despite Harry having always viewed him as a pompous joke; he seems to expect that Percy's view of him should remain spotless and admiring of his TBWL status.
Yeah, good point. Harry really does seem to expect people's attitude toward him to be positive no matter what his attitude is toward them. Like, oh noes, Snape doesn't like me! It can't possibly have anything to do with the fact that I don't pay attention in class, call him a "greasy git" all the time when I think he can't hear me, and generally cannot be in his presence without turning into an odious little snot!
More Dumbledore/Harry are thisclose anvils, seemingly out on nowhere in order to make their estrangement a plot point, rather than the status quo.
You know, that really is kind of strange. Yes, Dumbledore totally panders to Harry, but even so, they can't possibly actually interact more than a few times a school year. Why are they all of a sudden BFF?
That was an interesting essay on femininity - thanks for the link.
Yeah, good point. Harry really does seem to expect people's attitude toward him to be positive no matter what his attitude is toward them. Like, oh noes, Snape doesn't like me! It can't possibly have anything to do with the fact that I don't pay attention in class, call him a "greasy git" all the time when I think he can't hear me, and generally cannot be in his presence without turning into an odious little snot!
A personality trait sadly not limited to fifteen-year-olds, as I was reminded by my sister tonight. (She who, among other things, cussed out the neighbors for blocking her preferred parking spot with a truck while moving out and then was shocked when they called someone to try to get her car towed.)
Slightly OT, but neither could the POA movie, obviously. Those things were laaaame.
Actually, they creeped me the fuck out. Especially in the Quidditch game attack where one suddenly swooped up and you got a view down it's throat like the view from within a shark cage when the great white sweeps in for the attack... (Then again, that is a lingering horror of mine regarding mummies and other dried-out corpses. They always look to me like they can't be quite trusted to stay properly dead.)
Because Dumbledore's occupation of the moral highground here is hypocritical, since we know that Figg is lying.Not quite. She's lying, but the events did in fact occur the way she's describing them -- we know, because we read them that way in the first chapter. She's "nobly" running the risk of penalty for perjury because Fudge and the rest aren't taking Harry's unsupported word and there simply were no other witnesses to the attack -- though one person on the jury (we now know after having read the book's ending) knows that Harry is telling the
( ... )
Really? I'm a wimp about horror films, but they didn't bother me. Aragog in CoS did though, and a lot of people said that he was unimpressive...
She's lying, but the events did in fact occur the way she's describing them -- we know, because we read them that way in the first chapter.
But that's not justice, or fair at all; and I resent Dumbledore's implication that it is; which makes me doubt him more (speaking of the movies, so did the PoA one in which he describes Buckbeak as 'innocent'.) Figg is lying because of her own prejudices - she trusts Dumbledore over others. Whether or not she's inadvertently describing the truth is inconsequentional.
Horror films are hit or miss because not everyone shares the same fears. I didn't have Aragog or Shelob issues, but mummyish things give me problems
( ... )
You're completely correct - justice was done. But like you, I'm not convinced that JKR's intent in this scene wasn't "nasty mean people tried to kill Harry and then they or other nasty mean people tried to get him thrown out of Hogwarts by saying he was lying and that Dumbledore (and Mrs. Figg) saved the day by backing up Harry's quite truthful story so the grownups had to believe him." I'd like to believe that all the logical and even moral discrepancies in her work are subtle foreshadowing to her eventual plot, but this now the fifth book of seven, and what with her incredibly simplistic, almost vapid interviews; I'm beginning to doubt that she can complete the story in a satisfying way.
Comments 10
Yeah, good point. Harry really does seem to expect people's attitude toward him to be positive no matter what his attitude is toward them. Like, oh noes, Snape doesn't like me! It can't possibly have anything to do with the fact that I don't pay attention in class, call him a "greasy git" all the time when I think he can't hear me, and generally cannot be in his presence without turning into an odious little snot!
More Dumbledore/Harry are thisclose anvils, seemingly out on nowhere in order to make their estrangement a plot point, rather than the status quo.
You know, that really is kind of strange. Yes, Dumbledore totally panders to Harry, but even so, they can't possibly actually interact more than a few times a school year. Why are they all of a sudden BFF?
That was an interesting essay on femininity - thanks for the link.
Reply
A personality trait sadly not limited to fifteen-year-olds, as I was reminded by my sister tonight. (She who, among other things, cussed out the neighbors for blocking her preferred parking spot with a truck while moving out and then was shocked when they called someone to try to get her car towed.)
Reply
Those things were laaaame.
Actually, they creeped me the fuck out. Especially in the Quidditch game attack where one suddenly swooped up and you got a view down it's throat like the view from within a shark cage when the great white sweeps in for the attack... (Then again, that is a lingering horror of mine regarding mummies and other dried-out corpses. They always look to me like they can't be quite trusted to stay properly dead.)
Because Dumbledore's occupation of the moral highground here is hypocritical, since we know that Figg is lying.Not quite. She's lying, but the events did in fact occur the way she's describing them -- we know, because we read them that way in the first chapter. She's "nobly" running the risk of penalty for perjury because Fudge and the rest aren't taking Harry's unsupported word and there simply were no other witnesses to the attack -- though one person on the jury (we now know after having read the book's ending) knows that Harry is telling the ( ... )
Reply
She's lying, but the events did in fact occur the way she's describing them -- we know, because we read them that way in the first chapter.
But that's not justice, or fair at all; and I resent Dumbledore's implication that it is; which makes me doubt him more (speaking of the movies, so did the PoA one in which he describes Buckbeak as 'innocent'.)
Figg is lying because of her own prejudices - she trusts Dumbledore over others.
Whether or not she's inadvertently describing the truth is inconsequentional.
Reply
Reply
But like you, I'm not convinced that JKR's intent in this scene wasn't "nasty mean people tried to kill Harry and then they or other nasty mean people tried to get him thrown out of Hogwarts by saying he was lying and that Dumbledore (and Mrs. Figg) saved the day by backing up Harry's quite truthful story so the grownups had to believe him."
I'd like to believe that all the logical and even moral discrepancies in her work are subtle foreshadowing to her eventual plot, but this now the fifth book of seven, and what with her incredibly simplistic, almost vapid interviews; I'm beginning to doubt that she can complete the story in a satisfying way.
Reply
Leave a comment