Random thoughts on DH
Jan. 4th, 2017 12:50 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
star-dragon5.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslockHello, all! Nice to meet you. This is my first post, so please be nice to me.
The following is a list of my major issues with DH:
Albus Dumbledore's backstory. Don't get me wrong, it was awesome and heart-wrenching and thoughtfully provided us with a canon slash couple, but I'm still trying to figure out how it was relevant to the plot. As it is, Dumbledore's backstory serves no other purpose than assuring the reader that yes, Dumbledore has flaws.
Too little, too late, JKR. Permit me to quote Dan Hemmens:
"And it's shit like this that makes me really hate JKR's attempt to make Dumbledore into a "complex" character in this book. You simply can't have it both ways. Either he's a real human person who makes mistakes, or he's the infallible plot god who is so wise, so possessed of absolute foresight, that he manages to predict correctly that Ron will fall under the influence of the Locket Horcrux, leave the quest, want to return, and be unable to do so because Harry and Hermione are travelling the country in a magically protected tent.
Seriously, if the guy is smart enough to do that, why the hell wasn't he smart enough to - say - track down Voldemort's Horcruxes during the ten years in which he was incorporeal, or to twig much sooner that Grindelwald was probably evil, or to not get horribly cursed trying to use the Resurrection Stone (of which more later).
Dumbledore is infallible when he needs to do something amazing to advance the plot, but All Too Human when Rowling wants to impress us with how layered and complex her characters are."
(By the way, if you haven't read Dan's chapter-by-chapter review of DH, you should. It's worth a read. Go ahead, check it out. I'll wait.)
Severus Snape's backstory. Yes, JKR, we know Snape's main flaw is his inability to let go of the past. You didn't need to spend an entire chapter reminding us of that.
More seriously, Snape's backstory is, in a way, Dumbledore's backstory in reverse. Severus was Good All Along, because he loved Lily. I have several problems with this.
First of all, it detracted from Snape's character. You can't have a morally-ambiguous character, spontaneously decide he's been a good guy the whole time, and tack on a reveal at the last minute. You just can't. Either keep him morally ambiguous, or plan to reveal his true allegiance from the start. That way, you can foreshadow the reveal, your character will retain his complexity and credibility, and your readers won't feel cheated.
Second, Severus did not love Lily. He was infatuated and later obsessed with her. Yet we're supposed to believe this is love, the ultimate difference between good and evil in HP-verse. Voldemort is evil because of his inability to understand love. Harry is good because he loves others. You get the picture. As the many people opposed to Twilight and Fifty Shades will tell you, infatuation and obsession are not love. Idealizing someone is not love. Having a crush on your best friend is one thing. Not getting over that crush, even after she stopped being friends with you, even after you left school, even after she married someone else, even after she died, is another. And it's not healthy. It doesn't make Snape look brave or noble, just pathetic. Becoming Dumbledore's spy against Voldemort was certainly brave and noble; I just wish it had been for a less stupid reason.
The third problem has less to do with Snape himself and more to do with Dumbledore. Throughout the books, Dumbledore's main flaw appeared to be, in Harry's words, his "tendency to trust people in spite of overwhelming evidence that they did not deserve it." This was seemingly reinforced at the end of HBP, when Snape killed Dumbledore. Is this true? Maybe it was, when Albus closed his eyes to Gellert's true nature, resulting in Ariana's death and Albus's estrangement from Aberforth. (If Albus was indeed telling Harry the truth about pretending not to know what Gellert was. We only have his word for it, after all. But that's a discussion for another time.) Maybe it was, when Albus allowed Tom to come to Hogwarts. But by the end of DH, it wasn't. Snape was working for Dumbledore all along, so Dumbledore was never wrong about him. I believe this is what Limyaael calls flaw-scrubbing.
If you need any more proof that Albus Dumbledore suffers from Author's Darling syndrome, this is it.
Harry's blind obedience. A lot of people criticize DH!Harry as being passive, and they are right. What bothers me is why. The plot requires Harry to obey Dumbledore's orders without question, so that's what he does. Harry is no longer a protagonist. He is a marionette dancing on the strings of Plot.
Poor Harry.
It would have been wonderful if Harry, instead of remaining "Dumbledore's man through and through," took a third option and found a way to defeat Voldemort on his own terms. He would have ended the series as his own man, rather than Dumbledore's servant. Unfortunately, that's not what happened. But hey, that's what AUs are for, right?
Ron's resentment issues were never fully explored. I felt they should have been. Ron suffers from a massive inferiority complex, and it's not hard to see why. He's not famous like Harry or amazingly intelligent like Hermione (though I tend to place Ron in the Brilliant, but Lazy category), he's obviously his mother's least favorite (not that Mrs. Weasley doesn't love Ron--she does, very much!--but she treats Harry better than she treats him!), and he never gets a chance to shine. Most of the fandom already hates him, and he's frequently treated horribly in fanfic--his author doesn't need to join in. Poor Ron. He deserved better, or at least a closer look at his character.
The titular Deathly Hallows themselves. For all the emphasis placed on love in the previous books, especially in HBP, Harry defeating Voldemort with three magical objects, two of which were never mentioned before, kind of cheapens that, doesn't it?
The action, or lack thereof. On the one hand, we have Harry sitting around in a tent doing nothing. On the other hand, we have Neville leading a rebellion at Hogwarts. Which one sounds more interesting, and which one did we actually get to see?
Yeah. I thought so, too.
The offscreen deaths of Lupin and Tonks. How come Fred and Dobby get to die onscreen, but the last Marauder and his wife don't? It just bugs me.
The anticlimactic Final Showdown between Harry and Voldemort. No further comment needed.
The tone. I loathe OOTP with every fiber of my being, but even that book didn't make me feel depressed just reading it.
In summary? DH is a hot mess. But you didn't need me to tell you that.
*sits back and waits for the flames*
The following is a list of my major issues with DH:
Albus Dumbledore's backstory. Don't get me wrong, it was awesome and heart-wrenching and thoughtfully provided us with a canon slash couple, but I'm still trying to figure out how it was relevant to the plot. As it is, Dumbledore's backstory serves no other purpose than assuring the reader that yes, Dumbledore has flaws.
Too little, too late, JKR. Permit me to quote Dan Hemmens:
"And it's shit like this that makes me really hate JKR's attempt to make Dumbledore into a "complex" character in this book. You simply can't have it both ways. Either he's a real human person who makes mistakes, or he's the infallible plot god who is so wise, so possessed of absolute foresight, that he manages to predict correctly that Ron will fall under the influence of the Locket Horcrux, leave the quest, want to return, and be unable to do so because Harry and Hermione are travelling the country in a magically protected tent.
Seriously, if the guy is smart enough to do that, why the hell wasn't he smart enough to - say - track down Voldemort's Horcruxes during the ten years in which he was incorporeal, or to twig much sooner that Grindelwald was probably evil, or to not get horribly cursed trying to use the Resurrection Stone (of which more later).
Dumbledore is infallible when he needs to do something amazing to advance the plot, but All Too Human when Rowling wants to impress us with how layered and complex her characters are."
(By the way, if you haven't read Dan's chapter-by-chapter review of DH, you should. It's worth a read. Go ahead, check it out. I'll wait.)
Severus Snape's backstory. Yes, JKR, we know Snape's main flaw is his inability to let go of the past. You didn't need to spend an entire chapter reminding us of that.
More seriously, Snape's backstory is, in a way, Dumbledore's backstory in reverse. Severus was Good All Along, because he loved Lily. I have several problems with this.
First of all, it detracted from Snape's character. You can't have a morally-ambiguous character, spontaneously decide he's been a good guy the whole time, and tack on a reveal at the last minute. You just can't. Either keep him morally ambiguous, or plan to reveal his true allegiance from the start. That way, you can foreshadow the reveal, your character will retain his complexity and credibility, and your readers won't feel cheated.
Second, Severus did not love Lily. He was infatuated and later obsessed with her. Yet we're supposed to believe this is love, the ultimate difference between good and evil in HP-verse. Voldemort is evil because of his inability to understand love. Harry is good because he loves others. You get the picture. As the many people opposed to Twilight and Fifty Shades will tell you, infatuation and obsession are not love. Idealizing someone is not love. Having a crush on your best friend is one thing. Not getting over that crush, even after she stopped being friends with you, even after you left school, even after she married someone else, even after she died, is another. And it's not healthy. It doesn't make Snape look brave or noble, just pathetic. Becoming Dumbledore's spy against Voldemort was certainly brave and noble; I just wish it had been for a less stupid reason.
The third problem has less to do with Snape himself and more to do with Dumbledore. Throughout the books, Dumbledore's main flaw appeared to be, in Harry's words, his "tendency to trust people in spite of overwhelming evidence that they did not deserve it." This was seemingly reinforced at the end of HBP, when Snape killed Dumbledore. Is this true? Maybe it was, when Albus closed his eyes to Gellert's true nature, resulting in Ariana's death and Albus's estrangement from Aberforth. (If Albus was indeed telling Harry the truth about pretending not to know what Gellert was. We only have his word for it, after all. But that's a discussion for another time.) Maybe it was, when Albus allowed Tom to come to Hogwarts. But by the end of DH, it wasn't. Snape was working for Dumbledore all along, so Dumbledore was never wrong about him. I believe this is what Limyaael calls flaw-scrubbing.
If you need any more proof that Albus Dumbledore suffers from Author's Darling syndrome, this is it.
Harry's blind obedience. A lot of people criticize DH!Harry as being passive, and they are right. What bothers me is why. The plot requires Harry to obey Dumbledore's orders without question, so that's what he does. Harry is no longer a protagonist. He is a marionette dancing on the strings of Plot.
Poor Harry.
It would have been wonderful if Harry, instead of remaining "Dumbledore's man through and through," took a third option and found a way to defeat Voldemort on his own terms. He would have ended the series as his own man, rather than Dumbledore's servant. Unfortunately, that's not what happened. But hey, that's what AUs are for, right?
Ron's resentment issues were never fully explored. I felt they should have been. Ron suffers from a massive inferiority complex, and it's not hard to see why. He's not famous like Harry or amazingly intelligent like Hermione (though I tend to place Ron in the Brilliant, but Lazy category), he's obviously his mother's least favorite (not that Mrs. Weasley doesn't love Ron--she does, very much!--but she treats Harry better than she treats him!), and he never gets a chance to shine. Most of the fandom already hates him, and he's frequently treated horribly in fanfic--his author doesn't need to join in. Poor Ron. He deserved better, or at least a closer look at his character.
The titular Deathly Hallows themselves. For all the emphasis placed on love in the previous books, especially in HBP, Harry defeating Voldemort with three magical objects, two of which were never mentioned before, kind of cheapens that, doesn't it?
The action, or lack thereof. On the one hand, we have Harry sitting around in a tent doing nothing. On the other hand, we have Neville leading a rebellion at Hogwarts. Which one sounds more interesting, and which one did we actually get to see?
Yeah. I thought so, too.
The offscreen deaths of Lupin and Tonks. How come Fred and Dobby get to die onscreen, but the last Marauder and his wife don't? It just bugs me.
The anticlimactic Final Showdown between Harry and Voldemort. No further comment needed.
The tone. I loathe OOTP with every fiber of my being, but even that book didn't make me feel depressed just reading it.
In summary? DH is a hot mess. But you didn't need me to tell you that.
*sits back and waits for the flames*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-06 12:05 pm (UTC)If there had been ANY chance or even slight suggestion that Harry might have actually been able to defeat Voldy then the walk to his death would have shown as a true turn-the-other-cheek sacrifice. That at least would have played better with the 'Christ-like' symbolism. Instead I was appalled (as a christian) that she was equating a crucio-casting Harry with Jesus.
I was discussing this with a fanfic writer I admire. (I'll credit this later after asking them if it is okay) I had suggested that I felt JKR was trying to present Harry as an 'everyman' - beginning way back with the 'just Harry' line in bk1 and that I thought that was the reason she set it all up for him to seem so average.
The writer argued that they could never see it that way because he had all these extra 'gifts' supplied to him (or inherited by him) that really DID signal that he wasn't the 'common man' - the cloak, the Map, the brother wand, his mother's 'love' in his very skin, the other Hallows, special treatment. I kept saying 'but those weren't HIM'. It wasn't until I was reminded by the writer that Harry could cast a corporal patronus at what was considered to be a surprisingly young age by the rest of the wizarding world, that I began to agree - slightly.
I've come to see this as another fault in the books. I think JKR really WANTED him to be BOTH 'special' AND an 'everyman', but she couldn't pull it off. It is also I think the reason I have such a problem with the walk to death. Since she didn't go full-on 'special enough that he could have a chance at saving himself' and wanted him to still come off as average flawed teen ('everyman') I found it not only insulting to my faith to make him seem to be a christ-figure, but also appalling to make him into an every-teen because it then struck too much as suicide - not sacrifice.
I had had such hope in the earlier books that Harry as everyman would win out as I felt it would emphasize the need for everyone to reach into themselves and find the wherewithal to stand up and 'do the right thing' - with the 'right thing' NOT being suicide.
Instead, the only 'save' I could extract from the 'walk', was to think of it as Harry walking-a-mile in Snape's shoes. And that had been my first reaction - until the JamesLilySiriusRemus death-cheerleaders appeared without JKR allowing Harry any time for reflection that Snape has to go to Voldy repeatedly with the chance he might die each time. Or even Snape's walk into the blinding light on the hillside to meet Albus when he was so desperate to not be killed until he had at leat gotten the message across about Voldy targeting the Potters.
She didn't even have Harry think of anyone at the castle that he didn't care about - which I saw as a link to Snape only apparently worrying about Lily.
Re: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-06 01:30 pm (UTC)As I mentioned here earlier I believe this also. Rowling was absolutely determined to keep Harry mired as a barely adequate wizard.
It wasn't until I was reminded by the writer that Harry could cast a corporal patronus at what was considered to be a surprisingly young age by the rest of the wizarding world, that I began to agree - slightly.
That always comes up when I talk about Harry's magical abilities being only average. A lot of people don't understand why Harry was able to cast that Patronus in PoA and still be only a normal boy wizard.
The Patronus Charm is very much a 'will powered' spell. You've got to have your 'happy thought' firmly in place, no doubts, no mental quavering, etc. Harry had always been poor at casting it until the night of the full moon. He was able to cast a good strong Patronus then because he had already seen himself succeed! He knew that he could - that he would - cast it properly. And so he did.
It was a one-off event.
As further proof, consider his failure to defend himself from dementors at the Hogwarts battle at the end of DH. The Trio are accosted by dementors and have to be rescued by Luna and two others (Ernie?). If Harry was the 'talented wizard' that some fans would love him to be then he would have been able to repeat his earlier spectacular dementor success. But he didn't.
(He casts a Patronus at other times - start of OotP, when invading the ministry in DH - but there's nothing much there that lifts him out of that 'everyman' slot. In PoA we're told that a lot of adults can't cast the spell - I think that's the phrasing - but by DH the entire DA can do it, the OotP can do it, etc. Nothing 'special' in Harry being able to do it. When the circumstances aren't demanding extra-powerful magical abilities that he doesn't have.)
I think JKR really WANTED him to be BOTH 'special' AND an 'everyman', but she couldn't pull it off.
I don't think Rowling has a problem at all with someone being 'special' and winning because of gifts and efforts bequeathed him by others. I think that was exactly what she was going for - a totally normal boy who wanted nothing but a 'normal' life - the end goal of this 'hero' - but who won due to luck, coincidence and the agency of others. Which makes for a very poor story ... but that's what Rowling apparently wanted to write.
I think she did 'pull it off' to an extent that satisfied her. But she wanted to achieve that goal in the first place and didn't see it for the superficial and artificial storyline that it was. Part of the authorial tunnel vision which contributed to the poor structure of the series.
Re: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-07 01:12 pm (UTC)Truthfully, my bet that Snape's alternative mode of dealing with dementors (with which Harry disagreed) was to run until their influence lessened and THEN cast the patronus.
Anyways, I've long felt the DA could cast them so easily simply because there were no dementors there to affect their emotions. I'm sure Snape was appalled that the kids all thought they COULD fight a dementor without ever having known how much more difficult it would be to cast if it was nearby.
I think that was also why Lupin's patronus was so incorporeal on the train in bk3. He was too close to the dementor in that small train carriage.
Re: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-07 01:33 pm (UTC)I don't think that's supported by the canon:
.. the dementors fell back before the creatures' approach. Three more people had arrived out of the darkness to stand beside them, their wands outstretched, continuing to cast Patronuses: Luna, Ernie, and Seamus.
Luna, Ernie and Seamus are "standing beside" the Trio.
Re: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-10 03:28 am (UTC)They step "...out of the darkness to stand beside them, their wands outstretched, continuing to cast..."
In other words, they are outside the circle when they start. And once they begin, they are affecting the dementors and so lessening their 'sphere' of influence.
Re: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-10 03:51 am (UTC)The Trio was further away from the dementors, too, when they first came across them:
.. Shapes moved out in the darkness, swirling figures of concentrated blackness, moving in a great wave towards the castle, their faces hooded and their breath rattling ...
...
A hundred dementors were advancing, gliding toward them, sucking their way closer to Harry's despair ...
So I don't think there's conclusive evidence either way. The dementors were certainly further away from Harry at the start, just as Luna's crew were.
All I know is that Harry never ever repeated his 'repelling 100+ dementors' trick. The explanation that he achieved this only under special circumstances is very much the simpler one than explaining away every other time he could have performed prodigious magic. Because the 'special circumstances' are clearly outlined in PoA. And, when he is again faced by a crowd of dementors, minus the time travelling confidence ... he fails dismally.
Re: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-11 10:26 am (UTC)He must be relatively far away to mistake his under-14 yr old self for what he thinks is a thirty-something man.
Re: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-12 01:47 am (UTC)And there were the dementors. They were emerging out of the darkness from every direction, gliding around the edges of the lake.... They were moving away from where Harry stood, to the opposite bank.... He wouldn't have to get near them....
We started this thread talking about Harry's lack of 'magical power' in the series. You said that you were urged to believe that he was more than an 'everyman' because of his repelling the dementors in PoA:
It wasn't until I was reminded by the writer that Harry could cast a corporal patronus at what was considered to be a surprisingly young age by the rest of the wizarding world, that I began to agree - slightly.
But now you're agreeing that Harry's casting a Patronus was no more exceptional than any other DA member:
Regarding how all the rest of the DA could cast a patronus and the 'save' during the Battle - I've always explained it as being outside the dementors' 'sphere of influence'.
Just like Harry was outside that 'sphere of influence' in PoA.
If anyone were to still think that Harry's casting the Patronus at the end of PoA was a sign of exceptional magical ability I would simply point at the extraordinary circumstances, his *knowing* he would succeed, as I've mentioned before. And then point out that he was never able to repeat his success, bereft of that special advantage.
RE: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-06 04:24 pm (UTC)Quite. Jesus might have been a bit rude to the moneylenders, but this is not in the same league as torture.
I agree that Harry turned out to be a bad mash-up of the 'everyman' and 'special'. And what a version of 'specialness' it is - effectively, the more cool gadgets you have, the more special you are. Nice message for the next generation. :) It could have been done in the way of an essentially average kid having to come to terms with a unique burden (mission, etc.). But in this case, the story should demonstrate some growth, the way in which the kid becomes equal to this burden. Otherwise it is improbable. Some months ago a friend and I and some others had a conversation where I said that I just don't believe that Harry as he was shown was even capable of the kind of goodness that would enable him to make this sort of sacrifice. He was not just average in skill or capacity, he was more than average ethically, and it was never demonstrated that his 'unlimited capacity for love' or some such rot was not just Dumbledore's spin. I just don't believe that a kid who threw a hissy fit over his friend's daring to care about his safety (PoA Firebolt incident with Hermione) or nearly killed another kid and only sulked because he could not play Quidditch or snog Ginny would be capable of selflessly laying down his life for the wizardkind. Even by teenager standards he is a bit lacking in empathy. As with Snape, I don't think that the character should always be morally perfect, but he is not even shown to be struggling and learning from it.
to think of it as Harry walking-a-mile in Snape's shoes
Wouldn't that be fitting? There is a clear parallel between him seeing 'The Prince's Tale' in DH and snooping on 'Snape's Worst Memory' in OOTP. In neither case does he actually empathise with Snape as a human being. And while in DH he admittedly had a lot to digest, in OOTP it was all about poor Harry feeling uncomfortable over his idols turning out to be nasty little shits (and incredibly easily reassured by the same).
Re: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-19 02:45 pm (UTC)Yes, I think that's a good point. Love is what Voldemort is supposed to not understand, love is what is supposed to save the day, and yet...Harry isn't extremely loving or compassionate. He's friends with Luna and Neville, who are both social outcasts in their own ways, but he doesn't go out of his way to help bullied students. He does bury Dobby with his own hands, but it's Hermione who comes up with SPEW. Hermione is the one who sees something wrong with the enslavement of house elves and tries to change it. Yes, she goes about it the wrong way, but at least she *tries.* At least she makes an effort to stand up for those whom she perceives as oppressed.
I get that Harry was supposed to be an average kid, but the problem is that his main adversary is not an average person. Voldemort is supposed to be the powerful embodiment of evil, so you'd think that Harry would be a match for him in morals, if not in power. There have been fanfics where Harry is set up as the compassionate opposite of Voldemort, where he tries to reach out to him, but that never happens in canon.
/I just don't believe that a kid who threw a hissy fit over his friend's daring to care about his safety (PoA Firebolt incident with Hermione) or nearly killed another kid and only sulked because he could not play Quidditch or snog Ginny would be capable of selflessly laying down his life for the wizardkind. Even by teenager standards he is a bit lacking in empathy/
And there's another problem with Harry's great capacity for love saving the day: where does he ever do that for any of his minor antagonists? Does he ever apologize to Draco for nearly killing him in the bathroom? Does he ever apologize to Snape for misjudging him in PS/SS?
In Brandon Sanderson's YA book, "The Rithmatist", the protagonist also butts heads with his nasty and unpleasant teacher. Like Harry, he also believes that his teacher is responsible for the evil plot that goes on at school. But once he learns that he is wrong, what does he do?
Even though he still doesn't like his teacher, he goes after him and *apologizes.* He says, "I was wrong. I'm sorry." And he goes on to say, "I don't want to fight, Professor. In the end, we were working toward the same goal. If we'd helped one another, then perhaps we could have accomplished more."
Now, the book doesn't end there as there's another twist (which some may feel ruins this scene), but the point remains. When does Harry ever say something like that to Snape? He never interacts with Snape as anything other than an enemy. Dumbledore explained it all, so there's no need for an actual scene where Harry and Snape meet and discuss what happened. Just like how in HBP, all that Draco gets after the Sectumsempra scene is a dismissive line from Ron, "Oh, he was in class the next day, he's fine."
RE: Re: Harry's Lack of Skill
Date: 2017-01-20 02:33 pm (UTC)Indeed. Or if not apologising (if he is too chicken to apologise to Snape :)), then at least admitting to himself that he wronged them.
It was actually funny to read the showdown scene where Harry lectured Voldemort about remorse. I was thinking: 'Pot, kettle... When was it that you, dear boy, actually experienced remorse? Like for the death of Sirius which was entirely avoidable and entirely your fault - you as good as led him to it?' Instead, Harry jumps at the chance to scapegoat an entirely innocent Snape and to rail at D-dore (who, admittedly, had it coming)? Or for the attempted murder of Draco? Or for getting Hermione tortured through his own stupidity? Or even about Snape on the numerous occasions when he misjudged him and/or wronged him? Not in the sense of 'Oh woe is me, all these people are dying because of me-me-me' that we are shown in the book, but in the sense of really feeling personal responsibility for the wrongs caused to specific people by his own - specific - actions.
So when he is mouthing off to Voldie about something he clearly has no idea about, he just comes across as a self-righteous little prick. It is true that Voldie has much more to repent for, but Harry is supposed to be good - if only as an ordinary good person who sometimes screws up, let alone as a paragon of love.
I am not sure what to take this as: either that JKR is such a mediocre writer that she was unable to express exactly how Harry is 'good and loving', or that there is something fundamentally wrong with her own moral compass and she doesn't see any problem with his portrayal.
Harry isn't extremely loving or compassionate.
This 'love' thing is rather funny. I find myself in a minority (possibly, of one) in thinking there is nothing particularly wrong in Snape's love for Lily. In fact, I think, really loving even one human being is superior to abstractly 'caring' about all of humanity. Dumbledore needed to get off his high horse, and with his own love history, he had no right to be 'disgusted' by Snape. (Self-righteous prick no. 2 detected!). This does not preclude consideration for others, but the fact is - others may not be the focus of our attention. We are all flawed in this regard. With Harry though? I can't work out who is it that he actually loves? With Snape's single-minded love, or with Christ-like, universal love, or at least with Regulus's love for Kreacher? He likes people who are nice (not necessarily good) to him, as we all do. He likes Ginny because she is pretty and he is a teenage boy. He likes his friends but I always wonder if he doesn't like treacle tart and his broom more. In a word, he is a rather tepid boy, isn't he?
I get that Harry was supposed to be an average kid, but the problem is that his main adversary is not an average person. Voldemort is supposed to be the powerful embodiment of evil, so you'd think that Harry would be a match for him in morals, if not in power.
This is very well said. And, I feel, another missed opportunity to create an interesting character with believable motivations to become the way he was (instead of, ffs, 'Oh he was just born evil'). So instead we have a showdown between a flat hero and a cartoon villain.