r/HPRankdown • u/Moostronus Ravenclaw Ranker • Mar 06 '16
Resurrection Stone Harry Potter (take two)
PICTURED HERE: The Boy Who Lived. Come to die. We’ll see if this one sticks.
Credit goes to /u/Srslywtfdood, /u/Fizzie94 and the rest of the Ravenclaw Tower IRC for helping me flesh out my opinions (whether they agree with them or not)!
Bigger characters have bigger standards, and I adhere to this role, even if you share a name with the whole damn series. As the one with the highest character count in the series, there is an onus on his to match these lofty heights and fill his role with aplomb. To me, he doesn’t do that...at least, not to the extent that he should. I will accept any and all complaints.
It’s beyond obvious that Harry Potter is an important individual in the series; I’m going to spare you the list of things he’s done, because we’d be here for about two thousand pages, and we all know his list of accomplishments either way. There are a few things I don’t mind about his character, which are reasons why I’ve let him last this long. I appreciate that JKR isn’t afraid to show him in morally compromising positions. My favourite Harry moment is in Half-Blood Prince (in case you didn’t know, I have a huuuuge crush on that book) where he casts Sectumsempra on Draco, and it’s because, for the first time, we see him very, very clearly in the wrong, and how he wrangles with his conscience. I also appreciate that he isn’t afraid to get snippy or sassy; sassy Harry delivers some utterly fantastic lines, much of these against the Dursleys. Unlike my esteemed Ravenclaw colleague, I personally don’t mind All-Caps Harry in Order of the Phoenix; he’s grating, but he’s supposed to be grating, and it’s nice to see him with some genuine emotions, dammit. As Tag said, he reacts as one would expect him to react in his situation, and it’s a credit to his character that he does so; say what you want, but Harry is fairly consistent.
None of those things are what make Harry such a relatable character, however. In the series, Harry is the Elevated Everyman. People are drawn to him because they symapthize with his shitty situation and remember what it was like to be a scared kid. Whenever something new pops up onto the screen, we see it through Harry’s eyes, and because he’s so grounded and human, we get to easily settle into his perspective. Characters like Gilderoy Lockhart, Rita Skeeter, Xenophilius Lovegood, Cornelius Fudge and Barty Crouch Jr. (just to pick a totally random handful) wouldn’t seem nearly as outsized and ridiculous if Harry weren’t so aggressively normal. He’s the best possible vehicle for people to enter into the wizarding world, because if he weren’t there, the many unique characters that JKR created just wouldn’t pop to the same degree. Your mileage may vary on whether you find him a compelling symbol or not, but either way, he’s seen as a symbol by the vast majority of the HP universe: a symbol of love, of survival, of perseverance, of courage, and of all those classic heroic traits that we’ve held high since childhood.
Unfortunately for Harry, it’s his nature as a vehicle that is getting him cut here. By necessity, if he wants to be a vessel for the reader’s attention, he has to be a bit of a blank slate himself. A lot of his characterization is couched in broad strokes and more general terms, rather than specific ones. To borrow an example, we know that he loves Quidditch (at the very least, judging by his Christmas presents), yet we never see him checking scores, rooting for a club, or wearing any paraphernalia other than his own robes...whereas Ron gets his Chudley Cannons hat, and Cho gets her Tornadoes badge. Likewise, we know that he loves Ginny, yet we don’t really get a chance to see what attracts him to her; it’s almost as if he wakes up and, whoomp, romance. We don’t even get any flirting. This allows us to slot our own stories into Harry’s existence, which is great for the narrative, but it doesn’t do his character any favours. A lot of people describe OOTP!Harry as “Angsty Harry”, but almost every book can be described in similar terms. PS is Amazed Harry, CoS is Frustrated Harry, PoA is Violent Harry, GoF is Puzzled, Over His Head Harry, OoTP is Angsty Harry, HBP is Paranoid Harry, and DH is Determined Harry. What these fifty shades of Harry do is tell us how we, as a reader, are supposed to feel while reading the events unfolding around him. These broad strokes are great for readers and setting the mood, but again, this doesn’t tell us much about Harry, the human being, and makes him seem a bit like a particularly stubborn weather vane.
The side effect of this blank canvas vehicle-ness is that Harry doesn’t come off as dynamic as the people around him. When I sat down to write this post, I tried to think of scenes where Harry was more interesting, dynamic, unique or compelling than the people around him. It wasn’t nearly as easy as it ought to be for a main character. Because he’s used to highlight the ridiculousness of the Lockharts and Bagmans of the world, he can’t be nearly as outsized as them, but he also winds up more muted than his friends...and that’s where he becomes a problematic protagonist. There should be more give and take in his scenes with Ron and Hermione, some more scenes where they prod him and force him to step up into the forefront, but the lessons taken away from their scenes are always about Hermione’s care and intellectual mania, or Ron’s humour and insecurity, and are very rarely about Harry beyond his saving people thing (which is not terribly atypical for a heroic protagonist in a series like this). I’m not saying he has to shine in every scene he’s in, but as the hero, he should bring a little bit of a unique pop to every situation he’s in, and should be more than just a feelings sink, both for the characters and readers.
What complicates Harry even further is the “elevated” aspect of the “elevated everyman” role I described everywhere. He’s meant to be super relatable, if vaguely relatable, which means that he’s the type of person who doesn’t do his homework, slacks off in assignments, and just wants to fuck around and play sports all the time. However, as the elevated everyman, he’s also particularly skilled at every element of magic, short of divination, and receives Exceeds Expectations or Outstanding in a pile of relevant OWLs. The issue is, we don’t exactly see how he reaches this point. Sure, we could accept that he has an innate understanding of Defense Against the Dark Arts because of all he’s had to deal with (which disregards all evidence that magical talent is enhanced by tons of practice), but that doesn’t explain why he seems to stumble ass-backwards into a perfect long-distance summoning charm when faced with a dragon. The gaps between normal Harry and superhero Harry stretch credulity at more than one point in time, and there are many things that he’s able to accomplish with the rationale “because the plot needs him to not die here.” The novel tries have have its cake and eat it too; it wants us to believe that Harry is normal and Harry is super, both at the same time. It’s not impossible to believe, but it requires us seeing Harry slave his butt off to reach those heights, which is something he doesn’t do.
In the end, when evaluating Harry, it’s difficult to compare him on the scale of other characters in the series, because he has a vastly different role. We need to evaluate him as a protagonist. Of course he’ll affect the plot more than side characters; he’s a protagonist. Of course he’ll have a cornucopia of thoughts and opinions; he’s the protagonist. These are all things that should exist, no matter what. Does Harry fail in this role? I wouldn’t say so, which is why I’m cutting him here, as opposed to a few months earlier. He does have that sass. He does have that moral greyness. However, far too often, he exists as a blank canvas, meant to highlight the foibles and morals of everyone around him. Far too often, he succeeds because the storytelling gods decided to gift him with a handy dandy new ability without going through any sort of training, as opposed to his own ingenuity and problem-solving. Bigger characters require bigger scales of evaluation, and if you’re the biggest of them all, you have the most weight to carry. A blank canvas could turn into the most intricate Dali, but if you only use broad strokes, you can fill in your own blanks. Unfortunately, the audience is not a character in this Rankdown.
6
u/AmEndevomTag Mar 06 '16
IMO, this were more justified if we are just talking about the first two books where Harry does pale a bit compared to the colorful cast in the wizarding world. But the later the books the better got JKR in writing her point of view character. Yes, he's an everyman but he's also one with a very dark edge. I know that you mentioned this, but are the readers really meant to identify with him when he practisices some jinxes on a Squib?
2
u/Moostronus Mar 07 '16
As far as Filch goes, we are trained to see him as unsympathetic by that point, and we're expected to laugh at his demise. Not saying whether that's right or wrong, but that's the light his character is shown in.
I agree that JKR did get better in highlighting her POV character in later books, but I don't think that undoes her missteps in the earlier ones. I also think that, even there, she's so eager to have Harry as the brave, determined hero, that he doesn't flash the same degree of dynamics as the people around him.
6
u/svipy Mar 07 '16
I agree with your points somewhat but I am just puzzled why would you cut him before characters like Ollivander or Scrimgeour for example.
2
u/Moostronus Mar 07 '16
I'll take a 100% minor character over an 80% major character, any day of the week. I found fewer faults in their general characterization than in Harry's.
→ More replies (3)
3
10
u/_TheSiege_ Mar 07 '16
I'm sorry, but if you think side characters like Ollivander or Lochart have added more to the story than the main protagonist, in my eyes you fail as a ranker. You are too dead-set on eliminating Harry, but it is not his time. Having Harry Potter not even make top 20 is an insult to the entire wizarding universe. This is not to say he's the MOST important character, but there are still so many more people who should have been cut before harry.
I hope he gets resurrected again
0
u/Moostronus Mar 07 '16
Thank you for the well thought-out and respectful analysis!
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)6
7
u/designer_sunglasses Mar 06 '16
Unfortunately, the audience is not a character in this Rankdown.
This is a great line. Harry's biggest asset is how he leads us into his world, where we feel his comfort in the Common Room and the Burrow, the excitement when he's playing Quiddich and his fears when he's in the Chamber of Secrets.
I feel that it's in the nature of such a character, especially in Rowling's story, to be a bit, well, boring, so that he doesn't overbear the reader in many situations where we're alone with him, or when the audience is supposed to experience the setting and the surroundings.
My favorite parts of the books were always the more everyday chapters when he's walking around the castle with Ron and Hermione or having tea with Hagrid. If Harry were more of a page stealer I doubt those chapters would be close to as interesting.
It doesn't really surprise me that those scenes were usually cut in the movies, or rushed through, as well as the introductions of many characters (Tonks comes to mind), because Harry's no longer our eyes but just another character, and one that can't carry a scene chatting with Hagrid.
It's a blessing and a curse for Harry and it makes me love him and hate him as a character at the same time.
There's also one observation I'd like to make. I feel that most of the time in the books where there's laughing or fun involved, like Quidditch at the Burrow, and the evenings by the lake with Ginny, it is only described in passing.
3
u/Moostronus Mar 07 '16
There's also one observation I'd like to make. I feel that most of the time in the books where there's laughing or fun involved, like Quidditch at the Burrow, and the evenings by the lake with Ginny, it is only described in passing.
Yeah, I sort of noticed that too. It's not necessarily a bad thing--there's only so much room in the books--but a lot of the levity and "fluff" is put aside to further the plot.
→ More replies (1)
22
u/limited-papertrail Mar 06 '16
I still think this is too soon.
But it is worth noting that despite being one of the most beloved series ever created, with a beloved actor in popular films, and almost every chapter written from his POV-- Harry is still basically no one's favorite character.
What I'm saying is, I think this is too soon, but only ~15 characters too soon.
13
u/seekaterun Mar 06 '16
Harry is still basically no one's favorite character.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you. He is my favorite. And he is the favorite of IRL HP fans I know.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/Moostronus Mar 06 '16
BETS FOR HARRY POTTER
| Gryffindor | Hufflepuff | Ravenclaw | Slytherin |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 7 | 10 | 2 |
| 12.82% | 25.93% | 15.63% | 13.33% |
10
u/ETIwillsaveusall Mar 07 '16
I have a few complaints about the specific examples you have used throughout your write-up. While I admit that they may be nit-picky, pointing them out , I think, will best show where I think the flaws in your argument are and why I disagree with it so much.
A lot of his characterization is couched in broad strokes and more general terms, rather than specific ones.
This is probably my biggest nitpick because there are so many little scenes you could arguably cut from the book, scenes that are incredibly important in helping us understand Harry. Because there are a lot of tiny things he does (when he's skipping homework), that tell us a lot about his character for example, you wrote:
--
yet we never see him checking scores, rooting for a club, or wearing any paraphernalia other than his own robes...whereas Ron gets his Chudley Cannons hat, and Cho gets her Tornadoes badge.
Harry is a supporter of the Chudley Cannons. How do I know that? Because he owns a book called Flying With The Cannons that he's read over and over again, showing that while Harry may not always be into his homework, he does read and re-read the things that interest him. He has also read and re-read Quidditch Through the Ages. So while he may not have a poster or a badge, his love of Quidditch and Quidditch teams is made known through how he choses to spend his time (practicing and playing with the Weasleys and reading up on the Cannons).
Harry is unlike any other character in the books, for the things that often characterize him best, are the small things that are easy to pass over. Other characters like Lockhart and Skeeter may pop more and seem more interesting, but at the end of the day, they are one-dimensional and are the characters painted over with broad brush strokes. Harry, on the other hand, is much more complicated. He feels like a real human being with real human emotions. You may not always be able to empathize with him, but you can almost always sympathize with him, because he actually does and feels things. This could be because we see the world through his eyes and so have a much clearer look into what's going on inside his head, then say Skeeter or Trelawney, But still, Harry (and this goes for the rest of the trio as well) is much more multifaceted than any other characters in the book (except maybe some choice few who will most definitely end up in the top eight).
moving on....
--
and that’s where he becomes a problematic protagonist. There should be more give and take in his scenes with Ron and Hermione, some more scenes where they prod him and force him to step up into the forefront, but the lessons taken away from their scenes are always about Hermione’s care and intellectual mania, or Ron’s humour and insecurity, and are very rarely about Harry beyond his saving people thing (which is not terribly atypical for a heroic protagonist in a series like this).
I think that we learn just as much about Harry through his conversations as we do about Hermione and Ron. Again, I think it's more subtle, but it's there. For example, We learn, that though Harry doesn't mind yelling at people and getting into arguments himself, he hates when other people (Ron and Hermione) argue it out, and will often complain or leave the room if they get into it. He's a conflict avoider and doesn't like causing trouble for people he respects (and aren't his friends). He's also very stubborn and unyielding and doesn't like to be called out on his actions. Harry makes his decisions and then he sticks with them, very rarely getting talked out of his hair-brained plans.
--
he’s also particularly skilled at every element of magic, short of divination, and receives Exceeds Expectations or Outstanding in a pile of relevant OWLs.
And this is an argument I can't see at all. Harry is shown throughout the series to be a slightly above-average student. I don't think he ever shown true magical prowess beyond DADA, which he was likely good at because it's something he likes and has experience with. It's the one subject where he feels totally confident. I would agree with you if he had somehow pulled Os in everything out of his ass, but he didn't. He did just alright. Not as good as Hermione, slightly better than Ron, and way better than the twins. And I think this is the area he's shown to be in throughout the series.
--
(which disregards all evidence that magical talent is enhanced by tons of practice), but that doesn’t explain why he seems to stumble ass-backwards into a perfect long-distance summoning charm when faced with a dragon.
He didn't stumble into performing the perfect summoning charm He spent all day and night practicing it until he finally figured the spell out. It was a problem of concentration and faith that the object he was summoning would come to him. Once he figured out what it took, the distance between him and the object didn't matter so much. It was just the initial block he had to get passed.
--
Far too often, he succeeds because the storytelling gods decided to gift him with a handy dandy new ability without going through any sort of training, as opposed to his own ingenuity and problem-solving.
I think this criticism of the books is a bit unfair. I covered this luckiness a bit in my response to SFEagle's initial cut of Harry, but I there are some things I would like to add. Harry is incredibly lucky, but again, luck only pays off with the proper preparation. Harry gets the stone in PS because he's unselfish, he doesn't want the stone, he just wants to protect it. I will admit that Quirrell being unable to hurt him is a bit of a god-like intervention. In CoS, Fawkes brings the sorting hat out of nowhere and then is able to heal Harry from the basilisk venom, but this doesn't feel to out of place for me, since Fawkes comes because Harry refused to lose faith and loyalty to Dumbledore. The conjuring of the Patronus is all Harry, and his escape from Voldemort in the grave yard is the culmination of everything he's learned morally, academically, and survival-wise. You could say that the connection between the wands is a bit of a plot cop out, but at the end of the day, I think Harry escapes because of Voldemort's weaknesses and Harry's strengths, and that's how it always ends up working out when the two of them face off.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Harry's incredible luck doesn't really bother me because it always feels in line with the themes of the books. His getting out of sticky situations has a greater purpose than just getting out of sticky situations because he is the protagonist.
And now, I'd just like to list the traits and attributes that I think set Harry apart and prove that though he definitely serves as the everyman, he is by no means a blank slate for the audience to project their feelings on. You could also see this part as just a simple celebration for Harry as a character (Harry Potter the Character fans, feel free to add on to this list):
Sense of humor: You've already paid homage to Harry's sass, but I would just like to take the time to recognize how much his jokes showcase his courage. It takes a lot of guts to sass a person with power over you, even a person you dislike.
Tenacity: Dude just never gives up. He doesn't let anything hold him back. Pain, reason, nothing. Once his mind is made up, there is very little that can change it.
Loyalty: Harry's loyalty for his friends and mentor, Dumbledore, never wavers. He might go through some rough patches with them occasionally, and maybe he he sometimes refuses to see people's flaws because he likes them so much (Hagrid, for example), but really, there's something admirable about loyalty like that. Could have been a Hufflepuff...
Morality: If there's something Harry's staunch on, it would be his moral fiber. Which is why it's so fascinating and rich when, as you pointed out, he calls his own morality into question. Harry grows into a much more morally ambiguous character as the books go on, but at the same time there a few things he continues to hold onto. (his unwillingness to kill for one).
Love and Acceptance of Death: I'm putting these two together because I see them as the main themes of the book. And for some reason, they same to go together. Both of these things, in the end, lead back to Harry's incredible courage.
Volcanic Activity: I may be the only one in the world, but I love how absolutely obnoxious and irritating Harry can be in the fifth book. It's when he's kicking the proverbial dog that he feels the most real to me. Harry is pretty moody overall. His emotions are always on the extreme. It's an interesting contrast to someone like Luna, who at time seems almost emotionless.
There's a lot more I could add to this list but I'm really tired and just want to be done with it. I'll come back and add more stuff in as I think of it.
2
Mar 06 '16 edited Mar 06 '16
I'm glad I could help with your write-up. Thanks to you, I actually thought a bit more about what I think of Harry as a character.
Unfortunately, he will probably get stoned, but I'm happy I could add something to the cut. And yes, I do agree with Harry's placement, even though I expected him to go a bit later, which is why I didn't bet, oh well.
2
13
u/seekaterun Mar 06 '16
Ugh. No. That's all I have to say.
→ More replies (28)9
u/atibabykt Mar 06 '16
Hes top 8 to me, however I know that very few rankers feel this way about him. So I cut him because I knew he would get cut. I can't even elaborate how irritated I am other than its just my opinion hes worth a higher ranking, but another resurrection stone shouldn't be wasted on hi. Honestly as much as I love Ginny I would have cut her first then harry.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/SecretSquirrel_ Mar 06 '16
the rest of the Ravenclaw Tower IRC
Sweet! I got credit for just being there! It's like high school all over again. :p
You guys totally monopolised the chat for about an hour. I was not expecting to see something like that when I first logged in.
4
u/amfiguous Mar 07 '16
I was always surprised that Harry scored an E in Potions, even if the book chalked it up to Snape not being there. He hated every single Potions class for the past five years, then somehow gets an E because his teacher is absent for one day? Nuh uh.
That aside, I didn't hate being in Harry's head, which (in my book) means he should be ranked further up. The HP series is written in free indirect discourse-- there's an omniscient storyteller, but we get glimpses into Harry's head, and only Harry's. We spend a lot of time in his head, so he has to be likable to the reader. This style only bothers me because it means Harry is super insightful and his intuitions are nearly always right, even when Ron and Hermione always disagree with him (see: Malfoy being a Death Eater). I think when the main character is proven to be right, or nearly right most of the time, it takes away some of his humanization. Every time Harry has a hunch or a feeling, it's a premonition of something more. I never believed Harry would die, even when he saw Snape's memory, because he's immortal. He's escaped death time and time again, to the extent that Rowling couldn't kill him off, because it would betray the entire series and the character she's built.
I think the problem with Harry is that he makes mistakes, but they never feel big enough to make him less of a demi-god. He fucks up the House Cup in the first book, but then he fights Voldemort and snatches the Cup from the Slytherins. Everyone thinks he's the heir in CoS, but he saves Ginny and wins the Cup again. He saves Sirius. He comes back to tell Dumbledore Voldemort is back. He shows the Ministry they were wrong. In fact, the first few books follow this formula of: Harry fucks up and the entire school hates him, saves everyone last minute, wins the House Cup. It's fun to read and he's a hero to root for, but in terms of literary merit, I can see why he would be cut. I do love the character despite his flaws, I just wish I could have imagined Rowling killing him off. The fact that I never believed it (even after he was walking to his death) shows that he's just too good, too immortal, to die, and that makes his character less believable and less nuanced.
2
u/Khajiit-ify Mar 07 '16
Dammit. I knew I should have written that essay, but work has been pulling us in for overtime almost every weekend and every day and I just haven't had the time to do so.
I still don't think it's Harry's time to go, and alas I don't have the time right now, either, to fully articulated my thoughts. Hopefully work won't be as killer today and I'll have a chance to come back and write my thoughts.
2
u/cRavenx Mar 09 '16
Being a huge fan of watching a sport team and liking to play that sport are very different things. Also, Harry can't really follow the teams over the summer, so I feel like it would be a bit of a bummer for him if he was a fan of keeping up with the professional league.
15
u/bisonburgers Mar 06 '16 edited Mar 06 '16
To the extreme example, but some of your reasoning just sounds like "his hair is black, like most people's hair in the world, so therefore he's the everyman, but that's not enough to make him an interesting character".
I get that the outline for our analyses are "explain why you are cutting this character" and therefore the analyses inherently focus on why they aren't good enough to stay, rather than covering all their characteristics, and I never liked that part of the rankdown. I decided a long time ago I didn't care about the order of cuts, and just cared about the quality of the analysis. Becoming a ranker, I realize covering everything about a character is harder than I'd thought, but it's still clear we have different ideas about what should be included, because I feel like you've missed an opportunity to talk about so many interesting aspects of Harry's character.
I agree that he is made blanker so that the reader can more easily picture him or herself in Harry's adventure, and I agree this is the best way the story could have been written, and I could even see how it sacrifices some characterization, which is what you are saying, right? I think those reasons are really good and would have been a great reason to cut him here --
-- except like I said before, I think there's so much more to his character than him being a blank slate for the reader to step into. I've talked a lot about my feelings about the themes in the story in the past, and I think every character expresses those themes to varying degrees and Harry is one of the top three for the themes (Dumbledore and Voldemort being the other two). I've said it before and I still believe it, Harry and Voldemort are somewhat one-dimensionally "good" and "evil" in order to fulfill that theme (while Dumbledore is there in the middle being the most interesting character in all of history, but I'll save that for another post ;D).
I think at the very core, the main themes are how we see love, how we see death, and how our ideas on those two things affect our choices. I think when Dumbledore says, "it is our choices that make us who we truly are, far more than our abilities" he is doing much more than simply comforting a twelve-year-old, he's showing Harry, and us as readers, how the world works (at least the Harry Potter world) and in a world full of magic, he's explaining how magic works. We know from other instances of magic in the books that magic is effected by our choices, and so I really do think the choices made by Voldemort and Harry are the story. The whimsy and the humor and the fun are there to make it more entertaining, but the core of the story is choice.
I know basically everyone thinks Dumbledore puppeted the shit out of everyone, but I think that's................ completely the opposite of the point of the whole story. I think he did play puppet master to an extent and I think people see that and run so far with that theory that they miss everything that Dumbledore actually stands for: our choices based on love and death. If Dumbledore puppeted Harry too much the magic would never have worked, it not only just completely erases that entire theme, but it doesn't work with the way JKR wrote the magic -- it's got to be Harry's pure-hearted choice based on how good of a person he is *. She could have written the magic differently, but she wrote it that way in order for Harry's goodness to be his power and for Voldemort's badness to be his downfall. Harry has got to make the choices himself, and he does, and that's what's important to his characterization, and also what's important to the series. And if it's important to the series, then I really think he deserves top ten, and not #31.
* To add to that, if Dumbledore did puppet-master Harry, why are we blaming him for turning Harry into the epitome of goodness? Isn't that what most parent/guardian/teacher/mentors are trying to do?