sistermagpie: Classic magpie (Two ways of looking at a magpie)
sistermagpie ([personal profile] sistermagpie) wrote2005-12-16 03:58 pm

No happy families

I was reading something today that brought up that old HP argument, Weasleys vs. Malfoys and it once again made me ask:

Are there any really happy families in HP canon?

The point of this post is not to judge families for being happy or not, or play them off each other. It’s that JKR seems to see all families as being combinations of love and tragedy, comfort and pain. It's pretty realistic that way. Nobody really seems to escape family fucking them up. Even Amos Diggory, whose love of his son seems so total in GoF, would probably come across as flawed and sometimes hurtful if we saw him interacting with Cedric in canon (the first time we see him he's embarrassing his son, actually, though it's obvious he's just really proud of him). Is Luna's interest in her father's paper due to a genuine shared mind, or is she trying to draw closer to the parent she has left the only way she can—through his newspaper rather than himself—since for all we know he's withdrawn into that and left Luna coping with the loss of her mother on her own. (She herself could have retreated into her fantasy beliefs to cope with pain--maybe he has too.)

This usually seems to come down to the Weasleys vs. the Malfoys, and what often happens is someone will say that the Malfoys are "better" and someone else will say Malfoy-fans are just crazy and the Weasleys are one big happy family. The thing is, though, the Weasleys aren't one big happy anything--and that's not said as a big trash of the Weasleys or a compliment to the Malfoys. They just aren't. They love each other, sure, but they also have a lot of tension simmering under the surface--and that's canon. Percy's exile is not a case of a bunch of shiny happy people betrayed by their suddenly alien son, shaking their heads in bewilderment. That blow up is built up over a few books with lots of antagonism of Percy and from Percy.

A lot of families could have weathered that fight between Arthur and Percy. But part of the problem is that Percy has apparently said what he's not supposed to say--that the family struggles financially and maybe this isn't just because Arthur is too noble to get the promotion he deserves. That’s not just about money—money can stand for a whole lot of other things, and I think it does here. In GoF the twins are, according to Ron, becoming very obsessed with money, and turning to blackmail. This doesn't have to make them DEs or evil, but I think there’s frustration there coming out in a different form. When Percy says what he says everyone has their own resentment ready to throw back at him, including Arthur. He's not just offended on principle that Percy doesn't trust Dumbledore. Basically, you don't have a family where one person is hated and hates without some well of real resentment to draw on there. The Weasley siblings are often described as damaging each other, and among the ones we see there seems to be a clear distinction between the aggressors who are sometimes too aggressive (Ginny and the Twins) and the resentful passive ones (Percy and Ron). This doesn't make the Weasleys a "bad family" as opposed to a "good one." It just says that families can hurt each other more than outsiders can--and that seems to be a pretty big theme of the series.

The Malfoys, by contrast, can sure be held up as sticking together. Draco, at least up until book VI, seems to have no criticisms of his father like Percy has of Arthur. But the Malfoys, to understate the point, have problems of their own. There's the fact that the kid is taught to be bigoted and to value cruelty and to believe in a psychopath, obviously, but also by HBP I can imagine that Draco could also be realizing that even on a personal level his family has fucked him up. He's followed his father blindly for years, just like his father wanted, and Lucius has led him straight into a dark alley and disappeared. He’s also an example of a kid really trying to be his father and simply not having it in him. So on the surface, the Malfoys are a pretty bad family, but they still do manage to also produce some form of the positive side of family: they do actually seem to love each other and want to do right by each other to an extent (at least Draco and Narcissa do, since we don't see Lucius' reaction to the crisis in HBP, but I think he has some basically good impulses towards his family mixed in with all his bad ones). The most important thing Draco really has to draw on is the same thing as the Weasleys do--despite the faults, there's love there. When everything else is breaking down in HBP, that appears to be the only thing that really keeps him going.

Neville is another Pureblood family often contrasted with the Malfoys, but there again you've got these relatives who seem to be at the heart of all of Neville's problems. People cheer when McGonagall tells Neville his grandmother should learn to be proud of the grandson she's got instead of the one she wishes she had, but jeez, to me that line is frankly humiliating! Would you want some teacher to tell you your grandmother is disappointed in you? Not that Neville doesn't know that already. I was recently talking about his boggart scene and I really do think that part of the point of Snape/Neville is that Snape isn't just a mean teacher but also a symbol of the way he's seen by his family. His grandmother seems to constantly be comparing him negatively to his father, not even giving him his own wand to use.

But on the other hand, that doesn't mean she doesn't care about him. Some of her harshness is probably tied to her grief over her son, which she shows in a different way that Neville does. She seems to share some of Snape's ideas about tough love, taking Neville to see his catatonic parents (possibly frightening him by doing that) and pushing him to talk about them because to not do so, for her, is to be ashamed of them (while Neville is not ashamed but finds it painful). He seems to get good presents from his family--thoughtful presents. He and his gran do seem to talk. And more than that, Neville has his mother, who is just sentient enough to show him she loves him (which is why theories that the Droobles Gum Wrapper are a clue to some mystery are so wrong--the gum wrapper is the ultimate example of "it's the thought that count" and its meaninglessness is what makes it so damn meaningful). ::sniffles over Neville::

Barty Crouch Jr., for all the judgments of the main characters, also comes from a family that includes both pain and love. His mother loves him, obviously, but I think his father probably did too. Re-reading the scene where he's stumbling around in the woods, saying it's his fault and introducing his son who’s gotten "12 OWLS," I can't help but think that yes, he too loved his son just as he hurt him. I think when he says it's "his fault" he is speaking about Barty's being a DE as well as Barty escaping. As a control freak, I think Crouch would see this as the case even at the time--and perhaps see Barty in Azkaban as some attempt to fix things. That's why this man, whom most of the Weasleys consider to be a complete failure as a family man, manages to inspire such devotion in their own black sheep, Percy. Ron often darkly suggests Percy would "pull a Crouch" and not protect his family even if they've committed a crime. Ironically, while Percy rejects the family, he has not turned them in for anything and distances himself from Scrimgeor's attempt to use the family on Christmas (I’m not saying Percy does nothing bad to his family, just saying that it’s not this, exactly). Meanwhile those who claim to think family should stick together offer no such universal acceptance of Percy. It's the "good" side of the Crouch family that keeps Barty alive and helps him escape.

The Blacks, of course, are as crazy as you get, but there too yeah, I'm seeing love and pain, not flat abuse. I believe Kreacher when he says Sirius broke his mother's heart, and when Sirius talks about Regulus as being an idiot I do hear him trying to kill lingering feelings he has for his brother: Why did you have to be so stupid? Sirius is ultimately destroyed by a family that has already been destroyed, and this is partly because he keeps feeling hurt by them and trying to hurt them back. He's "waging war" on the house where he grew up, and all that's left of it then is a crazy house elf who keeps enacting these scenes of family love that to Sirius are obscene, a screaming portrait and a mad cousin who knocks him through a curtain. Had Sirius been able to come to terms with his family, accept them as part of himself, he probably would have lived and had a happier life. He ran away from them once, and when he was brought back and couldn't run away they won. And it’s the same on their part—they blast him off the tapestry, and in the end he’s the only one left in the house.

Perhaps in the afterlife the family will be somewhat healed--at least I hope so. I can't help but see Sirius and Regulus finally making up two halves of a whole--two brothers and two Shadows, etc. Sirius was good but ultimately impotent and kept from doing anything. Regulus was the bad one but possibly able to act in the end. (Personally, I can't help but always picture Sirius as actually being the favorite despite being the black sheep, but that's a different essay.)

The Durlseys are meanwhile another family at an extreme. All their abuse gets pushed onto Harry, the stand in for the family Petunia has lost. Dudley is so little chastised he's confused when he's described as abused. His parents always say he's right, always say he's great. Anything he can't do isn't worth doing. They make excuses for him. And he's totally fucked up.

And of course we see what appears to be one snapshot of the Snapes at home and...yeah. Not so good there. And yet the Snape Harry liked came out of his mother's textbook—there’s those hints of love. (Not to mention, do Dumbledore and Aberforth talk? I think JKR said Dumbledore's family is important, yet they're never seen together despite living nearby--is Aberforth even at the funeral that we hear?)

The happiest family in the Potterverse appears to be the Potters--and it's no shock that this is because they're dead. Harry almost seems to get his strength from the way he was given a gift of that pure familial love of the mother for her child--a love that all of these mothers also have--and then the woman obligingly died before she could fuck it up by having to deal with her kid as he grows up as a human. So Harry still has both the love and the pain. Hagrid, btw, is probably another good example of that type of thing. His mother left him when he was small, and he seems to seek to fill that hole she left through animals. But I think that the animals he chooses are supposed to be significant that way, not just because his mother, too, was kind of monstrous but because Hagrid's ideas about his animals are, well, pretty fucked up. In his way he's a bit like the Dursleys cooing over Dudley and defending everything he does even when he bites or squashes some kid by sitting on him. It's an idealized version of parent/child relations (or sibling relations with Grawp) and as such not a completely good thing. Harry, too, sort of has this problem since for all we're told about his capacity to love he's actually not that good dealing with people. Harry tends to have great waves of affection when people are pleasing him and feel very betrayed when they let him down--which makes sense since that has been his experience of love: you were perfect, and then you were gone.

Phew! That was a lot longer than I expected it to be. I just started babbling about families. The basic idea being that this is why it drives me crazy when any family gets made one-dimensional either way, because it seems like it really goes against canon to both say a family is just completely negative or to say a family--usually the Weasleys--is ideal. I honestly don't even know if JKR *could* write One Big Happy Anybody's Family, because she just seems too aware of how people, especially families, fuck each other up and hurt each other. It’s not just that Voldemort comes from a bad family and Harry from a good one, it’s that while Harry’s family was good and then gone, Voldemort’s was just always gone. (Which of course probably means he never bonded and a sociopath is an expected result, but anyway…)

[identity profile] likethemodel.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 03:34 am (UTC)(link)
I see Percy as someone who wants stability. I read a fic once where Voldemort is terrorizing the WW and Molly is at a Ministry shelter with Bill and Charlie and Percy and the twins (as babies). She's always telling them that they have to follow the 'rules' so you'll be safe. I can see little Percy being fixated on the rules at a young age and that continuing on because he wants to be safe. It's fanon, but remember in CoS? When F&G say Percy was shaken because it was a prefect that was attacked? Well, I don't think that was way off the mark.

[identity profile] latxcvi.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 04:26 am (UTC)(link)
And there's that incredible weirdness in CoS, where it doesn't ever seem as though the Grangers are even notified that she's been petrified/don't seem to notice they haven't heard from her for a *quarter* of the school year. I know some of that can be explained by the "Harry filter", but then how does one reconcile that against the fact that Montague's parents are explicitly mentioned as showing up at the school and being really unhappy about his condition in OotP? I suppose it's the whole "Muggles can't see Hogwarts" thing coming into play, but still. There's no evidence the Grangers even notice they've not heard from her in months.
ext_6866: (I'm looking at you)

[identity profile] sistermagpie.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 04:44 am (UTC)(link)
You know, that totally works for me. That sounds great! Also, even without Voldemort (who I agree probably would be a factor) Percy's living in a house that's very chaotic as well.
ext_6866: (Baby magpies)

[identity profile] sistermagpie.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 04:46 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, on the one hand I get that it's just easier to say, "Whew, they're Muggles. Don't have to worry about them." But then even she winds up having to deal with the fact that Hermione lies to them all the time and never sees them. She could have just made them parents who were rather pre-occupied, but instead she wants them to be these nice, normal dentists. Only those kinds of people usually have some clue about their daughter's life!

[identity profile] copa-cetic.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 06:23 am (UTC)(link)
There are no perfect families in real life, and I'm glad that there really are none in canon either. I like the Weasley dynamic better than the Malfoy one, but the Weasleys have their fair share of problems.

[identity profile] cmwinters.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 06:50 am (UTC)(link)
WAS Sirius working for the Order? Was he even in that original picture?

[identity profile] alula-auburn.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 08:49 am (UTC)(link)
I've always thought, in general, that Percy is someone who internalizes EVERYTHING, and I'd be willing to bet that when the Arthur/Percy blow-out happened, Percy had YEARS' worth of ammunition stocked up. (I don't mean that he was keeping tabs for the sake of getting payback; I just think his personality is such that he's hoarded every insult and offhand remark to pore over again and again). I don't think I've read that fic, but it sounds very similar to the image I have of child-Percy. (I also tend to imagine Percy getting the shaft in terms of attention as a child. I mean, just imagining the havoc the twins wreak for the hell of it--can you imagine them as toddlers! AND another two kids, just a year apart during that time? I get this picture of poor Percy waiting and waiting for Molly to read to him at night, or something, except that it takes two hours longer than she means it to to get everyone ready for bed because the twins keep jumping out of the bath and running through the house naked, and baby Ron is screaming his head off because he's teething AND Molly's pregnant, so by the time she gets everyone else settled Percy has given up and tucked himself in.) I also tend to think that it's very likely Molly made some fairly offhand remarks about HER frustrations with their relative poverty which she wouldn't remember a day later, but Percy heard it and it became stamped on his consciousness.

I've also thought that F&G make that comment in CoS, they're more right than they realize--but to me CoS feels like a crisis moment for Percy--not a crisis of conscience, exactly--some kind of existential despair? I think that CoS drives home to Percy that it's not good enough to be a Prefect; that he can work hard and follow all the rules and try his best and people will still never admire or love him the way they do his brothers. And "people" in this case--by all evidence--includes his own family.

And when Penelope ends up getting Petrified and Ginny is taken in the Chamber? Ouch. Talk about a "what the hell is the point of anything I do?" moment. (I'm still really affected by the mention in CoS that it's Percy who writes to his parents after Ginny is taken and then goes and shuts himself up in his room. Aside from the fact that I don't think he ever should have had to do that--it should have been Professor McGonagall--that little mention just screams to me about the kinds of demands Percy puts on himself).

[identity profile] alula-auburn.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 09:13 am (UTC)(link)
The theme of love above all is even weirder when you consider the Grangers. It's very easy for JKR to sidestep any conflict about leaving the Muggle world for Harry. But for Muggleborn students? The set-up of the Wizarding World really seems to demand that they put their Muggle lives--including their family and loved ones--on a tier well below lives in the WW. (Can you imagine being eleven, and going off to a school that you can't describe--at all--to your friends? I wonder sometimes what it's like for your average Muggleborn Hogwarts student when he or she goes home. It's one thing to have two separate groups of friends--school friends and home friends--but quite another when you have to constantly be on guard and possibly out and out lie about most of your life.) And singificantly, no one in the books is allowed to acknowledge this--it's NEVER suggested that the Grangers have been firmly pushed out of Hermione's life, that they are essentially sacrificing their role in their only daughter's life. (And there's a war on. What if Hermione dies? Would anyone even bother to tell the Grangers then?) It's very convenient the way the story is set-up that we don't have to see this, but it seems an ironic juxtaposition with the stated theme.

(This has been on my mind because I was outlining a fic where some of this is incidentally relevent--my character spends a fair amount of time "passing" as a Muggle because she's not willing to give up the relationships she has in that world, and the finessing she has to do to pull it off.)

[identity profile] seductivedark.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 12:30 pm (UTC)(link)
I never saw East of Eden, but I do know a family that was played against each other by a crazy (I mean that seriously) mother. She always bragged on the absent child to the one present. No matter what, the child who wasn't there, was perfect. Had the perfect job, the perfect kids, and when anything bad ever happened, it was never that child's fault but life, or mean people, dumping on it.

The woman was abusive anyway, which is one reason I can't see Snape as abusive. But, she did seem to believe everything she told each child about the others. She drove a wedge between them that was only driven out by her absence. Her youngest, and only daughter, finally started getting along with the eldest when he was in AA for a year, and her gentleman friend was his mentor. That was a great year, too. Stories were told, adventures played out, and heck, we were in our forties!

The woman died under suspicious, and abusive, circumstances (case still pending). It was only then that my friend and the elder brother next to her began to talk, and to find out some eye-opening things. Such as, each thought the other was the favorite. The wedge here had been driven so deep that they didn't speak to each other for nearly twenty years. 'Perfect bro', 'Perfect sis', the way they talked about each other makes Sirius sound like an indulging older bro. The regret is, the oldest wasn't in on this because he died before it happened. And, in some perverse way, their mother really was proud of each of them.

[identity profile] seductivedark.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 01:13 pm (UTC)(link)
Good essay! It's got my mind going in all sorts of directions! Hopefully, I'll be able to compartmentalize, but if I babble and go off on tangents, you're forewarned.

The happiest family in the Potterverse appears to be the Potters--and it's no shock that this is because they're dead. Harry almost seems to get his strength from the way he was given a gift of that pure familial love of the mother for her child--a love that all of these mothers also have--and then the woman obligingly died before she could fuck it up by having to deal with her kid as he grows up as a human.

Oh, my, yes! My mother was an orphan. Her mother died when she was two, and she remembers the morning that she and her sister couldn't wake her up. My mother is 84, so that's a long time to hold a memory so vividly. Her father died when she was nine, and he had taken her and her sister to an orphanage when their mother died, simply because he couldn't take care of them at home and work at the same time. He visited at least twice a month.

My grandparents were perfect. My mother 'would have been grateful to have had a mother' to tell her what to wear, talk about the facts of life with her, coach her in things they both enjoyed like basketball, and so on. Reading Harry Potter always reminds me of my mother because Harry sees his mother in much the same way. If only, if only, if only, and he would have been happy. There would have been no fights about hair or clothes or friends. No sainted parent would. Even seeing friends in the RW, or its fictional equivalent, having trouble with their parents, doesn't stop the overwhelming fantasy of the perfect family. My mother thought she wasn't as good as her mother would have been, because we fought. She had to work. Yadda, yadda. She completely missed that her friends and peers were going through the same thing with their kids, and Harry doesn't seem to absorb the troubles in the Weasley family, he's just happy to have a family. I can imagine that our perceptions of Percy are colored by Harry's shock, and his orphan filter which says that Percy should have been grateful to have a mother and a father, OMG! and he's throwing that away!

I mentioned a family I know similar to the Blacks, in another post here. But, this: ...and a mad cousin who knocks him through a curtain makes me wonder about the inter-family relations with the Blacks. They're all as fucked-up as the Malfoys seem - blindly following a Dark Lord who 'leads them by the nose' into crimes and hell. And, we know that Bellatrix refers to her cousin Sirius in a very impersonal way - the animagus Black. Yet, there does seem to be an undercurrent tying the two Black families together on a subterranean stream. They *notice* each other, they care at some level, in a way that isn't selfishly concerned with how Cuz makes them look. There wouldn't be that intensity if it wasn't family.

And, same with Petunia. Her hatred for the WW is visceral. Jealousy, sure, as we saw in the hut on the rock in PS/SS. But, it eats at her. She's conveyed this hate to her family because it's easier to give this sort of thing since it attacks on such a primitive level. She's too interested in Lily's 'horrible boy', in her turning teapots to gerbils or whatever animal it was, in her irrational fear of Harry becoming the same thing so strongly that she tries to crush it out of him. Why does she care so much? Was it the crushing of her own natural feelings when Lily suddenly became 'different'?

to be continued...

[identity profile] seductivedark.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 01:13 pm (UTC)(link)
...continuing...

I think Augusta Longbottom is afraid. She fears, more than anything, that Neville will end up like his parents and she'll have lost everyone. He's such a timid mouse, she's worked on him to keep safe maybe even before his parents ended up in St. Mungo's. She had to know he might have been The One, she did everything she could to prevent that. And while she might say things which lead Neville to believe she would prefer the hero to the schmuck, I personally think she would have coddled Harry just as much if she'd been given him to raise with Neville. My grandmother lost all but one of her children before she died. It's a tragic thing, as Theoden says, for a parent to have to bury a child. It isn't natural. And Augusta didn't even get the closure of a funeral - her son and daughter-in-law are living in a half-dead world, there to see, 'whited sepulchres', ghosts of the past. And, she's dumped this fear onto Neville. When he's brave, he's not only fighting his friends or DEs, he's fighting a lifetime of opposite training.

And, I've always seen Lucius as being a doting parent, in an authoritiative sort of way. He wants to be proud of Draco. He pushes him, maybe in the same sorts of ways as Crouch, sr. pushed jr. Draco, so far, has followed blindly. But, he's at an age where kids are rebelling, as jr. did, and he's had an eye-opening revelation about his father's guru. I think the entire Malfoy family has had that revelation, even Lucius sitting in Azkaban. Narcissa can seek Snape's help; Lucius can only hope she will. She seems to be the one who wants to keep Draco tied to her apron strings, while Lucius wants to set Draco free and be inspired by his perfect flight. Despite their skewed political views (which seems to color the way a lot of people see the family), I do think they're close, and loving in their own individual ways.

Speaking of family, my second-born has just gotten off the freeway and is on the way here. So, my mind has slipped off anything else I was going to say, probably to the relief of anyone slogging through this! :D

[identity profile] spoke.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 02:06 pm (UTC)(link)
Another kid might have been totally freaked out--or defensive!

One thing there is that it might not have occured to McGonagall that he'd freak out - that would be making a Scene, and Neville does not Make Scenes. And since he never has, it might be unconsciously assumed that he never will, therefore she didn't think.

The other thing is that it was casual - and she could have iniatied a Scene of her own, say took him into her office for a Serious Discussion. Now that, I think, would have freaked him out. So she might have been approaching the subject delicately. For McGonagall.

And it occured to me reading this - It just surprises me because that's really a huge thing she throws out there casually, you know?

Do you know? Everything huge that happens to Neville is casual. People just say things or make decisions around him all the time, and then we see him reacting - overhearing Draco has twice at least gotten him into something; the debacle in Philosopher's Stone and then Harry and Ron having to hold him back in GoF. And his parents, presumably, didn't think anything of going off - they thought they'd be back.

Oh good lord. It just hit me there's another pattern here, of people Neville cares about always going off and leaving him to worry that they'll be like his parents. That they'll leave and never come back, or worse. And suddenly I'm looking at him haring off after Harry and the others in PS in this whole different light, and then when he tries to stop them leaving?

Every time he's put himself forward, it's been to say 'I won't let you' about something dangerous, and later on - failing to have the ability to stop people - it shifts into 'You're not going without me.'

I wonder if Snape is kind of the dark side of that, in his way.

I think so? Only it's tied into his (Snape's) own problems as well.

Trying to wrap up my somewhat-rambly babble here, but it just occured to me - Neville and Draco are oddly alike in this way, in that they have this pressure from thier families to be X, even though they are Y. They both respond better to positive reinforcement than tough love, too - the one teacher we hear of Neville really liking is Sprout, and it can't be coincidence that it's the subject he's best at, too.

[identity profile] spoke.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 02:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Ack, and I just noticed that I forgot to put in about Draco's favorite being Snape, who also praises him.

And I'm ignoring whether that praise is entirely deserved because I can't honestly remember how well Draco does at Potions. All I remember right now is that Harry's suck. :P ...besides, whether it's deserved praise or not isn't the point. It's how they react, Draco and Neville.

Possibly too sleepy to be typing, hopefully this will not look like complete nonsense when I get up.
ext_6866: (Default)

[identity profile] sistermagpie.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 03:14 pm (UTC)(link)
Absolutely. It surprises me when people tear Percy down and say that he's just been spoiled by Molly because I don't think that's true. Yes, she does hold him up as an example to the Twins and praise him, but that's when he does something. When you're the good one in that family it seems like usually you're just overlooked. The only time Percy really gets attention is when he's brought home some actual honor (a Prefect's badge, for instance) or when he's really asserting himself by yelling at the others. Mostly he's just being told to shut or getting his eyes rolled at. Even when he and Arthur work in the same place, which Percy might have seen as something to draw them together, it just drives them further apart it seems.
ext_6866: (Hadn't thought of that)

[identity profile] sistermagpie.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 03:23 pm (UTC)(link)
That's a great observation! Also one of the funny things about the scene in OotP with Draco is that Draco isn't even talking about him, he's just making a general joke about Harry being nuts. He's totally shocked when Neville goes for him. But in some ways Draco is probably a "safe" target for Neville-not safe in that he might not get hurt, but that he's someone it's okay for Neville to feel rage at. Neville has good reason to feel angry at both Snape and Draco, but I imagine him feeling he can't be angry at certain other people. Like, if his gran makes him upset he'd think that she's a good person and takes care of him etc., so I can imagine him using Snape and Draco for a release even for things they don't do.

I also do definitely agree about Neville and Draco being somewhat alike. I think Draco does do well in Potions, myself. First, I can't imagine Snape being able to fake praise, really. On his first day I imagine he really did strew his slugs well or whatever he was supposed to be doing. He seems to do okay in Slughorn's class, and presumably got an O on his OWLS because he didn't get in at the last minute like Harry and Ron (who didn't have books). I have always thought that Snape's positive reinforcement--especially mixed with his tough attitude--is something Draco responds to really well.

Harry, Neville and Draco are the three kids that are drawn into the main story because of their parents and I think that does tie them together in some ways.
ext_6866: (Fly this way)

[identity profile] sistermagpie.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 03:25 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes, I like it better this way too. The Weasleys are often almost described entirely through their conflicts--that's why it surprises me when people are just like, "They love each other!" That just doesn't seem to cover it!
ext_6866: (Hadn't thought of that)

[identity profile] sistermagpie.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 03:39 pm (UTC)(link)
I just pretty much agree with all of this.:-) I've always thought with Harry that it's always been important in his experience at the Dursleys that he had these fantasy parents to hold on to. He's like the classic fairy tale kid whose parents are firmly split down the middle into the bad ones he doesn't like and the good ones he loves. When the Dursleys are mean to him, they aren't his real family--his real family would love him, and yet not in the damaging way Dudley is loved. Similarly with the Weasleys he can see the good but when he thinks anything bad they're not his family.

I just feel like Harry has very little experience being truly angry at people he loves. Even with Sirius it's more the potential of family than the real thing--Harry's feelings about him are, to me, always very impersonal, more about him reacting to the idea of Sirius than the man himself because they just don't spend that much time together at all. They're still in the tentative stages of getting to know each other when Sirius died.

I said above that Harry, Draco and Neville are the three kids tied into the main story through their parents in ways the others aren't, and Draco and Neville, I think, are both affected by parents being aware of that. Augusta seems to sort of express her love and pride about her son to Neville by saying how great he was, but then always make clear that he is not like that, in case he's thinking of putting himself in danger the same way. It's sort of like saying that he should just let his father take that role and be something else.

Similarly, Lucius has filled Draco's head with ideas about how great the Dark Lord is and so how great he was to have helped him, but we also over and over hear Draco frustrated that he's not wanting Draco's help himself. Draco's thrown into things the same way Neville and Harry are in a way--when his father is removed. For those two boys especially growing up seems tied to getting involved in the fight, with Gran and Narcissa trying to keep them out of it. Both Neville and Draco to me seem aware that this is something they have to do to be their own man; it's not just wanting revenge or whatever. Same with Harry, actually, at this point.

[identity profile] ishtar79.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 03:58 pm (UTC)(link)
Excellent essay. I agree, I find Rowling's portrayal of families very realistic, which is why I'm baffled when people single out any HPverse family as a model of 'perfection'-because like you said, families are not perfect. Even the most functionning ones. And I just realised that word, so often applied to families, seems to imply an 'in spite of'. As in 'this family is functionning *despite* its members driving each other up the wall on a regular basis'.

Perhaps in the afterlife the family will be somewhat healed--at least I hope so. I can't help but see Sirius and Regulus finally making up two halves of a whole--two brothers and two Shadows, etc. Sirius was good but ultimately impotent and kept from doing anything. Regulus was the bad one but possibly able to act in the end. (Personally, I can't help but always picture Sirius as actually being the favorite despite being the black sheep, but that's a different essay.)

OMG, yes. I've only recently succumbed to the appeal of Regulus (I blame [livejournal.com profile] lilith_morgana's fic, but there's something about the perfect symmetry of Sirius and Regulus' experiences that I find fascinating. It's all about choices, and lost opportunities, and the two halves being stronger as a whole. And my own conviction that if those two brothers hadn't fallen off so completely, a lot of tragedy could have been prevented.

The only time I feel even vaguely sympathetic towards Neville is when seing the way his grandmother treats him. There is undoubtedly love there, but it's just a perfect illustration of how much unreasonnable expectations can crippled a child.

anehan: Elizabeth Bennet with the text "sparkling". (Default)

[personal profile] anehan 2005-12-17 04:37 pm (UTC)(link)
I think it's propably possible to do the Time Turner thing without being completely burned out the way Hermione was. I see Hermione's problem being not the two extra classes but her attitude to homework. She doesn't actually need to work as hard as she does, so she's overworking herself because she's just so insecure. I guess she's probably more stressed about her fear of failure than about any real overload of homework. I think someone with a more laid-back attitude would succeed. It's ironic that Hermione's fear of failure propably caused her to fail.

[identity profile] black-dog.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 04:41 pm (UTC)(link)
it's hard to imagine exactly how she pictures the idea of love *except* as a big dramatic sacrifice.

*nods vigorously* That seems to be the only aspect of love left intact once JKR has done her number on its other manifestations. I mean, I'm connecting to your post about family by treating it as one case in a general puzzle -- just as she dismantles the idea that love = happy families, she ridicules the idea that love = romance in HBP; she makes it part of an ugly manipulation plot in the Merope story; she subverts the idea that love is ennobling by making it Narcissa's and Draco's leading motive in their murder plot. And of course, there's Dumbledore on how Harry is "unique" because he's preserved his capacity for love -- so now he can go kill Voldemort! (I keep harping on that particular bit of cognitive dissonance . . . )

So yeah, love as self-sacrifice -- pretty grim and joyless on its face. And what's worse, even that kind of love is not consistently redemptive. It's supposed to be in Harry's case, I guess, but it clearly isn't in the Crouch or Riddle cases. And yet: love, love, love is all you need. It doesn't hang together.

I saw your comment on another post that I skimmed yesterday (and that I'm too lazy to look up now and double check!) where the poster talked about how JKR really doesn't have any master plan or scheme, that she doesn't really do world-building, she just invents characters and makes up the context as she goes along. I think your point (or maybe you were replying to someone else's point?) had to do with how certain tricks drew the reader in effectively, and maybe that was all she was trying to do.

And I wonder if that's the answer to our love-family puzzle. The parts don't make sense together because she hasn't bothered to make them coherent. They're just part of a mixed bag of rhetorical tricks for getting the reader involved in the story. So we hear that love conquers all because it's fun to believe in and it draws in the sentimental side of readers. And then we see complicated and messy families because we can all connect with that. And the highest purpose is just to have a fun, engaging read, moment to moment, not to have all the separate themes add up to say anything complex or coherent or serious.

Now, as some posters on that other thread pointed out, it would take a terrible snob and prude, I'm sure, to not enjoy the fun parts of the books because they don't aspire to be anything more than entertainment. :) But this may connect with one of our old conversations about serious vs. "genre" literature -- in "genre" literature the author uses his/her rhetorical tricks to engage and stimulate and divert the reader without any responsibility for larger thematic significance, or even coherence. While a "serious" writer might start with the same tricks, but would try to work from those moments of engagement to build up themes that cohered despite their complexity, and that maybe added up to some genuinely startling or powerful insight.

*facepalms* Why do I always end up with the same issues? For some of us obsessives, indeed, everything means another spanking!
ext_6866: (Moon magic)

[identity profile] sistermagpie.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 05:00 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, that seems to be an unfortunate thing about HP fandom whatever the subject, that people get into this extreme thing where a family is either loving/good or has problems/bad. I just really don't think JKR naturally writes too many relationships that don't include some abuse of power. I was recently reading somebody somewhere making a comment about how she calls Snape a "bully" and so that's a criticism, which it is, but it just never fails to amaze me how "bully" is the central idea of everything in the books. You're either a bully, a victim, or a protector from bullies. The second group grow into either one or the other, and the first and last are sometimes indistinguishable. It's no wonder the ideas of Slinkhard (the author of Umbridge's textbook) is presented in such a strange way in canon, imo.

I loved Regulus since we just heard about him in OotP, but oh, he and Sirius are becoming more and more interesting to me. I'd love to hear their story. I think we might hear more of it in the last book. Regulus is ready to shine there.

[identity profile] cutecoati.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 05:19 pm (UTC)(link)
I honestly don't even know if JKR *could* write One Big Happy Anybody's Family, because she just seems too aware of how people, especially families, fuck each other up and hurt each other.

I won't even start commenting on your essay - apart from saying that it is simply excellent! Your grasp of details, of background is as spot on as ever. Whether JKR does it on purpose or not - her families ring (generally) true to me because every single of them has their problems (and unless she doesn't want me to "like" one more than the other - who cares about "liking"... :D)

The only family I'd like to add a few thoughts to are the Weasleys - for me, a stereotypical model of the "worthy or diligent poor", an ideal created in the 16th century especially by the Reformist churches, which includes a good deal of judgement - people/families who were found worthy of receiving charitable assistance, who were innocent of their miserable (financial) status yet had to fulfil all the new family ideals of the Reformation [/quits being history nerd]. I can see most of these ideals being reflected in the Weasleys (down to the considerable amout of children) - but does this make them "better"? In no other family, I've detected such a strikt set of rules than within the Weasley family (okay, we know more about the Weasleys than about most of the others, but still) and such immediate punishment whenever a member dares to defy one or more rules - sending a howler to Ron (= humiliating him in front of ALL his school mates AND the professors) was an action worthy of old Grandma Longbottom, but it was Mrs Weasley... And: supporting (or at least tolerating) her daughter's behaviour towards her son's fiancée, being not too overly friendly to Hermione when she first meets her (unlike towards Harry - I do not detect some hidden mudbl- ah, Muggle-born issue there, do I? After all, dear Mr Weasley treats Muggles as if they were cute but backwards pets) - it seems that it's rather hard to be accepted by this oh-so-sweet-and-warmhearted family, and that it's rather easy to be expelled. Fits with aforementioned model... have I mentioned that love was introduced as the new ideal family bond back then? So, I wouldn't say that they don't love each other, they surely do (but so do the Malfoys, I kno believe), but love can be as efficient a means to exert pressure as anything else, and even more so...

[identity profile] alula-auburn.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 05:28 pm (UTC)(link)
To clarify, when I brought up the war, I didn't mean it to be an actual suggestion that Hermione would get killed and no one would ever contact the Grangers. I just meant that the fact that the WW is at war makes the demand that Muggleborns diminish, if not dismiss, their ties to Muggle family and friends more disturbing to me. (Especially wrt to Hermione, who's about as close to the front lines as she could be without actually being Harry himself). It really does make me wonder what the Grangers know--what Hermione tells them, what she doesn't--I forget the wording in OotP and I'm still in the apartment sans the HP books, but I think it definitely suggests a lie-by-omission at the most generous interpretation.* They're running the risk of sacrificing their daughter--without even the option of throwing themselves in her place, which I think a lot of parents would say is harder--for a cause they don't really know about, for a world from which they've been politely but firmly excluded.

And while "singificantly" is kind of fun to say--it sounds like some kind of the name of a canary that does magic tricks or something, it is sadly not in fact a word.

*speaking of which, does anyone else wonder logistically how Muggle parents write to their kids and, more problematically, how the kids write back? The only thing I can think of logically is some kind of clearinghouse where someone takes Muggle mail and gives it to owls, or vice versa (which in turn is making me imagine the wizarding equivalent of Bartleby the Scrivener)--although the letter covered with stamps sort of confuses that, unless Arthur thought the whole idea was just so nifty he had to try it himself. (And can you imagine how little respect you'd get as the WW mail clerk?).
ext_6866: (I've been thinking.)

Part I

[identity profile] sistermagpie.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 06:00 pm (UTC)(link)
I love your obsessiveness! I think that comment might have been to that hp_essays pieces about JKR not knowing what the f**k she was doing.:-) I would say that maybe it's not just about getting the reader involved, because maybe what makes us involved is that she herself is. I think she genuinely feels what she's writing, even if she's not always making that felt on the page. (I remember a friend of mine finishing Man in the Iron Mask and being so affected by Porthos' last scene; she said the way it was written she felt like the narrator was sobbing as he said it, and I'd recently read that Dumas WAS sobbing as he wrote it.) She seems to really enjoy stuff and be involved with it.

In fact, for me the parts that seem the least honest are the parts where she tries to have anyone speak about love. It's not that she can't write people loving each other. She can, and all these families prove it. It's just when she tries to reach some sort of Greater Love (for lack of a better word) I don't think it's really there. And that's mirrored in fandom discussions, imo. I've recently been reading a lot of things about what should happen to Snape, etc., and some people assume that the "love" thing means that Harry and Snape will have to reconcile (as Harry and Draco will, imo), and others are very against that because Snape must be punished as JKR's characters are.

It just occurs to me that you'd think at this point, one book away from the end of a 7 book series, that the "love" people should have more evidence for their side, or have more of an idea of how it will work not just in terms of telegraphing ideas but in seeing it actually played out. Instead it's more they (we) are reacting to stuff that characters have said and what we think that must mean. But there's very few examples in the books of anyone really having the sort of love or compassion we assume must be coming into play. Is it just that Harry hasn't developed it yet? But shouldn't he know people who have, or have had some glimpses of it? Instead this kind of love often seems attached to naivite-DD's plans for Snape and Sirius going wrong, for instance. Or his weird speech about wanting to give Harry house cups and not tell him about the prophecy. DD tries to talk about universal compassion, but even he doesn't seem to really have it.His speech claiming responsibility for a lot of what went wrong in OotP is actually a big explanation of how other people failed to live up to the chance he gave them. Not all compassion seems to come naturally to JKR. (By god, the woman thinks Ginny is compassionate and that says it all!)

The best example of the idea being dramatized for me is, ironically, Draco's story, but we don't even know where that will go. We've got two examples of boys sparing another's life. Draco is the villain, but his set up seems more connected to compassion--compassion he's tried to repress--and even so his scene is easily read as cowardice by many. The other is Harry sparing Peter, but it's so different a scene it just doesn't seem to get into quite the same issues. Plus it's even got that pesky life debt (like James and Snape) which also kind of makes it something else. Would DD have owed a life debt to Draco had he lived? Of course not, because the life debt depends on the other person deserving to die. The extra reward undercuts the compassionate ideal.

So I can understand why there's many people who feel no compassion for many characters and don't think Harry really should either, because those feelings are far more dramatized in the text while the "love stuff" seems just tacked on as a non-sequitor. As are many of the lessons in the books, imo. Harry rarely if ever has to choose between what is right and what is easy, and his choice of Gryffindor doesn't say much about his character at all.

ext_6866: (I've been thinking.)

Part II

[identity profile] sistermagpie.livejournal.com 2005-12-17 06:00 pm (UTC)(link)
But then, where JKR does dramatize love well is in the messy, painful family relationships. There I really believe it. I believe in love gone wrong between Sirius and Regulus and the Crouches. I feel for Sirius and James and the Malfoys and Bella and Cissy and sometimes the Weasleys. It's like when JKR isn't thinking about it she gets it right. When these people are hurting each other there must be love underneath because what else could be driving them on? It's maybe just ironic that her hero is then so isolated with relationships that are, again, pretty easy. Ron and Hermione dedicate themselves to him, he loves to be at the burrow but escapes the drawbacks of being an actual Weasley, he sees Sirius' problems from a safe distance and never gets close enough to really connect or be hurt (except by his death), when he fights with Ron Ron does all the apologizing and making up, Ginny simply mirrors back whatever he needs at any given moment. The greatest possibility for Harry dealing with actual messy love is Petunia, imo. I was going to say Dumbledore, but I think even he remains far too distant and mysterious for real connection, while also adoring and idealizing Harry too much. Petunia is the one who is real family and has treated him badly but seems to have a connection underneath. (I love the way Mira writes Harry/Petunia.)

(Hagrid is another place where she seems to want to show love and Hagrid has lots of Harry's same limitations in that area. He loves his pets and doesn't see them as they really are--and that includes his brother.)

So yeah, like I was trying to suggest in my comment to that other post I think we are seeing a worldview here, it's just that its tied together not by internal coherence or consistency but by being all from one person. Most people probably really don't think through their beliefs or emotional reactions to things and wind up being inconsistent and hypocritical-we all do it. Often that's the defense, that the characters are "human" because they do that, only in the end what will that mean? Because usually the characters who are "human" are those people like. No such leniency is given to characters people don't like. And while it's fine for all the heroes to remain flawed, if they are flawed they don't really have any business being role models or teaching us lessons, and despite what people say there obviously are places where they're supposed to be teaching us lessons. It's a coming of age novel and Harry can only become the best adult the author can imagine, which reminds me of what you said once about Stephen King, how ultimately the author's ideas can make a difference between genre and serious literature. Does the author have ideas that will lift the series onto another level or will it just remain engaging and fun but not inspiring? It's like the ceiling in the Great Hall--it could have had just a high carved ceiling, but instead it's a ceiling that is the sky full of stars. The books themselves may stay firmly under a carved ceiling.

Page 2 of 4