Eric takes a hard swing at the series’ namesake protagonist, and while I don’t want to shoulder the task of rehabilitating Harry Potter as hero, I just feel like pouring more words onto this blog, as that seems to get John’s goat.
First, let me say that to a large extent I agree with Eric. Harry Potter hasn’t yet reached the stature of any of our more well-known titular heroes. But to be fair, his understanding of the prophecy and his fate has been evolving over the course of many books, and while I’m not sure when he knew that he would be facing Voldemort with the fate of the world on the line (book 4 or 5, I suppose… sometime after Voldemort became embodied again) he has only just at the end of Book 6 come to terms with the idea that he must face Voldemort. So let’s be fair to the kid, and wipe the slate clean of any previous slackings—if he spends his time in Book 7 guzzling Butterbeer and playing Quidditch I’ll jump on the E-train line of thought, but let’s at least give him the chance to buckle down now that he knows what’s at stake.
Yes, in a world full of strange and fantastical things, Harry is kind of a lackluster character. At times Ron and Hermione (and other members of the supporting cast) are much more interesting, and Harry is merely the spoke of the wheel around which they all revolve. By comparison, his father seems a much more engaging character—a rougish, swashbuckling wizard, perhaps (I imagine James Potter rendered in film or on stage by… wait for it… Timothy Dalton!). If I can make the following point without reverting to psychoanalysis, I’ll win myself a cookie: Harry is a flat protagonist because he serves as the vessel on which the multitudes of readers who are children project themselves. A child reading this book has the nearly-blank slate of Harry to exist in a marvelous world of wizardry, to be chosen for the sports team at the most important position, to inherit a ton of money, to get attention and have stalwart friends. As adults (or… nearly so) we (the posters to this blog) are suitably disappointed by this rendering. It could be that in her construction of Harry, Rowling has been too accurate to the model of the modern teenager, attributing Harry with few worthwhile traits to aspire to.
Growing up without his parents (and then learning of their murderer) should have been a soul-forging type of experience of Harry, and it really hasn’t been. He’s not driven by revenge. I still maintain that Harry’s heroism has and will stem from the same vein as Frodo’s—noble spirit, bravery, and perseverance. It became clear to me in Book 6 that Harry, if not exactly a hero himself, is the anti-Voldemort, in the sense that both came from similar beginnings (no parents, lots of raw talent) and from there diverged along wildly different moral paths. But Lt. Columbo Harry is not. The various mysteries that speckle each book are never solved in time by Harry.
I think its silly toss stones at Harry for being a mediocre wizard—or rather, for not being as accomplished a wizard as you all would like him to be. That characterization is unfair. Harry is consistently right behind Hermione (sometimes far behind… but still ahead of most of the other students) in his studies. In a Hogwart’s ranking, I challenge you to name a student more accomplished than Harry other than Hermione.
I wonder why it is so important that Harry be a very powerful wizard—other power wizards have been killed by Voldemort before. I think it’s pretty obvious that Voldemort won’t be beaten by tossing around a few curses or attacks spells here or there. Luke wasn’t going to beat the Emperor—it took something else. Likewise Harry won’t be defeating Voldemort by use of his wand alone. Eric’s analogy is fun but overly simplistic—it implies that there is a singular method to achieving the desired end (i.e. throwing strikes, Harry’s training in Book 6 was to understand Voldemort and his origins, and it’s a lesson that Dumbledore saw as especially important, more important even than learning curses and Defense Against the Dark Arts.
For those who are upset that Harry’s not the greatest role model for children, I sympathize. But if you’re fretting because he’s a so-so wizard and seems at this stage incapable of realistically defeating Voldemort, then might I humbly suggest that you’re getting ahead of yourselves?
In Revenge of the Sith, George Lucas plainly did not deliver the goods, even though many of us had held out hope after the dismal Ep. 1 & 2. There are many more reasons to expect that Harry Potter 7 will turn out good—the real surprise would be if it falls flat and does not satisfy.
