Why, I bet Fudge is a DeathEater, too! And Umbridge! And Marietta! And Dudley! I know he is a Muggle, but he's mean to Harry, so he must be Evil.
It's Harry's mistake, taking "nice to Harry" to mean "good," but the books support that to a disturbing degree, especially with punishing people for not being nice to him.
The bad guys have to encapsulate every possible bad trait at once
You're spot on here with the contradictory kinds of badness the bad guys have to represent. If you're bad you're bad all the way, in every possible way, never mind that it doesn't make a bit of sense. And you're probably abusing your children and beating your wife and torturing your pets, too.
And of course, the bad guys have to be punished, over and over again. Brain damage, Crucio, attacks by animals and teachers and students? Not enough! We still have two books left! *shudders*
*joins your shuddering* I'll read the next two books, but I'm really rather apprehensive and not looking forward to it all that much.
Dudley, Draco and Snape aren't likeable, thus they has no rights. Amnesty International can't say fairer than that!
Unfortunately, that is exactly the vibe I'm picking up from the books. I keep watching with a kind of disturbed fascination and prepare myself mentally for the moment when it becomes unbearable and I have to throw the book out of the window.
I don't know, Xander was presented as being in the wrong (and OMG JUST JELLUS) whenever he confronted Buffy over Angel, for example...
You're right - I didn't mean the dynamics within the group so much as the way that Harry expects even random outsiders to agree with him, and if they don't and believe their mothers instead they surely must be evil. Of course, that doesn't really apply with Buffy because the Slayer wasn't supposed to be widely recognised.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-03 08:27 am (UTC)It's Harry's mistake, taking "nice to Harry" to mean "good," but the books support that to a disturbing degree, especially with punishing people for not being nice to him.
The bad guys have to encapsulate every possible bad trait at once
You're spot on here with the contradictory kinds of badness the bad guys have to represent. If you're bad you're bad all the way, in every possible way, never mind that it doesn't make a bit of sense. And you're probably abusing your children and beating your wife and torturing your pets, too.
And of course, the bad guys have to be punished, over and over again. Brain damage, Crucio, attacks by animals and teachers and students? Not enough! We still have two books left! *shudders*
*joins your shuddering* I'll read the next two books, but I'm really rather apprehensive and not looking forward to it all that much.
Dudley, Draco and Snape aren't likeable, thus they has no rights. Amnesty International can't say fairer than that!
Unfortunately, that is exactly the vibe I'm picking up from the books. I keep watching with a kind of disturbed fascination and prepare myself mentally for the moment when it becomes unbearable and I have to throw the book out of the window.
I don't know, Xander was presented as being in the wrong (and OMG JUST JELLUS) whenever he confronted Buffy over Angel, for example...
You're right - I didn't mean the dynamics within the group so much as the way that Harry expects even random outsiders to agree with him, and if they don't and believe their mothers instead they surely must be evil. Of course, that doesn't really apply with Buffy because the Slayer wasn't supposed to be widely recognised.