![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This has been a great discussion weekend on lj--which makes it very hard for me to concentrate on what I should be doing. ::sigh:: But I did get some things done and WILL finish the assignment I gave myself today. I WILL. I hope.
Anyway, these discussions got me thinking, for some reason, about Percy and Sirius again, and their leaving of their families.
It occurs to me that it's very difficult to look at the actions of characters in HP from a moral perspective a lot of the time. I'm not saying you never can, just that I don't think these characters are primarily driven by concerns of right and wrong--which is what makes the book so slippery to discuss as a "battle of good vs. evil." Tolkien's characters, for instance, are very much figures representing moral ideas. In HP thre are a few moments when characters do bring up questions of right and wrong, but I usually end up having more questions about those moments than answers. (Iow, I usually end up going, "But...but...but...")
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
pharnabazus wrote this great essay about how the Wizarding World works that I feel offers the most consistent theory of the world, one that makes things make sense in ways they might not otherwise. It's long, but to give the basics here, the idea is that the WW lives in a constant state of emergency, so there's really no laws protecting anyone. (This is obvious in the way Sirius can languish in jail without a trial, for instance.) So what people do instead is just cluster around different powerful wizards or "patrons" who jostle with each other over power and form networks underneath them. Dumbledore is the most obvious of these patrons, Lucius Malfoy is one, Voldemort used to be one, and he took Lucius' network along with some others underneath him. (Dumbledore has groomed Harry into a subpatron for himself, and Harry has now begun to form his own network, probably as Dumbledore had hoped, both through strength in the DA and money by financing the joke shop.) What makes this important is it points out that whatever ethical questions do come up, self-preservation and protection is always a driving force in anyone's decision. Wizards simply don't make the kinds of decisions about their life that regular people do, because they live in a society dominated by alliances. (This is why it's ridiculous, for instance, for people to look down on first-year Draco's offer of alliance instead of friendship to Harry as a sign of his bad character--every wizard offers alliance. Those from the muggle world, like Harry and Hermione, soon learn this if they don't know it already.)
This is where we get to Percy and Sirius. I was just thinking about how it's so tempting to view their actions in moral terms: Percy is bad for hurting his family by leaving, Sirius is good for leaving the Blacks and their focus on purity behind. But I just don't see these issues as being the main concern here. In fact, of the two of them I think Percy is the one more likely to be thinking along those terms.pharnabazus points out the Weasleys as being incredibly important to Dumbledore becuase they, unlike most of the other people in the Order, are not dependent on him through manipulation. They seem to be true believers who genuinely agree with his ideas and revere him personally. Percy, however, is at odds with his family. Ironically, one of the things that puts him at odds with them is that he doesn't approve of the twins' "jokes," of which he is often the butt. As Head Boy he wants to enforce rules even if that means taking points from his siblings (which is, you know, fair). As a Prefect Ron seems very wary of enforcing his power against his siblings. Hermione is able to best the twins at their own game at times, and therefore able to be occasionally bossy (since we know she ultimately has the same personal devotion to Dumbledore as the rest of the Weasleys).
Because of his precarious position in his family, it makes sense for Percy to seek outside it for a protector, one who sees some value in him. I think part of what people distrust in Percy's leaving his family is that he doesn't do so in a fit of anger. He sees much colder, sending back his sweater, not losing his temper. What's more, though, is he seems to me to still care about his family. I didn't take his letter to Ron as an attempt to draw him over the dark side as much as a genuine desire to be seen as being a good guy who cared about his family but had ideological differences with them--though of course he also wanted to have Ron, as a Weasley who didn't seem to stand against him like the others--well-disposed towards him. Plus, as the essay points out, by separating from his family completely Percy destroys any chances of working against them as a spy. So while I'm saying Percy probably does, in his mind, think he's making the right choice, and does seem to be a character who wants to be in the right, I think we should also see Percy as someone who was in a precarious position family-wise and chose to find a place where he could be more secure. Percy also has good reason to want to undermine Harry's influence in the family, as it is Harry who has sort of taken his place as the leading brother in the house.
That's where Sirius gets more interesting. It would be nice to think of him having moral problems with his family's ideas and sadly choosing to cut himself off, but this doesn't fit Sirius' personality at all and it definitely doesn't seem to be what happened. I can't remember at the moment, but it seems like Regulus was younger than Sirius. Regardless, Regulus was the favorite. Sirius, it seems to me, should have been considered the heir apparent of the Black dynasty, but he wasn't because of his personality (just as Percy seems like he should be the heir apparent of the Weasleys being the eldest son at home we meet, but he isn't because of his personality--Harry could be said to have taken his place in some ways on that score). So imagine the family as some medieval dynasty here--you've got two princes, only one of which is going to inherit the crown. Sirius makes a break similar to Percy's--though perhaps he's even less thoughtful about why he's doing it. Rather than be the son in disfavor he attaches himself to a different family where he can be the favored son...although of course his status as an outsider is never really forgotten, leaving him with nobody to go to bat for him when he's falsely accused of working for Voldemort. Switching one's tribal affiliation seems to almost always carry disgrace with it: Peter, Snape, Percy and Sirius all seem to be treated less well than the people they worked with. That makes it sort of interesting, btw, that Snape and Sirius hate each other so much. The two of them are kind of squabbling over scraps in OotP, arguing over who is the lowest of the low in the Order.
Ironically, of the two Black brothers it seems that Regulus was the one who made the starker moral choice, one that was not based on self-preservation since it resulted in his death. Unfortunately, I suppose I may just be supposed to see Regulus' choice as a sign of cowardice--he was too weak to torture Muggles or whatever, but personally I think that kind of "cowardice" is a healthy thing. Would there were more Regulus Blacks in the Taliban. (*waves Regulus flag*) This is not to say I think Regulus is better than Sirius or that he's the big hero here, though. Sirius does reject the whole Pureblood superiority thing. I'm just saying his story is not, imo, one of someone making primarily a moral choice. There's lots of other issues involved.
This, to me, is I guess why the idea of Gryffindor "triumphing" over Slytherin or whatever seems to pointless. "Conversion" from one side to another in this universe is rarely if ever rewarded or respected by either side. Over and over, it seems to me, sticking with one's birthright seems the only source of strength--or, if one is a Muggleborn, sticking with ones House which is similar to a family. (If Millicent Bulstrode is a halfblood she still seems a valued part of Slytherin--in fact, I love her character in general and I think she's probably part of what I like about Slytherin in general, but that's a different topic.) Alliances can certainly be formed with others, but trying to choose a path in life separate to one's family seems to always lead to misery. I mean, Grawp might have been the runt of the giant world but at Hogwarts he's a pet on a leash! I guess that's why it really does just seem to me that the only way this world could be strong is through alliance amongst all the houses that had compromises on all sides. Iirc,pharnabazus's essay also suggests that Slytherin's leaving the school was a sacrifice to avoid everything falling apart, and that sacrifice has made the house isolated ever since. I'd like to think it's the undoing of that sacrifice that would provide the answer. Because I just can't see a possibility for the more modern idea that some Slytherins would realize the Malfoy/Black attitude was morally wrong and so would join with Gryffindor. The kids in this world just literally don't seem to have the power to do that the way kids do now--it's like when people try to modernize Romeo and Juliet. It just doesn't work as a story in modern times, where two kids could run off on their own and live just fine. In fact, this idea already led to problems in OotP with the DA when Marietta sided with--surprise!--the Ministry because that's where her family alliance lay. Ultimately it came down to the same alliances as always and the family, unsurprisingly, took precedence.
Anyway, these discussions got me thinking, for some reason, about Percy and Sirius again, and their leaving of their families.
It occurs to me that it's very difficult to look at the actions of characters in HP from a moral perspective a lot of the time. I'm not saying you never can, just that I don't think these characters are primarily driven by concerns of right and wrong--which is what makes the book so slippery to discuss as a "battle of good vs. evil." Tolkien's characters, for instance, are very much figures representing moral ideas. In HP thre are a few moments when characters do bring up questions of right and wrong, but I usually end up having more questions about those moments than answers. (Iow, I usually end up going, "But...but...but...")
pharnabazus wrote this great essay about how the Wizarding World works that I feel offers the most consistent theory of the world, one that makes things make sense in ways they might not otherwise. It's long, but to give the basics here, the idea is that the WW lives in a constant state of emergency, so there's really no laws protecting anyone. (This is obvious in the way Sirius can languish in jail without a trial, for instance.) So what people do instead is just cluster around different powerful wizards or "patrons" who jostle with each other over power and form networks underneath them. Dumbledore is the most obvious of these patrons, Lucius Malfoy is one, Voldemort used to be one, and he took Lucius' network along with some others underneath him. (Dumbledore has groomed Harry into a subpatron for himself, and Harry has now begun to form his own network, probably as Dumbledore had hoped, both through strength in the DA and money by financing the joke shop.) What makes this important is it points out that whatever ethical questions do come up, self-preservation and protection is always a driving force in anyone's decision. Wizards simply don't make the kinds of decisions about their life that regular people do, because they live in a society dominated by alliances. (This is why it's ridiculous, for instance, for people to look down on first-year Draco's offer of alliance instead of friendship to Harry as a sign of his bad character--every wizard offers alliance. Those from the muggle world, like Harry and Hermione, soon learn this if they don't know it already.)This is where we get to Percy and Sirius. I was just thinking about how it's so tempting to view their actions in moral terms: Percy is bad for hurting his family by leaving, Sirius is good for leaving the Blacks and their focus on purity behind. But I just don't see these issues as being the main concern here. In fact, of the two of them I think Percy is the one more likely to be thinking along those terms.
pharnabazus points out the Weasleys as being incredibly important to Dumbledore becuase they, unlike most of the other people in the Order, are not dependent on him through manipulation. They seem to be true believers who genuinely agree with his ideas and revere him personally. Percy, however, is at odds with his family. Ironically, one of the things that puts him at odds with them is that he doesn't approve of the twins' "jokes," of which he is often the butt. As Head Boy he wants to enforce rules even if that means taking points from his siblings (which is, you know, fair). As a Prefect Ron seems very wary of enforcing his power against his siblings. Hermione is able to best the twins at their own game at times, and therefore able to be occasionally bossy (since we know she ultimately has the same personal devotion to Dumbledore as the rest of the Weasleys). Because of his precarious position in his family, it makes sense for Percy to seek outside it for a protector, one who sees some value in him. I think part of what people distrust in Percy's leaving his family is that he doesn't do so in a fit of anger. He sees much colder, sending back his sweater, not losing his temper. What's more, though, is he seems to me to still care about his family. I didn't take his letter to Ron as an attempt to draw him over the dark side as much as a genuine desire to be seen as being a good guy who cared about his family but had ideological differences with them--though of course he also wanted to have Ron, as a Weasley who didn't seem to stand against him like the others--well-disposed towards him. Plus, as the essay points out, by separating from his family completely Percy destroys any chances of working against them as a spy. So while I'm saying Percy probably does, in his mind, think he's making the right choice, and does seem to be a character who wants to be in the right, I think we should also see Percy as someone who was in a precarious position family-wise and chose to find a place where he could be more secure. Percy also has good reason to want to undermine Harry's influence in the family, as it is Harry who has sort of taken his place as the leading brother in the house.
That's where Sirius gets more interesting. It would be nice to think of him having moral problems with his family's ideas and sadly choosing to cut himself off, but this doesn't fit Sirius' personality at all and it definitely doesn't seem to be what happened. I can't remember at the moment, but it seems like Regulus was younger than Sirius. Regardless, Regulus was the favorite. Sirius, it seems to me, should have been considered the heir apparent of the Black dynasty, but he wasn't because of his personality (just as Percy seems like he should be the heir apparent of the Weasleys being the eldest son at home we meet, but he isn't because of his personality--Harry could be said to have taken his place in some ways on that score). So imagine the family as some medieval dynasty here--you've got two princes, only one of which is going to inherit the crown. Sirius makes a break similar to Percy's--though perhaps he's even less thoughtful about why he's doing it. Rather than be the son in disfavor he attaches himself to a different family where he can be the favored son...although of course his status as an outsider is never really forgotten, leaving him with nobody to go to bat for him when he's falsely accused of working for Voldemort. Switching one's tribal affiliation seems to almost always carry disgrace with it: Peter, Snape, Percy and Sirius all seem to be treated less well than the people they worked with. That makes it sort of interesting, btw, that Snape and Sirius hate each other so much. The two of them are kind of squabbling over scraps in OotP, arguing over who is the lowest of the low in the Order.
Ironically, of the two Black brothers it seems that Regulus was the one who made the starker moral choice, one that was not based on self-preservation since it resulted in his death. Unfortunately, I suppose I may just be supposed to see Regulus' choice as a sign of cowardice--he was too weak to torture Muggles or whatever, but personally I think that kind of "cowardice" is a healthy thing. Would there were more Regulus Blacks in the Taliban. (*waves Regulus flag*) This is not to say I think Regulus is better than Sirius or that he's the big hero here, though. Sirius does reject the whole Pureblood superiority thing. I'm just saying his story is not, imo, one of someone making primarily a moral choice. There's lots of other issues involved.
This, to me, is I guess why the idea of Gryffindor "triumphing" over Slytherin or whatever seems to pointless. "Conversion" from one side to another in this universe is rarely if ever rewarded or respected by either side. Over and over, it seems to me, sticking with one's birthright seems the only source of strength--or, if one is a Muggleborn, sticking with ones House which is similar to a family. (If Millicent Bulstrode is a halfblood she still seems a valued part of Slytherin--in fact, I love her character in general and I think she's probably part of what I like about Slytherin in general, but that's a different topic.) Alliances can certainly be formed with others, but trying to choose a path in life separate to one's family seems to always lead to misery. I mean, Grawp might have been the runt of the giant world but at Hogwarts he's a pet on a leash! I guess that's why it really does just seem to me that the only way this world could be strong is through alliance amongst all the houses that had compromises on all sides. Iirc,
pharnabazus's essay also suggests that Slytherin's leaving the school was a sacrifice to avoid everything falling apart, and that sacrifice has made the house isolated ever since. I'd like to think it's the undoing of that sacrifice that would provide the answer. Because I just can't see a possibility for the more modern idea that some Slytherins would realize the Malfoy/Black attitude was morally wrong and so would join with Gryffindor. The kids in this world just literally don't seem to have the power to do that the way kids do now--it's like when people try to modernize Romeo and Juliet. It just doesn't work as a story in modern times, where two kids could run off on their own and live just fine. In fact, this idea already led to problems in OotP with the DA when Marietta sided with--surprise!--the Ministry because that's where her family alliance lay. Ultimately it came down to the same alliances as always and the family, unsurprisingly, took precedence. 
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
It seems to me that Percy took the 'risk' of writing to Ron because Ron is the only one of his younger siblings (and thus, those over whom he might have some influence) who hasn't overtly betrayed him. The twins are horribly cruel to him (as they are to Ron in OotP regarding Ron being a prefect and the whole Quidditch thing). And Ginny, despite promising to keep his secret about Penny, spills the beans to the very people he didn't want to know. (I remember feeling a bit sick at the description of the twins looking like Christmas had come early, and foolish Ginny believing their promise that they wouldn't tease Percy about it). Although I was somewhat intrigued by the revelations of Ginny's character in OotP, it also seems pretty clear that she's a Twins kind of girl, and any loyalty she ever felt toward Percy has gone by the wayside.
I think it's also important to remember, when discussing Percy, Draco and the Slytherins in OotP, that they were supporting the Ministry! We as readers 'know' that the Ministry is corrupt, but it seems clear that the average witch or wizard on the street does not. How many people in history have given their very lives to support their government, even when said government is lying to/manipulating them? (Both the Viet Nam war and the current US war in Iraq spring to mind here.) If one isn't a confidante of Harry or Dumbledore, whyever wouldn't they support the Ministry? It seems clear that the Ministry of Magic as a whole is the most powerful entity in the Magical UK. It's so easy to diss Percy for betraying his family, or Draco, et al for sucking up to and supporting Umbridge, but I think, as far as they can see, Umbridge, as a representative of the Ministry, is in the right, and anyone fighting against her must be doing so in an attempt to undermine stability and the rule of law.
This statement: "Conversion" from one side to another in this universe is rarely if ever rewarded or respected by either side. And this: The kids in this world just literally don't seem to have the power to [run off on their own and live just fine] the way kids do now really make a strong point, and I've seen some Draco-centric fanfic that seems to capture the idea as well. In this world, one who disagrees with his (or her) 'set path' is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
(BTW, I'd love to hear your thoughts on Millicent -- I'm incredibly interested in her!)
From:
no subject
I think so too--and what's interesting to me too is that it seems like Ron realizes or feels like he's being singled out as the possible "weak link" that Percy thinks he less against him than the others and that makes him nervous or something. Ron, for all his violent temper, actually seems one of the more easy-going types. He's got his prejudices, but doesn't seem so directed in his beliefs as other characters at times. Underneath I think Ron genuinely *wants* to like everybody even if he doesn't. Ginny definitely seemed to embody the kind of Weasley-way-or-the-highway thinking I can see Percy feeling stifled by.
It's so easy to diss Percy for betraying his family, or Draco, et al for sucking up to and supporting Umbridge, but I think, as far as they can see, Umbridge, as a representative of the Ministry, is in the right, and anyone fighting against her must be doing so in an attempt to undermine stability and the rule of law.
Yes she *was* working for the Ministry, that's true. Though she also seems in contact with Lucius she seems genuinely loyal to Fudge--like Percy that way, perhaps. So she may actually be being used for Lucius' purposes, but she also for the first time offers an alternative that many students other than Slytherins seem to find reasonable (and coming from the Ministry). That most people in the world don't know what's actually going on, and aren't in Dumbledore's special group, is a big thing to remember.
I'll have to do something about Millicent! I have a feeling I don't even remember a lot of her scenes--not that there are many of them. Mostly it's just that I feel like though we're supposed to see her as a kind of female Crabbe and Goyle I respect her for being a girl who seems like a force to be reckoned with instead of just feeling sorry for herself for not being what a girl is supposed to be. (Small and pretty.)
From:
no subject
Thank you. I find it so frustrating when people in the fandom constantly bring up Percy's and the Slytherin's behaviour in OotP as "proof" of them being "evil". I mean, they weren't supporting Voldemort!
And good point about how "we", the readers, know that the Ministry is corrupt, but that doesn't mean the general wizard on the street does. That's why I also find it annoying when people come down incredibly harsh on characters such as Seamus or Zacharias, for doubting Harry's own words. I mean really, if you didn't know Harry that well, wouldn't you? I think many readers tend to forget that the other characters in these books don't have access to the same knowledge that we readers have, and thus they judge the characters as if they had.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
And it's not the only time Harry did it. I seem to remember that somewhere in OotP Ron said something like, 'Remember that we are on your side'.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Harry was definitely overly-touchy to Seamus in OotP (I personally observed that there were many times Seamus would have tried to reconcile with him throughout the book, but Harry never gave him the chance -- not meeting his eyes when he handed back the Transfig. assignment, rushing past him in the common room when "Seamus looked as though he might have spoken" [don't remember the exact page this quote is on]). However, I did get the feeling he was more happy that Seamus had finally made it up with him than he was when Seamus joined the Army (though that probably made him happy too). It was described as one of the brighter spots of his day when Seamus finally talked to him, but we didn't get anything on how Harry felt about Seamus joining the Army (he was just kind of there, and it was mentioned that it was his first meeting).
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Iirc, pharnabazus's essay also suggests that Slytherin's leaving the school was a sacrifice to avoid everything falling apart, and that sacrifice has made the house isolated ever since. I'd like to think it's the undoing of that sacrifice that would provide the answer. Because I just can't see a possibility for the more modern idea that some Slytherins would realize the Malfoy/Black attitude was morally wrong and so would join with Gryffindor.
We're back at this, again. ;-) I agree with you. It would be unreasonable to expect the Slytherins to join the Gryffindors, especially as the pure-blood attitude the Slytherins represent is partly very valid (Muggles being threat and all). Besides, at this point joining with the Gryffindors would essentially mean joining Dumbledore and entering his patronage, which is completely unquestionable for the pureblood families, as he is seen as a Muggle-lover.
Alliance between Dumbledore's patronage network and some of the pureblood families' networks would probably be the best solution. The beauty of such an idea is that it would deprive Voldemort of part of his network, and an evil overlord with no supporters isn't much of an overlord. Unfortunately it seems, imo, that it's quite unlikely that such an alliance would be reached, at least not when Dumbledore is leading. As someone said in that previous post of yours about Snape's worst memory, Dumbledore seems to surround himself with people who are dependent on him. Or like in the Weasleys' case, who are completely loyal to him personally.
Which is why I think that if the rift inside the Wizarding World is to be healed, some kind of mediator would be needed. The pureblood families won't follow Dumbledore, no matter what, and the people who believe in Dumbledore won't follow someone from the 'other side', even if they had one strong leader. People like the Weasleys, who are so Gryffindor that it hurts, would probably rather live as Muggles than follow 'some filthy Slytherin'.
And the question is, as he is the leader of Voldemort's opposition, would Dumbledore enter into an equal alliance with some Voldemort's former/potential followers? Would he concede to losing some of his power, which, imo, such an alliance would lead to? Or would the alliance start in the midst of the students of Hogwarts, so not actually being an alliance between the Order of the Phoenix and Voldemort's former/potential followers, but an alliance between students, who would then perhaps lead their families into the alliance. Basically, it would mean an alliance between Harry and the Slytherins, or possibly a patronage network that is lead by Harry, not Dumbledore.
From:
no subject
The trouble with having Harry lead an alliance is that by now surely he's firmly associated with Dumbledore. Even Lucius comments on this. I can't believe there are too many students who don't link them together. But that makes you wonder exactly what the Slytherin parents think they're doing in sending their kids to the school where Dumbledore is headmaster. Surely there must be something beyond personal loyalty to this guy.
I wonder, though, if it's possible for the books to show Harry making an alliance...I mean, it would be great if he could make a deal with the Slytherins so that they would go along with the plan without everybody having to join Harry's army, exactly. It seems like there's plenty of groundwork laid for this with all the talk about different races making treaties etc.
From:
no subject
Maybe it's just loyatly to Hogwarts as 'the Traditional School'? Even if they don't like Dumbledore, they wouldn't want to just drop all that tradition to avoid thier kids coming into contact with him? And they have (or Lucius has, at the least) tried to get Dumbledore out of there...
And it just occured to me... why didn't Slytherin start his own school, after? If he really thought they were wrong...
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Plus, I mean Lucius and Narcissa presumably both went to Hogwarts themselves, and sending the kid to Germany is kind of a stretch!
From:
Dumbledore's motives
The trouble with having Harry lead an alliance is that by now surely he's firmly associated with Dumbledore.
I wonder if it's intentional or unintentional in Dumbledore's part to tie Harry to him so tightly. I can understand why Dumbledore would want to do it, since obviously it's important that Harry and Dumbledore can work together, what with Harry being the One to defeat Voldemort and Dumbledore being the one Voldemort fears. On the other hand, such a tight tie is bound to cause problems if Dumbledore wants all the Houses to work together.
So, either Dumbledore hasn't really thought about it and isn't aware of his own reputation as a Muggle-lover (which is hard to believe) or he doesn't think the concerns of the pureblood are valid at all, and if they don't think like he does, then they are not worth as alliances. The third and most unpleasant conclusion is that Dumbledore doesn't wish the rift to be healed at all for his own reason, whatever they were (like keeping his power and influence intact and so on). Unfortunately, that option isn't completely out of question. He hasn't really promoted inter-House co-operation. He only made a pretty speech at the end of GoF, but speech is just a speech.
From:
no subject
In light of
From:
no subject
Peter, Snape, Percy and Sirius all seem to be treated less well than the people they worked with. That makes it sort of interesting, btw, that Snape and Sirius hate each other so much. The two of them are kind of squabbling over scraps in OotP, arguing over who is the lowest of the low in the Order.
That is heartbreaking. And probably true. I was so infuriated by them when I read OotP--why did they have to behave like Harry and Draco at their worst? Yet it's true that someone who has switched is not treated quite as well. Though... I think Sirius had moments where he thought he was treated as well. In the first war he seemed valued. Not valued enough to be rescued from false charges, but before that he seemed valued.
But once you get to the point where Sirius is trapped in his house and Snape is the one they all hate, of course they're going to fight over who is the lowest. That's what they're fighting about, but astonishingly it's also why they're fighting.
I liked
There I go again, utterly curious about the next book. Gonna make me nuts. :)
But at least when you look at it this way everyone can stop being so torn up about Dumbledore. Dumbledore is supposed to be the symbol and embodiment of goodness and that makes some readers crazy. But if he's the powerful leader of a patronage system, he makes more sense. They don't follow him because he has god-like goodness. They follow him because following is what they have to do and he is a strong, trustworthy leader. In a patronage system, Dumbledore is pretty reliable. He's the oldest, his side vanquished Voldemort once, he seems to be the most powerful wizard, and he doesn't give a crap about rules. He also treats his loyal subjects very well, unlike Voldemort who sometimes punishes them.
It's interesting with the idea of sub-patrons. The Weasleys are a sub-group under Dumbledore. Percy had problems with his immediate family and ended up breaking from the entire group; I wonder if it's even possible for him to have found a different group under Dumbledore. Maybe not, because the assumption would always have been, "Why aren't you home with us?" Breaking entirely might be the only way to get away.
Harry is a patron under the Weasleys (trying hard to join them) and yet also a patron above them; he is closer to Dumbledore, has money, and is growing powerful. He's in an odd place, actually. But I was thinking about how you mentioned that Ron was nervous about using prefect power to punish the twins, whereas Hermione wasn't as nervous. Whereas Percy tried it and that was seen as bad. Is that because Ron and Percy are siblings? And Hermione, while utterly loyal to Dumbledore, isn't a part of their sub-group? Look at how quickly Mrs. Weasley turned on her. So Hermione can feel free to follow her own sense of fairness and right even if it means punishing the twins. Ron, on the other hand, barely grasps that fairness can come above loyalty to his family.
I guess everybody does have a moral code; they're just sometimes contrained in following it and the patronage system usually comes first, without question.
The idea that people don't even break patronage for moral reasons is fascinating... Sirius is obviously appalled by his family. But did that cause him to leave, or did he adopt those attitudes from his new family?
I'm going to try to stop this now so I don't have to split into two replies like always. :)
From:
no subject
In the first war he seemed valued. Not valued enough to be rescued from false charges, but before that he seemed valued.
Yes, that's what I find so tragic about Sirius. He was James' best friend so obviously valued and honored in the first war. But once James was dead everyone's true suspicions seemed to come out so there wasn't anyone who felt like they could really believe he hadn't been the traitor and killed Peter. Not even enough to listen to his story. even Remus thought he was the traitor. I don't know if this was only because he was a Black, but it seems like that would be part of it. It's got to be even more humiliating for him, after strutting around thinking he was "in" to have spent all those years in Azkaban, forgotten and despised.
If that was the main reason, as Sirius saw it, it makes even more sense he'd hate his old house. Not only was it the place he seemed to have always been told he was a disappointment, but it was his connection with these people that made him seem untrustworthy. Also--there's probably no real evidence for this but it's interesting to consider--I wonder if his mother's words ringing shrilly in his ears at this point in his life took on a new meaning given what happened to him. Like...these were the people who ultimately betrayed him, the halfbreeds and the Mugglelovers. The Purebloods ultimately killed him, of course (his own cousin set it in motion) but he "betrayed" them first by leaving.
So Hermione can feel free to follow her own sense of fairness and right even if it means punishing the twins. Ron, on the other hand, barely grasps that fairness can come above loyalty to his family.
I feel like it's kind of a combination of things. First, Hermione's personality is known to be the way it is, so it's expected for her to try to enforce the rules. Ron, it seems, is always expected to go along with his more interesting older brothers. Also Hermione's not part of the family so she's got her own support system elsewhere. As annoying as it was to her to have Mrs. Weasley turn on her, there's no reason it would break her heart. Presumably Hermione's own mother wouldn't have believed those stories if she'd read them. Also, Hermione always gives in, it seems, when it counts. Her making a big show of going by the rules until it's important seems like something well known and loved about her. Ron's role, it seems, is to just never offer opposition, perhaps because he's one of the less dominant Weasley personalities...?
The idea that people don't even break patronage for moral reasons is fascinating... Sirius is obviously appalled by his family. But did that cause him to leave, or did he adopt those attitudes from his new family?
Yeah, he obviously does both, but it seems like it's probably impossible to separate his ethics from his emotions. I mean, it's odd to see how he literally hates his family. Like if he shows any residual ties to them at all it reflects badly on him or something. He talks about them like Harry talking about the Dursleys...only they are his real parents. I wonder if he almost has to make himself not have any feelings for them whatsoever, so that even his brother's sorry death is just something to say "I told you so," about. Even if his brother was a rotten brat all the time, it's not like you can imagine Sirius just sweetly taking it and getting hurt. Surely he probably tried to cut his brother down and fought with him just as nastily on his side, knowing Sirius?
From:
no subject
blink. That's true. Hmm. I will have to look at PoA again to see how Remus is when Sirius is mentioned... did he utterly believe it or did he just consider himself powerless to help? Because James, Sirius, and Remus were supposed to be very close (well so was Peter and we saw how that turned out). Perhaps Remus was a little distant from the group... I just for some reason have the impression that James and Sirius were more similar to each other than to Remus. Maybe just because Remus wasn't in on the bullying or that the ideas of how to deal with Remus's werewolf situation were thought up without him. So maybe Remus did believe Sirius did it. That really shouldn't startle me, but it does.
Sirius did hate his family while he was in that house, but then being in that house was driving him slightly crazy. Maybe it even did bother him to hear his mother saying how the mugglelovers betrayed him. After all, didn't they? As you said, Sirius has always had a second class status except when James protected him. And if he vicerally hates his family to the point of having no sympathy for his brother and kicking around the house elf, that's partly because he really was going nuts.
As annoying as it was to her to have Mrs. Weasley turn on her, there's no reason it would break her heart.
I didn't mean Hermione was distant from the Weasleys because of that, more that it was another example of how they aren't so closely bound. But yes, Hermione enforces rules not just because of her distance from the twins but because its in her nature to enforce rules. She's even threatened to turn in Harry when she thinks he's doing unecessary things. Though has she ever done so? I can't recall.
From:
no subject
Oh, I think so too--it was definitely James and Sirius who were best friends. I don't remember getting the impression that Remus was very anti-Sirius, but it seems like he probably sadly believed Sirius did it once everything went down. So I imagine it wasn't that Remus was secretly suspecting him all along, just that when it came down to it he could believe Sirius capable of it.
She's even threatened to turn in Harry when she thinks he's doing unecessary things. Though has she ever done so? I can't recall.
The only that comes to mind is when she turns over his Firebolt to be tested...though that was just a case of her trying to protect him so I don't think that really counts.
From:
no subject
I mean. I love me some Sirius. But, if I'd been Remus, at the time? Sirius Black in the Potter house with the Dark Lord. I'd be certain sure.
I also like Percy's stance on things in OotP. If Percy goes evil then I will be yelling at JKR for not knowing morality from her ass. Percy's proud, and I don't think he'll come scurrying back to the fold, but he can be talked back given some understanding of why he behaved as he did.
Or he might work against Voldemort, sort of, you know, freelance.
Better understanding of Percy's loyalty to the Ministry might also shed light on the Slytherins' support of the Ministry and Umbridge - not evil, just not on Dumbledore's side! and of course that is one of Maya's Shiny Objectives.
Percy, lead Draco into the light! I am sorry I wrote a story where you had a sociopathic crush on him. (and if you really do, I'm not blaming you.)
And Percy writing to Ron *does* confirm the thought of Ron as the Sweetheart Weasley. Fred, George and Ginny - all way too stroppy and self-confident and, basically, judgemental to listen. (not that I'm calling them for these qualities, because Harry is horribly stroppy and I love him.) Charlie and Bill - grown up and taking their stance. Percy likes Ron best! Ah, Percy. We have so much in common.
From:
no subject
Good call there on the prank memories for Lupin--yeah, that would be a good thing to hold against Sirius, I think.
Percy has good taste in Weasley children. Ron's worth 12 of all the others in my book!
From:
no subject
I liked pharnabazus's essay. I'm not sure I buy it completely... that is, it's a marvelous analysis of what's happened so far, but it's more a reader trying to make sense out of what doesn't entirely make sense. I wonder if the next two books will confirm or demolish the theory. I could totally buy that Rowling sees the world this way--not consciously, but deep down in her how-the-world-works thoughts she has everyone acting this way because she sees it as true.
That's the way I see it too. It's not that I would look for this exact system to be revealed in the next book, but I'm fascinated that pharnabazus came up with a structure that holds up against all the events of the book. So even if JKR would never describe it that way, it still helps to consider the characters using it because it seems to reflect the worldview.
From:
no subject
As much as I admire pharnabazus' essay and sincerely hope he's right and everything has been put in just like that by JKR deliberately, I have a sad suspicion that his essay is a little like a conspiracy-theory: making out connections where there are just coincidences and that JRK is just a litle sloppy as a writer.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Hmm, this is a rather depressing view on the Wizarding World, but it's so true. Everything seems to be about a person's survival instincts, even Fudge, despite being in control of the Ministry...up to the end of GoF, he was always "asking Dumbledore for advice" (according to Hagrid). Does that mean Fudge was part of DD's alliance, as well? That's the sense I got from the pre-OotP days. Then technically, Fudge broke away from DD and basically started his own alliance in a way, and Percy reverred to that one because the one he was with (DD and his family) really wasn't working out for him. Among other things, of course. This is what makes me feel sad about Percy -- you mentioned that to stick to one's birthright was the only source of strength in this world, but it seemed that Percy was doomed either way. His family (well, the twins and at times Ginny, anyway) didn't respect him when he was with him, and they hate him all the more now that he's found his own way.
Sirius I find, though a bit less confusing (because knowing his rashness, I wouldn't be surprised if his choice was almost a spur-of-the-moment thing), is still really questionable. I guess I'm having thoughts about the jealousy thing between Regulus and Sirius, because there must have been a fair amount of jealousy there (on both parts, if the idea of the eldest being the heir is true), yet at first glance, it seems such a silly reason to break from the family. It was almost like Sirius was jealous of the attention lavished on Regulus by his family, but at the same time, he knew what he'd have to be like in order to get that sort of attention, and he either couldn't do it or just didn't want to (which is where the Pureblood issues tie in). And therefore, he went to find another family in which he could be the favourite just based on the way his personality was. Which is not the same as having shaky grounds with your family, knowing that whatever you do won't be good enough, so you just leave. But then, how to explain Sirius' complete hatred of Grimmauld's Place?
If Millicent Bulstrode is a halfblood she still seems a valued part of Slytherin--in fact, I love her character in general and I think she's probably part of what I like about Slytherin in general, but that's a different topic.)
Ooh, I want to hear it! I'll admit that Millicent isn't one of my favourite female characters, but I do admire what we know of her. Is she really a halfblood? (I've been looking all over for JKR's list of students, but the only one I found said that she was a pureblood. And I'm more unsure, because it also said that Lavender and Vince and Greg were halfbloods) She doesn't seem to be a part of Pansy's gang, because I think she would have been mentioned with them at least once (even by Hermione); I find that intriguing, because it could mean she has built her own personal niche in Slytherin. What also intrigues me is the way she "jumped away in disgust" when Hermione started crying on her robes -- I've heard it argued that this was because she didn't want a "Mudblood" crying on her, but if she's a halfblood then that makes no sense (unless she's a Tom Riddle type, which seems highly unlikely). To me, her disgust with Hermione's crying indicated to me that she can't stand openly-displayed weakness (it was a bit much for Hermione to begin "bawling" in front of her worst enemies at school [I'm aware she was pretending]); it kind of makes me think that she is one of those more guarded types, especially when coupled with the way she didn't smile back when Hermione smiled at her in CoS (which was an isolated incident of any Gryffindor reaching out to a Slytherin, and Hermione just ended up snatching cat hairs off of her in a plan to impersonate her). So, it really makes me wonder. Of course, your interpretation of her might be entirely different ^^*
From:
no subject
That's much the way pharnabazus sees it, that Fudge was under Dumbledore, but is now trying to establish his own leadership with his own people working under him. Umbridge seems to really want him to succeed, to the point of doing things in his name that are destructive to his cause.
it seemed that Percy was doomed either way.
Yup--he took a huge risk and it will probably come back to haunt him. But I definitely don't see Percy being "evil" here as many people seem to see him.
But then, how to explain Sirius' complete hatred of Grimmauld's Place?
I came up with one suggestion for this above...if Sirius' being a Black was one of the reasons everyone found it so easy to believe he was the traitor, he'd have even more reason to hate his family. Also, he may be working twice as hard to make it clear he hates these people so people won't think of him as one of them. Not to mention, when Sirius was in jail his family probably knew he was innocent--if he were really working for Voldemort they would have considered him one of them again, it seems. But they let him languish in jail as well--more reason to hate them. And then finally, if he had an unhappy childhood and couldn't wait to escape the house he would never want to go back to listening to his mother yelling at him the way she did when he was younger. It's the place where all his problems started, and now he's stuck there again. As much as he wants to deny it, he really is the heir to this house in the end.
It's still interesting, though, to imagine Sirius' life as a kid. It's not like you can imagine him sadly being told he was nothing and not fighting back, given the personality he had. When did Regulus start becoming the favorite after all? The most logical solution, to me, is that Sirius was always rather rebellious and so was already at odds with his strict family. Regulus probably then saw being obedient as a great way to get positive attention. But I can see Sirius turning around and telling Regulus he was nothing in his anger.
Ooh, I want to hear it! I'll admit that Millicent isn't one of my favourite female characters, but I do admire what we know of her. Is she really a halfblood?
I have no idea what she is, actually. I seem to remember some people suggesting there was some view of JKR's notes or something that suggested she was. Either way, what I like about her is that I feel like she's introduced as a female Crabbe and Goyle, a character we can sort of ridicule with her deserving it. But for me there's just something cool in the way she's everything a girl isn't supposed to be--strong and large--and doesn't take any crap because of it. I didn't even remember Hermione's smiling at her, but I do think it's significant that in the end Hermione plots against her. I wouldn't be surprised if Millicent assumed Hermione's smile was a plot to catch her off guard to begin with. She may not trust other girls, assuming they're all making fun of her.
She doesn't seem to be part of Pansy's little gang of girls, but she does show up in the Squad, which seems to include an inner circle of Slytherins. So I like the idea that Millicent is respected in Slytherin and can work alongside Pansy without seeming like she's on a lower level than Pansy. Actually, one thing that kind of interests me about both Pansy and Millicent is how they're sometimes so unfeminine (despite Pansy's superficial girliness) in their aggression, and that this is something that makes them bad. Millicent is like the sterotype nerd girl (big=unattractive) but rather than skulking around awkwardly she seems to own her size and power and that seems kind of cool to me. If the Slytherins value her for it I have to like them for that. Most of the other girls in Harry's world are all pretty (even Hermione is revealed to be fake!homely when she shows up at the ball looking gorgeous). I'm with you on the tears thing, though--I think it was just the crying that repulsed her, not the fact that Hermione's a Mudblood. I think she'd have done the same thing if Ginny cried on her.
From:
no subject
*shakes head* I have never seen Percy as "Evil" for doing this; in fact, I was glad when JKR confirmed in her chat that Percy was actually acting of his own accord, and wasn't under some kind of brainwashing spell. All those people who switched sides had many different motives, granted, and still took huge risks, but deep down it all seems to come down to a basic need to stay afloat in this society of the WW. It is really creepy. And I definitely agree that Percy's choice is very likely to come back to haunt him, especially now that the new alliance Fudge tried to establish in OotP is practically destined to reassimilate back into Dumbledore's order. Now that Fudge knows Voldie is back, there's little doubt he'll be racing back to DD; or else, when considering JKR's words of a new Minister of Magic in book six, coupled with Ron's "prediction" in OotP ...naturally, Arthur Weasley is one of DD's subpatrons, so it'll come down to the same thing. I expect out of necessity, DD is obviously going to welcome them back, but it's not going to be that easy by a long shot with Percy and his family.
I wouldn't be surprised if Millicent assumed Hermione's smile was a plot to catch her off guard to begin with. She may not trust other girls, assuming they're all making fun of her.
Oh, I definitely saw it that way; it comes down to what shusu said further down, the Slytherins are all about survival. They have the most obvious survival instinct out of all the other Houses, and with damn good reason too; with the anti-Slytherin sentiments running rampant through Hogwarts, it's only natural. It's interesting that Hufflepuff operates in a similar stick-together method as I picture the Slytherins doing, and they are the second-most-discriminated-against House at Hogwarts (seen by at least three-quarters of the school as better than Slytherin, but not by much). Yet they are the ones who get recognized for this loyalty (because Slytherins are eeeeviill, they can't be loyal)...but I think that if Hufflepuff stick together to deal with the discrimination against them, then it's practically canonical that Slytherin do the same, since they get a lot more prejudice. I see Millicent as one of the prime examples of how Slytherin works; she knows her place in it, and where she would elsewhere be pushed down and made to seem weak and quiet because of her looks, she obviously has her firm place within Slytherin; and she also does not trust outsiders, another survival tactic. I remember one of the responses made in your last post about how each Slytherin has their specific social place in the house, without making it seem as though the "stronger" Slytherins oppress the "weaker" ones; I totally agree. I can't imagine a weak Slytherin, nor can I imagine one that would willingly take shite from another (or anyone else, really). I expect they learn at a young age not to trust many in the school (Especially when you have other students hissing at you for making it into your House). Gryffindor lacks this order that Slytherin possesses; they have closeness, they stay up in the common room together in times of crisis, but they have their own seperate cliques and therefore it has the ability to become so disordered (Housemates turning against one another, which we have no example of in either Slytherin or Hufflepuff). I think this is because they don't seem to need it; they don't need a survival instinct, they don't need to stick together against prejudice, they are the most respected and revered-to House at Hogwarts. But it's funny that due to this trait, they are actually the House which is likely to have the highest rate of backstabbing, yet it's the Slytherins which are seen as the "untrustworthy" ones. (Definitely not saying in the least that Gryffindors are untrustworthy, because loyalty to what they believe in seems to be highly prized on the general nobility/courage code, it just seems that what they feel to be worthy of trustworthiness changes an awful lot.)
From:
no subject
I've always found it kind of fascinating how different Slytherin seems to be from the little we see. Pre-OotP I kept meaning to write something comparing the Slytherin group we always see (Draco, Crabbe, Goyle and then Pansy) with the Trio. Because people are always so quick to set them up as the "real" friends (Trio) vs. the "fake," and say that because Crabbe and Goyle are obviously underlings they're not really friends. And I do understand the case for being friends with equals (it's certainly what I prefer), but at the same time many people have had friendship groups that were based more on a hierarchy--particularly boys, I think. It kind of fascinated me the way that Draco's little system was so ordered: He was the leader and when Pansy stepped in Crabbe and Goyle immediately knew she had a place as beside Draco, like as his girl (whether or not they were actually dating).
Whereas the Trio in book 4 was going through more problems because Harry wasn't really taking the leadership role, and Ron felt sort of threatened by that--like, if Harry had let him in on his supposed plan to get into the GoF Ron probably would have assisted in getting Harry's name in, but he feels betrayed when he thinks Harry did it without him. And then Hermione, as the girl, also is also having some issues almost because she's never had an identity as "the girl" before.
OotP changed things in that Harry definitely became the leader, but there was still, imo, some unresolved issues on that score. It's not that I'm saying the Trio's friendship doesn't work well or anything, but it fascinates me to compare that model with what we seem to see in Slytherin, which is more of a hierarchy. Like, Flint yelled at Draco for missing the Snitch in CoS, and I get the sense it was understood that this was acceptable, since Draco was an underling. Even the little of Draco's style we see seems based on a leadership idea--the way he might be sort of jocularly bullying to C&G in the commonroom scene, but then always share his candy with them.
Heh. I think I'm just still thinking about tonight's episode of The Sopranos. Same type idea, but no killing or breaking of kneecaps yet that we've seen.:-) And Pansy could be easily have the role of a woman in that type of family.
From:
no subject
One, the patronage system... to me it's not entirely unfamiliar / sad, especially if you go into Third World countries or countries with a long history of colonialism and poor economic prospects. The Wizarding World is very much a beleaguered minority (JKR has enforced that separation too), and it governs itself in such a way. Except, I wouldn't call it patronage. I'd call it nepotism. It's the sort of system which thrives in a lot of immigrant cultures... for example it's not out of the question for a family friend to be put up in the United States, shown around, etc. eating the same food and staying there rent-free. My family's "protection" extends to everyone in the extended clan-group, including my cousin's boyfriend, including the sons and daughters of people they haven't seen in twenty years.
My culture is perfectly capable of operating in a "non-survivor" mode, but we choose to distribute our resources in terms of the family and the extended clan, including nepotism for paid positions and favors. To the traditional mindset, it may be illegal but it is "fair".
IMO what we have in HP is a guest-culture that has a huge socio-economic divide. Where do the hags fall in? Where do the half-bloods fall in? The Squibs? Those not educated in Hogwarts? I'd say it's not that different from the rich mestizo / poor native divide. Dumbledore is -the- patron, true, as he holds a great amount of power in the WW. But Lucius is -the- patron when it comes to it economically, regardless of his ideology. The Weasleys are patrons only in the sense that their family is so huge they have eyes and ears everywhere; a human resource. I guess what I'm saying is there isn't necessarily a polarity, but a web of alliances and relationships which ultimately make up the culture. We are only watching the upper crust of the WW in their patronage system.
Where, for instance, do the Lovegoods lie? They're not smalltime... they operate a small press and apparently can afford to travel widely. But they are not at the top of the heap socially. I think we've been spoiled by the parade of characters who are "important" within the Wizarding World... we get the most information about them. Do we ever hear more about Pettigrew's grandmother? Dean's family? No. It's like drawing a conclusion about America by watching a certain tax bracket in Washington, D.C. The patronage system is a good model, but only for the top. In the end I suspect it's the same, top to bottom -- it was the people Dumbledore got to know who are his Inner Circle, the ones he mingled with.
From:
no subject
Erm...I was basically saying you had a good point, and that the nepotism we see is very much like the nepotism you're describing in the real world. Especially given that the Purebloods are supposed to all be related--no wonder they see anyone who looks outside them as being a threat.
I love in canon when we're introduced to some random person with their own history--like Ernie MacMillan talking about how his family is Pureblood for X generations and big supporters of Dumbledore. Everybody's got a history!
From:
on Millicent
Slytherin is just the best place for Millicent. Can you imagine her previous schools? Suddenly she belongs. Her opening scene has her Head of House pairing her against the top of the class Gryffindor! It was like throwing meat to a crocodile XD Can you imagine a regular teacher deliberately doing such a thing? Kids with violent tendencies like Millicent -- in our current school system they are segregated and treated differently, not integrated into the pack. That universal attention and regard can only come from hierarchal Slytherin. Gryffindor, on the other hand, hasn't come up with its own leaders -- the Trio is an enclosed cell which happens to have a lot of power. DA, to me, was a demonstration of their influence, not their leadership; it was really there for the first time that Harry was a true leader at anything, and even then it was everyone's personal vendetta against Umbridge. In everyday activities, Gryffs don't have the cohesion and authority which seems to have been with Slytherin from day one.
And I hope that makes sense, 'cause I'm sure there are holes in that ^^;;;
From:
Re: on Millicent
In another thread somewhere--oh, on Roxanne's lj I think, we were talking about how annoying the whole "girl power" thing is. It bugs me--the way in TV and movies we always have to have the cute girl beating up the guy to show how girls are better when signs that a girl possibly could have this kind of strength--being large--is ridiculed. Yet Millicent seems valued for her strength and at 15 she still doesn't seem to be slouching, ashamed, and trying to be something she's not. Go Millicent!
From:
Re: on Millicent
From:
despite JKR's best efforts
"Hermione, we know Millicent Bulstrode's ugly, no one's going to know it's you--" (CoS)
Besides, I don't see her ugliness as hindering her (despite JKR's best efforts, *coff**coff*). My point is that she uses her appearance just as effectively as her pretty counterparts. And she's so stubborn, some may say repetitive, that I can't see her saying "Make me beautiful!" if the right spell came along. She revels in her size and features. Majesty, yes! Moxie.
This, of course, is assuming that she's intelligent which isn't stated either way (despite JKR's best efforts). I did however characterize her that way because she always goes after Hermione -- that either means Millicent is codified as Hermione's nemesis / bogeyman but there's not much evidence beyond the lit analysis level, i.e. trying to become her and instead becoming her cat;
or that Millicent sees Hermione as a target / opponent, either as a weak girl (which I personally didn't choose) or as someone with all the academic and magical muscle that Millicent envies. And now I'm going on far too long on this XD
Besides, just because JKR codifies ugliness with evil doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
From:
Re: despite JKR's best efforts
But the whole narration is from Harry's POV. What do you call it in English? 'Unreliable third person'? There is no real difference between the 'narrator's' and Harry's POV.
Where Harry crosses the line is the "Holidays with Hags" reference. In Rowling's understated style that's a clear emotional response of horror. If Harry were intimidated by larger females I can't see how he'd handle Aunt Marge!
Well, he is certainly not right from the beginning trying to contradict her. The whole unlucky incident with blowing her up occurs - as far as I remember - when he (as times before) loses his temper.
Besides, I don't see her ugliness as hindering her (despite JKR's best efforts, *coff**coff*).
No, that's why I said her physical appearance is irrelevant to the plot. But I can also not see why ugliness should be furthering her personality.
My point is that she uses her appearance just as effectively as her pretty counterparts.
Her height and strength, yes. Certainly not her ugliness, because I doubt that she thinks of herself as ugly.
Besides, just because JKR codifies ugliness with evil doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
Exactly my point. First of all we don't all subscribe to the same beauty standards and second how likely is it that in one house all occupants are EEEVIL and UUUGLY? I've always seen that as some prejudice of Harry (Rowling).
Also the Weasleys aren't descibed as blessed with goodlooks either - but of course, for them it's not a crime to be unattractive as they're on the 'right' side. Therefore they're not called ugly and their features - although also lacking in conformity to beauty standards - are described rather lovingly.
From:
in the eye of the beholder
I don't equate ugliness with evil, yes, but I also don't equate it with weakness or negativity. I'm not name-calling or anything, in fact I view it as a positive within the character analysis. She's not going to change herself with cosmetics or diets or hiding herself.
Just because the narrator is unreliable doesn't mean we can't glean information from the character's reactions. That's a hallmark of good storytelling. Harry has been exposed to ugly and/or unpleasant people all his life, and it's still a reaction of shock to see Millicent -- I'll interpret that as a credible judgment on her appearance. She's never done anything to him before which would color his opinion. With a reliable narrator I wouldn't have to go through all those steps, is all. Of course this is physical appearance; in my RP I've done everything I can to emphasize her unpleasant looks and at least two characters believe her attractive.
As for ugliness... it's a Slytherin trait to use appearances against others or for one's own gain. As you said, not everyone has the same standards of beauty -- but those perceptions can be used against people. I won't sit here and list all the ways Millicent can turn that to her advantage-- it is all speculation. You're right, it doesn't advance the plot. JKR has thrown out more than one Slytherin in favor of Harry's plot. But in the wider universe we're certainly free to toy with meanings and possibilities.
Again, I'm the last person to suggest that 'Slytherins are evil : Slytherins are ugly :: ugly people are evil.' That's one of my biggest quibbles about JKR. However for this particular character, even her brief canon appearances point to certain physical characteristics. I hazard to say that Millicent herself wouldn't sit around for political-correctness.
From:
Re: despite JKR's best efforts
But Aunt Marge is just big, I don't know if she's really strong. In fact, I'd say if she's really really overweight, she'd probably be pretty weak, short of breath, that sort of thing. But Millicent is... menacing and I get the impression she's not so big that she's out of shape. Just big enough to be menacing. So I really don't think they can be compared.
That said, I don't think Harry is intimidated by anyone. He's kind of a bad-ass like that.
From:
Re: on Millicent
I don't think it's insignificant that in OotP Harry is the one to lead the DA not only in name, but in actuality. The sorting hat did want to put him in Slytherin, and only put him in Gryffindor when Potter refused. What basically made Harry say "no" was not any informed moral choice, but the fact that Draco made fun of Harry's first "contact" in the magical world, and also the fact that the first friendly faces he saw on Sept. 1 were the Weasleys, who hold Slytherin in low regard. I'm not saying that all Slytherin aren't slime, but the assumption that Slytherin=Death Eater 100% of the time is just silly. Anyway, if my assumptions based on my own reading and other people's essays are correct, a Slytherin personality is adaptable, with a predisposition toward being the leader. Yes, Hermione and Ron pushed Harry into doing the DA, and Hermione came up with a clever way to stay informed of one another without letting on to anyone who wasn't in their circle, but once the ball got rolling it was Harry's game.
From:
Re: on Millicent
I guess it's probably not surprising that the Slytherins naturally see Harry as the leader of Gryffindor and always have, despite his not accepting that role himself.
From:
no subject
The closest thing Gryffindor gets to leaders is the Weasley twins. Gryffindor as a whole is broken up into small autonomous units, not just the Trio. There may not be enough evidence to show that Slytherin isn't equally cliquish, but I think it's more of a hiearchy -- everyone in the same boat. Gryffindor on the other hand is Dean-and-Seamus, Lavender-and-Parvati, with several singles like Neville.
To me, it's the social interactions which would translate into the patronage and/or nepotistic society of the Wizarding World, not the formalized groups like the D.A. The Order of the Phoenix, which took group pictures and generally "hung out" in addition to their work, IMO started as Dumbledore's circle of friends, rather than allies. Since he's friends with pretty much everyone, that's some powerful networking there.
In HPOP, Harry is so often publicly flying off the handle that by then the vindication of Cedric's death may not have been enough to pledge people's hearts to him as a leader. Their training, yes; but Harry's only getting his first taste of charisma. He may exercise it more later. A leader is only as good as his Zacharias Smiths... and his Severus Snapes.
From:
no subject
I think the Slytherins would accept authorities and leaders more easily than the Gryffindors because of the hierarchy they are used to and they are not loyal to individual as much as they are loyal to their networks (families being the closest network they belong to), whereas Gryffindors would follow someone who is a charismatic leader. I think Harry has the potential to become such a leader if he just took the position.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I wonder if Slytherin would accept Muggle-born witches and wizards. Obviously you don't have to be a pureblood to become a Slytherin (see Tom Riddle), but how pure would you blood have to be before you'd be qualified to become a Slytherin? And would other Slytherin-ish qualitites compensate the 'un-purity' of blood?
From:
no subject
(Hat: Pssst! There's this prophecy thing! You're going to get scragged! Go with Slyth-- mphphphh...!)