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

[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.