Here goes:

1. No, I will not read “Quidditch Through The Ages” to see J.K.Rowling’s shallow understandings of sports exposed further. And whatever difficulty which may have presented itself and forced her to write such a hyperbolic and asinine portrayal of Harry’s genius in the game does not negate the fact that said hyperbolic and asinine portrayal exists. Any criticism leveled against it therefore remains valid.

4. Didn’t you read that part where I said that Harry wasn’t an all-out villain peddled as a hero? That he was just an everyday douchebag? I have no problem with a teenage having antagonistic thoughts against his friends, his family, or acting like a douche to look cool. But I do with The Chosen One. There’s nothing extraordinary about Harry. He’s not a hero. And the fact that J.K.Rowling expects us to think otherwise and her attempts to redefine the word “hero” coupled with the grandiose praises of Harry’s goodness that she stuffed in other characters’ mouths bother me very much. Harry Potter has human decency to a point, but not the makings of a hero. The belief that just by being an everyday Joe you can turn into a hero with the right circumstances that the books hinge on is both breathtakingly stupid and dangerous at the same time. It’s stupid because of course real life does not work that way. It’s dangerous because it curses children everywhere with a sense of entitlement: that happiness should come to them if everyday they manage to exert a minimum amount of strength and character to remain “decent”.

5. What part of “the distinction between what happened and what could’ve happened” did you not get? In the context of J.K.Rowling’s writing process itself, it matters not that Draco insulted Hagrid or displayed bigotry. My point was that J.K.Rowling had drafted up a character whose main concern was himself (in other words: something other than Harry and his destiny as the Chosen One), and in putting him in the unsympathetic antagonist bag, she managed to eliminate the most interesting possibility for the series. If she had not decided to do so and instead give Draco and Harry a friendship, there were very simple methods to make Draco a more like prospect for a friend: either make him less than 100% discriminatory or acknowledge that he belongs to a very large population of people who harbor some sorts of bigotry earlier on in their lives when the influences of their upbringings outweigh their independent educations and observations about the world. But she chose neither, and we got stuck with those “either love Harry or go be a villain” books.

6. Nobody needs therapies. Some people who have been emotionally abused choose to have therapies just like some people choose to have ice-cream on certain days, or apply for a job, and so on and so on. Most of the time, the choice you make isn’t mandatory and isn’t a matter of life or death, but you make it because you think it’d improve your life.

Now here’s my point: most people who had suffered through such thorough forms of emotional abuses for years like Harry did have to go through therapies to heal their mental wounds and open doors for satisfying lives in long-term. The fact that Harry acquired no mental issue at all after all those years of having nobody really nurturing him and believing that nobody had given or would give him maternal love rings extremely false. How’s that offensive?

Don’t bring your problem in here, since you did not even care to give a detailed and level-headed description of it. Nobody where I live goes to therapies either, since psychotherapies in the climate of my society seem to many people extremely superfluous and mental illnesses invented. However, I have noticed a lot of mental problems in my acquaintances and friends. My point is you just don’t snap out of mental issues. We might ignore them and pretend that they have gone away. But escapism hardly ever lasts for long.

You bring up the fact that Harry doesn’t seem great mentally all the time. But your observation lacks the fundamental understanding of psychology. Harry’s unstable and shaky periods root in his ability to respond to situations like a normal human being. Mentally healthy people are capable of dark moods. Anyone of them would respond to remembering such grievous memories like the murders of one’s parents by being “shaky and unstable”. However, by the suspicious lack of mental issues in Harry, I was referring long-term problems. None of his problem roots in deep subconscious wounds resulted from his years of emotional abuse. His hero complex seemed largely a non-issue except for in the 5th book where it got Sirius killed. And even if it did have serious consequences, in real life, it’d be the lightest problem in a long list of problems a kid as abused and neglected as Harry was would have.

Am I saying that every person who has ever gone through so much must have more mental issues than Harry? No. Does the fact make Harry’s saneness any less unrealistic and uninteresting? Not really. There were plenty of roads that Rowling could’ve taken to turn Harry Potter into a worthwhile series. This point I’ve just made was just another one of them that she refused to consider.

7. I agree that Harry was just an average kid. But J.K.Rowling clearly tried to sell him as a hero (Dumbledore’s praises of his goodness in book 7, which belong to long list of similar eulogies). Refer to 4 to see why I don’t believe he can be both.

Did you not even read book 6 where Harry and Ron read their report cards for OWLs? Almost in every subject, Harry did as well as or better than Ron. It was a fact that Harry was academically better than Ron.

8. You did not even understand my argument about the point system. I wouldn’t expect you understand this. I have no problem with J.K.Rowling revolving everything around Harry, except loads of books with one main character have well-developed supporting ones too. Harry Potter do not. And the logic within this universe that J.K.Rowling created falls apart whenever someone wants to pick it apart.

9. Yes, lions are dangerous. No, in lots of situations, they can’t fend for themselves. Are you the sort of person who believes that whaling is okay because whales “can fend for themselves”? Species as tough and dangerous as them go out of existences at an alarming rate. That’s why the comparison is apt. Why do you think that Hagrid wanted to teach Grawp human etiquette if he was doing so dandy then? I never said that Hermione wasn’t allowed to be scared. But she did not give a shit, which meant another set of reactions entirely. If she could rid of Grawp that moment, she’d gladly. If I recalled correctly, Grawp never intended to hurt either one of them. But his size posed a huge problem when he moved and therefore Hermione just did not want anything to do with him.

Are you arguing that because goblins, centaurs and giants have enough strength to not need Hermione’s help, she shouldn’t extend her belief in equity to them? That she should only advocate for the rights of elves because they whimper in helplessness instead of going to war with human beings? Because I’m pretty sure that that argument has a horrific racist implication.

Since you brought up Umbridge, she got left by Hermione and subsequently got raped by the centaurs. Here’s another one on her long list of hypocrisies. She preaches ethics, yet left a woman to a bunch of rapist in a forest and later laughed at the woman’s signs of trauma in the hospital. Want another example? Hermione permanently disfigured a girl for ratting out Harry’s club. I’m pretty sure if J.K.Rowling committed to creating a fantasy mirroring real life, that action would be deemed illegal. How’s that for our innocent 15 year old?