Harry Potter: Character Analysis

We all have to deal with that sort of human's in our normal life and try to escape from it among other ways by reading exiting books.To read about the same kind of people you try to avoid in r/t is annoying.I don't mind a flawless characyter in books as the normal world is full of the flawed characters and to read about someone elses fights that really don't matter is tiresome.

This is a matter of personal taste then. I find perfect heroes to be boring. I can't relate to them- I'm a person with flaws, I would prefer to read about someone like me. I think that's probably what appealed to me most about Harry Potter initially, that he was unlike any hero I had read about until that point. He was so much more real than any of the Disney protagonists, or comic book heroes I had known. Harry wasn't a gorgeous, self-assured god who always did the right thing. Instead, Harry was a clueless, confused little kid who lies, hates people who are nasty to him and actually has emotions. I deeply appreciated how down-to-earth he was as a character. I found it a refreshing change.

Our Trio fight more among themselves then against the opponents. Seems more like a soap-opera to me then a fantasy novel series. I would not mind if Harry had been above that kind of childish behaviour.

I would, because it would make Harry incredibly unrealistic. Why would he be more mature than the others? If anything, he should be less mature. I've read somewhere that Harry is remarkably stable for an orphan who grew up in a neglectful, abusive home. So, Harry is actually unrealistically well-behaved as he is.

I wish instead of appologizing for not making him a prefect Dumbledore had told him to stop behave like a spoiled brat.

Was he apologizing or, as weasley9 said, just explaining himself to Harry and the reader?

But the whole series is about someone else's conflicts. That's what pretty much all books/films are about. In the Godrics Hollow scene that we were talking about, Harry doesn't even fight ith Hermione at all. He doesn't voice his anger in the slightest. In fact, I don't see one mentionof the fact that he's angry. In the book, he just appears to be sad and shocked about what happened to his wand.

That's how I remembered it as well. Harry was just upset that his wand was broken- a perfectly normal and understandable reaction. I would be annoyed if Harry wasn't upset about his wand being broken, because that just wouldn't make any sense given his dangerous situation and the importance of wands in the HP-verse. I don't remember him being angry with Hermione.

This is a matter of personal taste then. I find perfect heroes to be boring. I can't relate to them- I'm a person with flaws, I would prefer to read about someone like me. I think that's probably what appealed to me most about Harry Potter initially, that he was unlike any hero I had read until that point. He was so much more real than any of the Disney and comic book heroes. Harry wasn't a gorgeous, self-assured god. Instead, Harry was a clueless, confused little kid who lies, hates people who are nasty to him and actually has emotions.

I think it is, as you suggest, a matter of personal taste - not just flawed v perfect hero but because different flaws are more or less appealing to different people.

In many ways Harry reminds me of Luke Skywalker and I find them unappealing for many of the same reasons.

I do like the fact that Harry is in many ways quite a normal kid & in the first few books I do find him fairly appealing.

Why?? :hmm: because he is a misfit (in the muggle world mainly but I think that carries through into the wizarding world somewhat in the early books), because he is entranced by the new world he finds himself part of, because he is a bit feisty (although if I were his teacher I would not tolerate the cheek on display :)), because he see’s when Ron is being a twit / unfair and points is out gently, because he chooses to make friends with Hermione (although I wish he’d been that smart a bit earlier! :lol:), and because he really pushes the idea that he isn’t something special.

In the later books I think the idea that he is special (because of reasons other than his horucrux like status) is pushed on the audience – and to me he is just fairly ordinary I can’t see what makes him so special in the eyes of people like Dumbledore (or JKR).

Also his feistiness boils over from a sign of spirit to a constant anger (of varying intensity) and I find it wearing and it is a flaw that rubs me up the wrong way. I know he had a lot to deal with & there are all those hormones but I just find it too much.

It was a bit ridiculous that Harry was so upset over becoming Prefect. But, we all get a bit jealous over ridiculous things sometimes, don't we? Being jealous that someone got something you didn't is perfectly natural, and happens to the best of us. His jealousy hardly even lasts that long. After that chapter, he resolves to top sulking about Ron getting prefect, and accepts that Ron got something he didn't. The conflict is not brought up again until the end of the book, when Dumbledore mentions it.

I had a hard time with Harry in OotP, but his jealousy over the Prefect position was one thing that felt really believable to me. Harry had spent the summer being ignored by Dumbledore and his friends. He had a very rough time in the graveyard, and he was whisked off to the Dursleys with no one from the wizard world to talk to or to understand what he had been through. So I felt that it was perfectly understandable that he felt underappreciated. It is something that I have personally felt, maybe for the wrong reasons, but yeah, none of us are perfect. :) And when you are feeling underappreciated, it is very easy to be jealous. Anyone with siblings would probably have those feelings, too, imo. And the thing is, Harry only felt that way for a very short time.

In many ways Harry reminds me of Luke Skywalker and I find them unappealing for many of the same reasons.

I guess that is why I like Harry so much. :D


In the later books I think the idea that he is special (because of reasons other than his horucrux like status) is pushed on the audience – and to me he is just fairly ordinary I can’t see what makes him so special in the eyes of people like Dumbledore (or JKR).

That could be more the fault of JKR's writing than the character, since I see that same comment directled at other characters in the book.

Dumbledore found Harry to be extraordinary for many reasons, which he states in several parts of the books. Dumbledore has been dealing with students for years, so he would know an unusual one when he saw it, imo. But the way Harry was willing to fight against impossible odds, at the risk of his own death, and for the greater good, was probably one of the things he admired.

All in my opinion. :)

Originally Posted by weasley9
It was a bit ridiculous that Harry was so upset over becoming Prefect. But, we all get a bit jealous over ridiculous things sometimes, don't we? Being jealous that someone got something you didn't is perfectly natural, and happens to the best of us. His jealousy hardly even lasts that long. After that chapter, he resolves to top sulking about Ron getting prefect, and accepts that Ron got something he didn't. The conflict is not brought up again until the end of the book, when Dumbledore mentions it.

This was the only part in OotP where I actually got a bit angry at Harry. I was able to tolerate everything else in that book because personally I felt that Harry had every right to act the way he did in that book. His life wasn't going well at the moment. However, I did get over the prefect situation even though I though it was a little annoying.

But the way Harry was willing to fight against impossible odds, at the risk of his own death, and for the greater good, was probably one of the things he admired.

I agree with you. I think there are many reason why Harry could be considered admirable but I think these are the main reasons why Dumbledore thinks so. I also think highly of Harry because despite having a far from ordinary life he managed to stay sane and true to good beliefs. He knew how to be a normal teenager and even though Harry wasn't the smartest or most powerful wizard he was able to conquer Voldemort. He definitely isn't totally special but he, imo is someone who could be looked up to and admired for his courage, extreme loyalty, and of course his ability to love.

That could be more the fault of JKR's writing than the character, since I see that same comment directled at other characters in the book.

Harry Potter exists cause of JKR's writing so all his bad habit and nasty character traits are all the fault of her writing.

Dumbledore found Harry to be extraordinary for many reasons, which he states in several parts of the books. Dumbledore has been dealing with students for years, so he would know an unusual one when he saw it, imo. But the way Harry was willing to fight against impossible odds, at the risk of his own death, and for the greater good, was probably one of the things he admired.

.Harry was not willing to fight Voldemort he did have no choice being attacked by Voldemort himself all the time his only alternative would be dying.

Harry wasn't the smartest or most powerful wizard he was able to conquer Voldemort.

As Voldemort in most of the series didn't act like the smart wizard he is supposed to have been that was not that hard.Voldemort was beaten by himself not by Harry.Besides in all books but one he got help in the end.

Ph-S: Dumbledore
CoS: Fawkes
PoA by his twin while the Dementors were busy with the original HP and with Hermione's help
GoF: Voldemort not understanding what is going on and his parents images.
OoPh: Order of the Phoenix.
HBP: never in any actual danger.
DH: Having killed most Hocruxes and Voldemort doing the old trick again with the same result it was a piece of cake.

It is a shame J.K. more or less killed off Barty Crouch J.R. in GoF if he had escaped Azkaban also with his soul intact things would have been alot more interesting.

I guess that is why I like Harry so much. :D

:lol: Touché! :lol:

That could be more the fault of JKR's writing than the character, since I see that same comment directled at other characters in the book.

I don’t understand :hmm: could you explain what you mean I feels a bit stopid

Dumbledore found Harry to be extraordinary for many reasons, which he states in several parts of the books. Dumbledore has been dealing with students for years, so he would know an unusual one when he saw it, imo. But the way Harry was willing to fight against impossible odds, at the risk of his own death, and for the greater good, was probably one of the things he admired.

Probably wasn’t entirely clear. Sure Harry had some good points I have no argument with that but I just don’t get the idea that his the most special person evea which is what I feel like the books keep telling me. I guess it is hard to balance that idea against a character that has flaws but I just can’t – if he was so great (and I feel he gets likened to the second coming) then he shouldn’t have been willing to torture someone for spiting in the face of McGonagall for example.

I’m basically saying “Yes he’s good but he’s not all that imo” :)

I don’t understand :hmm: could you explain what you mean.

You said:


In the later books I think the idea that he is special (because of reasons other than his horucrux like status) is pushed on the audience ...

And I responded:

That could be more the fault of JKR's writing than the character, since I see that same comment directed at other characters in the book.

What I meant by that was when I hear the words "pushed on the audience" then to me it means that a reader feels that the author hasn't done a good job of showing how a character "earns" or "evolves" into that role. And that is perfectly understandable. I hear that comment about Ginny a lot, because a lot of shortcuts are taken to have us go from Harry and Ginny being friends to being in a relationship. So that happens a lot in HP. :)

What I meant by that was when I hear the words "pushed on the audience" then to me it means that a reader feels that the author hasn't done a good job of showing how a character "earns" or "evolves" into that role. And that is perfectly understandable. I hear that comment about Ginny a lot, because a lot of shortcuts are taken to have us go from Harry and Ginny being friends to being in a relationship. So that happens a lot in HP. :)

Ah I see what you mean - thank you :)

I'll have to think about that I think you probably have a point but as I have said it ot jsut about what we don't see but what we do that gives me problems with the idea. :)

*delurks*

This is pretty interesting. Here are my two cents:

I think Harry is a very "normal" sort of character: he has a lot of the anxieties and problems of the average kid, plus his reactions to the stuff he has been through are understandable and the sort of thing many people would experience (Harry's sudden social skills in PS being an exception, IMO :lol:). He also has his moments of being thoughtless/stubborn/a jerk, and I'm sure we couldn't count on our fingers the number of times we've all done something bad. I know I've had my nasty moments. :whistle:

However-- and this is going to sound a bit like an oxymoron-- I think this normality is what makes Harry "special." His powers are (ultimately) that of love and forgiveness, something we all can and usually do attain as we mature. I think Harry is a character through which we can discover the magic within ourselves, that being a Muggle and "normal" doesn't mean we don't carry something great within us all. :)

*delurks*

This is pretty interesting. Here are my two cents:

I think Harry is a very "normal" sort of character: he has a lot of the anxieties and problems of the average kid, plus his reactions to the stuff he has been through are understandable and the sort of thing many people would experience (Harry's sudden social skills in PS being an exception, IMO ). He also has his moments of being thoughtless/stubborn/a jerk, and I'm sure we couldn't count on our fingers the number of times we've all done something bad. I know I've had my nasty moments.

However-- and this is going to sound a bit like an oxymoron-- I think this normality is what makes Harry "special." His powers are (ultimately) that of love and forgiveness, something we all can and usually do attain as we mature. I think Harry is a character through which we can discover the magic within ourselves, that being a Muggle and "normal" doesn't mean we don't carry something great within us all.

Well said :) I agree with everything you said and I think that it's for those reasons you mentioned that I love Harry so much.

However-- and this is going to sound a bit like an oxymoron-- I think this normality is what makes Harry "special." His powers are (ultimately) that of love and forgiveness, something we all can and usually do attain as we mature. I think Harry is a character through which we can discover the magic within ourselves, that being a Muggle and "normal" doesn't mean we don't carry something great within us all. :)

Very well said, and I agree.

Harry's a captivating character: it's the fact that he does many commendable things and he has so many traits of goodness, yet he's still a human character and can be just like any of us at times. We are intrigued by someone who's a normal human, but can pull of the "superhero" thing and save the day.

I think Harry is a very "normal" sort of character: he has a lot of the anxieties and problems of the average kid, plus his reactions to the stuff he has been through are understandable and the sort of thing many people would experience (Harry's sudden social skills in PS being an exception, IMO :lol:). He also has his moments of being thoughtless/stubborn/a jerk, and I'm sure we couldn't count on our fingers the number of times we've all done something bad. I know I've had my nasty moments. :whistle:

However-- and this is going to sound a bit like an oxymoron-- I think this normality is what makes Harry "special." His powers are (ultimately) that of love and forgiveness, something we all can and usually do attain as we mature. I think Harry is a character through which we can discover the magic within ourselves, that being a Muggle and "normal" doesn't mean we don't carry something great within us all. :)

I like what Iggy says. :agree:

This is exactly how I see Harry. And why I like him as a character. He is very much part of the 'Jack the Giantkiller' hero tradition in literature ... Frodo Baggins and Anakin Skywalker totally fit into that trope too. :cool: The little, ordinary, 'normal' guy (or gal :p ) who is called to a higher destiny, is scared they cannot possibly match up to that destiny but discovers within themselves the powers and the virtue to do so. This archetypal character (very often an orphan, alone in the world) usually has a mentor to guide them. Enter Gandalf, Dumbledore, etc.

I do understand why other readers find Harry annoying -- and I also think that Rowling rather intends to indulge him as a character, because she loves him -- but the anger in him I personally can relate to (without condoning it). Harry often shows emotional disassociation in his relationships, which makes sense because of his awful bringing. For example, Hermione shows outstanding loyalty to him in DH, and he is not awfully sensitive to it. :shrug: Too many other things on his mind, of course. :whistle: The pressure on him is enormous.

And the anger he shows at Remus in DH for wanting to abandon Tonks and their unborn child is very revealing. Those are Harry's abandonment/rejection issues, right there! :lol: :sigh:

Of course, in RL Harry would be even more messed up, given his abusive childhood. :yuhup:

This was the only part in OotP where I actually got a bit angry at Harry. I was able to tolerate everything else in that book because personally I felt that Harry had every right to act the way he did in that book. His life wasn't going well at the moment. However, I did get over the prefect situation even though I though it was a little annoying.

Harry's behavior in general was annoying throughout OOTP for me. At the same time, I can understand why he was behaving that way - with everything he had been through and was still going through, it was inevitable that he would break down at some point. To top it all off, he's got that piece of Voldemort's soul inside him acting like a parasite - corrupting him by causing him to channel whatever Voldemort's feeling with that influencing his behavior as well. I didn't like his behavior, but I can understand it.

I think Harry was more upset with Dumbledore over the prefect issue than anything else. His thoughts focus on Ron, but it wasn't Ron he was upset with. As Susan pointed out, Harry was already feeling under appreciated. I'd add neglected to that as well. After everything that had happened in GOF, he had basically been ignored for a month. Sirius, Ron, and Hermione write to him, but they don't tell him anything he wants to know or answer his questions and their letters all basically say the same thing - we can't tell you anything. After the dementor attack, he discovered that the Order had been watching over him - one of them was there all the time, hiding under an Invisibility cloak. And not one of them let him know they were there, talked to him, or offered to explain anything to him. Dumbledore continues to ignore him - not even looking at him or speaking to him during his trial. He saved his cousin's life - as well as his own - and everyone is acting like he did something wrong. He doesn't understand why and nobody will properly explain anything to him.

To further confuse the issue, everyone expected Harry to be made prefect. The twins, Ron, Hermione - Harry even hears Kingsley and Moody wondering why Dumbledore didn't make Harry prefect as a show of support. It comes back to Dumbledore being the one to make the choice. Dumbledore's behavior led Harry to think that Dumbledore had no faith in him - didn't think he was good enough - didn't think he could handle himself - and so on. Harry focuses on Ron - specifically why it should have been him instead of Ron - but the root of his anger was the fact that Dumbledore was ignoring him. Not choosing Harry as prefect was just another incident of Dumbledore ignoring him from Harry's perception.

What I liked about this scene was that Harry realizes that he's not being fair to Ron and feels ashamed of himself very quickly. He indulges in that self-pity/jealousy of Ron session for a few minutes and then chides himself for it. And he makes and effort not to take his hurt over Dumbledore's behavior out on Ron - or Hermione - after that. Harry did some growing up there - but he still had a ways to go.

Probably wasn’t entirely clear. Sure Harry had some good points I have no argument with that but I just don’t get the idea that his the most special person evea which is what I feel like the books keep telling me. I guess it is hard to balance that idea against a character that has flaws but I just can’t – if he was so great (and I feel he gets likened to the second coming) then he shouldn’t have been willing to torture someone for spiting in the face of McGonagall for example.

I’m basically saying “Yes he’s good but he’s not all that imo” :)

I'd say that was the point. What I always liked best about Harry as a character was the fact that he was not perfect. He wasn't all powerful or all knowing. He tried to do the right thing, but he didn't always succeed. He screwed up and made mistakes. Harry was just a fairly ordinary teenage boy forced into extraordinary circumstances. Like everyone, he had one or two things he excelled at, but he wasn't the smartest or the most powerful - he was fairly average among his peers overall.

What made Harry stand out was his capacity to love in spite of everything he'd been through. But even there, he was not perfect. Even Harry could not honestly say that he would try to save the Dursleys if Voldemort captured them - he'd like to think he would, but he was honest with himself in saying that he wasn't sure that he would. But everything else he does indicates that he probably would have. He saved Draco and Goyle - and Draco a second time - even after Draco had tried to capture him and hand him over to Voldemort - with Crabbe and Goyle nearly killing Ron and Hermione in the process. He had the strength to sacrifice himself to save others - even people he did not know - when he realized there was no other way to end it. What it really came down to was that Harry was not special because he was super powerful or intelligent or even because he was perfect - he was special because he just an ordinary boy who was forced into extraordinary circumstances and was willing to die to protect everyone regardless of who they were.

And the anger he shows at Remus in DH for wanting to abandon Tonks and their unborn child is very revealing. Those are Harry's abandonment/rejection issues, right there!
Oh hey, i never really thought of it that way, but yes you are right! He was so angry about that, and to be honest, i could totally see Harry's point. The first time i read DH, i was like "wow! what a prat! How can he say that to Lupin!" But upon reading it again, i could understand the point.

Harry is one of the better main characters in a series ive seen. Hes not a Gary Stu. Hes just a kid and Jo points that out many times over the course of the series. One thing i found interesting is that he felt really betrayed by Dumbledore in DH. He often wonders just how much Dumbledore didnt tell him and wondered why. Harry still has unwavering loyalty towards Dumbledore even after learning about his past. (Even when I, the reader, realized what a manipulative person Dumbledore was. To the point where to this day, im not sure i still like the character.) That shows that Harry has faith in people regardless and is growing to look at people in a more objective light. (This comes clear when he sees Snape's memories.) It could be something even his own father lacked. For a main hero to come to see that the world isnt black or white, thats pretty huge.

Hermione shows outstanding loyalty to him in DH, and he is not awfully sensitive to it. Too many other things on his mind, of course. The pressure on him is enormous.

And the anger he shows at Remus in DH for wanting to abandon Tonks and their unborn child is very revealing. Those are Harry's abandonment/rejection issues, right there! :lol: :sigh:
:tu:
Although Harry could have handled the situation in a less agressive manner, it's very understandable that he would be angry with Remus, as he knows what it's like to grow up without parents and to live as an abandoned person, and he probably doesn't think anyone deserves that, from personal experience.
As for Hermione, he did seem slightly ungrateful. However, he tried his best to cover it up and with the fate of the whole world depending on him doing the impossible, he was already being expected to swallow more than he could chew, so I think his behaviour was as good as we could expect anyone's to be in that situation.

What made Harry stand out was his capacity to love in spite of everything he'd been through.
Exactly. The other two "abandoned boys" JKR mentioned near the end of DH were Snape and Voldemort. He didn't become distrusting and calculating like Snape, nor did he become unfeeling, sadistic, and heartless like Voldemort.

Although Harry could have handled the situation in a less agressive manner, it's very understandable that he would be angry with Remus, as he knows what it's like to grow up without parents and to live as an abandoned person, and he probably doesn't think anyone deserves that, from personal experience.

I personally think that the way Harry handled the situation was perfectly fine. I actually applauded him for doing that (probably because I love Lupin and wanted the best for him). In addition, I also think that forcing Lupin to see the truth in a harsh manner was the only way to get it into his head. Lupin was so ashamed of himself and he hated himself for his actions. Harry made him see sense. I like that you pointed out that Harry knows what it feels like to live without parents because that was probably one of the major reasons Harry was so angry in the first place. He didn't want Lupin to abandon his child and Tonks because it's not easy to grow up without parents. He didn't want Teddy to grow up as he did. I actually really liked that scene in the book and I'm glad that Harry confronted Lupin.

I was reading a slightly negative book review of the series, and the reviewer raised some points about Harry as a character that made me think:

There is, of course, Harry himself. I know that Rowling has been praised recently for bringing a realistic sense of teen angst to Harry – he is no longer a simple hero, having grown arrogant, short-tempered, etc. – but that doesn’t make him a round character. He tends to have traits rather than characteristics, if that makes any sense. When he is angry, or depressed, or whatever, it is usually because the plot requires him to be so.

That’s the problem – Harry is too damn good. Rowling tries hard to underscore the similarities between himself and Voldemort, but Harry seems constitutionally incapable of being a dark figure.

staff edit: removed non-ff link

What do you guys think about this analysis of Harry?

What do you guys think about this analysis of Harry?

I do see what that reviewer means.

But I don't quite agree with it.

Because I think that Rowling portrays Harry with very realistic flaws, flaws that make sense in the light of his traumatic childhood.

-- He has something of the reckless spirit of James and also something of his father's arrogance, although this is tempered greatly in Harry by a much larger capacity for empathy and compassion (IMO).

-- He has a tendency to emotionally disassociate from those he loves. Look at how easily he is able to compartmentalise his relationship with Ginny. He doesn't even approach her after the battle scene, when she is crying on her mother's shoulder. Ginny is awesome because she 'rarely cries', i.e. doesn't make emotional demands on Harry. Whether Rowling actually intended this or not, to me this is a very realistic portrayal of someone who had a traumatic childhood and has profound abandonment/rejection issues. These issues of Harry's are powerfully demonstrated in his furious reaction in DH to Remus saying he wants to abandon his family. Harry just explodes. He may not handle his emotions very maturely in this scene but as an adoptee I was completely on his side. :whistle: And it's a very believable reaction.

If I have a criticism of how Rowling writes Harry (he is one of my favourite characters by the way), it's that I think she is very self-indulgent towards her own hero. :whistle:

Because we don't really see Harry reflect on his own behaviour, IMO. He doesn't, to my mind, express nearly enough remorse for having inflicted 'Sectumsempra' on Draco, for example: he could have killed Draco, for heaven's sake! And we do not see him express remorse for that 'Crucio' on Carrow. That Harry would lose his cool in a situation of high stress and unleash the Torture Curse -- torture, people -- on a hated enemy is totally understandable, if not excusable. But I find it disappointing that as a character he is never called to account for it. It seems to be OK because Harry is the hero. Not an ethical point I can possibly agree with. :td:

Therefore I do think Harry has a dark side, and I think this is shown in the text. But Rowling seems somehow to gloss over it. :lol:

However, he does seem to be a mature man at peace with himself in the Epilogue. I find it interesting that apparently he has concealed his traumatic past and his part in the war from his children, and played down his role in the Wizarding World (I always find the WW's reaction to Harry deeply childish). But he has clearly reconciled himself to his past ... as the names of all his children demonstrate. ;)

I do see what that reviewer means.

But I don't quite agree with it.

Because I think that Rowling portrays Harry with very realistic flaws, flaws that make sense in the light of his traumatic childhood.

-- He has something of the reckless spirit of James and also something of his father's arrogance, although this is tempered greatly in Harry by a much larger capacity for empathy and compassion (IMO).

-- He has a tendency to emotionally disassociate from those he loves. Look at how easily he is able to compartmentalise his relationship with Ginny. He doesn't even approach her after the battle scene, when she is crying on her mother's shoulder. Ginny is awesome because she 'rarely cries', i.e. doesn't make emotional demands on Harry. Whether Rowling actually intended this or not, to me this is a very realistic portrayal of someone who had a traumatic childhood and has profound abandonment/rejection issues. These issues of Harry's are powerfully demonstrated in his furious reaction in DH to Remus saying he wants to abandon his family. Harry just explodes. He may not handle his emotions very maturely in this scene but as an adoptee I was completely on his side. :whistle: And it's a very believable reaction.

If I have a criticism of how Rowling writes Harry (he is one of my favourite characters by the way), it's that I think she is very self-indulgent towards her own hero. :whistle:

Because we don't really see Harry reflect on his own behaviour, IMO. He doesn't, to my mind, express nearly enough remorse for having inflicted 'Sectumsempra' on Draco, for example: he could have killed Draco, for heaven's sake! And we do not see him express remorse for that 'Crucio' on Carrow. That Harry would lose his cool in a situation of high stress and unleash the Torture Curse -- torture, people -- on a hated enemy is totally understandable, if not excusable. But I find it disappointing that as a character he is never called to account for it. It seems to be OK because Harry is the hero. Not an ethical point I can possibly agree with. :td:

Therefore I do think Harry has a dark side, and I think this is shown in the text. But Rowling seems somehow to gloss over it. :lol:

However, he does seem to be a mature man at peace with himself in the Epilogue. I find it interesting that apparently he has concealed his traumatic past and his part in the war from his children, and played down his role in the Wizarding World (I always find the WW's reaction to Harry deeply childish). But he has clearly reconciled himself to his past ... as the names of all his children demonstrate. ;)

You did a lot better analysis of Harry than, IMO, the reviewer. I strongly agree with you that JKR let Harry off easy so many times through the series. What would have happened to any other student who broke as many rules as many times as Harry (along with Ron and Hermoine)? What would have happened to any other student who nearly killed another with a Dark Curse -- Hagrid went to Azkaban just because they suspected he'd had something to do with Moaning Myrtle's death, for pity sakes. What would have happened to any other student who attacked a teacher, as he did Snape in the Shrieking Shack, no matter what the reason (other than self-defense)? Using one of the "unforgiveables" and not having major repercussions, even though it was war (again, possibly using the AK in self-defense might be understandable) seems a bit hard to understand.

I think showing that Harry did have a dark streak and was able to overcome all but a few bits of it was a good way to contrast Harry and Tom Riddle. Showing that Harry's ability to love and be loved was what differentiated him from TR/Voldemort. Showing Harry's maturity in the Epilogue, IMO, was a good choice, especially regarding his view of Snape.

I was reading a slightly negative book review of the series, and the reviewer raised some points about Harry as a character that made me think:



staff edit: removed non-ff link

What do you guys think about this analysis of Harry?

IMO, many of the criticisms he levels at the series in his final paragraphs, and that includes Harry's characterization, do change with DH. If the second-to-last comment on that blog is anything to go by, he hasn't given his opinion on DH yet.

Take what he says about Snape:

And yet, in this book, there is a very simple way to find out who is evil: does Harry dislike them? Then they are evil. I wanted, so badly, for five whole books, for Snape to be a vicious, nasty, controlling *******, who turns out to be an okay guy, he just hates Harry. Because you know what? Sometimes okay people hate other okay people.

But no, Harry is God Himself, and therefore hating Harry is the sole province of the Satan-worshipping baby eaters. So Draco and Snape go over to the dark side. Not one element of the whole goddamn series has ****** me off so completely. There is no such thing as the moral arbiter of life. Harry is not responsible for who is good and bad. Some of his antagonists should be allowed some damn dignity. But no. I can imagine ways to get around this, but they all involve a crappy Return of the Jedi style ending. Actually, I just realized while writing that sentence, that Snape helping to kill Voldemort and then dying redemptively is a depressingly likely ending. Because Rowling loves her Star Wars.

I think these criticisms become largely irrelevant with DH, except that Snape sort of does get that "dying redemptively" ending. That's for another thread though :whistle: .

If I have a criticism of how Rowling writes Harry (he is one of my favourite characters by the way), it's that I think she is very self-indulgent towards her own hero. :whistle:

Because we don't really see Harry reflect on his own behaviour, IMO.
He doesn't, to my mind, express nearly enough remorse for having inflicted 'Sectumsempra' on Draco, for example: he could have killed Draco, for heaven's sake! And we do not see him express remorse for that 'Crucio' on Carrow. That Harry would lose his cool in a situation of high stress and unleash the Torture Curse -- torture, people -- on a hated enemy is totally understandable, if not excusable. But I find it disappointing that as a character he is never called to account for it. It seems to be OK because Harry is the hero. Not an ethical point I can possibly agree with. :td:

I think this is a stylistic choice by Rowling as a writer, and not an attempt by her to make a particular (and objectionable) moral point. She's writing a story that raises a lot of ethical questions, presents a battle between a good an evil side, has making difficult choices as a theme, etc. But I think she is trying to avoid writing a very obviously didactic series that lectures its readers on what is right behavior. She wants us to decide for ourselves. And if Harry was presented analyzing his past actions and classifying them as good and bad...she would be writing that explicitly didactic sort of moral tale, because she as the author would be presenting Harry's judgments of himself to us as correct.

For an example of what I mean, consider the major red herring subplot of PS/SS, in which Snape is established as the apparent bad guy out to kill Harry and steal the Stone for Voldemort. Do we ever see Harry sit down after all has been made clear and say to himself..."Wow!! I misjudged Snape. I must learn not to judge people by their appearance, House affiliation or inclination to sneer at me!"? (For that matter...do we hear him say this in DH? :lol: ) Nonetheless, I personally feel this is one of the things the author is trying to say here. And I feel she even presents it in her writing, in this case.

"But I thought ---Snape ---"

"Severus?" Quirrell laughed, and it wasn't his usual quivering treble, either, but cold and sharp. "Yes, Severus does seem the type, doesn't he? So useful to have him swooping around like an over-grown bat. Next to him, who would suspect p-p-poor, st-stuttering P-Professor Quirrell?"

Which does rather state the point concisely, in my opinion. :)

Similarly, the scene with Amycus follows the scenes in which we learn of Neville's courage in refusing to practice the Cruciatus curse despite Amycus' cruelty to students who disobeyed him. I walked away with the impression that's the view on the subject we the readers were supposed to admire.

I also feel, though perhaps this connection is more tenuous within the text, that Harry's decision to get rid of the Elder Wand, (as well as his manner of dealing with Voldemort) all suggest a conscious repudiation by Harry of the use of unnecessary/excessive magical force. Giving up the Wand, in particular, seems to me to reflect his own judgment of himself that its power would not be a good thing for him to have. We are not shown exactly where this is coming from (more reason for us to think about it! :lol:) but between that scene with Carrow and Harry's first person experience as the murderer of Snape (a scene in which we are given no clue how Harry feels about that experience) I see the potential for a lot Harry might look back on with less than pride. ;)

I strongly agree with you that JKR let Harry off easy so many times through the series. What would have happened to any other student who broke as many rules as many times as Harry (along with Ron and Hermoine)? What would have happened to any other student who nearly killed another with a Dark Curse -- Hagrid went to Azkaban just because they suspected he'd had something to do with Moaning Myrtle's death, for pity sakes. What would have happened to any other student who attacked a teacher, as he did Snape in the Shrieking Shack, no matter what the reason (other than self-defense)? Using one of the "unforgiveables" and not having major repercussions, even though it was war (again, possibly using the AK in self-defense might be understandable) seems a bit hard to understand.

Personally I felt all these instances to be adequately explained by the circumstances. The teacher who found the almost dead student settled on detentions as a punishment, for what seem to me logical reasons which are, however, beyond the scope of this thread, and the Malfoys were not going to kick up a fuss at this juncture. Attacking Snape? Ditto, Snape himself claimed they did so after being Confunded, which is an exculpatory circumstance.

As for the Unforgivables, I thought the text made clear that these are widely used by wizards at war. Without Harry's use of Imperius in Gringott's, I do not think that adventure would have been successful. So it seems to me justified, and therefore something a reasonable post-war government would not kick up a fuss about. Aurors were permitted to use them in the past, the (admittedly Voldemort run) government permitted their use, Order members such as Minerva (for sure) and Molly (likely) used them, and Lupin suggested Harry ought to ("At least stun if you are not prepared to kill" is a phrasing that suggests being prepared to kill under war circumstances is not alarming to Lupin.)

If anything about Rowling's writing of Harry seemed self-indulgent...I'd say it was the Quidditch. Surely it would have been possible for Gryffindor not to win every single season Quidditch was played during Harry's school days? :lol:

I was reading a slightly negative book review of the series, and the reviewer raised some points about Harry as a character that made me think:

staff edit: removed non-ff link

What do you guys think about this analysis of Harry?

Well, I wasn't able to get through the whole thing, and I tried. I found this to be the most amusing sentence:

This is symptomatic of a great flaw in the style of the books: Rowling has no command of the English language. She is a very proficient craftsman, if we view words as tools; but what if we don’t?

What's amusing about it is that the blog author believes that he has a command of the English language. I suppose that if f-bombs count for style, then he has a point. :lol:

But since this is the Harry thread, I guess I'd better say something about his comments on Harry's character development.

Does Harry's character drive plot or does plot drives Harry's character? The author believes that Harry is essentially a flat character whose character development is necessitated only by plot. I would disagree.

While it's true that plot drives character to some extent - the way that much fantasy/adventure literature does - I think the Potter series utilizes both fantasy and novelistic character development. That is, there are times when character drives plot rather than the other way around.

This is particularly true, I think, in the last three books - when Harry is 15, 16, and 17. Character often precedes plot development. Harry is boiling over with emotion in OotP and HBP, and we see how that emotion drives his choices - often in ways that are detrimental to himself and those around him.

I suppose that the blog author did not have the advantage of DH, so it would not really be fair to discuss Harry's character development in DH in analyzing the blog review.

But what do others think? In DH, does character precede plot or does plot precede character? Or is there a bit of both?

Similarly, the scene with Amycus follows the scenes in which we learn of Neville's courage in refusing to practice the Cruciatus curse despite Amycus' cruelty to students who disobeyed him. I walked away with the impression that's the view on the subject we the readers were supposed to admire.

I always wished that JKR could have worked in the information about Neville's refusal after Harry's Crucio. That way it would have been more glaringly obvious that Harry was wrong.





If anything about Rowling's writing of Harry seemed self-indulgent...I'd say it was the Quidditch. Surely it would have been possible for Gryffindor not to win every single season Quidditch was played during Harry's school days? :lol:

Every time I read a Quidditch match I hoped they would lose. All the winning was just ridiculous.

Well, I wasn't able to get through the whole thing, and I tried. I found this to be the most amusing sentence:

This is symptomatic of a great flaw in the style of the books: Rowling has no command of the English language. She is a very proficient craftsman, if we view words as tools; but what if we don’t? (bold mine)

Sorry to go off-thread again, but, isn't using "words as tools" what writing's all about? So, if she is a "proficient craftsman," with said "tools," what's the complaint? I gather the reviewer didn't like the books -- which puts him in a signifigant minority. Or, maybe he's just jealous that JKR is richer than the Queen, and he's not.

Let me say something about Harry's character here so I'm not totally out of line:

He was such a sweet, innocent kid when he started out. IMO, he really didn't seem to get a lot of adult supervision at Hogwarts until Lupin showed up and befriended him and actually started teaching DADA. (This isn't a put-down of Snape, I just don't want to even begin to introduce that relationship into this thread, so I'm putting him aside for now.) Mostly he got praise and rewards for breaking the rules because the outcome seemed to overshadow the rule-breaking.

Unfortunately, I think this helped Harry become somewhat his own worst enemy. He constantly took matters into his own hands, putting himself and others in danger over and over again. But, he was a talented wizard, who learned well and learned quickly (when he wanted to). And, he had a lot of what Prof. McGonagall would call "dumb luck."

But, in the end, he was courageous and did what he had to do to vanquish Voldemort, which meant sacrificing his own life. He had no idea he would be able to come back; as far as he knew he was going to die. He fought valiantly and finally did dispatch the Dark Lord once and for all. And, after learning what he did about the shortcomings of his father, Snape, Dumbledore, and Sirius, he still held them in high enough esteem to name his sons after them. So, IMO, this shows that he did mature emotionally and was able to put the past behind him.

He was such a sweet, innocent kid when he started out. IMO, he really didn't seem to get a lot of adult supervision at Hogwarts until Lupin showed up and befriended him and actually started teaching DADA. (This isn't a put-down of Snape, I just don't want to even begin to introduce that relationship into this thread, so I'm putting him aside for now.) Mostly he got praise and rewards for breaking the rules because the outcome seemed to overshadow the rule-breaking.

Unfortunately, I think this helped Harry become somewhat his own worst enemy. He constantly took matters into his own hands, putting himself and others in danger over and over again.

I think the lack of adult supervision precedes his time at Hogwarts. He was ordered around by the Dursleys, but he became pretty self-sufficient early on. Fortunately, self-sufficiency did not take the nasty turn it took for Tom Riddle. Harry was not afraid to ask questions on his first trip to Diagon Alley (and he didn't attempt to go it alone - as Riddle did) - nor was he afraid to ask Molly Weasley how to get to Platform 9 3/4.

He was, as you said, a sweet, innocent kid when he arrived at Hogwarts. I think his mother's blood offered him a lot of protection against the damage the Dursleys could have inflicted on him. But also, the Dursleys (ironically) did give him a connection to a family in which the members of that family actually loved each other (quite dysfunctionally) - though they didn't love him. He was treated badly, but it was not an unstable home.

I don't think he was entirely without adult supervision at Hogwarts. He struck up a friendship early on with Hagrid - though, of course, Hagrid's kind of like a big kid and is not really much of an authority figure.

I think also that Dumbledore's comment in TPT to Snape - that they protected him to allow him to test his strength - had a lot to do with why Harry was often left to his own devices. Having some measure of free rein - while still being guarded from the shadows - was probably essential to his ultimate ability to survive.

But, in the end, he was courageous and did what he had to do to vanquish Voldemort, which meant sacrificing his own life. He had no idea he would be able to come back; as far as he knew he was going to die. He fought valiantly and finally did dispatch the Dark Lord once and for all. And, after learning what he did about the shortcomings of his father, Snape, Dumbledore, and Sirius, he still held them in high enough esteem to name his sons after them. So, IMO, this shows that he did mature emotionally and was able to put the past behind him.

Harry is at his very best in the concluding chapters and Epilogue of DH. We see him go through growing pains throughout much of the series. And no matter how much I love the character, I personally become rather furious with him during OotP and HBP. But I have complete respect for the man he grew to be, and for how he brought together the men who were most important to his development in the names of his sons.

As a sidenote... one reason, perhaps, that he didn't name a child after Lupin is that he didn't really need to. Lupin had already been brought into his family - even before Harry had his own children. Harry was Teddy's godfather.

As a sidenote... one reason, perhaps, that he didn't name a child after Lupin is that he didn't really need to. Lupin had already been brought into his family - even before Harry had his own children. Harry was Teddy's godfather.

People have suggested that Lily's middle name (Luna) could be a reference to Lupin, but I think it's a bit far-fetched.

:tu:
Although Harry could have handled the situation in a less agressive manner, it's very understandable that he would be angry with Remus, as he knows what it's like to grow up without parents and to live as an abandoned person, and he probably doesn't think anyone deserves that, from personal experience.
As for Hermione, he did seem slightly ungrateful. However, he tried his best to cover it up and with the fate of the whole world depending on him doing the impossible, he was already being expected to swallow more than he could chew, so I think his behaviour was as good as we could expect anyone's to be in that situation.


Exactly. The other two "abandoned boys" JKR mentioned near the end of DH were Snape and Voldemort. He didn't become distrusting and calculating like Snape, nor did he become unfeeling, sadistic, and heartless like Voldemort.

I have to disagree with the view that Harry had "abandonment/rejection" issues. Harry was not abandoned - his parents were cruelly taken from him by the machinations of Pettigrew, Snape, and Voldemort. Harry had always known that his parents didn't choose to leave him - they died trying to save him. He didn't always know the truth about how they died, but he had always known that they did not abandon him.

That is one of the few things in DH that I saw as contradictory because there are so few parallels between Harry, Snape, and Voldemort. Voldemort was also an orphan, but his mother chose to give up rather than live to raise her child and he murdered his own father. He was raised in an orphanage and didn't get a lot of individual affection, but he was not abused and neglected. Snape was not an orphan - he grew up with his parents and had no major childhood trauma to deal with. He was not a happy child, but there is no indication in the text that he was ever abused or neglected - just that his family was poor and his parents argued. So, overall, Harry had absolutely nothing in common with Snape and the only thing he had in common with Voldemort was that they were both orphans - which was due to Voldemort killing his parents after Snape told him about the prophecy and Pettigrew told him where the Potters were.

As such, I would have to also disagree that Harry's anger at Lupin stemmed from any personal issue with abandonment because he was never abandoned. I would say it was just the opposite actually. Harry knew that his parents would never have intentionally left him, but they were taken from him and he was robbed of the opportunity to know them. Knowing that, I can see where Lupin saying his child would be better off without him would make Harry angry. Harry says that himself - parents should not leave their kids unless they have no choice. His parents weren't given a choice as to whether they could live and raise him. Lily was given a choice to save herself and let Harry die, but not a choice to live and raise her son. Lupin had a choice and was doing the unthinkable to Harry - choosing to leave his child. Harry could not understand that and it made him angry because he knew his own parents would never have done that. It's a huge contrast to his sympathy to Lupin in The Forest Again when Lupin was killed after having dealt with his issues and was trying to be a good father. Harry could understand that because his parents died for the same reason - they chose to take a stand - and he made the same choice to take a stand himself.

Harry faces much worse than Snape or Voldemort did growing up. His parents brutally murdered, forced to live with relatives who abused and neglected him - not to mention allowing their son to beat him up on a regular basis, having the weight of saving the world from the likes of Voldemort placed on his shoulders at the age of 15 - and so on. These experiences do have an effect on who Harry is as a person. He had more reason than anyone to become bitter and vengeful - to see love as a weakness rather than a strength - because of those experiences. But he never sees it that way. His experiences strengthen him because he learns from them instead of dwelling on them and letting them control him. He learns what not to do from observing these people. He doesn't want to be anything like them and he strives to be the opposite.

I was reading a slightly negative book review of the series, and the reviewer raised some points about Harry as a character that made me think:


staff edit: removed non-ff link

What do you guys think about this analysis of Harry?

I have to disagree with it. Harry is a very good person, but he's not perfect and he does have flaws. It's not the plot demanding that Harry be angry or depressed so much of the time in OOTP, it's the circumstances he's facing and constantly channeling whatever Voldemort's feeling that causes him to be angry. For someone to say that it doesn't make sense for Harry to be angry or depressed under such extreme circumstances really doesn't make sense to me. How did they expect Harry to respond to those things - smiling and laughing? :huh:

Harry has a bit of a dark side, but that's true for most people. As Sirius told Harry in OOTP, the world is not divided up so neatly into black and white. There are shades of gray. Harry was an inherently good person and would never truly give in to his darker instincts, but they did cause him to stumble along the way. I don't think that makes him "too good" - I think that makes him pretty normal an realistic myself.

You did a lot better analysis of Harry than, IMO, the reviewer. I strongly agree with you that JKR let Harry off easy so many times through the series. What would have happened to any other student who broke as many rules as many times as Harry (along with Ron and Hermoine)? What would have happened to any other student who nearly killed another with a Dark Curse -- Hagrid went to Azkaban just because they suspected he'd had something to do with Moaning Myrtle's death, for pity sakes. What would have happened to any other student who attacked a teacher, as he did Snape in the Shrieking Shack, no matter what the reason (other than self-defense)? Using one of the "unforgiveables" and not having major repercussions, even though it was war (again, possibly using the AK in self-defense might be understandable) seems a bit hard to understand.

I think showing that Harry did have a dark streak and was able to overcome all but a few bits of it was a good way to contrast Harry and Tom Riddle. Showing that Harry's ability to love and be loved was what differentiated him from TR/Voldemort. Showing Harry's maturity in the Epilogue, IMO, was a good choice, especially regarding his view of Snape.

Actually, Hagrid was sent to Azkaban because Riddle gave an eyewitness statement that he had "caught" Hagrid letting "the monster" loose in the castle in his third year. They fully believed that he had been the one to open the Chamber of Secrets 50 years before and they decided he must have been the one who was opening it that year as well. Fudge tries to gloss it over because Dumbledore is so staunchly supportive of Hagrid, but that was the root of it. They believed Hagrid was doing it because they believed he had been the one to do it before.

I think there is a huge distinction between Harry using the Invisibility Cloak and/or the Marauders Map to investigate whatever the current mystery is and James or the twins using such things to sneak down to the kitchens to get food or go to Hogsmeade to get Butterbeer and sweets to celebrate Gryffindor winning the Quidditch Cup.

That's not to say that Harry never crossed any lines, but it was rare for him to break any rule without feeling he had a very good reason to do so because of whatever was going on that year. Really, the only thing I can think of that Harry did that wasn't due to him trying to solve the mystery or wanting to help people was going to Hogsmeade without permission in POA. He shouldn't have done that and he didn't receive any official punishment, but he did learn his lesson when Lupin reprimanded him for it and he never did it again.

Likewise, I would make a huge distinction between students like Mulciber and Avery intentionally using Dark Magic to torture another student and Harry defending himself against Malfoy's attempt to use the Cruciatus Curse on him with an unknown spell. It was reckless for Harry to use a spell without knowing what the spell would do, but it is also significant that Harry learned from that. His guilt over what had happened to Malfoy taught him some very valuable lessons there.

In regards to how Harry responded to that - that made perfect sense to me because it wasn't a deliberate act. The significant point there was that Harry had recklessly used a spell without knowing what it would do - not that he had intentionally used Dark Magic against someone. He didn't know it was Dark Magic and he didn't know the spell could kill someone. He felt guilty about what he had done because it was reckless for him to use that spell without knowing what it would do, but his guilt was in the appropriate context because it wasn't a deliberate act on his part. I think it showed the strength of his character that he was able to move past that and not dwell on it or allow it to control him. That was something Harry had learned from what happened to him the previous year with Sirius dying. He dwelled on that mistake and allowed his guilt to control him for several weeks - doing nothing but laying on his bed staring at the wall. But that experience helped Harry realize that he couldn't do that. His parents would not have wanted him to dwell on his mistakes and let them cripple him like that. Sirius would not have wanted him to do that. Harry learned to face his mistakes and learn from them instead of dwelling on them and allowing them to control or cripple him. That was a good thing, IMO.

Harry's good deeds far outweighed the rules he broke, IMO. I think that was a significant message in the series as a whole. Sometimes it is necessary to break the rules to achieve something good. You cannot blindly trust authority because even authority figures make mistakes - even someone like Dumbledore. I never felt Harry was getting off easy because he never did such things lightly. He did such things when he felt there was no other choice because he wanted to help people - not just for the sake of adventure or having fun. Harry demonstrated that he could think for himself and made decisions based on the evidence he had rather than allowing an authority figure to dictate what he should think or do. He wasn't always right, but his intentions were usually good. Dumbledore took that into consideration and rewarded Harry for the good he had done.

That is one of the few things in DH that I saw as contradictory because there are so few parallels between Harry, Snape, and Voldemort.

So, overall, Harry had absolutely nothing in common with Snape and the only thing he had in common with Voldemort was that they were both orphans - which was due to Voldemort killing his parents after Snape told him about the prophecy and Pettigrew told him where the Potters were.

Harry, of course, perceptively notes that there is connection. And JKR reinforces it by having the first thing Harry sees in the memories be this:

…a skinny boy was watching them from behind a clump of bushes. His black hair was overlong and his clothes were so mismatched that it looked deliberate: too short jeans, a shabby, overlarge coat that might have belonged to a grown man, an odd smock-like shirt.

From that moment, Harry identifies with that boy. Here’s the first view we get of 11-year-old Harry:

Perhaps it had something to do with living in a dark cupboard, but Harry had always been small and skinny for his age. He looked even smaller and skinnier than he really was because all he had to wear were old clothes of Dudley’s, and Dudley was about four times bigger than he was.

Readers can debate all they want about supposed contradictions, but the bottom line is what Harry - the moral center of the book - ultimately comes to perceive and believe. As far as Harry is concerned, there is a connection. And he contemplates that connection as he goes to what he believes will be his death.

Oh hi, remember this rule?

1. CoS Forums is a family friendly forum. Anything we deem inappropriate will be removed, this includes posts, signatures, usernames, images etc. The offending member will be warned. This also extends to websites which contain inappropriate material and the discussion of slash.

I'm disappointed that Hogsmeade members not only post but also quote and discuss a link that should have been reported ASAP. Please take into account that this is indeed warn-worthy and not a trivial offence. :grumble:

If you're referring to the review link that was used to talk about the sections mentioning Harry Potter, then I apologize. I should have simply pasted the appropriate discussion material without including the link, which is why I took out the words that could have potentially been controversial (and even then, my judgment was that the overall value of the analysis as a discussion topic far outweighed any other minor word choices in said review, which I made an effort not to include. :P).

Thanks, Moriath.

I think this is a stylistic choice by Rowling as a writer, and not an attempt by her to make a particular (and objectionable) moral point. She's writing a story that raises a lot of ethical questions, presents a battle between a good an evil side, has making difficult choices as a theme, etc. But I think she is trying to avoid writing a very obviously didactic series that lectures its readers on what is right behavior. She wants us to decide for ourselves. And if Harry was presented analyzing his past actions and classifying them as good and bad...she would be writing that explicitly didactic sort of moral tale, because she as the author would be presenting Harry's judgments of himself to us as correct.

Yes, I do see that. :tu: I wouldn't want a didactic series either. :whistle:

As for the Unforgivables, I thought the text made clear that these are widely used by wizards at war. Without Harry's use of Imperius in Gringott's, I do not think that adventure would have been successful. So it seems to me justified, and therefore something a reasonable post-war government would not kick up a fuss about. Aurors were permitted to use them in the past, the (admittedly Voldemort run) government permitted their use, Order members such as Minerva (for sure) and Molly (likely) used them, and Lupin suggested Harry ought to ("At least stun if you are not prepared to kill" is a phrasing that suggests being prepared to kill under war circumstances is not alarming to Lupin.)

Yes, that is true.

If anything about Rowling's writing of Harry seemed self-indulgent...I'd say it was the Quidditch. Surely it would have been possible for Gryffindor not to win every single season Quidditch was played during Harry's school days? :lol:

:rotfl: Yes, that gets really ... boring. :yuhup:

I have to disagree with the view that Harry had "abandonment/rejection" issues ... Harry had always known that his parents didn't choose to leave him - they died trying to save him. He didn't always know the truth about how they died, but he had always known that they did not abandon him.

But a happily adopted person can have abandonment/rejection issues. :cool: (And Harry was not a happily adopted person, he was abused and rejected by his close relatives.) Of course the adult self knows rationally that biological parents do not necessarily 'abandon' their children ... it is the primal, baby-part of the psyche that feels abandoned. That's what I'm talking about. Of course Harry knew that James and Lily had not abandoned him: they were taken from him by a brutal act of murder. All I am saying is that he does, to me, clearly demonstrate the sorts of emotional issues that I, as an adopted person, am all too familar with. Harry has a huge emotional gap inside him, the result of having been orphaned at such an early age. Whether the author intended it or not, she has given a very believable portrayal of the sorts of deep emotional issues a person in Harry's situation has to deal with.

That is one of the few things in DH that I saw as contradictory because there are so few parallels between Harry, Snape, and Voldemort.

I take a very different view. :) I think there are parallels, and I do not regard this insight of Harry's as contradictory.

One of the abandoned boys became a sociopath. His choices in life were indefensible. The second abandoned boy also made bad choices in life, and suffered for them, but eventually became Harry's helper ... one of the big twists and ironies of the saga. The third abandoned boy (Harry) also suffered much but was able to rise above his childhood tragedy and achieve redemption for his world (the Wizarding World).

Harry is a compassionate person and this insight of his about the 'abandoned boys' is one of his more perceptive moments. It's a great little line. DH would be a poorer story without it, IMO.

I apologize for that as well, Moriath. I didn't read the entire review - just the relevant parts about Harry's characterization. I should have been paying more attention.

Harry, of course, perceptively notes that there is connection. And JKR reinforces it by having the first thing Harry sees in the memories be this:



From that moment, Harry identifies with that boy. Here’s the first view we get of 11-year-old Harry:



Readers can debate all they want about supposed contradictions, but the bottom line is what Harry - the moral center of the book - ultimately comes to perceive and believe. As far as Harry is concerned, there is a connection. And he contemplates that connection as he goes to what he believes will be his death.

That is the contradiction, IMO. What is Harry identifying with? From everything we are shown in the text, Harry has nothing in common with Snape so there is nothing for him to identify with. Snape's family was poor and could not afford much. The Dursleys were fairly well off and could have afforded to do more for Harry than they did. That is a significant distinction. Harry was skinny because the Dursleys only gave him enough food to keep him alive - he never received proper nourishment when living with them and there were times that they practically starved him when he was being punished. His clothes were too big because the Dursleys refused to buy him anything new for his own and forced him to wear Dudley's hand-me-downs. His glasses were the cheap, government issue and always broken because they refused to buy him new glasses. This was not because they were poor and could not afford to feed or clothe Harry properly - they chose not to because they thought keeping Harry miserable would "squash the magic out of him".

This is an example where Harry's thoughts are contradictory to what is actually shown in the text. Another would be the moment in DH where Harry "remembers" the Dursleys leaving him alone in the house and enjoying those times because he could sneak and use Dudleys computer or watch what he wanted on television. That never actually happened - that exact line was used in PS/SS as something Harry would like to do, but could not because the Dursleys never left him at home alone. When they went somewhere, they always sent him to Mrs. Figg's house - it comes up in the first book because Mrs. Figg has a broken leg and cannot take Harry so they take him to the zoo with them because they refuse to leave him in the house alone for fear that he might blow it up or something. The only time Harry was ever left in the house alone was in OOTP when the Dursleys left because Tonks sent them a letter saying they had won that lawn competition - and even then they locked Harry in his room so he couldn't touch any of their things while they were gone.

DH has quite a few contradictions like that - particularly in comparison to the previous books. If Jo was actually attempting to draw specific parallels between Harry, Snape, and Voldemort then I have to say that she failed in the writing because the text shows that Harry has nothing in common with Snape whatsoever and the only thing he has in common with Voldemort is that they are both orphans - which was a situation that Voldemort created himself by murdering Harry's parents. If she wanted to present Harry identifying with Snape as a believable scenario, then she needed to present something for Harry to identify with. Without that, Harry's thoughts there can only be viewed as a direct contradiction to what was actually shown, IMO.

That is the contradiction, IMO. What is Harry identifying with? From everything we are shown in the text, Harry has nothing in common with Snape so there is nothing for him to identify with.

I see this issue very differently. :) There is a clear moment in OotP when Harry does feel a powerful sympathy for Snape, on the bullying issue (SWM). That is something they both had in common, and the text makes that pretty clear, IMO. (Of course, at the time, Harry is very surprised to find himself feeling sympathetic towards Snape. :rotfl: )

But I think it is rather unwise to keep mentioning Snape. :whistle:

Therefore I'll turn this back to the subject of the thread: Harry. I find his capacity for empathy a very attractive, and realistic, part of his character. :tu:

Without that, Harry's thoughts there can only be viewed as a direct contradiction to what was actually shown, IMO.

I don't see it that way. Regarding Harry's thoughts being part of a trio of abandoned boys, I don't think Rowling is contradicting anything that has gone before in her series. On the contrary: I think she knows exactly what she's doing here, in terms of characterisation, as she has Harry walking towards his redemptive 'death' and act of self-sacrifice, and in bringing the big themes of her series to their climax.

Harry is a compassionate person, able to feel sympathy even for his worst enemy. This totally befits the hero of a fantasy saga of this type.

But a happily adopted person can have abandonment/rejection issues. :cool: (And Harry was not a happily adopted person, he was abused and rejected by his close relatives.) Of course the adult self knows rationally that biological parents do not necessarily 'abandon' their children ... it is the primal, baby-part of the psyche that feels abandoned. That's what I'm talking about. Of course Harry knew that James and Lily had not abandoned him: they were taken from him by a brutal act of murder. All I am saying is that he does, to me, clearly demonstrate the sorts of emotional issues that I, as an adopted person, am all too familar with. Harry has a huge emotional gap inside him, the result of having been orphaned at such an early age. Whether the author intended it or not, she has given a very believable portrayal of the sorts of deep emotional issues a person in Harry's situation has to deal with.

In most adoptions, the parents are choosing to give up the child so feeling abandoned would be understandable. That is not the case with Harry. His parents did not choose to give him up - they died. Harry knows this.

Harry does miss his parents and wish that he could have known them. But he doesn't blame his parents for what happened. He knows that they didn't give him up or leave him on purpose. For me, that is the root of abandonment issues and that does not apply to Harry. I see nothing in the text that would support that Harry ever felt abandoned by his parents. From what we are shown, Harry sees the situation for what it is - they were taken away from him.

Harry's issues stem from being abused and neglected by the Dursleys - not thinking that his parents abandoned him. Even the Dursleys didn't go so far as to tell him that his parents gave him up or left him on purpose - they were at least honest with him that his parents had died. They also told him that it was an accident - something Harry could view as a situation beyond their control. His behavior and how he deals with emotions are very typical for children who have suffered from abuse and neglect.

I take a very different view. :) I think there are parallels, and I do not regard this insight of Harry's as contradictory.

One of the abandoned boys became a sociopath. His choices in life were indefensible. The second abandoned boy also made bad choices in life, and suffered for them, but eventually became Harry's helper ... one of the big twists and ironies of the saga. The third abandoned boy (Harry) also suffered much but was able to rise above his childhood tragedy and achieve redemption for his world (the Wizarding World).

Harry is a compassionate person and this insight of his about the 'abandoned boys' is one of his more perceptive moments. It's a great little line. DH would be a poorer story without it, IMO.

I disagree. They all came from very different backgrounds and had very different upbringing. As I said above, there is nothing for Harry to identify with so it does not come across as perceptive because it is contradictory to what was actually shown.

Harry was abused and neglected as a child, but manages to overcome the negative circumstances in his own life to become a good person. Voldemort was not abused or neglected, but was raised in an orphanage and had major abandonment issues on top of being born with a severe psychological disorder - psychopathy is a genetic psychological disorder that is present from birth. Snape came from a poor family and was not a happy child, but there is no evidence in the text that he was abused or neglected by his parents.

Different backgrounds - different upbringing - different beliefs and values - different choices in life. I'm just not seeing any similarities there.

Harry is a compassionate person - I agree with you on that. But people can feel sympathy for someone that they have nothing in common with. Harry also has sympathy for Draco. And for SWM - just to round that off - Harry gets a brief glimpse of what happened, but did not know all the facts at the time. Eventually, he learns more about what happened so he gets the full picture of the mutual rivalry and understands the situation better than he did when he first saw that memory.

I apologize for that as well, Moriath. I didn't read the entire review - just the relevant parts about Harry's characterization. I should have been paying more attention.



That is the contradiction, IMO. What is Harry identifying with? From everything we are shown in the text, Harry has nothing in common with Snape so there is nothing for him to identify with. Snape's family was poor and could not afford much. The Dursleys were fairly well off and could have afforded to do more for Harry than they did. That is a significant distinction. Harry was skinny because the Dursleys only gave him enough food to keep him alive - he never received proper nourishment when living with them and there were times that they practically starved him when he was being punished. His clothes were too big because the Dursleys refused to buy him anything new for his own and forced him to wear Dudley's hand-me-downs. His glasses were the cheap, government issue and always broken because they refused to buy him new glasses. This was not because they were poor and could not afford to feed or clothe Harry properly - they chose not to because they thought keeping Harry miserable would "squash the magic out of him".

This is an example where Harry's thoughts are contradictory to what is actually shown in the text. Another would be the moment in DH where Harry "remembers" the Dursleys leaving him alone in the house and enjoying those times because he could sneak and use Dudleys computer or watch what he wanted on television. That never actually happened - that exact line was used in PS/SS as something Harry would like to do, but could not because the Dursleys never left him at home alone. When they went somewhere, they always sent him to Mrs. Figg's house - it comes up in the first book because Mrs. Figg has a broken leg and cannot take Harry so they take him to the zoo with them because they refuse to leave him in the house alone for fear that he might blow it up or something. The only time Harry was ever left in the house alone was in OOTP when the Dursleys left because Tonks sent them a letter saying they had won that lawn competition - and even then they locked Harry in his room so he couldn't touch any of their things while they were gone.

DH has quite a few contradictions like that - particularly in comparison to the previous books. If Jo was actually attempting to draw specific parallels between Harry, Snape, and Voldemort then I have to say that she failed in the writing because the text shows that Harry has nothing in common with Snape whatsoever and the only thing he has in common with Voldemort is that they are both orphans - which was a situation that Voldemort created himself by murdering Harry's parents. If she wanted to present Harry identifying with Snape as a believable scenario, then she needed to present something for Harry to identify with. Without that, Harry's thoughts there can only be viewed as a direct contradiction to what was actually shown, IMO.

Great catches Meesha,:tu:. I remember when I read that passage something about Harry roaming the house bothered me, but to tell the truth I was more caught up in the scene presented, the very real pathos in the scene and how well she caught the feeling of roaming a house that no longer had anding to do with you. I've had that feeling when moving out of one house to another and she caught that perfectly, so I'm willing to forgive the continuity errors.
What you caught perfectly are the differences in 'The Lost Boys of Hogwarts'. How Hogwarts was the place where each of the for good or ill was shaped. How each succeeding generation was better than the one before. LV was unspeakable, Snape started out as a DE who did not care about anyone but himself, (the only reason he tried to save Lily IMO was he had feelings for her and his feelings were important to him) and a bully of children and those he thought weaker than himself, but he evolved into someone who did his best to defeat LV and died because LV thought he was the Master of the Elder Wand. Then we have Harry, who fights his demons and emerges as the savior of the WW. Brave, compassionate and very clever. He is an everyman hero. He is not perfect, but he tries.
It is worth remembering that the Gryffindor hero is the one who succeeds in defeating the dark, both outside of himself and inside of himself as well

What you caught perfectly are the differences in 'The Lost Boys of Hogwarts'. How Hogwarts was the place where each of the for good or ill was shaped. How each succeeding generation was better than the one before.

Well, I was the one arguing strongly for a connection between the 'lost boys', Eliza. :lol: :) Because I don't believe there are any contradictions or continuity errors in that regard.

Brave, compassionate and very clever.

Yes to the first two. :tu: Not sure I would always describe Harry as 'very clever' ... But he does show a lot of intelligence and strategic thinking in DH. :) Particularly in the second half of the book.

He is an everyman hero. He is not perfect, but he tries.

:agree:

Great catches Meesha,:tu:. I remember when I read that passage something about Harry roaming the house bothered me, but to tell the truth I was more caught up in the scene presented, the very real pathos in the scene and how well she caught the feeling of roaming a house that no longer had anding to do with you. I've had that feeling when moving out of one house to another and she caught that perfectly, so I'm willing to forgive the continuity errors.

That is a very minor continuity error and it doesn't really cause any major plot holes. Really, the only reason it bothers me is because it demonstrates the poor editing - which I consider to be one of the biggest problems with DH. I can see where Jo would slip up there - 17 years after writing the first book it would be easy to mix that line up and present it as something that happened as opposed to something that Harry was wishing he could do - as it was presented in PS/SS. But I would expect a good continuity error to catch something like that.

And I'm very detail oriented so inconsistencies of any kind just bug me. :lol:

What you caught perfectly are the differences in 'The Lost Boys of Hogwarts'. How Hogwarts was the place where each of the for good or ill was shaped. How each succeeding generation was better than the one before. LV was unspeakable, Snape started out as a DE who did not care about anyone but himself, (the only reason he tried to save Lily IMO was he had feelings for her and his feelings were important to him) and a bully of children and those he thought weaker than himself, but he evolved into someone who did his best to defeat LV and died because LV thought he was the Master of the Elder Wand. Then we have Harry, who fights his demons and emerges as the savior of the WW. Brave, compassionate and very clever. He is an everyman hero. He is not perfect, but he tries.

Exactly. It was the differences that really stood out for me - particularly because they were such extreme differences between them and Harry. There are parallels between Voldemort and Snape - both had muggle fathers and pure-blood mothers, both were raised in poverty in the muggle world, both demonstrated prejudice against muggles - as well as general disdain - from the time they were children, both demonstrated a high level of control over their magic at a young age, both intentionally used their magic against muggles as children, both hated their muggle fathers, both created nicknames for themselves because they hated having their names connect them to their muggle fathers, both saw themselves as superior to others - there are a lot of parallels there and I do think that was deliberate.

But we just don't see that with Harry. His father was a pure-blood and his mother was muggleborn, he did not hate either of his parents, the Dursleys were not poor and intentionally denied him new things of his own in their abuse, he never demonstrated any prejudice or disdain for muggles, he had no control over his magic as a child and never figured out that those odd things that happened were magic - and didn't believe Hagrid at first, he never intentionally used magic against anyone - though he did accidentally do things, he was given nicknames by the wizarding world but never created a nickname for himself or even wanted one, he liked knowing that there were similarities between himself and his parents, he never saw himself as superior to other - everything with Harry is pretty much the complete opposite of what we're shown for Voldemort and Snape.

I definitely agree about the qualities that make Harry the hero of the tale. He's not the most powerful or the most intelligent. He's not the stereotypical presentation of a hero - strong, handsome, muscular, etc... He screws up and makes mistakes. He's vulnerable and has weaknesses. . He's not perfect, but rather has noticeable flaws. He has a bad temper and a dark side. He is the everyman hero. His strengths are his instincts, his intuition, his determination, and his ability to love in spite of everything the Dursleys did to him. And that is exactly what makes him so interesting as a character.

It is worth remembering that the Gryffindor hero is the one who succeeds in defeating the dark, both outside of himself and inside of himself as well

Absolutely. :agree:

[QUOTE=Pearl_Took;5520728]Well, I was the one arguing strongly for a connection between the 'lost boys', Eliza. :lol: :) Because I don't believe there are any contradictions or continuity errors in that regard.
As Meesha said it's a small error because in the first books it was made plain that Harry was never left alone in the house. He was sent to Mrs Figg's and the one occasion he was left alone he was locked ion his room. It's not something that affects the plots but it is an inconvenience if you are inclined to notice these things. I remember once I was reading a book which described in great detail how the heroine in the Middle Ages was cooking her guests potatoes for their meal. I threw that book over my shoulder and never finished it. The sort of thing and continuity errors drives me up the wall.

Yes to the first two. :tu: Not sure I would always describe Harry as 'very clever' ... But he does show a lot of intelligence and strategic thinking in DH. :) Particularly in the second half of the book.

This shows how two intelligent:whistle: people can word things differently. I say clever and used strategic thinking, you say intelligent and used strategic thinking. It means the same thing essentially, but with slightly different stresses.

org post by Meesha 1971
But we just don't see that with Harry. His father was a pure-blood and his mother was muggleborn, he did not hate either of his parents, the Dursleys were not poor and intentionally denied him new things of his own in their abuse, he never demonstrated any prejudice or disdain for muggles, he had no control over his magic as a child and never figured out that those odd things that happened were magic - and didn't believe Hagrid at first, he never intentionally used magic against anyone - though he did accidentally do things, he was given nicknames by the wizarding world but never created a nickname for himself or even wanted one, he liked knowing that there were similarities between himself and his parents, he never saw himself as superior to other - everything with Harry is pretty much the complete opposite of what we're shown for Voldemort and Snape.

Yes Meesha, it's like Harry is the mirror image of Snape and LV. What's left on them is right on him. I mean the directions, not right and wrong, but that also holds true. Where LV has no scruples, morals or any regard for the dignity of life, Harry has these qualities by the bucketful. Where Snape holds on to grudges and is spiteful, Harry forgives and then moves on. Where LV never learned to care about another being in his life and Snape had a long hard life before he learned, Harry always cared about other beings. He is not perfect and as you pointed out he is quick-tempered, but this too is opposite LV and Snape IMO. I always got the impression that they held their tempers and then brooded over what they conceived as wrongs. Harry has a flash point and then it's over with. Perhaps mirror image is the wrong way of describing it, for me it's more like they are the negative reflection of Harry, photographic negative that is.

As Meesha said it's a small error because in the first books it was made plain that Harry was never left alone in the house.

I don't see how this ditracts or contradicts the idea of Harry as one of the lost or abandoned boys - he was emotional completely abaondoned by the Dursley's even if they had someone watching him at all times :)

I picked the choices of Determination and compassion. (Bravery was too obvious, IMO.)

These I truly believe to be his most strong points. Certainly he shows feelings towards his friends , even against his enemies-like Draco Malfoy. Saving him in DH.
Determination...In fact, this reminded me he could fit in Slytherin for this trait. He does show some ambition. He would often go to long lengths to find out about happenings, or even for the horcruxes in the 7th book. That really could explain why the Hat wanted to put Harry in the house.

I don't see how this ditracts or contradicts the idea of Harry as one of the lost or abandoned boys - he was emotional completely abaondoned by the Dursley's even if they had someone watching him at all times :)

I didn't say that, neither did Meesha. We were pointing out a small continuity error.
Harry is one of the Lost Boys, I agree. IMO he was the positive reflection of the two negatives.

From the Snape thread.

...and I do believe - very strongly in fact - that we are supposed to regard adult Harry's opinion of Snape as the final word. This was one of the key purposes of the Epilogue, imo.

:agree:
I think that it's no accident that Harry ends up sacrificing himself and then returning to life. IMHO, the Horcrux in his head is not the only thing he leaves behind at King's Cross: I think Harry experiences something of a rebirth after this moment and sheds a lot of his childish ideas about not only Snape but the other adults around him, the magical community at large, and some of the pain he himself has suffered in the past. This is, I think, why he is willing to let Voldemort live and suffer the remorse that could cleanse his shattered soul, rather than simply killing him for revenge-- he has developed enough understanding through his experiences in DH, his talk with Dumbledore, and his willing sacrifice to have faith that even Voldemort can regain his humanity.

I really agree to that. Harry came out of the "King Cross" different. It's interesting that he didn't just kill Voldemort for revenge. He allows Voldemort to try for some remorse. He seems to mature up, think more for others...

One thing is about the talk with Dumbledore, kind of he got all his questions answered. But also to go through something that he had to go through, like a battle, a war, to experience life and death; that makes a person different.

Winky45:angel:

Discussion carried over from the Severus Snape thread...

Why did Harry name his second son after Snape? Was it because Snape loved his mother, or because Snape was the bravest man Harry ever knew?

My answer: a bit of both, and a third reason as well. I think Snape's protection of Harry specifically was something Harry was recognizing this way as well.

Harry obviously admired Snape's courage, as we see from his statement to little Al Sev. So clearly that is at least part of the reason. However, all of the other names of Harry's children: James, Sirius, Lily, Luna, and Albus (I am including interview information here) are of people with whom Harry had a personal relationship. So I think there was a personal element to Harry's choice for Severus as well. Yes, Harry admired his courage, but I think he felt naming his son, and thus taking the name into his own family, was an appropriate way to express that admiration because of the personal form Snape's brave actions took (protecting Harry) and because of Snape's personal motivation (his love for and friendship with Harry's mother).

Discussion carried over from the Severus Snape thread...

Why did Harry name his second son after Snape? Was it because Snape loved his mother, or because Snape was the bravest man Harry ever knew?

My answer: a bit of both, and a third reason as well. I think Snape's protection of Harry specifically was something Harry was recognizing this way as well.

Harry obviously admired Snape's courage, as we see from his statement to little Al Sev. So clearly that is at least part of the reason. However, all of the other names of Harry's children: James, Sirius, Lily, Luna, and Albus (I am including interview information here) are of people with whom Harry had a personal relationship. So I think there was a personal element to Harry's choice for Severus as well. Yes, Harry admired his courage, but I think he felt naming his son, and thus taking the name into his own family, was an appropriate way to express that admiration because of the personal form Snape's brave actions took (protecting Harry) and because of Snape's personal motivation (his love for and friendship with Harry's mother).

I agree with this, and I think there may yet be even more. Harry offers a child with that name an opportunity to grow up in a loving, supportive home - to not be emotionally abandoned or abused. It is a way to hold that name in honor and at the same time nurture the child who possesses it. It's another type of "second chance."

I think he named his son after Snape because Snape dedicated his life to protecting him and died doing what was necessary to help Harry bring down Voldemort. I think Harry matured enough to realize that the fact that Snape was mean to him does not matter in the end. It's his sacrifice and the good he did that matter.

I agree with this, and I think there may yet be even more. Harry offers a child with that name an opportunity to grow up in a loving, supportive home - to not be emotionally abandoned or abused. It is a way to hold that name in honor and at the same time nurture the child who possesses it. It's another type of "second chance."

I never thought of it like that but you make a good point.

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?

Harry learns humility while living with the Dursleys, and learns that being rich and successful does not necessarily equal a happy life. He learns to be resourceful (hiding food in his room when he doesn't get fed properly). If his parents had lived, I think he would have been a bit arrogant like James, yet checked frequently enough by Lily that he would have understood how far to go with the arrogance. With another wizarding family: we do see that, as he is a frequent visitor to the Weasley home. To an orphanage: that opens up so many possibilities and sounds like another series; I think he could have gone either way: it may have made him compassionate and kind to see others like himself; or his quick temper and boldness could have been the beginning of Tom Riddle #2.

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?

Harry and Ron have just met. Draco Malfoy interrupts, introduces himself, figures out who Harry is, and makes a biting comment about Harry picking more acceptable candidates for friends. Harry says something like, "I can pick my own friends, thank you." Sticking up for Ron, yes!

I really don't think Harry has a "saving people" thing. I think he's a kind and loyal friend, and wants to see justice for those he cares about, which is a strength.

Harry's final sacrifice. If you mean walking into the forest, I think that was brave. As JKR wrote in that chapter, he could have gone willingly or been captured. He went willingly, which was how I hoped he would.

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?

His curiosity helps him to understand his destiny. He is understandably upset after Dumbledore's death, but he will undoubtedly develop the strength to resume the search.

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

Strengths: Courage; loyalty; sense of humor.
Weaknesses: Trouble focusing (History of Magic, lol); being outspoken even if it meant being severely punished; sneaking around the castle (although that sounds like fun and I'd have done the same).

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

He's learned to treasure those who are with him; to honor those who have passed on; to remain loyal.

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?

His unflinching bravery. He will stand up and fight even if the opposition may crush him.

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

He needs them. It's life or death at that point, so expelliarmus isn't going to do it.

8. Why do you think Harry forgave Snape?

Because he finally understood the reasons for Snape's behavior.

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 this was an excellent choice. They probably developed a program that would prevent dark wizards from harassing the rest of the wizarding community.

Why do you think Harry forgave Snape?

Because forgiveness is a grace. We are forgiven in the way we forgive others, we are judged as we judge others. Harry's forgiveness was freely given and independant of anything Snape did or did not do. Snape did not have to ask for forgiveness, it was Harry's gift to him, freely given.

I think Harry's an interesting character because his greatest strengths are also his flaws.

His bravery, determination, loyalty etc. prevent him from seeing things with a clear mind. He can't plan ahead, or think rationally. He wears his heart on his sleeve. This is certainly admirable, and what makes Harry Harry but it does make it relatively easy to manipulate him.

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?

Harry was definitely extremely affected by his formative years with the Dursleys. We know that James was a bit of a spoiled brat because, as JKR said, he was the only child of older parents. Instead, Harry developed an appreciation for everything he had and everyone who was kind to him because of his early years. That was a positive side effect; the negative was his inability to trust others and to ask for help. This came to full bloom around his fourth and fifth year, when the problems he faced became too huge to deal with on his own, and yet he was unable to trust other around him. Had he been in an oprhanage...well, orphans in the 80s without family to take them in are sent to live with foster families, not orphanages, but foster families can also create the same sense of independence and lack of trust that the Durseys created.

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?

Both a strength and a flaw, his "saving people thing" results from an inner phobia about losing the people he loves that came from those he feels abandoned him: his parents, his aunt and uncle, Sirius, and finally Dumbledore. I think it also comes from a need for positive attention and reinforcement, which he won't admit to himself; coming from a a back ground where good behaviour was never praised or reinforced, his is subconsciously desperate for somebody to tell him that he's good, that he's doing the right thing. As or his final sacrifice, Harry knew that if he could not defeat Voldemort, there would be nothing left to live for anyways. And by the end of the seventh book, he was so emotionally damaged that he probably wanted to die, in some ways.

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?

Harry's curiosity is a major part of his intuitive intelligence (as opposed to Hermione's logical and Ron's emotional intelligence) and it drives the narrative. We have to remember that the Harry Potter series is a mystery/suspense series and it has to be driven by a character with an innate sense of curiosity to match the readers'. After Dumbledore's death, he temporarily lost the sense of curiosity as a conduit to a fun adventure-- unlike first or second year, he knows now that sometimes the answers he learns are not satisfying or would be better left unknown.

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

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

His initial loss of his parents set his character into motion-- the orphan archetype, someone who gains independence and maturity at a very young age. His second real loss, that of Sirius, gives him purpose and tunnel vision-- he no longer hunts Voldemort for adventure, but from a source of pure driving anger and grief. His third loss, Dumbledore, turns him into a young adult rather than a teenager. He now has to shoulder this enormous burden on his own, and not with the help of a wise adult mentor. Finally the loss of part of his soul, and the loss of Voldemort-- the antagonist who played a huge role in his life and gave him a sense of purpose, allowed him to finally begin to heal and to forgive. I also think it would have left him confused and unmoored for a time, without knowing what he was "supposed" to do, and where he belonged.


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

I loved it, as a reader. He didn't use Avada Kedavra, but the Imperius and Cruciatus-- that showed that he was no longer the kid whose favourite trick was disarming. Harry demonstrates that he's ready to fight fire with fire and that his anger and rage have surpassed cold logic. I think it's amazing of Rowling to show us that a character as compassionate and forgiving as Harry still has a breaking point at which his sadistic side breaks out.

One thing i don't think is ever mentioned when talking about Harry is one of his biggest Slytherin traits and that is his ability and willingness to snoop.

- In CoS Harry opened a letter on Filch's table about Filch trying to get into Kwikspell magical School.

- In GoF Harry snoops around Dumbledore's office and ends up viewing the memory of Crouch Jnr being sent to Azkaban

- In OotP he deliberately goes into Snape's pensieve because he wants to know what Snape is hiding.

Overally his willingness to invade others privacy is not really a positive personality trait and is actually very Slytherin like.

One thing i don't think is ever mentioned when talking about Harry is one of his biggest Slytherin traits and that is his ability and willingness to snoop.

- In CoS Harry opened a letter on Filch's table about Filch trying to get into Kwikspell magical School.

- In GoF Harry snoops around Dumbledore's office and ends up viewing the memory of Crouch Jnr being sent to Azkaban

- In OotP he deliberately goes into Snape's pensieve because he wants to know what Snape is hiding.

Overally his willingness to invade others privacy is not really a positive personality trait and is actually very Slytherin like.

I'm not sure that I would call invasion of privacy a Slytherin trait. I think I could say that ignoring rules when it gets in the way of what someone wants is Slytheriny, as the Sorting Hat directly says so, and certainly there is plenty of evidence of that trait as they go even as far as supporting the overthrow of the legal government. And sneaking is somewhat Slytheriny in my opinion because they seem to like to hang back and gather information before they will commit. I'd say Harry has Slytherin traits, but I'd also say getting into other people's stuff is just plain rude. Of the three examples, only getting into Snape's memories was remotely justified, in my opinion, because Harry believed the memories had to do with him and would explain his situation (and Harry was both wrong and right about that). Harry didn't have any call for the other examples, though, beyond idle curiousity. I think I remember Dumbledore saying something to Harry about curiousity being okay, but not to let it overcome common sense. I also think kids are often curious, and get into things when they shouldn't. Learning to control that urge is part of maturing.

I'm not sure that I would call invasion of privacy a Slytherin trait. I think I could say that ignoring rules when it gets in the way of what someone wants is Slytheriny, as the Sorting Hat directly says so

Actually both triats strike me as extremely Gryffindorish. :lol:. At least it seems to me that while Slytherins might do it to achieve a goal, Gryffindors could do it for mere fun and curiosity.

Of the three examples, only getting into Snape's memories was remotely justified, in my opinion, because Harry believed the memories had to do with him and would explain his situation (and Harry was both wrong and right about that).

I don't remember Harry having or thinking of a good reason to watch Snape's memories. I only recall that: a) his temper was so hot from his encounter with Cho, and Snape taunting him. b) he was very curious what memory(s) Snape didn't want him to see, and kept removing before the begining of each class. IMO, there was no good reason for Harry to go looking through Snape's memories, because it was obvious that they contained stuff Snape was uncomfortable showing to other people. Harry himself wouldn't have wanted some of his memories seen by Snape (i.e. he thinks of his love for Cho, the last moments of his parents' lives, etc.) He should've realised that every person has something private, and that it was impolite to intrude on such privacies.
Actually, after getting out of the pensieve he admitts that he wouldn't have wanted anybody to see him in such a situation.

Actually both triats strike me as extremely Gryffindorish. :lol:. At least it seems to me that while Slytherins might do it to achieve a goal, Gryffindors could do it for mere fun and curiosity.

Well, the Sorting Hat specifically says "use any means to achieve their ends" about Slytherin, and Dumbledore says that "a certain disregard for the rules" is Slytheriny. However, I don't think there is a trait associated with any House per se that specifies that they will always follow rules, or always break them. For example, I can't see a Hufflepuff being determined to follow a rule that they find unfair-- for example a rule that would disallow Muggleborns from attending Hogwarts, because one of the tennets of Helga Hufflepuff was that everyone who wanted to learn should be allowed to learn. I don't think Gryffindors break the rules more than anyone else, but they may tend to be more brazen about it because of their courage. The Sorting Hat doesn't tell the Slytherins to break rules all the time-- only when rules interfere with their ambition. So ambition can cause rulebreaking, but rulebreaking doesn't cause ambition-- so I don't think that Salazar Slytherin asked for all rulebreakers to be put into his House because I can't see that that would further his goal, and the same logic goes for the other Founders. Maybe it's simply the case that certain behaviors are not really associated with any House, and not every trait has to be sorted by House, beyond what the Hat stated that the Founders were specifically looking for.

I don't remember Harry having or thinking of a good reason to watch Snape's memories. I only recall that: a) his temper was so hot from his encounter with Cho, and Snape taunting him. b) he was very curious what memory(s) Snape didn't want him to see, and kept removing before the begining of each class. IMO, there was no good reason for Harry to go looking through Snape's memories, because it was obvious that they contained stuff Snape was uncomfortable showing to other people.

I was thinking of this part:

Could it possibly be information about the Department of Mysteries that Snape was determined to keep from him?

It doesn't even occure to Harry that it might be a personal memory of Snape's that Snape is uncomfortable showing other people. Harry thinks it might be the answer to the riddle of why the Department of Mysteries is so important, and why he keeps dreaming about it. So it does look to me that Harry had an overwhelming curiousity about this mystery that concerned him. He was also reckless and imprudent and rude, but he had a motive beyond idle curiousity. In fact I see his motive as reasonable, as very frightening things are happening to him and I don't think Dumbledore was giving him the information he needed to deal with it. Dumbledore even says at the end of OotP that he made a mistake by not telling Harry more about what was going on. So I think Harry did what he usually did when he wanted answers about things that directly concerned himself--sneaked around looking for them.

Harry himself wouldn't have wanted some of his memories seen by Snape (i.e. he thinks of his love for Cho, the last moments of his parents' lives, etc.) He should've realised that every person has something private, and that it was impolite to intrude on such privacies.
Actually, after getting out of the pensieve he admitts that he wouldn't have wanted anybody to see him in such a situation.

The Occlumency lessons weren't exactly conductive to Harry learning that privacy mattered :lol:. Snape already saw Harry humiliated in the same way through invading his mind during the lessons, and Harry was never given the option of removing his most secret memories to protect them. But in any case, it simply didn't occure to Harry that that was the sort of thing that Snape removed. Harry did feel bad after he realized what it was and what he had done, so I hope Harry learned something about exercising caution with his curiousity, as Dumbledore had advised him to do in GoF.

As long as Harry was being made to suffer all those years because of it, I also think that ironically that memory was more Harry's business than he realized, because Snape and Dumbledore had made it Harry's business. But Harry doesn't know enough to realize that part yet, so I guess that's kind of moot as far as Harry is concerned.

It doesn't even occure to Harry that it might be a personal memory of Snape's that Snape is uncomfortable showing other people. Harry thinks it might be the answer to the riddle of why the Department of Mysteries is so important, and why he keeps dreaming about it. So it does look to me that Harry had an overwhelming curiousity about this mystery that concerned him.

In this case I totally agree with you (I'd forgot about that part). In OotP, I think Harry had been sick of people trying to hide everything from him, that, when he saw Snape hiding some memory of his own, Harry's mind immediatly jumps to the possibility that he's trying to hide further information from him.

I can see how Harry thought about it, but Harry was never taught to deal with curiosity. When he was a kid, The Dursleys used to deny him any answer to every question he asked, among many other things. So when he entered the wizarding world he felt that he was free to do anything the Dursleys had denied him before, one of which is gaining the answer to any riddle that met him, whether it concerned him directly or not.

Harry being flawed makes him to me a good character. Is someone I can relate to, because I am not perfect. But he always tries to do the right thing, even when he doesn’t really know what he is doing. As Dumbledore says, his decisions, which later became his actions, demonstrate who he is. That makes him an amazing character to me!!! Thumbs up for Harry!!!!

I can see how Harry thought about it, but Harry was never taught to deal with curiosity. When he was a kid, The Dursleys used to deny him any answer to every question he asked, among many other things. So when he entered the wizarding world he felt that he was free to do anything the Dursleys had denied him before, one of which is gaining the answer to any riddle that met him, whether it concerned him directly or not.

Thats a bit of a lame excuse as while Harry wasn't raised particularly well he still would have known that it wasn't nice to go through other people's things. Harry would have hated it if he found someone snooping through his stuff.

Thats a bit of a lame excuse as while Harry wasn't raised particularly well he still would have known that it wasn't nice to go through other people's things. Harry would have hated it if he found someone snooping through his stuff.

He might have. However, when Harry's trunk was mysteriously torn apart in CoS, his reaction was not that of anger, but of immediate concern for his current obsessive possession, that of Riddle's Diary.

But anyways, I agree that Harry's upbringing is not an excuse, but could be a cause for an excess of curiosity, which maybe led him to be a little more reckless with people's privacy.

Thats a bit of a lame excuse as while Harry wasn't raised particularly well he still would have known that it wasn't nice to go through other people's things. Harry would have hated it if he found someone snooping through his stuff.


I wasn't excusing Harry, as you see in my previous post. :)

He should've realised that every person has something private, and that it was impolite to intrude on such privacies.

I just think it's one of the things Harry felt he was denied so long. Perhaps like having money of his own. Once he got on the Hogwarts express he buys almost everything on the trolley. And in PoA he tries to convince himself that he doesn't really need the expensive broom.

It doesn't even occure to Harry that it might be a personal memory of Snape's that Snape is uncomfortable showing other people. Harry thinks it might be the answer to the riddle of why the Department of Mysteries is so important, and why he keeps dreaming about it.

I agree. He was completely centered on his own problems. I doubt he ever considered Snape as someone having a private life and memories.

Still, I always thought he should apologize for what he did.

Actually, I think a lack of trust in Snape was rational. If Snape had a desire to be thought of as trustworthy, I think he would have put a greater effort into that goal.

I fiond discussions of "trust" as a single quantity, insufficiently precise. The question is, in my opinion, what someone should be trusted to do.

I think, rationally speaking, that until the end of HBP, Harry should have trusted Snape with his own life, and the lives of other Order members. This is because Harry had what I consider sufficient evidence that Snape valued these things. To wit, Snape tried to save his life as early as PS/SS, and expressed concern for Harry's safety at other times as well (notably the conversation in "Snape's Grudge" in PoA). Snape also acted promptly to check Sirius was safe in OotP, and Snape sent the Order to the Ministry to rescue Harry and the others.

Snape's apparent murder of Dumbledore did change the situation, IMO, but Harry displayed a distrust of Snape, in the precise areas in which I believe Harry had reason to trust him, well before then.

Should he have considered Snape a buddy? Heck no. :rotfl:

I fiond discussions of "trust" as a single quantity, insufficiently precise. The question is, in my opinion, what someone should be trusted to do.

I think, rationally speaking, that until the end of HBP, Harry should have trusted Snape with his own life, and the lives of other Order members. This is because Harry had what I consider sufficient evidence that Snape valued these things. To wit, Snape tried to save his life as early as PS/SS, and expressed concern for Harry's safety at other times as well (notably the conversation in "Snape's Grudge" in PoA). Snape also acted promptly to check Sirius was safe in OotP, and Snape sent the Order to the Ministry to rescue Harry and the others.

Unfortunately, Dumbledore "explained" Snape's attempts to protect Harry to Harry at the end of PS/SS as Snape trying to pay back James for having saved Snape's life, so Snape could get back to hating James unencumbered by any feelings that he owed a debt. This doesn't give Harry a reason to trust Snape, though, as it would indicate that Snape only did it to pay a debt that he would now consider paid. Harry doesn't have any reason to trust or distrust Snape by the end of PS/SS, in my opinion.

I don't think PoA helps in the trust department. Snape flat out tells Harry that Dumbledore is mistaken about what he thinks Snape's motives are. I think it is difficult for Harry to trust Snape on Dumbledore's say so when Snape himself indicates that Dumbledore doesn't know what he is talking about.

Also in PoA, Snape says in his rant:

"Vengeance is very sweet..."

"Like father, like son, Potter! I have just saved your neck; you should be thanking me on bended knee! You would have been well served if he had killed you! You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black--"

I think Snape highlights his agenda to Harry here. He wants vengeance. He wants vindication. He wants Potters son down on his knees thanking him.

I don't see anything there that would lead Harry to believe he can trust in Snape, as Snape presents himself as someone only wanting personal satisfaction.

The situation in OotP is murky, as Snape did check with the Order to see if Sirius was there, but there's nothing to indicate that he told them that Harry had a vision of Sirius in trouble at the Ministry, nor is it indicated that he told them Umbridge had removed harry from the castle and there was no way for him to tell Harry that Sirius was fine (which was important for Harry to know in order to diffuse Voldemort's trap). The long hours between Snape's first and second message are also a mystery. I don't think Harry could see by Snape's actions that Snape was trustworthy. Certainly Snape did the minimum expected of an Order member, but there isn't anything there that shows that protecting Harry is a priority.

Unfortunately, Dumbledore "explained" Snape's attempts to protect Harry to Harry at the end of PS/SS as Snape trying to pay back James for having saved Snape's life, so Snape could get back to hating James unencumbered by any feelings that he owed a debt. This doesn't give Harry a reason to trust Snape, though, as it would indicate that Snape only did it to pay a debt that he would now consider paid. Harry doesn't have any reason to trust or distrust Snape by the end of PS/SS, in my opinion.

Quirrel-Mort told Harry, before Dumbledore did, that it was he who tried to kill Harry at the Quidditch match and not Severus. Harry was taken aback by this as it shook his perception of Severus.

I don't think PoA helps in the trust department. Snape flat out tells Harry that Dumbledore is mistaken about what he thinks Snape's motives are. I think it is difficult for Harry to trust Snape on Dumbledore's say so when Snape himself indicates that Dumbledore doesn't know what he is talking about.

Also in PoA, Snape says in his rant: "Vengeance is very sweet..."

He's referring to vengence against Sirius for betraying Lily and her family. At that time everyone thought Sirius had betrayed them and killed Wormtail. Unfortunately, Harry and Lupin, at least, think it's vengence for boyhood animosities, rather than for Lily's death -- remember, no one knew how Severus felt about Lily at that time.


I think Snape highlights his agenda to Harry here. He wants vengeance. He wants vindication. He wants Potters son down on his knees thanking him.

I don't see anything there that would lead Harry to believe he can trust in Snape, as Snape presents himself as someone only wanting personal satisfaction.

Harry may have seen him that way. But, Harry was a child. He looked at life through a child's eyes. He saw things in black and white and did not know enough to make an informed judgement about Severus, only his own "gut" feeling.

The situation in OotP is murky, as Snape did check with the Order to see if Sirius was there, but there's nothing to indicate that he told them that Harry had a vision of Sirius in trouble at the Ministry, nor is it indicated that he told them Umbridge had removed harry from the castle and there was no way for him to tell Harry that Sirius was fine (which was important for Harry to know in order to diffuse Voldemort's trap). The long hours between Snape's first and second message are also a mystery. I don't think Harry could see by Snape's actions that Snape was trustworthy. Certainly Snape did the minimum expected of an Order member, but there isn't anything there that shows that protecting Harry is a priority.

Harry and Hermoine left the castle as soon as they could trick Umbridge into taking them to the forest to look for the "weapon." Harry did not wait to hear back from Severus or he would have known that Sirius was safe. In defense of both of them, it would have been difficult for them to converse under the circumstances.

If Severus didn't tell the Order that Harry thought Voldemort had Sirius at the Ministry, how did they know to go there? There was no other way for them to know to head for the Ministry unless he'd told them to go there to look for Sirius. Fortunately, for Harry, they did go there. Unfortunately, for Harry and Sirius, it was a trap.

Quirrel-Mort told Harry, before Dumbledore did, that it was he who tried to kill Harry at the Quidditch match and not Severus. Harry was taken aback by this as it shook his perception of Severus.

Right. But it was Dumbledore who told Harry the reason for Snape's actions.

It was your opinion (put forth in the Snape thread) that Harry only distrusted Snape because he disliked him. I think the initial distrust was based more on the inexplicable loathing Snape displayed to Harry. I think it would be very unsettling to a child. I think Harry knows that there is something deeply wrong with Snape's attitude towards him, and it would lead to suspicion and distrust. But that is something that is much deeper and disturbing that is causing Harry to distrust Snape. Harry doesn't know about Snape's involvement with his parents' murder, but he does have to suffer Snape's emotions over it. Harry's distrust is based on much, much more than a "dislike" of Snape.

He's referring to vengence against Sirius for betraying Lily and her family. At that time everyone thought Sirius had betrayed them and killed Wormtail. Unfortunately, Harry and Lupin, at least, think it's vengence for boyhood animosities, rather than for Lily's death -- remember, no one knew how Severus felt about Lily at that time.

Including Harry. Harry can only formulate trust or distrust based upon what he knows. Snape wished that to be a secret from Harry. Harry is making his judgment on Snape's actions and words. Snape has told him what he thinks of Harry's father and Sirius and Lupin. I think Snape's actions are based on the things he tells Harry about (as well as his secret about Lily)-- I don't think Snape was lying or Harry mislead on that account. Snape might have other motives as well, but I believe the one's he displays to Harry are in play, and I believe it reasonable of Harry to believe Snape's stated agenda, and can understand how that wouldn't lead him to trust Snape.

Harry may have seen him that way. But, Harry was a child. He looked at life through a child's eyes. He saw things in black and white and did not know enough to make an informed judgement about Severus, only his own "gut" feeling.

His gut feeling and the things Snape and Dumbledore chose to tell him. It makes sense to me that an informed decision to trust someone can only be made along with the information that shows someone is trustworthy. Harry made a decision based reasonably upon what he knew. I think what Harry needed at that point was more information, not more years of age.

Harry and Hermoine left the castle as soon as they could trick Umbridge into taking them to the forest to look for the "weapon." Harry did not wait to hear back from Severus or he would have known that Sirius was safe. In defense of both of them, it would have been difficult for them to converse under the circumstances.

Right. I'm not saying it is Snape's fault he didn't get the message to Harry. But Harry also doesn't see any evidence when everything is over that Snape tried to get a message to him, either. Getting the message to Harry was the important part, because Sirius wasn't really in danger, it was a trap for Harry.

If Severus didn't tell the Order that Harry thought Voldemort had Sirius at the Ministry, how the they know to go there? There was no other way for them to know to head for the Ministry unless he'd told them to go there to look for Sirius. Fortunately, for Harry, they did go there. Unfortunately, for Harry and Sirius, it was a trap.

You're right, Snape must have told them about the vision the first time he contacted them. But he didn't tell them about Harry missing and not being able to tell Harry that Sirius was fine until hours after that. According to Dumbledore, Snape didn't realize that Harry was missing during that time, because he contacted the Order as soon as he realized that Harry was missing, and half the night was gone at that point. Like I said, the important part was getting the message to Harry, because the vision was bait in a trap for him, and there is a lack of evidence that Snape tried to do that. So it is not surprising to me that this incident does not instill in Harry a trust in Snape.

I fiond discussions of "trust" as a single quantity, insufficiently precise. The question is, in my opinion, what someone should be trusted to do.

I think, rationally speaking, that until the end of HBP, Harry should have trusted Snape with his own life, and the lives of other Order members. This is because Harry had what I consider sufficient evidence that Snape valued these things. To wit, Snape tried to save his life as early as PS/SS, and expressed concern for Harry's safety at other times as well (notably the conversation in "Snape's Grudge" in PoA). Snape also acted promptly to check Sirius was safe in OotP, and Snape sent the Order to the Ministry to rescue Harry and the others.

I think the problem lies in saying someone should trust someone else - a person does not owe somebody else their trust, IMO. It's much easier to trust someone who doesn't treat you (in the general sense) unfairly. It's easier to trust someone who doesn't bully you. Harry had experience of Snape trying to protect him (the Quidditch match, and sending the Order in OotP come to mind, and later, when he gets the other DEs to leave without capturing/killing Harry). These incidents are (understandbaly, IMO) overshadowed by the unfair treatment Harry has experienced from Snape.
Harry had reason to trust Snape,but he also had experience that meant he found it difficult to trust Snape. Harry wasn't obliged to trust Snape - if trust is given out of obligation, it is not real trust, IMO.

I don't think PoA helps in the trust department. Snape flat out tells Harry that Dumbledore is mistaken about what he thinks Snape's motives are. I think it is difficult for Harry to trust Snape on Dumbledore's say so when Snape himself indicates that Dumbledore doesn't know what he is talking about.

That's a good point, Harry was hearing conflicting information from Dumbledore, whom he trusted, and Snape, whom he didn't.

It was your opinion (put forth in the Snape thread) that Harry only distrusted Snape because he disliked him. I think the initial distrust was based more on the inexplicable loathing Snape displayed to Harry. I think it would be very unsettling to a child. I think Harry knows that there is something deeply wrong with Snape's attitude towards him, and it would lead to suspicion and distrust. But that is something that is much deeper and disturbing that is causing Harry to distrust Snape. Harry doesn't know about Snape's involvement with his parents' murder, but he does have to suffer Snape's emotions over it. Harry's distrust is based on much, much more than a "dislike" of Snape.

I agree. Harry did not go off to school determined to hate any of his professors. He did not determine to hate Snape the moment he saw him. And yes, I do think it would have been unsettling - and it was, as Harry worries about it after the first potions class - he wonders why Snape seems to hate him, and why Hagrid is hastily changing the subject. Finding himself the target of such hatred for no apparent (to Harry) reason would not foster trust. Even knowing some of the reasons, in OotP, the feelings remain - Harry does not feel secure with, nor does he trust, a man who loathes him because of events that occurred years before Harry was even born. I think that is understandable.

His gut feeling and the things Snape and Dumbledore chose to tell him. It makes sense to me that an informed decision to trust someone can only be made along with the information that shows someone is trustworthy. Harry made a decision based reasonably upon what he knew. I think what Harry needed at that point was more information, not more years of age.

I think so. Plus, Harry's judgement steered him right in other cases - he recognised Draco to be a spoilt young boy, who looked down on others. Basing his views on what he knew and experienced was understandable.

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 growing up with the Dursley's has made Harry into a very curious person. Since he was always in their little bubble he couldn't really branch out. Of course if his parents had lived I'm sure he would have grown up to be just as brave but maybe not quite as curious since he would have always been in a world full of magic. If he had been sent to live with another wizarding family I think he would be pretty much the same wizard. But then again just because he is with another wizarding family wouldn't mean they wouldn't be just as hard on him as the Dursley's. They just wouldn't be so uptight about magic. I think that the last thing Harry needed was to be sent to an orphanage. I believe that while the home he grew up in was less than pleasant it did a buttload to secure the man he turned into.


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?
Well i guess that whole troll thing. I think that Harry's "saving people" thing is mostly good. If you're with Harry you know you're in good hands. If the mess goes down He's gonna have your back which i actually like about harry. Now in some cases the death of dumbledore, his need to save almost got his little butt killed. If he would have removed the cloak and ran up there we wouldn't even need a book 7. And well thoughts on the final sacrifice kind of go without saying. He's a straight up Hero. He Jesus'd it like nobody's buisiness.

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 makes him always want to venture out and do as much as he can. He wants to save people and go on adventures. I think that given freedom at hogwarts he was able to really explore himself I guess you could say. Through the hunt he did have his times when he didn't feel too optimistic. I think that Dumbledore being dead really pushed him even more to want to get involved. And the hunt for the horcruxes was a perfet opportunity for him to really be a leader.

4. What do you think are Harry's greatest strengths? What weaknesses did he overcome as the series progressed?
Harry's greatest strengths are his bravery and his need to do good deeds. A weakness of his would be that he may judge a little too much on the surface of people. I think that the whole "the Prince's Tale" thing might have changed this completely. That may have been a huge turning point for Harry's character.

5. How have each of the losses Harry has suffered helped to define who he is?
I feel like his whole life he is pretty much in survivor mode. Every death he encounters pretty much has something to do with him one way or another so i think he is probably the kind of person who isn't saddened by death anymore but feels sorry for others because he has never truly had time to grieve over anything. It was always death and then another thing. more death. more things. more death. more things. Harry might be desensitized to mourning and sadness by now.

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?
Oh goodness pretty much everything the poor boy does is for someone else. And then all the while the people closest to him are dying. But he still does good things for pretty much everyone. He straight up did a Jesus thing and died for everyone. so...yeah. And it's something he wanted to do. Yeah he dreaded a little bit but he sucked it up and realized what had to be done.

7. What do you think of Harry's use of Unforgivables in DH?
Well I mean you gotta look at the situation. He's on the run for his life and the lives of his closest friends. And pretty much the entire Wizarding World. You gotta make sacrifices to your morals in situations like that.

8. Why do you think Harry forgave Snape?
Well isn't it obvious. Snape busted his backside protecting Harry. Whether you think it was for Lily or Harry is a different story. But Snape is pretty much like the second hero of the series.

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 Harry would have been better off as an adventurer or something like that. Just sounds like fun to me after spending all of your young life saving other people's butts. Ron should have become something arty like an architect and make stuff cool looking. Sure it has nothing to do with reformation of their government but I think i wouldn't want to be part of the department when my fame can pretty much let me do what I want. Especially if I was the reason why everyone in the Wizarding World was so well off in the first place.

A problem i always had in Deathly Hallows is when Harry says Voldemort's name and as a result of this Hermione is horribly tortured (nearly to death) and yet Harry never apologised for this even though it was 100% his fault.

It would have been nice if Harry apologised to Hermione after what happened.

A problem i always had in Deathly Hallows is when Harry says Voldemort's name and as a result of this Hermione is horribly tortured (nearly to death) and yet Harry never apologised for this even though it was 100% his fault.

It would have been nice if Harry apologised to Hermione after what happened.

Harry didn't torture her, Bellatrix did. Why would he apologise because of Bellatrix's sadism? Harry cannot be held responsible for another's actions. The fact that saying Voldemort's name could lead to torture was the responsibility of those who put the charm on the name in the first place. This should have been acknowledged as an illegal and oppressive act and that those who practised torture and death on the people who said were in the wrong, not the people who simply said Voldemort's name.

Harry didn't torture her, Bellatrix did. Why would he apologise because of Bellatrix's sadism? Harry cannot be held responsible for another's actions. The fact that saying Voldemort's name could lead to torture was the responsibility of those who put the charm on the name in the first place. This should have been acknowledged as an illegal and oppressive act and that those who practised torture and death on the people who said were in the wrong, not the people who simply said Voldemort's name.

However he should be held responsible for his own actions. Harry knew what would happen if he said Voldemort's name and in a brief moment he forgot and that lapse in judgement nearly cost Hermione her life and did cost Dobby's his life. Harry may not have intended it to happen but it was still his fault that the snatchers were alerted to their presence.

However he should be held responsible for his own actions. Harry knew what would happen if he said Voldemort's name and in a brief moment he forgot and that lapse in judgement nearly cost Hermione her life and did cost Dobby's his life. Harry may not have intended it to happen but it was still his fault that the snatchers were alerted to their presence.

I have some sympathy with what you're saying. It certainly was a catastrophic mistake on Harry's part. It's also the kind of disastrous mistake that anybody can make, especially someone in a highly stressful situation. So I can forgive Harry for it ... Hermione and Ron did.

But I think I agree with you that an apology from Harry towards Hermione for getting them into such a terrible situation would have been ... seemly, on his part. :huh: I love Harry, but sometimes he is very self-absorbed and even a bit self-centred. :whistle:

He's an interesting mix, actually. He is capable of great selflessness as well, obviously, as in his decision to sacrifice himself for the sake of the Wizarding World and the 'greater good', i.e. when he offers himself up to Voldemort, which took outstanding courage.

A problem i always had in Deathly Hallows is when Harry says Voldemort's name and as a result of this Hermione is horribly tortured (nearly to death) and yet Harry never apologised for this even though it was 100% his fault.

It would have been nice if Harry apologised to Hermione after what happened.

I agree Harry was responsible for what happened to them, even though he didn't know what would exactly happen if the name was said. But I also agree with eliza, it wasn't Harry's 'direct' fault Hermione was tortured..

As for apologizing, I don't know why we should assume Harry didn't apologize. We aren't exactly shown every moment of what happens between them, on paper. There was a space of 'weeks' spent at the Cottage. Lots of things could've been said in that, :shrug:

I think, though, Harry is a more of a practical person. If you look at his actions rather than words, imo, Harry does pay her/them all back, for what they did for him. As Pearl_Took said, Harry was willing to sacrifice himself, to give his life so they would all live in a peaceful, happy world.

I have some sympathy with what you're saying. It certainly was a catastrophic mistake on Harry's part. It's also the kind of disastrous mistake that anybody can make, especially someone in a highly stressful situation. So I can forgive Harry for it ... Hermione and Ron did.


The odd thing is that it wasn't a stressful situation as Harry was quite happy at the time.



But I think I agree with you that an apology from Harry towards Hermione for getting them into such a terrible situation would have been ... seemly, on his part. :huh: I love Harry, but sometimes he is very self-absorbed and even a bit self-centred. :whistle:


I think Harry's self absorption and him being self centred are probably one of his biggest flaws as he tends to think of himself first and others second in many situations. No doubt Harry is willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good and for his friends but at the same time he didn't want his friends to date because it would mean they would want to spend time together without him. Harry is quite a contradiction in many ways and that is just one example.



As for apologizing, I don't know why we should assume Harry didn't apologize. We aren't exactly shown every moment of what happens between them, on paper. There was a space of 'weeks' spent at the Cottage. Lots of things could've been said in that, :shrug:


What makes me think that he didn't apologise is that shortly after the get to shell cottage and Ron is helping Hermione walk Harry see's how much she is stuggling because of what happened to her only hours earlier and yet he doesnt feel any guilt for what happened.



I think, though, Harry is a more of a practical person. If you look at his actions rather than words, imo, Harry does pay her/them all back, for what they did for him. As Pearl_Took said, Harry was willing to sacrifice himself, to give his life so they would all live in a peaceful, happy world.

To be fair to the others i think both Ron and Hermione were willing to sacrifice themselves as well as i don't doubt that Hermione would have and we know Ron would have as he did it when he was 11 years old on the chessboard. He had every reason to believe he was about to die given the lethal nature of the other things they had just past and it was lucky for him that the chess board was one of the few things in tha maze (of sorts) that wasn't designed to kill.

I think Harry's self absorption and him being self centred are probably one of his biggest flaws as he tends to think of himself first and others second in many situations. No doubt Harry is willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good and for his friends but at the same time he didn't want his friends to date because it would mean they would want to spend time together without him. Harry is quite a contradiction in many ways and that is just one example.I see that different, but probably mainly because I love that the author wrote many of her characters - in my view - very realistically.

I can easily picture a young boy being completely selfless when it comes to the 'greater good' (as we call it right now, not quite sure whether that's it really), but who still has emotions like any young (or adult) human being has. In fact I could not relate to a protagonist who's perfect. I know many people who actually give in in such jealousy feelings and fail to keep a friendship up. Harry doesn't. He's scared for a moment that their trio friendship could break if Ron and Hermione began to date, but he never is against them dating.
I'm rather impressed once more that a kid who never felt much love in his life is able to deal with the situation rather calmly.

I quite don't agree about the apology part either. We see Harry apologizing many times for things he believes to have brought over his friends, but which are actually the result of the Death Eaters' works, which he fights against. Imo he rather apologizes too much than too less.

However he should be held responsible for his own actions. Harry knew what would happen if he said Voldemort's name and in a brief moment he forgot and that lapse in judgement nearly cost Hermione her life and did cost Dobby's his life. Harry may not have intended it to happen but it was still his fault that the snatchers were alerted to their presence.

Yes, it was his fault that the Snatchers were alerted. It was not his fault that Bellatrix tortured Hermione. That was Bellatrix's actions quite independant from Harry. Harry isn't perfect but he is not a torturer either. The whole thing is Voldemort's fault, he is the one who started the wars in the first place, perhaps he should have apologised to Hermione for the torture?

Yes, it was his fault that the Snatchers were alerted. It was not his fault that Bellatrix tortured Hermione. That was Bellatrix's actions quite independant from Harry. Harry isn't perfect but he is not a torturer either. The whole thing is Voldemort's fault, he is the one who started the wars in the first place, perhaps he should have apologised to Hermione for the torture?

You make it sound like Harry expected that if he said the name "Voldemort" and they were captured that the Death Eaters were most likely going to take them back to their place, give them all a lazyboy seat, some ice cream and then offer each of them a foot massage.

Harry's actions put Hermione in the position to get tortured. He knew really bad things would happen if he said Voldemort's name and since he knew what would happen then it is partially his fault that Hermione was tortured.

To be fair to the others i think both Ron and Hermione were willing to sacrifice themselves as well as i don't doubt that Hermione would have and we know Ron would have as he did it when he was 11 years old on the chessboard. He had every reason to believe he was about to die given the lethal nature of the other things they had just past and it was lucky for him that the chess board was one of the few things in tha maze (of sorts) that wasn't designed to kill.

Ok, Ron and Hermione could both sacrifice themselves (which I'm not fully sure of), what has this got to do with the fact that Harry actually went to Voldemort on his feet by his own will? IMO, it has nothing to with it. Harry loved his friends even if he wasn't vocal about it, and the proof is that he protected them with his life. A simple word of apology he forgot to say (and I'm saying forgot because I don't think Harry is heartless so as not to feel guilty about Hermione's injuries) shouldn't be held against him, imo, in front of all the sacrifices he made.

I think Harry slipped up, and probably should apologize for doing something so stupid as to say Voldemrot's name. But it was a genuine slip up, not something done on purpose to harm others. It is very difficult to edit one's speech, and so easy to call something by it's name rather than a euphamism. So, yes, he would be right to apologize for slipping up, but I think it would be wrong to blame him for the horrors that Voldemort and his followers inflict.

You make it sound like Harry expected that if he said the name "Voldemort" and they were captured that the Death Eaters were most likely going to take them back to their place, give them all a lazyboy seat, some ice cream and then offer each of them a foot massage.

Harry's actions put Hermione in the position to get tortured. He knew really bad things would happen if he said Voldemort's name and since he knew what would happen then it is partially his fault that Hermione was tortured.

This is my last word on the subject, Harry made a mistake in saying the name, Voldemort. He did not commit torture and he did not kill anyone. No, I don't suppose he thought that they were attending a tea party as Harry is very well aware of exactly how Voldemort's followers act...but,
1) He didn't know they were going to be taken to Malfoy Manor where Bellatrix could indulge her procalivities,
2) I think it is very clear from his actions that he was desperately sorry for what Hermione endured.
3) I don't believe in blaming a person for another person's actions.
Harry made a foolish mistake, Bellatrix deliberately tortured Hermione for her own benfit. I don't see why Harry is to blame for what Bellatrix did, she did it, not him.

slipping up is not something you can avoid, and also an apologize would not help Hermione too much. It was much more helpful in long term what he did, I mean, rack his brains thinking how to get Voldemort down.

Sometimes I think Snape has part of the reason in his critizicism of Harry, he is sometimes a little bit arrogant, but that arrogance can also be seen as proudness, and that proudness helps him overcome hard moments, like when he was considered a liar in 5th year. It protects him in a way Ron's insecurities doesn't and that doesn't make Ron more sensitive, on the contrary. So a little bit of proudness is not a bad thing, even if sometimes results in stubborness or lack of sensitiveness.

slipping up is not something you can avoid, and also an apologize would not help Hermione too much. It was much more helpful in long term what he did, I mean, rack his brains thinking how to get Voldemort down.

Sometimes I think Snape has part of the reason in his critizicism of Harry, he is sometimes a little bit arrogant, but that arrogance can also be seen as proudness, and that proudness helps him overcome hard moments, like when he was considered a liar in 5th year. It protects him in a way Ron's insecurities doesn't and that doesn't make Ron more sensitive, on the contrary. So a little bit of proudness is not a bad thing, even if sometimes results in stubborness or lack of sensitiveness.

It could be argued that Harry's stubborness and his pride cost Sirius his life becuase many adults told Harry that he needed to learn how to sheild his mind from Voldemort (Dumbledore said it was the most important thing) but Harry thought he knew best and as a result he didn't even bother to learn and not bothering mean't that he was easily manipulated with that vision he got and him being manipulated like that lead to Sirius's death.

Harry was fifteen. I think what he needed was honest answers about what Voldemort might try to do to him, including a warning about the possibility of false visions and why Voldemort might try to lure him to the Department of Mysteries. A lot of people fell down on that one. But I still think the people to blame for Sirius's murder are Voldemort and his Death Eaters, most notably Bellatrix and Lucius, but all the Death Eaters can get in line and share the blame before anyone else, in my opinion.

It could be argued that Harry's stubborness and his pride cost Sirius his life becuase many adults told Harry that he needed to learn how to sheild his mind from Voldemort (Dumbledore said it was the most important thing) but Harry thought he knew best and as a result he didn't even bother to learn and not bothering mean't that he was easily manipulated with that vision he got and him being manipulated like that lead to Sirius's death.

I can hardly blame Sirius' death wholly on Harry. He never understood how important learning Occlumency was. He never knew why he was forced to spend hours with a person he hated and who seemed to hate him. Dumbledore never bothered to offer any drop of explanation to him. Even Snape stopped giving him the lessons eventually, if I were him I'd simply assume it isn't important as they make it appear. I believe Harry went through so much, and those responsible for him never tried to assist him. You can't blindfold someone then blame them for harming other people. The person to blame here, is the one who blindfolded him. JMO.

Also for further clarification, I don't think Harry should've ignored adults' advice to him. But I'm trying to see it his way.

I can hardly blame Sirius' death wholly on Harry. He never understood how important learning Occlumency was. He never knew why he was forced to spend hours with a person he hated and who seemed to hate him. Dumbledore never bothered to offer any drop of explanation to him. Even Snape stopped giving him the lessons eventually, if I were him I'd simply assume it isn't important as they make it appear. I believe Harry went through so much, and those responsible for him never tried to assist him. You can't blindfold someone then blame them for harming other people. The person to blame here, is the one who blindfolded him. JMO.

Also for further clarification, I don't think Harry should've ignored adults' advice to him. But I'm trying to see it his way.

Harry's way was that Dumbledore wasn't telling him everything he wanted to know and as a result Harry decided that because of that he could ignore Dumbledore if he wanted to. Both Dumbledore and Remus warned Harry about the importance of learning Occlumency (he even lied to Hermione several times about it as well) and yet he decided to ignore those warnings as he was too stubborn to apologise to Snape (even though Harry was very much in the wrong after watching the memories in Snape's pensieve).

I'm not saying that Harry is all bad as he does have many good qualities but i do think he did a few very negative things which hurt people he cared about (and in the case of Sirius actually got him killed).

Harry's way was that Dumbledore wasn't telling him everything he wanted to know and as a result Harry decided that because of that he could ignore Dumbledore if he wanted to.

I don't remember that. I do remember Harry being very frustrated and trying to get more information. In what way do you see Harry as deciding that because Dumbledore wasn't telling him information he would simply ignore Dumbledore?

Both Dumbledore and Remus warned Harry about the importance of learning Occlumency (he even lied to Hermione several times about it as well) and yet he decided to ignore those warnings as he was too stubborn to apologise to Snape (even though Harry was very much in the wrong after watching the memories in Snape's pensieve).

Occlumency lessons made Harry worse at keeping Voldemort out of his mind, not better. The Occlumency lessons as they were set up were a big failure-- Dumbledore even called them a fiasco.

I'm not saying that Harry is all bad as he does have many good qualities but i do think he did a few very negative things which hurt people he cared about (and in the case of Sirius actually got him killed).

I think Harry is a well drawn character because he isn't perfect. But I don't want to blow his flaws out of perspective. Harry made mistakes, and he was tricked. I hope he learned caution, but I don't think he is to blame for Sirius's murder. It is not Harry's fault that Voldemort is a megalomaniacal mass-murderer, and it is not Harry's fault that there are people who willingly follow Voldemort and commit atrocious crimes in Voldemort's name.

I think Harry is a well drawn character because he isn't perfect. But I don't want to blow his flaws out of perspective. Harry made mistakes, and he was tricked. I hope he learned caution, but I don't think he is to blame for Sirius's murder. It is not Harry's fault that Voldemort is a megalomaniacal mass-murderer, and it is not Harry's fault that there are people who willingly follow Voldemort and commit atrocious crimes in Voldemort's name.

It also wasn't Douglas Haig's fault that the Somme was so well defended but it was his fault that he ordered his troops to attack.

While Harry can't order Ron, Hermione, Neville, Luna and Ginny to do anything it was obvious that if he was going to go into a dangerous situation then they would as well. Hermione clearly thought they were running into a trap but she went anyway.

Harry's way was that Dumbledore wasn't telling him everything he wanted to know and as a result Harry decided that because of that he could ignore Dumbledore if he wanted to. Both Dumbledore and Remus warned Harry about the importance of learning Occlumency (he even lied to Hermione several times about it as well) and yet he decided to ignore those warnings as he was too stubborn to apologise to Snape (even though Harry was very much in the wrong after watching the memories in Snape's pensieve).

I don't recall that Harry intentionally ignored Dumbledore's orders. It was a natural result of too much stress and too little information. I won't mention what Harry had been through in OotP because I'm sure you're well aware of it. I don't see how a normal human could go through this, without negative responses from them. If after all what happened to him, Harry was a tame obedient boy, he wouldn't have been realistic in the least.
As for apologizing to Snape, I really find it difficult to see Harry apologizing to him. I think Harry wasn't likely to go apologize to someone who didn't miss a chance to humilate him. His dignity wouldn't have allowed that. It's not stubbornness, the way I see it. Because if it were Dumbledore (for example) Harry would've apologized to him. We've seen him apologize to Dumbledore in HBP.

If Sirius' death was to be blamed on someone, imo, that would be Dumbledore. He made mistakes from two sides: 1)denying Sirius the chance to help the Order 2) denying Harry knowledge that would help him against his enemy. In war knowledge is power. And Dumbledore took that weapon from Harry. Personally, I wouldn't blame a 15-years-old when the person responsible for him made greater mistakes.

While Harry can't order Ron, Hermione, Neville, Luna and Ginny to do anything it was obvious that if he was going to go into a dangerous situation then they would as well. Hermione clearly thought they were running into a trap but she went anyway.

Harry made it clear that he didn't want them to come with him. They insisted on coming and Harry wasn't likely going to paralyse them into staying, imo. He was in constant worry about them when the DEs had turned up. I'm not sure what he should've done really..

In no way is it Harry's fault that Sirius died. Honestly Snape is my favourite character out of the whole bunch but it was a terrible idea to have him teach Harry Occlumency. There are people who are immune to characters like Snape, and who will be able to handle it, but Harry wasn't one of them, and Snape knew ALL his psychological weak spots. Also, the boy was fifteen. He was just a kid. It was obvious that Snape wasn't exactly enjoying himself much either, except when he got to see humiliating memories of Harry. This whole fiasco was Dumbledore's mistake.

...That said, I DO believe that Snape did his best to try to impart some knowledge into Harry, but those two just don't mesh well together. And unlike many people, I feel that Snape was justified in throwing Harry out of his office, when Harry so clearly disrespected him and violated his privacy by looking into the Pensieve. It's the equivalent of snooping in somebody's e-mail or chat messages, except much worse. IMO Harry should've apologized to Snape for that. :-/

It also wasn't Douglas Haig's fault that the Somme was so well defended but it was his fault that he ordered his troops to attack.

While Harry can't order Ron, Hermione, Neville, Luna and Ginny to do anything it was obvious that if he was going to go into a dangerous situation then they would as well. Hermione clearly thought they were running into a trap but she went anyway.

I think you are taking Haig's actions a little out of context here. The military actions on the Western Front were a little more complex than just ordering men 'over the top' so Haig could see how many of them could stop a machine gun bullet. As someone who's grand-uncle stopped one of those bullets I recognise that. I would reccoment Joh Keegan's 'Face of Battle', very good book with a good understanding of the battle. And unlike those troops at the Somme, the students at Hogwarts were not legally bound to obey Harry's orders. If they were, they would have all been safe at Hogwarts.

Occlumency lessons made Harry worse at keeping Voldemort out of his mind, not better. The Occlumency lessons as they were set up were a big failure-- Dumbledore even called them a fiasco.

They were a failure largely because Harry desired to let Voldemort into his mind. He believed that he was accomplishing something - doing some sort of undercover work - by having access to that channel.

Harry would have refused to learn his lessons, imo, even if it had been Dumbledore instructing him. Harry simply did not want to learn Occlumency because he wanted to see into Voldemort's mind. He believed he knew better than Dumbledore. Obviously, he was wrong. Rather than seeing into Voldemort's mind, he was being seduced by Voldemort - as Snape warned him. And Sirius died as a result.

Now, this is not to say that Dumbledore did not handle the situation poorly by keeping his distance from Harry throughout the year (and not previously telling him about the Prophecy). But the simple fact is that you can't teach a kid who doesn't want to learn and who has convinced himself that it's actually preferable that he not learn.

ETA:
Let me add that Harry's past successes may have contributed to what I would describe here as a form of hubris. He had been successful against Voldemort with the Philosopher's Stone. He had been successful against Tom Riddle in the Chamber of Secrets. He had managed to escape the graveyard at the end of GoF. Based on these experiences, it is easy to see why he may have thought he knew better than the adults surrounding him. But in OotP, he was tragically mistaken.

It's not uncommon for someone who was denied the knowledge they wanted or needed to know, to seek it in a sly/wrong way. Harry had been seeing the Department of Mysteries in his dreams for almost a year, and he saw what happened to Arthur through the snake. Dumbledore was aware of it, and so was Snape. Harry directly asked Snape about it, and needless to say he was denied the answer in a not-so-wonderful way. IMO, it was Harry's right to know what's going on inside his own head.

I don't think it was a matter of mastering Occlumency (which I don't think he managed well, either). I think I might agree that Harry still would've allowed the connection, if Dumbledore had taught him personally, but denied him the reasons for which he was learning it. Because he needed to know what is happening to him.

I find it rather ironic, that while some people (e.g Molly) thought Sirius wasn't responsible enough to take care of Harry, he was actually the only person who understood the fact that Harry needed to know what's going on with/around him. He was the only one who saw the error in Dumbledore's decision to keep Harry ignorant of what Voldemort was up to.

Full Disclosure: Harry is one of my Top 3 favorite characters in the series overall. But I believe he makes some very serious mistakes in OotP and that he is ultimately responsible for those mistakes.

It's not uncommon for someone who was denied the knowledge they wanted or needed to know, to seek it in a sly/wrong way. Harry had been seeing the Department of Mysteries in his dreams for almost a year, and he saw what happened to Arthur through the snake. Dumbledore was aware of it, and so was Snape. Harry directly asked Snape about it, and needless to say he was denied the answer in a not-so-wonderful way. IMO, it was Harry's right to know what's going on inside his own head.

Snape was not in a position to answer Harry's question. (Not to mention that he was "unnerved" by Harry's question (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?p=5630490)). Snape was under orders - from both sides. Harry's answer had to come from Dumbledore. And Dumbledore acknowledges later to Harry that he was mistaken in not telling him of the Prophecy.

However, Dumbledore's failure on that account does not absolve Harry, imo, of Harry's own failure even in trying to shut his mind to Voldemort. Harry intentionally kept the channel open. He intentionally refused to practice. He intentionally tried to go as far as he could to get behind that door, even though he had been warned that it was dangerous and that Voldemort could use his thoughts against him.

I don't see Harry's "need to know" as an adequate excuse for his flat refusal even to try to shut his mind. In refusing to shut his mind, Harry appears to signal a belief in his own superior knowledge and his own invincibility - which again I would ascribe to hubris. I don't think he consciously believes he is invincible. But his actions indicate to me that unconsciously he does.

In fact, his refusal to try to shut his mind indicates to me how far he had already come under Voldemort's unconscious sway as a direct result of having had a channel to Voldemort (unintentionally) open since the beginning of GoF. Harry, I think, had grown addicted to that connection, and he was simply not willing to let it go - until it cost him (and Sirius) dearly. In other words, I see Voldemort's ability to seduce far more at work in Harry's refusal to try to close the connection than I see Harry's "need to know."

I understand that Harry was going through a lot in OotP, what with Umbridge torturing him and Dumbledore keeping his distance and Voldemort using the channel Harry was leaving open to seduce Harry. But Harry himself made the conscious decision to disregard everything that everybody was telling him about the mental powers of the Dark Lord. And in disregarding those warnings, Harry fell victim to the very powers he'd been warned about.

I don't think it was a matter of mastering Occlumency (which I don't think he managed well, either). I think I might agree that Harry still would've allowed the connection, if Dumbledore had taught him personally, but denied him the reasons for which he was learning it. Because he needed to know what is happening to him.

Ironically, Harry was able to master Occlumency when he himself finally realized that it was absolutely crucial to his survival in DH. If he had made even a cursory attempt earlier, however - when he was instructed to do so - Sirius probably would not have died.

I don't think it was a matter of mastering Occlumency (which I don't think he managed well, either). I think I might agree that Harry still would've allowed the connection, if Dumbledore had taught him personally, but denied him the reasons for which he was learning it. Because he needed to know what is happening to him.

I find it rather ironic, that while some people (e.g Molly) thought Sirius wasn't responsible enough to take care of Harry, he was actually the only person who understood the fact that Harry needed to know what's going on with/around him. He was the only one who saw the error in Dumbledore's decision to keep Harry ignorant of what Voldemort was up to.
I agree. Dumbledore made a big mistake when he "ignored" Harry at the hearing, and when he had Snape teach Harry Occlumency.

Harry had been in the thick of things, and he needed to be kept in the loop, not pushed aside, even if that was "for his own safety". That course certainly backfired.

However, Dumbledore's failure on that account does not absolve Harry, imo, of Harry's own failure even in trying to shut his mind to Voldemort. Harry intentionally kept the channel open. He intentionally refused to practice. He intentionally tried to go as far as he could to get behind that door, even though he had been warned that it was dangerous and that Voldemort could use his thoughts against him.
I agree with this, but remember, Harry was an angry and frustrated teenager, and feeling rebellious. Dumbledore should have been able to realize that. Harry is not blameless, but he certainly has extenuating circumstances.

Ironically, Harry was able to master Occlumency when he himself finally realized that it was absolutely crucial to his survival in DH. If he had made even a cursory attempt earlier, however - when he was instructed to do so - Sirius probably would not have died.
Absolutely. :agree:

Also, his forgetting about the mirror, and Sirius not reminding him of it when Harry used Umbridge's fireplace to communicate, are, IMO, weak spots in the story. But that is neither Harry nor Sirius' fault, it's a decision by JKR. It just doesn't make sense that Sirius wouldn't have told him "Harry, what are you thinking of, using Umbridge's office? Go back to your room and use the mirror, I'll be right here." :sigh:

Harry absolutely hated it when others kept secrets from him but the hypocritical thing about that is that he often lied to Hermione and a lesser extent Ron when he didn't want to talk about things. Harry seems to be of the opinion that its okay for him to keep secrets from others but its not okay for them to keep secrets from him.

However, Dumbledore's failure on that account does not absolve Harry, imo, of Harry's own failure even in trying to shut his mind to Voldemort. Harry intentionally kept the channel open. He intentionally refused to practice. He intentionally tried to go as far as he could to get behind that door, even though he had been warned that it was dangerous and that Voldemort could use his thoughts against him

If I'm not mistaken, Harry found real difficulty tyring to practise Occlumency. He'd lie in the bed his head buzzing with all sorts of emotions. From his hate to Umbridge, to his worry about Hagrid, his conflict with Cho and his curiosity about what lay behind that door in the DoM. IIRC, he couldn't, (and not didn't want to) control or subdue all these emotions.
I don't think curiosity was an excuse, it merely expalins what people call stubornness in Harry and his determination to disobey those around him. I guess it's well-known that Harry wasn't talented at controlling his curiosity, as we've seen many times during the series.

Ironically, Harry was able to master Occlumency when he himself finally realized that it was absolutely crucial to his survival in DH. If he had made even a cursory attempt earlier, however - when he was instructed to do so - Sirius probably would not have died.

Actually if Sirius hadn't died, Harry would've never learnt Occlumency, or managed to shut his mind against Voldemort. It was only after Sirius died that Harry had known the thing that kept Voldemort out of his head: love and deep emotion. That's why he managed to shut Voldemort, not because of the Occlumency lessons. He also notices the same thing when Dumbledore and Dobbby die.

JKR herself said that Harry is very flawed, just like Snape (almost her exact words I believe, from the post-DH interview). She said that arrogance is one of his failings, and I tend to agree. Snape might've not even known what was behind that door in the Department of Mysteries. Dumbledore probably knew, but we went over his decisions already. He made a huge slip-up here. Harry's hubris also is evident in the way he distrusts Snape, and the fact that every year he demands and explanation from Dumbledore why he trusts Snape. Even though that's between DD and Snape. He thought he knew better than Dumbledore, even though he never had heard the reasons.

Sirius was right about Harry's need to know, but at the same time he was encouraging recklessness in Harry, I feel. H. needed a father figure but Sirius saw him more as a younger version of James. :/

I don't recall Harry ever mastering Occlumency, and very recently I re-read DH. Did I miss something? It's hard for somebody like Snape, who is very good at compartmentalising, to understand that Harry by nature has his emotions more at the surface.

Sirius was right about Harry's need to know, but at the same time he was encouraging recklessness in Harry, I feel. H. needed a father figure but Sirius saw him more as a younger version of James. :/

I don't think Sirius was encouraging recklessness in Harry, to be honest. Can you imagine Harry going around, knowing absolutely nothing of what Voldemort was up to or where he is and all? If Harry's failure to learn Occlumency made him an easy victim for Voldemort, the lack of information made him just as easily manipulated, imo.

Harry absolutely hated it when others kept secrets from him but the hypocritical thing about that is that he often lied to Hermione and a lesser extent Ron when he didn't want to talk about things. Harry seems to be of the opinion that its okay for him to keep secrets from others but its not okay for them to keep secrets from him.

Harry didn't like it when things were kept from him that pertained exactly to his survival. Who would. Harry hid the pain from his scar from Hermione and Ron, but other than that he was very open with them. Sure he kept some personal stuff to himself but that has nothing to do with what Ron and Hermione would need to survive in a fight with Voldemort. Things were deliberately kept from Harry that had a direct impact on his living or dieing. For a fifteen year old child he is remarkably open with his friends. He teaches them everything he knows about fighting and defeating his opponents because he recognizes that his private feelings about his 'secrets' don't matter in the grand scheme of things. He even comes to recognize this with Neville, when he tells Neville to kill the snake. I don't think being secret about going to Voldemort to be killed is actually keeping a secret unnecessarily. Harry is not perfect, but he is a hero.

I agree that Harry needed to know much more than what Molly was giving him. What I was referring to among others was the scene where Sirius wanted to meet the Trio in Hogsmeade in dog form, and was disappointed when Harry firmly said no. Even Hermione voiced the idea that Sirius saw Harry as a substitute James, when what Harry really needed was a father.

I think several people failed here - Dumbledore, Snape, Sirius, and Harry. I don't agree that anyone in particular 'caused' Sirius's death though - other than the one who killed him, that is. And I don't think it was fair for Harry to blame Snape for Sirius dying, even though it's sort of understandable.

Harry didn't like it when things were kept from him that pertained exactly to his survival. Who would. Harry hid the pain from his scar from Hermione and Ron, but other than that he was very open with them. Sure he kept some personal stuff to himself but that has nothing to do with what Ron and Hermione would need to survive in a fight with Voldemort. Things were deliberately kept from Harry that had a direct impact on his living or dieing. For a fifteen year old child he is remarkably open with his friends. He teaches them everything he knows about fighting and defeating his opponents because he recognizes that his private feelings about his 'secrets' don't matter in the grand scheme of things. He even comes to recognize this with Neville, when he tells Neville to kill the snake. I don't think being secret about going to Voldemort to be killed is actually keeping a secret unnecessarily. Harry is not perfect, but he is a hero.

Harry lied to Hermione's face about the egg clue in GoF and then about his Occlumency training in OotP.

Harry lied to Hermione's face about the egg clue in GoF and then about his Occlumency training in OotP.

The egg clue was none of Hermione's business. She shouldn't have hounded Harry about it and who did Harry hurt by not telling Hermione that he was having trouble with the egg? He figured it out with help from Cedric and none from Hermione. Also Hermione should not have nagged Harry about the Occulemency lessons. If Harry let it be known that he didn't want to talk about it, perhaps a little restraint from Hermione might have led him to speak openly about it. Dumbledore and Snape should have taken the lead there instead of leaving it to a 15 year old child to pursue the matter along with everything else he was enduring. The Occulemncy lessons were a fiasco and they were a fiasco for all concerned. Dumbledore because he knew that Snape would not be able to connect with Harry, Snape because he knew he could not connect with Harry and Harry, who was depending on these adults to teach him the best way to shut Voldemort out of his head. I am puzzled by this determination to assign blame to a child when the adults concerned were far more cupable.

Harry considered himself an adult by the time of OotP, and somehow he was, after all the experiences he had had. There are things you cannot overlook of forget, after he was pushed to so much, he stopped being an innocent child, and it was not possible for him to go backwards and start acting like a child, he was not adult yet, but not child, in that sense I think Sirius understood Harry better than Mrs Weasley did at the begining of OotP. And that misunderstanding is what leads the entire book.
Harry though he knew better than the adults, that's why he didn't bother learning occlumency, but if they wanted Harry to learn, they should have informed him clearly why was it so important. But they failed to understand Harry was not a child you can tell to do something without thelling him why, he was proud and a little hubris, so they shouldn't have expected blind obedience from him.

To me that is the point, he was not being irresponsible, just ignorant and in need of an answer.

Harry considered himself an adult by the time of OotP, and somehow he was, after all the experiences he had had. There are things you cannot overlook of forget, after he was pushed to so much, he stopped being an innocent child, and it was not possible for him to go backwards and start acting like a child, he was not adult yet, but not child, in that sense I think Sirius understood Harry better than Mrs Weasley did at the begining of OotP. And that misunderstanding is what leads the entire book.
Harry though he knew better than the adults, that's why he didn't bother learning occlumency, but if they wanted Harry to learn, they should have informed him clearly why was it so important. But they failed to understand Harry was not a child you can tell to do something without thelling him why, he was proud and a little hubris, so they shouldn't have expected blind obedience from him.

To me that is the point, he was not being irresponsible, just ignorant and in need of an answer.

Harry may have had some experiences, those experiences unfortunately did not add years to his life. What was added was pain and terror, not knowledge of life itself. Harry was fifteen, this means that he was in no position to judge what was happening to him as an adult. He could only react to what was his own personal experiences. What that year taught him was that he was for all intents and purposes, alone except for his friends. The adults in his life were either sadistic or silent. He did not have parents to advise him and Sirius who should have been able to be a shoulder for him to lean on was not available. Dumbledore admits that his behaviour was wrong, Snape unfortunately was unable to admit that his method of teaching Occulemency was wrong for Harry. Harry was the child and he was abandoned, first by Dumbledore and then by Snape. Harry was not the easiest of pupils to teach and Snape was simply the worst person to try and teach him. Harry may have thought himself to be the most mature of children, but don't we all when we are fifteen. Harry's age and the fact that he was still an immature boy cannot be ignored and washed out of the equation. Harry was a great many wondeful things, but he was not a mature adult, Dumbledore and Snape were.

Harry may have had some experiences, those experiences unfortunately did not add years to his life. What was added was pain and terror, not knowledge of life itself. Harry was fifteen, this means that he was in no position to judge what was happening to him as an adult. He could only react to what was his own personal experiences. What that year taught him was that he was for all intents and purposes, alone except for his friends. The adults in his life were either sadistic or silent. He did not have parents to advise him and Sirius who should have been able to be a shoulder for him to lean on was not available. Dumbledore admits that his behaviour was wrong, Snape unfortunately was unable to admit that his method of teaching Occulemency was wrong for Harry. Harry was the child and he was abandoned, first by Dumbledore and then by Snape. Harry was not the easiest of pupils to teach and Snape was simply the worst person to try and teach him. Harry may have thought himself to be the most mature of children, but don't we all when we are fifteen. Harry's age and the fact that he was still an immature boy cannot be ignored and washed out of the equation. Harry was a great many wondeful things, but he was not a mature adult, Dumbledore and Snape were.

Yes, he was inmature, but still not a child, just an inmature adult. He knew he was able to more than they were allowing him (I am quite convinced that if they had guided him and explained him things, he would have been able to handle Occlumency).

I agree with you, Harry's lack of maturity and also Sirius lack of maturity plus Dumbledores distance was what made the whole plot go on, Harry's personality cannot be put aside of the equation.

But even in that case, still Harry is not a child and not a teenanger like the others, and somehow those hard experiences had a toll in him, made him slightly different from the rest of the teenangers, in the way that he was conscious of the danger, he only needed someone to tell him what the danger was and how to fight it.

If I'm not mistaken, Harry found real difficulty tyring to practise Occlumency. He'd lie in the bed his head buzzing with all sorts of emotions. From his hate to Umbridge, to his worry about Hagrid, his conflict with Cho and his curiosity about what lay behind that door in the DoM. IIRC, he couldn't, (and not didn't want to) control or subdue all these emotions.

Occlumency is not easy. But if a mass of raw emotion like Severus Snape could master it, surely Harry could! :)

At any rate, the text indicates that Harry quite specifically maintained that keeping the channel open would be more useful in the fight against Voldemort than trying to close the channel would be. Harry erroneously believed (post-Arthur) that he was gaining useful knowledge - that he was in essence spying on Voldemort. Basically, he thought he could do Snape's job. And that is why he refused to practice. He convinced himself that learning Occlumency would be a hindrance to fighting Voldemort.

Actually if Sirius hadn't died, Harry would've never learnt Occlumency, or managed to shut his mind against Voldemort. It was only after Sirius died that Harry had known the thing that kept Voldemort out of his head: love and deep emotion. That's why he managed to shut Voldemort, not because of the Occlumency lessons. He also notices the same thing when Dumbledore and Dobbby die.

Actually, that's not quite the case. Voldemort stopped trying to enter Harry's mind because of the love and deep emotion he felt in Harry at the MoM. Voldemort never attempted to break in to Harry's mind again. But that has nothing to do with Harry learning Occlumency.

Harry learned Occlumency - i.e. to shut the channel consciously - during DH when Voldemort's thoughts were leaking into his mind and he needed to keep focus. The fact that he was quite able to master Occlumency when it became a matter of survival indicates that it would not, in fact, have been too difficult for him to learn Occlumency if he had actually attempted to do as he was instructed in OotP. And if he had done as he was instructed, he (and Sirius) never would have been at the MoM when Sirius was killed.

Harry is not perfect, but he is a hero.

Well, I would concur with that... and that is why I think it's important to acknowledge where he fails. His status as a hero is only greater, imo, if we recognize his imperfections. And his imperfections, I think, are glaring with regards to Occlumency.

I don't see a "determination to assign blame to a child." I see an honest analysis of Harry's failure with regard to Occlumency. And secondly, Harry is no child. He is almost 16 - which means that he is very nearly an adult in Wizarding terms.

Personally, I believe Snape met Harry half-way during Occlumency. It was not his job to gush over Harry. It was his job to try to break into Harry's mind so that Harry could learn to defend his mind. He was like a Kung Fu Master teaching a young apprentice (except that Snape was considerably milder! He didn't even use what he saw in Harry's mind for the purpose of deriding Harry!). Harry, on the other hand, made no serious attempt to meet Snape half-way. Simple fact: You can't teach a kid who refuses to learn. Harry did not believe he needed to learn.

(except that Snape was considerably milder! He didn't even use what he saw in Harry's mind for the purpose of deriding Harry!)
Well, he did ask "to whom did the dog belong" when he saw the image of Ripper chasing Harry up a tree. And the text describes him as sneering or lip-curling if I remember correctly.

Well, he did ask "to whom did the dog belong" when he saw the image of Ripper chasing Harry up a tree. And the text describes him as sneering or lip-curling if I remember correctly.

Yes, but have you seen movies with a Kung Fu master training an apprentice? :lol: Snape is an :angel: by comparison.

Curiously, in those movies, the young apprentice always loathes the harsh Master... then in retrospect grows to appreciate him, just as Harry does with Snape.

[QUOTE=ccollinsmith;5635259]Occlumency is not easy. But if a mass of raw emotion like Severus Snape could master it, surely Harry could! :)

Snape was a mass of repressed emotions. His mind worked differently to Harry's and he could do that. What he never did was try to explain this to Harry. Perhaps he simply didn't know how to. Occlumency is not really explained well in the books. Well it doesn't exist in real life so we are discussing a fictional theory, perhaps everybody in Rowling's universe learnt it slightly differently. Harry certainly learnt it differently from the way Snape taught him. This is not disparaging to Snape any more than it is disparging to Harry.

At any rate, the text indicates that Harry quite specifically maintained that keeping the channel open would be more useful in the fight against Voldemort than trying to close the channel would be. Harry erroneously believed (post-Arthur) that he was gaining useful knowledge - that he was in essence spying on Voldemort. Basically, he thought he could do Snape's job. And that is why he refused to practice. He convinced himself that learning Occlumency would be a hindrance to fighting Voldemort.

And this is a good example of how isolated Harry feels and how the lack of information is detrimental to him. No one is telling Harry anything except that he has to learn Occlumency. The only information Harry was getting was from the visions. Dumbledore and Snape were not exactly helping him out there. Snape knew what he was going through, but he was simply the wrong person to try and teach Harry this highly personal branch of magic. They were incompatible for many reasons. Again it's neither one's fault, it just the way things were and that has to be faced before blame is apportioned out.

Well, I would concur with that... and that is why I think it's important to acknowledge where he fails. His status as a hero is only greater, imo, if we recognize his imperfections. And his imperfections, I think, are glaring with regards to Occlumency.

I don't see a "determination to assign blame to a child." I see an honest analysis of Harry's failure with regard to Occlumency. And secondly, Harry is no child. He is almost 16 - which means that he is very nearly an adult in Wizarding terms.

If we say that Harry was nearly an adult, that still makes him an extremely young man who is not mature. If he is mature enough to say that he should have buckled down and learnt it, then he was mature enough to be told the truth about everything, and that included Snape's past, Dumbledore's past and what Dumbledore and Snape discussed. We cannot say Harry was mature enough to act like a man with regards to Occulumency, but not mature enough to handle Snape and Dumbledore's pasts and plans. Harry is a very remarkable boy, but he was not yet a man It would be 18 months before he would be considered an adult by WW standards and that's a long time for an adolescent. He was 15, not 40 or 150, he needed support and he wasn't getting it.

Personally, I believe Snape met Harry half-way during Occlumency. It was not his job to gush over Harry. It was his job to try to break into Harry's mind so that Harry could learn to defend his mind. He was like a Kung Fu Master teaching a young apprentice (except that Snape was considerably milder! He didn't even use what he saw in Harry's mind for the purpose of deriding Harry!). Harry, on the other hand, made no serious attempt to meet Snape half-way. Simple fact: You can't teach a kid who refuses to learn. Harry did not believe he needed to learn.

The fact is the lessons failed. If Snape met Harry half-way it wasn't far enough. Everybody kept telling Harry how important it was, but nobody was going that extra mile to help him learn. Harry had been through horrific experiences less than a year before this. He was enduring torture at the hands of Umbridge and he was getting zero emotional support from Dumbledore and Snape. This is the boy who must learn these things to defeat Voldemort. Harry is locked into this destiny through no fault of his own. I think Snape should have used his much vaunted control and gone the extra mile, but he didn't. Perhaps it was simply impossible. There was a lot of history between Snape and Harry and at this point I am not apportioning blame for that. Who was right or wrong there doesn't count. The situation was what it was and had to be dealt with. Neither Dumbledore or Snape dealt with it very well. They were dealing with a very young man who had been through a traumatic experience and was undergoing more trauma. They were the adults, they should have done better by Harry.

Actually, Eliza, I agree that Dumbledore should have told Harry the things that Harry needed to know. But I equally think that Harry should have listened to the adults around him. Snape is not the only adult who told him he needed to learn Occlumency. People he loved - like Dumbledore, Sirius, and Lupin - told Harry the same thing. And Harry thought he knew better.

I assume that Snape taught Harry the way he was taught. And I don't think we can really ask Snape to transform into an ENFP (http://www.personalitypage.com/ENFP.html) personality when his personality type is rather clearly INTJ (http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html). :yuhup: I also just don't really see how Snape was supposed to give Harry backstory information when his hands were tied by Dumbledore and by Voldemort. Could he really tell Harry that Voldemort was looking for a prophecy pertaining to Harry? Neither Dumbledore nor Voldemort would have been pleased to find that he had passed that information on to the boy. ;)

No, it was Dumbledore, not Snape, who needed to tell Harry about the prophecy. But ultimately, it was Harry who needed to trust the adults that he needed to learn Occlumency. And it was Harry who had the responsibility to at least make an effort to learn.

If he had made an effort to practice and still failed to learn Occlumency, I certainly would not be blaming him for his failure. But that's not what happened. He explicitly refused to practice. And so yes, I put a great deal of responsibility on him for his failure in Occlumency lessons.

I agree with your post above, ccollinsmith. I also want to add that it is highly possible that Dumbledore and Snape don't even know how to deal with a young man who has been through such traumatic experiences.

And yeah, as a fellow INTJ, I'll concur that it's practically impossible for us to become nurturing types overnight (if at all).

Actually, Eliza, I agree that Dumbledore should have told Harry the things that Harry needed to know. But I equally think that Harry should have listened to the adults around him. Snape is not the only adult who told him he needed to learn Occlumency. People he loved - like Dumbledore, Sirius, and Lupin - told Harry the same thing. And Harry thought he knew better.

I assume that Snape taught Harry the way he was taught. And I don't think we can really ask Snape to transform into an ENFP (http://www.personalitypage.com/ENFP.html) personality when his personality type is rather clearly INTJ (http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html). :yuhup: I also just don't really see how Snape was supposed to give Harry backstory information when his hands were tied by Dumbledore and by Voldemort. Could he really tell Harry that Voldemort was looking for a prophecy pertaining to Harry? Neither Dumbledore nor Voldemort would have been pleased to find that he had passed that information on to the boy. ;)

No, it was Dumbledore, not Snape, who needed to tell Harry about the prophecy. But ultimately, it was Harry who needed to trust the adults that he needed to learn Occlumency. And it was Harry who had the responsibility to at least make an effort to learn.

If he had made an effort to practice and still failed to learn Occlumency, I certainly would not be blaming him for his failure. But that's not what happened. He explicitly refused to practice. And so yes, I put a great deal of responsibility on him for his failure in Occlumency lessons.

I think Harry at the beginning made a huge effort to learn, unfortunately it simply wasn't working for him. I am not saying that Snape did not try, I'm saying how he was teaching was not working for Harry. This led to frustration, ( a great deal of frustration) on Harry's part. I don't suppose the sessions were joy unlimited for Snape either. They were both unable to get anywhere. If Snape was teaching him with the method that he was taught then that's all he knew, but the fact still remains. For Harry this method did not work and Harry gave up.
Harry, for good or ill, felt disconnected from the urgency that he learn Occulemncy. Snape was a very accomplished Legilimens as well as being a practised at Occulemncy. He could see Harry's frustration. I don't know whether he reported back to Dumbledore, I would assume so. I don't blame Snape for the breakdown, he was the wrong man for many reasons to be the one who taught Harry. I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the term you used
but I didn't expect to Snape to be a grief counselor for Harry, but I do think he could have been more honest with Dumbledore and told him about the emotional turmoil Harry was going through. The fiasco was Dumbledore's fault IMO and to give him credit he admits this.
All I was really saying in the beginning of this was that Harry was just 15 years old, he had suffered tremendous trauma. To expect the same level of maturity in this situation from Harry as you would from an experienced adult is I think, asking a little too much.

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 he would have been different had his parents lived or had he gone to another wizarding family. Not to say that he would have been a bad person - far from it - but, as others have said before, growing up and getting table scraps from the Dursleys gave him greater appreciation for what he had and, later on, may have been what drove him to fight for everyone when he could have just saved himself.

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'd say the first time we saw it was with Hermione and the Troll - kinda ironic that she's the one to point it out in OoTP! I think it can be a strength or a flaw depending on the situation, as we see - in GoF it proves to be a strength when he saves Fleur's sister and benefits from it, in OoTP it's a weakness when it leads to the death of Sirius. I can imagine it also being a good and bad thing in his career as an Auror - I can see Harry doing all he can to protect his fellow Aurors, but also occasionally making a rash decision at the same time.

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?
I think, again, his curiosity can be a good and a bad thing. One of the more endearing and yet frustrating things about Harry is that he's not really a shades of grey guy - he views everything in black and white, good and bad. Granted, this is primarily due to the battle he's facing and I'm sure this softens as he grows older.

4. What do you think are Harry's greatest strengths? What weaknesses did he overcome as the series progressed?
His greatest strengths are his ability to love, his compassion for others, his capacity for self sacrifice and his loyalty to his friends. His main weaknesses are that he's often a bit hot headed and, as I mentioned earlier, tends to see the world in black and white too much.

5. How have each of the losses Harry has suffered helped to define who he is?
His parents are the reason why he has to fight the battles he does. Sirius was the loss of his only true father figure, even if he wasn't a great one - at this point, Harry was forced to stand on his own two feet for good. And Dumbledore's death was what drove him to finally finish off Voldemort for good and do what he needed to do.

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?
The first example that again comes to mind was the second task in GoF. Harry could have simply taken Ron and hoped the others would be OK - but he was determined to ensure that everyone was safe first. And, of course, his final sacrifice in the Forest.

7. What do you think of Harry's use of Unforgivables in DH?
I don't mind them. Harry was never intended to be perfect - I think the fact that he could use Unforgivables, and enjoy it (As he clearly did with Amycus) just shows that he's a human being with human feelings like anyone else.

8. Why do you think Harry forgave Snape?
Once he learnt the story, I don't think he couldn't. The main reason he had hated Snape before was he thought he was a Death Eater who killed Dumbledore - once that was proved wrong, what was he supposed to hate him for? Some snarky comments and a few failed Potions grades? Once you weigh up what Snape did for the Order, his mother and, indeed, himself, Harry really couldn't not forgive Snape. And I don't think it ever occurred to him not to.

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?
Eliminated the Rotfang Conspiracy! To be honest, I didn't really like this move by JKR. I preferred to think of Harry leading a quieter life after the Battle - then again, I guess Harry Potter is a man of action. Although I do like the thought of him teaching Defence Against the Dark Arts more - maybe once he retires from the Auror department? I get the feeling they don't last too long there without going nuts (e.g. Moody).

And this is a good example of how isolated Harry feels and how the lack of information is detrimental to him. No one is telling Harry anything except that he has to learn Occlumency. The only information Harry was getting was from the visions.

That's a good point, Harry wanted to know what was being done about the people who put him through an horrific experience. I think that's an understandable response to his experience.
I think his curiosity and dependence on the visions for information somewhat corresponds to what Lupin said about the twins helping themselves and others to garbled information, via the extendable ears, when they could not get it through the official channels. And considering how central Harry was to what had happened (even not knowing the prophecy, he knew that Voldemort wanted him dead, and had made an attempt at it in the graveyard), this curiosity about what was going on was understandable, IMO.

Also, after what happened to Arthur, nobody bothered to explain to Harry that Voldemort could also plant fake visions - Harry was not given the full picture, he only had experience of these visions proving useful.

If we say that Harry was nearly an adult, that still makes him an extremely young man who is not mature. If he is mature enough to say that he should have buckled down and learnt it, then he was mature enough to be told the truth about everything, and that included Snape's past, Dumbledore's past and what Dumbledore and Snape discussed. We cannot say Harry was mature enough to act like a man with regards to Occulumency, but not mature enough to handle Snape and Dumbledore's pasts and plans.

I think that's a good point. I think it's something of a double standard to try to have it both ways.

Harry is a very remarkable boy, but he was not yet a man It would be 18 months before he would be considered an adult by WW standards and that's a long time for an adolescent. He was 15, not 40 or 150, he needed support and he wasn't getting it.

Exactly. The only support Harry had were his teenage friends, who could have no idea of how to support someone who had been through all of that. They did the best they could, but the people in Harry's life who could/should have helped him were either unable, or chose not to do so.

Actually, Eliza, I agree that Dumbledore should have told Harry the things that Harry needed to know. But I equally think that Harry should have listened to the adults around him. Snape is not the only adult who told him he needed to learn Occlumency. People he loved - like Dumbledore, Sirius, and Lupin - told Harry the same thing. And Harry thought he knew better.

Harry was told he needed to learn Occlumency, he was not told why. He was not told why he had to learn a privacy-invading branch of magic from someone with whom he had a poor relationship. I think Harry should have been told exactly what the risks were - what Dumbledore suspected could happen. Harry was told nothing, apart from "Learn Occlumency, it's very important". I think his isolation diminished the trust he felt for the adults in his life, who should have supported him in the aftermath of being abducted, tortured and nearly murdered.

I agree with your post above, ccollinsmith. I also want to add that it is highly possible that Dumbledore and Snape don't even know how to deal with a young man who has been through such traumatic experiences.

And yeah, as a fellow INTJ, I'll concur that it's practically impossible for us to become nurturing types overnight (if at all).

I don't expect Snape to become some kind of sensitive counsellor either, but, I don't think it's asking too much to have some kind of compassion when dealing with an adolescent who has been through an horrific trauma, whatever one's personality type.

I think Harry at the beginning made a huge effort to learn, unfortunately it simply wasn't working for him. I am not saying that Snape did not try, I'm saying how he was teaching was not working for Harry. This led to frustration, ( a great deal of frustration) on Harry's part. I don't suppose the sessions were joy unlimited for Snape either. They were both unable to get anywhere. If Snape was teaching him with the method that he was taught then that's all he knew, but the fact still remains. For Harry this method did not work and Harry gave up.

A different method worked for Harry, when he managed it. At the Ministry, Harry pushed Voldemort from his mind, and managed to do so in DH, not by clearing his mind of all thought, but by focusing on his emotions. It was a different method than that which worked for Snape.

All I was really saying in the beginning of this was that Harry was just 15 years old, he had suffered tremendous trauma. To expect the same level of maturity in this situation from Harry as you would from an experienced adult is I think, asking a little too much.

I agree, and he was left to deal with this trauma alone, isolated first from everyone who cared for him and whom he cared for, and later, from adults he trusted to help him. He was unable to rely on Sirius because of Umbridge's paranoia, frisking the owls and such, and Dumbledore had taken to avoiding him. His horrific experience in GoF was compounded by this isolation, and by the hurtful experience of people claiming he was lying about the whole ordeal. It's not surprising that this had a negative impact on him.

Exactly. The only support Harry had were his teenage friends, who could have no idea of how to support someone who had been through all of that. They did the best they could, but the people in Harry's life who could/should have helped him were either unable, or chose not to do so.

Actually, for a considerable amount of time, even those teenage friends weren't of much comfort to Harry. In summer and after his encounter with Voldemort, he didn't have even the support of these friends.

After Voldemort's return Harry sought information every way he could, when the adults around him didn't give it to him. Whether he gained it from the connection between himself and Voldemort, or from the garbage, or lying in his Aunt's flower beds. I personally don't see 'determination to disobey others', as much as I see 'determination to understand what happening to him'. JMO :).

What i find odd is that people seem to want to see Harry as perfect. Every single mistake he makes is justified as someone elses fault or not being Harry's fault because of his age. I love Harry as a character but he isn't perfect, he made mistakes and those mistakes did cost people their lives (Sirius and Dobby).

I have no idea why anyone would want t argue that Harry is perfect as perfect characters are boring. What makes characters interesting, what makes them seem real is their faults. Why some people won't acknowledge Harry's faults really is confusing to me.

What i find odd is that people seem to want to see Harry as perfect. Every single mistake he makes is justified as someone elses fault or not being Harry's fault because of his age. I love Harry as a character but he isn't perfect, he made mistakes and those mistakes did cost people their lives (Sirius and Dobby).

I have no idea why anyone would want t argue that Harry is perfect as perfect characters are boring. What makes characters interesting, what makes them seem real is their faults. Why some people won't acknowledge Harry's faults really is confusing to me.

I don't think Harry has no faults, far from it. He has faults, just like Snape and Dumbledore. What Harry was in this situation was a truamatized 15 year old boy who was shut out and told to shut up and learn a branch of magic that he knew nothing about. Harry is stubborn, well he's had to be. He is stubborn and he needed explanations and support from the adults who did know what was going on and decided to act like he didn't. What he wasn't was a stroppy teenager who wasn't practising his violin. Harry knew better than most what Voldemort was capable of and he should have been given the crucial information that would have motivated him. He wan't and that was not his choice.

[QUOTE=bellatrix93;5635594]Actually, for a considerable amount of time, even those teenage friends weren't of much comfort to Harry. In summer and after his encounter with Voldemort, he didn't have even the support of these friends.

True, a very short time after the events of the graveyard, Harry was left with only people who despised him for company.

After Voldemort's return Harry sought information every way he could, when the adults around him didn't give it to him. Whether he gained it from the connection between himself and Voldemort, or from the garbage, or lying in his Aunt's flower beds. I personally don't see 'determination to disobey others', as much as I see 'determination to understand what happening to him'. JMO :).

Exactly - Harry wasn't being defiant for the sake of it, he wanted to know what was going on.

What i find odd is that people seem to want to see Harry as perfect. Every single mistake he makes is justified as someone elses fault or not being Harry's fault because of his age. I love Harry as a character but he isn't perfect, he made mistakes and those mistakes did cost people their lives (Sirius and Dobby).

I have no idea why anyone would want t argue that Harry is perfect as perfect characters are boring. What makes characters interesting, what makes them seem real is their faults. Why some people won't acknowledge Harry's faults really is confusing to me.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not trying to see Harry as perfect. I think Harry had a temper, was reckless at times, and was stubborn. However, I'm trying to see the reasons why he behaved as he did.
However, I don't think it was wrong of Harry to want to know what was being done about the people who abducted, tortured and attempted to murder him. I think it's understandable for a victim of a crime to want to know what's being done about the perpetrator.

I don't think Harry has no faults, far from it. He has faults, just like Snape and Dumbledore. What Harry was in this situation was a truamatized 15 year old boy who was shut out and told to shut up and learn a branch of magic that he knew nothing about. Harry is stubborn, well he's had to be. He is stubborn and he needed explanations and support from the adults who did know what was going on and decided to act like he didn't. What he wasn't was a stroppy teenager who wasn't practising his violin. Harry knew better than most what Voldemort was capable of and he should have been given the crucial information that would have motivated him. He wan't and that was not his choice.

Judging by this post i don't think you do think that Harry has faults because even the faults you have mentioned you have twisted into a positive (sort of like a person saying that their biggest failing is that they are too much of a perfectionist).

If Harry was faultless and a Mary Sue then JKR would be considered to be a rather bad writer.

I have no idea why anyone would want t argue that Harry is perfect as perfect characters are boring. What makes characters interesting, what makes them seem real is their faults. Why some people won't acknowledge Harry's faults really is confusing to me.

Agreed, :). Perfect characters are definitely boring. I don't think Harry is a perfect character, either. Harry has many flaws, to mention a few: his quick temper is a major flaw, it cost him too much (his quick temper caused him a lot of trouble with with Umbridge, for instance). Also another flaw is that Harry sometimes jumps to action without enough thinking and consideration (an example on this when Harry takes Moody's magical eye from Umbridge's office, DH). Another flaw, is that Harry often acts based on his emotions, which results in his making wrong decisions and conclusions.

What i find odd is that people seem to want to see Harry as perfect. Every single mistake he makes is justified as someone elses fault or not being Harry's fault because of his age

Since the story is written from Harry's POV, it allows us a better look at his character and interior. His mistakes aren't justified, they are simply explained and understood. Reading from his POV, helps me as a reader, to see what is and what isn't his fault. To see and make distinction between his flaws and the wrong decisions and flaws of other people.

Edit:

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not trying to see Harry as perfect. I think Harry had a temper, was reckless at times, and was stubborn. However, I'm trying to see the reasons why he behaved as he did.

Didn't see you post before I posted, but I definitely agree. :)

Judging by this post i don't think you do think that Harry has faults because even the faults you have mentioned you have twisted into a positive (sort of like a person saying that their biggest failing is that they are too much of a perfectionist).

If Harry was faultless and a Mary Sue then JKR would be considered to be a rather bad writer.

I didn't say he was faultless. I said he was a 15 year old traumatised boy. I didn't know that 15 year old traumatised boys were percieved as having no faults, I always thought that they were as entitled to have faults as anybody else. I don't know what a Mary Sue has to do with Harry Potter. I don't think there is a Mary Sue character in the books. They are all portrayed as human beings with feet of clay.

Let's have a softening of tone from everyone, please. Respect other people's rights to read the books differently from you. Sure, you can disagree with specific points of their argument, but please refrain from making blanket statements saying or implying that others' views of the character are wrong/unliterary/overreverential.

I didn't say he was faultless. I said he was a 15 year old traumatised boy. I didn't know that 15 year old traumatised boys were percieved as having no faults, I always thought that they were as entitled to have faults as anybody else.
From what I see and hear around me, people tend to judge Harry as a "hero", and an adult one at that. What Ms. Rowlings shows us is, first a child, then a teenager, then a young adult who becomes a "hero" through circumstances beyond his control - circumstances that started before he was even born.

Heroes are still human and have their foibles and weaknesses, Harry has his. We have to credit Ms. Rowlings for showing them to us. That's what I like in the series, it's there is a lot more realism in the depiction of characters and situations than is usual in "children's books". Though the series ceased to be "kid lit" very quickly. Heroes are perfect in other kids' books, and they don't die. Here, we have several who do die - not counting James and Lily without whose deaths there wouldn't be this series. For example, I never expected Sirius or Cedric to die.

Harry is not supposed to be perfect. He's rebellious, he's stubborn, he's a bit arrogant, he has this "save people" thing. I mean, he's not perfect as a cardboard hero would be. But that makes him all the more likeable and believable. That's how I see it. And that's why I love the series, even if Harry himself got on my nerves at times. That's a tribute to Rowlings' characterization, IMO.

I think Harry's biggest flaws as a character can probably be tracked down to his arrogance. He may not have been arrogant in the same way but sometimes i do think Harry was just as arrogant as his father as Harry did break rules whenever he felt like it. I don't usually agree with Snape but in this scene he was completely correct

"What would your head have been doing in Hogsmeade, Potter?" said Snape softly. "Your head is not allowed in Hogsmeade. No part of your body has permission to be in Hogsmeade."

"Malfoy is not having hallucinations," snarled Snape, and he bent down, a hand on each arm of Harry's chair, so that their faces were a foot apart. "If your head was in Hogsmeade, so was the rest of you."

"I've been up in Gryffindor Tower," said Harry. "Like you told —"

"Can anyone confirm that?"

Harry didn't say anything. Snape's thin mouth curled into a horrible smile.

"So," he said, straightening up again. "Everyone from the Minister of Magic downward has been trying to keep famous Harry Potter safe from Sirius Black. But famous Harry Potter is a law unto himself. Let the ordinary people worry about his safety! Famous Harry Potter goes where he wants to, with no thought for the consequences."

another scene that irked me was in HBP where i felt that Harry was clearly in the wrong but didn't feel enough guilt was after he used that dark curse on Malfoy. Harry was lucky not to be sent to Azkaban after what happened and all he did for the next few chapters was complain that the detention he got wasn't fair. I think Harry was extremely lucky he got off so lightly.

I agree, Harry got off lightly in that situation. I think that Harry was very lucky overall in not getting caught, but I think that he was a very brave character. The more poeple that are like Harry, the better this world would be

I agree, Harry got off lightly in that situation. I think that Harry was very lucky overall in not getting caught, but I think that he was a very brave character. The more poeple that are like Harry, the better this world would be

True though i have to say that if more people were like Harry the world would be a much more emo place.

I don't usually agree with Snape but in this scene he was completely correct
"So," he said, straightening up again. "Everyone from the Minister of Magic downward has been trying to keep famous Harry Potter safe from Sirius Black. But famous Harry Potter is a law unto himself. Let the ordinary people worry about his safety! Famous Harry Potter goes where he wants to, with no thought for the consequences."

I completely disagree! In my opinion, Harry did not feel his fame at having survived after Voldemort murdered his parents entitled him to do as he pleased. I'd say Harry has faults and wanders places he shouldn't, but I don't see at all that it is because he feels his "celebrity" status makes him above the rules.

I think it was Harry's upbringing by the Dursleys lead him to be sneaky and disregard good rules too much and too often. The Dursleys were so unfair and arbitrary with their strictures that it is no wonder (to me at least) that Harry developed the idea that rules don't mean much.

I think Minerva McGonagall was the best Head of House for Harry for that reason; from her, Harry learned that strict authority figures and rules could be just and fair-- something Harry was really needed to learn that he would never learn at home.

another scene that irked me was in HBP where i felt that Harry was clearly in the wrong but didn't feel enough guilt was after he used that dark curse on Malfoy. Harry was lucky not to be sent to Azkaban after what happened and all he did for the next few chapters was complain that the detention he got wasn't fair. I think Harry was extremely lucky he got off so lightly.

I agree that he was lucky not to get sent to Azkaban and that it was annoying to hear him whinge on about getting detention.

On the other hand, I do think that Harry learned something from the experience. He learned that no matter how much he hated Draco, he definitely did not want Draco dead. Harry's despairing scream of "No, I didn't!" is one of the more haunting moments in the series, I think, because Draco was mortally wounded, and Harry knew it.... short of that deus ex machina intervention that arrived to save Draco's life.

I think it's possible that Harry's complaints about detention were a way of coping with the fact that he had actually almost killed someone through his recklessness in testing out a curse he knew nothing of. Harry has a way of projecting his own baggage onto other people, especially Snape (and vice versa). So it's possible that Harry was in so much emotional distress over what he'd done (as he was when his actions led to Sirius' death) that he had to blame Snape for giving him detention... when in fact we know that he's actually very lucky that he didn't get expelled or sent to Azkaban.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not convinced that Harry felt too little guilt over Sectumsempra. It's possible, I think, that Harry felt so much guilt that the only way he could deal with it was to blame Snape for taking his Quidditch away.

From what I see and hear around me, people tend to judge Harry as a "hero", and an adult one at that. What Ms. Rowlings shows us is, first a child, then a teenager, then a young adult who becomes a "hero" through circumstances beyond his control - circumstances that started before he was even born.

Heroes are still human and have their foibles and weaknesses, Harry has his. We have to credit Ms. Rowlings for showing them to us. That's what I like in the series, it's there is a lot more realism in the depiction of characters and situations than is usual in "children's books". Though the series ceased to be "kid lit" very quickly. Heroes are perfect in other kids' books, and they don't die. Here, we have several who do die - not counting James and Lily without whose deaths there wouldn't be this series. For example, I never expected Sirius or Cedric to die.

Harry is not supposed to be perfect. He's rebellious, he's stubborn, he's a bit arrogant, he has this "save people" thing. I mean, he's not perfect as a cardboard hero would be. But that makes him all the more likeable and believable. That's how I see it. And that's why I love the series, even if Harry himself got on my nerves at times. That's a tribute to Rowlings' characterization, IMO.

A very good summery of what makes Harry Potter a great character, in my opinion. I loved reading about him growing up, and I loved how he often thought like and did things like someone who was actually his age would. Things like going along with stealing the Weasley's car, taunting Dudley just because he could get away witth it, sneaking out after curfew-- I both cringed and laughed when he did such things, knowing that they were wrong and would have concequences. Fortunately, Harry usually learned and grew from his experiences.

I completely disagree! In my opinion, Harry did not feel his fame at having survived after Voldemort murdered his parents entitled him to do as he pleased. I'd say Harry has faults and wanders places he shouldn't, but I don't see at all that it is because he feels his "celebrity" status makes him above the rules.

I think it was Harry's upbringing by the Dursleys lead him to be sneaky and disregard good rules too much and too often. The Dursleys were so unfair and arbitrary with their strictures that it is no wonder (to me at least) that Harry developed the idea that rules don't mean much.

I think Minerva McGonagall was the best Head of House for Harry for that reason; from her, Harry learned that strict authority figures and rules could be just and fair-- something Harry was really needed to learn that he would never learn at home.

I agree with this post and would like to add that Harry is a teenage wizard. He doesn't have a lot of foresight. Like many children he gets into trouble without thinking about the dangers. One can tell a child many times that it shouldn't step on the ice just yet, and still, the frozen surface would be an irresistible lure. Everyone was going to Hogsmeade and from what they told him, it could very well have been wonderland. Of course the danger pales in the face of butterbeer and Zonko's.

I agree with this post and would like to add that Harry is a teenage wizard. He doesn't have a lot of foresight. Like many children he gets into trouble without thinking about the dangers. One can tell a child many times that it shouldn't step on the ice just yet, and still, the frozen surface would be an irresistible lure. Everyone was going to Hogsmeade and from what they told him, it could very well have been wonderland. Of course the danger pales in the face of butterbeer and Zonko's.

Harry wasn't that young. From that example you are making it look like Harry wa 6 years old instead of 13 which he was in PoA.

Harry wasn't that young. From that example you are making it look like Harry wa 6 years old instead of 13 which he was in PoA.

Far from it. If he'd been six, he would have obeyed. But at thirteen he rebelled against adult authority and like many teenagers thought he knew better. And this was sustained by him actually knowing better in PS and CoS, where his disobedience thwarted Voldemort.

Harry wasn't that young. From that example you are making it look like Harry wa 6 years old instead of 13 which he was in PoA.

Wouldn't you have wanted to go to Hogsmeade? I would've done the same thing if I were Harry. Only someone like Hermione would have stayed behind. What kind of danger was he going to get in in Hogsmeade? I know everyone thought Sirius wanted to kill Harry, but like Ron said, how would Sirius find him in a crowd of so many people? Harry could have just worn his invisibility cloak for extra protection.

Wouldn't you have wanted to go to Hogsmeade? I would've done the same thing if I were Harry. Only someone like Hermione would have stayed behind. What kind of danger was he going to get in in Hogsmeade? I know everyone thought Sirius wanted to kill Harry, but like Ron said, how would Sirius find him in a crowd of so many people? Harry could have just worn his invisibility cloak for extra protection.

Given the situation not only with Sirius (a guy who they thought was a crazy mass murderer) but also the dementors i think the risk was quite high. Dumbledore made a point of telling everyone during the welcome feast that invisibility cloaks do not work against dementors and its safe to say he was directing that comment to Harry.

Wouldn't you have wanted to go to Hogsmeade? I would've done the same thing if I were Harry. Only someone like Hermione would have stayed behind. What kind of danger was he going to get in in Hogsmeade? I know everyone thought Sirius wanted to kill Harry, but like Ron said, how would Sirius find him in a crowd of so many people? Harry could have just worn his invisibility cloak for extra protection.

It's understandable for a young boy to want to sneak off and have fun where the adults have expressly forbidden him to go, but that doesn't make it a wise or mature choice, IMO. I agree that someone like Hermione would probably follow the rules, but I think Hermione's always been the smartest and often the most mature of the trio. What she would do is often the best thing to do.

And consider that not only has Snape pointed out that there are adults out there worrying about him and that it was incredibly presumptuous of him to think he could evade or fend off a fully-grown and desperate wizard, Lupin also reminds Harry of who died to preserve the life he is gambling with just for the pleasure of a quick outing and a bag of candy.

Given the situation not only with Sirius (a guy who they thought was a crazy mass murderer) but also the dementors i think the risk was quite high. Dumbledore made a point of telling everyone during the welcome feast that invisibility cloaks do not work against dementors and its safe to say he was directing that comment to Harry.

But the dementors were only in Hogsmeade at nightfall. Harry's shortcut to Hogsmeade prevented him from going near the dementors.

Hermione is also too careful sometimes.. and I think the adults were being too careful as well. What if Harry had gotten permission from the Dursleys? He would be able to go then, even with a mad mass murder hunting for him?

I completely disagree! In my opinion, Harry did not feel his fame at having survived after Voldemort murdered his parents entitled him to do as he pleased. I'd say Harry has faults and wanders places he shouldn't, but I don't see at all that it is because he feels his "celebrity" status makes him above the rules.

Harry is not an airhead in that sense, but what Snape was insinuating is that Harry was acting selfishly and stupidly. Ignoring that Sirius was never really out to get him, the entire Hogwarts staff was going to great lengths to keep him safe, and many people were worried about him. To ignore that and go off to Hogsmeade was just really immature of him, imo.

I agree with your point about McGonagall, though, I never thought about that before. :)

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 harry is stronger for having been raised by the durley's. the experience taught him how to be resourceful (having to sneak food, having to keep quiet, having to wait around every year for a chance to explore the house while they went out for dudley's birthday). Plus it gave him the thick skin needed to deal with adversity from other students at school. had he been raised in a different situation, he might not have been so well developed at the age of eleven.

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 the first time we see this is with the troll in the dungeon. I think harry's final sacrifice is awesome, because it shows a maturity and understanding at a level beyond his years, and a bravery that defies logic. most would not be able to walk to their death. the only thing comparable is like a soldier. I think harry's need to save people is a strength. he a particularly strong individual, capable, and saving people other than himself seems to come as second nature to 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?
I think his curious nature is one of his driving forces. I also thik the final decision between the horcruxes or the hallows shows the immense curiosity harry still has at that point, which was reawoken by the desire for the hallows.

4. What do you think are Harry's greatest strengths? What weaknesses did he overcome as the series progressed?
his strengths were his bravery, his imagination, his wil.llingness to lay down his life. I can't even think of any weaknesses. he is a very strng boy.

5. How have each of the losses Harry has suffered helped to define who he is?
they have served to make him stronger, more capable of facing the challeneges presented to him with a strength he shouldn't have at his age, a strength that comes from years of suffering the injustices of loss.

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?
his millingness to lay down his life, his acceptance of everyone he meets, his ability to feel sorry for draco in HBP.

7. What do you think of Harry's use of Unforgivables in DH?
I think that he knew what was needed at the time and did it. he is brave.

8. Why do you think Harry forgave Snape?
because snape protected harry to the best of his ability, and because snape loved his mother like no other.

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 becoming an auror was an excellent career path.

First, I think that Harry is of the opinion that Snape would have had the courage to actually stand up to Voldemort and fight him. But this is not what motivates Harry to consider Snape "the bravest man I ever knew", since as you correctly point out, Harry knew many men (and women) who showed that same sort of courage.

Harry himself has that type of courage. We see him tell Albus in HBP that if it comes to this in the end, he will go down fighting (as just one example of Harry exhibiting this kind of courage, there are many and I am sure you can think of others!)

But, in "The Forest Again", Harry realizes that he will need to have a different kind of courage. The courage to NOT stand up and fight Voldemort. To just go, and leave his friends, his beloved, and his whole life behind, and face Voldemort and NOT fight him.

As he thinks to himself:

If only he could have died on that summer's night when he had left number four, Privet Drive, for the last time,l when the noble phoenix-feather wand had saved him! If he could only have died like Hedwig, so quickly he would not have known it had happened! Or if he could have launched himself in front of a wand to save someone he loved...He envied even his parents' deaths now. This cold-blooded walk to his own destruction would require a different kind of bravery.

It is this same sort of courage, I believe, that Harry credits Snape with. He saw Snape display it when he witnessed Snape's murder, and he understands in the end, that this was what Snape's role as a spy required him to do over and over. And this is why he believes what he tells Albus Severus, and why it does not, in his mind, detract from anyone else. Harry has done both, and he knows which he found hardest.

bold mine

Brilliant A! :clap:

What I really like about Harry as a character is that he isn't perfect. He doesn't know everything as "heros" in most books do, he needs help with fighting Voldemort.
But he is getting on my nerves with his self-pity (can you say that? is that grammatically right? I don't know, sorry if it isn't...).
I mean of course it is tragic that he lost his parents, but actually he hadn't really known them. There are people (like Sirius and Remus) who had known them for a long time, but Harry never even thinks about that they could maybe also miss them.
The same happens when Sirius dies. Harry is unconsolable, but he never thinks of Remus, Sirius best friend. I mean Sirius is one of my favourite characters it is okay to be sad when he dies but Harry only had known him for about two years.
It's also very invidious, when he says that he had, for the first time of his life, a family (talking about Sirius), the Weasleys have been his family for years, Molly accepted and treated him like his son. They did so much for him and that's the way he thanks them...
(But of course that makes him even a better character, because he isn't perfect, he also has a "dark" side.)

What I really like about Harry as a character is that he isn't perfect. He doesn't know everything as "heros" in most books do, he needs help with fighting Voldemort.
But he is getting on my nerves with his self-pity (can you say that? is that grammatically right? I don't know, sorry if it isn't...).
I mean of course it is tragic that he lost his parents, but actually he hadn't really known them. There are people (like Sirius and Remus) who had known them for a long time, but Harry never even thinks about that they could maybe also miss them.
The same happens when Sirius dies. Harry is unconsolable, but he never thinks of Remus, Sirius best friend. I mean Sirius is one of my favourite characters it is okay to be sad when he dies but Harry only had known him for about two years.
It's also very invidious, when he says that he had, for the first time of his life, a family (talking about Sirius), the Weasleys have been his family for years, Molly accepted and treated him like his son. They did so much for him and that's the way he thanks them...
(But of course that makes him even a better character, because he isn't perfect, he also has a "dark" side.)

Harry is uncosolable after Sirius death, and he doesn't care about Remus in loud voice, (although we cannot be sure that he doesn't pity Remus inside, Harry is a very introverted person).
Also, although he has the Weasleys, in that family he had to share, and he was a mix between a guest and a son (sharing with 7 more). However, Sirius was exclusively his and also was a connection to his true parents. Although Harry loves the Weasleys, I doubt that Harry ever felt a Weasley himself.

But I agree with you: the best part of Harry as a characer is that he doesn't know everything, he is not perfect, and he needs help.

Brilliant A! :clap:

I'm not seeing the parallel, though. Snape never goes to Voldemort intending to die, while Harry does. Harry never thinks of Snape's action while he did what he needed to do, or afterwards that we know of, and the text makes no comparisons between what they did.

Epilogue Harry never explains just why he thinks Snape was "probably the bravest man I ever knew." As far as I can tell, neither does the text. It's just sort of randomly thrown out there. I wonder why interviewers never ask Rowling to clarify these sort of things? I have no idea what she intended, or what Harry was thinking. It would have helped me if it came with some sort of an explanation!

I'm not seeing the parallel, though. Snape never goes to Voldemort intending to die, while Harry does. Harry never thinks of Snape's action while he did what he needed to do, or afterwards that we know of, and the text makes no comparisons between what they did.

Epilogue Harry never explains just why he thinks Snape was "probably the bravest man I ever knew." As far as I can tell, neither does the text. It's just sort of randomly thrown out there. I wonder why interviewers never ask Rowling to clarify these sort of things? I have no idea what she intended, or what Harry was thinking. It would have helped me if it came with some sort of an explanation!

I think you are correct OldMother, I don't think Snape had any intention of dying. Well, he had yet to deliver the message to Harry for one thing. I have no doubt that in a battle Snape would have fought and fought well, but one of the reasons for doing that would be to survive. It's basic human instinct after all and it takes nothing away from Snape. It takes a very special kind of courage to calmly and deliberately walk to your death and Harry had that courage in spades. The thing with Harry telling little Albus that Snape was 'probably' the bravest man he ever knew is the same thing it has always been for me. 'Probably' is not 'definitely' and that leaves me with a big doubt that Harry definitely meant it. Rowling is too good an author to just carelessly replace the one word with the other, and she worked on that epilogue for a long time. Every single word in it would have been chosen with the utmost care.

It takes a very special kind of courage to calmly and deliberately walk to your death and Harry had that courage in spades.

Indeed!

Besides, Harry does not say that "Me and Snape are the bravest people I've ever known". Whatever led Harry to his opinion doesn't seem to have anything to do with Harry's bravery, as far as the text shows. Harry must have a reason for thinking Snape is probably the bravest, but nothing in the text that I can see explains how or why Harry reached this opinion.

I'm not seeing the parallel, though. Snape never goes to Voldemort intending to die, while Harry does. Harry never thinks of Snape's action while he did what he needed to do, or afterwards that we know of, and the text makes no comparisons between what they did.

Epilogue Harry never explains just why he thinks Snape was "probably the bravest man I ever knew." As far as I can tell, neither does the text. It's just sort of randomly thrown out there. I wonder why interviewers never ask Rowling to clarify these sort of things? I have no idea what she intended, or what Harry was thinking. It would have helped me if it came with some sort of an explanation!

From Arithmancer's post
But, in "The Forest Again", Harry realizes that he will need to have a different kind of courage. The courage to NOT stand up and fight Voldemort. To just go, and leave his friends, his beloved, and his whole life behind, and face Voldemort and NOT fight him.

It is this same sort of courage, I believe, that Harry credits Snape with. He saw Snape display it when he witnessed Snape's murder, and he understands in the end, that this was what Snape's role as a spy required him to do over and over. And this is why he believes what he tells Albus Severus, and why it does not, in his mind, detract from anyone else. Harry has done both, and he knows which he found hardest.

This is what I greatly appreciated in her post. To take a step backwards; it takes greater courage to refrain from acting, even when in every fibre of your being you want to do so. Harry does that in the Forest; he refrains from attacking Voldemort; he wants to fight Voldemort, he does not want any more people to die for him, he wants to end it all; now he has been given a chance to do that, only it means that he should offer himself to Voldemort, not fight him and allow Voldemort to kill him, so he refrains from fighting Voldemort, allowing him to attack Harry.

I like the comparison, about not just one action of Snape, for example watching Charity Burbage die, or he, himself being killed, but that as a spy, it meant that Snape had to constantly refrain from acting the way he would have if he were not a spy or if he was not constrained by always needing to look at the bigger picture. Harry did that in the Forest and we have an inkling of how he felt as he walked to his death. Snape, Harry realised, did this day in and day out.

I can't speak for A!, but this is what I came away with from her post and I totally agree with what's she's written.

From her post the DH quote ::

If only he could have died on that summer's night when he had left number four, Privet Drive, for the last time,l when the noble phoenix-feather wand had saved him! If he could only have died like Hedwig, so quickly he would not have known it had happened! Or if he could have launched himself in front of a wand to save someone he loved...He envied even his parents' deaths now. This cold-blooded walk to his own destruction would require a different kind of bravery. bold mine

This is what I greatly appreciated in her post. To take a step backwards; it takes greater courage to refrain from acting, even when in every fibre of your being you want to do so. Harry does that in the Forest; he refrains from attacking Voldemort; he wants to fight Voldemort, he does not want any more people to die for him, he wants to end it all; now he has been given a chance to do that, only it means that he should offer himself to Voldemort, not fight him and allow Voldemort to kill him, so he refrains from fighting Voldemort, allowing him to attack Harry.

I like the comparison, about not just one action of Snape, for example watching Charity Burbage die, or he, himself being killed, but that as a spy, it meant that Snape had to constantly refrain from acting the way he would have if he were not a spy or if he was not constrained by always needing to look at the bigger picture. Harry did that in the Forest and we have an inkling of how he felt as he walked to his death. Snape, Harry realised, did this day in and day out.

I can't speak for A!, but this is what I came away with from her post and I totally agree with what's she's written.

From her post the DH quote ::

If only he could have died on that summer's night when he had left number four, Privet Drive, for the last time,l when the noble phoenix-feather wand had saved him! If he could only have died like Hedwig, so quickly he would not have known it had happened! Or if he could have launched himself in front of a wand to save someone he loved...He envied even his parents' deaths now. This cold-blooded walk to his own destruction would require a different kind of bravery. bold mine

But this is all to do with Harry, quoted practically verbatim from canon. We can't say it can apply equally to Snape because he was never in Harry's position. We can't say that if Snape had not spied for Dumbledore he would have been able to try to save Charity. If Snape had not spied for Dumbledore he would have been seated at that table as a Death Eater. It's Harry's actions that we are reading about here and nothing about them has anything to do with Snape. Snape has his own storyline and thread actually.

After completeing the series, and then rereading it, because I "consumed" each book as quickly as I could for the first reading, I have come to appreciate and admire Harry for his bravery and loyalty.

Up to HBP, he was a typical kid. As several have posted before, like most kids he thought he knew best and that adults were being overprotective.

I think we start to see the beginnings of his maturing in OotP, when he starts the DA classes to make sure as many of the students as possible are given as much knowledge about defending themselves as he can give them.

But, we also see his immaturity in rushing to the Ministry to "save" Sirius. He'd already been warned by Professor Snape that the mental connection between himself and Voldemort could work both ways and that Voldemort could send deceptive images to lure him into trouble. IMO, it was his dislike and mistrust of Severus that caused him to disregard that warning and to not check with him about Sirius before heading for the MoM.

Unfortunately, he paid a terrible price for that. I think, though, this is a point where he really begins to grow up and trust Dumbledore's counsel more. All through HBP, Harry exhibits this more and more. The scene in the cave was so difficult to read. I can only imagine what it was like for the character, Harry, to have to continue to administer the poison from the basin to someone that he cared so much for, and to watch him suffer so terribly. Then, so see Dumbledore killed and right in front of Harry, and him not be able to do anything at all about it. That was another crushing blow. But, Harry rose to the challenge and moved on to carry out Dumbledore's orders throughout DH.

I think that, from TPT on, we see "Harry Potter, the man." He's seen Severus' memories and has processed them, giving him a whole new perspective on the man he hated for so long. He even uses them to taunt Voldemort about where Severus' loyalties lay. We see, in the Epilogue, that Harry realized what risks Severus faced as a double agent against Voldemort, and, to me, this is why he considered him "the bravest man I ever knew." While others faced dangers and overcame them, they were only occasional. Severus lived with danger ever day lest his cover be blown. I think Harry realized this and was then able to reconcile himself with all of the years of conflict between them and appreciate what Severus had done for the Wizarding World, and for him, in particular.

But, the ultimate proof of Harry's maturity and courage, IMO, is shown when he goes to face Voldemort knowing that he must allow the Dark Lord to kill him. I'm not sure how many people could take that walk with the strength and bravery that we see in Harry. This is one of the best scenes in the entire series, and, IMO shows the culmination of all that Harry had grown to be since he left Platform 9 3/4 and headed to Hogwarts that first time.

Harry Potter and maturity don't seem to go hand in hand for me. While it is true he improved quite a bit in Deathly Hallows before hand i always saw him as quite immature.

Remember despite the warnings from Dumbledore, Remus, Sirius and Hermione about the dangers of the link between his and Voldemort's mind Harry ignored all of them thinking he was right and they were wrong, plus he was unwilling to apologise to Snape even though what Harry did was wrong. This immaturity arguably cost Sirius his life because Sirius wouldn't have died if Harry had learnt to shield his mind from Voldemort (or at least realised his mind could be manipulated by Voldemort).

Harry must have a reason for thinking Snape is probably the bravest, but nothing in the text that I can see explains how or why Harry reached this opinion.

I have to disagree. I think Snape was indeed one of the bravest men in the series. Being a spy for Dumbledore whilst being in Voldemorts inner cirlce was mortally dangerous, but he did it anyways. He risked his life for nearly 7 years trying to protect Harry. That's extremely brave if you ask me.

Remember despite the warnings from Dumbledore, Remus, Sirius and Hermione about the dangers of the link between his and Voldemort's mind Harry ignored all of them thinking he was right and they were wrong, plus he was unwilling to apologise to Snape even though what Harry did was wrong. This immaturity arguably cost Sirius his life because Sirius wouldn't have died if Harry had learnt to shield his mind from Voldemort (or at least realised his mind could be manipulated by Voldemort).

Harry is 15 in OotP. Lots and lots of kids that age don't like to do their homework, especially if it is assigned by a hated teacher. It is not adult, responsible behavior, but I would say it is age-appropriate and thus not something I would describe as "immature". And Harry learns from his OotP mistakes, which is the normal process for young people to go through as they mature.

After completeing the series, and then rereading it, because I "consumed" each book as quickly as I could for the first reading, I have come to appreciate and admire Harry for his bravery and loyalty.

Up to HBP, he was a typical kid. As several have posted before, like most kids he thought he knew best and that adults were being overprotective.

I think we start to see the beginnings of his maturing in OotP, when he starts the DA classes to make sure as many of the students as possible are given as much knowledge about defending themselves as he can give them.

But, we also see his immaturity in rushing to the Ministry to "save" Sirius. He'd already been warned by Professor Snape that the mental connection between himself and Voldemort could work both ways and that Voldemort could send deceptive images to lure him into trouble. IMO, it was his dislike and mistrust of Severus that caused him to disregard that warning and to not check with him about Sirius before heading for the MoM.

Unfortunately, he paid a terrible price for that. I think, though, this is a point where he really begins to grow up and trust Dumbledore's counsel more. All through HBP, Harry exhibits this more and more. The scene in the cave was so difficult to read. I can only imagine what it was like for the character, Harry, to have to continue to administer the poison from the basin to someone that he cared so much for, and to watch him suffer so terribly. Then, so see Dumbledore killed and right in front of Harry, and him not be able to do anything at all about it. That was another crushing blow. But, Harry rose to the challenge and moved on to carry out Dumbledore's orders throughout DH.

I think that, from TPT on, we see "Harry Potter, the man." He's seen Severus' memories and has processed them, giving him a whole new perspective on the man he hated for so long. He even uses them to taunt Voldemort about where Severus' loyalties lay. We see, in the Epilogue, that Harry realized what risks Severus faced as a double agent against Voldemort, and, to me, this is why he considered him "the bravest man I ever knew." While others faced dangers and overcame them, they were only occasional. Severus lived with danger ever day lest his cover be blown. I think Harry realized this and was then able to reconcile himself with all of the years of conflict between them and appreciate what Severus had done for the Wizarding World, and for him, in particular.

But, the ultimate proof of Harry's maturity and courage, IMO, is shown when he goes to face Voldemort knowing that he must allow the Dark Lord to kill him. I'm not sure how many people could take that walk with the strength and bravery that we see in Harry. This is one of the best scenes in the entire series, and, IMO shows the culmination of all that Harry had grown to be since he left Platform 9 3/4 and headed to Hogwarts that first time.

I would agree with a lot of this except I think we see Harry the Man walk away from Dobby's grave that he had dug with his own hands.

I have to disagree. I think Snape was indeed one of the bravest men in the series. Being a spy for Dumbledore whilst being in Voldemorts inner cirlce was mortally dangerous, but he did it anyways. He risked his life for nearly 7 years trying to protect Harry. That's extremely brave if you ask me.

One of the bravest? That I could understand. I think Snape was brave, I think the text bears that out quite well. But the bravest? I'd need an explanation from someone-- in this case Harry Potter, because it is his opinion, or an explanation from the narrator about what Harry was thinking.

It is sort of like if Harry declared that lemon is obviously the best flavor of Bertie Bott's Every Flavor Bean. That statement does nothing to change my opinion of lemon flavor, it just lets me know that he thinks it is best. If Harry said it was best because it is the only flavor that uses all natural organic ingredients and all proceeds from the sale of lemon flavor was donated to charity-- and none of the other bean flavors did this-- then at the least I would understand why he likes lemon so very much more so than all the other flavors, even if I still didn't agree; and at the most I might say "Wow, you're right, that is way better than all other flavors!" and agree with his opinion. As it is, Harry;s opinion of Snape is just Harry liking lemon flavor best without explanation from him or the text. So it just leaves agreeing with him or disagreeing as something based on whatever conclusion I've already come to on my own. I don't see Snape as the bravest, Harry doesn't explain at all why he thinks so, and neither does the text. I'd like to know why Harry thinks so, but JK Rowling might be the only one who can answer the question of what was going on in Harry's head.

Harry is 15 in OotP. Lots and lots of kids that age don't like to do their homework, especially if it is assigned by a hated teacher. It is not adult, responsible behavior, but I would say it is age-appropriate and thus not something I would describe as "immature". And Harry learns from his OotP mistakes, which is the normal process for young people to go through as they mature.

Except the very next year he practically ignores Dumbledore's request for him to try and get the memory from Slughorn for most of the year as he thought that what Draco Malfoy was doing was more important even though Dumbledore had already told Harry about the importance of the memory Slughorn had. It wasn't until near the end of the year that Harry actually made any kind of serious effort to get that memory.

Harry must have a reason for thinking Snape is probably the bravest, but nothing in the text that I can see explains how or why Harry reached this opinion.

IMO I presume Harry thought through the following things.

1) The memories he showed Harry. That took guts.

Thinking about the memories and all he knew of Snape in this light, I guess Harry probably understood ::

2) The life Snape led, the courage it took to come to Dumbledore on the hill and then keep his cover among the remaining DEs notably Lucius, Rookwood, McNair, Crabbe, Goyle and others who were free, which meant living a life that had no freedom and one where he was perpetually undercover 24/7 for almost 13 years.

3) Working as a spy for Dumbledore in the First war, until Harry did Voldy in.

4) Once Voldemort appeared in Harry's fourth year, being pressed into active service, which meant lying to Voldemort's face, knowing that the punishment for slipping even a tiny bit was death.

5) Killing Dumbledore and sacrificing all the good things he had worked to accumulate once he left Voldemort.

6) Willing and unafraid to stand up to Dumbledore if he thought Dumbledore was wrong.

7) Agreeing to pass on the message to Harry. That must have really, really hurt Snape, who now probably have felt that he had a hand in the death of the third Potter as well and one he had undertaken a promise to protect.

8) What arithmancer said in her post.

9) Not showing Harry anything negative about James or Sirius. No 4 on 1's which would have hurt Harry.

10) That Snape did all this all alone.

11) That he truly felt remorse for Lily and James.

I think Harry thought through all this and more probably, before he concluded that Snape was probably the bravest man he ever knew.

Indeed!
Besides, Harry does not say that "Me and Snape are the bravest people I've ever known". Whatever led Harry to his opinion doesn't seem to have anything to do with Harry's bravery, as far as the text shows. Harry must have a reason for thinking Snape is probably the bravest, but nothing in the text that I can see explains how or why Harry reached this opinion.

I would agree. I don't think there's anything in the text that would explain why Harry would consider Snape "probably the bravest man" he ever knew. I also think that it's significant he said "probably", as it allows for the possibility that others were braver.

I think you are correct OldMother, I don't think Snape had any intention of dying. Well, he had yet to deliver the message to Harry for one thing. I have no doubt that in a battle Snape would have fought and fought well, but one of the reasons for doing that would be to survive. It's basic human instinct after all and it takes nothing away from Snape. It takes a very special kind of courage to calmly and deliberately walk to your death and Harry had that courage in spades.

I think that's a good point. It's also vastly different from Snape's spying. Snape knew there was a risk he would be exposed and murdered, but he had the hope and possibility that his Occlumency would keep his secret safe.
Whereas Harry fully expected that he would be murdered, and that would be that. He had no hope, no possibility of survival, as far as he knew, when he was walking into the forest. That, to me, is the epitome of courage, more than anything else in the series.

IMO I presume Harry thought through the following things.
1) The memories he showed Harry. That took guts.

Or a lack of any other way to tell Harry what must happen. He wasn't exactly in a position to launch into an explanation, himself, after Nagini's bite.

2) The life Snape led, the courage it took to come to Dumbledore on the hill and then keep his cover among the remaining DEs notably Lucius, Rookwood, McNair, Crabbe, Goyle and others who were free, which meant living a life that had no freedom and one where he was perpetually undercover 24/7 for almost 13 years.

The alternative to which may well have been Azkaban, which would also have meant no freedom, and Dementors 24/7.

3) Working as a spy for Dumbledore in the First war, until Harry did Voldy in.

4) Once Voldemort appeared in Harry's fourth year, being pressed into active service, which meant lying to Voldemort's face, knowing that the punishment for slipping even a tiny bit was death.

I think it might also have occurred to Harry that no other Order member was in a position to spy on Voldemort as no other Order member had joined the megalomaniac in question, apart from Wormtail.

11) That he truly felt remorse for Lily and James.

Any canon to show that Snape felt remorse for James' death?

This is the Harry thread, not the Snape thread. If you're going to discuss why Harry thought Snape "probably the bravest man..." keep the emphasis on Harry's feelings, not Snape's merits/failings, please. If I can't see how a post or part of a post is relevant to Harry, I'm going to delete it.

Or a lack of any other way to tell Harry what must happen. He wasn't exactly in a position to launch into an explanation, himself, after Nagini's bite.

I meant the type of memories Harry received from Snape.

The alternative to which may well have been Azkaban, which would also have meant no freedom, and Dementors 24/7.

Will answer in the Snape thread.

I think it might also have occurred to Harry that no other Order member was in a position to spy on Voldemort as no other Order member had joined the megalomaniac in question, apart from Wormtail.

I don't think one should be a DE to turn to spying; one can infiltrate the DE by pretending to be one. (I hope this is okay in this thread)


Any canon to show that Snape felt remorse for James' death?

Will answer in the Snape thread.

Hermy had an excellent set of questions to open this thread.

1. If the years at 12 Privet Drive can be said to have done anything, it is that they battered Harry's self-image. This strengthened his natural compassion, made him leary of accepted class difference, and it made him a generous, caring and loyal friend when he got the chance to make them. The only positive that came out of the Dursley experience is that it prevented Harry from being puffed with pride or pushed toward easy malice. It burnished away the most significant flaw in James Potter's character, the one that he grew out of but that we didn't get a chance to see him grow out of.

I'll come back to edit and expand this later.

From the Severus Snape thread:

As for how he treated Harry, I doubt Harry himself would go out of his way to be nice to Scorpius. (DD compared the James-Severus rivalry to Harry-Draco)

I don't agree with this. At all. :)

The Harry who saved Draco's life in DH would never have taken out an old schoolboy grudge on Draco's son, IMO. Why would he? Scorpius is not his father and he is not responsible for what his dad did when he was a schoolboy. I think Harry buried his feud with Draco the moment he saved him from the Fiendfyre. He would have no reason to treat Draco's son badly, nor would he, I believe, want to do such a thing. I think that Harry grew up to be a mature, compassionate man.

IMHO.

The Harry who saved Draco's life in DH would never have taken out an old schoolboy grudge on Draco's son, IMO. Why would he? Scorpius is not his father and he is not responsible for what his dad did when he was a schoolboy. I think Harry buried his feud with Draco the moment he saved him from the Fiendfyre. He would have no reason to treat Draco's son badly, nor would he, I believe, want to do such a thing. I think that Harry grew up to be a mature, compassionate man.

IMHO.

:agree: I think the reader can decipher from Harry's comments to his son alone, that he has learnt and developed in wisdom and maturity from his own life experiences as well as those of others. Harry knows what it feels to like to be an receiving end and suffer for the behaviour/wrongs of a generation before. I doubt very much Harry would inflict judgement on an innocent party for the wrongs of another. Imo.

I agree with both of the previous posts. I think, having been on the receiving end of being disliked for what your father did before you were even born, Harry would have been sensative to that, at the very least.

But, I don't see adult Harry as a vindictive person, so I don't tink this type of thing would even occur to him. I feel that, even if he had harbored bad feelings for Draco, once Harry went through the events from the Chapter "The Battle of Hogwarts" on, that type of thing was so minor in comparison, it wouldn't even have been worth his notice. Having faced what he did with Voldemort in the Forest and then later in the castle...after seeing the deaths and devastation, I don't think petty things like schoolboy grudges were worth his time.

I have a question, and, it's probably already been answered some time back, but, I havent seen anything lately:

Having learned that he was a wizard, having gone to Diagon Alley and purchased his school supplies (so he knew it wasn't a prank or anything), finding out his parents were a witch and wizard and had been killed by a Dark Wizard, I would have thought that Harry would have been eager to read everything in his new school books while waiting to leave for Hogwarts.

The Dursleys had moved him to Dudley's second bedroom and were ignoring him, andhe had his school things there with him and plenty of time on his hands. I wonder why he was so unprepared when he went to Hogwarts?

The more I think of it, after being so thrilled with the information that he was a wizard, I would have expected Harry to dive right into his school books and try to become a bit more familiar with the world of his parents. His lack of preparation going into an entirely different kind of school/class was, to me, kind of surprising.

If it was just a matter of changing from one Muggle school to another, I could see an 11-year-old boy not wanting to crack a book during the Summer. But, going into a whole new world that he knew absolutely nothing about -- that he'd been intentionally held back from -- I would have thought he'd have wanted to know as much as he could. But, it seems he just goofed off until time to leave on September 1st.

Any thoughts on this?

Hm...well, we know they were assigned homework, and we see Harry doing that work in PoA, so I don't think he was entirely behind on assigned readings. As for general curiosity, though, I think he just didn't think far ahead enough to realize how at sea he'd be in the WW. Harry seems to just go out and experience new things as they come, rather than prepare for eventualities.

Thanks, Annie and MinCat. :tu:

But, it seems he just goofed off until time to leave on September 1st.

I wouldn't say he 'goofed off'. :whistle: Not 11 year old Harry, at any rate. He wasn't happy or relaxed enough at the Dursleys to be able to 'goof off'. :(

I wouldn't say that the older Harry 'goofs off' either. Both he and Ron don't work as hard as Hermione, we know that, and Teenage Harry too often gets distracted by ... minor stuff like trying to ascertain whether Draco Malfoy is a DE. :yuhup: :D But that's not quite the same as goofing off, either. Harry is a troubled boy, and too often gets distracted by the things that trouble him!

I was going to say something about a child like Harry, who has experienced abuse, having a 'lack of attention' disorder, but on reflection I think that would be over-analysing PS/SS. It's the most child-like of the books, after all, it is a children's book when all is said and done. It's as the series develops that we get more character development.

Harry seems to just go out and experience new things as they come, rather than prepare for eventualities.

:agree:

Poor Harry. It hurts my soul to read how a poor little 11 year old boy is supposed to be responsible for the abuse he received from a grown man for the simple crime of not thanking a teacher for something that he didn't know happened until many months later. How could Harry thank Snape if he didn't know what Snape did for him? At what point was Snape justified in his treatment of Harry. Was it after Quirrellmort told Harry about Snape being the one who saved him? Shame on Harry, an eleven year old boy who just survived his first encounter with Voldemort, for forgetting his manners.

I don't know how it works in British boarding schools, but I have never in my life encountered a situation where a student had to learn everything in their textbooks before they got to school. Isn't that the point of classes? I certainly don't think Harry was expected to know the answers to the questions Snape asked him.

Just my opinion. Harry is my favorite character. :agree:

I don't know how it works in British boarding schools, but I have never in my life encountered a situation where a student had to learn everything in their textbooks before they got to school.

Neither have I. At least, not with eleven-year-olds in their first year. I didn't go to boarding school, but Hogwarts is clearly modelled on a boarding school stuck in the 1950s. :lol: And even then, it's hardly a realistic parallel.

Isn't that the point of classes?

:D

The Harry who saved Draco's life in DH would never have taken out an old schoolboy grudge on Draco's son, IMO. Why would he? Scorpius is not his father and he is not responsible for what his dad did when he was a schoolboy. I think Harry buried his feud with Draco the moment he saved him from the Fiendfyre. He would have no reason to treat Draco's son badly, nor would he, I believe, want to do such a thing. I think that Harry grew up to be a mature, compassionate man.

I agree. I think the Epilogue Harry had experienced a lot of things over his lifetime, and had no desire to relive past grudges, and I don't think he would ever have a desire to transfer the target of a grudge from father to son. Harry spoke to his own son about the power of choice. I think Harry would judge anyone by what they chose to do as an idividual-- and even if he would then end up not liking the person, Harry doesn't strike me as vindictive.

If it was just a matter of changing from one Muggle school to another, I could see an 11-year-old boy not wanting to crack a book during the Summer. But, going into a whole new world that he knew absolutely nothing about -- that he'd been intentionally held back from -- I would have thought he'd have wanted to know as much as he could. But, it seems he just goofed off until time to leave on September 1st.

Harry did look at his text books-- I think the text said that he found them interesting. He even got Hedwig's name from A History of Magic, if I remember correctly. So I would say he did look through them.

I think it was just a lot of information for Harry to assimilate. Harry had had a lot more to handed to him than just the fact that he was a wizard. He had found out that not only were his aunt and uncle abusive, they were also liars. Hagrid had told Harry not only about being a wizard, but also about the first war, Harry's parents, their murders, the attempted murder of Harry, the Big Bad Evil Guy Voldemort, Voldemort's disappearance, and blood prejudice. That's a lot of stuff for an 11-year-old to deal with all at once, in my opinion, and I don't know that the explanations for those things that Harry had foremost in his mind would be found anywhere in the class text books Harry had at hand.

This has nothing to do with Snape or blaming Harry for Snape mistreating him. Nor, do I think Harry had to know everything before going to school. Possibly I worded by question wrong. But, Harry seemed so thrilled when Hagrid took him to Diagon Alley for his school supplies. I'm just wondering why he never seemed to read them before he went to school. It would seem to me, finding out his parents were magical beings, he would have wanted to learn as much about their world as possible before experiencing it, especially since he found out the Dursleys had withheld so much from him for so long.

Hermione is a Muggle-born and has practically memorized her books before starting school. That's not to say Harry should have been like Hermione, just that I would have thought he'd have been more curious. I thought maybe it was because he was still in the cupboard and didn't have his books. But, the Dursley's were ignoring him, and he'd been moved to the bedroom where he had room for his things.

I was just surprised that he wasn't more interested in the WW than he was.

That's a lot of stuff for an 11-year-old to deal with all at once, in my opinion, and I don't know that the explanations for those things that Harry had foremost in his mind would be found anywhere in the class text books Harry had at hand.

I agree with you here. Normal wizarding children gradually learnt about Voldemort and his regime from their parents throughout their childhood, and still they were so sacred of him that they couldn't speak his name, or talk about him without deep fear. I think it must've been much more difficult for Harry to deal with this information, considering that he was directly involved with Voldemort.

Hermione is a Muggle-born and has practically memorized her books before starting school.

Hermione had a strong ability of memorizing things, this fact has been established in the books, in many situations and incidents. Putting this fact aside, there's a chance Hermione could've got her letter much earlier than Harry and Ron, therefore the amount of information and magical knowledge she had, when the school finally started, was naturally wider than their own.

I would agree that Harry's curiosity should've motivated him to learn more about the world he was about to enter. But I don't think he would have been able to keep a lot of little details in his head, about a world he never knew existed, it must've been completely overwhelming :shrug:.

I agree with both of the previous posts. I think, having been on the receiving end of being disliked for what your father did before you were even born, Harry would have been sensative to that, at the very least.

But, I don't see adult Harry as a vindictive person, so I don't tink this type of thing would even occur to him. I feel that, even if he had harbored bad feelings for Draco, once Harry went through the events from the Chapter "The Battle of Hogwarts" on, that type of thing was so minor in comparison, it wouldn't even have been worth his notice. Having faced what he did with Voldemort in the Forest and then later in the castle...after seeing the deaths and devastation, I don't think petty things like schoolboy grudges were worth his time.

I have a question, and, it's probably already been answered some time back, but, I havent seen anything lately:

Having learned that he was a wizard, having gone to Diagon Alley and purchased his school supplies (so he knew it wasn't a prank or anything), finding out his parents were a witch and wizard and had been killed by a Dark Wizard, I would have thought that Harry would have been eager to read everything in his new school books while waiting to leave for Hogwarts.

The Dursleys had moved him to Dudley's second bedroom and were ignoring him, andhe had his school things there with him and plenty of time on his hands. I wonder why he was so unprepared when he went to Hogwarts?

The more I think of it, after being so thrilled with the information that he was a wizard, I would have expected Harry to dive right into his school books and try to become a bit more familiar with the world of his parents. His lack of preparation going into an entirely different kind of school/class was, to me, kind of surprising.

If it was just a matter of changing from one Muggle school to another, I could see an 11-year-old boy not wanting to crack a book during the Summer. But, going into a whole new world that he knew absolutely nothing about -- that he'd been intentionally held back from -- I would have thought he'd have wanted to know as much as he could. But, it seems he just goofed off until time to leave on September 1st.

Any thoughts on this?

Well, it's what I would have done, but not everyone react the same. Sometimes it's inexplicable.

Come to think of it, we rarely see Harry crack a book except the HBP's and later the one on Dumbledore. Seems like he has to be very motivated to do so. I always thought it odd he never looked at the mirror Sirius gave him; that he forgot it.

Let me try again, as I don't seem to be getting my question across. This is not a criticism of Harry. I'm simply wondering:

Why do you think Harry does not seem curious about the information in the school books he had available to him?

I didn't expect that he would have memorized them as Hermione had done. I don't see many 11-year-olds doing that.

But, since he seemed so thrilled when Hagrid told him he was a wizard and when he found out about his parents and that a whole world he belonged to had been withheld from him; then there was all the fuss made over him in the Leaky Cauldron, I'm just curious as to why he didn't seem interested in learning as much as he could before going to Hogwarts? That's all. :scared:

But, since he seemed so thrilled when Hagrid told him he was a wizard and when he found out about his parents and that a whole world he belonged to had been withheld from him; then there was all the fuss made over him in the Leaky Cauldron, I'm just curious as to why he didn't seem interested in learning as much as he could before going to Hogwarts? That's all. :scared:

I think that is just it, all these new impressions, emotions and attention he received upon meeting Hagrid and entering the wizarding world must have been pretty intensive for a boy that was used to being neglected and ignored. So the way I see it, his mind was full of these impressions, his wand, his owl etc that books were not on his mind. Harry has never been bookish like Hermione always seems to have been.

If I'm not mistaken, I seem to remember Harry thinking to himself that he did flip through his books when he first got them. I could be wrong though.

However, I also have to say that being asked questions on the first day of class isn't unusual. Part of a teacher's job is to ask questions and check the students for prior knowledge they may have. The questioning itself isn't a problem, IMO, but perhaps the manner in which it was done.

And just for the record: I too am a Harry fan... otherwise I wouldn't have read and re-read this series. ;)

Let me try again, as I don't seem to be getting my question across. This is not a criticism of Harry. I'm simply wondering:

Why do you think Harry does not seem curious about the information in the school books he had available to him?

I didn't expect that he would have memorized them as Hermione had done. I don't see many 11-year-olds doing that.

But, since he seemed so thrilled when Hagrid told him he was a wizard and when he found out about his parents and that a whole world he belonged to had been withheld from him; then there was all the fuss made over him in the Leaky Cauldron, I'm just curious as to why he didn't seem interested in learning as much as he could before going to Hogwarts? That's all. :scared:

Harry was interested in his school books:

Harry kept to his room, with his new owl for company. He had decided to call her Hedwig, a name he had found in A History of Magic. His school books were very interesting. He lay on his bed reading late into the night, Hedwig swooping in and out of the open window as she pleased.

I just think he isn't good at memorizing written work or speed reading. I think Harry's introduction to the Wizarding World was very different than the typical student who had been unaware that they were magical, since a lot of it focused on the violence of the first war and his role in it, and Harry may have been more focused on those questions rather than the information test books could give him. Harry had eight text books and one month-- I think it probable that he leafed through some parts, skimmed some parts, and read some parts that interested him. I doubt he could read them all in detail from cover to cover, though. But he did show an interest in them in that month before school started.

If I'm not mistaken, I seem to remember Harry thinking to himself that he did flip through his books when he first got them. I could be wrong though.

However, I also have to say that being asked questions on the first day of class isn't unusual. Part of a teacher's job is to ask questions and check the students for prior knowledge they may have. The questioning itself isn't a problem, IMO, but perhaps the manner in which it was done.

And just for the record: I too am a Harry fan... otherwise I wouldn't have read and re-read this series. ;)

I guess this is what I'm getting at. He flipped through them. I would have thought he'd have been as hungry for information as Lily was, coming from a completely Muggle background. I don't see it as being "bookish," but as being totally curious about something really special that has been denied to you all of those years.

He was lied to by the Dursleys, concerning his parents' deaths. Hagrid gave him a bit of information during their shopping spree, and he had access to all of these books about something he was a part of but had never had the opportunity to learn about. I guess I feel natural curiosity would have caused him to want to do more than just flip through the books.

And, for the record. I'm a Harry fan...I don't think I said I wasn't. IMO, questioning a character's actions doesn't mean you don't like them. I was just curious about why others thought Harry didn't seem as interested in or curious about the WW as an 11-year-old might have been.

As for teachers asking questions the first day, I had several different teachers during my school years who gave pop quizzes the first day just to find out what the students did or didn't know about the subject. So, no, I don't think it's unusual. The discussion seems to center around whether Harry was being singled out for ridicule and, if so, why. And, there are a good many theories on the Snape thread about that.

I guess I feel natural curiosity would have caused him to want to do more than just flip through the books.

I think the quote I provided shows that he was curious and did read them. I am uncertain about why you think Harry didn't read his books?

I think "laying on his bed reading late into the night" is more than just flipping through them. Maybe his Potions textbook was at the bottom of the stack, or the least interesting to Harry personally, or too full of words he didn't understand like asphodel, bezoar and monkshood. :whistle:

I think the quote I provided shows that he was curious and did read them. I am uncertain about why you think Harry didn't read his books?

Because he says he flipped through them. IMO, that is not the same as reading them. I would expect that, as intelligent as Harry was, he would have retained something. But, he was pretty much clueless. He never mentioned during SS/PS "Oh, yeah. I read about that before I came here."

Because he says he flipped through them. IMO, that is not the same as reading them. I would expect that, as intelligent as Harry was, he would have retained something. But, he was pretty much clueless. He never mentioned during SS/PS "Oh, yeah. I read about that before I came here."

I'm not sure where Harry says he only flipped through his books, so I'm just not sure where you are getting that from. The text I provided says that he read them late into the night. With eight whole text books, I wouldn't be surprised if he had flipped through some parts, as some text books can be rather dry and are meant more to support the practical lessons rather than be a sit-down-and-read book, and also that is a lot of reading for an 11 year-old to do in only a month, in my opinion.

It is true that Harry never mentions much about what he reads. He didn't even belong to a library as a kid, so I don't think reading for pleasure was a usual childhood activity for him.

He says in one place that he flipped through him, in another that he looked through them but had not memorized them, and in the quote OldMotherCrow referenced that he stayed up late into the night reading them. Staying up late into the night reading is reading. I don't find it all that surprising that he didn't retain the three very specific pieces of information that he was asked about in his first Potions lesson. Harry seems to learn by doing better than by reading, and he could hardly practice mixing Potions in the smallest bedroom at the Dursley's even though he did have his cauldron and potions ingredients kit.

He says in one place that he flipped through him

Does he? I know the other two quotes, which are in PS/SS, but am drawing a complete blank on that one. Any idea where it can be found? Mostly I'm just curious.

Harry cannot be shown as being the same as Hermione who did read her school books from cover to cover before embarking on the Hogwarts Express for the first time. Harry does look through things. That's how he names Hedwig. He just doesn't care to read through his books. He's probably never really read anything for pleasure before so he doesn't have a want to do so then even though he is in awe of the wizarding world. Those are school books and for school only, in his mind.

Harry says that he looked through his books.

He had looked through his books at the Dursleys', but did Snape expect him to remember everything in One Thousand Magical herbs and Fungi?(PS/SS, The Potions Master)

I think that finding out he was a wizard was not only a shock but quite exciting. Not at least that at last he would be getting away from the Dursleys'. So, I think that Harry probably looked through his books not with the intention of learning anything, but with over-excitement. sometimes when one is excited and things are new, you just can't see the wood for the trees. Well, I know I'm like that.:blush:

I guess, as an avid reader, I could hardly stand to have those books and not dive right into them, even at 11 (when I was skipping lunch to save up money to buy bookis the the school Book Fair).

Harry was probably not a reader -- I doubt the Dursleys would have had much in their home that would have been worth reading -- and this probably explains his lack of interest in the school books. It's not fair to him to personalize my analysis by basing it on my own preferances.

Harry was probably not a reader -- I doubt the Dursleys would have had much in their home that would have been worth reading -- and this probably explains his lack of interest in the school books.

I think you are right, as Harry was not academically minded and therefore probably was not facinated by books.

Harry says that he looked through his books.

He had looked through his books at the Dursleys', but did Snape expect him to remember everything in One Thousand Magical herbs and Fungi?(PS/SS, The Potions Master)

I think that finding out he was a wizard was not only a shock but quite exciting. Not at least that at last he would be getting away from the Dursleys'. So, I think that Harry probably looked through his books not with the intention of learning anything, but with over-excitement. sometimes when one is excited and things are new, you just can't see the wood for the trees. Well, I know I'm like that.:blush:

That's the quote that I was thinking of. Thanks. :) I said "flipped through" because I was going from memory and looking through them is like flipping through them to me. It doesn't seem like he did or could have read through all of his books in one night. I think he just looked through them to get an idea of what he would be learning in each class.

Harry never did seem to be that into his school work to me except for DADA, which IMO he had a personal interest in because his parents were killed by a Dark Wizard...

That's the quote that I was thinking of. Thanks. :) I said "flipped through" because I was going from memory and looking through them is like flipping through them to me. It doesn't seem like he did or could have read through all of his books in one night. I think he just looked through them to get an idea of what he would be learning in each class.

Harry never did seem to be that into his school work to me except for DADA, which IMO he had a personal interest in because his parents were killed by a Dark Wizard...

Actually, Harry read quite a bit at the Dursleys'. He mostly stayed in his room because the Dursleys were now nervous around him. He stayed low key until he had to talk to Vernon the last day of August about getting to London the next day. Here's the quote from PS/SS.


Harry kept to his room, with his new owl for company. He had decided to call her Hedwig, a name he had found in A History of Magic. His schoolbooks were very interesting. He lay on his bed reading late into the night, Hedwig swooping in and out of the window as she pleased.

Actually, Harry read quite a bit at the Dursleys'. He mostly stayed in his room because the Dursleys were now nervous around him. He stayed low key until he had to talk to Vernon the last day of August about getting to London the next day. Here's the quote from PS/SS.


Harry kept to his room, with his new owl for company. He had decided to call her Hedwig, a name he had found in A History of Magic. His schoolbooks were very interesting. He lay on his bed reading late into the night, Hedwig swooping in and out of the window as she pleased.



I agree. There are two things there that say Harry read his schoolbooks: that he found them interesting, and that he read late into the night. "Reading late into the night" in particular is a very direct statement, IMO.
IMO, there is a vast middle ground between "reading a book and memorising everything in it" and "not reading it at all".
(Even Hermione didn't remember every single thing she had read -she did not remember where she had read about Flamel until she had the key word trigger, "alchemy". Plus, she could not remember what was mentioned about the Chamber of Secrets in "Hogwarts: A History".)
When I read a book, I certainly don't remember word for word everything I read or every little detail. I definitely didn't when I was eleven.

Honestly, probably the real reason is a literary one. It is necessary for exposition to the reader so that the reader learns along with Harry. Not very realistic, true, but a device, yes.

Actually, Harry read quite a bit at the Dursleys'. He mostly stayed in his room because the Dursleys were now nervous around him. He stayed low key until he had to talk to Vernon the last day of August about getting to London the next day. Here's the quote from PS/SS.

My comment about him not being that into his schoolwork was meant to refer to the entire series. That's the impression that I got from Harry. I think he was bright, but not that interested in school work. I think he was more interested in the practical application of magic, as well as other things that interest teenage boys, such as Qudditch and palling around with his friends... and getting mixed up in things around the school that provided the main plot for all the books.

I said that he did look through (I used the term flip through) his school books before going to school because I remembered that he thought this at some point in the potions class scene. I don't believe that the quote you provided indicates that he read them in depth. If he had several school books then it would take him many hours just to go through them page by page and reading what caught his interest. And it's Harry himself who indicates that he "looked through" the books. So if that's his assessment of what he did while he was staying at the Dursley's then that's what he did, IMO.

And to be clear... I am not saying that he never read... The main reason I even posted in this thread was to mention that he did go through his books before he attended classes for the first time. He just didn't go through them in depth or was able to remember a lot of things from them. I don't expect him to have done this... However, I also don't think it's unusual for a teacher to ask questions of the students in order to check what prior knowledge they may have on a particular subject.

I said that he did look through (I used the term flip through) his school books before going to school because I remembered that he thought this at some point in the potions class scene. I don't believe that the quote you provided indicates that he read them in depth. If he had several school books then it would take him many hours just to go through them page by page and reading what caught his interest. And it's Harry himself who indicates that he "looked through" the books. So if that's his assessment of what he did while he was staying at the Dursley's then that's what he did, IMO.


Yes, here are Harry's thoughts after Professor Snape wonders whether he'd read any books over the summer:

Harry forced himself to keep looking straight into those cold eyes. He had looked through his books at the Dursleys', but did Snape expect him remember everything in One Thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi? (pg 151 Raincoast ppbk)

The Potions textbook is Magical Drafts and Potions so I have not idea why Harry mentions the Herbology textbook . . . maybe to show how casual the 'looking through' had been?

The Potions textbook is Magical Drafts and Potions so I have not idea why Harry mentions the Herbology textbook . . . maybe to show how casual the 'looking through' had been?


I'd say it's because Snape asked him about wormwood and asphodel.

I always had the feeling that Harry was shown up by Snape, that his professor wanted to prove something and keep the boy, that reminded him so much of James, down from the beginning. Ron looks just as puzzled as Harry feels and he comes from a magical family and has had several brothers at Hogwarts. Yet he doesn't know the answer to any of these questions either. And what I find remarkable, too, is that Hermione seems to be the only student who raises her hand. This indicates that there is no one else in this room who could answer Snape's questions.

I think that Harry is lonely in these last weeks before going to Hogwarts. The Dursleys stopped speaking to him altogether and he isn't sure whether this is worse than the abuse beforehand. My interpretation of this chapter is that Harry pretty much spends all his time in his room with Hedwig and his books. But apart from his trip to Diagon Alley the wizarding world is still alien to Harry. Reading these books about magical creatures like unicorns and strange ingredients must have been an escape at this point, in my view. As exciting as it was, none of this could have seemed real to him, in my opinion. So it's not surprising that Harry didn't really memorise the details, since everything in these books was strange and wondrous.

However, I also don't think it's unusual for a teacher to ask questions of the students in order to check what prior knowledge they may have on a particular subject.

Maybe it isn't unusual for a teacher to quiz the students on the first day. But even so, I still think it's rather unusual for a teacher to quiz just one of them, :lol:.

The Potions textbook is Magical Drafts and Potions so I have not idea why Harry mentions the Herbology textbook . . . maybe to show how casual the 'looking through' had been?

I think Magical drafts and Potions only contains Potion-making steps and recipes, One Thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi on the other hand, contains the magical herbs used as ingredients in Potion-making and their uses, where to find them, etc.

Anyways, I think Harry's reaction indicates that the book is more a reference students in which should look up herbs unknown to them, than a book to be studied by heart. I wouldn't be suprised if Harry hadn't read much in that one in particular, because it must contain so much information, he thought he would need throughout his entire magical education, not his first year, not his first day.

Poor Harry. It hurts my soul to read how a poor little 11 year old boy is supposed to be responsible for the abuse he received from a grown man for the simple crime of not thanking a teacher for something that he didn't know happened until many months later.

ETA - I agree. I don't think it was possible for Harry to thank Snape for anything when he believed Snape was capable of evil things in his first year and after that because Harry came to know (through Dumbledore) that Snape hated James, like he, Harry hated Draco. When Dumbledore mentioned that Snape and James were not unlike Harry and Draco, I think it's possible that Harry thought his father was like him, while Snape was like Draco who he hated more than Dudley; from the end of first year Harry felt almost superior to, and maybe even disdainful of Snape because he was like his father; his father who fought Snape like he fought Draco. It took the SWM for Harry to realise that Snape was bullied like he was. I think it was one of the things that shook Harry to his core.

I think this enmity grew and continued until Harry saw the memories and understood there was more to Snape than what he had understood from day one and I think the result of that understanding and acceptance was Albus Severus.

How could Harry thank Snape if he didn't know what Snape did for him?

I agree. Harry never knew what Snape did for him and until he did I don't think it was even possible for Harry to view Snape with anything other than dislike or outright hatred.

But, I do believe somewhere inside, Harry wanted something more from Snape; he was punished by other teachers, somehow with Snape it was different. After the SWM, I think Harry realised what it was that he had unconsciously saw in Snape; it was himself imo. Snape's attitude towards his father and Sirius started looking different in Harry's eyes than it was previously and I think it confused Harry. He was happy to hate Snape, to know that a Slytherin greasy git was jealous of and felt offended by his great father who was not just cool but also did all the right things and died for the right causes.

Once the SWM happened, Harry suddenly saw a Snape with whom he could empathise and i think it took his breath away; he hated feeling for Snape; he hated understanding Snape's feelings and his humiliation and I think it bewildered him and I think he dealt with it by pouring more hatred on his feelings and dealing with them that way. I think it got easier after Sirius died, because Harry went back to hating Snape rather intensely.

At what point was Snape justified in his treatment of Snape.

I don't think Snape needed to justify his treatment of Harry at any time. As a teacher, he was a strict one; Harry retaliated by being a disobedient student. Whenever Snape spoke of James, one can say Snape was totally out of bounds; he would have been if he had not accepted to Dumbledore that he would take on the job to protect Harry along with the Anything he had promised Dumbledore earlier. This promise could ask Snape to do anything literally; it was a broad promise that Dumbledore extracted from Snape and it had no limit either of time or effort or sacrifice.

When Snape was asked to give something like this for however long it took or until the end of his life, I believe it also created a bond between Snape and Harry that only Snape was aware of. Harry would hate Snape when he felt Snape was crossing the line; I think it was natural, because he never knew about Snape's promise. Once he did, I think Harry understood.

Was it after Quirrellmort told Harry about Snape being the one who saved him? Shame on Harry, an eleven year old boy who just survived his first encounter with Voldemort, for forgetting his manners.

Harry could have thanked Snape for that and have said sorry for peeping into the pensieve, just like Snape could have said sorry, I used your dad to irritate you all because I wanted emotions for my memories ... well most of the time and sometimes I was just angry. But, I don't think either saw their relationship that way. For seven years that relationship was one sided because Harry never knew what Snape did.

I think Harry's opinion of Snape was coloured by his understanding which was at best imperfect because of what he did not know. He came to know at the end of the seventh year and then the next time Harry talks of Snape, it's not about the unfair teacher or man, but about someone who had sacrificed so much; the man who loved his mother for all his life; the man who thought it necessary to part with the most personal memories for Harry to see. When Harry talks to Dumbledore and then to Voldemort, there is nothing in his voice to show his hate, resentment and ill feeling for a man he wanted dead by his hands a year earlier imo.

I think that makes me feel that Harry too sensed that there was more to Snape and him; only he never realised how close or tight the bonds were imo.

Just my opinion. Harry is my favorite character. :agree:

And mine too. :)

Maybe it isn't unusual for a teacher to quiz the students on the first day. But even so, I still think it's rather unusual for a teacher to quiz just one of them, :lol:.

Well I don't find quizzing just one of them a problem either, depending on the situation. As I said in my original post on this subject, perhaps it is the manner in which it was done that was problematic rather than the questioning itself. I would go more into it, but this isn't the thread for it, which is why my posts on this were brief.

Harry notices that Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle are all trying not to laugh at him; that made me wonder if perhaps they knew the answers to the questions, or are just laughing/suppressing laughter because they like seeing Professor Snape snarking at a Gryffindor (any Gryffindor will do).

Harry notices that Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle are all trying not to laugh at him; that made me wonder if perhaps they knew the answers to the questions, or are just laughing/suppressing laughter because they like seeing Professor Snape snarking at a Gryffindor (any Gryffindor will do).

Crabbe and Goyle are as thick as they come so i highly doubt they knew the correct answers (Draco probably didn't either).

Crabbe and Goyle are as thick as they come so i highly doubt they knew the correct answers (Draco probably didn't either).

You're right, they probably didn't know, but at that moment Harry's new to the world and he doesn't know them, so he doesn't know that. It probably makes him feel he's supposed to know the answer and it embarrasses that he doesn't.

Poor Harry. It hurts my soul to read how a poor little 11 year old boy is supposed to be responsible for the abuse he received from a grown man for the simple crime of not thanking a teacher for something that he didn't know happened until many months later. How could Harry thank Snape if he didn't know what Snape did for him? At what point was Snape justified in his treatment of Harry. Was it after Quirrellmort told Harry about Snape being the one who saved him? Shame on Harry, an eleven year old boy who just survived his first encounter with Voldemort, for forgetting his manners.

I don't know how it works in British boarding schools, but I have never in my life encountered a situation where a student had to learn everything in their textbooks before they got to school. Isn't that the point of classes? I certainly don't think Harry was expected to know the answers to the questions Snape asked him.

Just my opinion. Harry is my favorite character. :agree:

I could not agree more with your post - and it has always broken my heart to imagine poor Harry being hated the way he was by Snape from the moment he got to Hogwarts. I cannot agree that Harry was in any way responsible for the treatment he received from Snape.

You also make a very good point about Harry surviving his first encounter with Voldemort - and personally I am not even sure what Harry was actually meant to thank Snape for anyway!

I have to say that pretty much none of the students at the School where I work have memorised their textbooks and the vast majority never even open theirs until they get to their first class. They then learn from the text book as they go along. Harry clearly looked at his books and read some of them but he never expected as others have said to be quizzed in his first lesson. I have a sneaky feeling he was asked questions that pretty much none of the others (except Hermione) would have known the answers to anyway. Snape did not want him to know the answers IMO he just wanted to put Harry down.

I could not agree more with your post - and it has always broken my heart to imagine poor Harry being hated the way he was by Snape from the moment he got to Hogwarts. I cannot agree that Harry was in any way responsible for the treatment he received from Snape.


It shouldn't as while Harry hated Snape Harry never suffered any kind of emotional distress because of Snape disliking him. Harry certainly didn't spend hours every night crying over why Snape didn't like him.

It shouldn't as while Harry hated Snape Harry never suffered any kind of emotional distress because of Snape disliking him. Harry certainly didn't spend hours every night crying over why Snape didn't like him.


I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim Harry never suffered emotional distress because of Snape because there is plenty of canon to state otherwise. Harry was affected by how Snape treated him IMO and crying is not the barometer of emotional distress. Harry dealt with Snapes bullying for several years and it had quite an affect on him. Harry also hated Snape for a good reason - Snapes treatment of him and Snapes bullying of him.

Also - why shouldn't something break my heart?? It is my judgement and emotional state after all.

I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim Harry never suffered emotional distress because of Snape because there is plenty of canon to state otherwise. Harry was affected by how Snape treated him IMO and crying is not the barometer of emotional distress. Harry dealt with Snapes bullying for several years and it had quite an affect on him. Harry also hated Snape for a good reason - Snapes treatment of him and Snapes bullying of him.

Also - why shouldn't something break my heart?? It is my judgement and emotional state after all.

Until 5th year when Harry learnt of Snape's past with Harry's parents Snape was little more than a annoyance he had to deal with every day. Harry certainly never put any stock in Snape's opinion of him.

Until 5th year when Harry learnt of Snape's past with Harry's parents Snape was little more than a annoyance he had to deal with every day. Harry certainly never put any stock in Snape's opinion of him.

I have to disagree - since the day he ws singled out in his first potions class and from that I think Harry felt Snape was far more than an annoyance to him. Harry never knew what he had done (actually nothing apart from being his fathers son) to make Snape hate him and Snape never missed a chance to belittle and hurt Harry and that was right from the start of his time at Hogwarts. If Harry never put any stock in Snapes opinion why did Snape make him so angry and upset?? If you don't care about someones opinion you are more likely to be indifferent to them which is not the case here. When Harry feels sympathy for Snape in OOTP after SWM it is because as he stated he knew how it felt to be publically humiliated which IMO was because this was done to him by Snape.