As far as this applying to HP (the character, as well as the books), I completely agree. Harry does whatever he wants without repercussions. Or worse, the minimal repercussions are either overruled or else seen as just so incredibly unfair. In the first couple books, this makes sense more often than not, and is usually pretty reasonable. There should have been worse punishment for the flying car, but otherwise, they're generally blamed for their screw-ups, like being out past curfew, and genuinely feel bad, or else they really are trying to save the world. Which, you know, is necessary for the structure of the books, even if in most cases, they would have been far better off to either tell McG what they knew (ie, about the basilisk in CS) or stay the hell out of it (like in PS, where Quirrell wouldn't have been able to succeed if Harry hadn't shown up at the end).
In the later books, the divorce from (or perceived unreasonableness of) consequences gets worse and worse. I *despised* Umbridge -- she was by far JKR's best-written villain, and seriously made me want to throw the book across the room. That said, if I were head of a school where, at the end of an intramural sports match, two members of (the winning) team responded to childish taunts by together beating the shit out of one of their opponents, only stopping when physically forced to, I'd have expelled them both. If that weren't possible, I'd have seen to it that they never played another Quidditch match or were involved in any other extra-curricular activity as long as they were at the school, their team would have forfeited the match (and possibly had their season halted), and their house points would have dropped to 0. Yet the Quidditch ban *alone* was considered OMG so unfair!!
It got even worse the next year, when Harry nearly *murdered* one of his classmates. For about 30 seconds there, Harry actually showed some terror at his own actions and remorse, and I truly thought that was it, we were finally going to see some real moral development in this kid. Yeah, right. As soon as Snape shows up, all that disappears (which is also part of another rant). He just cares about protecting his precious book, and once-a-week detentions, near the end of the school year, are considered just outrageous punishment, because it means he also has to miss a Quidditch match. (Add to rant accompanying, even worse, Ginny-Hermione scene.)
I wonder if any of this separation of Harry's actions from his presented morality has anything to do with the early Fundamentalist reaction to the HP books. From the start, the Fundies were against it on ridiculous charges that they were turning kids to witchcraft (which are still going on in some circles, BTW), but that clearly wasn't convincing enough people who are, you know, sane, so they started pulling in all this other crap about the morality of the series. In one top anti-HP book, the author only analyzed book 1; among his charges were that the books presented a stance that there is no right or wrong, only power (IOW, presenting the major villain's words as a moral of the story) and teaching kids to lie, because of the bit in the same scene where Harry resolves to lie to Quirrellmort about what he sees, in order to directly prevent him from becoming immortal and taking over the world. Ludicrous charges -- at the time. But I wonder if JKR's reaction to that was to determinedly insist that Harry was the *good* guy, fighting for *right*, so what he did was okay and moral -- and then subconsciously take that much farther than she otherwise might have.
Part II
In the later books, the divorce from (or perceived unreasonableness of) consequences gets worse and worse. I *despised* Umbridge -- she was by far JKR's best-written villain, and seriously made me want to throw the book across the room. That said, if I were head of a school where, at the end of an intramural sports match, two members of (the winning) team responded to childish taunts by together beating the shit out of one of their opponents, only stopping when physically forced to, I'd have expelled them both. If that weren't possible, I'd have seen to it that they never played another Quidditch match or were involved in any other extra-curricular activity as long as they were at the school, their team would have forfeited the match (and possibly had their season halted), and their house points would have dropped to 0. Yet the Quidditch ban *alone* was considered OMG so unfair!!
It got even worse the next year, when Harry nearly *murdered* one of his classmates. For about 30 seconds there, Harry actually showed some terror at his own actions and remorse, and I truly thought that was it, we were finally going to see some real moral development in this kid. Yeah, right. As soon as Snape shows up, all that disappears (which is also part of another rant). He just cares about protecting his precious book, and once-a-week detentions, near the end of the school year, are considered just outrageous punishment, because it means he also has to miss a Quidditch match. (Add to rant accompanying, even worse, Ginny-Hermione scene.)
I wonder if any of this separation of Harry's actions from his presented morality has anything to do with the early Fundamentalist reaction to the HP books. From the start, the Fundies were against it on ridiculous charges that they were turning kids to witchcraft (which are still going on in some circles, BTW), but that clearly wasn't convincing enough people who are, you know, sane, so they started pulling in all this other crap about the morality of the series. In one top anti-HP book, the author only analyzed book 1; among his charges were that the books presented a stance that there is no right or wrong, only power (IOW, presenting the major villain's words as a moral of the story) and teaching kids to lie, because of the bit in the same scene where Harry resolves to lie to Quirrellmort about what he sees, in order to directly prevent him from becoming immortal and taking over the world. Ludicrous charges -- at the time. But I wonder if JKR's reaction to that was to determinedly insist that Harry was the *good* guy, fighting for *right*, so what he did was okay and moral -- and then subconsciously take that much farther than she otherwise might have.