Harry Potter must be one of the world's most well-known stories at this point, and for good reason. I've read all the books and seen the films an uncountable number of times, and I'm currently rereading the series again. However, this morning, I took a break from reading The Goblet of Fire and browsed Buzzfeed where I came across an article called 'Harry Potter Is Actually One of the Worst Characters of All Time'. Naturally, I was intrigued. Had I spent years of my life misinterpreting Harry? Was he the really villain of the story? In short, the answer is no. Harry is still a wonderful character in my opinion, and part of me still believe the article is a joke because of just how wrong it manages to be. There are a few valid points which makes me believe that the article was written in all seriousness, and the author truly thinks Harry Potter is horrible.
Obviously we are all entitled to our own opinions, and these are just my opinions on why Harry isn't one of the worst characters of all time, and how the points provided as evidence of his heinousness aren't actually all that true.
The original article first accuses Harry of being selfish, and the evidence for this is that many people sacrificed their safety and lives for him. However, Harry never once asked someone to sacrifice their safety for him, and he definitely did not want anyone to die for him. On the list of people who made sacrifices for 'selfish' Harry (and definitely NOT for the greater good) are his parents. Is the author suggesting that Harry asked his parents to die to save his life? Maybe Harry was a very selfish 1 year old. I bet he asked them to change and feed him, and generally look after him while he was a baby!
Also on the list of people who made sacrifices for Harry are the Dursleys. Personally, I don't class being abusive and basically treating your orphaned nephew as a slave much of a sacrifice. Yes, they opened their home to him. Well, they opened a cupboard. Anytime they were nice, or not cruel, to Harry was out of fear of anyone magical. I admit it must have been tough for them to have to raise a child they had not planned and therefore may not have been able to afford, but let's not blame Harry for this. He didn't want to be there anymore than they wanted him.
Snape also makes it on to the list of people who made sacrifices for Harry. Snape never did anything with Harry in mind. Snape was entirely motivated by a creepy obsession with Harry's dead mother. He wasn't making sacrifices for Harry and the suggesting that he was is frankly absurd.
The other people on the list are teachers, members of the Order, members of Dumbledore's Army and Dobby. All of these people were acting because they wanted a better world. Many of them had already sacrificed their safety in the first war, before Harry was even born. Harry did not want a single person to die for him, and the implication that people did because he was selfish, despite their being no evidence of this, is just a horrible example of victim blaming.
The next point made in the article is that Harry takes his anger out on others, and the example provided is when he unintentionally made his Aunt Marge blow up. Of course, you shouldn't take your anger out on others, but the boy was 13 and she was insulting his dead parents. Cut the boy some slack. Which 13 year old didn't lose control of their emotions occasionally? We must remember that the boy who lived is just a boy for most of the series. He also got very angry in the Order of the Phoenix, when he'd just witnessed Cedric die, the return of his enemy, his dead parents, and his mentor of that year turn back into a dark wizard, and then been completely isolated from the entire wizarding world for summer. Yes, he should learn to control his emotions more, but at this point he was probably suffering some level of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and understandably so. I don't think yoga, recommended by the original article, is going to solve that issue.
The next point is that Harry's kind of a fuckboy, and honestly I agree with this point a bit. He did spend the entire Yule Ball sulking over Cho, when he went with Parvati. So this is one of the few valid points, in my opinion.
Harry does have a tendency to break the rules. He is not the only character in the series to break rules though. Ron and Hermione often accompanied him, all of Dumbledore's Army knew they were breaking several school rules, Fred and George broke countless rules and then caused mass mayhem when BREAKING OUT OF THE SCHOOL, and James and Sirius were well known trouble makers. I'm not saying this excuses Harry breaking the rules, but let's not pretend he's the only character to do so. And it does not make him one of the worst characters. I think Voldemort broke many more rules and laws than Harry did. The article suggests that Harry breaking the rules is seen as okay, but would it be okay if it was Neville, or Draco. Even though both Neville and Draco broke rules.
Harry Potter was very reliant on others. He had a lot of help in the Triwizard Tournament, and his defeat of Voldemort. And Harry Potter knows this. Harry never denied this. He often pointed it out when people gave him, what he considered to be, unnecessary praise. When Harry realised there was something he had to do alone, he didn't hesitate, he didn't consider any other option, and he just did it. And what was that thing? Oh yeah, it was to DIE. He knew he had to do it alone, he knew it was the right thing to do, the only thing to do and the 17 year old boy walked to his death. He didn't even go to see his friends, knowing they would try stop him, knowing they would fail, and thinking they would forever have to live with the guilt that they couldn't stop their best friend dying. But please tell me again how selfish he is.
Next, the article discussed Moaning Myrtle and how Harry is a 'dick' to her, because he didn't want her to see his dick. Asking someone to close their eyes while you're naked is a completely acceptable thing to do. Who cares if that person has seen stuff before on other people, they don't have the right to look at you, even if they're dead. You have the right to control who sees your body and who doesn't.
The next point it about how Harry loves to be the centre of attention. If this was the case, you'd think he'd be more willing to show off to Moaning Myrtle wouldn't you? Personally, I don't think Harry acts with the intention of getting attention. I think his intentions are noble and he tried to save everyone underwater because his natural instinct is just to save people. If he loved attention so much you'd think he'd enjoy everyone staring at his forehead wherever he goes and he wouldn't constantly be flattening his hair to cover his scar. You'd think he'd be more willing to participate in the interviews with Rita Skeeter, but he's very clearly reluctant, even when she's writing his true story for the Quibbler. However, if Harry does love attention then that's okay because liking attention is not a trait that makes you a horrible person. Especially if the way you get this attention is doing everything you can to save everyone you can, rather than causing harm or destruction. Enjoying attention does not make you a bad person.
The article then goes on to state that Harry doesn't listen. And then suggests that it was this lack of listening that killed Sirius. You know, rather than Voldemort's fault for putting the image in his head, or Bellatrix's fault for KILLING SIRIUS. Yeah let's blame the 15 year old who just lost another parental figure. Yes, Harry should have studied Occlumency a bit more thoroughly, but also Snape should have tried to teach him without so much hate, or Dumbledore should have found a different teacher. People always seem to forget that when Harry thought Sirius was in the Ministry, he also tried to find out if it was real or not. Unfortunately, Kreacher happened. The next point in the article is similar in the way it blames Harry for Sirius' death, but this time because he forgot to open a package while dealing with OWLS and occlumency and Umbridge and having his name dragged through the mud by the Daily Prophet and dreaming about almost killing Mr Weasley and recuperating from the trauma of the third task. How dare something slip his mind?
I think this next point is my favourite, and I like to call it Selfishness Revisited. But this time, the author accuses Harry for being selfish because he DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE TO RISK THEIR LIVES FOR HIM. Because 'it isn't just about you, Harry. Stop acting like it is'. But they began the article by accusing him of being selfish because he apparently let people risk their lives for him. Also, not wanting your friends to risk their lives does not make you a bad person. He knows it's bigger than him, but that doesn't mean he wants his friends to be at risk. Just like they don't want him to risk his life. He's trying to protect them and they're trying to protect him and no one is a bad person because of this. Another reason this point is my favourite is because of this wonderful line of 'Sure, sometimes he was actually the victim, but was he really?' Yes. He was not the only victim, but he was a victim.
Another redundant point follows about him getting credit for everything, and I've already discussed that he often points how that this is wrong, and that he had lots of help. He doesn't give himself the credit.
Harry is then accused of being cocky for no reason. And while the title of the 'Chosen One' was handed to him, he isn't really that cocky about it, except for that one little bit in the 6th film. Instead, I think the responsibility weighs on him quite heavily in the books. He also accepts his fate of being the Chosen One, and tries to save the world.
And if he's cocky about quidditch then he has reason, because come on, the boy is good.
Harry Potter is stubborn. Yeah. This is true. Does that make him a bad person? No. Apparently if he's mad about things not going his way, he should do something about it. Like go after his enemy to save the world…which he didn't do, right? If he's mad at his friend, he should talk to him. And I agree that he should, but again the author seems to forget he's a teenager and teenagers are irrational human beings. I can't deal with my hormones at 20, never mind when I was like 14, and I didn't have an enemy trying to kill me every two books.
'And, tbh, he plays the victim.'
HE IS A VICTIM.
Life goes on Harry, get over your multiple traumas Harry that have been surrounding you your entire life Harry just stop feeling sorry for yourself and just move on Harry. Your life goes on, even if it is without your parents, and Sirius and Dumbledore and Dobby and Lupin and Tonks and Hedwig and Fred and the countless other deaths caused by Lord Voldemort. But if this article is to be believed, then all of these deaths were actually caused by you and your selfishness, let's not forget that.
Harry Potter lost his parents, grew up in an abusive household, was lied to by Dumbledore for years, forced to fight against Voldemort on several occasions when he only wanted to save people, was treated horrifically by Snape and Draco and Umbridge and the Daily Prophet and the Ministry eventually, gave up his education, had to watch his godfather die, had to leave the love of his life for her protection, nearly lost his best friends on several occasions, watched Dobby die, watched his owl die, watched Cedric die, lost Fred and Lupin and Tonks and then had to walk to his death, surrounded by some of those he had lost, because he wasn't going to sacrifice a living person so he didn't have to be alone.
He isn't selfish.
He isn't a bad person.
Admittedly he's flawed but who isnt? and the series is flawed in many ways, but this in no way means that Harry Potter is one of the worst characters of all time. He's a teenager who helped save the world.
I mean, personally I think Voldemort is the worst character in the story but that's just my opinion.
The original article
http://www.buzzfeed.com/laraparker/harry-potter-is-actually-one-of-the-worst-characters-of-all#.vl0ReeXGzM
Share This Article
