Top 10 Things I Don't Like About The Harry Potter Series

J.K. Rowling just announced the release of Pottermore, and it’s going into Beta.  Not yet clear on what’s the extent of the site/game would be, but the advertisement gave us some idea.  And the last Harry Potter movie is out.  Harry Potter is at its peak.

I read the books and watched the movies.  I have read all the books, starting from my late elementary days and finished, as the series ended, when I was in college.  No, I never have had any HP book.  Never bought one.  Nor ask for one or was given one as a gift.  But I borrowed from friends – from Meg when I was in elementary and then from DY when I was in high school and college (fortunately, she was also my classmate in college).  Both were die-hard fans of HP, but I was never one.  Yes, I borrowed the books and been a fan to the extent that I wanted to read and know the whole story.  But that’s it.  No, I didn’t hate it.  I have enjoyed it.  I found HP entertaining.  But it never really won my “love” as a literature.  Nothing really exceptionally awesome about it.        

There are several things about the Harry Potter series that I don’t like at all.  Here are the top ten of those things that bugged me about the series:      

10.) WHAT HAPPENED TO TIME TRAVELLING?

In Book 3, Hermione took an overload of subjects.  To help her, Prof. McGonagall gave Hermione a “Time-Turner” that allowed her to time travel. Thus, she was able to study all her lessons and also have time rest.  In the climax of the story, Hermione revealed this fact to Harry, and they both travelled back in time to save Sirius Black from being sent to Azkaban.  (They were also able to save Buckbeak the Hippogriff from being executed and save Harry’s past self from the Dementors along the way.)

After that, it seemed that time travel was forgotten as it was never ever mentioned or used in the next books.  I mean, come on, why not?  Time travel magic is one very INVALUABLE magic, why didn’t Harry and friends used it again in their subsequent adventures, especially when they were searching for the Horcruxes?  Time travel could have helped them plenty in their adventures and fights.  And why no other wizard used time travel?  Why didn’t Voldemort?  Come to think of it, why did McGonagall gave such powerful thing as a "Time-Turner" to a mere student like Hermione?

Sure, fictional stories will always have some plot holes, and we should give writers some slack sometimes when they create plot holes.  But there are forgivable plot holes and there are annoyingly unforgivable plot holes.  And J.K. Rowling’s usage of time travel annoyed me greatly.  There are plot conveniences in fiction that can be “put in a drawer” after it solves a plot problem/conflict, but something like time travel is not simple.  Time travel is controversial and big.  Time travel is a powerful plot convenience, and it can never be dismissed easily after it had its use in the story.  If the author chooses to “put it in a drawer” to never touch it again in the entire storyline, it would always leave an annoying feeling of “if such powerful convenience exists in the story’s universe, why isn’t it used again?”

I think Rowling never thought how big time travelling really is when she tackled it.  

9.) DUMBLEDORE IS GAY??!!!

Dumbledore is one of the best characters in the series.  A powerfully badass wizard that is probably the only one with no fear of Voldemort.  A master tactician, as he employed espionage in the war, planned his death, and even able to manipulate events after his death.  He is also a great fatherly mentor to Harry.  

J.K. Rowling ruined his image with an admission in an interview that Dumbledore is gay.  

I couldn’t find a more perfect reaction than this famous lolcat:

Come on, Rowling?!  Really?!  Why not just leave the debate of Dumbledore’s sexuality to the fans?  I mean, this is uncomfortable.  This erases the “fatherly mentor to Harry” image of Dumbledore.  What is now the implication of their regular private talks throughout the series?  Yup, there’s no explicit sexual pressure content between them, but we can’t get it out of our minds what the real “affection” between them means after learning that Dumbledore is gay. AWKWARD!!!   

8.) "ORDER OF THE PHOENIX" AND "DUMBLEDORE'S ARMY" WERE UNDERUSED

Book 5 introduced us to the Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore’s Army.  And, for me, they lacked exposure throughout the series.  

Book 5’s title was “…and the Order of the Phoenix”, and yet, they failed to really shine until they went “cavalry”, arriving to rescue Harry and friends in the last minute from Voldemort and his Death Eaters in the Ministry of Magic.  There was no real detailed “Order of the Phoenix” vs. “Death Eaters” skirmish.  

Then there’s Harry’s “Dumbledore’s Army”.  It was really awesome considering they are made up of Hogwarts students from different houses.  They were inexperienced and juvenile, but they were self-trained and roughly combat-ready.  And yet, they never really had some action together as a group.  Aside from the usual Hermione and Ron, only Neville and Luna of the DA came with Harry to face-off with the Death Eaters at the Ministry of Magic.   The only time the full roster of DA really saw action was in the “Final Battle” at Hogwarts, but, hey, everybody was fighting by then.  

Maybe it’s just me, but I haven’t got enough of some DA and Order of the Phoenix action.         

7.) VOLDEMORT IS NOT THAT MENACING AT ALL

It is said that what makes a story great is a great villain.  The Harry Potter story’s villain was promising at the start.  He’s so evil and frightening that even the mere mention of his name makes the wizard community tremble.  When people mentioned of him, they address him as “You-Know-Who” or “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named”.  That is badass.  It made us expect that the Harry Potter series will have the greatest villain ever conceptualized in fiction.

What we got was this noseless clown:

Ok, to be fair, Ralph Fiennes played the Voldemort character well.  And Voldemort is a bad, mad, and actually pretty decent villain.  The only problem was he was not as villainous as advertized.  I was expecting Voldemort to be a combination of an explosive, insane, mass-murdering and genocidal Adolf Hitler, and an intelligent and calculating, Hannibal Lecter-like, cannibalistic, psychotic/sociapathic, terrifyingly vile and disturbed, serial killing, sexual predator.  

As I’ve said, Voldemort was a decent villain.  But compared to what he was being hyped, he came out as a “meh” villain.  

For me, two other antagonists in “Harry Potter” were better than Voldemort:  Bellatrix Lestrange (which was played brilliantly by Helena Bonham Carter in the movie) and the soul-sucking Dementors. 

6.) EPILOGUE

I didn’t like the epilogue of the series.  

In the epilogue, Harry and friends are adults already. Harry is married to Ginny, and they have kids of their own to send to Hogwarts.  The epilogue of Harry Potter didn’t give the “wrap-up” feel that I wanted, which could have been done if it just told the immediate aftermath.  The epilogue immediately fast-forwarded to several years later.  A few days or even a few years would have been enough.  

Most importantly, by doing an epilogue that only wraps the chapter regarding Voldemort instead of fast-forwarding to an adult Harry, the option of writing another Harry Potter saga afterwards is comfortably open for Rowling.  Sure, it could still be written, but knowing what would happen in its future (because of the adult Harry epilogue), it will lack flavor or suspense.  There will be “Ah, Harry will survive this” when he’s placed in a life-threatening situation or “Harry would marry Ginny anyway” when a new love interest arrives for Harry.  So Rowling is on a disadvantage on creating the necessary elements of another captivatingly and unpredictable Harry tale when its ultimate end is already known.        

5.) BROOMSTICKS

Wands in the HP world?  Stereotypical but still cool.  Especially with the unique “recipe” of wand for each individual.     

Owls as pets and mail couriers?  Ok, e-mail is still more practical, but, hey, that is still interesting and creative.

Sorting Hat?  That’s refreshingly unique!

Broomsticks for transportation?  Er… It’s stereotypical and stupid.  Just think of it for a minute.  Broomsticks.  Regardless of the fact that you can fly by the use of such things, I still can’t find myself being excited with a broomstick.  “Oooh!  It’s a Nimbus 2000!!!” Really retarded getting thrilled about receiving a broomstick for Christmas.

I mean… come on!!!  Broomsticks???!!!   

4.) QUIDDITCH

Quidditch is a stupid sport.  It is probably the most ridiculous game invented for fiction.  Ever.  

For starters, we have players riding on broomsticks flying around.  I already pointed out in the previous item that I found broomsticks silly.

A Quidditch team is made up of Chasers, Beaters, Keeper, and Seeker.  Each team has three Chasers whose function in offense is to move the “Quaffle” ball, by passing among themselves, across the field and then shoot it through any of the three goal hoops.  Each goal is worth 10 points.  The opposing Chasers, playing defense, tries to steal the “Quaffle” when it is being advanced by the opposing team.  Each team has two Beaters, armed with two bats, whose function is to protect their teammates from two “Bludger” balls.  Bludgers are iron balls bewitched to fly around randomly hitting players.  And the Keeper, if it’s not yet obvious, guards the three goal hoops by blocking the shot attempts of the opposing Chasers.   

So, disregarding the broomsticks and just considering the flying around, scoring balls through goal rings, and players getting knocked off by charmed bowling balls, Quidditch seem to be a pretty decent and logical game.  

My beef is with the Seeker.  The aim of the Seeker is to capture the Golden Snitch before the opposing Seeker does.  The Golden Snitch is a small golden ball with wings that randomly flies around the field.  The game ends whenever the Snitch is caught by a Seeker, and the team in which the Seeker belongs in gets 150 points, which is equivalent to 15 goals.   And that ladies and gentlemen is batshit insane!  So unless a team scores 16 goals more than the opposing team, whoever gets the snitch wins.  

It’s like two teams are playing soccer, and at the same time, two guys are playing checkers.  Whoever wins the checker game gives his team 15 goals.  So even if your soccer team is made up of rookies and injured players and your opponent has a team of athletic and talented Beckhams and Rolandos, as long as you have a mean checker-playin’ geezer, you will win the game.  To see how ridiculously unfair that is, try scoring 15 goals in soccer.

And this is the biggest sport in the wizard world?!  Even if they’re flying around and being knocked off by flying bowling balls, I still find basketball, hockey, or American football more exciting.  Muggles are not missing out at all.  

3.) THE SUPPORTING CAST IS MORE INTERESTING THAN THE MAIN CHARACTER

There is only one character that is acceptable to be more interesting than the hero of the story, and that is the villain of the story.  Sometimes, two or three more supporting characters can be more interesting than the main character, and that could still be okay.

But in Harry Potter, it’s as if half of the roster of characters is more interesting than Harry.  Let me enumerate who I think are more interesting characters than Harry Potter: Hermione Granger, the Weasley twins, Albus Dumbledore, Sirius Black, Severus Snape, Voldemort, Bellatrix Lestrange, Nymphadora Tonks, Remus Lupin, Luna Lovegood, and Neville Longbottom.   

Congrats, Harry, you are, however, still more interesting than Ron Weasley.

To be fair, I found that there are times that Harry could shine above the others (especially when he willingly went to Voldemort to be “killed”.  That took guts).  But the entirety of the series, I found his supporting characters more likable.

My favorite HP character is Luna Lovegood.  She’s a charming girl.  Naive-like but insightful and smart (a Ravenclaw after all).  Almost impervious to emotion.  She has the air of a conspiracy theorist, but without the annoying paranoia.  And I love that dreamy voice and unblinking eyes. I mean you can probably make an attempt on startling her with a "Boo!" and she would give you a bored look in return.

Because of Helena Bonham Carter’s excellent portrayal of Bellatrix Lestrange, she became my favorite villain in the HP universe.  As I’ve said earlier, I find her a more interesting villain than Voldemort.

Severus Snapes was awesome playing as Dumbledore’s double-agent.  I didn’t mind that he died in the story, but it would have been better if he died fighting – explicitly revealing to Voldemort that he was loyal to Dumbledore all along – rather than being killed by Nagini.

Neville Longbottom’s character development was the best in the 7-book (8-movie) series.  From spineless weakling to the brave leader of Dumbledore’s Army (in the last book) and killer of Nagini – last Horcrux of Voldemort.  In fact, it would have been more interesting if Neville was the real “chosen one” after all and not Harry (since the prophecies for Harry as a “chosen one” applies to Neville as well), and that Dumbledore – smart strategist as he is – is just using Harry as a “red herring” to protect Neville.  Thus, when Harry (after realizing he’s a Horcrux of Voldemort) voluntarily gets himself killed (really killed) by Voldemort, it was Neville who would have finally defeated Voldemort.  That would have been an awesome plot twist!  It could have been a better development than what was the actual.        

2) IT'S OVERRATED

I am not saying that the Harry Potter series was bad.  No, as I’ve said right from the start, I have enjoyed it.  But it’s definitely overrated.

The Harry Potter series was okay, but it’s not as good as everybody believes it to be.  The success and praise it received is not proportional to the success and praise it deserved.  There are plenty of better fantasy books than Harry Potter.  More insightful, more intelligent, and more well-told than Harry Potter. 

Not all Harry Potter fans are literature fans.  In fact, most of Harry Potter’s readers and fans, probably, are not well-read or lacked the exposure on other books other than HP.  They just concluded that Harry Potter is “the best” since it’s the only book they have read.  It’s like concluding – as a critic wrote somewhere – that “a Big Mac is the best before even tasting lobster.” 

Aside from lack of exposure to better fantasy books, another reason for HP being overrated is the “bandwagon” effect.  People like to join the “in” crowd, and since Harry Potter is “in”, they jumped into it.  But HP is not your ordinary fad.  Fad disappears or goes extinct.  But the momentum built by the HP bandwagon is, already, impressively too large to stop.  And because of this, the idea that “Harry Potter is the best”, that was first “believed” for the sole purpose of joining the “in” crowd, becomes a real belief by the fans as a collective unit; there’s no boundary between bandwagon and real fans anymore.            

  

1) HERALDING TWILIGHT

The worst thing about “Harry Potter” is it paved the way for “Twilight”.  When the “Harry Potter” book series finished, it created a void in the “overrated” genre-environment created by HP.  And, unfortunately, the one that catered to fill that void was this trash “Twilight”.  “Harry Potter” is greatly overrated, but at least it’s an enjoyable good read.  “Twilight”, however, is bad and outrageously overrated.  

Read More

A Christian's Transformation and Sanctification: From Zombie to Immortal

Every Christian experiences both an immediate and long-term transformation when they are born again.  

To be Born Again is being transformed from this…

…to this…

So from zombies to immortals.  An extreme to an extreme.  That’s how dramatic God’s transforming and sanctifying power changes a person.  

Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, Mankind’s nature became sinful.  And, as stated by the Good Book, the wages of sin is death.  Not only is Man destined for physical death, but Man is destined for eternal death as well.  Due to this, humans are as good as dead.  Humans are, in accurate spiritual technicality, walking dead – zombies.  

Just as zombies are mindlessly walking around causing mayhem (most notably, murdering or eating people), humans as spiritual zombies will go sinning no matter what (being slaves of their sinful nature).  And just as zombies are unaware that they are dead, humans as spiritual zombies are unaware that they are spiritually dead.  The spiritual zombies are generally blind of their own wretchedness and their terrifying end.  Thus, they will not desire salvation when they are not aware that they are in need of saving in the first place. 

But to those whom God opened the eyes, they will be able to realize their miserable condition, see the hope and salvation that is in Jesus Christ alone, and ask for forgiveness and salvation.  As soon as they have asked Jesus Christ to become their personal Savior and Lord, they are Born Again – they are “resurrected” from being spiritually dead.  From that moment on, they cease to be zombies but immortals.  As the theme of Highlander (by the band “Queen”) goes, the immortals are “born to be kings… princes of the universe.”  And Christians are immortals, because, after being saved from Eternal Death, God gifted them Eternal Life!  They are adopted to be and have the right to be called Children of God – “born to be kings… princes of the universe.”       

As I’ve mentioned earlier, a Christian’s transformation – or “Quickening”, since we’re using Highlander analogy – is both immediate and long-term.  The immediate transformation is one of identity.  No longer slaves of sin, but children of God.  No longer zombies, but immortals.  However, it doesn’t mean that after this transformation of identity, one is free from sinning.  When someone is still a spiritual zombie, it is his or her essence to do evil.  Once someone is made into an immortal by the justification of Jesus Christ, whenever he or she sins, he or she is no longer acting in his or her essence but is actually acting outside of his or her character.  To “fix” this, this is where the long-term process of transformation comes in.  It is called sanctification.  

It is true that immortality (i.e. Eternal Life) is obtained immediately when one is born again, but the full realization of immortality (or the Christian’s “Happening”, in accordance to the Highlander analogy) is after the resurrection and then entry to Heaven.  Thus, sanctification works until an immortal gets to that point.  Sanctification is the process of being set apart by being made holy through the merits and justification of Jesus Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit.  Sanctification is necessary since it is said in the Good Book that sinners will not be allowed to enter Heaven in the Second Coming of Jesus, thus, during a Christian’s lifetime, he or she undergoes sanctification that by the time Jesus returns, he or she is made fully holy to be presented to the Father.  And once Heaven is entered, the Happening shall be experienced – the enjoyment of God’s glorious presence forever!

Read More

Interesting Things About the American Revolutionary War

It’s the 4th of July, and it’s Filipino-USA Friendship Day for us Filipinos.  But for our American masters friends, they celebrate their Independence Day.    (Technically, July 4th in the USA is still tomorrow, but, hey, it’s already July 4th in our timezone.)  The 4th of July is not the date when the American colonists won against the British in their Revolutionary War, but rather, it was the date where the Colonies – then at war with the Empire – declared they are now independent states, i.e. the Declaration of Independence (actually, July 2, but was finalized at the 4th). 

Nonetheless, this article is about the Revolutionary War, or rather some overlooked or not much talked interesting aspects and facts about the War.  For the record, the American Revolutionary War is one of the best war stories there are in history.  A brilliant and dramatic underdog “fighting for freedom” story.  But there is more to it.

• The British was wrong, of course, in forcing taxes upon colonists without representation.  But it was said that they didn’t collect much tax either.  The tax imposed was on trade only (prior to the taxing related to the French-Indian War).  But smuggling was rampant in the colonies.  Merchants were able of sailing past authorities and avoiding taxes.  And the British didn’t bother much in stopping the smuggling.  
• In the 1750’s, American colonists got into a territorial dispute with the French and their Indian allies.  The colonies requested help from Great Britain and the British obliged by sending an army over there.  Thus, the French-Indian War started.  Eventually, the British won, but with the cost of heavy losses on life and money.  The British then raised tax on both the home isles and the colonies to compensate for the money lost.  It’s understandable (to an extent) that the colonists were pissed that they are being taxed when they are not represented.  But on the other hand, it was for their war in the first place and it’s only reasonable that they share some of the burden in compensating for it.
• It is general knowledge that one of the fuses that lit up the war was the Stamp Act (one of the taxes imposed after the French-Indian War).  The British Parliament insisted that they have the right to tax the colonists (as already explained previously).  The colonists claimed that they can’t be taxed without representation.  But you know who really was all for the Stamp Act?  Benjamin Franklin.  Yes, that Benjamin Franklin.  One of the “Founding Fathers”.  He was kind of fiercely loyal to the British Crown.  And old Ben at that time was the colonies’ representative to the Crown.  But because crown-loving, Stamp Act-fan Ben was spending most of his time in Britain, he was clueless that his own people were pissed of the Stamp Act, thus, he was not able to get the colonists’ sentiments across to the crown.
• Another fuse was the Boston Massacre, in which it is popularly (but erroneously) believed that British soldiers fired at unarmed civilians, killing dozens in cold-blood.  In truth, a douchebag colonist named Samuel Adams wanted to incite a rebellion in Boston.  He had his followers – the Sons of Liberty – throw insults at a British soldier.  When the soldier did not respond, the mob threw rocks and other things at him.  Fellow British soldiers came to their comrade’s aid.  But the mob continued throwing rocks at the British and dared the soldiers to fire at them.  The soldiers had no choice but to fire at them in self-defense.  When the smoke cleared, three men were dead.  The soldiers were put to trial, and John Adams – one of the “Founding Fathers” and the second president of the future USA – was their defense lawyer.  Adams, though he disagreed with the British, knew that the soldiers were only defending themselves, and won the case for them.  Soldiers (and policemen, as well), up to the present day, have several times suffered this type of treatment.  Though they are only defending themselves, they ended up as the bad guys.  And it’s not all the time that these soldiers are vindicated (like the British soldiers in Boston).  Just sad.  Oh, where did the “Boston Massacre” came from?  Blame the media.  Even then, they tend to exaggerate “massacres”.
• Another significant happening in Boston was the Boston Tea Party.  It culminated with colonists led by the Sons of Liberty (remember those jerks?) dressed up as Indians, raided the British ships that held the cargos of tea that were forced on the colonists to buy and dumped them to the sea.  Now let’s dig a bit deeper on the story… Another way of the British taxing the colonies was the Tea Act.  (By the way, at this point all the other taxes were repealed now, and only the Tea Act remained, but still the colonists didn’t want to pay for it.) The Tea Act expanded the British East India Company’s monopoly on the tea on the colonies, selling excess tea at a reduced price.  It would have provided the colonies superior and cheaper tea than what they get from smugglers.  But the colonies were still pissed about being taxed (without being represented) and maybe also of getting told on what to buy (even if it was a better brand).  They also had the legitimate fear of that this was only the start and the British might extend the monopoly on other goods as well in the future.  But it is also worth considering that smugglers like John Hancock (yup, another “Founding Father”) would be the ones that was going be severely hit by the Tea Act.  That’s why they were the most active and loudest that oppose the act, carrying out a campaign of raising self-awareness (i.e. smear campaign) across the colonies.   
• 5,000 blacks fought for the Continental Army.  Baron Ludwig von Closen, an officer in the French Army, once observed that the best regiment in the Continental Army was the one with about 75% African-American soldiers.
• Women went out to War with their husbands.  They helped by cooking and sewing and washing for the men.  Among these women, the most famous is “Molly Pitcher”.  She was nicknamed such because she brought a pitcher of water to soldiers – sometimes, even under fire.  In the Battle of Monmouth, her husband – a cannon rammer – fell unconscious in battle from heat exhaustion.  “Molly Pitcher” took the place of her husband as a cannon rammer.  During the battle (which the Americans would eventually win), she caught George Washington’s eye.  Washington sought her after the battle and rewarded her courage by issuing her a warrant as a non-commissioned officer.  She would be nicknamed “Sergeant Molly” from then on.   
• In 1799, there were less soldiers fighting against the British than the Loyalists (colonists loyal and fighting for the British Crown).
• The Continental Army was brilliant in their espionage during the War.  They employed spies and double agents.  The most famous of them is Lieutenant Nathan Hale.  When he was captured by the British and was sentenced to hang, his badass last words were “I regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” 
• Military strategy was greatly different between the Continental Army and the British Redcoats.  The Redcoats were well-disciplined and well-trained professional soldiers.  Being an ocean away from home, they have trouble in logistics of supplies and reinforcements, thus they follow a conservative approach.  Their battle philosophy follows the warfare philosophy of the time in which they were organized in lines and fired simultaneously with muskets before charging with bayonets.   The Redcoats also had Hessians – German mercenaries – fighting with them.  The British goal was not necessarily to destroy the colonists but to force them to surrender and to submit back to the Empire.  Actually, the British were reluctant in fighting them because, no matter the differences, the colonists were they brothers.  Still, the British Army was a proud one (they would be the best in the world for some time) and wants to show their superiority over the Continental Army.  The Continental Army is mostly composed of militia.  Plenty of incentives – like money and property (and freedom for black slaves) – were offered to inspire recruitment.  French officers were the ones who mostly trained this makeshift army.  The Continental Army’s successes were mainly from use of guerrilla warfare, since they were usually being owned by the Redcoats in traditional face-off battle.  The British traditional formation was inutile in these surprise attacks by the Continental militiamen hiding behind trees and foliage as the British Redcoats pass through.  But the British, though, also had their own Light Infantry and managed to outfight the American guerrillas at times.  The Continental Army also had the legendary “minutemen” – the “elite” of the Continentals, as they were a highly mobile force that can be deployed rapidly to respond to an immediate need or threat.    
• The Spanish, the French, and the Dutch provided supplies, ammunition, and weapons to the Continental Army.  At first, they aided the colonists in secret, but then, seeing that the British is vulnerable, openly declared war.  This coalition – Spanish, French, Dutch, and American – would be too much for the British, making them ultimately lose claim on the colonies.  However, the plans of invading other British interests in the world and even the Isles themselves prove futile to the colonies’ allies.  Spain’s main reason for declaring war against the British was to recapture Gibraltar and Minorca, which was taken by the British from them in 1704.  French and Spanish forces managed take Minorca but the British held on to Gibraltar.  The British Empire also managed to hold on to their other key colonies in the West Indies.  In India, the British Empire managed to capture Indian and Dutch outposts there, establishing sole control of the area.  Though they lost the 13 colonies, the British Empire, in a world-wide scale, managed to establish their superiority, emerging as the most powerful nation in the 19th century (which would last until the early 20th century).  
• I am a George Washington fan.  I believe he was a good general.  But a brilliant strategist?  Hell, no.  Even Washington had admitted that he has limited and contracted knowledge on military matters on the large-scale.  He had actually more battle losses than wins.   He had made several missteps, was unable to make rapid field decisions and even froze at times, which had earned him losses.  Much of America’s tactical successes were because of the French.  Still, I believe him to be a good general.  Why?  Because being a good general is not all about being a brilliant tactician.  Washington’s exemplary character and work ethic made him an inspiration to his men.  Throughout those turmoil-filled and discouraging years, he had managed to keep the Continental Army from breaking apart, but instead kept them together to persevere until they gained victory.     

Read More