does the Black family loathe the Potter family, at all, even in the same way as they loathe the Weasleys?
Well, the cases aren't rigorously parallel; I guess the similarity is that the families represent two distinct kinds of threat to old-school purebloods' values and culture. (Let's provisionally call them "old school Purebloods" to distinguish them from more progressive purebloods like the Weasleys, and from actual DE's, since the latent potential to become DEs -- the reactionary political and cultural instincts, so to speak -- probably exists in a wider class of people than those who actually sign up with Voldemort.)
The key question, as you say, is whether what the Potters stand for gets the Blacks so charged up that they would use the word "traitor," just as they do with the Weasleys. So, what kinds of conflict might make them use the term "traitor" in the first place? In the case of the Weasleys, I think it's an issue of political power. We like to think of the Weasleys as the little guys, even while remembering that they're Purebloods. And Arthur is kind of comic, but he seems to be more than just some bureaucrat dead-ender. He's well connected, he's a fixer, he's got enough power to get his own version of Muggle Protection legislatino enacted. So maybe, don't underestimate the amount of political power the Weasleys have, and don't underestimte the element of fear behind Black contempt for the Weasleys. Taunting them about poverty is a way of saying "why should we take your choices seriously when we look at how you end up living." But poverty itself would just be invisible to the Blacks. What makes the Weasleys a threat is that they represent political muscle behind a set of attitudes that can actively dismantle the world the purebloods value. That's what makes them "traitors."
So, are the Potters a similar threat? The Potter case has less evidence, I know, though I think there are clear reasons in the text to feel that Blacks do despise James and Harry as individuals. The Potter "side" isn't conceived in family terms because they don't think that way. But that very denial might be part of what the old-school purebloods resent about them.
If I'm trying to think my way into how the Blacks feel about James and Harry, what "power" they find so threatening, I keep coming back to the egoistic rejection of family or cultural traditions. James was a pureblood who simply didn't care about pureblood-ism, befriended a werewolf and a renegade Black, bullied pureblood sympathizers like Snape, all while happily collecting the glitzier marks of prestige that the WW recognized -- quidditch star, Head Boy at Hogwarts, protege of Dumbledore. Along the way, (here's where it gets speculative) he subverted pureblood tradition not out of principle, like the Weasleys, but out of sheer egoistic indifference to it. He did whatever pleased himself. And again, this mattered because James occupied a position of power -- because he was charismatic, a leader and influencer of his generation, and because he was, paradoxically, a pureblood, and couldn't be ignored.
So the Weasleys and Potters represent two ways of undermining pureblood-ism -- the Weasleys are the socialists in the basement, chipping away at the superstructure of privilege. And the Potters are the barbarians at the gate, modern egoists who simply don't care. Together they're enough to feed any Black!black-Helicopter paranoia.
Speculative? Um, yes. I guess you've got to start with speculation to try to imagine your way into the head of a typical Black, and you may or may not buy this. But I think it gets at some plausible ways to explain the patterns of alliance and hostility, and maybe it's one stage in coming up with more testable theories about the backstory.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-09 02:05 am (UTC)Well, the cases aren't rigorously parallel; I guess the similarity is that the families represent two distinct kinds of threat to old-school purebloods' values and culture. (Let's provisionally call them "old school Purebloods" to distinguish them from more progressive purebloods like the Weasleys, and from actual DE's, since the latent potential to become DEs -- the reactionary political and cultural instincts, so to speak -- probably exists in a wider class of people than those who actually sign up with Voldemort.)
The key question, as you say, is whether what the Potters stand for gets the Blacks so charged up that they would use the word "traitor," just as they do with the Weasleys. So, what kinds of conflict might make them use the term "traitor" in the first place? In the case of the Weasleys, I think it's an issue of political power. We like to think of the Weasleys as the little guys, even while remembering that they're Purebloods. And Arthur is kind of comic, but he seems to be more than just some bureaucrat dead-ender. He's well connected, he's a fixer, he's got enough power to get his own version of Muggle Protection legislatino enacted. So maybe, don't underestimate the amount of political power the Weasleys have, and don't underestimte the element of fear behind Black contempt for the Weasleys. Taunting them about poverty is a way of saying "why should we take your choices seriously when we look at how you end up living." But poverty itself would just be invisible to the Blacks. What makes the Weasleys a threat is that they represent political muscle behind a set of attitudes that can actively dismantle the world the purebloods value. That's what makes them "traitors."
So, are the Potters a similar threat? The Potter case has less evidence, I know, though I think there are clear reasons in the text to feel that Blacks do despise James and Harry as individuals. The Potter "side" isn't conceived in family terms because they don't think that way. But that very denial might be part of what the old-school purebloods resent about them.
If I'm trying to think my way into how the Blacks feel about James and Harry, what "power" they find so threatening, I keep coming back to the egoistic rejection of family or cultural traditions. James was a pureblood who simply didn't care about pureblood-ism, befriended a werewolf and a renegade Black, bullied pureblood sympathizers like Snape, all while happily collecting the glitzier marks of prestige that the WW recognized -- quidditch star, Head Boy at Hogwarts, protege of Dumbledore. Along the way, (here's where it gets speculative) he subverted pureblood tradition not out of principle, like the Weasleys, but out of sheer egoistic indifference to it. He did whatever pleased himself. And again, this mattered because James occupied a position of power -- because he was charismatic, a leader and influencer of his generation, and because he was, paradoxically, a pureblood, and couldn't be ignored.
So the Weasleys and Potters represent two ways of undermining pureblood-ism -- the Weasleys are the socialists in the basement, chipping away at the superstructure of privilege. And the Potters are the barbarians at the gate, modern egoists who simply don't care. Together they're enough to feed any Black!black-Helicopter paranoia.
Speculative? Um, yes. I guess you've got to start with speculation to try to imagine your way into the head of a typical Black, and you may or may not buy this. But I think it gets at some plausible ways to explain the patterns of alliance and hostility, and maybe it's one stage in coming up with more testable theories about the backstory.