Just maybe.... . Maybe if Harry weren' t so much like his father, nene of the terrible things in the books would have happened. Maybe if Harry hadn' t been a di Just maybe Maybe if Harry weren' t so much like his father nene of the terrible things in books would have happened hadn' been a di
Upload
Login or register

Just maybe...

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
Maybe if Harry weren' t so much like his father, nene of
the terrible things in the books would have happened.
Maybe if Harry hadn' t been a dick to snape in the first
book and just asked why Shape hated his dad (a man
Harry knew next to nothing about) rather than just
assuming he was evil he could have confided in snape
what he knew about the dragon egg and how sameone
knew to get past fluffy he could have warned the other
members of staff and then they could have tackled
Voldemort without Ron needing to get seriously injured.
Maybe if Harry and Shape had a better relationship
Snape wouldnt have thought it was he, Ron and
Hermionie that were stealing the ingredients for polyjuice
potion and Snape could have told Dumbledore and they' d
have figured out whe was messing around with the
tournament and Harry would never have fallen into
Voldermorts hands meaning he wouldn' t have been
revived and Ced rm wouldnt have died, ner would anyone
else whe suffered at the hands of ' s death
eaters.
Maybe if Harry listened to everyone else whe told him
ever and ever that "Du Trusts Him" and not
been a little prick with a stick up his ass
whe always had to be rig ht he would have cared mere
about Snape' s lessons and ;
meaning Sirius wouldn' t have to have died because he
was a little idiot whe went out of his way time and time
again, never trusting those arm: him whe were old
enough to know what they were doing he wouldn' t have
gotten the closest thing he had left to his family killed.
Fred wouldn' t have died.
Lupin' s child wouldnt have to grow up an orphan.
Hedwig wouldnt have died.
Arthur Weasly wouldn' t have been mauled by Nagini.
The real master Moody wouldn‘ t have been murdered.
Colin Creevy would get to take another photograph.
And snape woudn' t have been brutalised by Nagini!
Just maybe, if Harry hadn' t been such a dick to one of
the most tragic characters in modern fiction, all those
dead at the hands of the death eaters weild still be here.
Maybe if Harry inherited a little mere from Lilly than
just her eyes... maybe all those people wouldnt be
Dead!
Harry Potter is a Dick!
...
+1076
Views: 51155 Submitted: 08/22/2013
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (323)
[ 323 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #129 - alleksi
Reply +319 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [+] (29 replies)
stickied
Maybe if Harry weren't so much like his father, the story wouldn't be interesting at all.
#268 to #129 - soychingon
-4 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#267 to #129 - zaul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
User avatar #311 to #129 - fukkendragonite
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Was just about to say this and I see someone else beat me to it
#280 to #129 - jackjr
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Error in the first line, didn't read.
Error in the first line, didn't read.
User avatar #289 to #280 - alleksi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
I copied the sentence and its structure from the post
#293 to #289 - jackjr
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
I wasn't judgin you! I was agreeing with you. I even thumbed you. Me and you buddy, could be friends...
I wasn't judgin you! I was agreeing with you. I even thumbed you. Me and you buddy, could be friends...
User avatar #329 to #293 - anniethreeone
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/24/2013) [-]
Actually, I believe were is correct in this case because it's in a conditional clause. Other examples being:
"If you were the last person on earth..."
"if it were possible to kill everyone else one earth..."
"If I were to annihilate all mankind..."
User avatar #282 to #129 - elcreepo
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
This.
User avatar #133 to #129 - xartredosx
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
and it would be shorter, much much shorter
#221 to #129 - donaldducksdick
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #312 to #129 - skysailor
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
It could have been. Maybe it could take a different route completely. Harry talks about his father with Snape. Snape takes Harry under his wing and trains him to become a highly capable wizard with vast knowledge (even more so). The use of potions would have increased. Once Voldemort came back, Harry and Snape would begin investigating means of taking them down.

Just a thought.
User avatar #132 to #129 - snowshark [OP]
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Right, I'm sticking this one because I'm tired of saying this.

At no point do the contents of my pst state that "This is how it should have been." or that the books would have been better this way. The post is the observation of Harry's terrible decision-making skills and if anyone has gripes with them I'm happy to talk to them in the comments section below and have a sensible discussion about this because literature is the ****.

The books are good. Flawed in many ways but still good. (Hell, even Citizen Kane opens on a massive gaping plothole.)
User avatar #139 to #132 - alleksi
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
The point what I'm making is that you're judging the book as if it was "real life". instead of as a story.

you're thinking in a if only he had done this then my favorite character that I really had an connection with wouldn't have died -way.
Had Harry done things in the logical way, none of the major plot points wouldn't have happened, and therefore there whole story would just be, well, boring. You cannot "what if" a finished story

Characters must be flawed.
They need to make poor decisions sometimes. This is what makes them believable and this is what gives them the possibility to improve.
A Gary Stu is never a good thing for a story.

The decisions that Harry does are part of his character. it his his role in the story. A character that does things that you don't like isn't a flawed character.

In the words of a great philosopher:
Everybody makes mistakes
-Hanna Montana
User avatar #154 to #139 - snowshark [OP]
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Uhm... no that's the exact opposite of what makes a story good. What makes a story good is the realism and believeability of everything that goes on inside the story. Because of this things need to be weighed up the same way you would see real life. Flawed characters are necessary but not to the point where they break the reality of the story. Luckily that doesn't happen in Harry Potter.

The character flaws feel very natural however that doesn't change the fact that Potter causes an awful lot of bad because of them and never learns from his mistakes. An important aspect of storywriting is the character arc which shows how characters grow new faults and/or fix old ones. The character changes over the arc and if there isn't an arc there needs to be a good reason why.

Harry has is life saved by Snape and learns that all Snape did was to save the school however he still treats him like he is evil for the rest of the series. The guy saved his life. Were he truly working for Voldemort he wouldn't have done that.

Characters need to be likeable and if they repeat the same mistakes every year year-in-year-out they aren't learning and that makes it hard to like them. If you take a look at Harry throughout the books he doesn't change much at all.
#237 to #154 - magaion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
I am sorry i agree with some of your points but the one on a story being based off of realism and believe-ability is just wrong very VERY few story's are based upon that its fantasy and another point there are people in the real world who are just so irrational that they hate somebody for no reason so that is actually the more realistic point in harry potter books and the fantasy is well you know the magic the flying cars story's are made to be story's they are meant to take one away from the real world into the realm of fantasy other then story's meant for realism.
User avatar #256 to #237 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
See, this is the kind of misunderstanding of the means of writing and the concept of logic that gets on my tits. You have your heart in the right place but your head isn't.

Fantasy and flying cars take place in a logical world. The inclusion of a fantasy element does not mean the story needs to be any less realistic, rather the story must conform logically to the established rules of the universe.

If stories were not about people acting realistically they would all be puking kittens into the fire and farting rainbows because that is 'surreality'. 'Reality' in terms of literature is a respect of the suspension of disbelief of the readers and in order for that to happen characters need to behave in an understandable fashion (i.e. they need to react like real people would in their circumstances.)

Fantasy doesn't make a story any less real. It just means that real means something a little different in the established world. However if you give no reason for people to behave differently then they must still behave in a manner you would expect people in that situation to behave in. That is how writing a story works. It may be more or less fantastic than other stories but the constant is that the audience needs to be able to suspend their disbelief. They need to believe that the people there are acting naturally.
#281 to #256 - magaion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
I am sorry please clarify me if i am wrong but what i meant was you cant base a fantasy on out worlds term of reality where nothing of the sort could happen ever how i see it is a book takes you in and extends the realms of reality while you are there it is based upon reality in that world but nothing that is possible in ours
User avatar #285 to #281 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
That comes under the roof of 'suspension of disbelief'. The writer crafts the story in such a way that the audience are willing to accept that the things that are happening would really happen. Whilst it is highly unlikely that shenanigans will happen every year at Hogwarts all involving a danger of death, all at the end of the term and all surrounding a single child the story is crafted in such a way that we believe the coincidence would actually happen.

I do see where you're coming from, I really do. But there is a little more to this than meets the eye. It isn't about diverging away from reality, it is about making the audience not notice when you do... unless you want them to notice like in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy but that's a whole other can of dolphins.
#266 to #237 - wagastragas
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
having fantasy doesnt means it cant be believe able, i mean some fantasy stories can turn rocks into gold, turn day into night, but they cant fix the problem instantly cause of some bs excuse its even a cliche now
#279 to #266 - magaion
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
I am not saying fantasy cant be believable what i am saying is its not based on reality and believe ability in our world what i am saying is that you cant base a story on our worlds term of reality
User avatar #219 to #154 - Greevon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Believability does not equal good story. And lack of plausibility does not equal bad story. Literature is a complex art form that cannot be simplified into lines such as these, so everybody in this discussion needs to stop trying.

That aside, you made some very good points for the Harry Potter series specifically.
User avatar #261 to #219 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
No, but there is an art to literature and Harry Potter isn't exactly high art. It does not establish that its characters should behave in a manner that the audience would not believe to be naturalistic in the situation.

If you wish to mess about with the unbelievable or the implausible that too can make a good story but it requires those laws to be viscerally established like in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Everyone behaves in a warped, unrealistic manner because the universe is warped and unrealistic. Arthur Dent is the only "Straightman" character in the series and he remains the straightman because it allows the audience to identify with him.

Good stories are bred with consistency. If you are going to be surreal and unbelievable then that comes from either a consistent tone or a marked change in tone. Unless there is a definite change in the way things are meant to work they are assumed to be the same as normal so characters will behave naturally as human beings would in a world where magic was second nature to them. The world may be unusual and fantastic but the people are still people.

I do agree that this is a very tricky subject to broach form any angle though as however you intellectualise it you're bound to come into contact with people who do/do not agree with your views. I appreciate the kind words, by the way.
User avatar #158 to #154 - alleksi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Good point(s).

It's been a long time since I've seen the movies, and an even longer time since I've read the books (and when I did read them I was young so it's not like I thought about it that much), so I really can't give you any examples of "hey, here he did this and that", but I have this strange feeling that all Harry's hate towards Snape were, or at least felt justified. That's just a feeling I have, I really can't prove it to you.
User avatar #164 to #158 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
It's because as the reader you identify with Potter as it is his mind you spend the whole book inside. That is good writing and makes it easier to overlook the book's flaws because you only really focus on Harry.
#180 to #164 - haidoss
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
The most human among us is a snowshark. Let's take a moment to let that sink in...
User avatar #181 to #180 - snowshark [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Oh god, let's not. If I start sinking I can't breathe.
User avatar #182 to #181 - haidoss
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
I don't think you understoo- oh, I see what you did there
#231 to #129 - anticitezenone
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
I hate it when other's opinions are right
User avatar #141 to #129 - Bminogue
Reply +39 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Exactly... Once upon a time at the Hogwarts school of Witchcraft and Wizardry, everybody became best friends. The End.

Thrilling
#79 - thewebspinner
Reply +216 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [+] (8 replies)
stickied
no dobby mentioned...
no dobby mentioned...
User avatar #247 to #79 - greensoul
Reply -9 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
who cares about that little ****
User avatar #296 to #247 - coldfusion
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
If you read the books, you wouldn't be saying that.
User avatar #161 to #79 - yunablade
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
**** dobby I hated the little twat.

Using him as a meat shield was the best use he had.
User avatar #80 to #79 - blubbenn
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Was thinking the exact same thing
#140 to #79 - CHODYTHEBLAKGUY
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
not only did you mention him but you have to post a gif of his final moment as well? **** you sir i did not want to cry today
#152 to #79 - thewizsam
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #86 to #79 - snowshark [OP]
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
****! I was saving Dobby for last and forgot to put him in!

*SIGH* Now I feel like a dick. Take a sticky as my way of saying sorry and as acknowledgement that Dobby wouldn't have died either... how did I forget Dobby?
#167 to #79 - betesta
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
#6 - memenoob
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
But Arthur Weasley would have been killed by Nagini if Harry hadn't saw the vision...
User avatar #69 to #6 - thesinful
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Harry didn't get Occlumency lessons until after that
User avatar #7 to #6 - sketchE
Reply +114 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
not if voldemort was still dead
#105 to #7 - anon id: 10f715bb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
BUT HE WOULDNT BE DEAD! If they had been unable to get Harry, then they would have gotten another wizard. And Voldemort would have returned, and much stronger then if he took Harrys blood(Because that made the link stronger, and thus Harry stronger in faceing him). Lupin might noe EVER have gotten children, since he met his Wife(don't remember her english name, so yea) through the order of the Phenix, wich would not have been asambled unless Voldemort returned(this might have happend either way, but whatever). And in the first book Dombledore and Snape KNEW who was trying to steal the stone. They just didn't do anything about him. I don't know why ask JK. So **** you god damn movie retards. If you read the books you'll understand that this post has more **** in it then a girls bathroom. **** YOU!

Anon OUT!
#102 - darthacerbus
Reply +66 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
"Maybe if Harry wasn't a well-crafted character with flaws, the books would've been less interesting" is all I got out of this.
"Maybe if Harry wasn't a well-crafted character with flaws, the books would've been less interesting" is all I got out of this.
User avatar #108 to #102 - snowshark [OP]
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
"Maybe if he wasn't a poorly handled well crafted character the books wouldn't be filled with him getting the people he loves killed."

This isn't about wether the books are good or bad, this is an observation that Harry is a dick. I don't say that is the way things should be, rather that is the way things would be if Harry was a more mature character.
#328 to #108 - darthacerbus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
He starts as an eleven-year old child and goes through puberty of the course of the series, and you expect him to be more mature.
He starts as an eleven-year old child and goes through puberty of the course of the series, and you expect him to be more mature.
User avatar #104 to #102 - kousei
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Thank you kind sir. Everyone forgets that.
User avatar #109 to #104 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Forgets what? It is not relevant to the post. The post isn't about how I think the books should be, it's an observation of Harry's many mistakes and how they get lots of people killed and how he almost never learns from them.
User avatar #111 to #109 - kousei
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
no, this is harping on him for not trusting Snape, The guy who was an utter dick to him from day one, and i'm sorry but if all i got was "Dumbledore trusts him" I don't imagine that would change my attitude much. So sorry if i can understand why Harry is a "dick"
User avatar #114 to #111 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
He gets Sirius killed because he doesn't take occlumency seriously and he doesn't think that maybe what he saw was meant to lure him down there for one thing. Dude, Harry always has to be right.

And harry got WAY more than Dumbledore trusts him.... it was explained in the first book that Snape was working the whole time to stop Quirrel and save him yet Harry still doesn't trust him? Bastard saved his life in the quiddich match.
User avatar #325 to #114 - stankape
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Snape is a dick too. He didnt take the occlumency lessons seriously enough either, instead he used them as a way to be a dick to harry.
#203 to #114 - teranin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Sirius made his own choice to bravely protect Harry, his death is not Harry's fault.  Also, who is to say that even if Harry had tried harder in those occlumancy lessons that he could actually have stopped such a wide open door from being used by a wizard on par with dumbledore.
Sirius made his own choice to bravely protect Harry, his death is not Harry's fault. Also, who is to say that even if Harry had tried harder in those occlumancy lessons that he could actually have stopped such a wide open door from being used by a wizard on par with dumbledore.
User avatar #250 to #203 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
It was Harry who decided to act on his visions, contrary to what everyone was telling him.
It was Harry who didn't use Sirius' mirror to check if he was okay and just blindly charged off.
It was Harry who took a group of undereducated school children into one of the most secure parts of one of the most secure locations in the wizarding world where they believed they would find an unknown number of ruthless killers and torturers.

Sirius died because Harry was an idiot and always had to be right. If Harry had paid more attention in occlumency he may have avoided the vision and if he paid attention to what everyone was telling him he may well have ignored it.

He may even have been so mature as to not risk the lives of his friends flying on stolen, invisible horses to almost certain death even if he felt the vision was true. Because that's bravery. Knowing whose lives matter more.
#255 to #250 - teranin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
couple of contestations.   
1: So far, action had been working for him pretty well in other instances.  If it works, it works, and he was feeling abandoned by the absence of dumbledore and the presence of cuntbot 4000   
2: Really?  I don't even want to dignify that one.  It's called trust, snowshark.   
3: Yeah, it wasn't a great idea in retrospect, but hindsight is always 20/20.  He was utterly oppressed in his school, thought he had been abandoned by dumbledore, and acted because he thought he must in order to protect something vital.     
   
Sirius died protecting his nephew whose heroism was manipulated into putting him into a dangerous situation.  Occlumency likely would not have saved him from Voldemort's power, as I had stated, and as was stated pretty ******* clearly by Snape.   
   
He was ******* 15, guy.  How mature were you at 15? How careful, reasoned, diligent, and fully conscious of the consequences of your actions were you at that age?
couple of contestations.
1: So far, action had been working for him pretty well in other instances. If it works, it works, and he was feeling abandoned by the absence of dumbledore and the presence of cuntbot 4000
2: Really? I don't even want to dignify that one. It's called trust, snowshark.
3: Yeah, it wasn't a great idea in retrospect, but hindsight is always 20/20. He was utterly oppressed in his school, thought he had been abandoned by dumbledore, and acted because he thought he must in order to protect something vital.

Sirius died protecting his nephew whose heroism was manipulated into putting him into a dangerous situation. Occlumency likely would not have saved him from Voldemort's power, as I had stated, and as was stated pretty ******* clearly by Snape.

He was ******* 15, guy. How mature were you at 15? How careful, reasoned, diligent, and fully conscious of the consequences of your actions were you at that age?
User avatar #273 to #255 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
1: Action worked for him but got other people harmed. Cedric died and Ron got banged by a giant, rock-hard queen (not what it sounds like...). However with even a moment of forethought he would have questioned how sensible his plan that I established in the previous comment was.

I've yet to say at all on this thread that Harry's actions can't be explained. However his actions can't be justified because they were incredibly stupid.

2: I honestly don't know what you're on about... what about that has anything to do with trust? I suppose Harry's friends trusted him not to lead them to the slaughter... which he did. And don't go the route of "Don't even want to dignify". We're more here than being 'too good' to respect the validity of a raised point. It also made this point very vague and hard to answer.

3: Hindsight may be 20/20 but at what point during the gathering a motley crew of underage schoolchildren to fly stolen horses that they can't see and may fall off from to break into a government establishment full of mysteries and traps to fight experienced mass-murderers does the thought "Have I thought this through" go through the head of a sensible man?

Yes we can see why he did what he did but we can see why Voldemort kills people too. It doesn't justify their actions. Harry's heroism wasn't manipulated, it was his 'hero complex'. His need to always be the one to save the day to always be in the right. It wasn't a heroic thing that he did. It was a stupid thing. He placed innocents who had no idea what they were getting into directly into harm's way and a whole steamtrain worth of harm at that. That may be justifiable if he 'knew' Sirius was in danger but he had a mirror for that and people all year had been telling him this might happen.

So everything he did, he did on a hunch. A hunch that was wrong and almost got everyone killed. Sirius died nobly protecting his nephew who pointlessly put himself in harm's way because he acted without thinking.

Even if the occlumency never worked Harry could have avoided the whole situation with a bit of maturity, level-headedness and going through the proper channels (which oddly enough in this case was Snape who did actually come through for him, calling the Order to the Ministry.) But Harry couldn't trust Snape, the man who saved his life.

Again that last point isn't even relevant to any of the points I have made and it is a point I have been hammering down every time people bring it up. It doesn't matter WHY he did it. He did it. End of. So what if you can explain it, he still did it. It would be better if he showcased any meaningful character development since the end of the first book but no. He still had no respect for authority. Still had no trust of Snape.

All of the things he should have learned a long time ago came together and bit him in the godfather and a good man died for nothing.
User avatar #278 to #273 - teranin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Look, don't take this the wrong way, I see where you're coming from with your arguments, although we disagree heavily on Harry's motivations. But I just have one question for you after that.

You're not from the USA, are you?

I only ask, because the things you are highlighting as examples of maturity are values that most people from the states wouldn't share. Maturity is not a respect for authority, it is having the ability to determine whether or not such authority deserves your respect (Umbridge deserved nothing but scorn, and you know it) and trust must be earned, it is not something that Snape ever made any effort to earn with Harry, going so far as to intentionally do things that would make Harry mistrustful of him. Granted, a lot of Snape's actions were misunderstood, but mistrust and self-determination are not in my eyes immature, but rather practical. This goes back to the concept of hindsight being 20/20.
User avatar #283 to #278 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Fair points, all of them.

And I'm from the UK, where Harry is supposed to be from so whilst I don't speak for my country I understand maybe a touch more than the average American about the sensibilities of the UK. (Like how to me pride is being able to get pissed on, smile, thank the guy and walk away because he wasn't worth the trouble of fighting him rather than fighting back against those who oppress us. Granted, fighting back is necessary sometimes but like in V For Vendetta, time and a place.)

All that said I do say Snape showed plenty of times that he was trustworthy. In the first year he saved Harry from Quirrel's hex on the broom and was shown to have fought against Quirrel behind the scenes. In the third film he places himself between Werewolf Lupin and Harry. In the fifth film he calls the Order of the Pheonix on Harry's word alone.

Snape was constantly being trustworthy to the nth degree and Harry never saw it because he was too busy seeing Snape as just a grouchy guy with a grudge against his father, who he never knew and turns out Snape's grudge was completely justified.

Trust was earned in the first book and reinforced a little bit more every time. Maturity is the understanding of one's place in the world and the ability to see the path between one's place and one's goal that harms the fewest people. It is the ability to see the good in a man past the bad and to always be ready to give a second chance, but always be ready to dodge a knife in your back.

Maturity is all about how a man walks from one end of his life to the other trying every day to make the world a better place by making people's lives better. To see the glass as half-full and fetch the means to refill it.

But this is all getting needlessly preachy so I'll leave it with this.
We both seem to have very different modes of thought that are influenced by our cultures. I'd be happy to debate the merits of each but on this subject I think we've said all we can.
#286 to #283 - teranin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Yes, this likely speaks really easily to why Piers Morgan can't wrap his head around gun rights.  A good way of positing our differences in how we view maturity would be that in your case, maturity is having pride in Queen and Country, and in my case, maturity is questioning everything you see, everything that happens, and all forms of authority over your person.   
   
Very interesting stuff, I can understand your reasons why even if I don't agree with them.  Fun convo.
Yes, this likely speaks really easily to why Piers Morgan can't wrap his head around gun rights. A good way of positing our differences in how we view maturity would be that in your case, maturity is having pride in Queen and Country, and in my case, maturity is questioning everything you see, everything that happens, and all forms of authority over your person.

Very interesting stuff, I can understand your reasons why even if I don't agree with them. Fun convo.
User avatar #300 to #286 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Uh... no that's not it at all, Mate. Most "mature" brits see the Royals as a charming tourist attraction and a source of humour. We don't give a **** about them besides the £7,000,000,000 a year they bring in through tourism and the small rebate that we get because of them. It's all a show for the foreigners. Granted, some are stupid enough to really get behind patriotism but the sensible guys know how stupid patriotism is because we've seen what it's done to our countrymen and worse, to yours.

And Piers is just an idiot. Anyone with half a brain knows that removing the guns doesn't solve the problem. You can't remove the defence before you have eliminated the offence otherwise you get yourself killed. The US is far too broken by this point for cold-turkey to work at all. The culture needs to change massively before anything like removing the guns to be even remotely plausible.

There's also places where the wildlife ***** people up with big grizzly style and guns are needed to scare them off or, sadly, do what is needed to survive.

As I've already stated my opinion on maturity, here's a copy-pasta with some extra.

"Maturity is all about how a man walks from one end of his life to the other trying every day to make the world a better place by making people's lives better. To see the glass as half-full and fetch the means to refill it."

It is knowing when to fight to make the world a better place and knowing when to be quiet. The time for action will come if you only wait and prepare for it. Fighting at every opportunity will only harm your resolve and lose you numbers. It is about being smarter than your enemy is strong or stronger than your enemy is smart.

An example:
"A mature man will get decked, pissed on and robbed and he will gladly get up and thank those that abused him, maybe even offer them some helpful advice to get their lives back on track. Not because he has no self-respect, but because he knows they will leave and that the fight with them would not be worth it."
User avatar #118 to #114 - kousei
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
dude, occlumency was in Order of the phoenix, he was 16! You know, when most kids are trying to individualize themselves from their family figures. You're telling me he's a dick and not merely flawed?

Also, i didn't see **** about this until after the last book when Snape died, no one cared, so to both Harry and us readers this is hindsight. So, unless you were screaming at Harry about this, through the whole damned series, you can NOT get this butthurt over it. It's just not right, or fair.
User avatar #120 to #118 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
1: I was thinking this the entire time, even as a kid. If the dude saves your life you give him a ******* break. Maybe thank the bastard at the very least. Ask him why he'd save him if he hates him so much. Work it out from there.
2: You didn't hear it because it simply never occurred to me to put it down as FJ content until this point.
3: You're not on 9Gag. The word "butthurt" isn't going to make you look anything other than immature and I'd rather we have a sensible conversation on this subject.
User avatar #123 to #120 - kousei
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Very well, forgive me for my harshness. Point one does negate some of what i said, point two... while it may have existed back then it only became so prevalent after the last book.

I'm not saying you're wrong there but i do feel you are not giving sufficient attention to the circumstances. Harry is an orphan, unfamiliar with magic, and the guy who killed his parents is after him. He hates thinking of people dieing and doesn't think people listen to him. Given all this and his age i feel that people are over-exposing these flaws.

You mentioned he was too much like his father, but i don't see it. In all the flashbacks the worst thing we have known James Potter to do is bullying Snape, who did Harry bully?
User avatar #128 to #123 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
It's okay, dude. We all can get a little heated about the things we care about and Rowling's books are very good and worth caring about. At least you didn't go mental. Ilm actually surprised at how sensible most of the people here are being... most.

And whilst those are prefectly valid explainations of why he did what he did you can explain why the british PM at the time ordered his sniper not to kill Hitler just as well. It doesn't change the fact that the decision got a lot of people killed nor does it change the good that did ultimately come out of the decision. It's just that very little good came out of Harry's decisions in comparison to the cost placed onto other people.

And Harry bullied... Snape. Yeah it may seem kinda weird but Harry was part of the majority of students at the school who were really cruel about Snape. Granted, Snape invited it onto himself a little with the way he acted but given that Snape saved Harry's life you'd think he'd give him a break... but no, Harry was mean to Snape. Back-chatting him, ignoring his authority, disregarding his instructions and all-around being a pain in his ass.
User avatar #138 to #128 - kousei
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Honestly, i just want it known that he was a kid and made mistakes, not that he is a this A**hole that everyone paints him as.
User avatar #146 to #138 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
He was both a kid who made mistakes and an asshole. Kids can be assholes and they can be more mature than that, it just so happens that this kid got people killed. It wouldn't be as reprehensible if he learned from his actions or reflected upon them. A lot of kids are like that but that doesn't make a lot of kids right.

Still, you make a good point and you make it well.
User avatar #148 to #146 - kousei
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Well, my last note on this is one thing:

Do you honestly think you WOULD have done better? Given everything can you tell me honestly that you would have done better than Harry and still reached the conclusion?
User avatar #151 to #148 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
When I was a kid I was respectful even to the people I disliked. I listened to what I was told but I still asked questions when I could. I got picked on for having glasses and learned to hold my own in a fight so I wasn't exactly helpless.

Had I been in that situation, knowing nothing about my father and meeting someone who clearly knew about him I would probably have at least inquired as to why he hated him so much.

I also studied hard in school so I imagine I'd have gotten the hang of at least a bit of rudimentary magic.

So I feel confident in saying "Yes, I would like to think I'd either have done better or at least given it my all."
#8 - kidddraco
Reply +64 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
This is a very well thought out argument, I want to disagree, but I simply can't.
User avatar #9 to #8 - snowshark [OP]
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Well you could argue that Harry, as an eleven-year-old can't really be expected to not instantly think the mean teacher is a mean teacher and he spent his life defending his parents from his unnecessarily cruel Stepford foster-family so it hits a sour note with him.

Snape also, as the adult, should not have behaved as infinitely as he did and Lilly would have cussed him out for that kind of behaviour but at the end of the day these are all excuses as opposed to real counter-arguments. Harry would have been old and smart enough to know the right thing to do in all the situations he was placed in he just didn't because it was easier for him to always be right.

(Sufficed to say is the worst lesson the books teach and it is a continual one as Harry may suffer for his actions but it is only through those around him that he suffers and he never learns, not even in the sixth book when he is almost a young man.)
User avatar #10 to #9 - kidddraco
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
You too sir put up a valid argument that I find no fault with, but as I stated previously, I am not a clever man.
User avatar #11 to #10 - snowshark [OP]
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Doubtless your merits lie elsewhere.

Though I am actually the OP so technically both arguments were made by me.
User avatar #89 to #9 - supamonkey
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
You mean, kind of like what Voldemort says to Harry when he goes into the forest in book 7?
User avatar #90 to #89 - snowshark [OP]
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Kind of, yeah. Harry got an awful lot of people killed who could have avoided death. Granted, Voldemort wouldn't have been revived had Dumbledore not been an idiot acting out of character and letting Harry join the tournament but all of the characters do stupid things from time to time. Harry just does the most.

So yeah, Voldemort really had Harry pegged there.
User avatar #92 to #90 - supamonkey
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
It's kind of like in crime novels/tv shows when they say that serial killers are the best people to identify other serial killers because they know all the signs better than anyone else; as Voldemort is meant to be the evilest guy in the world, he can quite easily pick up of the darker traits of others.
User avatar #93 to #92 - snowshark [OP]
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
That and it's pretty standard bad-guy talk. It's a pretty obvious taunt to get to Harry.
#1 - lifeordeath
Reply +49 123456789123345869
(08/22/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#155 - leafpeepagain
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Maybe if Snape learned not to hold an insane grudge against a bunch of children, we wouldn't have had any of these problems either
User avatar #73 - teseus
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
The conflict between Harry and Snape is one of the dominant parts of the series. I don't get it why people always tend to say: "I wish they were friends from the start". No. You've read 7 books and/or watched 8 movies for the mystery of it. If Harry knew from the start why Snape hated his father, than what's the point in waiting until the very end? Everything would be way simpler and therefore dull. People came to love the characters because of the way they are presented and because of their evolution.

He might be a dick but you most likely spent a great deal of your childhood following and being interested in the adventures of that dick and saw him as a hero. Every character in every book is exactly as he/she is supposed to be. Nothing more, nothing less.
User avatar #75 to #73 - snowshark [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
So? How is that relevant right now? The point is that that dynamic was ultimately fatal to a lot of people and it was sustained by Harry's belligerence and mistrust. I've not said it was a bad thing that it was like that, just illustrated that Harry was a dick. So was Snape. If they were pally-wally it could have made for a good story too (one where Harry was less of an infuriating prick) but it doesn't mean what we got wasn't good reading.

Matter of fact that hindsight is a very good teacher. We see how awfully Harry managed almost every situation he was put in and how terribly other people were hurt because of it. It's a better teacher than if everything was smiles and kisses.
#2 - vaginismus
Reply -14 123456789123345869
(08/22/2013) [-]
So much fail in this post
User avatar #195 to #2 - garymotherfinoak
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
its sad that 90% of your red thumbs are from people that browsed over the thumb differenced and contributed to it without reading the conversation, and the fact that you did explain very well your point.
#199 to #195 - vaginismus
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
I got those red thumbs before explaining, so it's understandable. I was too tired to really explain my point of view when I made that comment so it only made me seem like a dick. Posted it anyway so I wouldn't forget to come back. Thumbs aren't that important to me. And thanks.
User avatar #200 to #199 - garymotherfinoak
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
*shrug* alright then
#5 to #2 - hillbillypowpow
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
explain.
#94 to #5 - vaginismus
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
It should be "If Snape hadn't been such a dick to Harry from the first sight", not the other way around. How do you expect an 11yo boy to think when someone is mean to them? Of course everything is black and white when you're young. Snape never gave any reason for Harry to try to make amends or try to understand. Snape was an adult, while Harry was a child. The adults in Harry's life never gave him reason to trust them fully, so it's no wonder Harry is always trying to solve things on his own.

And suddenly everyone's deaths are Harry's fault? That doesn't even make sense. It's a ******* book. Of course they would've died.
User avatar #119 to #94 - snowshark [OP]
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Oh yeah, it's not like Snape saved Harry's life or anything... or proved to be working from the shadows to foil the plot of the villain. And this certainly didn't happen very early on in their relationship.

Snape proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he wasn't evil yet Harry was still completely convinced that he was because he had a grudge against his father (a man Harry knew nothing about and was wrong to defend because he really was a dick.)
#126 to #119 - vaginismus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Yes, I bet you would take it without protest when someone drags your dead father's name through the mud. Teenagers are notoriously known as emotionally charged beings. Snape never took the time to actually try to make Harry understand him, and with their mutual hate for each other, it's no wonder Harry never tried to understand either. They were just too different in personalities and experiences to understand the choices they each made. Of course it's easy to say that no one would've died if Harry had made different choices, but how do you know? Voldemort would've come back anyway. It's the way it's supposed to be in the books. Someone would've died anyway, no matter how Harry tried to prevent it. Harry is not solely responsible for the deaths. It was war. And eventually, Harry got proven wrong, didn't he? I, for one, appreciate the way Rowling wrote their characters. And I know without a doubt that Snape would've died, regardless of them trusting each other. They were both made to become martyrs.
User avatar #131 to #126 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Okay, you make a fair point but it still has little bearing on the point at hand here. The point that Harry was still a dick. Granted, you can justify it one way or another but if a guy punches you in the face because he has daddy issues it doesn't change the fact that he's punched you in the face.

Snape isn't clean in this whole matter either and as the adult he is also very childish but the point being made is that Harry knew nothing about who his father was or why Snape could possibly have those views of him and just consigns him to being evil. It's not like we don't know why he did it, but he still did it and it caused a lot of people to suffer.

And yes, Voldemort would have come back one way or another... wouldn't he? Because to my reckoning he was on the back-foot until Harry got caught. Without Harry's blood Voldemort wouldn't have been able to make it back to his full strength. He had other Horcruxes for sure but a bunch of undergraduates managed to find them with a little elbowgrease and Dumbledore knew about the Horcruxes since the second book so it's not like the Order of the Pheonix wouldn't have beaten some horcrux face in sooner or later.

And granted people would have died either way but with the most obvious acts of humility, maturity and decency Harry could have avoided an awful lot of death. Hell, if he had even allowed Snape to probe him with the Veritaserum he would have given Snape all the answers he needed to learn who to be looking for. The same guy who told Neville about Guilliweed perhaps.

I'm not saying the books are bad or that they'd be better off this way or that way and I do like most of Rowling's characters too. However Potter is a really weak link in the chain because whilst he is a well-written character he is an abysmally handled one.
#134 to #131 - vaginismus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
I see what you're about. But hey, that's why fanfiction was invented, right?
I see what you're about. But hey, that's why fanfiction was invented, right?
User avatar #136 to #134 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Exactly. I'm not really the kind of guy who goes out to read fan-fiction but I'm all in support of people exercising their creativity with the source material.

I might be more into fan-fiction if people remembered Snape was a greasey-haired pale guy who lived in a dungeon brewing poisons and threatening children... my friend is into fan-fiction and he sent me one where I swear Snape was portrayed like a god of men.
#137 to #136 - vaginismus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
I've read a lot of Harry Potter fanfiction, with probably every possibly imaginable scenario. Except the ones with Hagrid or Dumbledore as sexual beings *disgusted shivers* Might take some time to find the really well-written ones with eveyone in-character.
#143 to #137 - snowshark [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Dumblegrid...
#147 to #143 - vaginismus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#130 to #126 - vaginismus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
And while I kind of understand what you're trying to convey, faulting Harry for everyone's deaths is just wrong. They chose to be part of the war. It was inevitable. What Harry would've needed was a good male figure in his life. Snape certainly wasn't up to the job, though I can see how he would've been the best choice. Remus didn't even tell Harry who he was, preferring to lick his wounds far away from the child that needed him. Sirius never grew up, and how could he, when he spent almost half his life in Azkaban? Dumbledore claimed to love Harry, but in the end, only saw him as a weapon to destroy Voldemort. Every other male figure in Harry's life had either abused him or tried to kill him. It's no wonder Harry made some bad choices with the life he had been given.
User avatar #142 to #130 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
I don't blame Harry for their deaths but at the same time he is indirectly responsible for them. If he was more mindful of his actions they would not have been killed by a revived Voldemort.
#145 to #142 - vaginismus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
I don't see how Voldemort's resurrection was Harry's fault. Harry objected to being part of the Triwizard contest. He couldn't have possibly known the cup was a portkey. And how is a fourteen year old wizard supposed to get away from the most feared Dark Lord of their time without his wand? Just saying.
User avatar #149 to #145 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Well, this goes down to preventative measures like Snape believing that Potter didn't steal his supplies leading him to track down the person who did, finding out it was Nevile who gave Harry the Guiliweed and it was Moody who gave it to Neville thus painting Moody in suspicion long before the third task occurred. Harry had also, by that point, been in three life or death situations and he should have known that when **** goes south, Voldemort is involved and taken Cedric right to the Portkey or at least been ready when Pettigrew got his wand out.

Wormtail's not exactly the most magically skilled of the quartet and had Harry either got out of there before **** went even further south or at least warned Cedric that something may be about to happen things could have been avoided.

Obviously Dumbledore could have just not let Harry compete... y'know... like he would have done were he in-character but it doesn't leave Harry blameless either.
#189 to #149 - vaginismus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Dobby was the one who gave Harry the gillyweed, after overhearing Moody talking about it.

And I personally believe Cedric is just as much of fault, not getting them out of the situation. Though with the way the previous years had gone, and all those visions Harry had, he should've known something would happen.
User avatar #191 to #189 - snowshark [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
****! What is it with me and forgetting Dobby recently? I forgot to put him in the content and now I'm forgetting him because of the movie... well I do prefer Neville to him so maybe that's a factor.

Either way a smidge of honesty and trust would have saved a lot of people. And Cedric was at fault too, I agree. Given that he was older and arguably more prepared for life/death situations in the tournament.
#193 to #191 - vaginismus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
I agree with you there.
I agree with you there.
#39 - aliksander
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
While I agree, from our current perspective, he seems like a dick. We have to remember a few things here.

1) Harry was about 12 when he went to Hogwarts for the first time. Twelve-year-old children aren't really all that wise or reasonable in general.
2) We are seeing all of this with the benefit of hindsight, and without the burden of emotional involvement (which Harry is experiencing) that might cloud our judgement.
3) Harry grew up in an abusive household where all the people he knew seemed to hate him for no particular reason (that he knew of). Is it really such a stretch that when he encounters ANOTHER person who seems to dislike him without a known reason that Harry might immediately develop a deep loathing and mistrust of that person?
User avatar #42 to #39 - snowshark [OP]
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Well he was eleven but that is beside the point. I'm not arguing that Harry did this for no reason, I'm arguing that Harry was like that. Not why he was like that but the simple fact that he was got a lot of people killed to death.

Lilly is shown to be very kind and a number of children in painful situations grow up to be kind however Harry channeled his hurt into hurting others and placed faith only in himself and Dumbledore yet still he ignored everyone else telling him that Snape was one of Dumbledore's most trusted friends.

Why he is the way he is doesn't matter. At the end of the day bad things happened and they could have been avoided if he listened to the people around him and was kind even to the people he didn't like.
#45 to #42 - aliksander
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
I understand that, but my point is find me an eleven-year-old who would have made different choices under those circumstances and I would agree he's a dick. And don't say Lily would have done differently because she did not live the same life as Harry (severe and constant emotional abuse from age 0, living in fear of dark wizards like Voldemort or his minions who might want revenge, etc....). Also, just because people could have been saved if he had done things differently doesn't make him responsible for those deaths/injuries. That would be the equivalent of saying to you "If you had chosen to severely apply yourself you could have cured cancer, but you didn't and so many people are suffering you dick!" That would not be fair to you, and it is likewise not fair to say the same of Harry.
#50 to #45 - ionblight
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #46 to #45 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Actually, I disagree (thought your point is well made.)

I respect the nature < nurture stance and it is one that I personally take and I'm not arguing that Harry's actions don't feel like the actions of a genuine person. What I am saying is that he is constantly assailed by people whom he respects telling him that Snape isn't a bad guy and that the wisest wizard alive trusts him. Harry should have tried to clear up the bad blood between them early on because that's what good people do and it's what I did with my grandfather. (He was grumpy and often cussed me out for the sake of it but he was also a really nice guy who would drop whatever he was doing to help people out. He just had a temper on him.)

I also say that Harry is not directly responsible for their deaths, that is the fault of the people who actually killed them. However the responsibility is indirect. There was a sniper who had a shot lined up on Adolf Hitler's face. He didn't take the shot because of the then British prime minister. The PM is responsible, at least partially, for all the people who died in WWII because they didn't kill Hitler.

He would also have been responsible for all the death and clear unrest that would have come from killing Hitler as well as the lack of Unity and nation-states that WWII created.

It's a mixed bag in that case where his actions were the lesser of two evils. However Harry's actions were not. They continually were just to make up for mistake he himself had made. He took two inexperienced kids with him (himself an inexperienced kid) into mortal peril rather than alerting Snape (possibly the only person who would have believed them) to the dangers whereby he could have rallied the other teachers.

All the things he did to fight Voldemort happened because Snape didn't trust him about the polyjuice potion and you could argue that, were he smarter, he would have taken the portkey back with Cedric the moment **** went sour and they ended up in the Graveyard (but that one 'is' hindsight.)
#51 to #46 - ionblight
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
but if harry wasn't such a dick the books wouldn't even exist and we would never know one of the greatest stories to ever come into existence and touch our lives making them better?
User avatar #53 to #51 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Or the books would have been different. If there's anything we know about Voldemort it's that he's a persistent son of a bitch and a resourceful one at that. Rather than a story of constant self-induced failures and disrespect of authority it could have been a story of unity and showing the worth of the younger generation in tandem with the elder one as the old give way to the young.

I'm not saying the books don't tell a good story, because they do. I'm just saying that it could have worked as well (if not arguably better) if Harry weren't such a prick about always having to be right.
#57 to #53 - ionblight
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
however in the words of Morpheus from the matrix
"What happened happened and couldn't of happened any other way"
basically i'm saying if the books were different would we still love them?
because i like the series because this all happened, it teaches us that we shouldn't always do things alone and if sometime we accept help more often than not things will turn out for the better and we can also think it of as a guide to help us in our own lives as we face our own problems because a guide that tells use the consequences is way more helpful than one that only direct us in the right way
User avatar #60 to #57 - snowshark [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Oh gods above, no. By no means is the series made bad for this, I argue that it is made better because we can have this sort of hindsight to teach us how to be better people. It doesn't mean that Harry isn't an arsehole, just that his being an arsehole does some good in the real world.

And what happened could have happened a lot of other ways. It just didn't is all.
#62 to #60 - ionblight
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
OK that was my conclusion too glad that we agree
User avatar #43 to #39 - indecisivejew
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Thank you. I don't get all these kids thinking that a 12 year old is an asshole because he wasn't completely perfect. Its not like Snape made himself easy to like, and as immature as it sounds, Snape really did start it. He was the one who started their conflict in the first book, and he was antagonizing a little kid for years. That isn't exactly justifiable either.
User avatar #49 to #43 - snowshark [OP]
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
1: "Kids". How are you any better than Snape in that regard by degrading other people for their points of view. You're being just as much a bully as he is in that regard.

2: Harry isn't a dick because he wasn't perfect. He was a dick because he never listened to what the people around him told him. He was told that occlumency was really important and that Voldemort could get inside his head (of course he could have just used Sirius' mirror to avoid that whole thing but that's a plothole because he's an idiot, not a mistake because he's an arse.)

If Harry was receptive to what other people told him year-in, year-out about Snape then a lot of things could have been avoided. Really terrible things indeed.
User avatar #63 to #49 - indecisivejew
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
Because all eleven year olds who have ever disobeyed directions are all dicks?

And you have never done a single thing that you weren't supposed to? Or neglected to do a single important thing?

By your ridiculously high standards everyone on earth is a dick. But in reality, everyone is just a flawed person who occasionally makes mistakes.
User avatar #64 to #63 - snowshark [OP]
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/23/2013) [-]
A bit of casual disobedience is all well and good but with lives in the balance Harry still disregards everything that other people say over and over again and eventually it leads to a lot of people getting killed.

His constant need to be right all the time drives him and the plot onwards but it also drives people closer and closer to their deaths to the point where he takes a bunch of schoolkids to infiltrate one of the highest security institutions in the land because he saw something in his dream that people told him Voldemort would make him see.

His disregard for Snape's teachings and disrespect for the knowledge of those who advised him about this possibility ended up getting Sirius killed and almost got a lot of other people killed as well.

I'm not saying disobedience makes someone a dick. I'm saying that when it really matters, thinking you know better than the people who are older, wiser and make their living doing what you think you know best at is a really dick move.

And he never learns from it. He always disobeys people. He always distrusts Snape even though he is shown to have been a fantastic guy, taking care of Harry and the school from behind the scenes over and over again in the first book. Harry is stubborn and people die.