Jumping on the back of a troll in a fit of blind "I must protect" =/= taunting, and I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that it does.

It's not like Harry is motherfucking Dante. It's not like he jumped on the thing's back, stabbed a sword the size of a telephone booth into it, and then rode the thing around in it's death throes while rocking out on a lightning guitar that is also a demon so hard that Hermione's panties evaporated and her school uniform shrank three sizes.

He screamed. He jumped on it's back. His wand accidentally, completely by sheer coincidence, happened to fly up the thing's nose. This consequently saved all of their lives, Ron's coup-de-grace with Wingardium Leviosa notwithstanding.

Harry has taunted someone during a fight a total, total number of, like, two times. And one of them was during the Obligatory Final Fight, so I'm not even sure that counts. It's way, way the exception. He doesn't waltz into every fight shooting off snappy one-liners and dropping sarcasm bombs on people. It's most definitely not a "thing Harry does." It's not a trait of his personality or style. It is not a 'thing.' Not for him.

Again. You're confusing Harry the Wizarding Boy-Who-Lived with Harry the Wizarding Private Investigator.

 

Well, he definitely taunted Bellatrix when they were fighting...He also taunted Snape before getting his ass beat down. I think he might have taunted Sirius too.

 

Harry doesn't know the 1st rule of taunting; Only taunt if you are going to win. If you lose you just look like a twat.

 

He actually is kind of like Dresden in that respect. He starts to talk shit to waste time when he feels like he's about to have his ass handed to him, like a nervous response. That's how it was with the shade of Riddle and Bellatrix at least, IIRC.

 

He taunted Dudley all the time growing up. I think that establishes well enough that he taunts people who are bigger and stronger than him before fights. It's in character. Maybe when it's hectic and he's surrounded by spellfire it's not going to be something he does, sure. But, one-on-one he taunts. It's established.

 

I havn't actually read Dresden, so I woudn't know, but I assume Harry the Wizarding Private Investigator is a grown man who, at least somewhat, chose his lifestyle.

Harry Potter didn't. He was eleven years old who just discovered je was special, a hero, his parents wern't no good drunks and he belonged to a shiny, magical World. Then a troll appears. A big ugly monster, that could kill him. Fun fact, people die when they are killed, they arn't special, arn't heros with friends, parents, anything.

So Harry degenerates into a quivering mess, like an eleven yeyr old faced with the sudden prospect of death should. Oh wait, he doesn't. He doesn't run screaming bloody murder either.
He jumps onto the thing. It would be far less impressive if he could actually have done anything, because then he would have had a reason to e confident.

At the end of PS, Harry walks straight to a confrontation with a far, far stronger wizard, the boggeyman of wizards, who tried to kill him before.

At the end of CoS, Harry walks into a secret underground liar that not only holds the heir of rasicm, but also a giant, poisonous snake that can kill him with a single look!
Oh, did I mention the exit collapsed and he later how the life was literally sucked out of best friends little sister, who had a crush on him?

Not to mention in GoF where, at the moment that should have been his triumph, Harry saw his friend die, his nightmare return and was tortured with the worst curse imaginable.


I didn't mean just "taunting", but more "walk up to and fight against someone you know is much more powerful then you". The type that takes fate and spits in his fate, except that Harry isn't really a spitting type.

It's one thing if he would just go "fuck it, im dead, my friends are dead, I don't care anymore might as well piss off Voldemort, but he doesn't".
He doesn't despair when by all rights he should curl up and cry for his mommy.

In many books, fighting, facing death and killing are par for the course.
I would guess the Dresden Files and many fanfictions in DLP fall under this category.

But Harry Potter is not that kind of book. People actually do freeze up when shocked, like Hermione when she saw the troll, or Harry after the battle of Hogwarts where he coudn't produce a patronus.
Harry actually does want to kill Sirius in PoA.

Ron and half the School actually do desert Harry in GoF, and another half in OotP. Unlike in other stories, where everyone shuns the Protagonist - except his mother, father, sister, friend, classmate, love interest and every other named character you could think of.

HP isn't about soldiers, but normal people. Maybe if you're talking about broken warorphans it's normal to put your life on the line in an impossible gambit. Maybe it's normal to just keep going when, all of a sudden, your lifes on the line.
But HP is about normal people, just normal people with magic. So Harry should be compared to them.

 

Not only do I not remember anyone ever saying anywhere that Harry taunted Dudley "all the time" when he was little, but even if something did say that:

> It's an informed trait; we never see it

> He doesn't show this tendency during his time at Hogwarts

So even if it was a thing at some point, and I doubt it was (citation needed), it clearly isn't a thing now.

The statement is "Harry taunts big opponents all the time."

He's done that maybe twice in the entire series. So no. That is objectively wrong.

Again, and I hope this is the last time I say this: stop confusing Harry Potter with Harry Dresden. Dresden can't stop taunting enemies, be they big or small. He can hardly stop himself from shooting his mouth off. It is most definately a 'thing' for him. He goes to sleep unfulfilled at night if he lets some big monster or enemy-of-the-week get away without mouthing off to them.

Harry Potter is not like that. Harry Potter has never been like that, and only in the shittiest of Indy!Harrys and the wildest imaginings of some of the people on this forum will he ever be like that.

Dozens of utterly shit crossovers that languish in a perpetual durance vile of mediocrity and OoCness stand testament to the fact that the only thing Harry Potter and Harry Dresden have in common is their names.

 

The only incident that comes to mind:

Dudley: "They stuff people's heads down the toilet the first day at Stonewall. Want to come upstairs and practice?"
Harry: "No, thanks. The poor toilet's never had anything as horrible as your head down it -- it might be sick."

Then he runs away.

 

But you're wrong. He's taunted enemies more than twice. He taunts Riddle at the end of CoS, Sirius at the end of PoA, Riddle again at the end of GoF, Dudley at the start of OotP, Bellatrix at the end of OotP, Snape at the end of HBP, and Riddle again in a straight-up duel to the death at the end of DH, with taunting elsewhere in between.

Quit ranting about how right you are and read the other posts. Or reread the books for that matter. The only one "objectively wrong" here is you.

 

There's a difference between actively taunting someone and giving them lip for their shit.

But hey, if you want to move goalposts and redefine what "taunting" means until it happens every five minutes, go right ahead. Your sweeping generalizations not being wrong seems really important to you. Don't let silly little things like me or facts stand in the way of that.

 

How could facts be standing in my way when I'm the only one citing them? Giving people lip for their shit and taunting, besides being a bullshit distinction you just made up on the spot, are at least synonymous, and while I've pointed to specific examples of taunting, you continue to generalize without backing up your arguments with anything but what you clearly feel to be clever wordplay about Dante and Hermione's school uniform.

 

I'd say it's more of a middleground. Harry does have a history of taunting throughout the series. The quoted part about Dudley, plus I believe he calls him Duddykins or something in front of his friends at one point, as well as mocking the big D nickname. I think he might of taunted the Dursleys about having a wand once, although this one might be purely fanon. He does taunt Snape at the end of HBP as well as during class (you don't have to call me sir professor). He also taunts Voldemort quite a bit, probably making him and Dumbledore the only ones who do so. Also, anytime you call Voldemort Tom, its automatically a giant taunt.

He also might of done a bit of taunting of Umbridge and various death eaters, but that also might be fanon, can't be sure.


Either way Harry does have some history taunting antagonists. But I certainly wouldn't call him Harry Dresden at all.

and for reference : Taunt: a remark made in order to anger, wound, or provoke someone.

 

Harry Potter is not Harry Dresden.

Perhaps I should read the last four pages, but I'm lazy.

For one, Harry Dresden is competent with regards to abilities. Harry Potter is only competent in regards to plot development. Soul-sucking monsters? There's your patronus... and now I'm struggling to think of any other piece of awesome magic that he could do.

It's not coming to me.

Harry Potter will never be more than average because JKR wrote him in a way that means he'll never be more than average. She wanted the common people to relate to him, and show bravery and determination is much more than talent and skill.

Which, of course, is total bullshit.

 

No one is equating Harry Potter and Harry Dresden. That was Lord Raine's straw-man. We were simply denying the notion that Harry Dresden has some kind of monopoly on witty remarks, and noting that Harry Potter taunted a few of his tougher enemies in the face of immediate danger and destruction as well.

 

It was Lord Raine's example on why you're wrong. Harry Dresden is a character "known" for giving enemies lip. Taunting bad guys is a 'thing' for him. We can say that, because there is ample evidence for it. He does it all the time. It would be easier to list the times he has not, and that list would be quite small.

You made a sweeping generalization about Harry Potter. That sweeping generalization was that he is known for taunting his opponents. You implied that not only was this a thing, but that it was a thing that occurred so frequently and regularly that it should go without saying that it is true. This is not a normal amount of taunting, not even for a pack of schoolchildren. No, you claimed that it was excessive taunting, that this was in fact so much taunting that it was a feature of Harry's character, a part of who he was, above and beyond the fact that we are dealing with magical schoolchildren, and at least one of them is a giant dick that taunts everyone he cares to at every opportunity because he is a giant dick.

The very fact that you must construct a list of all the times Harry has ever taunted someone proves that you are wrong. If he taunted people nearly as much as you implied, if he taunted people enough for it to be one of the defining traits of his character, you would instead be showing off a list of all the times he had not.

I used Harry Dresden as an example to try and show you, in fewer words, why your sweeping generalization was faulty. Harry Dresden mocks his enemies all the time. He's taunted his enemies to one degree or another in damn near every fight he's been involved in. It is a defining trait of his character.

Harry Potter doesn't behave like Harry Dresden does. Not even close. That's why I made the comparison to begin with.

Apparently, expecting you to understand even that is asking for too much. So I'll make this even shorter and quicker, then.

Don't make sweeping generalizations.

 

Where? So much of what you say is so utterly false that it's almost a waste of time to ask you to prove what you say. Go ahead and try to find where I said he was known for taunting opponents.

What the fuck are you even talking about? No one claimed his taunting was excessive, or even anywhere near Malfoy's if that's what you're implying.

You said Harry had taunted his enemies no more than twice. This, too, was completely fucking false.

Seriously, no one has made sweeping generalizations about the nature of Harry Potter but you. You said:

So I pointed out why you were wrong. You are so fucking batshit that you need to invent someone as crazy as you are to argue against, denying shit no one ever said. So just stop. Nobody ever said any of the shit you're raging against.

 

Yeah, you can only make sweeping generalizations about Pokemon games amirite?!

https://forums.darklordpotter.net/showpost.php?p=633820&postcount=233

 

You were expecting better from Hitler?

 

WAIT WAIT WAIT. What.The. Fuck. How can anyone not think playing a Pokemon game where you start out as a lowly member of team rocket, work your way up through the organization, and take over the world, WOULDN"T be an awesome fucking game.

If nothing else it would be a sweet change of pace. Plus the storylines of pokemon games are improving enough that they could pull it off if they tried.

 

No. I listed "bravery" as a talent Harry has over his peers and said "he stands up to way to strong bad guys - and taunts them" as an example for when he's not cowed when he clearly should be, being an average eleven year old and all.

Then someone decided to take ONLY the taunting point, put Harry Dresden in there and the whole thread deriled into "does HP taunt like HD".