WTF Tonks?

[sistermagpie]

So mere weeks before the release of DH I somehow have something to say about a storyline in HBP. It's two years late, but I need to pick every bone. I was reading stuff today about strong and weak characters, some of which I disagreed with, and unsurprisingly the Tonks storyline came up. I'm not really taking a position here on whether the story was good or bad for whatever reasons, but what I do think was that

Tonks storyline was useful for several reasons in terms of what JKR needed in the plot:

It gives Lupin, the last Marauder, a happy ending, which JKR may have wanted to do for its own sake.

It gives her another way to keep Sirius talked about through Hermione's false conclusion that Tonks was in love with Sirius. Any way to get Sirius in is good, imo, because I think he'll be coming up again in DH.

What it adds to the Fleur vs. The Weasleys storyline. It gives JKR a way to show that the female Weasleys feel about Fleur is obvious. Fleur's negativity is clear in her comments about the radio and the house, but the fact that it's so believable and acceptable that Mrs. Weasley might be trying to set Lupin up with another woman sets up Fleur's anger in the end because although we might have cheered them on (or not) we have seen the Weasleys being unwelcoming and obvious they don't want her in the family. When Fleur accuses them of "'oping" the engagement will end now that Bill is injured, it can't be denied, because they've been 'oping so much it seemed believable that Molly was actively trying to break them up.

These last two I think are cool, because they get into Rowling's mysteries (link to a past post that can be skipped), and also a paper I loved at Phoenix Rising about how Rowling uses repetition. Whenever there's a revelation in the books, the elements of it are probably going to have been presented to us already in some other way. In Tonks' case it gives JKR a way to show two things that will be important in other storylines:

It shows someone losing their powers due to stress. Yeah, it could be unfortunate they're both women and it's for love, but love is after all a big theme in HBP. And Rowling has to some way show the possibility of someone losing their powers. Being a Metamophagus, Tonks is a good candidate for this, because she's the only witch who walks around with a sign of her powers that people can see all the time. When her hair goes mousy when she's usually kept it pink, it's like Harry can see her "power" light isn't on. (At the same time, she does retain her basic magic power, so it's not like she becomes useless. She just telegraphs that powers can be lost this way. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the whole reason for giving her the power.

At the same time, Tonks is not losing her powers over lost love. She's lost her powers because she's worried she *will* lose someone she loves. And that's the other storyline she's illuminating, which is the Draco one. When I first read HBP for a while I wondered if Voldemort hadn't put some sort of wasting-away curse on the Black family. Turns out it wasn't genetic, except that Tonks had inherited the Black gene for suffering operatically. Harry does specifically connect Tonks and Draco the second time he notices Draco's physical decline, saying he's lost weight "like Tonks." Ultimately they are deteriorating for the same reason, worry that they will lose their loved ones. (Though of course Draco's also worried about himself, and got other issues.)

Anyway, that's my defense of the Tonks storyline, or at least what I think it's doing there. It's kind of reflecting a lot of minor issues about other storylines, and presenting certain technical things that are important elsewhere.

Comments

*facepalm*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Sorry for all the reposts! Gah. I hope it's okay to jump in and correct a few small canon errors that just seemed a bit off so I looked them up :>

I'm wondering why you consider Tonks a Slytherin?? haha, I was very surprised-- I simply cannot picture Slytherin!Tonks-- and indeed, lo and behold, she's quite far from it (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=117). ;) Yo, Hufflepuff represent! Tonks never seemed ambitious to me at all, unsurprisingly for a Hufflepuff I guess :> Besides, I think any House member could be 'unable to let go', just for different reasons-- just look at Harry in HBP (or Hermione in OoTP, or Sirius in PoA and beforehand, Ginny pretty much since book 1, haha-- gotta love those obsessive Gryffs), there's all the proof you need that Gryffindors aren't so good at letting go either. They just 'can't let go' of different things; Ravenclaws would be like Luna with their pet theories, Gryffindors like Harry with their quests for justice/whatever, and Hufflepuffs would probably just be hardworking and dedicated. Slytherins would probably not let go either, of things like vengeance or glory, perhaps. Ahem. ;) Just kidding, they also have problems letting go of resentments or old slights (Snape and Draco), family traumas (Voldy) and a cushy job opportunity (Slughorn, against his better judgment) :D

Also: I can't believe Ginny being a year younger than Harry at ages 16 and 15 respectively when they first kissed would raise anyone's eyebrows even in Amish-land. Perhaps especially in Amish-land. o_0 Having 'lustful thoughts' isn't abnormal or indeed 'immoral' for teenage boys, only for teenage girls-- or so say those helpful 50s instructional booklets. According to those wondrous purveyors of old-fashioned morality such as 'Ms Manners' and her ilk, boys are naturally blessed with raging hormones (awww?) and it's therefore the girl's job to fend off her amorous suitor with firm protestations and pure white gloves (or possibly a bib?) If you go in for that sort of thing, which I don't see evidence of JKR doing, what with the gleeful descriptions of wet-kissy Lavender and such :> Introducing the 'younger sister of best mate' aspect only makes Harry himself uncomfortable-- it's not a moral issue (ie, something that would make others out of sorts in any way), and Ron seems more than fine with it. The reason he's uncomfortable is plainly stated in canon to be the pure... awkwardness of telling Ron and just making the sudden transition and is played up for comic relief for several chapters in HBP.

Also, umm, from what I can remember, their breaking up had absolutely nothing to do with why they got together, so I'm rather lost. o_0 Harry very clearly said that he's breaking up with her because of the war. Here, I'll quote from my handy-dandy HBP text file! :>

'Ginny, listen ...' he said very quietly, as the buzz of conversation grew louder around them and people began to get to their feet. 'I can't be involved with you any more. We've got to stop seeing each other. We can't be together.'

She said, with an oddly twisted smile, 'It's for some stupid, noble reason, isn't it?'

'It's been like ... like something out of someone else's life, these last few weeks with you,' said Harry. 'But 1 can't ... we can't ... I've got things to do alone now.'

She did not cry, she simply looked at him,

'Voldemort uses people his enemies are close to. He's already used you as bait once, and that was just because you're my best friend's sister. Think how much danger you'll be in if we keep this up. He'll know, he'll find out. He'll try and get to me through you.'

'What if I don't care?' said Ginny fiercely.

'I care,' said Harry. 'How do you think I'd feel if this was your funeral ... and it was my fault ...'

Voila! :D Poor Harry & his 'stupid noble reasons'. Awwww. And now if you'll excuse me, I'll have to go wash the bad taste in my mouth from defending the morality of Harry/Ginny, ahahah. :>

Re: *facepalm*

[spare-change.livejournal.com]

She didn't say Tonks was Slytherin, though. She said "Slytherin" -- i.e., Slytherin by family affiliation, even though she's a Hufflepuff. (I got confused by that, too.)

Re: *facepalm*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I could tell there was ambiguity with the quotation marks, but... that's like saying Sirius is 'Slytherin' by family affiliation (he isn't! that's unfair). You're more likely to be in a certain House according to your family history, as the Malfoys & Blacks & Weasleys seem to all attest to, but the fact is that's because the children naturally want to follow in those footsteps of their own free will-- their personalities are quite unrelated to what House they initially end up in, though there's some correlation. Meaning, Crabbe & Goyle don't exactly have shining Slyth characteristics and most Ravenclaws seem to mock Luna, and same for Gryffs & Neville (seemingly). There's also a larger point there about the lack of direct and intrinsic correlation between Houses and personality traits or indeed family affiliations. So basically she's neither Slytherin nor 'Slytherin'; even Harry, who was initially sorted there, isn't 'Slytherin' because he chose not to be, and according to JKR, that's what counts. You are what you choose to be, when it comes to Houses anyway.

Re: *facepalm*

[spare-change.livejournal.com]

I agree, but I think her general point still holds (and is interesting!), anyway.

Re: *facepalm*

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Y'mean about Tonks being a non-offensive Black? But I don't think Harry ever had issues with Blacks, really, nor is he likely to change his mind without close personal contact, seeing that if and when he makes up his mind to be dense and prejudiced, it takes a lot to change it. But I think Sirius alone would always be more than enough to keep the Blacks in the black (heh) when it comes to Harry's opinion. Hell, I don't think Harry really cares aside from where it applies to Sirius or Ron one way or the other about Pureblood politics, just as long as they're not Death Eaters..

Logn enough? Sorry about that...

[static-pixie.livejournal.com]

It's cool, I do it all the time. ^^

And of course I know she's a Hufflepuff, that's why the Slytherin was in quotes. She'd make a good one, actually, although I do think you could make a case for Slytherin!Tonks mostly because I did before JKR put her in Hufflepuff, but moving on. All I meant was that JKR has connected her to Slytherins emotionally by both connecting her sorrow to Merope's and paralleling her breakdown against Draco's. I mean, people from other house may not let go, but not to the extent that we've seen Slytherins not let go, meaning to the point of insanity (Mrs. Black) or death (Merope Gaunt). In fact, it's sorta the opposite; if Gryffindors have a moral beef with you, it makes letting go really easy for them (Percy, Sirius, Harry over Cho, pretty much the whole Weasley family except Molly over Percy). And with Sirius, I give you that he couldn't let go of the past, but not to the point where he lost magical ability/sanity/his life. I mean, he did die, but that was more because he was a dumbass in the situation than anything else. And I'd say that Ginny's sorta the same way; she never did let go of Harry, but it didn't really cripple her in the same way that Slytherins/the Blacks have let unrequited love cripple them. I mean, even Snape and Draco seem to be somewhat unhinged because of their rivalries and Snape's took place decades ago.

And no, I don't think JKR's saying that there's anything wrong with teenage lust, far from it, but I do think that she uses this book to dismantle Gryffindor morality in favor of Slytherin...I don't want to say hedonism. Maybe passion? and Remus/Tonks is a part of that. I think Harry's getting with Ginny actually is a bigger deal then you're making it and for fairly good reason; between guys it's sort of an unspoken rule; you don't get with the little sister. Ever. Whether the issue is moral for anyone else isn't the point, all that matters is that it's a moral conflict for Harry; the first time he has the feelings he does for Ginny, he tries to dismiss them because he automatically feels they're wrong. I'd say that Remus's reasoning about his being with Tonks being dangerous for both of them is the same in that Tonks has already put herself in danger and being with him won't change that; his other reasons are all silly and old-fashioned. But the point is, regardless of how 'wrong' getting with Ginny is, Harry does the Slytherin thing and takes what he wants anyway without Ron's approval and in the end is happier for it (sunlit days and all...defending them isn't something I like to do either). And is maybe right to do so because I think JKR also wants you to see that Ron's attempting to control Ginny is sexist and unfair even if it is pretty typical. And I think what's so humorous and ironic about the whole situation is that Ron/the twins don't mind seeing Harry with Ginny because, in their minds, he's safe and honorable and all that jazz, when the reality is, Harry's crush on Ginny is the most sexually-charged one we've seen yet and really makes Dean look like a total gentleman. Again, Gryffindor morality is completely dismantled, but I don't think it's meant to be seen as a bad thing because Ron's view of romance is pointed out (very kindly by Ginny :P) to be completely old-fashioned and unrealistic.

Re: Logn enough? Sorry about that...

[static-pixie.livejournal.com]

And Tonks and Remus sort of reflect that, I think, because throughout the book you see them both doing the 'right' thing and not getting involved because of the danger of it and being completely miserable for it. And then at the end you have these two romantic confrontations, and in your typical Gryffindor one, the 'stupid, noble reason' wins out (Ginny even says that what she likes about Harry is that he's so chivalrous and heroic) and everyone’s miserable (well, Harry is anyway...) and Ginny is really robbed of her choice. And you have Tonks and Remus where, by contrast, that inability of Tonk’s to let go or to give a damn about any sort of moral quibble actually saves the relationship and leaves them both better off. Here again the Gryffindor moral mentality is shown to be prudish and kind of pointless, and in Harry's case, fairly patronizing.

And so it’s nice to see that passion that Slytherins bring to the table (I know she’s not a Slytherin, but like I said, JKR lines her emotions up with a lot of them) finally recognized instead of ignored for the negative, selfish ambition Slytherins tend to be recognized for. I mean, it’s the same with Snape’s killing Dumbledore if you believe the theories; doing the ‘wrong’ thing for the greater good. Or Dumbledore and Harry in the cave with the goblet. Like Dumbledore told Harry, he’s not going to win a war against Voldemort through the moral conviction that he has to kill him because that’ll only take him so far; it’s Harry’s own personal feelings about the situation that’ll see him through. And whether it’s right or wrong, the fact is, Voldemort has to die either way (JKR’s set it up that way), and the second way gives Harry some choice in the matter while the first drags him unwillingly into a conflict.

As for the Blacks, I was just responding to an essay sistermagpie did a while ago about Harry’s sort of becoming a Black through his inheritance of Sirius’s house and how he was sort of immersed in it in book 6. I think Tonk's breakdown being so characteristically Black was a part of that.

Re: Logn enough? Sorry about that...

[malafede.livejournal.com]

I really like your reading. It's possible to redeem ambition reading it as a sort of irrational passion; you don't have to assign value judgements to it either, passion can still be very selfish. It reframes Slytherin in such a way that the focus can be shifted away from morality. It also fits with the idea of it being the House of water.

Re: Logn enough? Sorry about that...

[static-pixie.livejournal.com]

Hey, thanks. I especially like the way that ambition really isn't so much redeemed as it's accepted as a fact of life from another perspective. I dunno, I always felt like there was a negative and a positive spin to all the traits in each house and the sorting hat recited the positive spin for Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff and then chose to emphasize the negative side of Slytherin (perhaps because it's Godric's hat?). There's gotta be a positive in there somewhere, you know? Nothing's completely evil.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I guess it depends on whether you're talking about Authorial Intent ('shown to be') or not :> I am reeeeally doubtful of whether Harry's meant to be seen as a) representative of Gryffindor moral mentality & b) therefore prudish. :P I think Harry's proven he's not prudish in HBP... or rather, his chest monster did. ^^; Harry has always been quite certain he knows what's best and tried to impose that on his friends, at least-- it's just his real friends would (and did) call bullshit and Ginny couldn't, yet. Their relationship deserved to be put on hold if she couldn't kick his ass about it :> She admires him too much, and ultimately a) trusts his judgment or b) more like trusts his stubbornness :> What with Ron & Hermione, they still trust his judgment, but they also know his heart, and they know he needs them. <3. Aww. <3. Anyway, I think Harry was just being himself like he always was (trying to go it himself, distance himself, be a lone hero, etc, just like he wanted to at the end of OoTP with the trip to the Ministry) and I don't think it's pointless, being merely Harry's personality. Okay, so I sound a bit over-protective here, but I don't think you're critiquing Gryffs in general with this, anyway-- Ron is a lot more team-spirited and a lot less likely to tell Harry, say, what to do. Hermione is likely to tell Harry what to do, but not patronizingly (more like, she's actually right most of the time & Harry's probably letting his passions get to him in any given instance... again). Harry has a great inabiilty to let go as well-- much more intense than Tonks' or at least as much-- it's just what he can't let go of isn't romance-- Ginny isn't THAT important (which is what I believe she realized and accepted gracefully, because he really does mean well, and it really is a show that she -is- important that he needs to protect her, he just doesn't trust to protect -him- like with his friends). To Harry, 3 things are his great quests/passions: a) avenging his parents; b) his friends; c) being a soldier for Dumbledore and confronting Voldy, etc-- and he would never let go with any of those things, not until death. With Tonks, she was just being a typical human being in the length/degree of her clinging to Remus-- Hufflepuff-compatible, definitely. A normal person with an average moral fibre would pretty much behave the same way if they were in love with an avoidant poopyhead like Remus, I think.

I guess I don't see Tonks as being 'Slytherin' by association-- I mean, anymore than Sirius is (and he's passionate/obsessive/self-destructive-- in OoTP-- too, and quite Gryffindor about it). I see the parallel, yes, but I mean... once you say 'she's a Hufflepuff', she just seems to fit my idea of Hufflepuffs, in that I think they're sort of steadily persistent and work at their goal consistently, and of course she's also clearly a Black.

Something I haven't thought of in my last comment (and btw, um, sorry if that sounded anti-Slytherin-- I'm not, I promise) is that with Blacks specifically-- not Slytherins, but Blacks-- it's canon that they're mentally unhinged/vulnerable. Merope and the Riddle bloodline is also quite polluted/inbred. Well, we don't know much about the other major Slyth bloodlines, so it'd be interesting to find out about the Snapes and Phineas Nigellus and the other names we haven't yet met like the Averys, etc-- though the Crabbes & Goyles (in those fleeting mentions of their parents) seem not to have fared well in terms of mental competency, so. Um. ^^;; Anyway, I'm sure there are some strong-minded Slytherins... Snape's one, and I suppose you could make a case Tom Riddle is another, etc. I just think that their passions are both a source of strength for them and the most common source of their downfall.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I am reeeeally doubtful of whether Harry's meant to be seen as a) representative of Gryffindor moral mentality & b) therefore prudish. :P I think Harry's proven he's not prudish in HBP... or rather, his chest monster did.

As far as I'm concerned, HBP wonderfully validated that fic about how all the houses approach sex. Quidditch in Bed being the Gryffindor playbook, and Slytherin being the sensual house. Slytherin scores!!!

Something I haven't thought of in my last comment (and btw, um, sorry if that sounded anti-Slytherin-- I'm not, I promise) is that with Blacks specifically-- not Slytherins, but Blacks-- it's canon that they're mentally unhinged/vulnerable.

I suspect that's the Gothic idea of madness coming from incest/obsession with sameness. Which is why Tonks, who is a Black, isn't unhinged. We really don't know about too many of them. Maybe it's more than they're high strung? I'm thinking of Sirius, for instance, having a breakdown over James and Lily but actually keeping his sanity in Azkaban. Draco's dealing with some prolonged stress throughout the year and while he reaches his end of his tether by the end, when Dumbledore throws him a lifeline I think he improves.

They're quite high strung, those Blacks. The Weasleys are just...whatever they are. It's interesting that of course all the families we see as families are Purebloods.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Haha Quidditch in bed. Yeah, Harry's kinda... not that much more evolved than Ron, sadly, whereas Draco was languidly having his hair stroked like a civilized person :> I like the Gryff-style boyish boom & bang, though I'm not so sure I'd invite it to bed, hashahaha.

When you press me on it, of course I'm not sure where I got that bit about it being canon Blacks are highly strung (was that the phrasing? sounds familiar somehow). Of course it's true that Sirius is um, normal(?!) but then he's also a Gryffindor (and who knows what that has to do with anything, really).

I suppose you could say that it's not like being either Black or Slytherin will mean you have to snap the whole way (naturally) but rather that they just succumb more to their own emotions, even if the sanity's not in question. This works with the water House classification, too; my point was that Slytherins are more vulnerable but that other Houses aren't actually less emotional. Umm, I think it's parallel to a discussion one could have about personalities in general-- like, a Feeling type vs a Thinking type, heh. Both may have extremely intense emotions, but while a introverted Feeling type would brood and simmer and an extraverted Feeling type would act out and have break-downs (whether or not it's a fatal break-down), a Thinking type-- like say, Snape or a lot of Ravenclaws, probably-- would just repress and sublimate and may actually go on dealing with these issues for a lot longer 'cause they don't see the light of day much.

The Weasleys are also quite emotional! But in a fiery way where they blow up and then blow over. The Blacks seem to brood and simmer more, to be high strung in a... uh... blacker way :> Harry's also very much emotional but not at all high strung, excepting OoTP-- which goes with what I was saying about responses differing moreso than basic component emotions. I don't mean end-result by 'response', either-- like, Draco being high strung & a Black doesn't mean he 'couldn't take it' in HBP, so it's just a question of greater danger of going all Bella under certain conditions, but regardless Bella is still not 'the norm'. Thank goodness, I mean, that would be quite messed up, and that's saying something among all the messed-upness already present among the Riddles & Blacks and so on ^^;

[static-pixie.livejournal.com]

To Harry, 3 things are his great quests/passions: a) avenging his parents; b) his friends; c) being a soldier for Dumbledore and confronting Voldy, etc-- and he would never let go with any of those things, not until death.

Yeah, that's my point. All of those passions come directly out of Harry's personal emotions and that's why he would never part with them and why he needs them (although, I'd debate the whole avenging his parents bit because I think it's less about vengeance than it is making the work of those who loved and protected him worthwhile....is that just a fancy way of saying vengeance? I don't know). The things that Harry will fight for hardest, Dumbledore seems to be saying, are the things that he has a direct, emotional connection to. He was so bummed out about having to kill Voldemort and the prophesy before book 6 because he was thinking about it in a 'for the greater good' sort of way; it was a duty thrust upon him rather than something he had chosen. And I mean, I know I'm generalizing hugely here, but I think that when you're talking about representation in novels, you are going to have to generalize to some degree. Not to mention, JKR has generalized the base characteristics of each house, and that's what I'm mostly going off of. So I'd say that this sort of selfish passion that motivates Harry (because it is selfish, it's all about the things he's concerned with personally) and that actually turns out to be a good thing is something that comes out of Slytherin, the flip side of selfish ambition.

Tonks is totally a Hufflepuff, no question (she trips over herself in her eagerness to help people and do things, it really should have been pretty obvious, though I mistook it for ambition). But I don't think the loss of her powers was supposed to be considered just sort of normal disappointment or unhappiness, especially since the other person in the book who started losing her powers a)died because of it and b)did so because of some pretty dramatic emotion. True, Tonks didn't completely collapse, but JKR deliberately put in a connection between her and a person who did. So I'm not trying to put her in Slytherin, I'm just saying that the emotions she's experiencing here seem to be more common to Slytherins than to people in other houses, probably because Tonks is a Black and the Blacks were mostly Slytherin (and somewhat unhinged), like you said. But her depression also relates to the Gaunts, and so I think that's why I feel like the house association does come in for her, because she's not just connected with the Blacks genetically, but also with what's basically the (also very unhinged) root of the Slytherin tree.

[static-pixie.livejournal.com]

I mean...I think that to be a prude, you don't necessarily have to not experience sexual thoughts and desires, you just have to deny them. Although that's not really even the point and you're right, prude was the wrong word to use there considering...Iggy. I guess my point is just that Slytherins are not held back by the kind of moral restraints that Gryffindors (arguably, I admit) generally are because of the whole 'any means' thing. And that's been shown throughout the series to be a bad thing, but here, the lack of restraint and the sort of passion of a personal nature - not moral or intellectual or, um, service-like - is finally given some recognition as being a good thing. And Harry's break-up with Ginny flew completely in the face of that because it's done out of chivalry and a sense of a higher calling rather than out of any personal feeling. Or more like, his personal feelings are telling him to go against what he feels and do what's morally right. The one decision represents something very Gryffindor, I think, not Harry necessarily. I dunno, it just seems to me like a pattern in Gryffindor. The reasons Sirius gives for leaving his family are all moral and political, not personal; Percy leaves his family because of a difference in principles where the war's concerned; the rest of the family follow suit; Ginny claims to like Harry because he's so noble even as that nobility breaks them apart; Fred and George hiss at Slytherins on principle, though I've really yet to see a Slytherin dislike a Gryffindor purely based on some sort of principle (Blaise, I think, is just a snob).

Um, and to relate this all back to Tonks somehow (yes, point)...Remus's reasons all kind of go with this pattern, because they have nothing to do with how he feels personally, no matter what the real reasons behind them are. And I think Tonks gives voice to that powerful passion for the self and what the self wants (she even ignores the fact that, um, Dumbledore, the WW greatest hope, has just died), which is the hallmark of Slytherin. And it's not a negative thing here, because without her passion, Remus would have remained alone and unhappy on principle.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

It's true that Harry has got to depend on his feelings-- and his friends, I'd guess-- to see him through, though I don't think he'll wind up actually rending his soul and 'killing' Voldy (I suspect there's a loophole in there somewhere, plotwise). Voldy has to die, in other words, but I'm not sure Harry has to murder him-- though this isn't arguable at this point either way, of course. It's also true that there's a lot more moral grey areas introduced in HBP, like with the goblet in the cave & Snape's whole history throughout the books, probably-- Dumbly has always been going about doing bad/questionable things in the service of the Good (perhaps a little too prolifically in his case). Harry, though, will probably always be a lot more straight-and-narrow about things than Dumbledore, but he may bend more than he's done in the past (one hopes). He's got to learn to see the shades of grey, to forgive-- hopefully even Snape, ideally Voldemort. Forgiveness of wrongs to self and one's beloveds-- that's what I sincerely hope Harry's got in the end, what distinguishes him as a 'true Gryffindor', what would allow him to win, for forgiveness is based in a form of love, that power that Voldy knows not of.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Ahaha, okay, in the end, I guess my issues were mostly with the way you worded things & their associations in my mind-- words like 'morality' (maybe if you'd put it in quotes? heh) and 'Slytherin' and maybe even 'obsessiveness' (and 'passion'?) so on :> :> Like, again I would argue that Gryffs are just as passionate as Slyths, all the way-- like, Harry wasn't 'walking the dark side' by giving in to passion (was James with Lily?), because he -is- honorable and he -wouldn't- ever hurt Ginny (and this is proved by his oh-so-noble speech, natch). Harry's wrestling with his issues... I know it's a no-no to get with your friends sister (and I see the parallel with Remus... man, JKR loves parallels), but the fact is that I don't see it as a moral issue of the sort that separates Boys from Men or Gryffindors from Slytherins, in that it's very personal, and personal codes cross Houses. Hell, even Snape has one. :>

I do wonder about the insanity/death-level obsession in Slytherin, and I think it's because they're just... okay, I think it's because of JKR's overall suggestion that while there are some 'good seeds' in that House, mostly they're a lot closer to being unhinged in terms of personality. It's... I don't know if it's a question of greater levels of dedication/obsession so much as a greater... weakness of psyche, much as I hate to say it. It's not (I believe) that they're more intense as it's more common for them to break, either morally (Voldy) or emotionally (Mrs Black). Gryffs like Sirius-- who I think went through equivalent stresses to his Slyth cousin what with Azkaban-- are just... er... inherently stronger, morally, personally, internally.

As for Tonks-- well, she's not a Gryff, so she walks the middle line, she's sort of a normal person. ^^; She doesn't lose her mind or get dangerous or morally suspect, but neither does she rise to the occasion-- she sort of mopes and loses luster (quite literally). Compared to Draco, I think Draco gets a lot more unhinged (though he's also under greater stress), and it's a lot more dramatic that even under all that stress, he eventually does the right thing (more or less). Tonks, on the other hand, is still pretty much sane and functional, just depressed. A depressed Gryff would deal with things differently... more dramatically. Woo, action! :D

I think Harry's (stupid) 'moral' conflict is important though, yeah-- for Harry. But I don't think it's about 'giving in' to passion, exactly, that concerns him. He gives in to his violent emotions a lot, actually (sayyyy, with Malfoy and other negative instances), but in this case he didn't have justification ready and had to trust himself in the end, just like Dumbledore would've wanted. Or something like that, anyway. I think the lesson here is less that passion is good (it can be silly like with Ron's Lavender thing or dangerous like Merope's), and more that one's personal character is what defines its virtues or lack thereof.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

but the fact is that I don't see it as a moral issue of the sort that separates Boys from Men or Gryffindors from Slytherins, in that it's very personal, and personal codes cross Houses.

Where does it say that any Slytherin character wouldn't do his best friend's girlfriend?
I can't see it, also because one point is that the Slytherins in HBP are not the focus of a narrative about teenage romance and dealing with this sort of mundane things, but being players in the larger narrative of evil vs good and starring in life-changing scenes where they are under the weight of overwhelming emotion. It's not that the Slytherin plots are better, but they feel different, and it's no wonder some readers are associating a more dramatic quality to it.

I don't know if it's a question of greater levels of dedication/obsession so much as a greater... weakness of psyche, much as I hate to say it. It's not (I believe) that they're more intense as it's more common for them to break, either morally (Voldy) or emotionally (Mrs Black). Gryffs like Sirius-- who I think went through equivalent stresses to his Slyth cousin what with Azkaban-- are just... er... inherently stronger, morally, personally, internally.

Are these readings really mutually exclusive? Even pushing that Gryffindors are stronger (and the weakest character in the books (Pettigrew) was a Gryffindor, and Remus's not the strongest character either) that wouldn't still exclude for Slytherin to possess an obsession of a certain quality, a passion of a certain quality that's being identified here. Passion and its cause are two different things.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Where does it say that any Slytherin character wouldn't do his best friend's girlfriend?

Um?? I meant personal codes in general cross Houses, not that particular one. That is, conversely, where does it say that any Gryffindor character wouldn't do his best friend's gf-- besides, it being a personal code, of course it wouldn't be written anywhere or codified at all since it's entirely dependent on the individual and their particular issues one way or the other. However, like I said, I didn't mean to project that specific issue onto Slytherins, since I wouldn't even spread it onto other Gryffindors.

You're right that Slytherins are part of a larger tableau and their plots are generally of wider influence and scope, unless you count Harry's initial petty rivalry with Malfoy; however, that wasn't what I was talking about anyway, either way. I'm basically assuming that Slytherins are people too & therefore have personal codes just like anyone else, in that the alternative is that they're into group-think or are amoral. Well, maybe the group-think ;D J/k (sorta... I mean... anyway, let's not get into that).

Even pushing that Gryffindors are stronger (and the weakest character in the books (Pettigrew) was a Gryffindor, and Remus's not the strongest character either) that wouldn't still exclude for Slytherin to possess an obsession of a certain quality

Well, you see, we're talking about generalizations, which of course possesses a certain weakness (ie, they'll always have exceptions both ways, so while Gryffs have Pettigrew and to some much milder extent Remus, Neville & even Seamus in OoTP, Slyths have Regulus and Snape, etc). Not all Gryffs are heroes, not all Slyths are villains-- I wasn't claiming something like that. I was just saying it seems that the overall suggestion in canon is that Slytherins are more psychologically vulnerable to their own weaknesses/passions in general. It later occurred to me in a following comment that I was thinking heavily of Blacks, and Blacks are canonically said to be inbred/unhinged/whatever, sorta like the Riddles but not as bad.

Anyway, I don't contradict that Slytherins have obsession of a 'certain quality'; I believe I said that Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs, Slytherins, they all seem to have a 'signature mode' of expressing these passions, so that implies their passions possess a 'certain quality' that identifies and differentiates them, even though at the same time I'd said earlier that personality isn't directly correlated to being in a given House. But let's just say that while that's true, self-selection often places you in the place you'd 'do the best', as the Sorting Hat says.

Regardless, I was saying I didn't see passion of that specific Slytherin quality in Tonks, regardless of it having some Black-family flavor. I could see the Hufflepuffishness of her dogged (if somewhat low-key and wearying) pursuit, definitely.

[malafede.livejournal.com]

Well, maybe the group-think ;D J/k (sorta... I mean... anyway, let's not get into that).

... do you want to or do you not want to??

And yes, of course they're people too and have codes too, in fact something really good about the Slytherin characters (at least those in school) is how recognizable they are with their pettiness, mundane desires and plans etc. That doesn't mean that their codes are the same as the Gryffindor's, or that they relate to them in the same way -- I think selfishness comes into play here, as a means to overlap passion and ambition.

Anyway, I don't contradict that Slytherins have obsession of a 'certain quality'; I believe I said that Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs, Slytherins, they all seem to have a 'signature mode' of expressing these passions, so that implies their passions possess a 'certain quality'

I simply said "a certain quality" because you didn't seem to like simply calling it passion or obsession and leave it at that. I'll be thinking of another term, though I think staticpixie made a good job of identifying what I'm referring to. Maybe I'll just go with "the selfishness of passion." Your reading of Tonks being Hufflepuffish and dogged works, but I still think that her larger point about Slytherin/Black stands.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, really I didn't want to get into it because it was a throw-away reference to things that are more related to the percentage of Purebloods (and therefore Death Eaters) in Slytherin rather than their inherent Slytherin-ness. However, the Sorting Hat also said Slytherin is FOR Purebloods, so, there's some flavor of safety in groups or whatever in the sense that Gryffindor has some flavor of individualism. Heh. :>

Anyway, I agree that the Slytherins relate to their personal codes/morals differently than Gryffindors-- I was actually just saying that about Draco in HBP to Amalin, defending him and everything. ;P I was saying that Harry's is more verbalized/conscious and Draco's is more instinctive and personal/'selfish', 'out for me and those that matter', etc. I don't think that this outlook is necessarily 'bad' in the sense of it being necessarily cut-throat and dog-eat-dog, just as I don't think Harry's overly self-justified 'concern' for others is necessarily 'patronizing' ;) They're just pursuing different values, and I totally agree that they're not inherently moral or amoral, right or wrong. Which is why I would argue with a characterization of Harry as 'patronizing' in regards to his friends, or with a characterization of Draco as spineless or immoral/cowardly even on the Tower. They're kind of similar types of judgments, going from the opposite type of moral system to evaluate the other; this isn't in response to you, really, though, so. :>

I simply said "a certain quality" because you didn't seem to like simply calling it passion or obsession and leave it at that.

The problem I had wasn't with calling 'it' passion/obsession but rather with tying it instrinsically only or most directly with Slytherin. I think fire is as much 'passion' as water, in other words, they just express it differently-- the quality isn't that different in itself, actually. I wouldn't say that the Gryffindors' passion is less selfish or that they're going 'more Slytherin' (or that Harry was going 'more Slytherin' in HBP with pursuing Ginny, especially! not necessarily). The difference is more in the motivations/responses to the emotion, not the emotion itself. Which is why I said maybe the Slytherins (or at least the Blacks) have a history of buckling or surrendering their will more than Gryffindors in terms of their response to that overwhelming emotion; I don't think Gryffindors have had to deal with less intense emotions, in other words. But I'm not saying all Slytherins are therefore 'weak' or that all Gryffindors are 'strong', of course.

Perhaps I'd agree that Slytherin passion is generally more selfish, yes, just because everything about Slytherin-ness is centered around that 'out for me & my goals/beloveds/compatriots' thing. But Harry being selfish, or Tonks being selfish doesn't automatically make them more Slytherin, is the thing. I think.