I mean, in JKR's world, 'love' means something else than you'd think. She tells us the Room of Love in the Ministry contains a vat of Love Potion. Now she tells us that Dumbledore became a nazi and had desires to rule the world (pardon, to Rule The World AhhahhHAHH!TM) because he 'fell in love'. She also tells us that Harry is a paragon of love as is his sainted mother Lily. But what she shows us is a very shallow, selfobsessed little twerp who only thinks about the worth of people (if he thinks about this at all) after they are dead, ie, when he thinks about how much *he* will miss them. She shows Lily as a self-righteous traitorous c*nt who will string a lonely boy along but will heartlessly flirt with the rich, handsome schoolbully whilst he is torturing said lonely boy and then berate the boy for being angry with her. Truly, I wish a psychologist would analyse Lily. I'm no expert, but I would say 'narcissism' here. Dumbledore! Don't start me about Dumbledore. Others have said it better than I have. And then there was the fickle wand thing which, in JKR little world of her own making, apparantly made Total Sense. And it all clicked. In her little world, Might *is* Right. 'Love' *is* something that is *outside* you. People will be assigned 'good' or 'bad' not for anything they'll *do* or for the love or hate they *feel*, but for the way she, the author, *feels* about them.
In short, in JKR's head, 'love' is something 'outside' which you can 'catch' like a virus. Again, I'm no psychologist, and it would be wrong on many levels to psychoanalyse somebody from their writing and their interviews, but I get more and more the distinct impression that there is something very *wrong* with Miss Rowling...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-11 09:36 am (UTC)I mean, in JKR's world, 'love' means something else than you'd think. She tells us the Room of Love in the Ministry contains a vat of Love Potion. Now she tells us that Dumbledore became a nazi and had desires to rule the world (pardon, to Rule The World AhhahhHAHH!TM) because he 'fell in love'. She also tells us that Harry is a paragon of love as is his sainted mother Lily. But what she shows us is a very shallow, selfobsessed little twerp who only thinks about the worth of people (if he thinks about this at all) after they are dead, ie, when he thinks about how much *he* will miss them. She shows Lily as a self-righteous traitorous c*nt who will string a lonely boy along but will heartlessly flirt with the rich, handsome schoolbully whilst he is torturing said lonely boy and then berate the boy for being angry with her. Truly, I wish a psychologist would analyse Lily. I'm no expert, but I would say 'narcissism' here.
Dumbledore! Don't start me about Dumbledore. Others have said it better than I have.
And then there was the fickle wand thing which, in JKR little world of her own making, apparantly made Total Sense. And it all clicked. In her little world, Might *is* Right. 'Love' *is* something that is *outside* you. People will be assigned 'good' or 'bad' not for anything they'll *do* or for the love or hate they *feel*, but for the way she, the author, *feels* about them.
In short, in JKR's head, 'love' is something 'outside' which you can 'catch' like a virus. Again, I'm no psychologist, and it would be wrong on many levels to psychoanalyse somebody from their writing and their interviews, but I get more and more the distinct impression that there is something very *wrong* with Miss Rowling...