Sirius and Percy revisited

[sistermagpie]

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...")

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.

Comments

[millefiori.livejournal.com]

Once again you've come up with a wonderful, thought-provoking essay!

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!)

[anehan]

I have read pharnabazus's essay too and would like to second the recommendation.

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.

[ljash.livejournal.com]

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. :)

[fiera-316.livejournal.com]

More discussion! *cheers* Lol, and for once I got here relatively early.

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 ^^*

[shusu.livejournal.com]

What everyone said! Two things, which may not be coherent.

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.

on Millicent

[shusu.livejournal.com]

Two. Millicent. Of course! I have been playing her for over a year, and I have to say it wouldn't be that hard to shift her to a half-blood. Mine is currently going through occlumency training RPs so I've been immersing in her thoughts. What is so interesting in canon is that every single time she chooses Slytherin House. I love the previous comment about not showing weakness... oh yes. Definitely. My first thought with Millicent is "what would it be like to be the troll." I mean really, Ron couldn't care less about Slytherins, yet he knows Millicent is the troll-looking one! She doesn't have to say a word and her ugliness precedes her. With that a person would either have to bow down and stay quiet for the rest of their lives... or become a scrapper, a survivor. I can just see it: "So? I'm a Halfblood. *knuckle crack* What's it to you?" *snicker* That is a part of Slytherin House that doesn't get emphasized a lot -- they are survivors. They may be the cockroaches, but when the dinosaurs are all fossilized, they'll still be around. I hardly think they don't know about their own reputation... that targets them in a different way. It's that stubborn resilience that makes me enjoy playing Millicent and being in Slytherin House. In return there is *great* loyalty to Slytherin. You don't see them making fun of Snape. I suspect there are a great many social mechanisms within Slytherin to protect their own pack. It's not insignificant that they are in the dungeons with Hufflepuff. And if you read into GoF, Hufflepuffs aren't much better when they close ranks.

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 ^^;;;