It really fascinates me that we can read the same books and come to completely opposite conclusions and opinions, and I'm not saying that in a bad way either - I really do mean it
( ... )
Arthur has never struck me as a man who needs to be impressed, and I can't see that he would have marched up to Percy outright and lost his temper right off the bat. Even if we heard Percy's "side" of the argument, I can't see that he would be any more reliable a source than Arthur was. Arthur has never shown any behavior that would lead me to believe he was jealous - his two older sons were successful as well. And we're told a few times that Arthur never sought promotion because he enjoyed his job. That is something that Percy could never be made to understand because, unlike Arthur, Percy IS ambitious to a fault. And the fact that he refused to consider that his father might have a point of sorts - whether or not he was completely right or wrong isn't the issue - there was no respect, however grudging, for his father, who had worked at the ministry for years and was well aware of the "politics" despite everything else. Also, I'm not inclined to agree with you about him kicking Percy out of the picture, because we have no idea
( ... )
Re: Hmmm... Part 2tim_smithAugust 29 2005, 12:17:25 UTC
Whoa boy, there's a reply! I'm flattered you took the time to write all that, thanks!:) Granted, Percy has many faults. I would not deny that.I have already agreed that some of his actions (e.g. resenting Harry, his treatment with Molly, not apologizing to Harry) are downright stupid and that he's so angry and proud who hasn't yet tried to look at the whole thing from an unbiased stand (I've already expressed hope that Penny will help him in that regard).As for his family's treatment: Maybe the family I come from is just weird, or maybe eastern and western family dynamics are very different but in MY family, and the families I know, you don't make one person the butt of continuous, cruel ridicule; much less if you know they won't take it well/will take it personal. Lacking humor is a bad thing, but it's not an unforgivable sin. Besides, being continuously ridiculed doesn't cure that, it makes it worse, if anything.
Also, for someone with such high standards, the fact that Crouch
( ... )
Re: Hmmm... Part 2tim_smithAugust 29 2005, 12:19:02 UTC
Again I thank you for your long, well thought out reply. I respect that we disagree here. Nothing encourages discussion better than good, strong criticism. Also, I think I must say here that I don't hate Arthur, he is a very fav character of mine, actually, but I like to accept my favs with their flaws.
Re: Hmmm... Part 2midnitemaraud_rAugust 30 2005, 00:02:44 UTC
I love discussions and debates, and it bothers me when they get wanky when people don't agree, so yay! :)
You mean Percy should've found it odd that his boss wouldn't remember his name or what? Could you please explain this to me?
What I meant is that the fact that Crouch couldn't get Percy's name right, to me, was a sign that Percy wasn't nearly as important to Crouch as he believed he was. Even before the Imperius is placed on him, at the World Cup, he calls him "Weatherby". And Crouch is a smart man, with not much of a sense of humor that we can detect, so it wasn't a joke. To me, it felt like Percy was barely a blip on Crouch's radar because if he was so impressed by Percy, the very least he could do was remember his name.
Anyone put in that position would've done whatever Fudge asked them.
I don't think so. Hermione wouldn't. Harry wouldn't. Percy was very sycophantic, in a manner resembling Peter in the pensieve scene. At least I thought so.
doing a good job in a position will lead to you getting a better one,
( ... )
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think to be *held* back you need to have intended to go forth. And we get no notion that Arthur accepted his promotion in HBP with any kind of reluctance.
You're not wrong, but I've always looked at it like this. If Arthur really wanted a promotion, he'd do what was necessary to achieve it - not show his 'muggle sympathies' so much, or, pardon my french, kiss someone's ass. I believe it was Scrimgeour who promoted Arthur, not Fudge, and really, I don't trust that guy either. :)
Also, one should note that these are Molly's words, not Arthur's. While Arthur may have never really wanted to move forward, Molly, who rather enjoys the achievements of her family [not that it's a bad thing], seems to have. She may have been projecting her own desire for a promotion for Arthur and his being "held back."
I was always proud of his achievements and abilities, and even when he was teased by his family, he never wavered in his pride for his accomplishments because he earned them. But in OotP, his ambition got the
( ... )
Re: Hmmm... Part 2pilly2009August 30 2005, 12:18:57 UTC
Also, one should note that these are Molly's words, not Arthur's. While Arthur may have never really wanted to move forward, Molly, who rather enjoys the achievements of her family [not that it's a bad thing], seems to have. She may have been projecting her own desire for a promotion for Arthur and his being "held back."
What actually sold me on this particular belief is that Ron, by all accounts, really does believe that his father enjoys his job: "(GoF p.151 - Dad could've got promotion at any time...he just likes it where he is..."
Re: Hmmm... Part 2alya1989262August 30 2005, 12:24:35 UTC
Heh.. Your essay is very very well written, and, though I don't agree, I can see where you're coming from. However, let me take this opportunity to point out that Percy was the one most cuddled by his parents. I've always noticed Molly fawning over him in the books, as opposed to her yelling incessantly at the twins. And, in GoF, we see Arthur listening with total respect to percy's boring lectures on cauldron bottoms! No, I think that Percy was favoured at home and at school, and that led him to believe he was better than the rest of the family. Also, I find extremely disturbing that he would never question authority. Anyway, brilliant essay! ~Alya~
Re: Hmmm... Part 2pilly2009August 30 2005, 12:42:48 UTC
I apoologize for butting in -- I accidentally replied to this anonymously last night, and guess it didn't go through, but this in particular caught my eye:
Anyone put in that position would've done whatever Fudge asked them. Fudge had a million other choices. Why Percy? Why didn't they return him to the old office? The impression I received from OotP was a little different. Fudge's perspective was being toted all over the wizarding world, to be sure, but it did not seem to me as though Fudge had such a tight rein over the Ministry or the WW. The final outcome of Harry's trial and Fudge's subsequent frustration indicate that despite his power to have Dumbledore kicked off from the board, the Wizengamot was not completely under Fudge's control. We know for a fact that Tonks and Kingsley had been making inroads at the Ministry during OotP, getting peole to see things their way. When Dumbledore's Army was discovered, the only two of the four other Ministry workers present who responded favourably to Fudge were Percy and Umbridge --
( ... )
Re: Hmmm... Part 2baseballchica03September 1 2005, 04:12:22 UTC
Real-life examples are good... Godwin's Law states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. :-p
Re: Hmmm... Part 2sistermagpieAugust 29 2005, 16:48:24 UTC
Percy, to me, seems to be lacking in any kind of sense of humor. He's very high strung, he takes things very personally, and by that, opens himself up to ridicule by his siblings, who obviously have too much of a sense of humor. (Sibling behavior cannot be compared to how friends treat each other - the dynamics are completely different.Siblings or not, if you tease someone and they take it personally, and you continue to tease them, you are hurting them. Bullies are still bullies even when you're related to them. We can't just dismiss all of the things that motivate Percy because his personality doesn't make the grade
( ... )
Re: Hmmm... Part 2midnitemaraud_rAugust 30 2005, 00:21:26 UTC
Well, Fred and George - I think I have a decent sense of humor but I wouldn't want them as brothers either. But family dynamics are complex. We have no idea what Percy was like when they were all growing up. Was Percy a tattletale? Was he the type who lectured and berated his younger brothers for their inappropriate behavior? Things like this grow over the years and we can't just come in mid-way and explain it neatly and simply. Teasing is more often a sign of affection (the whole boys pulling girl's pigtails stuff) - it's when you ignore someone that you show loathing, lack of caring/indifference.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that the twins, or even the rest of the family is justified by their teasing, but sibling rivalry does exist and it doesn't mean that there's no love between the siblings.
If Percy was blamed for what happened I think it would be a case of making an underling take the fall.You definitely have a point with the Dumbledore-Moody thing. Whether or not Percy was competent to do the job or not, there
( ... )
Re: Hmmm... Part 2sistermagpieAugust 30 2005, 04:19:50 UTC
Well, Fred and George - I think I have a decent sense of humor but I wouldn't want them as brothers either. But family dynamics are complex. Absolutely--like I think I alluded to below, I don't think you can separate out one thread or one person from this. I think there are times even pre-OotP when the twins have real resentment of Percy, like when he's held up as an example and their own interests are denigrated. Also the fact that there's two of them may mean that in their own way the twins, too, wind up being more extreme than they might be. Could one twin be less angry at Percy than the other, for instance? Or do they egg each other on to more extreme thinking? I definitely didn't mean to imply there's no love between the siblings because of this, though. I think there still is, which is why what's going on now seems like a believable family fight. Though it's kind of creepy that out of all those people nobody seems to be talking to Percy or he to them. (Unless Charlie and Bill are in some sort of contact
( ... )
Re: Hmmm... Part 2sistermagpieAugust 30 2005, 04:22:16 UTC
p.s. I forgot to mention, I don't know if it really played to me that Percy wasn't as important as he thought he was. I thought it was more that he wasn't as important as he wished he was. Underneath I thought he knew he was overlooked, so when he's embarassed it just made me cringe for him. When Crouch shows up Percy doesn't seem to assume an air of importance so much as fall all over Crouch like a fanboy.
Re: Hmmm... Part 2pilly2009August 30 2005, 02:43:17 UTC
It just seems sad and strange to me that a family who can find affection for the prankster twins can't also find some affection for stuffy Percy. I know I'm butting into a conversation again, and I'm sorry. But while I agree with you that Percy definitely seems to be the odd Weasley out, I think this is different from saying that they have no affection for him. Whether they have no affection for him because he's the odd one out, or whether he's the odd one out because they have no affection for him -- I doubt both interpretations, because we've seen their affection, if not their support
( ... )
Re: Hmmm... Part 2sistermagpieAugust 30 2005, 02:50:55 UTC
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that they *don't* have affection for him. I just meant that by GoF Percy's pompousness is getting teased to the point where it's not affectionate.
I don't think the Penelope thing was Percy being ashamed of anything, though. He was over-sensitive about his family finding out and Fred and George probably making him look silly in front of Penelope. I don't think anybody in that situation is acting in a particularly bad way, and they all care about Ginny.
Did anyone actually criticise Percy for not seeing through the Crouch impersonation? It doesn't seem like a fair thing to do, and I can't find this in the book.
There's an inquiry and Harry thinks to himself that he doesn't think Percy did that good of a job since he failed to notice Crouch was under Imperius. Which I can't help but snicker at given Dumbledore's own mistake in GoF. Percy's the last person who would even be likely to notice the change in Crouch.
Reply
Reply
Also, for someone with such high standards, the fact that Crouch ( ... )
Reply
Reply
You mean Percy should've found it odd that his boss wouldn't remember his name or what? Could you please explain this to me?
What I meant is that the fact that Crouch couldn't get Percy's name right, to me, was a sign that Percy wasn't nearly as important to Crouch as he believed he was. Even before the Imperius is placed on him, at the World Cup, he calls him "Weatherby". And Crouch is a smart man, with not much of a sense of humor that we can detect, so it wasn't a joke. To me, it felt like Percy was barely a blip on Crouch's radar because if he was so impressed by Percy, the very least he could do was remember his name.
Anyone put in that position would've done whatever Fudge asked them.
I don't think so. Hermione wouldn't. Harry wouldn't. Percy was very sycophantic, in a manner resembling Peter in the pensieve scene. At least I thought so.
doing a good job in a position will lead to you getting a better one, ( ... )
Reply
You're not wrong, but I've always looked at it like this. If Arthur really wanted a promotion, he'd do what was necessary to achieve it - not show his 'muggle sympathies' so much, or, pardon my french, kiss someone's ass. I believe it was Scrimgeour who promoted Arthur, not Fudge, and really, I don't trust that guy either. :)
Also, one should note that these are Molly's words, not Arthur's. While Arthur may have never really wanted to move forward, Molly, who rather enjoys the achievements of her family [not that it's a bad thing], seems to have. She may have been projecting her own desire for a promotion for Arthur and his being "held back."
I was always proud of his achievements and abilities, and even when he was teased by his family, he never wavered in his pride for his accomplishments because he earned them. But in OotP, his ambition got the ( ... )
Reply
What actually sold me on this particular belief is that Ron, by all accounts, really does believe that his father enjoys his job: "(GoF p.151 - Dad could've got promotion at any time...he just likes it where he is..."
Reply
However, let me take this opportunity to point out that Percy was the one most cuddled by his parents. I've always noticed Molly fawning over him in the books, as opposed to her yelling incessantly at the twins. And, in GoF, we see Arthur listening with total respect to percy's boring lectures on cauldron bottoms!
No, I think that Percy was favoured at home and at school, and that led him to believe he was better than the rest of the family.
Also, I find extremely disturbing that he would never question authority.
Anyway, brilliant essay!
~Alya~
Reply
Anyone put in that position would've done whatever Fudge asked
them. Fudge had a million other choices. Why Percy? Why didn't
they return him to the old office? The impression I received from OotP was a little different. Fudge's perspective was being toted all over the wizarding world, to be sure, but it did not seem to me as though Fudge had such a tight rein over the Ministry or the WW. The final outcome of Harry's trial and Fudge's subsequent frustration indicate that despite his power to have Dumbledore kicked off from the board, the Wizengamot was not completely under Fudge's control. We know for a fact that Tonks and Kingsley had been making inroads at the Ministry during OotP, getting peole to see things their way. When Dumbledore's Army was discovered, the only two of the four other Ministry workers present who responded favourably to Fudge were Percy and Umbridge -- ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that the twins, or even the rest of the family is justified by their teasing, but sibling rivalry does exist and it doesn't mean that there's no love between the siblings.
If Percy was blamed for what happened I think it would be a case of making an underling take the fall.You definitely have a point with the Dumbledore-Moody thing. Whether or not Percy was competent to do the job or not, there ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I don't think the Penelope thing was Percy being ashamed of anything, though. He was over-sensitive about his family finding out and Fred and George probably making him look silly in front of Penelope. I don't think anybody in that situation is acting in a particularly bad way, and they all care about Ginny.
Did anyone actually criticise Percy for not seeing through the Crouch impersonation? It doesn't seem like a fair thing to do, and I can't find this in the book.
There's an inquiry and Harry thinks to himself that he doesn't think Percy did that good of a job since he failed to notice Crouch was under Imperius. Which I can't help but snicker at given Dumbledore's own mistake in GoF. Percy's the last person who would even be likely to notice the change in Crouch.
Reply
Leave a comment