Showing Who You Are

[sistermagpie]

I was thinking about essential choices today in HP...well, that and Peter Pettigrew and Draco. It all goes back to that line in CoS,

That's one of the most oft-quoted and misquoted lines in fandom, it seems to me. The two popular misquotations are "It's our choices that make us who we are," and "It's our choices that define us." Dumbledore is, in fact, rejecting both those ideas. If our choices made us, then we would be developing people creating our own characters. If our choices define us then who we are on the inside doesn't matter--we're judged on what we've done. What Dumbledore is saying is a lot more extreme: our choices SHOW who we are. Iow, we have no choices in any real sense, because we can't choose to be what we're not. We can only reveal our essential nature through what other people see as choices. This line is, fittingly, used to describe Harry's "choice" to not go into Slytherin. A choice which, as much of fandom has pointed out, is not a choice at all, because Slytherin has no appeal to Harry at all. Harry choosing to reject Slytherin is like Harry choosing Hogwarts over the Dursleys. Or Harry choosing not to slam his hand in the car door on purpose. Why would he do that?

This way of looking at things can be rather creepy, since you can’t help but wonder where “we” begin in order to make our revealing choices. It all seems a bit, well, Calvinistic to me, maybe because you can’t help but feel that these choices are being judged by somebody, perhaps the same person who made “us” who we were to begin with.

I said in an earlier post that HP characters are like chess pieces, some carved in more detail (in terms of backstory etc.) and some in more strategic places on the board (SNAPE!), but all only capable of one move, a move which will determine the outcome in the game. Some examples of essential choices:

Neville:
Neville's essential choice was first shown to us back in PS/SS. He's timid and puts up with a lot of personal abuse, but will always choose to be recklessly brave when a weaker innocent is in danger or when he thinks it is the right thing to do. Neville is essentially brave, even when he is behaving in a timid way. Whatever Neville does in the future, he can not choose the cowardly way out, because he is, by nature, not a coward.

Remus:
Remus has lots of times in canon when he's a great guy, does the right thing, and acts bravely. But his essential choice is the one in the Pensieve. He sees something going on he knows is wrong, but chooses not to act because it will make him look bad in front of his friends. In PoA he holds important information about a man he thinks is a murderer, but keeps it to himself to protect Dumbledore's good opinion of him. Remus is capable of acts of bravery, but when he's put in this kind of situation, I don't think he's able to make a different choice--at least without some major trauma to his identity. Like maybe he'd die right after!

Snape:
We’ve got no way of really knowing, do we? And that’s a good thing. We've seen him choose to protect Harry and seen him choose to attack him. We've seen him overcome his hatred of James to do things that help the good side, we've seen him unable to overcome his hatred of James to help the good side. We know he's capable of lying about his motives. Indeed he *must* be lying to at least one side in canon, possibly both. I have a feeling that the most revealing moments about Snape are the "I AM NOT A COWARD!" type, but until the last book I don't know what his essential choice scenes are. I suspect one of them will be the reason Dumbledore trusts him.

Sirius:
Sirius lives and dies by his need to protect, doesn't he? He tries to protect James and makes a fatal mistake. He runs to protect Harry in PoA as well and almost gets killed. He runs to the MoM in OotP and also gets killed. When he's told to sit at home and stay out of danger himself, it drives him crazy. You really can't protect Sirius, even knowing that his own need to protect will lead to fatal errors. Sirius also seemed to naturally reject his family’s ideas even as a kid. There’s no reason given for Sirius, Andromeda and that one uncle being good guys in the family, while Bellatrix and Mrs. Black seem so far to the other extreme. And then there’s those occasional Reguluses and Dracos. Without the story of why they are different, it seems like they were just born this way. Why did Sirius reject his parents’ teachings and get sorted into Gryffindor? Why could Bellatrix be a DE and not Regulus? The story really isn’t interested in the why’s, but on what they do because of it.

Peter:
Here's where I'm noticing an interesting connection to something in HBP. I had once written earlier that if there was any character who seemed to potentially be anything like the PP of this generation it was not Neville, but Draco, and HBP seemed to bear this out in unforeseen ways. Peter's choice is always to protect himself-protect his whole life. He’s a good example, I think, of Dumbledore’s “your choices show who you are” idea.

I see no evidence that Peter's beliefs have anything to do with his working for Voldemort. It seems like he's no more interested in Pureblood superiority than James was. His beliefs, I think, lie more with the Order, which is why he joined it. The trouble is that beliefs are never enough in this universe. It's your essential nature that says when you'll abandon those beliefs. I don't have PoA with me, but iirc Peter explains his choice to work for Voldemort in terms of pragmatism: they were winning, so there was no choice. Possibly Peter first worked for Voldemort telling himself this was good for his friends--when V won Peter could put in a good word for them. But when it came down to his friends vs. himself Peter again chose to save himself. When his own life is threatened by Voldemort he kills others rather than die himself. Peter is a killer. His choice to kill show this. He was always a killer, according to Dumbledore's line, even before he made the choice to reveal that. Peter has often been cited as the most successful Death Eater ever, and his efficiency seems to lie in his keen survival instinct. There was a choice, and Peter made it.

Draco:
In HBP, I think Draco gets put in a similar situation to Peter, only reversed. Draco, like pre-traitor!Peter, has of course made choices in the past that also revealed his personality. We see how he chooses to deal with Harry and his friends, for instance. But we also saw that Peter chose to be friends with MPP. Neither boys' early choice of allies or enemies at school was enough to predict future loyalty.

As with Peter, Draco's beliefs are not enough. He believes in Pureblood superiority and the Dark Lord, so much so that he takes on the task to kill Dumbledore proudly. Only it turns out that when it comes down to it he's not a killer. Dumbledore, significantly, repeats this more than once in the final scene. He doesn't tell Draco that Draco doesn't want to kill him, he tells him he's not a killer--he's identifying his essential nature that Draco can not change. Just as Peter is a killer before he ever kills anyone, Draco is "not a killer" even after he's almost killed two people. So he can't kill for his beliefs. What about when he himself is threatened? He still can't do it. What about when his family is threatened? He still can't do it. Each time he chooses not to kill by not killing.

If he doesn't kill Dumbledore his family will die, but so will he. That's why, imo, Dumbledore's offer to him is important. Draco says he "has no options" in the tower, because Voldemort killing his family is not an option for him. So Dumbledore offers safety to Draco's family. His last scene with Draco is, among other things, a bit of an uneasy negotiation. Dumbledore is laying out the relevant facts (you can't kill me, I can protect you) but he's also framing the terms so that Draco can accept them: he's protecting his family. Like Peter, Draco is making a choice, only his choice reveal different priorities.

I wouldn't be surprised if both Voldemort and Dumbledore targeted their potential turncoat based on seeing this difference in their essential nature. Both men saw not a hero for their own side, but someone who didn't have what it took to be on the other side. Not that I think these two characters (Peter and Draco) are the same--I think they're both actually totally different and thus their contributions to both sides would be completely different as well. But neither has the right heart for his chosen side.

Hermione:
Hermione's essential choice, I think, is always the point in the book where she says, "Screw the rules!" Because when it comes down to it her passion for getting brownie points is secondary to her feelings about other things. So just as Hermione proved herself to the boys by choosing to lie for them (it being, iirc, totally unnecessary and so even more a character choice) in PS/SS, you never have to worry about her choosing the rules over people. I think, unfortunately, she’s probably sometimes set up against Percy this way, with Percy coming out the worse.

Ron:
Ron, as low key as he is, is all about those decisions to stick with Harry, I think. Like the way he tosses out all his problems in GoF when Harry might be in danger. As much as I see the potential in Evil!Ron that leads people to write him in fanfic, in canon he seems more defined by all the times he sticks with Harry. That's why, imo, Hermione seems to have a significant reaction to his tearing up Percy's letter in OotP.

Btw, when it comes to the subject of the essential self, I must link to this essay by skelkins on elitism, Harry is of the "elite." In fact, given that he also seems to possess an instinct for moral virtue, one might even go so far as to say that he is of the Elect.

Comments

[thalia-seawood.livejournal.com]

That's a wonderful essay!

So Voldemort would be defined by his essential lack of empathy.
Slughorn's decisions will always be influenced by his need for flattery.
Can we make out what Ginny is all about? Or is her character too inconsistent for this?

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

By her need for Harry to love her. That's why she changed in book 5.

I so hate that.

[violaswamp.livejournal.com]

Very, very interesting. I, like many others, had always thought of Dumbledore's "choices" spiel as being contradictory to what JKR showed through her characters' actions--like she was mouthing happy fuzzy slogans about everyone having a choice through Dumbledore while unconsciously betraying her actual views through what the other characters are like.

But your take on it makes much more sense--Dumbledore's comment isn't a contradiction, it fits right in with the Calvinism of the books. I still disagree with it completely but at least it's consistent.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I guess part of it, too, is just with the kind of story it is it's hard to concentrate on exactly why anyone but Harry does anything. We meet Sirius as a rebel who was against his family. We don't know exactly what in him led him to that state. Sometimes we can fill in the blanks based on what we see (like with Percy, imo), but mostly it's more important what they do instead of why they do it. And yeah, if you can't agree, at least it's consistent!

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

I'm so behind on your posts at the mo (and the snarkery one's too! :( but I'd go one further with the Neville bravery/Elkins connection and say that I don't find Neville brave in PS. http://www.theennead.com/elkins/hp/archives/000126.html
I adore that elect essay, though.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Me too.:-) Neville is kind of a flipside to Peter, actually, because whileI suspect we're supposed to see Peter as a coward one can make a case for him being pretty brave indeed! So I think with Neville maybe it's wrong to say he's always "brave," which is a judgment call, but just to say that we know in certain types of situations Neville usually makes the choice to do X.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

So, how one chooses demonstrates what you are. Okay, I can accept that. And that a specific personality can only choose specific actions. Okay.

This *helps*.
Thank you.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

I mean, to a certain extent this is true in life. There are certain choices that I'm not going to find tempting that somebody else would do because I'm a different person. It's not something I think we can really judge anybody on, since usually it comes down to random things like one person liking to be the center of attention while the other person doesn't.

[no-remorse.livejournal.com]

What Dumbledore is saying is a lot more extreme: our choices SHOW who we are.

Actually the quote is "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."

As choices are known as expression of free will - as opposed to abilities, talent, which are genetic, Rowling does make a case for nurture over a nature here.

You argue that the "our choices show what we truly are" means that the choices are signs of your inner inherent character. I don't think that's true, because then Dumbledore would have no need to juxtapose it with the abilities which are genetic. What he says is that our free will shows who we are as opposed to our genetics. That is a very strong case for the possibility to escape your genetics using that free will.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, I don't think Dumbledore is talking about genetics; I think he is more talking about soul.

[ptyx.livejournal.com]

This is so brilliant. I had never understood the choices issue. Never. Now you've explained it to me and it was like an epiphany. This is Calvinism. I'm an Agnostic, but I was raised as a Catholic, as most Brazilians are. I simply can't understand that reasoning, that "choices are important not because they make us who we are, but because they show who we are". Now I know why I can't understand Rowling's moral conceptions! Thank you thank you thank you!

I'm glad Snape seems to be the most undefinable character!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Thanks--I was raised Catholic too and am no way any sort of authority on Calvinism, but it did remind me of that. I could be wrong about Rowling's moral conceptions, of course, but that's what that line says to me.

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

Very interesting, because I always thought "our choices reveal who we are" essentially meant "our choices make us who we are". I mean, I interpreted Dumbledore's words as "when we choose, it gets revealed who we are (or rather, who we become through said choices), because it is the choices that make us". So, from my perspective, those two things have always meant the same thing. But this new take on it is interesting (if creepy), and I think that may very well be what JKR meant. It does seem to go far better along with what she's actually written, than my interpretation of those words.

This parallell between Draco and Peter is very interesting.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think there's a reason that fandom usually changes the line. Personally I tend to think of it more the way you do, that our choices make us who we are. But it's interesting that here DD is reassuring Harry over his having the abilities prized by Slytherin--his choosing Gryffindor shows he's not a Slytherin, and there's that line about only a "true Gryffindor" pulling that hat out. That sounds more like something else because Harry's really never felt any desire to be in Slytherin. He's really got no reason to fear that--at least no rational one.

[biichan.livejournal.com]

.... wow. Just... wow.

You are very brill :)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Hee! Thanks!

[aubrem.livejournal.com]

I agree that JKR seems to have written a fairly deterministic world. The use of the sorting hat alone says a lot. It seems disingenuous for Dumbledore to use the word "choice" at all. I still haven't figured out what point JKR is making if any. I suppose we could just be forgetting that these are children's books and children tend to have a pretty harsh morality.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It's really interesting that in that scene Dumbledore is making Harry feel better about something that seems such a non-issue. Harry's kind of convinced himself he might belong in Slytherin because it's exactly where he doesn't want to be. And Harry himself seems to see this as something to do with an essential nature, you know? He's worried that he's "really" a Slytherin but he forced the hat to put him in Gryffindor, and Dumbledore is telling him that his choices are ones "only a true Gryffindor" could make.

[cara-chapel.livejournal.com]

No reflection on your essay-- more a reflection on the views Rowling holds that it discusses; your essay made me think deeply-- but the idea of this inviolable essential self is a troubling one. Perhaps this articulates something about Rowling's canon that has bugged me in a subliminal way ever since I first read the books.

The idea of essential self and devaluation of choice seems, as you noted, Calvinistic. I can't ascribe to it; I think the ability to choose what one's essence will be (and create it, with enough effort) is a defining characteristic of humanity. Humanity is one of the few species that are self-aware and able to rise above instinct; if you conflate instinct with essence, then the premise that you can't go against your essence would be invalidated for humans (at leas tin the case of self-aware, self-actualizing humans).

It is far easier to apply a theory of essential self to book characters than to real people, at any rate. But what happens when we do that? We begin to run the risk that lovers of her writing will model on those characters as though Rowling's moral framework is some kind of rule that manifests as self-evident in our universe.

Because of this, I find I am increasingly disturbed by the moral implications of Rowling's stories. (Not at all because of the allegations of Satanism or dabbling with witchcraft.) The implication that we can't change our essence, or the implication that Harry doesn't have to work hard to excel because fate and nature will take over and put him there. The implication that you're special because you're born to be, not because you did something to build yourself up or set yourself apart. It seems to be a theme that might encourage laziness, or serve as an implicit excuse to follow one's id instead of listening to one's superego.

I think people who absorb these moral guidelines without thinking about them (as I absorbed many of the moral implications of LOTR as an adolescent, without realizing) are liable to find themselves disappointed with real life at best, and acting quite irresponsibly at worst.

[romeo-ambiences.livejournal.com]

Thank you for expressing so clearly the discomfort I feel as well.
If this sort of morality is what JKR is selling....I'm not buying...but it does disturb me that others might.

[q-spade.livejournal.com]

Just as Peter is a killer before he ever kills anyone, Draco is "not a killer" even after he's almost killed two people. So he can't kill for his beliefs. What about when he himself is threatened? He still can't do it. What about when his family is threatened? He still can't do it. Each time he chooses not to kill by not killing.

The Wizarding World definitely seems to be a warrior culture, where the ability to kill is given more weight than the ability to preserve life. Draco's innate lack of desire to kill would be a boon in various other cultures, but in THIS one it's considered a weakness and a liability. The strengths he does possess – intelligence, wit, a dramatic sort of creative impulse – these are not considered significant in the world he lives in. How frustrating that must be for him, especially now that his very existence may depend upon living a lie – being something he isn't.

[pauraque]

You've just articulated exactly the way I see Draco. I've seen a few people in their comments on HBP (half-jokingly) calling Draco a "wuss" or similar because he can't follow through with killing Dumbledore... which of course is exactly how a wizard would see it. Draco is a creative/theatrical type, but because he lives in a world of aggression, he must turn his native strengths to an aggressive use. Rather than duel with Harry in Book 1, he sets the Trio up to get in trouble. Rather than attack Ron physically in OotP, he makes up a song to insult him. I always thought that detail was extremely telling.

[cara-chapel.livejournal.com]

PS: I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that HP is so seated in a Calvinist determinism, given all the deep connections to Scotland in canon.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

You do have to wonder if there's a connection!

[meri-oddities.livejournal.com]

This past weekend, a couple of friends told me I had to friend you since you wrote really interesting essays and wow, they were right. This was great. I really enjoyed reading it. I like the insight you have into the character's motivations. I'm sure it doesn't hurt that I agree with most of what you've said.

I liked the juxtaposition between Neville and Lupin. I also liked the same thing about Draco and Peter. I hadn't actually thought of it that way.

Great essay.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Wow--thanks! *feels famous and talked about the world over* :-)

Neville and Lupin are interesting to compare...the ways he's like Peter are like a red herring.

[parthenia14.livejournal.com]

Fantastic essay. The issue of choices seem to operate around the Good vs. Evil dimension - in every other aspect, characters are shown as complex mixtures of the admirable and the unpleasant. Slughorn, Molly, Sirius, Remus, Ron... even Ginny.

The point about Draco vs. Peter is extremely interesting. I keep thinking, ooh, Snape and Draco ran off together, didn't they? Now what? (Gosh, I'm one the edges of looking for fanfiction).

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Heh--oh yes, I've been thinking about Snape and Draco running off together since I finished the book! ;-)

[mariagoner.livejournal.com]

Oh dear... I hope the Calvinist bit isn't going to get you into Fandom Wank at this rate! For some reason, Ataniell93 made one post about Calvinist views in HPB... and promptly got jumped by some... trigger-happy people over at FW who somehow found her views rabidly anathemic. O.o But then, I'm a little clueless over the hate-on they sport for quite a few people over there regardless. And this after even Crystal of the infamous pastede-on-yay! has been embraced!

Really loved your essay a lot, overall. Whatever FW may think, I think the Calvinist view of Harry Potter is essentially spot-on. As everyone over at the community that must not be named has spotted during OOTP, JKR seems to have this creepy view of some in her universe being good-- regardless of whatever outrageous antics they get up to-- and some being strictly bad, despite either having been born in environments that would have supported little else or being relatively inoffensive within the text. Your reading of her infamous "choices" and "abilities" line at least makes this view of JKR's consistent... if still immensely disturbing.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oy--I hope Calvinism alone isn't enough to get it wanked. I don't know much about the religion so I'm bound to sound stupid if I really try to talk about it!

For all I know I may be off in thinking of this idea as Calvinist, but I don't see why that one religion should stand against the books enough to be wankable. If somebody suggested they were Buddhist it would seem more odd to me.;-)

The story isn't exactly interested in going into everybody's inner life and coming up with reasons why they are what they are. People seem to be more important just for what they are now.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

Love the essay, especially the character profiles. I'd go a bit to the side, though, and say that each choice we make narrows the choices we will make in future. Lupin chooses to ignore his friends' behavior even though he's a prefect, he sets himself on that path and it becomes ingrained. For an instance. Draco always talked big, but when it came to actually doing, he always let someone else, Crabbe and Goyle, or just the Universe at large, do it for him, or he walked away. He never learned to actually confront and follow through. It's not only ingrained, but the training necessary has been removed through his previous choices.

I'm starting to see it as a 'choose what happens next' sort of scenario, with our lives replacing the books, until the last choice is made and we are at our end. Each time, we limit once again which version of the story we will read, which version of our life we will live. Never learning how to empathize, never learning how to turn one's back, never learning how to politely yet forcefully remind our friends of their limits, are all choices which define us. They limit us. (And I do remember trying to learn to be sarcastic, it took nicely, thanks, it's just hard *not* to pop in that comment any more, another choice, another lesson learned which defines)

Anyway, that's my take, based on what you wrote.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Ooh, I totally agree. To take the Draco situation, for instance, it's hard not to see his storyline in HBP as the result of his actions. Some things are beyond his control--Voldemort would still want to use him to punish Lucius even if he were Neville--but his behavior kind of leaves him twisting in the wind. I think that was a big point of it, really, because he had to find out what he was made of all by himself.

In real life, it's like that impulse people always have to look back on their life and see it as fated because every choice led to *exactly* where they are now. They forget that they could just as easily have made different choices, wound up in a different place, and it would seem just as meant to be.

[ptyx.livejournal.com]

I'm seriously worried about Snape now. Because remorse doesn't mean anything to a Calvinist, does it? Remorse doesn't lead to redemption. Redemption is only for the elected ones. So even if he sacrifices himself and dies, he won't be redeemed, unless he's already one of Teh Chosen Ones. o_O

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Possibly, but then, perhaps if he sacrifices himself and dies it would prove he always was one of the Elect?

[quite-grey.livejournal.com]

Great essay! This is what fandom should be all about: well-thought out, interesting pieces where you make good points and back them up, instead of throwing hissy fits about what you don't like and sending back your dust jacket.

*applauds*

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

ROTFL!

I was going to send back my bookmark but I needed it for the next book I was reading.

[meredith-eats.livejournal.com]

That was interesting and very well thought-out!

I think this fatalistic view of people goes hand-in-hand with the other thing that Rowling seems to value -- sympathy and mercy. The most prominent example of that is when Harry refuses to allow Sirius and Remus to kill Peter, but I think it's there in other parts of the book too, like Harry's disgust at Crouch Sr.'s treatment of his son. In a nature-over-nurture world, you have to feel sympathetic toward everyone because they really couldn't choose their behavior. Harry will do what he has to and kill Voldemort, but I think we're meant to feel sorry for Lord V. because even young Tom Riddle didn't have much choice. And while I don't believe in an entirely fatalstic view of the world, I think there is some truth in it. There is no accounting for why two people raised in the same circumstances might react entirely differently, say, by one becoming violent and abusive and the other not.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't think the books are going to reveal a big God at the end with two lists telling us who got into heaven.:-) There certainly are ways that this is true in life--my choices are going to be limited by who I am, and I'm going to draw conclusions about someone based on what they choose to do. I just might look more at why they chose it than the books are going to do or something like that.

I think with me I just always get nervous because I always think hey, I might have turned out exactly like that person if I grew up in their environment with their personality. Change one or the other and you might have a different person!

[cantatrix05.livejournal.com]

Great essay. Worth re-reading *saves*. But I don't know that you actually have to drag Calvin into the mix for the heart of what you say to be true. (FWIW, I am not a disciple of Calvin and will humbly take correction for any misstatements.) In Calvinism you are either saved or you are not, you can't even know into which group you will fall and you can't change where you fall. You are predestined for heaven or hell.

I don't think that's what DD is trying to tell Harry and I don't think that's what you're saying either. If I sneak up behind a bird and startle it, it is going to fly away. I guess I should say it is most likely that it will fly away. It is theoretically possible that it will try to dig a hole in the ground and hide but it's unlikely. Digging holes is not normal bird behavior. It may have the tools to dig a hole (claws) and may even try it if prevented from all other options but that is not its strength. It is not predestined to fly; it does so because that's what it's good at. *cough* excuse the grammar*

It's more complex with people of course because we have more self-awareness (well, most of us do) and can analyze our choices and the reasons for them. We don't operate purely on instinct most of the time but we all do have innate tendencies. Operating within those parameters keeps us in our 'comfort zone'. Operating outside those parameters is hard and generally requires a conscious frontal-lobe kind of choice. Harry is not, I think, predestined for Gryffindor. There must be some things about Slytherin that are attractive to him or the hat wouldn't bring it up. But the only Slytherin he has met thus far is unattractive to him and this carries the day in his decision. I'm not saying that Harry thought all this out- we very rarely do- but there is a weighing of variables. It happens so quickly that most of us take it for instinct- or predestination.

If we're lucky, we can take a good look at our own behavior and see what patterns are there. I think that is part of what DD is trying to tell Harry. "Why are you so worried about being evil? Look at how you operate." Most of us never really get a good insight into this though and think we can't change. That's why psychiatrists are so busy ;)

Anyhow- I think your assessments of the characters is spot-on. My only quibble is that I think there is a difference between being predestined and following your natural tendencies. And I don't think you need to invoke predestination to explain the characters' behaviors.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh definitely take whatever I'm saying for myself over anything from Calvinism. That was just sort of me groping for what it kind of reminded me of at times, not knowing very much about it at all anyway.

What you're saying is definitely more what I mean, particularly since you used the word "comfort zone" which is what it makes me think of too. It's not about having a road you must follow, just that we are what we are.

One thing about Harry is I don't think the hat actually brings Slytherin up. I think Harry says, "Anything but Slytherin," and then the hat says he'd do well, though. Still I agree with you that Harry isn't pre-destined for Gryffindor--it's not really about fate or predestination for me, which you're right, makes it probably a bad idea to even bring up something that's all about those things. I definitely don't think that's what the point is. It's more just that you are what you are, but what happens to you or what you do is open. Harry's bringing Slytherin up is significant in itself--you could say that rather than the hat's bringing it up showing that Harry could fit their, Harry's fear could also point to his knowing that parts of himself fit that house. Sort of like if Draco Malfoy said, "Anyplace but Hufflepuff," it would probably mean he was afraid that's where he belonged for a reason.

[morgan-d.livejournal.com]

Brilliant essay. It's giving me a headache, because trying to understand the concepts of Calvinism always gives me a serious headache... but lots of things are making much more sense now.

Mind if I ask you a couple of questions? Remember all those times when we see the "good guys" doing, uh, questionable things? You know, the Montague incident, the Hermione/Umbridge/Centaurs incident, etc, etc, etc? How does that fit in the theory? If their acts show us who they are, isn't a bit of a problem if we look at Harry and Draco, or at Draco and James, and we see them acting the same? Or is it just the big life-twisting "choices" (pardon the quotes, but I can't make myself to call that a real choice) that we should take in consideration?

And what in blazes means Love in that universe? Is Love something that Harry has inside him because it was put there, and has nothing to do with his own (in)ability to love?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I don't really know that much about Calvinism--just the basic things that tend to get thrown around, and as the above post points out, it gets into pre-destination and fate in a way that I don't think is the point here. I don't think it's about *fate* in the story so much as having an essential you.

I suspect that the idea, strangely enough, is probably that bad acts somehow *don't* show who you are. Not because that necessarily makes sense at all, but because maybe we're supposed to pay attention to some choices more than others. So the twins shoving Montague into a cabinet is just funny; what's important is that they care enough to pledge themselves to Harry.

The love question is...wow, that's hard. Given his upbringing, how can he love? But he does. Is it because he was born with it via grace? Or because during his first year of life he was loved? Would Tom have been different if his mother had lived through his first year? I have no idea!

[arclevel.livejournal.com]

This is a great post, and a very interesting discussion. I don't have a whole lot to say on the particular characters, but this way of looking at it definitely makes that statement make a lot more sense, and really work better as a theme of the books, rather than an unsupported statement (which the right/easy does seem to be, thus far).

A lot of the discussion has centered on Calvinism, and I found some of that particularly interesting, but much of it seems misguided to me. Not because I'm an expert on Calvinism; far from it. I couldn't tell you much beyond the very basics of what John Calvin said, or how Calvinist religions differ from other Protestant religions. I think that, in and of itself, is notable, since I've been attending a Calvinist church for two years now. I can tell you that the teachings at my church don't *stress* predestination, at the very least. We consider people to be responsible for their actions. We value forgiveness, both human and divine. I've never heard anyone use the phrase "The Elect," and while we do teach that God does all the work in our salvations, it seems to be a rather abstract theological premise, not a devaluation of our own ability to decide how we live our lives.

I don't feel offended or think anyone here is attacking Calvinism. However, if JKR's moral foundation for the book deals with the idea that people are good or bad because they just *are* and nothing will change that (which it frequently seems to), I sincerely doubt she got it from a casual relationship with Calvinist religions. OTOH, I don't live in Scotland; I suppose it's possible that the teachings are much stronger, or that they have greater influence over the broader culture. It's also possible that my church has an unusually weak stress on these things compared to most, or that I just haven't been to the sermons where it's stressed, but I rather doubt it.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I was sort of groping for something that it reminded me of, but Calvinism wasn't meant to be the basis for what I was saying. It was more like I was looking at what I saw in the book and then trying to describe what it made me think of--I'm in no way ready to have any sort of serious discussion on Calvinism.

[little-aphid.livejournal.com]

Hi. You don't know me, but I've read some of your essays, and I love them. I just wanted to say YES. You totally articulated what's been creeping me out lately about Harry Potter (particularly the bits about the wizarding world as a "warrior culture" in the comments).

I hope you don't mind if I friend you to keep track of your posts. You can friend me back if you want - there's more than quizzes in my journal, though the rest is friendslocked (though granted, not much more. I tend to decide when I'm writing out my posts that there's not much point because it's basically a regurgitation of what I heard somewhere else, so I usually only post the things I think of myself. So, my journal's rather empty. I have some friendslocked memories, though.).

Can't wait to read more of your essays.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Thanks! Friend away.:-)

The warrior culture thing really interests me too, because at base everybody seems to operate under it. Like there's a basic understanding among everyone and everything is a power struggle. Harry is set up to deal with that well since he was raised at the Dursleys, of course, but this odd ducks that don't naturally fit the mold really interest me. JKR talked about Draco repressing the good parts of himself to be an effective bully--I'll bet he's repressing-and he's not even very effective! (I suspect this is why I've developed a fondness for Draco/Luna since HBP.)

[mondegreen.livejournal.com]

This is fantastic. It just makes so much sense -- to the point where everything just click-click-clicks together in my mind. I especially loved your thoughts on Peter and Draco.

About Ginny: I do think you're right that her choices to stick up for Harry define her as his "ideal." I'm not much with the Ginny love here, but it's true that someone "sticking up" for Harry might be his ideal; Harry's always his most dejected when it seems as if no one believes in him (a la OotP-CAPSLOCK-Harry).

I think, unfortunately, [Hermione's] probably sometimes set up against Percy this way, with Percy coming out the worse.

Which is a damn shame, imho. I am a total Percy apologist. Unfortunately for me, it seems that JKR is more concerned about defining her characters by their actions and not their intentions (as you've said). Percy means well; he thinks what he's doing is right. His intentions are good. But according to JKR, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and therefore Percy is a self-absorbed prat. (I don't completely disagree. But he's a self-absorbed prat with good intentions.)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the whole Percy thing is sad to me because as of now it still seems like he's being set up as just a prat who loves power when he doesn't seem that way at all to me. I mean, he does like his status at the ministry and wants to climb the ladder there, but that shouldn't be so much worse than the Twins' ambition with their joke shop. If Percy came into their store he probably wouldn't mock them for having their assistant call them "Mr. Weasley" as they would do him!

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

*stares longingly at your meta and wonders if she could possibly get it drunk and take it home and then never let it leave*
Hermione as Reversa!Percy, Draco as Reversa!Peter, it makes me so happy. And I'm glad that you point out that Peter isn't like Draco, but that there are parallels, because that's one of the huge things about HP: there are parallels all over the shop, but they only go so far, because all the characters are their own essential, individual selves.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it would totally not be interesting if they were just the same, but different. Peter and Draco are, in so many ways, just completely different people, yet here they are with similar problems. They probably wouldn't even be able to help each other because they're so different. But they sure do drive the plot! What would we do without them?