Ok, first, can you tell me approximately where you find out about Regulus? I barely remember this. I'm guessing book 5 but I can't recall where at all.
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 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.
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. :)
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. :)