Comments by "Morgan King" (@MorganKing95) on "Top 10 Harry Potter Characters" video.

  1. +Kyle Schiller Only in the U.S
    6
  2. I think he is praised for being such a complex and unpredictable character, not for being a good person. That's at least why I like him so much
    6
  3. Ben Zombie Why can't people just like a character for being well-developed and complex? Must every character be a nice guy to be likeable? In fact, my favorite characters are either villains or anti-heroes
    4
  4. Anthony Stargaryen You haven’t been responding with any relevant argument for his character; all you’ve been saying is “Snape isn’t a complete good guy, so that automatically makes him a badly written character”. Even now you still do it. People like you are the reason why Alexander Kielland didn’t get paid by the government and Knut Hamsun went into obscurity despite them being gifted authors, and also the reason why movies like “Birth of a Nation”, “Citizen Kane”, “Triumph of the Will”, “A Clockwork Orange”, and “Raging Bull” weren’t immediate successes. I’m not saying that characters need to be good to be considered great; I’m going against that belief. Voldemort is obviously not a good guy, but he’s being praised for how he is written as a villain, while Snape is being praised for how he is written as an anti-hero/tragic villain. Moralism is not an argument because it only looks at how morally good/bad and politically correct/incorrect something is, and not on how they excel in their artistic and aesthetic aspects. Art is not a representation of something else; it’s autonomous! I’m not denying that Snape was a bully and an asshole, but a character like that can be still considered complex and well-written if their background and motivations are clear enough. To be honest, I saw him as bland and cartoonish until I knew about his background, but things quickly changed. Snape obviously lived a tragic life and was bullied by James, so his bitter personality and his antagonism towards Harry and other Gryffindors make sense. And while he became a Death Eater, it’s still obvious that he wasn’t completely loyal and therefore changed sides after Lily (a person he at least felt some love and compassion for despite not being completely nice to her) was killed. Another thing to take into consideration is that Harry having resemblances to both James (most of his physical appearance) and Lily (the eyes) obviously overwhelm Snape, but he can’t let go of it because when you have experienced a trauma and see associations to it, you most likely only see the dark aspects of things. But being a double agent in the Wizarding World equivalent of WWII and ultimately being on the heroes’ side is definitely not everyone has the courage and bravery to do, and while it doesn’t make him a complete good guy and make up for the bad things he has done, it definitely makes him way more complex and interesting than your average anti-hero/tragic villain. I’m not praising Snape because I see him as a hero (on the contrary), but because I enjoy seeing a character clearly having both bad and good qualities to him and being in the middle of good and bad, and the fact that he has made mistakes and acted badly, but tries to learn from it despite not being completely able to makes him way more human than most characters in the Harry Potter series.
    3
  5. ***** It was moralism since you continued to whine about his moralistic flaws and how he bullied everyone. And really? Being dynamic is suddenly a criteria too? You certainly haven't learned much about character analysis
    2
  6. Anthony Stargaryen And what many people definitely seem to forget is that this list is ranked on how the characters are developed, not how much goodness they have
    2
  7. +Nicholas Roth Because he's pretty bland and uninteresting despite being the main character
    2
  8. +Jesse Allen He's dull as dishwater
    2
  9. Amen to that
    2
  10. Actually "Sorcerer's stone"? Oh you poor naive soul, don't you know that the title got changed in the U.S despite being "Philosopher's stone" everywhere else?
    1
  11. Original title of both the book and the movie
    1
  12. Because he's layered, complex, and way more human than Harry
    1
  13. +sesshyandenvyfreak That's what most people think as well (or should)
    1
  14. ***** And once again, moralism is not a criteria for writing and developing a character. In fact, it's a hindrance! You moralists always worship the 100% good characters and despise those that are not up to 100%, and by doing that, you're practically expecting human beings to be gods or supermen. Snape is actually the most human character in the entire series because he has done both good and bad and showed both bad and sympathetic sides personality-wise, just like human nature is.
    1
  15. *****​ Can you give us at least 1 argument that isn't related to moralism? That'd be wonderful. You're just like those idiots who claim that Knut Hamsun's novels can't be enjoyed just because he sympathized with Hitler in his private life.
    1
  16. ***** I said no moralism!
    1
  17. +Eline Boedhoe +Lily oftheValley So just because someone is not a complete good guy, they cannot be deep and layered, as well as complex? With that logic, virtually every anti-hero and villain from any media should not receive praise at all, and that's wrong
    1
  18. *****​ Like I said, it seems more like you and your friend hate him as a person rather as a character. All I get from you is "Oh, he is a jerk to everyone and that's why he is an underdeveloped character!" Why should every other anti-hero in books, movies, plays etc. get a free pass then? Sorry, but I need more than that to be convinced
    1
  19. ***** What do you think the point of argumentation is? I see no valid points in your reasoning for your statement, and I ask for more reasonable arguments. But yeah, I can move on if argumentation is such an awful thing
    1
  20. Snape is probably the most layered and complex character in the series. This isn't "Top 10 nicest Harry Potter characters"
    1
  21. The original title is "Philosopher's stone", which was changed to "Sorcerer's stone" in the U.S. for reasons I still don't understand (Haven't heard about "sources stone" though)
    1
  22. +ECIPBROZ 612 But he's a complex and developed character, and one of the few that actually feels like a human being.
    1
  23. Anthony Stargaryen That's what most people would call an epiphany or revelation, or simply that things aren't as they originally seemed to be. I just love that you Snape haters see everything as black or white and that you're a bunch of moralists
    1
  24. Anthony Stargaryen Sorry, moralism is a fallacy, and I won't respond until you come with an argument that talks about the actual character
    1
  25. Anthony Stargaryen​ Like you are doing at the moment? Arts and morals are not created equal, so don't even try to use moralism as an argument
    1
  26. Tanya Abbot Exactly!
    1
  27. ***** So what? He is so bland compared to the supporting characters
    1
  28. ***** I also like Snape the best. That's why I was asking why Harry should be #1
    1
  29. I knew there would be more people who think that bad person = bad character. Seriously, why is it a criteria for so many moralistic people that a character has to be a good guy in order to be praised? Snape is definitely more complex than your average anti-hero or tragic villain
    1
  30. +Pamela Moore Harry Potter is dull as dishwater, and do you hate Snape because of moralism just like all the other retarded Harry Potter fangirls?
    1
  31. +NolanTheGreat "We are is Draco"?
    1
  32. +btk0620 Harry is boring and clichéd though
    1
  33. +Heidi Suuronen Let me guess; you're one of those moralist bimbos who think that bad person = bad character?
    1
  34. Because we're not holding the belief that a well-written character is required to be a good guy or be morally upright. We're also not basing our judgments for completely ideological reasons like you're doing
    1
  35.  @susanbetten7207  This is not 17th century France where theatres could be shut down and playwrights prosecuted if their plays weren't morally upright, and if you're basing an assessment for entirely ideological reasons, then you're not really living in any physical reality. By your logic, we really should dismiss every fictional character who isn't a perfect Saint. I mean, "veneration"? This isn't a Christian liturgy If you also think Snape's character entirely hinges on Lily rejecting him, then you should put down your ideology glasses and read the books again
    1
  36.  @susanbetten7207  "Fancy big boy words"? You could come across those words in a high school class, but I guess it's just a defense mechanism on your part to hide the fact that you're unable to understand them. "Veneration" is way more "fancy", and yet you're using it. Even substituting (it means "replacing" btw) those words wouldn't change the fact that your opinion is completely biased and ideologically charged, and that you can't control your emotions
    1
  37.  @susanbetten7207  1st of all, your original comment is in all caps, so I wouldn't really call that control over your emotions. Not to mention that all your responses are emotionally charged rather than being rational 2nd of all, if you're gonna keep shoving away other people's responses to your opinion, then you're pretty much against freedom of speech; everyone is allowed to have opinions, and that also means that other people are allowed to respond to your opinion as well. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with you or even react positively to you 3rd of all, I can't imagine you having much of a social antenna or a big network if you dismiss anyone who's not agreeing with you
    1
  38. +Soumyajit Dutta Voldemort is clichéd
    1
  39. Only good guys. Figures...
    1
  40. +Lizzie Fabrizio Because he's dull as dishwater
    1
  41. +Stephanie L All of the things you're describing have been a trope since the era of Ancient Greek tragedies. Seen it, give me something fresh!
    1
  42. +Stephanie L I think I remember you. Aren't you one of those moralist morons who believe that a character can only be considered well-made/developed if it's a complete good guy? If I'm right, then fuck you! People like you are the sole reason Knut Hamsun and Elia Kazan went into obscurity, and revolutionary movies like "Birth of a Nation", "Citizen Kane", "Psycho", "A Clockwork Orange", and "Raging Bull" took so long to get the recognition and merits they deserved! Not to mention the book "Heart of Darkness"
    1
  43. +Stephanie L I'd say that characters that are morally good are boring, because that's how you expect a character to be, so it's easy to predict how they're going to turn out. They're so pure that they don't feel like humans anymore. At least the playwrights in Ancient Greece made their heroes have several flaws to distinguish them from the Greek gods
    1
  44. +Nymeria216 Yawn! You're describing what pretty much 90% of the protagonist in Greek tragedies are also like; seen it! And the actual Holden Caulfield, as well as movie characters like Travis Bickle, Terry Malloy, Jim Stark, Daniel Plainview, Michael Corleone, and The Narrator/Tyler Durden, are way more complex. I will even say Heathcliff from "Wuthering Heights" and Raskolnikov from "Crime and Punishment"
    1
  45. What does Harry Potter really have going for him? He’s just the archetypical hero protagonist who is supposed to fight evil and save the world, and just happens to have a tragic background and experiencing traumas during the process as a cheap attempt to make him interesting when in reality, he’s no different from heroes you can even find in Disney movies such as “Aladdin” and “The Lion King”, or any fictional war hero. And no shit that he develops; the story and atmosphere themselves develop, and Harry Potter would of course need to change as well to not seem misplaced during this development, but it still doesn’t make him any more interesting. And if we’re gonna use the “spectrum” angle you’re mentioning, then Harry Potter is 95% good and 5% “bad” based on how his character is explored, and that ratio is still too immense and unrealistic for him to actually seem human. I also think you need to read “The Catcher in the Rye” over again, because Holden Caulfield and Harry Potter are nothing alike; Caulfield is a representation of the teenage angst and rebellion during the 1940’s and 1950’s, and a 17 year old whom has the mindset of a 30 year old, but gets aliened from the society and his peers because his mental age makes them seem too mentally young for him in his eyes, and he is constantly viewed as a whiny brat who always complains about school and society (even by many readers) when he’s actually the only one who is able to sense the materialistic mindset of society, as well as the school’s manipulation of students and the pressure they’re putting on teenagers who haven’t even become adults yet. Not to mention that Caulfield is a representation of the idealistic childhood innocence, and someone to prevent children from growing up too fast and instead enjoy the parts of your life where you don’t have to worry about money, marriage, education, work, relevance in society etc. What is Harry Potter? Just a teenage hero whom is chosen to save the world and gets aliened for a year simply because he constantly insists that Voldemort has returned when he doesn’t even have any proof of it, and whom just occasionally shows some sassiness and arrogance to him even though it doesn’t affect his personality very much at all. Harry Potter has a function in the franchise, but his character and inner psychology are so rarely explored since the franchise always put story and action first. His character development is also much more descriptive rather than affective. And no, I think it’s fair to see Harry as dull when he’s too pure simply because that’s how you expect the hero to be! What are we taught by our parents and even teachers throughout our whole life? Be a good person and treat other people with respect, so when you get a character that is 95% good, that’s very expected and kind of a “well duh” thing. Even if a character is 100% evil, you become more intrigued to find out what are the driving motivations behind this since you most of the time expect a person to be good. The only times I care about a complete good guy is if it’s the character’s psychology and inner conflicts that move the plot, if the character and his/her environments clash with each other, or if the character is developed in an affective way and does actions that are either undeniably moving (such as Oskar Schindler and Paul Rusesabagina saving over 1000 people from genocide, which is even more effective when you realize that they were actual people) or inspiring (such as John Keating from “Dead Poets Society” inspiring his students to seize the moment and go against the norms or Rocky Balboa inspiring the audience to chase your dream). I can also view a complete good guy as interesting if the author adds elements of defamiliarization, deconstruction, and post-structuralism into a story or character, but that really isn't the case with Harry Potter
    1
  46. +Nymeria216 Boring! Give me something new and something that can't be traced back to Ancient Greece, and I might give you a proper answer. The only thing I can say now is that you really need to read real literature and watch real movies
    1
  47. +Nymeria216 Don't go all butthurt on me just because you can't do character analysis or aesthetic judgments, or that you are not experienced enough with either novels or movies. I only put real efforts into the debating when the other person is worth it. I gave you a chance to prove your worth, but you bungled it. I also can't believe that you try to character shill the protagonist of a franchise aimed at kids and young teenagers and claim that he's more complex than characters from adult literature.
    1
  48. +NolanTheGreat Who is "we"?
    1
  49. Harry is dull as dishwater, just like Voldemort. It's ironic that the side characters have dimensions to them, whereas the main protagonist and antagonist are both clichéd and stereotypical
    1
  50. +Rebecca Brownley Flitwick
    1
  51. +Jayanta Biswas Harry is dull as dishwater. Any of the supporting characters could have taken his place.
    1
  52. +CousinTV101 He's pretty bland and clichéd
    1
  53. +Krishan Soni Because he's the most complex and human character in the entire franchise
    1
  54. Harry meats? Yummy!
    1