Is there any "good guy" character that you didn't like?

[hannah renee.]

So many people hate the mean/bad guy characters not to mention me (For me it's Voldemort, Umbridge and Bellatrix).
But I think it's interesting when people don't like a good guy character. Mine is James Potter and maybe Ginny also.

[Ana]

Arthur Weasley is so annoying. I wouldn't say I don't like him, but I wouldn't miss him if he's gone. Same thing with Ginny.

[hannah renee.]

Gabriella wrote: "i don't like dobby...in fact i hated him in chamber of secrets. he's super annoying and controlling and i wanted harry to punch him in the face.
i don't get why people like him or think he's cute.
..."

OMG, yes, Dobby! I don't dislike Dobby but I don't see why some love him so much. I personally liked Kreacher more (at least in Deathly Hallows, I hated him before that lol).

[Izzy]

Um, I never really liked Seamus, he was always just there and he was pretty boring, even when he did blow things up. And I didn't really like Percy Weasley.

[Ann]

I don't like the first Minister of Magic, Fudge (does he count as a good guy? I'm counting him since he's not a Death Eater or Voldemort) because of 3 reasons:
1. He hired Dolores Umbridge.
2. He didn't believe Harry about Voldemort being back and tried to make people believe he was crazy.
3. He was hiding himself in delusions so people wouldn't fire him if something went wrong in the war with Voldemort.

[hannah renee.]

Anahy wrote: "I don't like the first Minister of Magic, Fudge (does he count as a good guy? I'm counting him since he's not a Death Eater or Voldemort) because of 3 reasons:
1. He hired Dolores Umbridge.
2. He d..."

I think it's safe to say that most don't like him... he was too concerned with himself and what he wanted and the fact he hired Umbridge is just disgusting... so I don't know if he counts as a good guy per se...

[Izzy]

I never really liked him. The only time I enjoyed Fudge's presence was when he didn't expell Harry in the third book for bloating up his aunt.

[Leah]

I was never a fan of Luna... there wasn't really a reason why I disliked her. She was one of those characters that I was like "eh" and moved on.

[[deleted user]]

Okay, so for me here's a basic list:

-Harry (I found him annoying, which was made worse by the fact that he was the main protagonist)

-Ron (just... I don't know. I liked him better near the end, but for the most part I didn't particularly care about him)

-Sirius (overrated)

-Ginny (she could have been better-written)

-Remus (I liked him in the third book, but thought less of him as the series went on)

-Cho Chang (though I liked her in that one video game... Quidditch World Cup I think it was)

[Cocoispuffed]

Definitely Ginny because of the awkwardness of her and Harry being together. I felt like he should of chosen someone else. I also felt like Ron in real life would have just died in his first battle. Harry could of survived without him.

[B]

James potter.

[[deleted user]]

Cocoispuffed wrote: "Definitely Ginny because of the awkwardness of her and Harry being together. I felt like he should of chosen someone else. I also felt like Ron in real life would have just died in his first battle..."

That awkward moment... as it turns out, J.K. wanted to kill Ron off early in the series, but decided against it.

Hmmm... I wonder how much it would have mattered if Ron had died near the beginning. Would he have been missed?

[hannah renee.]

B wrote: "James potter."

OMG yes. I dislike him also.

[Joanna]

James Potter was a complete Jerk.
Also Fudge was very pesky.
I also was not a fan of the gaggle of Hogwarts girls (Lavendar, the Patils) because they were just very squealy mushy teenage girls.
I loved almost every other good character - Conflicted about Xeno Lovegood because he was cowardly, and about Stan Shunpike (death eater or not??)
But I wouldn't want any of them out of the book!!!

[Izzy]

Joanna wrote: "James Potter was a complete Jerk.
Also Fudge was very pesky.
I also was not a fan of the gaggle of Hogwarts girls (Lavendar, the Patils) because they were just very squealy mushy teenage girls.
I ..."

Said perfectly

[Alexander]

another thing (not a character) is SPEW, on which I agree with Ron. Yes, house elves should have rights, but ultimately, what are rights? Why do we need rights? My answer: to be happy. We want equality so everyone can be happy. House elves likes serving; serving makes them happy. They are not made like humans.
..."

I don't like the first Minister of Magic, Fudge (does he count as a good guy? I'm counting him since he's not a Death Eater or Voldemort) because of 3 reasons:

We should remember that Rowling wrote the wizarding wars to be reminiscent of the World Wars in the first half of the 20th Century.

Fudge, as I understand, was based on Neville Chamberlain who, in a very broad, basic reading of history, pursued a policy of appeasement towards Hitler. The British - amongst other European countries - failed to see Germany's return, despite the evidence presented to them. So I don't believe we are meant to like Fudge. He represents our capacity as humans to reject evidence because it might harm our fantasies or prospects, and the way in which institutions can fail to respond to threats because they become closed off to views and evidence that contradicts those held by increasingly dogmatic leaders.

As for the House Elves, we should perhaps view them in context of non-white races and other minorities in the first half of the 20th Century and leading up to then. As Gabriella said, they are not made like humans. Which is exactly what was said about Jews, blacks, homosexuals, etc. - they were sub-human. We should ask ourselves whether the trait to serve is inherent in the House Elf psyche, or has it been socialised over centuries?

When African-Americans were still seen as sub-human, there were many arguments made that slavery was their natural state. They were black, therefore they inherently wanted to serve - it was in their nature. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they were given the same freedoms as real humans.

We only ever hear three House Elves - Dobby, Winky, and Kreacher (correct me if I'm wrong). That's hardly enough for us to know their true nature. But, in a way, we as readers are the powerful race. African-American voices in the US were marginalised, along with other minorities, just as the House Elves are largely marginalised in the Harry Potter series by virtue of the fact they are only supporting characters. In a way, the Harry Potter series acts on a meta level of forcing us, the reader, into a position of oppression. We can't know what the House Elves really think or want, because they are not telling their story. Their story is being told, with omissions, by humans.

[hannah renee.]

Alexander wrote: "another thing (not a character) is SPEW, on which I agree with Ron. Yes, house elves should have rights, but ultimately, what are rights? Why do we need rights? My answer: to be happy. We want equa..."

Well... I wouldn't necessarily say that house elves represent blacks and Jews. For one, they like work. They like doing work all the time. I can see why they wouldn't like a certain employer if they were cruel (like the Malfoys)... but, these house-elves aren't human. They're made for work. I would say that they are intelligent and probably have souls... but they still aren't human. Not inferior, but yes, different. People seem to equate the two. To say something/someone is different does not mean inferior; though some of the wizards in HP may see it that way. But not all.

[Dramapuppy]

So many! I agree with everything said about Dobby and SPEW. (Plus, in the audiobook, Hermione starts pronouncing it "spew" herself. Isn't she supposed to be obsessed with pronouncing it S.P.E.W?)

Yeah, James Potter was the kind of guy I absolutely hate.

And Ron was just stupid and useless. (view spoiler)[ He did NOT deserve Hermione. I wanted her to end up with someone from Ravenclaw. (hide spoiler)]

Ginny just didn't have a personality, so I guess I don't DISlike her...

I don't know if Victor Krum is really a good guy, but I hated him. He was too close to James Potter.

Dumbledore. Why didn't he explain anything? Harry could have saved a lot of time. Side note: (view spoiler)[ When Dumbledore's hand was cursed, why couldn't they just amputate the hand and save his life? (hide spoiler)]

[Alexander]

Hannah wrote: "Alexander wrote: "another thing (not a character) is SPEW, on which I agree with Ron. Yes, house elves should have rights, but ultimately, what are rights? Why do we need rights? My answer: to be h..."

Thanks for the response, Hannah. You're actually proving my point ;)

By Rowling writing the House Elves as non-humans with attendant characteristics that everyone in the wizarding world seems to know about, I believe she's referencing racial prejudices of not so long ago. As I said, the House Elves are marginalised by virtue of minor representation, and we are placed in the position of the dominant power group when we read the series.

So when we read about the House Elves, we read about them from the perspective of the dominant group in the Harry Potter world, the wizards. Now, when you say "for one, they like work," this is what I meant in my original post about past beliefs held by dominant groups about minority groups. Namely, that African-Americans (as one example) 'like' their work and position. That they inherently are lesser than white humans, and want to be slaves. This used to be a widespread belief.

The logical progression of your post is exactly the same logical progression that dominant groups used to maintain control. "Well, they're not quite human... they're made for work... perhaps they have souls, and they probably have some intelligence, but they're lesser than us..." There were many in positions of authority who came up with 'scientific' evidence to show why minority groups were built for physical labour and not intellectual activity. So when Rowling creates the House Elves as literally (in the book world) a different race, I interpret them symbolically as representations of how we, the reader, who like to see ourselves as 'good' people, can participate in prejudice without realising, just as dominant groups did for hundreds of years, because they believed that their slaves belonged in that position, and wanted to be there.

Why would Rowling write the 'good' wizarding world as having a racial problem? I believe to reinforce a major theme throughout the series that there are no inherently 'good' and 'bad' people, but that people (and, by extension, societies) can make 'good' and 'bad' choices. Let's remember that, going into the first half of the 20th Century, there were still huge problems with racial and religious prejudice in the English-speaking West. It wasn't just Germany (represented by Death Eaters). They just happened to take it to an extreme. But that doesn't mean those who fought Germany and her allies didn't have problems themselves.

Ultimately, we cannot truly know if the House Elves are inherently servants (and therefore just a cute addition to the mythology), or have been socialised through centuries of slavery to believe they want what they have, but I am inclined to believe Rowling had a very specific purpose in writing them as she did.

[AgCl]

well 1.Harry Potter, for starters, he's to blame for what happened to Sirius and he's as annoying as 2.Ron who was basically useless up until the last book, but i guess we need a denser troll to make the main troll shine. 3. Ginny, well i just don't get the hype about Ginny, 4. Cormac McLaggen, another troll, 6. aunt muriel, it was nice that she doesn't take center stage until the last book.

[Melissa]

is it bad not to like Harry Potter? haha. I don't know, I always felt he was too much, and I have a thing for main characters. I understood that he was special, but the amount of attention he got everywhere from everyone was overwhelming. its like we were constantly shoved the fact that harry was awesome at us. I would have liked to come to that conclusion on my own. I mean...he wasn't that special. But he was especially brave.

[hannah renee.]

Dramapuppy wrote: "So many! I agree with everything said about Dobby and SPEW. (Plus, in the audiobook, Hermione starts pronouncing it "spew" herself. Isn't she supposed to be obsessed with pronouncing it S.P.E.W?)

..."

Hahaha well, I think Ron and Hermione were kind of destined for each other. It has been revealed by the author that she incorporates a lot of literary alchemy and basically Ron and Hermione's names represent the two chemicals of sulfur (male) and quicksilver or mercury (female) and these chemicals are called "the quarreling couple".

[Dramapuppy]

Hannah wrote: "Dramapuppy wrote: "So many! I agree with everything said about Dobby and SPEW. (Plus, in the audiobook, Hermione starts pronouncing it "spew" herself. Isn't she supposed to be obsessed with pronoun..."

That doesn't mean I have to like it! ;)

[[deleted user]]

AgCl wrote: "well 1.Harry Potter, for starters, he's to blame for what happened to Sirius and he's as annoying as 2.Ron who was basically useless up until the last book, but i guess we need a denser troll to ma..."

Basically... yes... (actually, I don't even remember Aunt Muriel...)

Melissa wrote: "is it bad not to like Harry Potter? haha. I don't know, I always felt he was too much, and I have a thing for main characters. I understood that he was special, but the amount of attention he got e..."

EXACTLY!! It felt like Harry was very rarely given enough room to shine. He was granted a good deal of attention, but I rarely understood why. It was great when he did stand out on his own, but such moments seemed few and far between the overall story.

Actually... Harry didn't really start to bother me until the fifth book. At one point near the end, I recall Harry contacting Lupin and saying how his father turned out to be a jerk during his younger years. Lupin explains that almost every boy behaves like an idiot at that age, to which Harry replies that he is at that age. I found myself practically laughing out loud, thinking that Harry himself seemed to be emphasizing Lupin's point.

...Of course I felt a little guilty about this thought process afterwards, but that guilt didn't last long as I continued reading. Harry was just... not very outstanding to me.

[Faschingskrapfen]

Definetely Dumbledore. Don't ask me why, I can't explain it. But I strongly disliked him the first time he appeared and just when he'd died, he was given even more room in Deathly Hallows. I surely understand that Harry needed the old and wise wizard he could look up to, who knew everything and would always be there, I just didn't fell any sympathy towards him.
That may be a reason, why I can't warm up with Albus Severus also.

[hannah renee.]

Dramapuppy wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Dramapuppy wrote: "So many! I agree with everything said about Dobby and SPEW. (Plus, in the audiobook, Hermione starts pronouncing it "spew" herself. Isn't she supposed to be obsess..."

True. But it makes an explanation. lol

[Calypso]

Harry

[hannah renee.]

Gabriella wrote: "Alexander wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Alexander wrote: "another thing (not a character) is SPEW, on which I agree with Ron. Yes, house elves should have rights, but ultimately, what are rights? Why do w..."

My thoughts exactly.

[Anna]

I didn't like Dobby in the Chamber of Secrets; he was really annoying. I also didn't like Lavender; she was definitely annoying! And maybe Fudge.

[Alexander]

Gabriella wrote: "Alexander wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Alexander wrote: "another thing (not a character) is SPEW, on which I agree with Ron. Yes, house elves should have rights, but ultimately, what are rights? Why do w..."

To me it acts on a higher level than the text. We, as readers, are implicit in their subjugation. They're never described in a way that would indicate they dislike their lives, because the narrative point of view is that of the wizarding world. So, as I said, none of us - me included - can know what the House Elves, as a group, really think.

If Rowling did write the House Elves to be a representation of slavery and oppression (though I think it's more ingrained prejudice than anything) - and none of us can actually speak for her, this is just what I read in the subtext - then writing them as apparently single-minded, short elvish creatures is exactly how you would do it. Why? Because they have to be, to the reader, sub-human. Different. That's the only way to achieve a scenario in which the reader is complicit in the wizarding world's biases - to see things the way they see them. Sometimes the only way texts can make points is to imply them, not make them explicit, because the very act of making it explicit destroys the point being made.

Ultimately, neither of us can have a 'right' answer, we can only provide evidence to support our readings of the text.

[Rae]

Cocoispuffed wrote: "Definitely Ginny because of the awkwardness of her and Harry being together. I felt like he should of chosen someone else. I also felt like Ron in real life would have just died in his first battle..."

I'm with you on Ginny. In the sixth book I was like, why are we trying to make Ginny and Harry happen? I kept writing it off as a brother-sister relationship until their attraction was confirmed. I think Harry and Hermione would have been much better suited.

[Alexander]

Gabriella wrote: "Alexander wrote: "Gabriella wrote: "Alexander wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Alexander wrote: "another thing (not a character) is SPEW, on which I agree with Ron. Yes, house elves should have rights, but u..."

I think we are fundamentally approaching the text from different perspectives. Your reading relies on imbuing the text with objective truth - i.e. everything is exactly as it says. My reading, however, questions the validity of the text's point of view - i.e. the text can be unreliable because the point of view is unreliable, reflecting the bias of the dominant group. In the former approach, reading 'The House Elf looked happy' leads to believing that statement. In the latter approach, reading that same sentence doesn't necessarily lead to believing that statement. It could be true or it could be false.

Both readings, of course, are valid. Analysing the text from your perspective, I agree with your arguments, and would say that Hermione pursues a cause from a false sense of justice relying on interpretations of a culture she doesn't understand. She is, after all, a cultural outsider.

When analysed from the perspective I have been speaking from, however, the very text itself cannot be trusted to impart an objective treatment of the House Elves. Their voices are suppressed by the subjectivity of the point of view - that of the human wizarding world. Within that reading, therefore, we cannot know the true desires of the House Elves.

Both readings - as well as other readings that may be advocated - are not only valid, I believe, but important. Multiple approaches to the text can help us question the values it purports to uphold. These purported values differ depending on the reading, and can lead us to more deeply engage with moral and ethical dilemmas, e.g. in a case such as the House Elves, what is the ethical answer? We can then answer that question in multiple ways, making different sets of assumptions upon which each answer relies.

So, again, if we take the assumptions present in your approach to the text, then I agree with your ethical conclusion. If we consider it from a different perspective - namely the one I have argued - then that particular ethical conclusion may or may not be sound, but we wouldn't have enough information to make a decision in the first place.

[Anna]

Alexander wrote: "Gabriella wrote: "Alexander wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Alexander wrote: "another thing (not a character) is SPEW, on which I agree with Ron. Yes, house elves should have rights, but ultimately, what ar..."

I disagree with you there. I loved Ron and Hermione together and Harry and Ginny together. I think that Harry and Hermione wouldn't have worked together.

[Anna]

J wrote: "Okay, so for me here's a basic list:

-Harry (I found him annoying, which was made worse by the fact that he was the main protagonist)

-Ron (just... I don't know. I liked him better near the end, ..."

Ron adds comic relief!

[Cato]

-Sirius (I know you were in Azkaban for like a decade and you must have mental issues, but please GROW UP ALREADY!) I sort of dislike Remus too, especially when he left his family, but there's something about Sirius that pisses me off.

-Dobby (I agree with everyone here...I dunno what was so tragically sad about his death).

-Molly (I felt suffocated just by reading about her coddling, I would really have issues with a person like her in real life.)

[N.]

Can this list include Harry's Uncle and Aunt and cousin. Gez, I'm glade Harry trapped Duddly in the snake exhibit at the zoo. Can't believe Harry had to put up with such a family

[Anthony]

Ginevra - silly (and from book 6 onwards, arrogant) fangirl
Ron - Arrogant git who is jealous of his best friends being either more intelligent (Hermione) or more popular (Harry). Gee Ron, have you forgotten how Harry has been mistreated by his 'family' for over a decade? Now tell me, do you REALLY want his popularity?
Molly - Suffocating her children (and Harry) with her over-protectiveness. If she'd be given a theme song from the Muggle world, it would be Pink Floyd's "Mother".

[Dramapuppy]

Anthony wrote: "Ginevra - silly (and from book 6 onwards, arrogant) fangirl
Ron - Arrogant git who is jealous of his best friends being either more intelligent (Hermione) or more popular (Harry). Gee Ron, have you..."

Ginevra: Yeah, can't defend her.
Ron: You're right. Plus, he's stupid and just generally horrible and annoying. But might he be justified in his jealousy? It's hard to be friends with the most famous wizard in the land and a girl who have a crush on but you feel is too good for you. Not that he's not a horrible person, but he does have a point of view.
Molly: Yes, she's over protective, but I think that's a nice flaw. We wouldn't want her to be a Mary-Sue, and parents love their kids! She stands up for them. (This was also necessary to create contrast with the Dursleys). And was she really THAT over protective? Could you give me an example?

[hannah renee.]

Dramapuppy wrote: "Anthony wrote: "Ginevra - silly (and from book 6 onwards, arrogant) fangirl
Ron - Arrogant git who is jealous of his best friends being either more intelligent (Hermione) or more popular (Harry). G..."

I have to agree about Mrs. Weasley. I thought she was endearing.

[Anthony]

Hannah wrote: "Dramapuppy wrote: "Anthony wrote: "Ginevra - silly (and from book 6 onwards, arrogant) fangirl
Ron - Arrogant git who is jealous of his best friends being either more intelligent (Hermione) or more..."

Well, for starters, let me say that not liking Molly does not mean I hate her completely. But honestly, you can protect too much. Book 5 really was her lowpoint. Remus and Sirius tried to explain Harry what's going on, but Molly stops them, stating that if they went on, they could as well make Harry a member of the Order. Excuse me? Voldemort wants to KILL Harry, don't you think he deserves all the information he can get, so he can prepare and PROTECT himself? But no, just leave Harry in the dark, just like Dumbledore did. Again, I'd like to point out that I just disliked Molly but I don't hate her. But this moment was just plain stupidity.

[hannah renee.]

Anthony wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Dramapuppy wrote: "Anthony wrote: "Ginevra - silly (and from book 6 onwards, arrogant) fangirl
Ron - Arrogant git who is jealous of his best friends being either more intelligent (He..."

I have to agree on that point! That was really annoying. He's 15 for heaven's sake and yes, he should have the information he can.

[Dramapuppy]

Hannah wrote: "Anthony wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Dramapuppy wrote: "Anthony wrote: "Ginevra - silly (and from book 6 onwards, arrogant) fangirl
Ron - Arrogant git who is jealous of his best friends being either more..."

Me too. That was not Molly's high point.

[****Kelly*****]

Snape, Snape, Severus, Snape

[Dramapuppy]

Dumbledore!

[****Kelly*****]

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?


Oh wait i see what you mean...... pig to slaughter............... lying about socks............... mysterious mentor that does tell you the whole story.............. yeah i can see that

[Dramapuppy]

Haha, yeah I do hate Dumbledore, but I was actually referencing the Potter Puppet Pals Mysterious Ticking Noise video. Dumbledore! comes after Snape, Snape, Severus Snape. ;)

[Anthony]

Dramapuppy wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Anthony wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Dramapuppy wrote: "Anthony wrote: "Ginevra - silly (and from book 6 onwards, arrogant) fangirl
Ron - Arrogant git who is jealous of his best friends be..."

And then I hadn't even mentioned how she treated Hermione in book 4 because she'd rather believe Rita Skeeter's rubbish than asking her children and their friends about the truth. Plus trying to separate Bill and Fleur so Bill might marry Tonks instead... not cool! If my mother would have tried something similar, there would be a huge fight.

[N.]

Speaking of good characters we don't like. I didn't like Elinor from Inkheart series. Too annoying

[Aurelia]

Ginny is too bland of a character.

PERCY WEASLEY. Is he still considered "good"?!

[[deleted user]]

Snape
PLEASE DONT ATTACK ME. All right, I appreciate what he did for Dumbledore and Hogwarts and alladat, but he really didn't have to be such a d-bag. In book 4, Draco puts an Engorgement Charm on Hermione's teeth, and when they tell Snape, he says "I see no difference."