![[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:
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...!)