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 why Percy wasn't there with the others. James and Lily sitting with Peter isn't proof. Penelope left a picture (or hid her face or something to that effect) because there was a splotch on her face in it. And Harry walked out of the picture Colin took of hin with Lockhart. There isn't enough information about the nature of wizard photographs to make any accusations of that caliber.
Whether or not Percy resented Harry, Harry had always been respectful of Percy. His letter to Ron in OotP was nothing short of obnoxious, and that was 'the final straw' for me. Because even after Percy found out the truth - that Harry had not lied - he never bothered to apologize, and he still never bothered to question authority in light of the new revelations. He had to know how distressed his mother was, yet he never once made any overtures to her - or, apparently, to Bill or Charlie either - the brothers he would have the most reason to respect. The only reason he went home for Christmas in HBP was because the Minister asked him to take him there. If it wasn't for Scrimgeour's desire to speak to Harry, Percy never would have gone.
I don't hate Percy. I don't particularly like him right now either, but that's not to say that I never tried to find reasons for his behavior that would allow me to sympathize with him. I haven't found any. I can forgive his ambition - there's nothing wrong with that, and I can forgive his naivete, but I think he's selfish, arrogant, egotistical and immature. That's my opinion. I do respect that we disagree on this, and I doubt we'll find common ground, but I felt compelled to refute some of the issues you raise in your essay, not to be argumentative.
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 couldn't be bothered to remember Percy's name doesn't exactly work in his favor either. Er...sorry, I just don't understand what you mean by that. 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?
Why didn't he fire Percy? Why would he? Percy did whatever Fudge told him to do without question. 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? I mean, that's supposed to be a really good job, judged by what Ron says, and there would be no reason to keep someone there who doesn't deserve it.
Why deprive the Department of his expertise and diligence? Well, that's the thing about promotion, isn't it? For a simple instance: If you are a shop assistant and you sweep the floor really clean, you don't expect your boss to say "Whoa! Great, I'll let you remain at the job you can do really well!" On the other hand you expect him to give you more important, better errands. Now I completely understand that this is an oversimplified example, Head of Foreign Relations Dept. is not sweeping the floor, I'm just trying to show that doing a good job in a position will lead to you getting a better one, not to being stuck in the same position.
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. Of course it wouldn't, but then we would have been able to put the two accounts together and form our own, unbiased, "meta" view. That's the point in hearing both sides, after all.
Arthur has never shown any behavior that would lead me to believe he was jealous - his two older sons were successful as well. A very strong point. But I would like to argue that Percy is the only one who's really following his steps. I mean, Bill and Charlie were successful in fields that he had never entered so he couldn't compare their success with his own, thus his fatherly happiness couldn't be tarnished by any feeling of competition. Whereas Percy is following the same path as him. I don't know whether I'm putting it clearly or not, I'm trying to say that there can be no competing feelings between a runner and a baseball player, but there can be competition between two runners.
And we're told a few times that Arthur never sought promotion because he enjoyed his job. Granted, Arthur has a genuine love for everything muggle. But may I draw your attention to this line from Mrs. Weasley in the hospital scene at the end of GoF:
"Molly... am I right in thinking that I can count on you and Arthur?" "Of course you can," said Mrs. Weasley..."We know what Fudge is. It's Arthur's fondness for Muggles that has held him back at the Ministry all these years. Fudge thinks he lacks proper wizarding pride."
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.
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, not to being stuck in the same position.
Well, yes, that's invariably true, but Percy had been an employee of the ministry for only a year. And while I understand what you mean, a ministry "white collar" job can't really be compared to a blue collar job like sweeping. It's more like being a first year associate in a law firm and finding yourself a partner a year later - experience has to count for something, and whether or not Percy was competent, there was still a 'shadow' cast by the inquiry. Of course I don't think he was at fault in any way for what happened to Crouch, but his obliviousness to the fact that something was fishy, amiss, is not exactly a trait that would be prized and rewarded by a promotion to the Minister's assistant. Do you know what I mean? It lends an aura of "fishy-ness" to Percy's promotion considering a week or so before he had been under such a troubling Inquiry, and considering that Fudge is not a trustworthy person, I'd question Fudge's motives. Really, it's not a question of whether or not Percy was capable of doing the job - it's about Fudge's questionable motives considering his row with Dumbledore.
And that's where I think the argument between Arthur and Percy went to hell. Because Percy doesn't question authority, and by insinuating that Fudge had ulterior motives, I don't think Arthur was initially saying that Percy wasn't qualified or capable, but that Percy refused to believe that Fudge could/would do anything wrong, and took it as a personal affront. And it all went downhill from there and tempers flared. And really, we all say things we don't really mean, or we don't articulate them well, when we've got our dander up - it happens often enough in discussions like this one on LJ, yeah? People are always taking offense even when none was meant. :) Does that make sense?
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. :)
I don't hate Percy. I agree that he's very bright, but really, I'm frustrated with him for being so fickle and arrogant and not showing any backbone. No matter how 'pompous' he was portrayed in GoF (and PoA and CoS and PS/SS), I always got the impression that he worked hard to achieve his goals - his work ethic was important to him. But in OotP, suddenly it's not so much about proving his abilities as proving that his blind trust in authority was valid. He 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 better of him - more like a "it's not what you know, it's WHO you know" which never struck me as a Percy kind of trait despite his ambition.
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 better of him - more like a "it's not what you know, it's WHO you know" which never struck me as a Percy kind of trait despite his ambition.
There are two ways to address that. One is that it could just be poor writing, i.e. the characterization is slipping, or, on the other side of the coin, there is the fact that the books are becoming more black-and-white as they progress. After GoF, Harry's perspective seems much less tolerant of the shades of grey in life, and Percy is very much a shade of grey in the books, especially after he leaves his family. Harry loves the Weasleys very much, and for someone to betray and hurt them as Percy has, the way he sees the character would change.
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 -- Dawlish didn't say much of anything until he couldn't fulfill a command Fudge asked him to carry out; and we know Kingsley is a full-fledged Order member, so that was at least half of Fudge's staff present in the Headmaster's office who weren't completely loyal to him. And it says a lot about Fudge's supposedly iron hold over the Ministry and the WW that he had to get the local newspaper to print near-daily articles poking fun at a boy who'd barely reached puberty to convince people to keep believing him, and that Umbridge thought the situation was critical enough that Harry had to be silenced permanently during the summer (even though the one statement he'd made supporting Voldemort's return at that point was the one in the hospital wing in GoF). I got the feeling that while people (Ministry workers and wizards alike) generally agreed with Fudge's perspective, he did not have that many people who were absolutely loyal to him. In fact, the only people in OotP that we saw who displayed such loyalty were Umbridge and Percy.
So when you have someone that loyal to you when you need it that much, why would you get rid of him? Or even demote him to a position of less power? Even as a non-politician, I know that this isn't the smartest course of action. This doesn't mean that Percy wasn't qualified OR capable of his job, but it adds to the air of fishiness that surrounds Percy's promotion.
).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.
As much as I hate to invoke Godwin's Law (or whatever law it is that frowns upon comparing literature with real-life experiences), I can attest to the fact that there are families out there who are constantly the scapegoat among their siblings (I being the scapegoat as the youngest and the only girl of three siblings). I don't believe I'm alone in this; generally, siblings pick on each other. It's a part of the sibling experience (regardless of what my mum says, I can't believe that she never fought with her brothers or sisters either). It's not really being "picked on" if the person in question takes it well, is it? After all, we know that Percy isn't the only one picked on in the Weasley family -- we've seen Ron used as a scapegoat by the twins without responding favourably to it umpteen times. Even Ginny has suffered her share of it; apparently, Fred and George's attempts to cheer her up in CoS did nothing but frighten her to death, yet they didn't stop until Percy forced them to.
As for literature...the Weasleys appear to be a special case, but such relationships between child-family members is not completely unheard of. It's been a long time since I've read Narnia, but didn't the Pevensie children similarly pick on and deride their cousin Eustace? I remember that they began to like him only when he adopted a personality that they seemed to like better.
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. 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. The boy gets excrement sent to him at work, and pathetically tries to see as part of his job, not suspecting his brothers would do that to him. Percy really does seem to have good reason to feel he doesn't fit with his family, and that he's been replaced by Harry. I just don't see that much affection in the way Percy's treated--though what little there was disappears by OotP.
Percy also seems to me to be solely concerned with himself, and I've seen very little evidence that he truly takes an interest in any of his siblings except where it affects him and his own image or standing.
His concern for Ginny looks very genuine to me and not just part of instructions from his mother. He's also worried about Ron (who accuses him of not caring about Ginny) in GoF. Seems pretty normal to me--he doesn't intentionally sabotage them, as some of them seem to do to the others. Also, I don't think Percy thought he was the cause of Ginny's behavior, he simply thought that when she had a secret to tell it was his secret and wanted to stop it, knowing that it would open him up for more teasing from his brothers. Offhand I honestly can't think of too much concern shown for Percy himself by his family that outdoes his for them.
Percy was so busy trying to impress people at the ministry that he didn't even once question Crouch's odd behavior. I'm sorry, but if my boss, whom I idolized, hadn't missed a day of work in over 20 years and was suddenly "taken ill" where he couldn't come in to work anymore, I'd be more than a little concerned.
Percy's behavior at the Ministry is certainly self-centered, but he really doesn't stand out much in the books for this. Arthur and Bagman don't much care that somebody has disappeared, though Arthur later acts like he'd been more concerned than he was. I'm sure Percy enjoyed Crouch's absence because it gave him more to do. However, I don't think most employees get concerned when their boss isn't in the office. V lucked out in having that ambitious assistant there, true, but he's lucked out with the Weasleys before.
Percy was the subject of an inquiry regarding gross negligence and his boss was murdered
Ironic that Harry criticizes Percy for not realizing Crouch was under V's control when his own hero, Dumbledore, not only didn't realize his friend Moody was working for V but didn't realize he actually wasn't his friend Moody. No inquiry there, for some reason. If Percy was blamed for what happened I think it would be a case of making an underling take the fall.
Also, for someone with such high standards, the fact that Crouch couldn't be bothered to remember Percy's name doesn't exactly work in his favor either.
That doesn't reflect that badly on Percy, to me. Crouch thought his name was Weatherby. The paper calls Arthur "Arnold." Percy does lack a personal charisma, but could still be a good worker.
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 was still a 'shadow' cast by the inquiry. Of course I don't think he was at fault in any way for what happened to Crouch, but his obliviousness to the fact that something was fishy, amiss, is not exactly a trait that I think would be prized and rewarded by a promotion to the Minister's assistant. Do you know what I mean? It lends an aura of "fishy-ness" to Percy's promotion considering a week or so before he had been under such a troubling Inquiry, and considering that Fudge is not a trustworthy person, I'd question Fudge's motives. Really, it's not a question of whether or not Percy was capable of doing the job - it's about Fudge's questionable motives considering his row with and 'campaign' to descredit Dumbledore.
That doesn't reflect that badly on Percy, to me. Crouch thought his name was Weatherby. The paper calls Arthur "Arnold." Percy does lack a personal charisma, but could still be a good worker.
Well, it was Rita Skeeter who called him Arnold, and she did it on purpose - she wanted to make him look bad and foolish. 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 portrayed as a smart, shrewd 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 and Percy's job performance, the very least he could do was get his name right.
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.)
Of course, I also believe that Kreacher was telling the truth when he said Sirius broke his mother's heart and that the Blacks loved each other too.:-)
Really, it's not a question of whether or not Percy was capable of doing the job - it's about Fudge's questionable motives considering his row with and 'campaign' to descredit Dumbledore.
Oh yes--and I think this is where their not listening to each other comes in, because it's not that Arthur couldn't possibly have any point in saying Percy had been promoted for less than honest reasons. It's just that even the way Ron relates the story it sounds like a train wreck. Arthur seems like he really did, intentionally or not, cut Percy to the quick and humiliate him, and then Percy let him have it.
To me, it felt like Percy was barely a blip on Crouch's radar because if he was so impressed by Percy and Percy's job performance, the very least he could do was get his name right.
Oh yes, I agree. Percy clearly wasn't that important personally to Crouch. I just meant that Crouch's lack of interest in Percy didn't mean Percy wasn't doing the work he said he was doing. In a way I guess that made me feel sorry for Percy again--he seemed to really be working hard, but he still didn't have the personality to get himself noticed. It's an old story in business--the twins would probably have been on a first name basis with Crouch in the same amount of time because they're more charismatic.
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.
Molly saw him in her Boggart. Bill asked him how the cauldron-bottom report was coming along in GoF. Ginny may have spilled his secret to the twins in CoS, but he was also the only sibling she even considered going to for help regarding her possession. (And while on the topic, the twins' reactions aside, Percy's secret really was not an embarrasing secret in the least. Wouldn't it be more derogatory -- to Penelope, anyway -- to keep a relationship clandestine because you're afraid of your family's reaction? It's not that much different from keeping a gay boyfriend secret solely because you're afraid to come out of the closet. As Percy was openly dating her in PoA, we can assume that either he felt safe, as Ginny had already outed him; or that Penny decided not to put up with it any longer.)
Even the dreaded twins have displayed affection for him: (PS, p. 149: "And you're not sitting with the prefects today, either. Christmas is a time for family." -- before they frogmarch him out of the boys' dorm). In fact, I would even argue that the twins' behaviour is not aimed at Percy himself so much as it is aimed at Percy's accomplishments. Before the schism, I can't remember a prank on him from them that did not involve his prefect badge, his Head-Boy badge/status, or acts of hostility not long after finding out about his latest accomplishment (the pyramid after his being named Head Boy, the dragon doo after his getting a Ministry job). For all of Ginny's expectations, we never see them tease Percy about Penelope, nor are we given any indication whatsoever that they did.
Ironic that Harry criticizes Percy for not realizing Crouch was under V's control when his own hero, Dumbledore, not only didn't realize his friend Moody was working for V but didn't realize he actually wasn't his friend Moody. No inquiry there, for some reason.
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.
Sorry about the repeated posting and deletions of this reply.
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.
Re: Hmmm... Part 2pilly2009August 30 2005, 13:10:26 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.
Ack, my apologies again for reading you wrong. It's just that you mentioned that the family that showed love for the pranking twins could not also show love for Percy's pompousness, but later gave an example in your second post about how Molly's affection for the twins is apparent despite her scolding of them. I kind of put these together, because Molly loves the twins in spite of their pranks and teasing, not because of it; and similarly to me, the Weasleys (pre-OotP) loved Percy in spite of his pompousness, not because of it.
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.
I didn't mean to imply that anyone was acting badly, or that Percy was ashamed of Penelope, but to indicate that it could be taken as such, especially by Penelope. So although I have seen accusation hurled at Ginny for revealing such a deep secret of Percy's to the twins of all people, the only thing I have ever faulted her for was for revealing a secret that wasn't really hers to reveal. It wasn't as though Ginny had spilled some dirty little secret of his that she should have kept out of consideration for his possible treatment at the hands of Fred and George, seeing as a) said treatment didn't even occur, and b) if he was serious about Penny, she would have had to meet his family eventually, anyway.
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.
A little OT, but it's still irking me that I can't find this quote in GoF -- was it in OotP? I keep searching through the final chapters.
Whether or not Percy resented Harry, Harry had always been respectful of Percy. His letter to Ron in OotP was nothing short of obnoxious, and that was 'the final straw' for me. Because even after Percy found out the truth - that Harry had not lied - he never bothered to apologize, and he still never bothered to question authority in light of the new revelations. He had to know how distressed his mother was, yet he never once made any overtures to her - or, apparently, to Bill or Charlie either - the brothers he would have the most reason to respect. The only reason he went home for Christmas in HBP was because the Minister asked him to take him there. If it wasn't for Scrimgeour's desire to speak to Harry, Percy never would have gone.
I don't hate Percy. I don't particularly like him right now either, but that's not to say that I never tried to find reasons for his behavior that would allow me to sympathize with him. I haven't found any. I can forgive his ambition - there's nothing wrong with that, and I can forgive his naivete, but I think he's selfish, arrogant, egotistical and immature. That's my opinion. I do respect that we disagree on this, and I doubt we'll find common ground, but I felt compelled to refute some of the issues you raise in your essay, not to be argumentative.
Reply
Also, for someone with such high standards, the fact that Crouch
couldn't be bothered to remember Percy's name doesn't exactly work in
his favor either.
Er...sorry, I just don't understand what you mean by that. 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?
Why didn't he fire Percy? Why would he? Percy did whatever Fudge
told him to do without question.
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? I mean, that's supposed to be a
really good job, judged by what Ron says, and there would be no reason to keep someone there who doesn't deserve it.
Why deprive the Department of his expertise and diligence?
Well, that's the thing about promotion, isn't it? For a simple
instance: If you are a shop assistant and you sweep the floor really
clean, you don't expect your boss to say "Whoa! Great, I'll let you
remain at the job you can do really well!" On the other hand you expect him to give you more important, better errands. Now I completely understand that this is an oversimplified example, Head of Foreign Relations Dept. is not sweeping the floor, I'm just trying to show that doing a good job in a position will lead to you getting a better one, not to being stuck in the same position.
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.
Of course it wouldn't, but then we would have been able to put the two accounts together and form our own, unbiased, "meta" view. That's the point in hearing both sides, after all.
Arthur has never shown any behavior that would lead me to believe he was jealous - his two older sons were successful as well.
A very strong point. But I would like to argue that Percy is the only
one who's really following his steps. I mean, Bill and Charlie were
successful in fields that he had never entered so he couldn't compare
their success with his own, thus his fatherly happiness couldn't be
tarnished by any feeling of competition. Whereas Percy is following the same path as him. I don't know whether I'm putting it clearly or not, I'm trying to say that there can be no competing feelings between a runner and a baseball player, but there can be competition between two runners.
And we're told a few times that Arthur never sought promotion
because he enjoyed his job.
Granted, Arthur has a genuine love for everything muggle. But may I
draw your attention to this line from Mrs. Weasley in the hospital
scene at the end of GoF:
"Molly... am I right in thinking that I can count on you and
Arthur?"
"Of course you can," said Mrs. Weasley..."We know what Fudge is. It's
Arthur's fondness for Muggles that has held him back at the
Ministry all these years. Fudge thinks he lacks proper wizarding
pride."
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.
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, not to being stuck in the same position.
Well, yes, that's invariably true, but Percy had been an employee of the ministry for only a year. And while I understand what you mean, a ministry "white collar" job can't really be compared to a blue collar job like sweeping. It's more like being a first year associate in a law firm and finding yourself a partner a year later - experience has to count for something, and whether or not Percy was competent, there was still a 'shadow' cast by the inquiry. Of course I don't think he was at fault in any way for what happened to Crouch, but his obliviousness to the fact that something was fishy, amiss, is not exactly a trait that would be prized and rewarded by a promotion to the Minister's assistant. Do you know what I mean? It lends an aura of "fishy-ness" to Percy's promotion considering a week or so before he had been under such a troubling Inquiry, and considering that Fudge is not a trustworthy person, I'd question Fudge's motives. Really, it's not a question of whether or not Percy was capable of doing the job - it's about Fudge's questionable motives considering his row with Dumbledore.
And that's where I think the argument between Arthur and Percy went to hell. Because Percy doesn't question authority, and by insinuating that Fudge had ulterior motives, I don't think Arthur was initially saying that Percy wasn't qualified or capable, but that Percy refused to believe that Fudge could/would do anything wrong, and took it as a personal affront. And it all went downhill from there and tempers flared. And really, we all say things we don't really mean, or we don't articulate them well, when we've got our dander up - it happens often enough in discussions like this one on LJ, yeah? People are always taking offense even when none was meant. :) Does that make sense?
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. :)
I don't hate Percy. I agree that he's very bright, but really, I'm frustrated with him for being so fickle and arrogant and not showing any backbone. No matter how 'pompous' he was portrayed in GoF (and PoA and CoS and PS/SS), I always got the impression that he worked hard to achieve his goals - his work ethic was important to him. But in OotP, suddenly it's not so much about proving his abilities as proving that his blind trust in authority was valid. He 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 better of him - more like a "it's not what you know, it's WHO you know" which never struck me as a Percy kind of trait despite his ambition.
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 better of him - more like a "it's not what you know, it's WHO you know" which never struck me as a Percy kind of trait despite his ambition.
There are two ways to address that. One is that it could just be poor writing, i.e. the characterization is slipping, or, on the other side of the coin, there is the fact that the books are becoming more black-and-white as they progress. After GoF, Harry's perspective seems much less tolerant of the shades of grey in life, and Percy is very much a shade of grey in the books, especially after he leaves his family. Harry loves the Weasleys very much, and for someone to betray and hurt them as Percy has, the way he sees the character would change.
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 -- Dawlish didn't say much of anything until he couldn't fulfill a command Fudge asked him to carry out; and we know Kingsley is a full-fledged Order member, so that was at least half of Fudge's staff present in the Headmaster's office who weren't completely loyal to him. And it says a lot about Fudge's supposedly iron hold over the Ministry and the WW that he had to get the local newspaper to print near-daily articles poking fun at a boy who'd barely reached puberty to convince people to keep believing him, and that Umbridge thought the situation was critical enough that Harry had to be silenced permanently during the summer (even though the one statement he'd made supporting Voldemort's return at that point was the one in the hospital wing in GoF). I got the feeling that while people (Ministry workers and wizards alike) generally agreed with Fudge's perspective, he did not have that many people who were absolutely loyal to him. In fact, the only people in OotP that we saw who displayed such loyalty were Umbridge and Percy.
So when you have someone that loyal to you when you need it that much, why would you get rid of him? Or even demote him to a position of less power? Even as a non-politician, I know that this isn't the smartest course of action. This doesn't mean that Percy wasn't qualified OR capable of his job, but it adds to the air of fishiness that surrounds Percy's promotion.
).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.
As much as I hate to invoke Godwin's Law (or whatever law it is that frowns upon comparing literature with real-life experiences), I can attest to the fact that there are families out there who are constantly the scapegoat among their siblings (I being the scapegoat as the youngest and the only girl of three siblings). I don't believe I'm alone in this; generally, siblings pick on each other. It's a part of the sibling experience (regardless of what my mum says, I can't believe that she never fought with her brothers or sisters either). It's not really being "picked on" if the person in question takes it well, is it? After all, we know that Percy isn't the only one picked on in the Weasley family -- we've seen Ron used as a scapegoat by the twins without responding favourably to it umpteen times. Even Ginny has suffered her share of it; apparently, Fred and George's attempts to cheer her up in CoS did nothing but frighten her to death, yet they didn't stop until Percy forced them to.
As for literature...the Weasleys appear to be a special case, but such relationships between child-family members is not completely unheard of. It's been a long time since I've read Narnia, but didn't the Pevensie children similarly pick on and deride their cousin Eustace? I remember that they began to like him only when he adopted a personality that they seemed to like better.
Reply
Reply
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.
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. The boy gets excrement sent to him at work, and pathetically tries to see as part of his job, not suspecting his brothers would do that to him. Percy really does seem to have good reason to feel he doesn't fit with his family, and that he's been replaced by Harry. I just don't see that much affection in the way Percy's treated--though what little there was disappears by OotP.
Percy also seems to me to be solely concerned with himself, and I've seen very little evidence that he truly takes an interest in any of his siblings except where it affects him and his own image or standing.
His concern for Ginny looks very genuine to me and not just part of instructions from his mother. He's also worried about Ron (who accuses him of not caring about Ginny) in GoF. Seems pretty normal to me--he doesn't intentionally sabotage them, as some of them seem to do to the others. Also, I don't think Percy thought he was the cause of Ginny's behavior, he simply thought that when she had a secret to tell it was his secret and wanted to stop it, knowing that it would open him up for more teasing from his brothers. Offhand I honestly can't think of too much concern shown for Percy himself by his family that outdoes his for them.
Percy was so busy trying to impress people at the ministry that he didn't even once question Crouch's odd behavior. I'm sorry, but if my boss, whom I idolized, hadn't missed a day of work in over 20 years and was suddenly "taken ill" where he couldn't come in to work anymore, I'd be more than a little concerned.
Percy's behavior at the Ministry is certainly self-centered, but he really doesn't stand out much in the books for this. Arthur and Bagman don't much care that somebody has disappeared, though Arthur later acts like he'd been more concerned than he was. I'm sure Percy enjoyed Crouch's absence because it gave him more to do. However, I don't think most employees get concerned when their boss isn't in the office. V lucked out in having that ambitious assistant there, true, but he's lucked out with the Weasleys before.
Percy was the subject of an inquiry regarding gross negligence and his boss was murdered
Ironic that Harry criticizes Percy for not realizing Crouch was under V's control when his own hero, Dumbledore, not only didn't realize his friend Moody was working for V but didn't realize he actually wasn't his friend Moody. No inquiry there, for some reason. If Percy was blamed for what happened I think it would be a case of making an underling take the fall.
Also, for someone with such high standards, the fact that Crouch couldn't be bothered to remember Percy's name doesn't exactly work in his favor either.
That doesn't reflect that badly on Percy, to me. Crouch thought his name was Weatherby. The paper calls Arthur "Arnold." Percy does lack a personal charisma, but could still be a good worker.
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 was still a 'shadow' cast by the inquiry. Of course I don't think he was at fault in any way for what happened to Crouch, but his obliviousness to the fact that something was fishy, amiss, is not exactly a trait that I think would be prized and rewarded by a promotion to the Minister's assistant. Do you know what I mean? It lends an aura of "fishy-ness" to Percy's promotion considering a week or so before he had been under such a troubling Inquiry, and considering that Fudge is not a trustworthy person, I'd question Fudge's motives. Really, it's not a question of whether or not Percy was capable of doing the job - it's about Fudge's questionable motives considering his row with and 'campaign' to descredit Dumbledore.
That doesn't reflect that badly on Percy, to me. Crouch thought his name was Weatherby. The paper calls Arthur "Arnold." Percy does lack a personal charisma, but could still be a good worker.
Well, it was Rita Skeeter who called him Arnold, and she did it on purpose - she wanted to make him look bad and foolish. 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 portrayed as a smart, shrewd 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 and Percy's job performance, the very least he could do was get his name right.
Reply
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.)
Of course, I also believe that Kreacher was telling the truth when he said Sirius broke his mother's heart and that the Blacks loved each other too.:-)
Really, it's not a question of whether or not Percy was capable of doing the job - it's about Fudge's questionable motives considering his row with and 'campaign' to descredit Dumbledore.
Oh yes--and I think this is where their not listening to each other comes in, because it's not that Arthur couldn't possibly have any point in saying Percy had been promoted for less than honest reasons. It's just that even the way Ron relates the story it sounds like a train wreck. Arthur seems like he really did, intentionally or not, cut Percy to the quick and humiliate him, and then Percy let him have it.
To me, it felt like Percy was barely a blip on Crouch's radar because if he was so impressed by Percy and Percy's job performance, the very least he could do was get his name right.
Oh yes, I agree. Percy clearly wasn't that important personally to Crouch. I just meant that Crouch's lack of interest in Percy didn't mean Percy wasn't doing the work he said he was doing. In a way I guess that made me feel sorry for Percy again--he seemed to really be working hard, but he still didn't have the personality to get himself noticed. It's an old story in business--the twins would probably have been on a first name basis with Crouch in the same amount of time because they're more charismatic.
Reply
Reply
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.
Molly saw him in her Boggart. Bill asked him how the cauldron-bottom report was coming along in GoF. Ginny may have spilled his secret to the twins in CoS, but he was also the only sibling she even considered going to for help regarding her possession. (And while on the topic, the twins' reactions aside, Percy's secret really was not an embarrasing secret in the least. Wouldn't it be more derogatory -- to Penelope, anyway -- to keep a relationship clandestine because you're afraid of your family's reaction? It's not that much different from keeping a gay boyfriend secret solely because you're afraid to come out of the closet. As Percy was openly dating her in PoA, we can assume that either he felt safe, as Ginny had already outed him; or that Penny decided not to put up with it any longer.)
Even the dreaded twins have displayed affection for him: (PS, p. 149: "And you're not sitting with the prefects today, either. Christmas is a time for family." -- before they frogmarch him out of the boys' dorm). In fact, I would even argue that the twins' behaviour is not aimed at Percy himself so much as it is aimed at Percy's accomplishments. Before the schism, I can't remember a prank on him from them that did not involve his prefect badge, his Head-Boy badge/status, or acts of hostility not long after finding out about his latest accomplishment (the pyramid after his being named Head Boy, the dragon doo after his getting a Ministry job). For all of Ginny's expectations, we never see them tease Percy about Penelope, nor are we given any indication whatsoever that they did.
Ironic that Harry criticizes Percy for not realizing Crouch was under V's control when his own hero, Dumbledore, not only didn't realize his friend Moody was working for V but didn't realize he actually wasn't his friend Moody. No inquiry there, for some reason.
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.
Sorry about the repeated posting and deletions of this 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
Ack, my apologies again for reading you wrong. It's just that you mentioned that the family that showed love for the pranking twins could not also show love for Percy's pompousness, but later gave an example in your second post about how Molly's affection for the twins is apparent despite her scolding of them. I kind of put these together, because Molly loves the twins in spite of their pranks and teasing, not because of it; and similarly to me, the Weasleys (pre-OotP) loved Percy in spite of his pompousness, not because of it.
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.
I didn't mean to imply that anyone was acting badly, or that Percy was ashamed of Penelope, but to indicate that it could be taken as such, especially by Penelope. So although I have seen accusation hurled at Ginny for revealing such a deep secret of Percy's to the twins of all people, the only thing I have ever faulted her for was for revealing a secret that wasn't really hers to reveal. It wasn't as though Ginny had spilled some dirty little secret of his that she should have kept out of consideration for his possible treatment at the hands of Fred and George, seeing as a) said treatment didn't even occur, and b) if he was serious about Penny, she would have had to meet his family eventually, anyway.
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.
A little OT, but it's still irking me that I can't find this quote in GoF -- was it in OotP? I keep searching through the final chapters.
Reply
Leave a comment