a whole. He is at heart a decent person who cares about others - even those he doesn't know very well or found annoying on some level. And - as we see in DH - even those that were his enemy. He chose to die for everyone fighting at Hogwarts - not just the ones he knew and cared about, but every single person that was there fighting. Harry's sacrifice gave all of them some measure of protection because of that. Harry is the type of person who would have fought regardless simply because it was right. Had his parents lived, he would also have been raised with that example from them because they fought because it was the right thing to do. Harry would have fought against Voldemort regardless of what happened to his parents. But he probably wouldn't have been a central figure in the fight if they had lived.

His motive was to die so that Voldemort could be killed. He got nothing out of that for himself, imo.

:tu: :)

For the sake of argument though, I would say he did get something out of it. He was absolved of the guilt he would have felt for every death by Voldmeort and his death eaters had he chosen not to die. Else, I feel Harry would have felt that every death that happened in the WW by Voldemort and his death eaters was because he chose to live or because he chose not to die/sacrifice. That attitude to feel guilt for living, is truly selfless, but can still be called a personal reason IMO.

As I wrote before, I do think Harry is selfless and is one of my other faves apart from Snape. But, I also think almost all of our actions are personal; to act or not to act is in some way dependent on our inward thoughts, choices and values, which IMO generally direct our actions for the good, bad or ugly.

:tu: :)

For the sake of argument though, I would say he did get something out of it. He was absolved of the guilt he would have felt for every death by Voldmeort and his death eaters had he chosen not to die. Else, I feel Harry would have felt that every death that happened in the WW by Voldemort and his death eaters was because he chose to live or because he chose not to die/sacrifice. That attitude to feel guilt for living, is truly selfless, but can still be called a personal reason IMO.

As I wrote before, I do think Harry is selfless and is one of my other faves apart from Snape. But, I also think almost all of our actions are personal; to act or not to act is in some way dependent on our inward thoughts, choices and values, which IMO generally direct our actions for the good, bad or ugly.

Well, that was the point - there are some personal reasons involved for all of them - their own safety if nothing else. The difference is that they had a lot of other reasons that were not personal in addition to that. And that is true for Harry as well. He's got his personal reasons for fighting, but he also cares about what happens to the wizarding world in general. He cared about how muggles and muggleborns were treated - he didn't want either tortured or killed and that had nothing to do with absolving his own guilt because he knew that had nothing to do with him. He cared about how witches and wizards were treated in general - pure-bloods who were sympathetic to muggles and muggleborns were treated badly under Voldemort's regime as well.

And that was true for the others in the Order as well - not to mention other witches and wizards mentioned in DH who did what they could to help - even if it was just casting protective enchantments around muggle homes near where they lived. There was no personal benefit for Kingsley standing guard over the Muggle Prime Minister - he did that because it was the right thing to do and, really, that would have been a hardship for him because it took him away from other duties. There was no personal benefit in casting protective charms around muggle homes. They did those things because they were the right thing to do. Their motivations overall were for the greater good - the benefit of the wizarding world as a whole. The personal reasons are there, but they are not the most significant factor.

That's the difference with Snape - his motivation for everything he did was reduced down to a singular personal reason - Lily. As Jo said, Snape would have remained a loyal Death Eater if Lily had not been killed. He didn't care about what happened to muggles or muggleborns - nor did he lift a finger to try to protect them the way that the members of the Order and other witches and wizards did. And he could have - the whole point of having a spy on the inside is to be able to get information and prevent such atrocities. He didn't care about Harry at all. He didn't care what happened to the wizarding world as a whole. Snape turned against Voldemort for one reason and one reason only - to get revenge for Lily being killed. Jo was very clear on that point. He did a good thing for a selfish reason. His selfish reason doesn't change the fact that what he did was good - but it doesn't win him any bonus points either because he didn't do it because of the good that would come of it.

Harry had personal reasons as well - more than one - but he also had reasons that were not personal and simply for the greater good. His choice was selfless because there was very little benefit to himself - none that he knew of or could see anyway. He suffered for months with little to no food in complete isolation with Ron and Hermione searching for Horcruxes - risking his life without even knowing all the information he needed to know. He was almost killed countless times - only to find out in the end that his destiny was to die so Voldemort could be killed. There's no benefit for him in that, but he accepts it because he knows his death will be for the good of the wizarding world because it will enable someone else to be able to truly defeat Voldemort once and for all.

Well said Meesha :tu:. I think the distinction with Harry was his selfless nature for the most part. He was the person many in the wizard world wished to rally around - not becuase he was the chosen one, but because people truly began having faith in him. I think that was to show that there was something sbout his overall character that could attract that type of faith in others. He was also compassionate toward many creatures and people alike that others were not and that was another huge factor in his overall popularity as the Boy-Who-Could-Not-Be_killed.

Well, that was the point - there are some personal reasons involved for all of them - their own safety if nothing else.

Not only their own safety, but I think the safety of the world they had chosen to live in. Those who joined the Order, joined to fight for causes they believed in. Those who did not believe in the reasons the Order was fighting Voldmeort did not join and those who believed Voldemort was doing the right thing, joined him. Harry fought for what he identified with, for what he belived in IMO.

Harry, Hermione, Dumbledore and Lily were some of them who had some kind of a muggle background and in Lily's and Hermione's case, had family living in the muggle wolrd. None of these people, not Harry (who had lived in the muggle world until he came to Hogwarts and then spent a part of the summer every year with the Dursleys until he was 17) or Hermione who was a muggleborn and whose parents continued to live in the muggle world , were concerned about issues in the muggle world; because they had chosen to live in the WW and identified only with it. Voldmeort was a cause for concern, not the Taliban for example; for Voldmeort was in the WW where they would make their lives aand so was a threat, while the Taliban was not and so they were really not affected by the bomb blasts or the harm the Taliban did IMO.

While they would use the muggle world (to get a car and a driving licence) for things they wanted from there, they really did not have personal reasons to do their little bit to improve the muggle world, not even in the village where they lived IMO. While they can't do anything as wizards, they can do something as citizens of that village, town or city. We don't see anything like that, by anyone in the Books.

I do think Harry is selfless, truly selfless; only that selflessness has a personal reason IMO. Just like Dumbledore, like Snape and like so many others IMO.

Not only their own safety, but I think the safety of the world they had chosen to live in. Those who joined the Order, joined to fight for causes they believed in. Those who did not believe in the reasons the Order was fighting Voldmeort did not join and those who believed Voldemort was doing the right thing, joined him. Harry fought for what he identified with, for what he belived in IMO.

Harry, Hermione, Dumbledore and Lily were some of them who had some kind of a muggle background and in Lily's and Hermione's case, had family living in the muggle wolrd. None of these people, not Harry (who had lived in the muggle world until he came to Hogwarts and then spent a part of the summer every year with the Dursleys until he was 17) or Hermione who was a muggleborn and whose parents continued to live in the muggle world , were concerned about issues in the muggle world; because they had chosen to live in the WW and identified only with it. Voldmeort was a cause for concern, not the Taliban for example; for Voldmeort was in the WW where they would make their lives aand so was a threat, while the Taliban was not and so they were really not affected by the bomb blasts or the harm the Taliban did IMO.

While they would use the muggle world (to get a car and a driving licence) for things they wanted from there, they really did not have personal reasons to do their little bit to improve the muggle world, not even in the village where they lived IMO. While they can't do anything as wizards, they can do something as citizens of that village, town or city. We don't see anything like that, by anyone in the Books.

I do think Harry is selfless, truly selfless; only that selflessness has a personal reason IMO. Just like Dumbledore, like Snape and like so many others IMO.

Selflessness in terms of the story does not mean that you are thinking about everyone else at every moment of every day. It is just that Harry was selfless enough to give his life for wizards AND muggles - seeing as Voldy was going to kill them all unless they bowed down to him. The only reason he had to do that was for everyone else to survive, because he was going to die. This despite he had everything to live for. He'd found love and it was returned in full, he had good and loving friends, but he was willing to give it all up for all of them and everyone else in the wizard world. He wasn't caught up in vengeance in the end, he merely wished to do what had to be done to ensure the world could be rid of the maniac Voldy.

One cannot think in terms of Harry coming out alive, because as he walked to his death, he didn't believe that there was a chance of that happening at all. He truly believed he was going to die permanently. And he chose to do so - walked straightway into his death. That is what distinguishes him. It was not planned by him, it was not in the line of duty that he was upon, it was not in order to save someone Voldy was trying to kill in the moment and Harry intervened; any reasonable man would be expected to take off for the bahamas. He was young with his whole life ahead of him, but Harry chose to die for unknown faces as well as those he loved - and he could have tried to run away and avoid it - perhaps unsuccessfully, but he could have tried. It was just written as a most selfless act, imo.

My only point is that almost all actions are because of personal reasons in one way or another and I don't think having a personal reason makes the action selfish. While selfish actions are always only for personal benefit, selfless actions are because of personal reasons, but are not only for personal benefit IMO.

It is just that Harry was selfless enough to give his life for wizards AND muggles - seeing as Voldy was going to kill them all unless they bowed down to him.

I already agreed Harry was selfless. :)

Not only their own safety, but I think the safety of the world they had chosen to live in. Those who joined the Order, joined to fight for causes they believed in. Those who did not believe in the reasons the Order was fighting Voldmeort did not join and those who believed Voldemort was doing the right thing, joined him. Harry fought for what he identified with, for what he belived in IMO.

Well, it's a little more complex than that. Arthur and Molly didn't join the Order the first time around, but it was not because they didn't believe in it - it simply wasn't practical for them to do so at that time because they had young children. Bill, Charlie, Percy, the twins, and Ron were all born during the 11 years that the first war was going on. There is a difference between not being able to do something and not believing in it.

And the Order was a specialized groupe - just because someone was not in the Order did not mean they were not fighting against Voldemort. There are characters who fall into that category as well. Scrimgeour, Fudge, Percy, various Ministry employees, parents and villagers - and so on and so forth. They were all against Voldemort whether they were in the Order or not.

Fighting for the safety of the world they live in is what makes their actions selfless - it's not just about what benefits themselves. They are thinking of others as well.

Harry, Hermione, Dumbledore and Lily were some of them who had some kind of a muggle background and in Lily's and Hermione's case, had family living in the muggle wolrd. None of these people, not Harry (who had lived in the muggle world until he came to Hogwarts and then spent a part of the summer every year with the Dursleys until he was 17) or Hermione who was a muggleborn and whose parents continued to live in the muggle world , were concerned about issues in the muggle world; because they had chosen to live in the WW and identified only with it. Voldmeort was a cause for concern, not the Taliban for example; for Voldmeort was in the WW where they would make their lives aand so was a threat, while the Taliban was not and so they were really not affected by the bomb blasts or the harm the Taliban did IMO.

While they would use the muggle world (to get a car and a driving licence) for things they wanted from there, they really did not have personal reasons to do their little bit to improve the muggle world, not even in the village where they lived IMO. While they can't do anything as wizards, they can do something as citizens of that village, town or city. We don't see anything like that, by anyone in the Books.

The Taliban would not be a concern for wizards because it was something that muggles could deal with on their own. It didn't involve magic so there was no reason for them to get involved in that. And that goes along with what Hagrid told Harry in the first book - wizards couldn't be expected to use magic to solve all the problems muggles might have. Muggles need to deal with their own problems in their own way.

Voldemort and his Death Eaters - or other supporters - are an entirely different matter because that is something that muggles could not deal with on their own. They had no defense against magic - no way to fight back. That was wizards crossing the line and attacking muggles. That's why it falls under the jurisdiction of wizards to try to help where the Taliban would not.

It's not the responsibility of wizards to fix muggle problems any more than it would be the responsibility of muggles to fix wizarding problems. There have to be limits because it's not feasible for one society to take care of the other. If wizards were constantly going about trying to fix muggle problems that they could deal with on their own, then who would be taking are of wizarding problems?

When it came to wizarding problems overlapping in the muggle world, we do see that the wizards stepped in to help. The fact that it was a magical problem made it their responsibility. This is shown throughout the series. Muggle objects that had been enchanted could be dangerous to muggles - they had to be found and the enchantments removed. The Accidental Magical Reversal Squad was there to protect muggles - they stepped in to reverse any spells placed on muggles and used memory charms to make sure the muggles would forget what happened to them. We see that wizards took steps to protect muggles against Voldemort and the Death Eaters in DH - even if all they could do was put protective enchantments around the muggle's home, they did whatever they could.

I do think Harry is selfless, truly selfless; only that selflessness has a personal reason IMO. Just like Dumbledore, like Snape and like so many others IMO.

The fact that one might have a personal reason - or reasons - is not what makes the action selfish. The difference is in whether or not they have other reasons as well. What motivated them to fight instead of running off to safety? What motivated them to take a stand? It is the motivation that is significant.

Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville, Ginny, Luna, the Weasley family in general, members of the Order, parents and villagers who fought, Dumbledore - and so on - all of those people were complex and had mutliple reasons for taking and stand and fighting against Voldemort. Some of those reasons were personal and some were for the greater good of the society as a whole. Their actions were selfless because it was never just about a singular personal reason for any of them. Their motivations were complex and varied and - for all of them - it was primarily about what was for the benefit of the wizarding world rather than just what they wanted for themselves. These people would have fought against Voldemort regardless of what their personal circumstances were simply because it was the right thing to do and would benefit society as a whole.

On the flip side, you have selfish people who did a good thing for selfish reasons - the only benefit they were interested in was what they got for themselves. They didn't care about the society as a whole. Karkaroff turned some Death Eaters in to the Ministry in exchange for his own freedom. A good act in the sense that it got Death Eaters put in prison, but still completely selfish because Karkaroff only cared about himself. He would not have done the same if he hadn't been caught and put in Azkaban. Narcissa lied for Harry - not because she wanted to help Harry, but because she wanted to help herself. She wanted to find Draco and knew the only way she could get inside was if Voldemort thought he's already one. Her motivation is entirely selfish and the fact that Harry was able to use that to help him doesn't change that. Narcissa would not have done the same if Draco had been there with them. Snape only agreed to help Dumbledore because Lily died and he felt that Voldemort had betrayed him. His actions help Harry, but that doesn't change the fact that his motivations were completely selfish and he would not have done the same if Lily had lived.

That is the difference. A selfless act may have some personal motivation, but there will always be motivation towards the greater good as well - and the person would do the same thing under any circumstances because of that. A selfish act is only motivated by selfish reasons and the person would not do the same under any other circumstances.

That's what sets Harry and the people who fought with them apart from people like Karkaroff, Narcissa, and Snape. Harry would have fought against Voldemort regardless - and so would the others - whereas Karkaroff, Narcissa, and Snape would not. They each had a specific singular reason for doing what they did and it was selfish - and none of them would have helped in any way if the circumstances had been different.

I'd have thought that a selfless act could be defined as one which brings no advantage to yourself and a selfish act is one which directly benefits you. Harry's death in the forest, as far as he knew would have no advantage to himself at all - it was all for others, and whether they were people he knew and loved or people he had never known and would never see makes no difference. In the books we see him acting with selfish motives - wanting to catch and kill Sirius to avenge his parents' deaths, wanting to catch & kill Snape because of Dumbledore's death - but he doesn't actually carry these out. His actions remain selfless.

I'd have thought that a selfless act could be defined as one which brings no advantage to yourself and a selfish act is one which directly benefits you. Harry's death in the forest, as far as he knew would have no advantage to himself at all - it was all for others, and whether they were people he knew and loved or people he had never known and would never see makes no difference. In the books we see him acting with selfish motives - wanting to catch and kill Sirius to avenge his parents' deaths, wanting to catch & kill Snape because of Dumbledore's death - but he doesn't actually carry these out. His actions remain selfless.

I think those actions you mentioned like wanting to catch Sirius and Kill Snape, were personal actions. They can be called selfish, because they are personal, just like almost all actions IMO.

I think Harry's walk in the forest was different to the other 2 you mentioned in the manner, the other 2 were actions for avenging his family, while the walk to the forest was for himself. The only decision Harry had to make was to either to live and accept the consequences of that action (which would be to keep Voldmeort alive) or to sacrifice himself. Being Harry he chose the latter. :)

I'd have thought that a selfless act could be defined as one which brings no advantage to yourself and a selfish act is one which directly benefits you. Harry's death in the forest, as far as he knew would have no advantage to himself at all - it was all for others, and whether they were people he knew and loved or people he had never known and would never see makes no difference. In the books we see him acting with selfish motives - wanting to catch and kill Sirius to avenge his parents' deaths, wanting to catch & kill Snape because of Dumbledore's death - but he doesn't actually carry these out. His actions remain selfless.

To some extent, yeah. However, the fact that there might be a benefit involved doesn't negate an act being selfless. It would depend on the person's motivation - are they doing it for the benefit or are they doing it for the selfless reason and the benefit is secondary to that? Are they even thinking about what benefit there might be? Would they still do it if there was no benefit? If a man jumps in front of a person to save them from being shot and is later awarded a medal for his actions, that was a benefit to him. The question is - did he do it to get the medal or did he do it to save the other person's life? Would he have done the same if there was no medal given? That's what would determine whether the act was selfless or selfish.

The primary reason that Harry willingly walks to his own death is because he knew that Voldemort could not be defeated unless he died. But his reasons for wanting Voldemort defeated are varied - part of it is avenging his parents, part of it is that the world will be better off without Voldemort. And there is benefit for Harry - getting rid of that corruption of a piece of Voldemort's soul within himself was a benefit. And he was rewarded by having the choice to return to life. By having Harry not know about that, Jo showed that he would have done it regardless so it is a selfless act because, even though there is benefit to himself, that's not why he does it.

To some extent, yeah. However, the fact that there might be a benefit involved doesn't negate an act being selfless. It would depend on the person's motivation - are they doing it for the benefit or are they doing it for the selfless reason and the benefit is secondary to that? Are they even thinking about what benefit there might be? Would they still do it if there was no benefit? If a man jumps in front of a person to save them from being shot and is later awarded a medal for his actions, that was a benefit to him. The question is - did he do it to get the medal or did he do it to save the other person's life? Would he have done the same if there was no medal given? That's what would determine whether the act was selfless or selfish.

The primary reason that Harry willingly walks to his own death is because he knew that Voldemort could not be defeated unless he died. But his reasons for wanting Voldemort defeated are varied - part of it is avenging his parents, part of it is that the world will be better off without Voldemort. And there is benefit for Harry - getting rid of that corruption of a piece of Voldemort's soul within himself was a benefit. And he was rewarded by having the choice to return to life. By having Harry not know about that, Jo showed that he would have done it regardless so it is a selfless act because, even though there is benefit to himself, that's not why he does it.

Well said, I agree fully. I don't think I could find a reasonable means of seeing what Harry did as anything but completely selfless. He really believed he was going to die, yet he marched in there any way. And he didn't back down. But Harry has done other selfless things throughout the series also, he was just that way at times. Not always, but the seeds were sown to lead up to that moment, imo.

1. How do Harry's formative years with the Dursley's influence the person he is now? Would he be the same person if his parents had lived? If he had been sent to live with another wizarding family? If he had been sent to an orphanage like Tom Ridde?

I think living with the Dursely's has greatly influenced Harry as a person. Before he finds out the truth about his parents and that he is a wizard, he is quite lost, and doesn't really know where he is in life. Once he founds out he is a wizard and the truth about how his parents died, I think that sorted acted as a sort of closure for Harry, and he could start to figure out who he really is, and how different he really is from the Dursley's. I think he would have been a slightly different person if his parents had lived. He wouldn't have had 10 years of bullying, mistreatment and underfeeding behind him. He would have grown up happy, with friends, and he would have led a normal life.
It's the same if he had been sent to another wizarding family, he wouldn't have been bullied etc. He would have grown up with wizards and the truth about his parents. I don't think Dumbledore would have sent Harry to an Orphanage because it wasn't safe, and he had no family there.



2. When do we first see evidence of Harry's "saving people" thing? Is this a strength or a flaw? What do you think of his final sacrifice?

We first see this in PS. He wants to save Nicolas Flamels life by saving the stone because he doesn't want Voldemort to have it. He also tries to save Hagrid's innocence in CoS by trying to prove that Hagrid wasn't the one setting the monster on Muggleborns. In PoA Harry saves Sirius and Buckbeak. GoF, he tries, but doesn't suceed in saving Cedric's life. It goes on and on, and I don't think it is a flaw at all, I see it as a huge strength, because if he didn't have a 'saving people thing', it just wouldn't be Harry! And a lot more people would have died.


3. Harry's natural curiosity was stifled by the Dursleys. "Don't ask questions!" but it comes out in full force once he gets to Hogwarts. How does this curiosity serve him through the books? Has he truly lost it after Dumbledore's death or will it return as he hunts for the horcruxes?

I don't think Harry would have gotten very far if he didn't ask questions! Harry was always asking Dumbledore questions, and figuring out the answers through Dumbledores complicated answers. No one would ever really get through life if they didn't ask questions. He doesn't really ask questions when looking for the Horcruxes, he just dwells on everything Dumbledore ever told him, and this helps him, Ron and Hermione to figure everything out.


4. What do you think are Harry's greatest strengths? What weaknesses did he overcome as the series progressed?

I think Harry's main strength is bravery. He shows it a lot throughout the books. He is also strong in the sense that every battle he fights, he does it for his parents, and for every one else he has lost. Speaking of strength, he has A LOT. He has lost every one who has been a role model or had an influence in his life; James & Lily, Sirius, Dumbledore, Hedwig, Moody, Dobby + Remus. All these people had a major influence in his life, and for Harry to be able to cope with such loss, is incredible. Harry's weaknesses ... hmmm ... well he is clearly emotional on the subject of his parents and Sirius, but I don't really think that's a weakness, I mean who wouldn't get upset if they had lost their parents and godfather? But he is definitely stronger by the end of the series.


5. How have each of the losses Harry suffered helped to define who he is?

It has shaped him in a way that I can't really describe. If I had lost that amount of people in my life, I don't think I would be physically + emtionally human anymore. The number of people that Harry loses in astronomical. I am amazed at how well he copes with it all! I certainly know that I wouldn't be able to!


6. Dumbledore tells him that his pure heart is what seperates him from Voldemort and his Death Eaters. What examples have we seen of this pure heart?

Voldemort and the Death Eaters don't care about harming other people or taking lives. They don't feel love, pain, sadness or grief. There are way too many examples of Harry's pure heart to list on here!


7. What do you think of Harry's use of Unforgivables in DH?

Harry knows that those curses are unforgivable, and illegal, and he would only use them on those who deserve it. I was a little shocked that he decided to use them, but he only used them because he needed too. He didn't use them for fun.


8. Why do you think Harry forgave Snape?

Because he knew Snapes true feelings, and he knew that Snape didn't really kill Dumbledore. I wouldn't have forgiven Snape so easily if that had been me. But Harry had his reasons, and I think it was very brave and strong for Harry to forgive Snape after everything they went through.


9. What do you think Harry went on to do after DH? Did he become an Auror or choose a different career?

Well JKR tells us that Harry and Ron both become Aurors. I think this is the perfect career for Harry :tu:

In the Forest, Harry uses the Stone and finds his parents, Sirius and Remus almost alive. At that point, Harry is feeling betrayed and let down by Dumbledore, because Dumbledore had got him to this point only to kill him.

Why did not Harry feel shock that his parents, Sirius and Remus were okay with what Dumbledore did and actually encouraged him to walk to his death, instead of getting angry on his behalf?

Why did he not feel betrayed by them too? He should have and felt more betrayed, perhaps.

In the Forest, Harry uses the Stone and finds his parents, Sirius and Remus almost alive. At that point, Harry is feeling betrayed and let down by Dumbledore, because Dumbledore had got him to this point only to kill him.

Why did not Harry feel shock that his parents, Sirius and Remus were okay with what Dumbledore did and actually encouraged him to walk to his death, instead of getting angry on his behalf?

Why did he not feel betrayed by them too? He should have and felt more betrayed, perhaps.

Because, Harry didn't tell them anything at all - yet when he makes "out of the blue" statements like "does it hurt?" - they know exactly what he is talking about. They also tell him that the end is near - very close. I believe Harry took all of this to understand that they knew what was going on and agreed with his decision - because they knew the outcome. Harry likely understood that the outcome they believed (and he believed at the time) was death - but, absolutely necessary because otherwise he would live with the bit of evil inside and as a hunted man by Voldemort his entire life - and of course, many more people would die as a result of any decision he might make to remain alive. I don't feel he believed they were any happier about what Dumbledore had done than he was - but that had already occurred and Harry would feel that his loved ones, like him, realized there was nothing more that could be done about that. Harry had to do what must be done at that point.

In the aftermath - Harry found out the truth from Dumbledore (Dumbledore believed he would most likely live). He realized then that if his loved ones had known what would occur, they would have known that he would survive also. So afterward, he'd know that they had an even better understanding of the situation than he had at the time. But that does not mean they approved of Dumbledore's methods to get Harry to that point, anymore than Harry approved of it. The best that his loved ones could do was to encourage him and protect him until he reached Voldemort - because they knew he'd come out alive, even if he didn't. But the way things were set up, they could not tell Harry he would come out alive because he wouldn't have if they did.

They also tell him that the end is near - very close. I believe Harry took all of this to understand that they knew what was going on and agreed with his decision - because they knew the outcome.

That is what I meant. Why did not Harry think that they wanted him to die, just like Dumbledore did? If that was a betrayal, this must have been more so in Harry's eyes.

Harry likely understood that the outcome they believed (and he believed at the time) was death - but, absolutely necessary because otherwise he would live with the bit of evil inside and as a hunted man by Voldemort his entire life - and of course, many more people would die as a result of any decision he might make to remain alive.

Which is what he saw and understood Dumbledore telling Snape in Snape's memories.

I don't feel he believed they were any happier about what Dumbledore had done than he was - but that had already occurred and Harry would feel that his loved ones, like him, realized there was nothing more that could be done about that. Harry had to do what must be done at that point.

They were encouraging him to die. Dumbledore was pained that he had to tell Snape to pass on that message and Snape was horrified. He would have walked out on Dumbledore that day IMO, if he had found a way to remove the soul bit without sending him to his death.

I agree there is a chance these 4 would have known what would happen; maybe they met Dumbledore in the Afterlife and got everything, or that they knew instinctively because they were dead; but Harry did not know that.

And Harry simply accepts it, when he was feeling so betrayed just a second before by Dumbledore.

In the aftermath - Harry found out the truth from Dumbledore (Dumbledore believed he would most likely live).

He did not know it then, in his walk to Voldemort.

He realized then that if his loved ones had known what would occur, they would have known that he would survive also.

He did not know it then. Where Dumbledore's actions made Harry feel betrayed, I find it strange that his parents and Sirius and Remus's actions did not.

I think it is not so much that Dumbledore knew he had to die, that Harry considered a betrayal. But rather, that Dumb leodfre had allowed him to believe that his goal was Harry's survival. Albus flatly stated as much, in their first lesson of HBP.

It happens to have been the truth, in retrospect. :)

Where Dumbledore's actions made Harry feel betrayed, I find it strange that his parents and Sirius and Remus's actions did not.

I think it was because Harry had already made his decision before he summoned them, and they were there to give him support and strength. One theme of DH, as put forth in the epigraph, is that the dead will always be with us, as their love and strength can be found within. James, Lily, Lupin, and Sirius are the four people who Harry finds within himself to give him strength when facing this most difficult task. His decision is already made, so it is not a betrayal for them to support him because he needs their strength and love.

Harry hadn't worked out his feelings about Dumbledore yet. He gets to in the next chapter.

They were encouraging him to die. Dumbledore was pained that he had to tell Snape to pass on that message and Snape was horrified. He would have walked out on Dumbledore that day IMO, if he had found a way to remove the soul bit without sending him to his death.

I agree there is a chance these 4 would have known what would happen; maybe they met Dumbledore in the Afterlife and got everything, or that they knew instinctively because they were dead; but Harry did not know that.

And Harry simply accepts it, when he was feeling so betrayed just a second before by Dumbledore.

Because Harry felt they were in the same situation that he was in - what could they do? What could he do? Dumbledore had already done his bit, setting up the scene. It wasn't the fact that Harry had to die, it was that Dumbledore had lied to him. His loved ones couldn't send him back in time to allow him to re-live the past with the truth - which was the only solution to Harry's anger at Dumbledore - that had nothing to do with the fact that he had to die. He had to die because he was a horcrux. He should have been told long before - but there was nothing that could be done about that at that point.

He did not know it then. Where Dumbledore's actions made Harry feel betrayed, I find it strange that his parents and Sirius and Remus's actions did not.

Well, as OldMotherCrow says, Harry had deliberately conjured up his parents, Sirius and Remus, in the hour of his greatest need, and it wasn't because he wanted to question them. :cool: By then Harry has accepted the inevitable and realised that he is a Horcrux and this is the path he must take. So he has put aside any desire to analyse the situation, or a desire to dwell on how Dumbledore seemingly betrayed him, and all he wants now is the comfort of people he loves. :cool:

Harry hadn't worked out his feelings about Dumbledore yet. He gets to in the next chapter.

Quite. :tu:

It wasn't the fact that Harry had to die, it was that Dumbledore had lied to him. His loved ones couldn't send him back in time to allow him to re-live the past with the truth - which was the only solution to Harry's anger at Dumbledore

With all due respect, if this had been the only solution Harry would never have been able to make peace with Dumbledore, which he did do before he returned to face Voldemort imo & certainly had done by the prologue. :)

With all due respect, if this had been the only solution Harry would never have been able to make peace with Dumbledore, which he did do before he returned to face Voldemort imo & certainly had done by the prologue. :)

I meant in light of making things right in that very moment. Of course Harry forgave Dumbledore at Kings Cross.

I think it is not so much that Dumbledore knew he had to die, that Harry considered a betrayal. But rather, that Dumb leodfre had allowed him to believe that his goal was Harry's survival. Albus flatly stated as much, in their first lesson of HBP.

It happens to have been the truth, in retrospect. :)

Yes; Harry did not know, what Dumbledore guessed after GOF. In DH (The Forest Again) Harry says he never questioned his assumption that Dumbledore wanted him to survive. (I forgot about the HBP lesson though)

And he accepts it when his parents and Sirius encourage him to go on, which is contrary to what he was thinking at that time.

I was thinking that perhaps Harry while loving his parents and Sirius and all that, set more store by Dumbledore. He expected better of Dumbledore and that was why he felt betrayed? (maybe because he thought Dumbledore was doing all this to help Harry survive through this).

I think it was because Harry had already made his decision before he summoned them, and they were there to give him support and strength. His decision is already made, so it is not a betrayal for them to support him because he needs their strength and love.


Harry's decision was already made when he started walking towards the Forest. It was at that time he was thinking about Dumbledore; when his parents came, they endorsed what Dumbledore said, which Harry accepted, not feeling hurt or betrayed was what I meant. They said they loved him, but they were also not talking about his survival. They were encouraging him to die, something which Harry did not feel was as wrong as when it was Dumbledore who did it.

Because Harry felt they were in the same situation that he was in - what could they do? What could he do? Dumbledore had already done his bit, setting up the scene. It wasn't the fact that Harry had to die, it was that Dumbledore had lied to him. His loved ones couldn't send him back in time to allow him to re-live the past with the truth - which was the only solution to Harry's anger at Dumbledore - that had nothing to do with the fact that he had to die. He had to die because he was a horcrux. He should have been told long before - but there was nothing that could be done about that at that point.

His loved ones had the same attitude as Dumbledore; while Harry was not affected by them, he was by Dumbledore IMO.

As to what they could do; they could have told him that there was a good chance he would survive or if they did not know he would survive that he should go back and since they were with him now, they would think of something else but Harry should not die IMO. They do neither.

Lily's smile was the widest of all.

"You are nearly there." said James. "Very close. We are ... so proud of you."
...."Does it hurt?"

The childish question had fallen from Harry's lips before he could stop it.

"Dying? Not at all." said Sirius. "Quicker and easier than falling asleep."

"And he will want it to be quick. He wants it over." said Lupin.

Well, as OldMotherCrow says, Harry had deliberately conjured up his parents, Sirius and Remus, in the hour of his greatest need, and it wasn't because he wanted to question them. :cool:


This is very interesting. Perhaps I should write this in the resurrection stone thread.

Just how did the stone work?

Harry says (I open at the close (?) and I am about to die) or words to that effect. He is not thinking of just who to recall; he seems to know instinctively that they would come. Did Dumbledore already work the Stone and set the password which would work say, after a particular date; when, at that time when these 4 would come, whenever Harry called?

Harry did not know how to operate the stone, until the end.

Dumbledore did not include himself, but recalled his parents, his godfather and another friend, to whose child Harry was godfather. They come only to encourage him, probably Dumbledore has already told them the details when he worked the stone and recalled them. That could be why they knew.

But Harry did not know and while he was affected by Dumbledore's betrayal, he was not caring at all by his parents and godfather's attitude, which while very loving, was the same as Dumbledore's and Harry knew Dumbledore loved him too.

So, did Harry subconsciously think that he cared about Dumbledore's actions than he did for his parents and godfathers?

YesBut Harry did not know and while he was affected by Dumbledore's betrayal, he was not caring at all by his parents and godfather's attitude, which while very loving, was the same as Dumbledore's and Harry knew Dumbledore loved him too.

I don't think he knew, or believed, any such thing as he walked into the Forest. In this moment in time, I think Harry believed that Albus had manipulated him, and made him believe himself loved, only to achieve his goals. That Harry was already harboring doubts long before this scene is evident, for example, here:

"I don't know who he loved, Hermione, but it was never me. This isn't love, this mess he's left me in. He shared a damned sight more of what he was thinking wqith Gellert Grindelwald than he ever shared with me."

and, moments later

He closed his eyes at her touch, and hated himself for wishing that what she said was true: that Dumbledore had really cared.

He had not resumed a more favorable interpretation of Albus 24 hours before:

Harry kept quiet. He did not want to express the doubts and undertainties about Dumbledore that had riddled him for months now. He had made his choice while he dug Dobby's grave, he had decided to continue along the winding, dangerous path indicated for him by Albus Dumbledore, to accept that he had not been told everything he wanted to know, but simply to trust.

"How can you be sure, Potter, that my brother wasn't more intrested in the greater good than in you? How can you be sure you're not dispensable, just like my little sister?"

A shard of ice seemed to pierce Harry's heart.

I think Harry, quite reasonably, concluded after seeing Snape's memories that Aberforth had been right after all. And that's the betrayal that hurt Harry. Not that Albus wanted him to die - Harry recognized the necessity for himself, this is why he was cooperating). The betrayal, I feel, was that Albus did not love him, used him, manipulated him, only in order to achieve "the greater good". A teary, broken-hearted Albus telling Harry he had to die and he wished it could be different, would not, in my opinoin, have been an Albus Harry would have considered a betrayer. (In fact, when he saw the teary-eyed Albus and learned the truth in "King's Cross", all was welll between them again.)

I think that Harry called back the dead he believed loved him, and this is why we saw the four people we did. And not Albus, because Harry did not believe he cared. Harry would not mind that the dead who loved him agreed it was good for him to die. Harry himself agreed it was good for him to die - why should the agreement of others for the same reasons, upset him? The difference (Harry thought) is that the four from the Stone, regretted the necessity deeply and felt for Harry in this difficult moment.

I never thought of this at all! :) It's a beautiful analysis and I need to think on this a bit more. I was thinking more about the fact that Harry felt betrayed that Dumbledore did not tell Harry about this (the horcrux inside him), but led him to believe that all this was not only about Harry's victory, but about Harry's survival. Whereas Harry felt was now walking to his death and before that, he had been trusted to take care of the horcruxes.

Dumbledore's betrayal was almost nothing. Of course there had been a bigger plan; Harry had been too foolish to see it, he realised it now. He had never questioned his assumption that Dumbledore wanted him alive.

When Harry walks into the Forest that's what I thought, was going on in his mind; that Dumbledore had not told him that Harry would die. And Harry continues to think about the marvellous plan Dumbledore made for him, where the timing had been cleverly determined, or as Harry felt his lifespan had been determined on how long it would take to destroy the horcruxes.

The question is how did these people come out of the Stone; Harry merely understood they would come to take him and why he did not feel surprise that they were saying the same thing as Dumbledore. Perhaps he was glad and tired of everything and so did not question them, wanting to be with them and since Pearl_Took said Harry conjured the 4 people, I am interested to know just how these 4 persons came out.

Was it because Harry somehow knew how to operate the Stone and called them, or is it as I think, that Dumbledore already called them, explained everything to them, and set a date, after which if Harry would speak to the Stone, they would appear and encourage him?

what you say I feel holds good for Harry's relationship with Dumbledore. When Harry is walking to his death, I think Harry is thinking only about his death and how foolishly he had assumed that he would somehow survive this.

I don't believe Albus was capable of tampering with the Resurrection Stone. It is a magical artifact he himself admits Harry is better equipped to use.

Further, I believe that we are shown how Harry chooses who will come back. It is an act of will by him, in my opinion, not an automatic (or Dumbledore-created) function of the Stone. I do not have my English language text handy, so I'll roughly translate the Lithuanian...

And again Harry understood before he could even formulate a thought. He did not intend them to return, because he himself had to travel to join them. He would not be summoning them - they would be summoning him.

CLosing his eyes, Harry turned the Stone three times in his palm.

First, Harry has his moment of insight before he turns the stone, thus, before it is operating. Second, in the immediately following scene, Harry is not surprised by who is there. He does not wonder, for example, how Albus knew nearly a year ago that Lupin would be conveniently dead by them. :lol: Or why Fred is not there. I think he sees the people he expects to see, because they are the people he is calling to him.

I don't believe Albus was capable of tampering with the Resurrection Stone. It is a magical artifact he himself admits Harry is better equipped to use.

I don't think it would be tampering as much as setting it up for Harry, because Harry would not know how to operate the Stone IMO.

Further, I believe that we are shown how Harry chooses who will come back. It is an act of will by him, in my opinion, not an automatic (or Dumbledore-created) function of the Stone. I do not have my English language text handy, so I'll roughly translate the Lithuanian...

The English version says

Again Harry understood without having to think.It did not matter about bringing them back, for he was about to join them. He was not really fetching them, they were fetching him.

I don't know how to read this; to understand from this, that Harry somehow knew to work the Stone or that Dumbeldore set it up for him.

Harry may not be surprised by who is there, because he knows what the Stone does, which is bringing back people from the dead and he would also know that Dumbledore had given this to him for someone to appear at the right time. He could have also concluded that Dumbledore would bring his parents and Sirius to give him confidence. That is something I can believe Harry would know instinctively; but would he know how to call them, I'm not sure about that.

Harry instinctively knew how to work it because he was the master of the hallows. We know how the stone works, the person with it calls on those he wishes to see, it can't be "pre-set" because the user has to desire the people he wants to see. Anyway, Lupin died after Dumbledore so there was no way he could have set that up. No one set the stone for Cadmus, his fiancee returned because she is who he wished to see. :)

Harry instinctively knew how to work it because he was the master of the hallows. We know how the stone works, the person with it calls on those he wishes to see, it can't be "pre-set" because the user has to desire the people he wants to see. Anyway, Lupin died after Dumbledore so there was no way he could have set that up. No one set the stone for Cadmus, his fiancee returned because she is who he wished to see. :)

Oh; okay. :) Harry as Master of the Hallows would be able to work it, you are saying. But would he know how to? And that's a great point about Lupin; Dumbledore would not have known it.

So, Harry attained instinctive knowledge about the Stone, which allowed him to call those he wanted to. :hmm:

Oh; okay. :) Harry as Master of the Hallows would be able to work it, you are saying. But would he know how to? And that's a great point about Lupin; Dumbledore would not have known it.

So, Harry attained instinctive knowledge about the Stone, which allowed him to call those he wanted to. :hmm:

Well I see no other way to show that he is the "master" if he has trouble operating them like everyone else. Dumbledore destroyed his hand; Grindelwald completely misused the Elder Wand and got it taken away from him. So yeah, apparently the way Harry instinctively used them as the "master" was the correct way. The only non-dangerous hallow was the cloak, so many could use it without harm. But the other two were dangerous as all get out. :lol:. In the wrong hands, even very wise hands, they could cause harm and even death.

Actually causing people one loves who are dead to appear with the Stone is a simple mechanical process that is explicitly described in the "Tale of the Three Brothers". One turns the Stone in one's hand three times, the dead appear. This is not, in my view, what Harry understood. What he understood, is that the dead he called back would not be cold and distant as the second brother's dead love was, because he was not calling them back into life from death to keep them here, but to join them there in death.

Albus's problems with it were caused by the fact that it had been, when he touched it, cursed. Harry no longer needed to worry about that. And Albus was so overwhelmed with the shock of finding it and desire to use it, that he forgot what he must have known about how to use it - he put on the ring, rather than turning the stone in his hand.

Actually causing people one loves who are dead to appear with the Stone is a simple mechanical process that is explicitly described in the "Tale of the Three Brothers". One turns the Stone in one's hand three times, the dead appear. This is not, in my view, what Harry understood. What he understood, is that the dead he called back would not be cold and distant as the second brother's dead love was, because he was not calling them back into life from death to keep them here, but to join them there in death.

Agreed, I believe that supports his being the master of the hallows - knowing instinctively how to go about it - because that is simply how he would do so based on his character, imo.

Albus's problems with it were caused by the fact that it had been, when he touched it, cursed. Harry no longer needed to worry about that. And Albus was so overwhelmed with the shock of finding it and desire to use it, that he forgot what he must have known about how to use it - he put on the ring, rather than turning the stone in his hand.

Right - but the fact that Dumbledore forgot is the basis for him not being the master of the hallows. The master would not forget, characteristically, he would not encounter that problem, imo. As you point out, even if it had been cursed, the manner in which Harry used it would not have affected him as it did Dumbledore. Dumbledore was not worthy - in his words and I agree. I don't feel it has anything to do with being super wise or being super good (Harry wasn't either, imo), rather it is merely based on the basic overall character of a person and Harry just had the right character.

I was under the impression that the curse was not on the hallow but on the ring in which it was set. Voldemort having put it on the ring to protect the horucrux.

I would also say that Dumbledores mistake was due to his being overly tempted becsue he had spent close on a century in love with the ledgend of the Hollows - where as Harry hadn't heard of them about a year ago. He also had other, far more pressing things on his mind and had recently made a decision to hunt the Horucrux's not the Hallows. I think that the differance in thier relationship to the myth of the Hallows was more of a factor jmho. :)

I think Harry used the Stone for a proper purpose and successfully because he was the "Master of Death", if you will. But the Stone was not lethal to Albus because of his not being the Master. It was lethal to Albus because Voldemort had cast a lethal curse on it.

If Dumbledore had (for example) countered the curse before closely examining the ring, I feel certain he could have called Ariana and his parents back to himself. It just would not have made him any happier. :)

I was under the impression that the curse was not on the hallow but on the ring in which it was set. Voldemort having put it on the ring to protect the horucrux.

I would also say that Dumbledores mistake was due to his being overly tempted becsue he had spent close on a century in love with the ledgend of the Hollows - where as Harry hadn't heard of them about a year ago. He also had other, far more pressing things on his mind and had recently made a decision to hunt the Horucrux's not the Hallows. I think that the differance in thier relationship to the myth of the Hallows was more of a factor jmho. :)

I would disagree, but only on the grounds that either Dumbledore was a worthy master, but had a lot of excuses for why it didn't work out - or - that Harry wouldn't have been but for a lot of excuses for why he was. To me, Harry's character would never have seen him putting the ring on (cursed or not) if the stone was still set in it. Nor would he use the Elder Wand for power. Nor would he confiscate the cloak - a terrific means of hiding - from a family that was in hiding. These things Dumbledore recognized as flaws he had in Kings Cross. He knew he was not worthy and that Harry was, because he was the better man. Not "better man" as in Harry's the boss and Dumbledore is the flunky, because we know Dumbledore was extremely wise and gifted. But the particular flaws that Dumbledore had - together with his character - simply did not form a man who could be a worthy master.

So to me, excuses either way were not a part of the conclusion. Harry would have been the worthy master even if he'd known about the ring for 100 years because he would have never set out looking for the ring or the Elder Wand with avarice and thoughts of power or bringing back the dead to sate himself, imo.

I think Harry used the Stone for a proper purpose and successfully because he was the "Master of Death", if you will. But the Stone was not lethal to Albus because of his not being the Master. It was lethal to Albus because Voldemort had cast a lethal curse on it.

If Dumbledore had (for example) countered the curse before closely examining the ring, I feel certain he could have called Ariana and his parents back to himself. It just would not have made him any happier. :)

I agree except the bit about his putting on the ring...only because it was his eagerness and covetousness of the ring that got him to do so. Be it because he didn't wish to lose it or whatever - it was still a decision made by Dumbledore and it cost him. I think that was directly related to the reason why he would not make a "master of death". I agree with you that he would have been no happier because his intent was to use it incorrectly - but that only further supports the idea that he had not yet mastered death, imo. Harry had - not at 11 or 12 perhaps, but by the time his character had developed in DH, he was all set for mastery of the hallows, imo.

I think most if not all of those involved in the war, fought for reasons which could be called selfish IMO. Everyone had a reason to fight the war IMO. Harry for example, fought the war because Voldemort had killed his parents. He was also forced to fight because Voldemort was actively hunting him, having chosen him as the boy mentioned in the Prophecy. So Harry had to either give in or fight back. He had no choice. Most of the Order members had a reason to fight, if only it was because they wanted their children to live in a safe and a Voldemort free atmosphere. Motives are generally personal IMO. I don't think they are selfish; I think they are reasons which enable people to stand up courageously and fight even in the face of adversity IMO.


I understand what you are saying, but I dont really think I agree. Because Harry wasnt selfish. Yes, he fought Voldemort because he had to, but - correct me if Im wrong - Im pretty sure that Dumbledore asked Harry how he would feel if Voldemort hadnt targetted him personally. And Harry said 'Id want him finished, and Id want to be the one to do it'. Sure, if someone you love is put in immediate danger, all your thoughts would be with them - but you'd still be fighting for the greater good. In the situation of VOldemort, the easiest thing to do would have been to give in - that was the only sure way you could be sure youre family was safe (if yo uwere a pure blood, that is) or run away. Those people that were fighting, had everythign to lose - the Weasleys - they could have jusr given up, then theyd probably still have Fred.

I understand what you are saying, but I dont really think I agree. Because Harry wasnt selfish. Yes, he fought Voldemort because he had to, but - correct me if Im wrong - Im pretty sure that Dumbledore asked Harry how he would feel if Voldemort hadnt targetted him personally.
Firstly, Harry did not "have to" fight Voldemort. Yes, Voldemort was hunting Harry, but, as Dumbledore says in HBP, "You see, the prophecy does not mean you have to do anything! (…) In other words, you are free to choose your way, quite free to turn your back on the prophecy!"

Harry chose to fight Voldemort - he could have gone into hiding and waited for someone else to kill Voldemort, but he did not. He wanted to finish Voldemort himself.

Also, Dumbledore does not ask Harry "how he would feel if Voldemort hadn't targeted him personally." Dumbledore asks Harry to, "Imagine, please, just for a moment, that you had never heard that prophecy! How would you feel about Voldemort now?"
...the Weasleys - they could have jusr given up, then theyd probably still have Fred.
I do not think the Weasleys could have given up and acclimate under Voldemort's power. They had been against Voldemort and pureblood mania throughout their family's history (the biggest blood traitors known), and I doubt Voldemort would have welcomed them into their ranks. Thus, the "easiest" option would not be to stop fighting - it was to keep fighting for what they believe in. I believe, in a way, fighting for what you believe is much easier than doing something you do not agree with.

In my opinion, Harry followed this philosophy. He acted upon his beliefs, since that was the easiest path. Most of the time, his instincts were right, but occasionally they were wrong. I would say they were the easiest paths for him, even though they presented some of the most difficult obstacles.

Harry chose to fight Voldemort - he could have gone into hiding and waited for someone else to kill Voldemort, but he did not. He wanted to finish Voldemort himself.

It did not work so well for Karkaroff, a person of considerably less interest to Voldemort. ;) The Prophecy could have never come true - but Voldemort's actions really did force Harry's hand to a large extent. He certainly was not free to ignore it.

Also, Dumbledore does not ask Harry "how he would feel if Voldemort hadn't targeted him personally." Dumbledore asks Harry to, "Imagine, please, just for a moment, that you had never heard that prophecy! How would you feel about Voldemort now?"

Exactly. Harry indicated he would still want to defeat Voldemort. He has, as he has stated himself, a strong personal motive for it - Voldemort killed his parents. The word "selfish" arrived on this thread from another. :)

Having to give up your life, stay in hiding and let those around you be hurt isn't much of a "choice".

It did not work so well for Karkaroff, a person of considerably less interest to Voldemort. ;)
It worked very well for Harry, Hermione, and Ron. Their camping adventures show that they were capable of evading Voldemort for quite some time - especially if they were not, simultaneously, trying to defeat him. Also, the Fidelius Charm comes to mind. If Harry put his trust in the right person, he could have certainly remained hidden.
The Prophecy could have never come true - but Voldemort's actions really did force Harry's hand to a large extent. He certainly was not free to ignore it.
I agree. Harry could not ignore the prophecy: even if he "turned his back" on it, his life would still be dramatically altered.
Exactly. Harry indicated he would still want to defeat Voldemort. He has, as he has stated himself, a strong personal motive for it - Voldemort killed his parents. The word "selfish" arrived on this thread from another. :)
Yes, but I would not use the term "selfish." I do not think anyone can be called selfish for trying to rid the world of such evil, even it if it is partly personal (though I do understand how a literal interpretation of the word could be applied). Harry did have a very personal motive, but he also considered the fate of the entire Wizarding World. Harry helped his fellow wizards, many of whom placed their trust in him, by defeating Voldemort. To me, that is not selfish - it is selfless.
Having to give up your life, stay in hiding and let those around you be hurt isn't much of a "choice".
Exactly. But it is a choice: a difficult one. This is why I was saying that choosing to resist Voldemort was a very easy choice for Harry, which posed very difficult problems. However, choosing to do nothing would, with Harry's love, be unbearable for our hero.

Yes, but I would not use the term "selfish." I do not think anyone can be called selfish for trying to rid the world of such evil, even it if it is partly personal (though I do understand how a literal interpretation of the word could be applied). Harry did have a very personal motive, but he also considered the fate of the entire Wizarding World. Harry helped his fellow wizards, many of whom placed their trust in him, by defeating Voldemort. To me, that is not selfish - it is selfless.

I agree. :D

Regarding Harry's success in hiding out - I do think it helped that Voldemort was distracted by his quest for the Elder Wand.

The Fidelius Charm is not as effective as we once believed, as a way to hide. If Harry chose someone utterly reliable like Ron or Hermione, that would be good initially (assuming Legilimncy does not work against a Secret Keeper, that is, something which we do not actually know). However, by killing the Secret Keeper, an enemy could widen the circle to include considerably less reliable people, unless Harry also avoided contact with anyone less reliable than his Secret Keeper.

Yes, but I would not use the term "selfish." I do not think anyone can be called selfish for trying to rid the world of such evil, even it if it is partly personal (though I do understand how a literal interpretation of the word could be applied). Harry did have a very personal motive, but he also considered the fate of the entire Wizarding World. Harry helped his fellow wizards, many of whom placed their trust in him, by defeating Voldemort. To me, that is not selfish - it is selfless.


I agree. Personal motivation does not always equate to selfish...a word that implies one thinks only of himself. That's not who Harry is, his actions consistently prove the opposite.

Harry suspended his relationship with Ginny to protect her from being used by Voldemort. Harry knew the stakes were high for the entire wizarding world. He was extremely selfless in DH (as were Hermione & Ron), and his impulse was always to choose to help others, whether friend or enemy. For example, regardless of personal danger, he never hesitated on the rescue Draco & company from the burning RoR. He even tired to get Voldemort to help himself during the final battle.

That leads to an interesting question. What do you think Harry would have done if Voldemort had broke down and admitted to having remorse?

I presume Harry would have accepted his surrender.

And the prophecy?

It seems to me that the prophecy was coming true because of Voldemort's choices. You are positing an AU in which Voldemort would choose differently.

That leads to an interesting question. What do you think Harry would have done if Voldemort had broke down and admitted to having remorse?
I agree with zgirnius that Harry would accept Voldemort's remorse and just imprison him, like Dumbledore did with Grindelwald. Harry is not ruthless in his revenge - he would not want to kill for no reason, in my opinion. Even though the worst thing someone could do to Voldemort is deal death, I do not think Harry would be that cruel if Voldemort surrendered.

However, I do not think Voldemort could have survived feeling remorse. Here is what Hermione said about Horcruxes and remorse:
"Isn't there any way of putting yourself back together?" Ron asked.
"Yes," said Hermione with a hollow smile, "but it would be excruciatingly painful."
"Why? How do you do it?" asked Harry.
"Remorse," said Hermione. "You've got to really feel what you've done. There's a footnote. Apparently the pain of it can destroy you. I can't see Voldemort attempting it somehow, can you?"
Although all Voldemort's Horcruxes were destroyed, I still think the pain of feeling remorse would have destroyed him.
And the prophecy?
Is irrelevant. The prophecy does not force Harry or Voldemort to do anything. It is a prediction, nothing more. Dumbledore tells Harry that he could turn his back on the prophecy, and not all of the prophecies in the Hall of Prophecy have been fulfilled. Trelawney's would just be one of those unfulfilled prophecies.

I think that as long as "the Dark Lord" died, it is a moot point if Tom Riddle is physically killed or not. Harry helps kill off the Dark Lord by offering up the truth to the Wizarding audience watching the final confrontation. The Dark Lord was not all-knowing or all-powerful, and his minions were not completely loyal and united behind him. The myth of the Dark Lord is destroyed. For his part, Voldemort had been trying to kill the myth of hope surrounding Harry Potter, not just Harry's life itself; that is why I think Voldemort needed to take Harry's body up to the castle, but then got the rude awakening that killing Harry wasn't enough to quash the rebellion.

I think Harry would have accepted and spared a truly remorseful Voldemort-- one who would have to demonstrate his remorse before a vast audience. I think that too would have helped kill the myth of the Dark Lord-- though it might have made for a sappy ending. In any case, a remorseful Voldemort who lived would not have had a happy ending, as he would have to be imprisoned for the rest of his life like Grindelwald was.

Edit: I think MrSleepyHead has a good point about the Prophecy being irrelevant at that point. A good outcome is a good outcome at that point, whether Trelawney predicted it or not. :)

"Not happy" is sort of relative. Happier, anyway, than a flayed baby beyond help or sympathy, and stuck that way for eternity...the thing Harry saw in King's Cross.

Um a lot of very good points. I agree, now thinking on it. If both Voldemort and Harry gave up, then the prophecy would no longer have to be fulfilled (assuming the marking of the chosen one didn't make it a must). But dying as a result of ALL that remorse would likely kill him - I didn't recall that canon - great point there too, so he would likely die if he truly felt remorse. And I also agree he'd be happier than the flayed baby.

It is just interesting because I wondered if Harry's offer could have been a serious one, not in an Alternate Universe sense, but within the actual storyline. But the above shows that it could have been...

Oh, I really think it was a serious offer. I don't think that Harry believed Tom would take him up on it, but I think what he learned from his experiences, especially the recent ones of "The Prince's Tale" and "King's Cross", is that we can never be sure we truly know the hearts of other people, and we can also never be sure people will not be willing and able to change. So he made the offer, just in case he was wrong about Tom as he had been about Snape and Dumbledore.

Oh, I really think it was a serious offer. I don't think that Harry believed Tom would take him up on it, but I think what he learned from his experiences, especially the recent ones of "The Prince's Tale" and "King's Cross", is that we can never be sure we truly know the hearts of other people, and we can also never be sure people will not be willing and able to change. So he made the offer, just in case he was wrong about Tom as he had been about Snape and Dumbledore.

Well I wasn't thinking of it in terms of Harry's personal beliefs so much as the impact of the prophecy on his offer. The "marking" made it so that it had to be fulfilled - and the end is that one must die at the hand of the other, in order for one to survive (at least I think that is what it says :lol:). But Old Mother Crow's point about the Dark Lord (Voldemort) dying - metaphorically - and Tom remaining alive is a good one. So it could be fulfilled that way. And also if Tom ended up dying from remorse, it would also work that way. And in either case, Harry's special weapon would be the same (well for me, because I believe it was 'love' rather than the Elder Wand - something Voldemort would not have, prior to any remorse.) So the offer seems possible in light of the prophecy, which I think is important to Voldemort actually having a choice.

[QUOTE=MrSleepyHead;5294415]Firstly, Harry did not "have to" fight Voldemort. Yes, Voldemort was hunting Harry, but, as Dumbledore says in HBP, "You see, the prophecy does not mean you have to do anything! (…) In other words, you are free to choose your way, quite free to turn your back on the prophecy!"

I was aware of that... Thats what I was saying. That Harry wasnt only fighting because he had to... The poster before me said that he was 'forced' to fight Voldemort, and I was saying that he wasn't forced. That he chose to, and not just to avenge his parents.

I do not think the Weasleys could have given up and acclimate under Voldemort's power.

I agree, I wasnt saying that they would have - but they could have. They didn't have to. But they did because they knew it was wrong.

Oh, I really think it was a serious offer. I don't think that Harry believed Tom would take him up on it, but I think what he learned from his experiences, especially the recent ones of "The Prince's Tale" and "King's Cross", is that we can never be sure we truly know the hearts of other people, and we can also never be sure people will not be willing and able to change. So he made the offer, just in case he was wrong about Tom as he had been about Snape and Dumbledore.

I agree, it was a serious gesture on Harry's part, during the last battle he was paying very close attention to Voldemort's reactions to what he was saying. Knowing what he did after King's Cross, Harry had to share what he knew with Voldemort, giving him a choice to improve his lot in the afterlife. It's just who Harry is.

I agree, it was a serious gesture on Harry's part, during the last battle he was paying very close attention to Voldemort's reactions to what he was saying. Knowing what he did after King's Cross, Harry had to share what he knew with Voldemort, giving him a choice to improve his lot in the afterlife. It's just who Harry is.

I think it was much more than a gesture on Harry's part. Harry, unlike Dumbledore and Snape - disclosed everything to the dark lord. He did not attempt manipulation or deception. He didn't have to tell Voldemort all about the changing hands associated with the Elder Wand. He didn't have to reveal Snape was a spy. He didn't have to tell Voldemort that love would win again or that to Harry's belief, he was the master of the Elder Wand. But he did - and in the face of Voldemort showing grave disrespect and devaluation of his mother (likening her to a cockroach which he stamped out) and Dumbledore (mimicrying his faith in love and belittling his broken body in the face of Voldy's strength).

Voldemort thumped his nose at love, at the idea of killing Draco, at the fact that he might not be the owner of the Elder Wand, at the fact that one of his loyal minions had betrayed him, at Harry's possible advantages, and at the fact that he couldn't "get to Harry" this round with his degrading comment about his mother. But Harry could legitimately say that he tried to address all of these things with the dark lord and give him full knowledge - placing them on completely even terms before any confrontation took place. So I felt the offer served as much more than a gesture in that scene - it was fundamental to showing Harry's growth as a character (as you pointed out) and viewpoint that he balance the scales between he and his foe. That is why it can legitimately be said that Harry was the better man of he and Dumbledore - because Harry would not manipulate or deceive or otherwise use underhanded methods or trickery in order to win - even for the greater good.

I'm not even going to bother reading all 50 pages (49 to be precise) to see if anyone's already said this, so I'll just say this:
I don't think Harry is actually very brave...
I think his his ability to be loyal, compassionate, and determined make it appear as though he's very brave...
Not bashing on him but:

He's very loyal to Dumbledore. In the OTP, Harry tries to not let Dumbledore take the fall for the DA... not brave at all. Loyalty.

Harry goes to great lengths to save Sirius in the same book. He was compassionate twords Sirius, thus not being brave by going to save him. It was something that had to be done for his conscious to be clear. He also believes that Sirius was still there even after Lucius tells him otherwise (determination).

When Harry is going to die and he knows he has no choice, he's not being brave by giving himself up. He knew he had to die and decided to do it peacefully. Why lose the life of all his friends just so he could life a little bit longer?

Just my 2 cents.

:welcome: AntiMuggle!

Thanks for joining the discussion. You don't have to use spoiler tags in the Harry Potter areas, since we expect that everyone has had enough time and opportunity to read the books by now. :)


When Harry is going to die and he knows he has no choice, he's not being brave by giving himself up. He knew he had to die and decided to do it peacefully. Why lose the life of all his friends just so he could life a little bit longer?

As I see it, this is bravery because a coward would have tried to draw out the inevitable. And I think that Harry always had a choice. He didn't have to accept his death as inescapable fact, he could have walked away or tried to find another solution. His friends and supporters would have helped him, which is why Dumbledore did not tell McGonagall about the Horcruxes or anyone else for that matter. He knew that Harry would value the lives of others higher than his own life and that he would be able to make a decision none of his friends would expect him to make.

From the Severus Snape thread

Harry wasn't learning to block people - he taught himself using his method to shut Voldemort out completely - you can't get any better than that. And Voldemort had a direct line to his head on top of it. I dunno if he could block others - although you'd imagine he could use the same method as it was so formidable. […] So I figure the wear your heart on the sleeve method was stronger in the end against Voldy - something Snape couldn't teach him.

Harry’s method for blocking Voldemort from his mind was not about wearing his heart on his sleeve it was about feeling love. This did not just start happening in DH but had been happening since the first book, when Quirrel!Mort was unable to bear Harry’s touch, and in OotP when Voldemort was unable to posses Harry because he felt love. It was simply that as he was burying Dobby Harry began to realise that he could use it deliberately.

One reason I think this is so important in the context of the books, is that love is shown not just to be a nice fluffy feeling but also involved pain, the pain of lose can only occur with love and thus is a part of love.

From the Severus Snape thread

Harry’s method for blocking Voldemort from his mind was not about wearing his heart on his sleeve it was about feeling love. This did not just start happening in DH but had been happening since the first book, when Quirrel!Mort was unable to bear Harry’s touch, and in OotP when Voldemort was unable to posses Harry because he felt love. It was simply that as he was burying Dobby Harry began to realise that he could use it deliberately.

One reason I think this is so important in the context of the books, is that love is shown not just to be a nice fluffy feeling but also involved pain, the pain of lose can only occur with love and thus is a part of love.

Well I said this in a subsequent post. Harry learned this because of his connection to Voldemort which caused him to have to readily practise against invasion, and learn the ability to invade without being detected. I feel he had to hone it on his own and I agree love was the key. But it only occurred starting in DH. Prior to that, Harry had not honed this particular talent in a proactve sense. I agree that before that, he showed some natural ability - although the Quirrell deal was merely because of the old magic which Harry had no real proactive involvement in.

I don't think the important message was pain (of loss) being a part of love though. That is overly dramatizing the emotion, imo. I think that the light, fluffy love - which to me also includes a deep love for family, friends and mankind (heavy stuff to be called fluffy really) was the greatest message. Certainly pain comes with the loss of loved ones, hardship by loved ones and any other negative things occurring to loved ones. However, to me, that was not the point to be dwelled upon - indeed, Voldemort dwelled upon it to his eventually detriment and vanquishment. He greatly feared and felt pain at even the thought of death. Since he had no love - it is hard to see it as its natural opposite: love of life. But in essence that is what it was - the deep desire to hold onto life with tenacity. One message was that one's loved ones are always a part of them - but you have to find them in yourself and more importantly, accept that and be able to embrace the idea fully. That was problematic for most people in the series - but Harry did come to understand and embrace the idea, imo.

Harry’s method for blocking Voldemort from his mind was not about wearing his heart on his sleeve it was about feeling love. This did not just start happening in DH but had been happening since the first book, when Quirrel!Mort was unable to bear Harry’s touch, and in OotP when Voldemort was unable to posses Harry because he felt love. It was simply that as he was burying Dobby Harry began to realise that he could use it deliberately.


Harry's method reminds me of Sirius's. Sirius managed to stay sane(ish) in Azkaban and eventually escape by learning to focus. I find it to be very similar to Occlumency.

Harry's method reminds me of Sirius's. Sirius managed to stay sane(ish) in Azkaban and eventually escape by learning to focus. I find it to be very similar to Occlumency.

I don't think Sirius's method is similar to Harry's. Sirius survived the dementors first because he knew he was innocent -- not a happy thought, just a sane one -- which helped him remember who he was, and the dementors couldn't take it from him. And as a dog, he said his mind was less complex, less human, so the dementors left him alone believing he had lost his mind. That helped him survive, but it was not like occlumency, no mental effort at concealment was made -- he physically changed his body to hide from them.

Harry's eventual success at occlumency came from his determination to focus on what needed to be done, and what was important. Once he had that focus he learned to use it to block & unblock the connection at will. Before that, the problem Harry had was that he wanted to know what the vision about the door meant, so he focused on that which made learning occlumency at that time impossible.

I don't think Sirius's method is similar to Harry's. Sirius survived the dementors first because he knew he was innocent -- not a happy thought, just a sane one -- which helped him remember who he was, and the dementors couldn't take it from him. And as a dog, he said his mind was less complex, less human, so the dementors left him alone believing he had lost his mind. That helped him survive, but it was not like occlumency, no mental effort at concealment was made -- he physically changed his body to hide from them.

Harry's eventual success at occlumency came from his determination to focus on what needed to be done, and what was important. Once he had that focus he learned to use it to block & unblock the connection at will. Before that, the problem Harry had was that he wanted to know what the vision about the door meant, so he focused on that which made learning occlumency at that time impossible.

I agree - though I did find it very interesting that it turned out that using his emotions is what was necessary to make that work rather than trying to empty himself of emotion. His grief over Dobby's death made it possible for him to finally figure out how to control it.

I don't think Sirius's method is similar to Harry's. Sirius survived the dementors first because he knew he was innocent -- not a happy thought, just a sane one -- which helped him remember who he was, and the dementors couldn't take it from him. And as a dog, he said his mind was less complex, less human, so the dementors left him alone believing he had lost his mind. That helped him survive, but it was not like occlumency, no mental effort at concealment was made -- he physically changed his body to hide from them.

Harry's eventual success at occlumency came from his determination to focus on what needed to be done, and what was important. Once he had that focus he learned to use it to block & unblock the connection at will. Before that, the problem Harry had was that he wanted to know what the vision about the door meant, so he focused on that which made learning occlumency at that time impossible.


I see Harry's method and Sirius's method as similar because they both used not the elimination of emotion, but focus. Sure, Sirius used his animagus form to help simplify his emotions, but even so, I see the distillation of emotion between the two to as the same sort of action.

Like Harry, Sirius was able to eventually focus on what needed to be done, and escaped Azkaban. Harry was able to go far beyond that with his "Occlumency-substitute", as by the end of DH he was able to simply pull strength from within himself to keep the dementors at bay, with no need of a spell.

I see Harry's method and Sirius's method as similar because they both used not the elimination of emotion, but focus. Sure, Sirius used his animagus form to help simplify his emotions, but even so, I see the distillation of emotion between the two to as the same sort of action.

Like Harry, Sirius was able to eventually focus on what needed to be done, and escaped Azkaban. Harry was able to go far beyond that with his "Occlumency-substitute", as by the end of DH he was able to simply pull strength from within himself to keep the dementors at bay, with no need of a spell.

Well said - and I agree with you :)

I have a question. It's more of a matter of opinion I guess but I'll ask anyway.

Throughout the series, Harry was able to perform magic that no other witch or wizard his age could. A great example is him being able to conjure a full body patronus in PoA.

Would you say this is due to him being an extremely powerful wizard or was it the piece of Voldemort's soul inside him that gave him the strength/ability to perform such powerful or advanced magic?

I have a question. It's more of a matter of opinion I guess but I'll ask anyway.

Throughout the series, Harry was able to perform magic that no other witch or wizard his age could. A great example is him being able to conjure a full body patronus in PoA.

Would you say this is due to him being an extremely powerful wizard or was it the piece of Voldemort's soul inside him that gave him the strength/ability to perform such powerful or advanced magic?

I thought the idea was that love is more powerful than magic, and basically can drive one to undertake incredible magic - doing that which the wizard didn't know they were capable of. That is what happened there, imo. Harry found his dad in himself - or love of his parents and was instilled with the belief that he was the person he'd seen across the lake and could do the magic, so he did. Nobody else was there, so the magic came from within him, as did the patronus as we know because it was his.

I thought the idea was that love is more powerful than magic, and basically can drive one to undertake incredible magic - doing that which the wizard didn't know they were capable of. That is what happened there, imo. Harry found his dad in himself - or love of his parents and was instilled with the belief that he was the person he'd seen across the lake and could do the magic, so he did. Nobody else was there, so the magic came from within him, as did the patronus as we know because it was his.

I agree with you. :tu: Love is more powerful than magic. The love instilled in him by his parents gave him strength to do what others could not.

But I still think having a part of Voldemort inside him had something to do with it. Like Dumbledore said, LV transferred some of his powers to Harry the night he failed to kill him. JMO

I agree with you. :tu: Love is more powerful than magic. The love instilled in him by his parents gave him strength to do what others could not.

But I still think having a part of Voldemort inside him had something to do with it. Like Dumbledore said, LV transferred some of his powers to Harry the night he failed to kill him. JMO

I don't know how Voldy could have anything to do with that particular act - Voldemort can't conjure a patronus. According to JKR he has no happy thoughts. So nothing he transferred would have helped in the sense of magical knowledge or ability, imo.

I agree with you. :tu: Love is more powerful than magic. The love instilled in him by his parents gave him strength to do what others could not.

But I still think having a part of Voldemort inside him had something to do with it. Like Dumbledore said, LV transferred some of his powers to Harry the night he failed to kill him. JMO
Dumbledore also says they are "in essence divided" after Harry sees through the eyes of the snake when it is attacking Mr. Weasley in HBP. So the transferred powers are the Parseltongue speech, the visions, the anger and confusion Harry feels sometimes, etc. But other things like his Quidditch ability or his patronus seem to come from him.

JKR said that a patronus is a "soul guardian," and since Lord Voldemort is more of a soul-cutter-destroyer, I don't think that ability could have come from him. It's sort of the opposite of his own power because it is inspired by someone you love, like Snape's Silver Doe. Harry wisely points out that Voldemort had never seen Snape's patronus or he would have known he was on the good side. Harry uses his patronus to fight Dementors, which are also soul destroyers. So I believe the patronus ability didn't come from Voldemort at all, and Harry had to practice in order to make one just like the other kids.

So I believe the patronus ability didn't come from Voldemort at all, and Harry had to practice in order to make one just like the other kids.

But I feel JKR was trying to make a point here. Last we saw Harry's patronus at the game, it was a big blob that seemed to be trying to take on some shape. But not recognizable. The point was that he not only issued a full blown patronus in POA, he issued one that was powerful enough to drive away 100's of dementors.

In DH, the other kids were able to issue patronuses also, but it wasn't until Harry came along that the dementors were finally driven away, because his was simply much more powerful. Once he'd done it in POA he could repeat that, but he didn't realize he could do it the first time. Dumbledore was impressed with the stag and recognized that the power had to have come from within, not merely based on practice - but finding his father within himself - which was another representation of love, imo. Harry finding his power through love in his time of need (when his parents would always be there) was the final message, imo.

WWB: Yes but there's more than one way to look at it, though, as usual. Harry was a precocious wizard, and while yes he could make a powerful patronus, the adults could also do that. We don't know what their patronuses were capable of doing because we never saw that.

So Harry had powers beyond most of his peers but I am just saying that talent did not come from Voldemort, which was the only question I was addressing.

His compassion, loyalty, and determination helped get him through the series. He's so brave and cares for so many others more than himself. I love him so much!

I think it's hard to tell just how much of Harry's power was inherited from his parents and how much was taken from Voldemort. We can only tell for sure by seeing Harry perform complex spells after being purged of the Horcrux piece. According to JKR, at least, Harry lost whatever abilities Voldemort gave him after sacrificing himself, so any increased magical power would probably be included in that. But, unfortunately, Harry wasn't doing much advanced magic between the time of his "death" and the end of book 7, so we can't be 100% sure.

My guess, though, is that the power comes from his parents. Lily and James were apparently both talented, and Harry could easily have inherited those talents.

And if they did come from Voldemort, then they'd have to be gone entirely. After Voldemort was destroyed, I don't think it would make sense for Harry to suddenly become rubbish at Quidditch. ;) And Harry's powerful Patronus would definitely not go. It represents the fact that his father is watching over him even in death. That's something that would not go away, no matter how much at peace Harry finally is with their loss.


On a side note, I was thinking that perhaps Harry's terrible childhood contributed to his success at the Patronus Charm. A Patronus requires happy feelings in order to work. Someone like Harry, who is chock full of painful and sad memories, might find himself much more affected by good memories because for him, they are few and far between, and he would cherish them much more than anyone with a normal childhood, who would take such small pleasures for granted.

But I feel JKR was trying to make a point here. Last we saw Harry's patronus at the game, it was a big blob that seemed to be trying to take on some shape. But not recognizable.
.

The Patronus Harry produced at the match did have a form, Dumbledore tells Harry that he recognised the form his Patronus took at the match.

Your father is alive in you, Harry and shows himself most plainly when you have need of him. How else could you produce that particular Patronus? Prongs rode again last night.'
It took a moment for Harry to realise what Dumbledore had said.
'Sirius told me all about how they became Animagi last night said Dumbledore, smiling, ' An extraordinary achievement - not least keeping it quiet from me. And then I remembered the most unusual form your Patronus took, when it charged Mr Malfoy down at your Quidditch match against Ravenclaw.So you did see your father last night Harry...you found him inside yourself.

So, Harry had produced the Stag Patronus at the match.

Dumbledore was impressed with the stag and recognized that the power had to have come from within, not merely based on practice - but finding his father within himself - which was another representation of love, imo. Harry finding his power through love in his time of need (when his parents would always be there) was the final message, imo.

I think there is something in what you say here. At first Harry thought he had seen his father send the Patronus from across the lake. So, I think his father was very much on his mind that night, and this could have affected the strengh of the Patronus he produced when he fought off all those Dementors. Dumbledore knew about James's Animagus form from Sirius and put two and two together, and realised that Harry's Patronus was his father within him.


My guess, though, is that the power comes from his parents. Lily and James were apparently both talented, and Harry could easily have inherited those talents.

And if they did come from Voldemort, then they'd have to be gone entirely. After Voldemort was destroyed, I don't think it would make sense for Harry to suddenly become rubbish at Quidditch. ;) And Harry's powerful Patronus would definitely not go. It represents the fact that his father is watching over him even in death. That's something that would not go away, no matter how much at peace Harry finally is with their loss.

I agree! :agree:

The Patronus Harry produced at the match did have a form, Dumbledore tells Harry that he recognised the form his Patronus took at the match.

Your father is alive in you, Harry and shows himself most plainly when you have need of him. How else could you produce that particular Patronus? Prongs rode again last night.'
It took a moment for Harry to realise what Dumbledore had said.
'Sirius told me all about how they became Animagi last night said Dumbledore, smiling, ' An extraordinary achievement - not least keeping it quiet from me. And then I remembered the most unusual form your Patronus took, when it charged Mr Malfoy down at your Quidditch match against Ravenclaw.So you did see your father last night Harry...you found him inside yourself.

There is another quote, perhaps by Lupin following the match. I don't feel like looking it up at the moment - sorry - but I've been studying and if I open a anothef book I'll likely shred it. :lol:. So to save my library, I will just say that it was still a big blobish thing at that point via the other quote - but it was unusual because it was not the usual poof Harry had made prior to that - it started to take shape. A stag is not an unusual form. I'll look it up another time.

So, Harry had produced the Stag Patronus at the match.

No...but he was getting closer, iirc.

I think there is something in what you say here. At first Harry thought he had seen his father send the Patronus from across the lake. So, I think his father was very much on his mind that night, and this could have affected the strengh of the Patronus he produced when he fought off all those Dementors. Dumbledore knew about James's Animagus form from Sirius and put two and two together, and realised that Harry's Patronus was his father within him.

Yes I agree, but we knew already that Harry was like his dad in ways and so I did not understand that to be the point. To me it was the love his parents had for him and which he felt for them. This, he felt most strongly in his time of need (add Sirius when he dies, and so on). The operating word being "love" because love is greater than magic and in love one can find power to do things like issue the grand patronus or fill onesself with so much of it, Voldy can't stand to possess the body.

I agree that Harry found his father in himself also in the form of their shared patronus, but to me, the strength was a result of the love flowing through him when he thought of his father or mother, those feelings of love for them and that they felt for him surged - he'd felt that love at birth for 15 months. We saw this when he stood before the mirror of Erised. So he thinks dad, feels the love, the patronus is a stag because they share characteristics (but it would be no matter when he did it, because "prongs" represents him too, not just his dad), and it is strengthened by the love flowing through him at that time, imo.

I don't know how Voldy could have anything to do with that particular act - Voldemort can't conjure a patronus. According to JKR he has no happy thoughts. So nothing he transferred would have helped in the sense of magical knowledge or ability, imo.

I didn't mean the patronus specifically, I was just providing an example. I understand you though. Voldemort had no happy thoughts so he couldn't have helped Harry conjure the patronus. Thanks :tu:

Dumbledore also says they are "in essence divided" after Harry sees through the eyes of the snake when it is attacking Mr. Weasley in HBP. So the transferred powers are the Parseltongue speech, the visions, the anger and confusion Harry feels sometimes, etc. But other things like his Quidditch ability or his patronus seem to come from him.

I see, thanks :tu:
So I guess Harry was an extremely powerful wizard for his age.

So I guess Harry was an extremely powerful wizard for his age.

I would disagree - I always had the impression that Harry was very ordinary & that is what makes him so special imo. Apart from having a shard of Voldemort's soul (& the events that lead to it) and his ability to love dispite his up bringing of course, there is nothing remarkable about him that I can think of. He can speak parseltounge becasue he has some of Voldemorts soul but appart from that and the patronus I can't think of him excelling in magic in an extrodinary way (as we are lead to belive Dumbledore & Voldemort did in thier youths), his OWL grades are on the good side of average but certainly not extraodinary.

Personally I can only think of the Patronus as an example of him using exreamly powerful magic for his age - and it is a spell taught to him early, we see later that other students are capable of learning it much earlier than they would ordinarily be taught it. Admitedly the Partonus he conjured at the end of PoA was very powerful - but to me that is because his 'special power' is love not because his gereral magical ability is extrodinary. :)