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
x
Click to expand

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 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!
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1075
Views: 51101
Favorited: 195
Submitted: 08/22/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to snowshark submit to reddit

Comments(323):

[ 323 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#79 - thewebspinner (08/23/2013) [+] (8 replies)
stickied
no dobby mentioned...
no dobby mentioned...
User avatar #129 - alleksi ONLINE (08/23/2013) [+] (29 replies)
stickied
Maybe if Harry weren't so much like his father, the story wouldn't be interesting at all.
#1 - lifeordeath (08/22/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#102 - darthacerbus (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 #104 to #102 - kousei (08/23/2013) [-]
Thank you kind sir. Everyone forgets that.
User avatar #109 to #104 - snowshark (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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."
User avatar #108 to #102 - snowshark (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 (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.
#8 - kidddraco (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (08/23/2013) [-]
That and it's pretty standard bad-guy talk. It's a pretty obvious taunt to get to Harry.
#155 - leafpeepagain (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
#20 - anon (08/23/2013) [-]
1) There was evidence that Snape was trying to get past fluffy, mainly the scartch on his leg and the fact that Snape's room/office are located near the Trolls emergence area. As for him being a dick, he was taking notes in class, writing what Snape was saying, and Snape called him too famous to pay attention, and from the start tried to make him look stupid and foolish at every turn

2) Just knowing someone is using polyjuice doesn't tell you who is. Barty Crouch Jr also had Moody's eye, wand, and peg leg, making him an unlikely candidate.

3) Dumbledore's been wrong before. Just because someone you respect trusts someone doesn't mean you should. Especially if that man was been tormenting you for 5 years for no apparent reason. Additionally, magic isn't some skill you pick up willy nilly, or else there'd be no squibs, you have to have a talent for specific fields. Occulemncy and divination? Not Harry's forte. Pratronus, which even Hermoine stuggled with, no problem.

No room for more
User avatar #91 to #20 - supamonkey (08/23/2013) [-]
1) It's stated in the last chapter of Philosopher's Stone that Snape got scratched whilst trying to check if anyone had gotten into the Stone's chamber during the troll attack.
#95 to #91 - vaginismus (08/23/2013) [-]
Harry noticed the scratch right after they got attacked by the troll, that's many chapters ahead.
User avatar #97 to #95 - supamonkey (08/23/2013) [-]
It is true he notices it just after the troll attack, but he doesn't realise Snape was trying to stop someone from sneaking in until the last chapter when Dumbledore tells him.
#99 to #97 - vaginismus (08/23/2013) [-]
And that's exactly why he suspected Snape. Snape never gave him any reason to trust him. And as Quirrel said, "Who would suspect poor stuttering Quirrel?"
User avatar #44 to #20 - snowshark (08/23/2013) [-]
1: A valid point, however I'm not saying Snape wasn't a dick to Harry, rather that Harry was a dick to Snape. They both had faults but rather than being a good rolemodel like his mother, Harry put his faith in only himself and hurt other people indirectly because he distrusted Snape (or rather because he distrusted everyone who told him Snape was to be trusted). A simple chat could have cleared up a lot of things if Harry showed Snape even a little bit of Lilly in his personality.

2: No, but it is highly suspicious and with other unusual antics going on it would lead them to the conclusion that someone is not who they say they are and the schools would likely agree to tests to ensure that there wasn't some hidden assassin lurking in the school for the safety of the students.

3: That's not actually true. Magic is an inherent bent that people either have or don't have but anyone can do any magic if they have the right mindset for it. Much like how Neville (who was pants when the DA started) really took to magic under Harry's tutelage. If Harry and Snape had a better relationship then Occlumency would have come easier to Harry because Snape would have cared more about protecting Lilly's child than letting his hatred for James out on his son.

They'd both have been better people for knowing each other and I personally think that would have made a better story. You'd need other ways to work in Voldemort but the Wizarding world is so flushed with possibilities that that wouldn't be hard. However that last bit is conjecture based on my personal tastes, the bit before is the important stuff.
#238 to #44 - anon (08/23/2013) [-]
I agree (with 2 and 3, mostly), I was just pointing out counter-arguments for the sake of argument; a different perspective so to speak.

However, I firmly believe that Harry was neutral towards Snape until Snape's first class. As I mentioned, he was just taking notes, and Snape, as a member of the Order, knew full well that Harry was raised by muggles and therefore had no prior experience, and therefore was being a royal douche. Harry merely reciprocated.

As for the Goblet of Fire, there were two known Death Eaters and a school full of people with a reputation for dark arts. A renowned Auror, such as Moody, would hardly be the first/even a likely suspect. Doubly so since the polyjuice couldn't replicate the leg, eye, and wand, all of which were authentic.

I like you, you seem fairly intelligent/observant. I like arguing with people that are, for it expands my own knowledge.
User avatar #265 to #238 - snowshark (08/23/2013) [-]
You're right about Snape and Harry but one of them should have taken the high road, all the easier for Harry to take once it is solidly established at the end of the very first book that Snape saved Harry's life and worked against Voldemort. The subject isn't even broached as Potter goes back to treating Snape the same way as though he hadn't been the unsung hero of the first book.

I was one of the few to not be surprised that Snape was a nice guy because it was put firmly on display in the first book and only by Harry being a bit of a dick and forgetting that fact does the status-quo resume.

And in Goblet of Fire, had the two trusted each other more Snape could have asked Harry where he got the guiliweed. Harry would have said Dobby (or Neville in the movie) and Dobby would have led the trail of theft right to Moody.
#239 to #238 - anon (08/23/2013) [-]
And yes, Harry should've been the bigger man, but then again, he was 11.
#78 - anon (08/23/2013) [-]
OR OR OR.... Maybe if Harry didn't do all that, THERE WOULDN'T BE A ******* BOOK.
User avatar #88 to #78 - snowshark (08/23/2013) [-]
Or maybe the post isn't saying this is what should have happened.

Maybe the post is saying this is what would have happened if.
User avatar #73 - teseus (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 (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.
#39 - aliksander ONLINE (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 (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 ONLINE (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.
0
#50 to #45 - ionblight has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #46 to #45 - snowshark (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (08/23/2013) [-]
OK that was my conclusion too glad that we agree
User avatar #43 to #39 - indecisivejew (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 (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 (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 (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.
#23 - anon (08/23/2013) [-]
If your parents were dead, and some asshole teacher you just met INSULTS THE DAD YOU NEVER GOT TO MEET, would you wanna be nice to him?
#6 - memenoob (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 (08/23/2013) [-]
Harry didn't get Occlumency lessons until after that
User avatar #7 to #6 - sketchE (08/23/2013) [-]
not if voldemort was still dead
#105 to #7 - anon (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!
#243 - jakesauros (08/23/2013) [-]
Maybe if Harry woldn't have grown up in a hostile environment where almost all the adults were mean to him, he wouldn't have had the predisposition to feel threatened by a mean-for-apparently-no-reason adult.
Also, Snape could have acted his age, and undertand that Harry IS NOT his father.
User avatar #24 - sinonyx (08/23/2013) [-]
"one of the most tragic characters in modern fiction"

are you kidding me right now..?
User avatar #34 to #24 - snowshark (08/23/2013) [-]
No, I'm not. I genuinely think Snape is an extremely tragic character and if you consider "Modern Fiction" to be about the past 20 years then he is right up there.

He was always beaten and bullied and brutalised. Most of the kids disliked him and made fun of him behind his back. People distrusted him because of his past and he had to kill his best friend. All the time trying to save an ungrateful little **** that never even tried to be nice to him until after he gets mauled to death by a giant snake.
#156 to #34 - leafpeepagain (08/23/2013) [-]
I would give most tragic to Sirius. Sirius grew up in an abusive household and was never loved by his family. He had a few happy years in school before he fought in the war against Voldemort, got put in jail for the death of his best friend, then was in hiding. He died shortly after. Also, he didn't throw away his life on a crush like Snape and spend the rest of his life whining and targeting others because of it
User avatar #166 to #156 - snowshark (08/23/2013) [-]
No, but Sirius had happiness and purpose in his life. Snape didn't really have that outside of his interactions with Lilly. Tragedy doesn't become any less tragic if it is self-inflicted like much of Snape's tragedy is and he had to live every day with the knowledge that he helped the man who killed the only light he ever had in his life.
#316 - WootBoot (08/23/2013) [-]
Harry's fw
Harry's fw
#295 - jaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (08/23/2013) [-]
Harry is kind of an ass. But that's what makes it interesting.
Harry is kind of an ass. But that's what makes it interesting.
User avatar #302 to #295 - snowshark (08/23/2013) [-]
I agree. A lot of people are getting their panties in a bunch because they feel the need to 'defend' their beloved series but the truth is this is an observation, not an attack.

Harry's bumbling about in the wizarding world is really fun to watch. Frustrating at times but still it has plenty of good moments.
User avatar #72 - thesinful (08/23/2013) [-]
The one part that bothered me the most was the occlumency. note: A LOT of fanfic writers claim Snape was just raping his mind. Snape told him to practice clearing his mind every night to keep Voldemort out and to help in his own proficiency. Harry never once tries because (as Snape suggested) he wants to keep getting the visions. His lack of diligence leads the the incident at the Ministry where Sirius dies.

TL;DR Snape was right when he said that people like Harry who "proudly wear their hearts on their sleeves" were "easy prey for the Dark Lord".
User avatar #259 - captainoptimist (08/23/2013) [-]
God damn him for acting like a typical 12-17 year old boy who thinks he knows everything!
User avatar #249 - thereoncewasaman (08/23/2013) [-]
What's up with the hating on Harry trend right now? If anyone actually read the books you would know that Snape was a dick to Harry first; Snape had preconceptions about how Harry would be based on his father and treated him poorly because of it, refusing to see that Harry, in many ways, was not like his father. Harry developed a hatred for Snape based upon his poor treatment from him and on the old prejudice his father had, but if Snape had never been a dick to Harry then Harry would almost certainly not have developed such a poor relationship with him.

tl;dr It's a two way street, Snape was a dick to Harry too and that was just as influential as Harry's fathers prejudice.
User avatar #257 to #249 - akkere ONLINE (08/23/2013) [-]
I don't think most of the people that make these kinds of posts have really ever read the books, or skimmed through the books and paid more attention to the movies.
[ 323 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)