Full disclosure: I like the Harry Books, find them well enough executed, and think that they work for me.
Of course Harry is a Hero. Isn't he an ancient Hellenic warrior of either chiefly rank or high effectiveness?
More seriously, your argument breaks down for me on several points.
I perceive that Harry consistently made decisions that either set him on the path, or provided adequate evidence of consent. 'Staying with the Dursleys full time', 'Apathy towards who killed his parents and tried to do in him', 'having no interest in magic', 'joining the Death Eaters and like factions', 'assuming that Voldemort is entirely dead, not coming back, and that doing anything is hence meaningless' and 'give up and go hide' may look like bad alternatives from our perspective, but they do exist.
There is the issue of whether it is plausible for Dumbledore to have predicted and planned the whole sequence of events. I tend not to find it so. While a fanfic might convince me differently for its own specific case, I am inclined to think it that for the original books, the mess was a combination of happenstance, bad guy incompetence, and some good guy choices with personal selection and training that worked out well, and that were at least partly outside of the scope of Dumbledore's control. You bringing up the issue raises the question in my mind of whether Rowling intended the Hand of Providence as a possible explanation.
When I set the above two variables to match with your assumptions, I run into issues with potentially differing definitions of monster, potentially differing criteria for appropriate levels of coercion when using people and appropriate ages*, and potentially differing criteria for who and what I am willing to cheer for.
I have my differences with Rowling, however, this line of argument does not seem strong enough to me to make discussing these relevant. (I have differences with a great many people. Discussing them to the degree I keep track of them would waste all my time.)
Then there is the whole Voldemort is the Hero line of thought. The Harry Potter books are the story of how the otherwise potentially successful Tom Riddle is destroyed by his Tragic Flaw of being entirely too crazy to function in normal society. They can be considered a Classical Tragedy, to be appreciated as a Classical Tragedy, and not in the way of a Comedy or some other thing.
*The serious line of argument starts with noting that Nanoha destroyed for me the concept of a universal minimum military age, and then rapidly leaves the scope of this discussion. The silly argument is that some cultures have a military age of ten or so, and you don't want to be a Racist, do you?
Of course Harry is a Hero. Isn't he an ancient Hellenic warrior of either chiefly rank or high effectiveness?
More seriously, your argument breaks down for me on several points.
I perceive that Harry consistently made decisions that either set him on the path, or provided adequate evidence of consent. 'Staying with the Dursleys full time', 'Apathy towards who killed his parents and tried to do in him', 'having no interest in magic', 'joining the Death Eaters and like factions', 'assuming that Voldemort is entirely dead, not coming back, and that doing anything is hence meaningless' and 'give up and go hide' may look like bad alternatives from our perspective, but they do exist.
There is the issue of whether it is plausible for Dumbledore to have predicted and planned the whole sequence of events. I tend not to find it so. While a fanfic might convince me differently for its own specific case, I am inclined to think it that for the original books, the mess was a combination of happenstance, bad guy incompetence, and some good guy choices with personal selection and training that worked out well, and that were at least partly outside of the scope of Dumbledore's control. You bringing up the issue raises the question in my mind of whether Rowling intended the Hand of Providence as a possible explanation.
When I set the above two variables to match with your assumptions, I run into issues with potentially differing definitions of monster, potentially differing criteria for appropriate levels of coercion when using people and appropriate ages*, and potentially differing criteria for who and what I am willing to cheer for.
I have my differences with Rowling, however, this line of argument does not seem strong enough to me to make discussing these relevant. (I have differences with a great many people. Discussing them to the degree I keep track of them would waste all my time.)
Then there is the whole Voldemort is the Hero line of thought. The Harry Potter books are the story of how the otherwise potentially successful Tom Riddle is destroyed by his Tragic Flaw of being entirely too crazy to function in normal society. They can be considered a Classical Tragedy, to be appreciated as a Classical Tragedy, and not in the way of a Comedy or some other thing.
*The serious line of argument starts with noting that Nanoha destroyed for me the concept of a universal minimum military age, and then rapidly leaves the scope of this discussion. The silly argument is that some cultures have a military age of ten or so, and you don't want to be a Racist, do you?