Harry Potter: the good, the bad, and the ugly

[Totenkindly]

I have only read the first 3 books (seen all the movies) but as far as I know from that, and other things I have read, James is perhaps one of the most insufferable horrible person in the series. I'm sorry, but his "good" qualities do not come close to overriding his shittyness. I just despise that kind of personality. UGH. It's horrible. By extension I dislike Lily for putting up and marrying him.

I've seen all the movies (although half were forgettable) and only read portions of the books, but I definitely have felt some dislike towards James. And while Snape had a somewhat elitist chip on his shoulder, but I also resonate with what it means to feel like an outsider and to feel like things slip away from you just because you're not part of the Beautiful People Brigade. Lily was never "his," she's her own person; but it felt like their friendship was trashed because Snape didn't present a certain way and James did.

It bothered me that Lily fell for James as he was depicted -- just another socially popular Beautiful Person who happened to be in the House everyone wants to be part of, yada yada yada.... Maybe that's the biggest part of Gwy house that irks me. (Not much different than how glamorous Dauntless is portrayed in the Divergent series. Whatever.)

James comes off okay the last time we see him in the movies, but it's funny how insignificant he is even in that scene, compared to Harry's other two mentors + his mother.

Quick question for you. Who was worse, James Potter or Voldemort?

Neither, Umbridge. Umbridge is objectively the worst person in the entire series.

I need to read further in the books to get a full sense of Umbridge, just to be faire.

I'll be honest, maybe Valdemort did some pretty nasty stuff, but I at least understood him and what was motivating him. Umbridge in the movies just make my skin crawl, she drove me nuts and I didn't even have an interest in understanding her. My INTP kid has read all the books and he specifically called out Umbridge as despicable.

(Disclosure: My gaming character just became a lich, so ... maybe I'm biased. But still...!)

 

[BadOctopus]

I have only read the first 3 books (seen all the movies) but as far as I know from that, and other things I have read, James is perhaps one of the most insufferable horrible person in the series. I'm sorry, but his "good" qualities do not come close to overriding his shittyness. I just despise that kind of personality. UGH. It's horrible. By extension I dislike Lily for putting up and marrying him.

Agreed. Even the argument that he must be a good person because Lily married him doesn't work. Plenty of women marry douchey guys.

I think Lily was a little shallow and vain. She let James and Sirius torment Snape and didn't do anything about it, simply because Snape was an outcast and she didn't want to lose her popularity by defending him. When you think about it, although they had a few good qualities, neither of Harry's parents were that great.

 

[Totenkindly]

Agreed. Even the argument that he must be a good person because Lily married him doesn't work. Plenty of women marry douchey guys.

I think Lily was a little shallow and vain. She let James and Sirius torment Snape and didn't do anything about it, simply because Snape was an outcast and she didn't want to lose her popularity by defending him. When you think about it, although they had a few good qualities, neither of Harry's parents were that great.

Yup. It really comes across that Lily's saving graces were (1) her love for Harry, which protected him against the curse (2) Snape's love for her made HIM a better person.

still, parents are people too... as flawed or good as anyone else... and kids are their own persons and have their own motivations.

 

[BadOctopus]

Yup. It really comes across that Lily's saving graces were (1) her love for Harry, which protected him against the curse (2) Snape's love for her made HIM a better person.

still, parents are people too... as flawed or good as anyone else... and kids are their own persons and have their own motivations.

Yeah. Plus I think we tend to forget that they were all teenagers at the time. And teenagers can be awful and stupid.

Oh, and Lily was nice to Remus. That redeems her a little bit.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Agreed. Even the argument that he must be a good person because Lily married him doesn't work. Plenty of women marry douchey guys.

I think Lily was a little shallow and vain. She let James and Sirius torment Snape and didn't do anything about it, simply because Snape was an outcast and she didn't want to lose her popularity by defending him. When you think about it, although they had a few good qualities, neither of Harry's parents were that great.

I think it says a lot about Snape's priorities that he wanted to be a defense against the Dark Arts teacher. Wasn't he one of the better ones in the series? He was certainly better than the ministry-approved Dolores Umbridge.

 

[BadOctopus]

I think it says a lot about Snape's priorities that he wanted to be a defense against the Dark Arts teacher. Wasn't he one of the better ones in the series? He was certainly better than the ministry-approved Dolores Umbridge.

And he pwned that doofus Lockheart. That was excellent.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think it says a lot about Snape's priorities that he wanted to be a defense against the Dark Arts teacher. Wasn't he one of the better ones in the series? He was certainly better than the ministry-approved Dolores Umbridge.

Well, he supposed knew more curses when he arrived at Hogwarts than a seventh-year student, and invented quite a number of them. He was talented at many of the arts, as well as broomless flying.

 

[Frosty]

Agreed. Even the argument that he must be a good person because Lily married him doesn't work. Plenty of women marry douchey guys.

I think Lily was a little shallow and vain. She let James and Sirius torment Snape and didn't do anything about it, simply because Snape was an outcast and she didn't want to lose her popularity by defending him. When you think about it, although they had a few good qualities, neither of Harry's parents were that great.

I dunno. I mean yes from the point of view that they were friends and he apologized and that they had a personal loyalty to each other then Lily's reaction was probably a bit exhaggerated, unreasonable, and harsh.

But from the point of view of what was happening at the time, the path that she could see Snape going down and what at the end of the day what her only natural choice would be in the war-(as the victim of the side that he was choosing), I could kind of understand her side.

It would be like if you were a Jew during the Holocaust and your best friend decided that he wanted to be a Nazi. By him doing that he is going against you as a whole, everything that you are, even if he claims his loyalty personally.

But yeah Snape could have been salvagable, but I think Lily thought she was just a bit over her head-she would be a teenager going against the ideology and every reason behind why that ideology would appeal.

 

[Qlip]

...
+1

It's a struggle for me not to think less of people, for being close friends with people I hate. I usually end up having to see the good in both parties, as a coping mechanism. Seeing it as, "just because I don't want to be around them, doesn't mean they're a bad person". I've had to do this with my ENFP bestie (who is good friends with one of my middle school arch-nemeses) and my INTP roommate (who is engaged to someone who I dislike more and more every day).

I totally understand this, I'm an ENFP and Ne trumps Fi and all that. But, I strongly believe *everybody* should try to be better people. There's a line between being friends with people and providing some positive influence, and being friends with people and encouraging and amusing yourself vicariously through their douchebagginess. I think the Ne'ers need to monitor this.

And, this is why I'm a little bit Gryffindor.

 

[BadOctopus]

[MENTION=10714]Qlip[/MENTION] I read "douchebagginess" as "douchebaggins".

 

[Qlip]

[MENTION=10714]Qlip[/MENTION] I read "douchebagginess" as "douchebaggins".

Haha, that picture reminds me of Dildo Bugger of Bag Eye from Bored of the Rings. I can't imagine it was a great book even for satire, but my 14 year old self was amused with it.

Those shades obviously keep Brodo Douchebaggins from being detected by Saruman.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Haha, that picture reminds me of Dildo Bugger of Bag Eye from Bored of the Rings. I can't imagine it was a great book even for satire, but my 14 year old self was amused with it.

Those shades obviously keep Brodo Baggins from being detected by Saruman.

Orthanc will be destroyed. Ents will see to it! Hoom.

 

[Qlip]

Orthanc will be destroyed. Ents will see to it! Hoom.

Hahaha, such silly things you concern yourselves with. Let me know if Old Man 4Chan gives you a' trouble, just ask for me, Qlip Bombadil, with a jacket blue and boots yellow!

*skips away*

Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo! Ring a dong!

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It always seemed obvious to me that Snape was a good guy.

 

[Totenkindly]

It always seemed obvious to me that Snape was a good guy.

 

[á´…eparted]

I'll be honest, maybe Valdemort did some pretty nasty stuff, but I at least understood him and what was motivating him. Umbridge in the movies just make my skin crawl, she drove me nuts and I didn't even have an interest in understanding her. My INTP kid has read all the books and he specifically called out Umbridge as despicable.

Umbridge makes sense to me. Largely because, I have full capacity to be just like her if I want to be. She is both an Fe dom, and a 1w2. Essentially, her methods are incredibly efficient, and it allows her to "feed" off the fact that what she does allows for no room for protest, movement, or anything. It's the epitome of passive aggression. You can't combat her without her being one step ahead. It's an insidious approach/method. The core reason why she gets under so many peoples skin, is because not only is she inforcing rule and law, it goes to such as an extent to restricting individual expression of personality, ways of being, and even emotion. She makes people prisioners without being locked up, and without an objective "prisioner" label, it's impossible to escape it because it's nuanced. She's also a master of technicality, and disregards subjectivity unless it's self-serving. That self-serving part is actually her undoing as well, interestingly enough.

She's motivated by the fact that she wants control, uniformity, and power. Not nesscessiarly top dog, but control over how people exist, and the ability to eliminate people she likes without having to give a full reason why. She achieves that end by identifying how power/rule systems work, integreating herself into it and following it to the letter. Then, once established as competent, slowly but surely manipulates it, sets new precedent, and eventually has control over what the rules are.

She is unwaivered by what other people think of her, does not care for connection with others, and regards emotion and expression as a means to an end. Because she has no regard for humanity other than her ideal vision, she has no reason to care, and effectively becomes purely evil, as she rejects and ignores all that makes people happy and human as "erroneous", in favor of systems, and personal power/control. She lacks balance.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Umbridge makes sense to me. Largely because, I have full capacity to be just like her if I want to be. She is both an Fe dom, and a 1w2. Essentially, her methods are incredibly efficient, and it allows her to "feed" off the fact that what she does allows for no room for protest, movement, or anything. It's the epitome of passive aggression. You can't combat her without her being one step ahead. It's an insidious approach/method. The core reason why she gets under so many peoples skin, is because not only is she inforcing rule and law, it goes to such as an extent to restricting individual expression of personality, ways of being, and even emotion. She makes people prisioners without being locked up, and without an objective "prisioner" label, it's impossible to escape it because it's nuanced. She's also a master of technicality, and disregards subjectivity unless it's self-serving. That self-serving part is actually her undoing as well, interestingly enough.

She's motivated by the fact that she wants control, uniformity, and power. Not nesscessiarly top dog, but control over how people exist, and the ability to eliminate people she likes without having to give a full reason why. She achieves that end by identifying how power/rule systems work, integreating herself into it and following it to the letter. Then, once established as competent, slowly but surely manipulates it, sets new precedent, and eventually has control over what the rules are.

She is unwaivered by what other people think of her, does not care for connection with others, and regards emotion and expression as a means to an end. Because she has no regard for humanity other than her ideal vision, she has no reason to care, and effectively becomes purely evil, as she rejects and ignores all that makes people happy and human as "erroneous", in favor of systems, and personal power/control. She lacks balance.

She strikes me as someone who probably thinks she is doing something good, but really isn't. Voldemort is probably honest with himself about what he's up to, even if he managed to fool other people into thinking he's up to something else.

 

[á´…eparted]

She strikes me as someone who probably thinks she is doing something good, but really isn't. Voldemort is probably honest with himself about what he's up to, even if he managed to fool other people into thinking he's up to something else.

I wouldn't say so. What she's probably thinking is "this is right". Not so much out of good or bad, those thoughts probably don't even register to her. All that matters is there is a right way of doing things, and she's going to make it be so. If what shes does is good or evil is incidental and a non factor to her.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I wouldn't say so. What she's probably thinking is "this is right". Not so much out of good or bad, those thoughts probably don't even register to her. All that matters is there is a right way of doing things, and she's going to make it be so. If what shes does is good or evil is incidental and a non factor to her.

The issue of morality or ethics is irrelevant, in other words. What matters is fitting into what everyone else is supposed to be doing.

 

[Frosty]

I think that Umbridge and Voldemort were written to be pretty much two sides of the same coin. Umbridge was a version of the solid and lone tyrannical leader that Harry was to face later on in the series-the practice dummy. What she did seemed more emotionally based, primarily partially because it was- She was an Fe dom compared to Voldemorts...well I don't particularly know how to type Voldemort because you never get a real look at him, but since he is a villain and as you know all villains are INTJ... Well I'll just say that.

But anyways, their goals are fairly similar- or at least they end up being so-Get Harry Get Harry Get Harry by any means. That becomes the primary focus, the short term goal to use to focus their long term goals-control the system, do something specific to the system, manipulate it to reach their common vision.

But the struggle with Umbridge, as I said before, is almost just a mini glimpse, an example, an allegory? Of what Harry and the wiz world at large is going to face later on. It even draws parallels with the Slytherins deciding to allign themselves with her- that army 'the evil' deciding to go through the 'evil' side against Harry. Because the whole series practically revolves around him, and which makes it sort of easy to create this whole moral system of the world and shove it into the eyes of an Fi dom- because I am not really sure the books would have worked if not written from the eyes of an Fi dom, a way for JK Rowling to pass on her values, to intertwine them, through her character, but to do it in an understated way in the relation of her story.