![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Yes, I'm a slow ass. No, I haven't finished Deathly Hallows.
But I just HAD to comment on something that I have read so far.
If there is anyone left who is as slow as me at finishing this book, HERE BE YOUR SPOILER ALERT.
Remus: All hail Harry Potter, godfather to my child! Squeeeee and Tonks-squeeeee!
That makes a lot of sense.
'Cause... why?
*frowns*
I am a citizen of the USA. Maybe godparenthood means something different in the UK. But here, among the other bits about closeness and friendship with the birth parents, it also implies that, should anything happen to the birth parents, the godparent(s) will step in and take the child in, provide a home, an education, safety, support, and general rearing as the birth parents intended to raise their child. And seeing as there is a Wizarding war in full swing, such a situation is a lot more likely for Remus and Tonks than it would be during times of peace.
Is there not a distinct problem with this?
I feel like I am being forced to acknowledge Harry's maturity yet again. Hey, I think he's matured. You've sold me, JK, I buy it, I believe it, I revel in it because he is finally coming into his own. I think he is a capable, powerful, iconic leader with the intelligence and ability to save the wizarding world.
Do I think Harry can raise a war-orphaned child? No, I do not. Harry is a boy, regardless of how mature he is proving to be, and he not only has no actual home to speak of, but no means of providing for said child should the need arise, which it stands a fair chance of doing in the current life and times of British wizardom. Rowling forbid Remus or Tonks should die. I don't want that, you don't want that (I wager), and none of those other people in the book want that. Except Voldemort (whoops, broke my wards) and Bellatrix.
Do I think that Harry would end up being the sole provider for the child? No. Andromeda is there, as are the Weasleys, Kingsley Shacklebolt and friends, and of course, Ron, Hermione, Luna, Neville and Ginny, should things REALLY come right down to the bare essentials. I have no doubt Harry would have plenty of help. But come on. A godfather? Let's all celebrate the most transparent display of "all hail Harry, the new and improved GROWN-UP Boy Who Lived, who is now following in his own godfather's footsteps, oh, weep-with-joy!" that the series has offered thus far.
I feel blatantly manipulated. And anyone who knows me knows that I loathe blatant author manipulation more than almost anything else when I read.
I also feel like common sense has picked up and gone on holiday. And the absence of common sense takes a very close second.
Sirius may not have been the most attentive and appropriate godfather, but he definitely had the means to feed and clothe Harry (barring the stint in Azkaban, which I don't think any of us could control), and he MOST CERTAINLY had the means when James and Lily first named him godfather. Harry has no way of giving this child a life. He barely has the wherewithal to give himself any sort of life.
The smart thing to do would have been to appoint the Weasleys as godparents. Yes, it's war, and yes, our favourite redheads are in dire straits, not working and all. But they are far more equipped than the current godfather is, on a mental level at the very least. Instead, we have another thing placed on the shoulders of a kid-- A KID-- who already has enough on his plate. It feels very foolish to me, an empty gesture meant to show appreciation when "I'm sorry I went all WONKY in the BASEMENT of your HOUSE" just won't cover it. Like, oh, Harry was right and I was wrong, let me give him my child's well-being to make amends.
What really bugs me is that everyone else was totally thrilled about it. I would have expected Hermione and Bill, at the very least, to frown worriedly and say, "Thanks for the show of faith, but I think maybe it would be better for everyone if..."
Next thing you know, Tonks will be appointing Ginny godmother extraordinaire because as everyone knows, she and Harry are a match made in the stars. I mean, come on, how can any of us argue with that? Everyone in the books has had SIXTEEN WHOLE YEARS to figure it out. That's, like, forever. That's, like, duh. *pukes*
I tell you. First Tonks goes bonkers. Now Remus is starting with the Stoopid. It's a sign: there is conspiracy afoot! Their child is the harbinger of dooooooom! Watch out, Voldemort!
*rolls whole head because eyes are just not enough*
ETA: Well, it seems my "godparents as legal guardians" issue is not a widely practiced thing among my f-list. *laughs* Alas! So this observation and concern comes from my own personal background. Still, I hold to a lot of what I said about Harry being emotionally unprepared for such a role. And I still feel manipulated. *sigh*
But I just HAD to comment on something that I have read so far.
If there is anyone left who is as slow as me at finishing this book, HERE BE YOUR SPOILER ALERT.
Remus: All hail Harry Potter, godfather to my child! Squeeeee and Tonks-squeeeee!
That makes a lot of sense.
'Cause... why?
*frowns*
I am a citizen of the USA. Maybe godparenthood means something different in the UK. But here, among the other bits about closeness and friendship with the birth parents, it also implies that, should anything happen to the birth parents, the godparent(s) will step in and take the child in, provide a home, an education, safety, support, and general rearing as the birth parents intended to raise their child. And seeing as there is a Wizarding war in full swing, such a situation is a lot more likely for Remus and Tonks than it would be during times of peace.
Is there not a distinct problem with this?
I feel like I am being forced to acknowledge Harry's maturity yet again. Hey, I think he's matured. You've sold me, JK, I buy it, I believe it, I revel in it because he is finally coming into his own. I think he is a capable, powerful, iconic leader with the intelligence and ability to save the wizarding world.
Do I think Harry can raise a war-orphaned child? No, I do not. Harry is a boy, regardless of how mature he is proving to be, and he not only has no actual home to speak of, but no means of providing for said child should the need arise, which it stands a fair chance of doing in the current life and times of British wizardom. Rowling forbid Remus or Tonks should die. I don't want that, you don't want that (I wager), and none of those other people in the book want that. Except Voldemort (whoops, broke my wards) and Bellatrix.
Do I think that Harry would end up being the sole provider for the child? No. Andromeda is there, as are the Weasleys, Kingsley Shacklebolt and friends, and of course, Ron, Hermione, Luna, Neville and Ginny, should things REALLY come right down to the bare essentials. I have no doubt Harry would have plenty of help. But come on. A godfather? Let's all celebrate the most transparent display of "all hail Harry, the new and improved GROWN-UP Boy Who Lived, who is now following in his own godfather's footsteps, oh, weep-with-joy!" that the series has offered thus far.
I feel blatantly manipulated. And anyone who knows me knows that I loathe blatant author manipulation more than almost anything else when I read.
I also feel like common sense has picked up and gone on holiday. And the absence of common sense takes a very close second.
Sirius may not have been the most attentive and appropriate godfather, but he definitely had the means to feed and clothe Harry (barring the stint in Azkaban, which I don't think any of us could control), and he MOST CERTAINLY had the means when James and Lily first named him godfather. Harry has no way of giving this child a life. He barely has the wherewithal to give himself any sort of life.
The smart thing to do would have been to appoint the Weasleys as godparents. Yes, it's war, and yes, our favourite redheads are in dire straits, not working and all. But they are far more equipped than the current godfather is, on a mental level at the very least. Instead, we have another thing placed on the shoulders of a kid-- A KID-- who already has enough on his plate. It feels very foolish to me, an empty gesture meant to show appreciation when "I'm sorry I went all WONKY in the BASEMENT of your HOUSE" just won't cover it. Like, oh, Harry was right and I was wrong, let me give him my child's well-being to make amends.
What really bugs me is that everyone else was totally thrilled about it. I would have expected Hermione and Bill, at the very least, to frown worriedly and say, "Thanks for the show of faith, but I think maybe it would be better for everyone if..."
Next thing you know, Tonks will be appointing Ginny godmother extraordinaire because as everyone knows, she and Harry are a match made in the stars. I mean, come on, how can any of us argue with that? Everyone in the books has had SIXTEEN WHOLE YEARS to figure it out. That's, like, forever. That's, like, duh. *pukes*
I tell you. First Tonks goes bonkers. Now Remus is starting with the Stoopid. It's a sign: there is conspiracy afoot! Their child is the harbinger of dooooooom! Watch out, Voldemort!
*rolls whole head because eyes are just not enough*
ETA: Well, it seems my "godparents as legal guardians" issue is not a widely practiced thing among my f-list. *laughs* Alas! So this observation and concern comes from my own personal background. Still, I hold to a lot of what I said about Harry being emotionally unprepared for such a role. And I still feel manipulated. *sigh*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: No spoilers, I promise
Date: 2007-08-13 07:53 pm (UTC)From:I'm still not happy with the way she portrayed Lupin and Tonks. Neither of them were realistic after the fifth book.
Re: No spoilers, I promise
Date: 2007-08-13 10:24 pm (UTC)From:Re: No spoilers, I promise
Date: 2007-08-13 11:37 pm (UTC)From: